Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#41

Post by ecshafer »

code51 wrote: post #36
duped wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried hiring a lawyer to send a letter to their legal team?

I think the only letter the legal team expects through google-legal-support@google.com is a notice of sueing them. I really don't have the power to sue them in a US court. Do people have success when they notify (not sue) the legal team about Google acting against their Terms of Service?

If the amount is low enough you can sue them in small claims court in the US, which the amount is dependent on the state. Small claims court is geared more towards people self defending.

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#42

Post by selfhoster11 »

corrral wrote: post #28
selfhoster11 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[para removed due to tone] Secondly, podcasting seems to be centralising recently on things like whatever-Apple-podcast-store-is-called and Spotify, so that analogy isn't great.

You're not following me. I'm not saying youtube channels should be podcasts. I'm saying that the problem with YouTube is its monopoly, driven by coupling hosting and discovery in one platform, and a podcast model that separates those would improve the ecosystem and solve most of the problems with YouTube being able to dictate terms for an entire super-popular form of creative content . > Secondly, podcasting seems to…

My bad, I misunderstood your comment. FWIW I agree on both counts, but I'm also saying is that podcasts are falling to centralisation pressures that plagued video since the very beginning.

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#43

Post by visarga »

guerrilla wrote: post #29
mirashii wrote: post #2

From a tweet: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1546419223466999809#m > & thx for your patience as we sorted it out But they haven't really sorted it out, have they? False copyright strike claims have been plaguing creators for years. This is just another case of someone needing social media and a huge reach or an inside connection to Google employees to get human eyes on a situation and "resolve" it, with no re…

I saw a whole long thread on Twitter of screenshots of (big) creators themselves getting copyright strikes for their own work and being like WTF. It seems a lot more rampant than people may be aware...

Just a couple of days ago there was a Noam Chomsky interview on the Machine Learning Street Talk channel. The whole video is almost 4h long, including a long intro. The MLST crew worked for months on it, posted it, and it got promptly banned.

https://mobile.twitter.com/danbri/status/1545760855052193792

The reason - they quoted a small Richard Feynman clip from an archive BBC show. After fixing it took 12 more hours to unblock the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuGfh4UR9Q

Way to go BBC, protect your rights, make sure nobody cites any of your precious videos. /s

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#44

Post by batmaniam »

The DMCA has provisions that is supposed to protect against copyright false claims. But every article I read about false claims always ends with some kind of definition of copyright. Like in this article, 'What is Copyright?'.

It never goes beyond that ever. What about restitution to the people who were wrongly taken down? Why is false DMCA takedowns so prevalent if it's illegal per DMCA? Turns out NO ONE has ever been convicted of a false DMCA claim, and that's by design. In fact, the phenomenon has its own name: Copyfraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

That's what happens when we let businessmen write our laws. A fix to how Google handles DMCA isn't enough, DMCA is fundamentally user hostile. We need to fix this at the political level.

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#45

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

aetherson wrote: post #26
mirashii wrote: post #2

From a tweet: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1546419223466999809#m > & thx for your patience as we sorted it out But they haven't really sorted it out, have they? False copyright strike claims have been plaguing creators for years. This is just another case of someone needing social media and a huge reach or an inside connection to Google employees to get human eyes on a situation and "resolve" it, with no re…

They haven't sorted it out, but it's also fundamentally not really something that Google can sort out. They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors, from an era of... I don't want to say "copyright maximalism," but something closer to copyright maximalism than the balance is today. We need to reform the legal responsi…

They can sort it out readily simply by implementing the part of the DMCA they don't support yet. If the falsely accused were allowed to submit a counternotice with instant restoration none of this trolling behavior would be happening

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#47

Post by SilverBirch »

aetherson wrote: post #26
mirashii wrote: post #2

From a tweet: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1546419223466999809#m > & thx for your patience as we sorted it out But they haven't really sorted it out, have they? False copyright strike claims have been plaguing creators for years. This is just another case of someone needing social media and a huge reach or an inside connection to Google employees to get human eyes on a situation and "resolve" it, with no re…

They haven't sorted it out, but it's also fundamentally not really something that Google can sort out. They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors, from an era of... I don't want to say "copyright maximalism," but something closer to copyright maximalism than the balance is today. We need to reform the legal responsi…

Yes they could, hire a team to review every individual claim to a high standard. They just don’t want to pay the costs of running a service correctly.

