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

Facebook’s Piracy Problem

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 243 posts

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#101

Post by waskosky »

WWKong wrote: post #99
hackuser wrote: post #52

A radical idea: Maybe our model of intellectual property is wrong, or outdated. When IP was tied to a physical object, it made some sense to restrict and explicitly license each reproducer. Now we have incredible machines that can reproduce intellectual property almost infinitely, distribute it anywhere on Earth, and find it almost anywhere on Earth. Wow! Maybe we should embrace that innovation, and find a model that…

"Yes, motivating creators is a problem, but there are many possible solutions." Could you outline couple of them? Let's say I want to publish an ebook. What model would ensure that I can pay my rent (similar levels of revenue to current model like Amazon Kindle publishing) while allowing free sharing of my content?

Not that this is practical yet, or well implemented yet, but my favorite model for this would be the idea behind Flattr. https://flattr.com/

People who have money to pay for content, can designate an amount to donate per month. And then the "likes" that they place on content can cause their monthly budget to be divided up and paid to content creators each month. If Facebook implemented their own version of Flattr that could be game changing.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#103

Post by johansch »

plorg wrote: post #97

I have a friend/acquaintance who had a similar experience on YouTube itself. He had created a large number of instructional videos on his YouTube channel, and from them he was deriving a significant passive income (admittedly from the overbearing amount of ads he enabled). One day he received a takedown notice suggesting that his videos were illicit copies. His investigations led him to believe that another YouTube u…

That seems like almost criminally incompetent by YT. They don't even look at upload timestamps in whatever automated or manual process they use for this?

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#104

Post by pen2l »

plorg wrote: post #97

I have a friend/acquaintance who had a similar experience on YouTube itself. He had created a large number of instructional videos on his YouTube channel, and from them he was deriving a significant passive income (admittedly from the overbearing amount of ads he enabled). One day he received a takedown notice suggesting that his videos were illicit copies. His investigations led him to believe that another YouTube u…

When did this happen?

In my experiences, Youtube these days are pretty responsive to even the small guys in settling out problems of this nature.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#105

Post by namplaa »

ucha wrote: post #13
Mithaldu wrote: post #5

It sounds to me like part of the problem is that the people making popular videos don't share them on facebook themselves, which results in the modern internet native's primary reaction to media being unavailable in their preferred venue and at their preferred comfortability level: Piracy. Sure, you can fight back by appealing to the public about facebook's evility, or by spending lots of resources in legal action. O…

The videos can be made available on FB if they're shared as embedded Youtube videos. However, as the article mentions, there are suspicions that FB might favour native videos over videos hosted on external platforms in the News Feed.

Afaik FB actually tells Page owners that they prefer native content.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#106

Post by saidajigumi »

jessaustin wrote: post #86
talon88 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn't entirely necessary" Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn't necessary either? 'Many' creative people sounds like some programmers, which is somewhat small subset of all creatives. I'd be surprised if the majority of creative people — artists, writers, actors, and more — would happily go about saying that financial renumeration doesn't matter to the…

But saying that being paid to be creative isn't necessarily [sic] means that you get very little art, if at all. Humans have always created art. Modern conceptions of intellectual property have not always existed. Why would art depend on that?

Because here, in the post-industrial world, it's very hard to make a living from one-off works of craftsmanship. That didn't used to be the case, when that was the only way to get things made. It happens today, but the economics make it an unusual situation. The labor involved forces the per-unit prices to be stratospheric, vastly limiting the market.

But we have an alternative: leverage digital technology's nigh-zero marginal costs and charge very reasonable prices to large numbers of people.

The idea that because the marginal cost is zero that the cost should be zero is a horribly greedy devaluation of creative labor.

So I'm all for new economic structures, but AFAICT no one's stepped up with a better way that's actually proven to allow creative folks to continue to make a living. (Or that even has a snowball's chance once tried outside of armchair philosophizing.)

One last thought, since it's universally sizable corporations who control those digital distribution channels... do we REALLY want to cede even more power over content to these entities? If we just drop IP laws, that further enriches these corps at the cost of individual and/or small creators. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#107

Post by chronic32 »

pen2l wrote: post #104
plorg wrote: post #97

I have a friend/acquaintance who had a similar experience on YouTube itself. He had created a large number of instructional videos on his YouTube channel, and from them he was deriving a significant passive income (admittedly from the overbearing amount of ads he enabled). One day he received a takedown notice suggesting that his videos were illicit copies. His investigations led him to believe that another YouTube u…

When did this happen? In my experiences, Youtube these days are pretty responsive to even the small guys in settling out problems of this nature.

Do you have evidence of this?

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#108

Post by bazzargh »

rythie wrote: post #77

This seems pretty common in British newspapers, even outside facebook. Videos often appear on newspaper's own sites instead of embedding the YouTube video. For example this from the Guardian ( http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/apr/29/ed-mil... ). Others are similar and often even have their own pre-rolls. Channel4 has whole TV programme, Rude Tube ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rude_Tube ), devoted to i…

For that example, there's no question it was licensed. Russell Brand writes for the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/profile/russellbrand

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#109

Post by icebraining »

johansch wrote: post #103
plorg wrote: post #97

I have a friend/acquaintance who had a similar experience on YouTube itself. He had created a large number of instructional videos on his YouTube channel, and from them he was deriving a significant passive income (admittedly from the overbearing amount of ads he enabled). One day he received a takedown notice suggesting that his videos were illicit copies. His investigations led him to believe that another YouTube u…

That seems like almost criminally incompetent by YT. They don't even look at upload timestamps in whatever automated or manual process they use for this?

You can't assume the videos are owned by someone just because they uploaded them first - many videos are ripped from other sources and uploaded first by unlicensed parties.

They followed the same procedures as described in the DMCA (even if this probably wasn't an official takedown request): if someone claims they represent the copyright holder and the videos are infringing, the service provider must take them down expeditiously.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#110

Post by discardorama »

tedunangst wrote: post #57
mosquito242 wrote: post #3

This is super interesting - it seems like facebook's more likely to get away with it too because the people being ripped off are smaller independent YouTube Channels. It seems like YouTube's main incentive to build out copyright infringement tools was all of the record labels that had songs being uploaded and re-uploaded on the platform. I can see YouTube getting really aggressive in fighting FB on this legally, beca…

YouTube will have a hard time fighting this directly, since they don't own the content. Much like craigslist couldn't directly go after 3taps for copying, but only the scraping. And in this case, Facebook isn't doing the scraping.

Maybe YouTube can make it easier for content owners to flag FB content. Or maybe YT can ask the content owner for transfer of ownership (i.e. buy it from them), so they can then turn around and sue FB for violation?
Post reply on HN