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

111–120 of 130 posts

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

#111

Post by corrral »

mrkramer wrote: post #80
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 the pre Facebook era people thought social networking would be distributed over thousands and millions of blogs with the help of RSS but that didn't happen because it turned out that centralized commercial services are better than FOSS distributed ones. That's why Facebook and Google won; they offered better services because they were centralized commercial services which were constantly updated and improved all b…

> In the pre Facebook era people thought social networking would be distributed over thousands and millions of blogs with the help of RSS but that didn't happen because it turned out that centralized commercial services are better than FOSS distributed ones. That's why Facebook and Google won; they offered better services because they were centralized commercial services which were constantly updated and improved all because ad revenues were skyrocketing and all the best engineers decided to work for them instead of trying to pursue decentralized/distributed FOSS solutions.

I think they mainly won because they figured out that capturing a huge amount of data about user behavior (i.e. industrial-scale spying) was incredibly lucrative. That's also part of why, despite being free services, they despise anything that might take your activity (so, valuable data) somewhere else for even a second, so, open standards and any kind of inter-operation. This let them provide free services with tons of income to put into development and, vitally, promotion.

I think the key insight from there is that that sort of situation doesn't just discourage use of free alternatives—it discourages development of them. I'm certain we'd have more and better free (and paid!) alternatives, and way more developers putting free work into that space for protocol and client/server development, if not for the huge moat that is creepy data-hoarding to feed monetizable AI. Competing—even on a volunteer basis—against unassailable behemoths with what may as well be an unlimited advertising & development budgets is discouraging, to put it lightly. I'd never think of working on that kind of project right now, because the market, enabled by the legality of mass-scale stalking by corporations, means it's pointless no matter how good a product you make.

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

#112

Post by nerdponx »

econnors wrote: post #100
batmaniam wrote: post #44

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 be…

Bungie is seeking damages against false claims: https://www.engadget.com/bungie-sues-destiny-2-youtuber-lord...

Great, Bungie is a big corporation that can pay lawyers for things like this. Individual creators are not in an equivalent position and cannot reasonably seek damages for false claims, unless additional legal framework is added to support them.

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

#113

Post by aliqot »

code51 wrote: post #17
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…

Exactly. Google is not paying my Admob money even after 5 months has passed (no violation, self-close of account) Through the Kafkaesque maze of non-existent Adsense support, my case (they say) finally got escalated to a payment person at Google. Yet, I didn't hear update for the past month. You can't ask anything about your case and you can't get any time projection on when you'll hear anything back. If you don't ha…

I have the opposite problem. I changed my payment info without telling Adsense so they send menacing paper letters that threaten the process of escheatment if I don't claim my funds. I decided I don't want their services in my life, and when it came to accepting their money I was fine with leaving that behind as well. Apparently when enough monthly checks stack up it causes problems. I've moved since then, so I hope the new tennant was wise enough to just send them some new payment info.

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

#114

Post by ticviking »

code51 wrote: post #17
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…

Exactly. Google is not paying my Admob money even after 5 months has passed (no violation, self-close of account) Through the Kafkaesque maze of non-existent Adsense support, my case (they say) finally got escalated to a payment person at Google. Yet, I didn't hear update for the past month. You can't ask anything about your case and you can't get any time projection on when you'll hear anything back. If you don't ha…

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't advice... but it seems to me that kind of non-payment is probably the kind of thing you can resolve pretty quickly with appropriate legal action. A simple letter to legal saying, "your terms say you'll pay me X, it hasn't been paid. I'd like you to do so or I'll have to look at taking all appropriate steps to get paid." Will often get the right person to look at the issue. And if that fails actually filing the appropriate action almost always does.

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

#115

Post by ticviking »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #38
jerjerjer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need to fine copyright holders who abuse the system. Currently they are free to file as many false DMCA notices as they want, with zero drawbacks or consequences or costs for the filer and the burgen of proof on their victims. If every false DMCA notice resulted in a fine for copyright holder, or even better, filing X false DMCA notices resulted in a copyright holder's ban from filing more DMCA notices, then…

I agree with this. I have heard that some folks use DMCA as, basically, a "protection racket." Not sure why they would do that, because there are probably easier (and less risky) ways. But, as long as there's no penalty for filing a false DMCA claim, there's nothing stopping the "blunderbuss approach," which is hugely popular, with lawyers.

