461–470 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The public. It's ours.
Mskes sense, but how does that work? Can any of us initiate a case and it becomes a class, or?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> under the faulty assumption that they're too big for users and consumers to live without them It is, unfortunately, not a faulty assumption. I'm a piano teacher on YouTube, and I'm able to make money there. My entire audience was developed through the platform. I put videos on platforms like Vimeo or even Peertube, and I've had more views in one day on YouTube than their entire lifetime on those other platforms com…
Any creator with established audience can bring those people to alternative platform, e.g., Peertube. Start from posting videos on both platforms and advertise the other one. Then post videos on Peertube earlier .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely don’t have a general case solution. A solution for this case would be something like “a provider of video hosting services is not allowed to take down videos automatically without having a human review each request.”
The law never had that intent though, and getting it into there will most probably be impossible .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mskes sense, but how does that work? Can any of us initiate a case and it becomes a class, or?
I'm open to having a conversation about it. What does the space look like between "no the public does not have standing", and "the public has standing individually or as a class"? What are the tradeoffs at those boundaries, and how can we work towards creative solutions that exist in the space between those extremes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is to responsibly scale your service. If your platform is so big that it can only be moderated by algorithms, and the algorithms don't work, then it's too big. Scale down until, at the very least, you can hire enough humans to review complaints when the algorithm does something wrong. Even better would be to have a human review every flagged violation to confirm it. Obviously, hiring humans is expensi…
To leave a ton of money on the table, and let the competition eat that space, because 0.1% of DMCA requests would be served with an overreaction? Sorry, this is not going to make business sense. If you want a free video publishing platform that does user outreach for you, you got to pay a price; the false positives is a part of the price, alas.
I've already stated this many times, I'll state it again. Get your shit out of YouTube and any other Google product. Google is a dumb, faceless, fully automated company only interested in extracting as much data as possible from its users, force them to swallow as many ads as possible, all without caring about listening to them (both consumers and creators), under the faulty assumption that they're too big for users…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your assessment of Google; however, what is a reasonable alternative for a content creator who wants to publish their videos and be able to build an audience? You kinda have to go where the audience will be if you don't already have one and I'm not aware of any video discovery platforms with anywhere near the reach of YouTube. I've managed to get out of Google products almost entirely--YouTube remains th…
> however, what is a reasonable alternative for a content creator who wants to publish their videos and be able to build an audience? I think it's more instructive to look at it from the other side. What's the reasonable alternative for a video hosting service to doing this kind of policing? Remember it's not really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA requirements mean you have to be responsive. And th…
I'm cynical, so I feel it's much more likely that a competitor will push actual change to come (be it through google self improving, or through future lawsuits challenging the current laws) than for a current monopolistic entity to finding alternatives to problems that don't inconvenience them at large.
>Remember it's not really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA requirements mean you have to be responsive
"Responsive" is the key word to be challenged here. I'm unsure if automating a removal at the behest of any barely or unverified account is the bare minimum "reponsiveness" required legally. The big problem that won't be resolved without someone legally challenging it is that there's no negative consequence to filing a DMCA claim. Or at least, there wasn't as recently as 4 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Expect it, build it into your strategy, but don't be surprised by it. This is kind of like saying... Expect failure, build failure into you strategy, and move blindly forward believing there is no other alternative.
I'd say it's more like: Go ahead and build your initial business on quicksand. Know that you'll get lots of traffic, but it might sink into the ground at any time. Use the profits to build up a solid future property that isn't built on quicksand.
Problem is few make enough money to get to your last step. And those that do can pay others to deal with the quicksand and are no longer interested in the fight to clean it up for good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Virtually every podcast ever. Apple Podcasts are AAC. Spotify are Ogg Vorbis. That probably covers 90% of the market right there.
The original question was whether or not audio could be fingerprinted from white noise, or if compression would obscure that fingerprint. The original context was YouTube videos specifically. Sufficient to support the latter assertion was that lossy compression is frequently used. YouTube's webm does in fact use lossy compression as noted. MP3 is, I assert, still significantly used in multiple contexts, including man…
'Opus (audio format) - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Opus_(audio_format) CELT includes both spectral replication and noise generation, similar to AAC's SBR and PNS'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> from PeerTube themselves on the PeerTube.com PeerTube.com is not "PeerTube themselves". This is one of the servers, not the best one. This is the official PeerTube website: https://joinpeertube.org . It will show search results on many servers. > The moment the service asks me to think about what server is hosting it is the moment I don't care enough to jump through those hoops. You only choose your server once, li…
I corrected the URL in my post. I was on JoinPeertube.org and watched the, "What is PeerTube?" video that is embedded in that page. If I watched it again, it might not buffer at all. Maybe it was a bad moment. But I consume a lot of content on YouTube and I can't remember the last time a video buffered a single time--let alone several times in the first 30 seconds. I'm honestly done with this ridiculous strawman abou…
happens quite often when trying to switch resolutions. Becuase Google wants to continually tell my 200 Mb/s connection that 480p is the optimal streaming solution, and now that is spreading to mobile as well.
> your responses so far have been thinly veiled, "You're too stupid to get it right."
I didn't get that impression at all, and I think we interpreted this thread very differently. The point wasn't that PeerTube would be the new Youtube, it would be that if you don't have terabytes of local storage to keep your videos, you can upload it to a place where DMCAs won't mean your videos being lost in the void.
No need for caustic language.