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

181–190 of 243 posts

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#181

Post by raquo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #156
nitrogen wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...YouTube isn't really to blame for all of this... In the case of ContentID, which bypasses the DMCA, yes, they are to blame, along with all the media companies that demanded its creation.

ContentID doesn't bypass DMCA. It is neither required to take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor with regard to suits by copyright owners not compliant with the DMCA safe harbor provisions for suits by users hosting media, but it doesn't bypass anything required by the DMCA. People sometimes confuse the things which trigger DMCA safe harbor provisions with mandates but they aren't, and the only reason to be guided by…

> ContentID doesn't bypass DMCA

AFAIK ContentID claims mechanism merely mimics DMCA mechanism – ContentID infringement claims are not actually DMCA notices.

That means that false-positive ContentID claims basically carry no legal consequences, unlike false-positive DMCA claims (perjury).

That means you can throw automated infringement notices at users knowing that X% of them will be false positives. That wouldn't work with DMCA.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#182

Post by vacri »

ars wrote: post #58
willlma wrote: post #14

Ironically, at the end of the tattoo video that was pirated, Destin Sandlin, the host, is seen wearing [a shirt]( http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Going-Science-T-Shirt-Scientists... ) that is a blatant rip off of an Randall Munroe's (XKCD) [shirt]( http://store-xkcd-com.myshopify.com/products/try-science ).

Only the words are the same, and while I can't be sure, I feel like I've heard that phrase way before Munroe popularized it around 2008.

It seems very similar to the "I will do science to it" image from Dresden Codak, also from 2008

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/c8/73/ffc8...

http://dresdencodak.com/2008/05/02/copan/

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#183

Post by hassy »

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?

Patronage has existed for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#184

Post by AdieuToLogic »

ggchappell wrote: post #85
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…

> A radical idea: Maybe our model of intellectual property is wrong, or outdated. Honestly, that's not really radical. It seems to be pretty clear to anyone who knows anything about computers. There may be flaws your other thoughts, as other commenters have suggested, but not with the first one. The big problem -- in the U.S. anyway -- is that there are huge companies with a vested interest in maintaining something l…

> The big problem -- in the U.S. anyway -- is that there are huge companies with a vested interest in maintaining something like the late-ish 20th century copyright regime.

Agreed. For a poster-child of this one need look no further than the Disney corporation. By US copyright laws existing up until 1978[1], "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" should have entered into the public domain sometime around 1993. Now? It's locked up until at least 2032 and will likely be "protected" by further copyright law modifications.

1 - http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#185

Post by AdieuToLogic »

yalogin wrote: post #169

Youtube became exactly because of pirated videos in its early days. Viacom and others fought for a long time to keep their videos off of youtube but eventually gave in. Now FB is doing the same thing.

> Youtube became exactly because of pirated videos in its early days.

I think this is the quintessential definition of "Quid Pro Quo"[1].

1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quo

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#186

Post by AdieuToLogic »

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with, condone, or recommend.

But screaming bloody murder because they are doing to the site what that site did to others seems a bit of a stretch.

If hating on Facebook needs to happen (probably does, BTW), how about it's done for reasons such as their laughable "Terms of Service"[2] and how it blatantly states they instantly own anything passing through them without any consideration?

Now that's a bitterness I can get behind.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....

2 - https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#187

Post by thaumasiotes »

saidajigumi wrote: post #106
jessaustin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-zer…

> 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

Yes it did; that was always the case. There's no requirement that art be produced by people who need the money.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#188

Post by maaarghk »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #186

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with, condone, or recommend. But screaming bloody murder because they are doing to the site what that site did to others seems a bit of a stretch. If hating on Facebook needs to happen (probably does, BTW), how about it's done for reasons such as their laughable "Te…

this isn't a case that can be framed in terms of Facebook stealing from YouTube. Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators". All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" for a start doesn't excuse the law but more to the point, it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend - publishers using it as a platform are.

By bringing up Facebooks privacy policy you are adding nothing to the discussion of the culture of FB users stealing YouTube users' videos sans accreditation.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#189

Post by wodenokoto »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #186

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with, condone, or recommend. But screaming bloody murder because they are doing to the site what that site did to others seems a bit of a stretch. If hating on Facebook needs to happen (probably does, BTW), how about it's done for reasons such as their laughable "Te…

Back in the old YouTube days, people couldn't understand why big players wouldn't allow them to watch music videos on YouTube, when it was literally the only place to do so.

There was no legal Netflix alternative, so people felt much more okay with watching shows there as well.

Now it's the little guy not only getting hurt by two big players cooperating, there even is a well functioning alternative!

I'm not saying this is different from a legal point of view, but for small content consumers it definitely feels different.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#190

Post by makomk »

tedunangst wrote: post #53
bsder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should I go watch the video on YouTube when I just watched it on Facebook? Even better, the Facebook video doesn't have ads.

The classic pirate answer is that after you torrent an album to try it out, you go buy a copy to support the artist. So after you watch the Facebook video, you'd go watch it again on YouTube to support the creator.

That works quite well for music because you usually want to listen to it more than once - I actually started buying music again because of Grooveshark. It doesn't make sense for videos and I suspect you know that.
Post reply on HN