Live data from Hacker News

They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

youtube.com

751–760 of 795 posts

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I myself will use ?!? For curious surprise. Has never offended anyone.

Yeah, next time I'll just type out the question. However, given that it's starting to look like OP ghosted the conversation, I'm increasingly comfortable with the originally-unintended rude undertones of "?"

I got distracted and had intended a longer post.

If it were me, I would continue your preferred mode of expression.

Offence works in strange ways.

Truth is, we are all as offended as we think we are.

And the reasons for it vary widely, with some well established ones seeing broad, but rarely complete consensus too.

Implication?

There is no way to know what may be offensive beyond a few well trodden examples.

Second order implication?

Offence is gamed easily, and I submit regularly as a tactic more than a meaningful, or sincere sentiment.

Having worked through that in my life, I quit apologizing and put more effort into understanding others and helping others understand me.

Starts with, "I did not intend to offend"

And carries on with whatever the primary context is, not the meta context.

Where others insist on the meta, I simply cannot help them and either the convo settles back to its original intent and value or it does not.

All I can do is leave the door wide open to continue and express my stated intent and that I am the authority on it.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

I cannot tell you how many conversations I have recovered to good ends doing that.

My 0.02

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#752
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but in this particular case things aren't as cut and dry as they might seem. The guy claims that his videos fall under Fair Use, but we're missing a lot of details here to be sure of that. Generally you're not allowed to just publish cover songs without getting the copyright owner's permission first. Here's what a copyright lawyer says: http://suebasko.blogspot.com/2011/06/cover-songs-on-youtube.... Note tha…

Thanks for that, but the referenced article is nearly 10 years old, the legal landscape has changed several times since, specifically in regard to Youtube automated content ID practices - in my experience if I upload a song over a video, ad revenue will usually just get diverted to the song author/label, rather than it getting taken down. It is in this context that his channel and videos have been up and 'fine' on Yo…

> Thanks for that, but the referenced article is nearly 10 years old, the legal landscape has changed several times since

Sync license requirements haven't changed and YT has nothing to with that. You're mixing up several things here and that might be where a lot of the confusion comes from.

The songs you've uploaded might have been covered (pardon the pun) by YT's Music Policies, which consists of a list of songs that YT has license agreements for. In such cases, ad revenue handling, etc. is done automatically and you don't require a license.

In other cases, however, it's solely under the discretion of the copyright owner to just grant you the license for free (i.e. they don't care), or demanding the content to be taken down, because a sync license would be thousands of dollars if not more.

This is independent from any content ID practices, which usually only apply to master recordings (e.g. original songs or bootlegs). Copyright law is a complex (and IMHO messed up) topic, but we just don't have enough information here.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#753
post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here and elsewhere in this thread, you're exaggerating the power of the DMCA over YouTube. The only consequence to YouTube if they fail to follow along with the DMCA takedown notice/counter-notice procedure is that they lose safe harbor protection against being held liable for their users copyright infringement. In a case where YouTube is overzealously removing content that is not actually infringing, they really are…

> they lose safe harbor protection against being held liable for their users copyright infringement. In a case where YouTube is overzealously removing content that is not actually infringing, Do you understand that the content in the submission is infringing? And not just to the civil level but to the criminal level? And so YouTube losing safe harbor would be huge.

> And so YouTube losing safe harbor would be huge.

No, it wouldn't, because YouTube is actually removing the content. So they're not going to get sued for infringement, and other parts of the DMCA still protect them even when they operate outside the bounds of the takedown notice procedure.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Don't like it - don't use it." Applies equally to heroin. When are we legalising it?

He also said 'free'

So if I hand out free drugs I won't be sent to jail?

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all personal bank accounts have a unilateral termination clause. I would be surprised to see a mortgage where the bank can't totally wreck you if they feel like it. Anyhow, you still need a bank account to get paid. If you can only work jobs that pay you in cash and don't need any access to bank accounts or the Internet themselves, that rules out 99% of businesses that could employ you.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/04/can-the-bank-unilaterally-c...

That is about changing an agreement. The bank can fire you as a customer, pursuant to the existing agreement, usually without specifying a reason. This has happened in the past.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does freedom of association give my employer the right to fire me because I'm black? Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?

Is there a point to any of these ridiculous questions? Do you remember what the argument was about? Are you implying that black people choose to be black like someone saying racist, firable things at work chooses to say those things?

Yes, it's about when freedom of speech trumps freedom of association.

If the freedom of association is inviolable, why can't I put up a sign outside my store saying "NO BLACKS"?

If it's about someone making statements at work, would you accept if a business owner said that they'll fire you if you're Jewish, but let you work there as long as they don't know about it?

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#757
post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.…

This requires very minimal effort to find. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812144/youtube-copyrigh...

It's not the copyright claims that they had a problem with (or else they'd go after any of the other false copyright claims), it's using their platform for extortion. The "I'm going to file false copyright claims unless you pay me" thing.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#758
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? If I have to choose between a platform that let's anti-Semitism run rampart and Youtube I'll pick Youtube. However the actual solution is a platform that that develops enough tools and hires enough human moderators to thwart blatant racism or hateful content while not accidentally kicking creators off the platform. This is mostly a question of eff…

You don't have to choose. There are anti-Semitic books in libraries, yet libraries are not overrun with them. The problem here is not that lbry endorses or embraces bigots, it's that the non-censoring platforms are new/wonky/unpopular enough that no one uses them except people who are banned elsewhere.

Library content is strongly curated. You don't self-publish to a library, so in the sense that anti-semitic works exist in libraries, they do so because of historical relevance.

If you're a guy who advocates the supremacy of the white race on lbry, I challenge you to make it into a library

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting concept. I've been hoping and wishing for something, anything, to come along and replace Youtube with a freedom-of-speech oriented platform. But in the FAQ there's this: "LBRY.COM / LBRY.TV allows content to be flagged as inappropriate. Should any content be flagged as illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive or various other reasons, LBRY.COM / LBRY.TV shall remove it from the site without delay.…

It can be hidden from our official apps (but turned off by commenting out a single line in the UI code[0]). That content is still accessible via the LBRY sdk[1], and it is not possible for the company to remove it from the network. [0]: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/blob/master/ui/index.... [1]: https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-sdk

What if the content is actually really criminal? Child exploitation and the like.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#760
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the video the creator did issue a counter claim, this is stated at timestamp 2:40. He then also states the course of action to follow is either they drop the claim or sue him - this is exactly the DMCA system. As far as I know YouTube's mechanisms do not end in a courtroom.

Sure but if it's a real DMCA claim won't Google be obligated to reinstate the content? https://www.dmca.com/faq/What-is-a-DMCA-Counterclaim There's a summary but it links to a more detailed PDF. If it is a "real" DMCA claim, then according to this Google must put the content back up within 10 to 14 business days. If it's Google's house rules then they don't, but that would mean it's not a real DMCA claim. Now I under…

It doesn’t seem like they are obligated to reinstate the content
Post reply on HN