61–70 of 795 posts
It's a complete shitshow.
Professional content creators for TV, movies, advertising, etc. don't have these problems because they make sure they don't use anybody else's content without a license! Youtubers don't bother because they're little fish and can get away with it and justify everything to themselves as fair use even if it's not.
Imagine if you showed up to a self-storage facility one day and find a different lock on your unit. You go to the manager and ask what the hell is going on. > Oh, you ? Yeah, your unit was full of stolen goods, so we seized it and changed the lock. > There was nothing stolen in there! What about a bunch of banged up furniture and old cans of paint made you think it was stolen? (the manager stares blankly) > Well?! (c…
At least they chose the heaviest & most metalish place to dispose of the ashes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiKz7r86aT8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I would modify that comparison. More like, imagine if you show up to your storage one day and the lock is changed. You talk to the manager and he says, "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules in our 5,000 page terms of service". "Which rule did I break?", you ask. He answers, "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules i…
Facebook does the same with ads customers if they think one of their ominous rules has been broken repeatedly. If the algorithm decides so, you can lose the ability to ever run an ad again by logging in from the wrong IP number. Only a law that prohibits or at least severely limits automated handling of customer complaints would help against these practices.
I only recently learned that GDPR actually includes such a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... although a footnote later appears to say "no, it does not" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... so I guess we leave that fight to lawyers
There is further commentary elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24572144
Is there anybody here who can give an insider's view on this case? I'm aware of the problems of scaling support to a huge scale, and contexts where the communication of the termination causes is an issue in itself (e.g. to protect internal business logic). However, in cases like this, being hostile seems an intentional decision - specifically, by hiding the reasons. Is this truly intentional on Google's side?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious about this as well. How does that work with books too? Like can I read a book on Youtube and make money with that even if the book is copyrighted?
No, because reading the book aloud for free on YouTube would obviate the need for people to purchase the book (or otherwise acquire a purchased copy of it). In this case, learning how to play a song on guitar doesn't obviate the need to hear the original artist's recording of it. It's an argument over the doctrine of fair use, which has four parts: 1. What's the purpose of the use? Is it for educational purposes, or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was involved a bidding war between GCP and AWS where each was offering a healthy six figures in free credits to move our business to their cloud. GCP was offering nearly 3x as many but ultimately I didn’t want to move to a service where there was a chance offerings were going to get the axe with no warning. Their reputation has indeed hurt them — at least in one instance.
A fair percentage of companies exploring my SaaS company as potential clients are doing so because Google doesn't provide any support / insight for practically any issue they may have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Covers might not be fair use, but teaching is. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
He posts both pure covers as well as lessons. Does he mention in the video that it was his educational videos that were the reason for this?
As someone who has been responsible for large cloud budgets, I wonder if Google is aware that their "support strategy" toward both content creators/contractors and customers across the entire brand has completely ruled out GCP for me. GCP might have great support. They may not have automated bots suspending accounts. They might actually follow the DMCA counterclaim process instead of some weird process on top of it.…
AWS or Azure will always trump GCP in my mind because Amazon and Microsoft have shown over the years they care about their customers on most fronts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you can be part of the solution! Isn't this nice?
being part of the solution doesn't pay the bills