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#48

Post by shkkmo »

aetherson wrote: post #26
mirashii wrote: post #2

From a tweet: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1546419223466999809#m > & thx for your patience as we sorted it out But they haven't really sorted it out, have they? False copyright strike claims have been plaguing creators for years. This is just another case of someone needing social media and a huge reach or an inside connection to Google employees to get human eyes on a situation and "resolve" it, with no re…

They haven't sorted it out, but it's also fundamentally not really something that Google can sort out. They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors, from an era of... I don't want to say "copyright maximalism," but something closer to copyright maximalism than the balance is today. We need to reform the legal responsi…

> They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors

This wasn't just a DMCA take-down of specific material (which for it's faults, does have an appeal process and some legal remedies.) This was a complete account ban imposed by Google, where the only functioning appeal process is going viral on twitter. While we do need to change the DMCA to hold issuers of fraudulent or abusive take requests more responsible, in this instance we also need to hold Google responsible for choosing to create an automated copyright strike/ban system that is clearly ripe for abuse and that does not have a functional appeal processes for the average user.

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#49

Post by corrral »

slillibri wrote: post #33
corrral wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like there's gotta be a better way. Video "channels" should be like podcasts: hosting and discovery largely separate. Subscription, client-side. YouTube shouldn't exist.

In theory that would be great, but video is in general much larger than audio. There would be no way for many channels to even get started, given the costs involved. I expect most people getting started on YouTube would be driven out of business simply by the bandwidth costs alone.

I'm confident hosts would step in to make money if YouTube's monopoly on combo hosting+discovery were broken. Folks tend to like making money. No reason they couldn't put their own ads on the videos, like YouTube does, to cover costs for creators who want free hosting. All kinds of angles to provide free hosting to feed the ol' marketing funnel, just like all kinds of other hosts, like limiting quality (so, drastically reducing bandwidth costs—SD video with modern codecs can be tiny)

I find the push-back on this baffling. It's like if web hosting were all but completely controlled by one monopolist and questioning that drew all kinds of "LOL how could web hosting even work without one monopolist controlling the whole thing and dictating what can and cannot be hosted, it's impossible, you're nuts, no-one could ever start a hobby website again without that monopolist".

Re: Lofi Girl: YouTube sorry for taking down music stream

#50

Post by StewardMcOy »

toolz wrote: post #31

I wish these creators with other social media presence would use their platforms to move their audience to something besides youtube (they can even keep their youtube presence). Content creators are the only ones with the power to build up a competing platform such that youtube has to stop hurting the creators or risk losing their monopoly status as the de-factor video hosting platform. Imagine if this content creato…

I think it's a really, really tough sell to move people off YouTube. The network effects are just too good. I might be projecting my preferences onto the masses here, but I suspect this is a common feeling.

I've been watching quite a few videos from a fairly popular Youtube channel, tldrnews. At the beginning of a lot of their videos, they've been advertising an alternate video platform, Nebula, with exclusive and more in-depth videos. Thing is, even though I might want to watch those videos, I've never been tempted to even click on the link.

It's not that Nebula costs money. Even if it were free, I don't really want to be watching videos on other services. I hate the way YouTube is run. I hate ContentID, I hate the copyright strike system, I hate the recommendation algorithm, I hate how difficult it is to get a real human to deal with the issues on the site. But everything's there, and that's what I want most of all.

It's a strange position to take, especially when I wish everyone would go back to having their own sites rather than just post on social media, but when it comes to video content, I want it to be like Star Trek. I want to be able to search in one place and be able to find exactly what I'm looking for.

I know it's greedy and irrational, but I want everything centralized into one service so I don't have to think about where to go to watch a thing. I want a monopoly, but without the problems that come with a monopoly, and I suspect a large enough percentage of users feel the same way that other platforms just can't get off the ground.

Post reply on HN