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

YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

improbable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 259 posts

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#111

Post by PixelOfDeath »

Operyl wrote: post #54
jazzyjackson wrote: post #9

This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it's completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up, I'm informed that the music is licensed by: (on behalf of Sony BMG Mus…

From what I understand, when multiple parties are claiming a video nobody gets the money. I can’t remember what popular YouTuber discovered this, but he basically “weaponized” it because he was tired of them going after his ad revenues even when he was within fair use, so he just started putting as much conflicting material as possible instead.

I remember somebody who always claims his own videos with a secondary account. So if nobody else claims it, he still gets the money. And otherwise nobody does.

Well except youtube keeps it in all this cases. Sad sad google now has to keep all the money for them self in a system they designed. What a unlucky coincident. Nothing they could do against that.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#112

Post by EvanAnderson »

knorker wrote: post #102
matheusmoreira wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be a…

> Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that. Like I said, you're making no sense at all. With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable. We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy. Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Pira…

> ... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too.

I'd argue the world is different now. We've only had general purpose computers and ubiquitous ultra-cheap networking for the last few decades. Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. I think it's also safe to say there was typically financial incentive behind most mass infringement in the past (i.e. "bootlegging").

I'm not sure that's the case today. I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections.

> > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code.

> "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again".

I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby (though, admittedly, the gun lobby in the United States does kinda fit that bill-- but that's a separate issue). There most certainly is a "regulate general purpose computers" lobby (e.g. "circumvention devices" and the DMCA).

> See how it's nonsense?

Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#113

Post by EvanAnderson »

knorker wrote: post #105
matheusmoreira wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we? To me the choice is simple: either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. It's an easy choice for me. As it should be for anyone who browses Hacker News. In a copyright world we won't be able to hack anymore. So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrupt. We must not keep inchi…

> So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrup Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. They'll do just fine suing people who infringe, and/or get criminal conviction. As they have been doing. They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders.

> They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders.

I'm not. I'm worried about the freedom to program general purpose computers and the freedom to create derivative works. It seems like copyright holders have been consistently using their lobby to make both harder.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#115

Post by colonwqbang »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #72
t-3 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can’t just decide to not uphold the law though. Why is that? Google is not, nor should they be, a law enforcement agency. There are multiple law enforcement agencies and interested individuals/organizations (the copyright holders) who should bear the responsibility for enforcing copyright. Putting the onus on the "public square" to police speech is the worst solution for all parties with the possible exception…

There's a name for deliberately hosting a service that blatantly disregards copyright enforcement. It's called "contributory infringement", and the litigation of which will have existential amounts of potential damages.

Source on this? I thought this was the whole point of US laws like DMCA. If you comply with all reasonable and lawful takedown requests, you are supposed to be safe.

It particularly shouldn't require YOU as web host to try to ascertain the legal status of every 100-year old sound clip. That's not realistic, as Youtube's experience clearly seems to show. It does require you to respond when someone sends a signed document claiming it's theirs.

I'm not a lawyer etc., would be happy to have this explained if I'm wrong.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#116

Post by ncmncm »

pphysch wrote: post #107
phendrenad2 wrote: post #49

In previous years, we'd look at stodgy bureaucratic systems like this and think "Just wait until Google and/or venture capital disrupts them!" But now it is Google and venture capital perpetuating the slow, banal, bureaucratic injustice. The good news is, there's no reason to believe that Google won't also be disrupted eventually. It's sort of happening already, with people voluntarily deciding to not use music in th…

Does Google actually gain anything from enforcing IP, or is it they stand to lose lots by getting persecuted by the powerful IP lobby (Disney, etc), which is the real driver of all this?

They pocket every penny they fail to spend on checking for spurious claims.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#117

Post by matheusmoreira »

yesenadam wrote: post #104
matheusmoreira wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not reply to me directly? All intellectual digital work boils down to discovering a number. A file in a computer. The path to this discovery is valuable labor. The number itself is not. The only way you can own a number is to keep it to yourself. Like a private key in cryptography. Nobody can guess it. Nobody can discover it. As soon as you publish it, there's nothing you can do anymore. It can be copied, transfe…

I wasn't replying to you. You seem to think you have everything worked out. It's (just) your opinion; other people have other opinions, points of view. Claiming that people who don't share your opinion—which you are aggressively promoting here like it's objective truth—are simply deluded, doesn't come across as very nice! You are here to teach the Truth on this subject, not to listen or learn - to lecture, not discus…

I apologize. That reply was to a person who mentioned non-fungible tokens, a cryptocurrency thing I really don't like. It got me into an emotional state and I said something that in retrospect was excessive. For that I am sorry.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#118

Post by hermitdev »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #9

This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it's completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up, I'm informed that the music is licensed by: (on behalf of Sony BMG Mus…

> What is happening here?

Music (and likely other media) is typically licensed for distribution regionally or nationally. What you're seeing here is probably the (unexhaustive) laundry list of different rights holders for various international markets.

Remember region locking for DVDs? That wasn't (just) due to NSTC vs PAL.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#119

Post by munk-a »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #41
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

> which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry How did it becoming a huge money maker for people who already have way too much change your views?

Assuming copyright was dissolved it wouldn't be a huge money maker for the recording industry (questionably legitimate money receivers) or the artists (definitely legit) it'd be a huge money maker for apple and spotify that'd harness all that uncopyrighted stuff to make money on.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#120

Post by ncmncm »

mucholove wrote: post #79
roughly wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

As you point out—there are also fantastic administrations of shared resources. For example, many fisheries in the USA have recovered tremendously through smart limits. The Atlantic cod fishery is often cited. I personally have experienced the Pacific North West salmon fishery and can confirm that the fishing gets better up there every year while the Dominican fishery gets worse. The DR fishery has experienced the tra…

The Atlantic cod fishery is an example of massive failure. Any perception of apparent recovery has to limit its scope to the very recent past.
Post reply on HN