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

221–230 of 243 posts

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

raquo wrote: post #181
dragonwriter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

> AFAIK ContentID claims mechanism merely mimics DMCA mechanism

It doesn't even do that, nor is it intended to. This isn't bypassing DMCA, though.

> 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.

Sure, but DMCA isn't even relevant. DMCA notice provisions are a requirement for content owners to bypass the DMCA liability shield for third-party hosts in filing infringement claims -- they have to file notice in accordance with the DMCA, and then if the content host doesn't act within the parameters of the safe harbor, they can pursue whatever infringement action they would, absent the DMCA liability shield, have had against the content host.

DMCA notice requirements do not protect users from infringement claims, they protect content hosts. (And counter-notice requirements protect content hosts from liability claims from users stemming from take downs based on the DMCA notices.)

There are no DMCA provisions that exist to protect users posting allegedly infringing content.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#222

Post by tiatia »

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…

> After several months of shouting

In my experience a letter or even just an email from a lawyer does wonders here. Dunno why.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#223

Post by hackuser »

raquo wrote: post #197
hackuser wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. A good question, but I'm not sure. Those large corporations produce a lot of IP; maybe the small guy will benefit more than the big guy. Remember we're all stealing from and building on each other's IP. Imagine if all the proprietary software was open source, from OS X to…

> Imagine if all the proprietary software was open source, from OS X to Office to SunOS to SAS to Mathematica to Photoshop to AutoCAD to Google's search algorithms Most of this wouldn't even exist if it had to be open-source from the start.

I agree that's a possibility, and it's the obvious concern. I'm trying to challenge our (mine included) common notion.

My 'radical idea' is that maybe they would exist. What if we had a system that provided a payment mechanism but did away with IP restrictions, for example? Consider how most of science is funded and shared, for example. Massive projects like the LHC and space probes are funded, and their data is openly shared. I'm not saying that the exact same system would work for software, but that there are other systems that work very well.

I'd expect that with 'open' technology, innovation would be faster and products would be better, as everyone could use and learn from best-in-class tech.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#224

Post by ggchappell »

anon4 wrote: post #205
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

I'm expecting Disney to change the law to allow for authorship reassignment, so the "until death of author+70 years" effectively becomes "until dissolution of The Disney Corporation+70 years", after which we can drop the "+70 years", and expand the public domain retroactively with the works of many recently-deceased artists. That would be, on the whole, a net gain for the public domain.

> That would be, on the whole, a net gain for the public domain.

Now that is an interesting thought. Let Disney have Mickey Mouse forever, in exchange for lots of recent stuff.

However, I'm not sure it would work. Say I'm an artist. I know that my heirs will have to right to control my works until doomsday if I assign the authorship to a corporation. So I form a trust for that purpose. This sounds like a simple thing to do. It is also very reasonable, from my POV; I'm providing for my children. And if it were commonly done, then it would negate the benefits of this change in the law.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#225

Post by quadrangle »

incompatible wrote: post #166
hackuser wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. A good question, but I'm not sure. Those large corporations produce a lot of IP; maybe the small guy will benefit more than the big guy. Remember we're all stealing from and building on each other's IP. Imagine if all the proprietary software was open source, from OS X to…

Abolishing copyright would be a good idea in my opinion, but it wouldn't make proprietary software open source.

Abolish patents and copyright and mandate source-release for published works along with prohibition of DRM

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#226

Post by quadrangle »

afro88 wrote: post #177
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. As a creator with a day job, money isn't a motivator. But having my name tied to my works certainly is. And for all the programmers you listed it is as well. The video freebooted by Zoo is a perfect example. They stripped his name and branding from the video and it went more viral as a Zoo video. If this happens regularly, there's literal…

Plagiarism is a real issue. But there's no good reason to connect it to copyright, it's just how things have been done, unfortunately. Plagiarism concern apply equally to public domain works, you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPtH2KPuQbs

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#227

Post by quadrangle »

olefoo wrote: post #113
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…

If you want to look at an intellectual property revenue distribution system that has some of these traits already you can look to compulsory licensing schemes like the one used for radio airplay in the US. The basic idea of a compulsory licensing scheme is that publishers are compelled to take and producers to offer a license to play any item covered by the scheme. And that publishers pay into a pool which is distrib…

ASCAP et al specifically take money out of the system and give it almost entirely to a small fraction of the most wealthy and successful. It's an absolutely corrupt and absurd way to fund art.

Also, heard about Payola? Back in the 1950's record label paid to get their stuff on the radio, just like people pay for sponsored content today. Attention is the scarce resource here.

The only issues with the Facebook and YouTube things here today are: they are undemocratic, show ads, and support plagiarism. Sharing of cultural works with credit and without ads is perfectly fine and is promotion for artists.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#228

Post by quadrangle »

waskosky wrote: post #101
WWKong wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 tha…

As long as the money is connected to advertising, we will retain a perverse system. Facebook can never be the best answer.

A work-in-progress attempt to fund creative work without artificial restrictions or ads etc.: https://snowdrift.coop/

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#229

Post by quadrangle »

morgante wrote: post #167
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…

Intellectual property is existed literally to protect intellectual property. Nobody cares about the IP of a rare gemstone because it's just plain old property. IP was existed literally to protect the fact that it's very expensive to produce an original idea/work/poem/video/etc. but very cheap to reproduce it. Reproduction getting cheaper only makes IP even more necessary.

> Reproduction getting cheaper only makes IP even more necessary.

Insanity. Cheap reproduction means "IP" is that much more destructive.

Mechanisms to stop plagiarism need to be entirely separated from laws against copying and sharing.

Are you one of those people who thinks we shouldn't have public libraries?? Freely distributed and shared ideas are a social good, period.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#230

Post by quadrangle »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #82
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…

We did embrace it. We passed laws to embrace and encourage the creation of new ideas. It's called copyright. It works pretty well when enforced. Less well when it's not. There may be choices that are even better. Policy proposals are welcome.

Copyright has never worked well.
Post reply on HN