It seems to me like a reasonable starting point for a solution is to allow hosts to bill claimants for "reasonable costs" (I assume that's legally well defined) for false claims.

That provides an incentive for companies to respond to the screaming demand from their users to have better review.

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

#116

Post by Nextgrid »

derefr wrote: post #94
ericbarrett wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, yes, because any place where you can escalate to a human, would be flooded with people trying to step around the whole automated edifice without ever first trying to engage with it. This is because Google has no culture of human support, so when an agent does become available they're flooded with backlog. If Google started providing it, especially where money is involved, the backlog would eventually be caugh…

> But I suspect they will never do it until forced by law because of the cost. I would go further: I suspect that Google would just shut down many of its services if they had to provide human support, because the cost of serving the sheer number of people Google serves, with any level of effectiveness, would turn the the products from positive-margin or at least acceptable-cost loss-leaders, into highly-negative-marg…

But in this case, those problems need to be disclosed upfront. Google should have a big banner upon signup that says "this is a fully automated service and you have no recourse if the automation goes wrong", to warn people against relying on them for anything critical.

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

#117

Post by ericbarrett »

derefr wrote: post #94
ericbarrett wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, yes, because any place where you can escalate to a human, would be flooded with people trying to step around the whole automated edifice without ever first trying to engage with it. This is because Google has no culture of human support, so when an agent does become available they're flooded with backlog. If Google started providing it, especially where money is involved, the backlog would eventually be caugh…

> But I suspect they will never do it until forced by law because of the cost. I would go further: I suspect that Google would just shut down many of its services if they had to provide human support, because the cost of serving the sheer number of people Google serves, with any level of effectiveness, would turn the the products from positive-margin or at least acceptable-cost loss-leaders, into highly-negative-marg…

To that I say, good—if you can't support it, you shouldn't ship it. At least when it comes to taking people's money or promising to revenue-share (like YouTube creators).

In any case, Alphabet's net earnings in 2021 were $76,000,000,000. They could hire 760,000 people at $100k cost per year and still break even. It wouldn't take anywhere near that number to introduce humans into critical loops like copyright strikes and ad revenue customer support, so they could easily–easily—afford it. I think they just don't want to, because they'd rather make all the money and they don't institutionally care about people ground up in the cracks.

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

#118

Post by mrkramer »

corrral wrote: post #111
mrkramer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the pre Facebook era people thought social networking would be distributed over thousands and millions of blogs with the help of RSS but that didn't happen because it turned out that centralized commercial services are better than FOSS distributed ones. That's why Facebook and Google won; they offered better services because they were centralized commercial services which were constantly updated and improved all b…

> In the pre Facebook era people thought social networking would be distributed over thousands and millions of blogs with the help of RSS but that didn't happen because it turned out that centralized commercial services are better than FOSS distributed ones. That's why Facebook and Google won; they offered better services because they were centralized commercial services which were constantly updated and improved all…

I think back in the day Larry Page saw that Altavista was free and he wanted to compete against it so he chose Google to be free and when millions of users started flocking in with millions of data points ads were the next logical step.

The same situation is with Zuckerberg and MySpace. When Zuck saw MySpace and other social networks at the time being free he made his own version of free social network and again when millions of users started flocking in with millions of data points ads were the next logical step and therefore surveillance capitalism emerged.

Tbh idk if Google and Facebook would be so successful if they were subscription based or would some free alternative come and destroy them.

Take Netflix and YouTube as example; they are both modern versions of TV and they both compete for screen time but YouTube being free and being fueled by essentially free user generated content is in much better position business wise than Netflix will ever be. Netflix needs to convince people to subscribe, they need to do movies contracting, they are spending billions to create their own content etc. And I think at this point YouTube is close to surpassing Netflix by revenue.

>I think the key insight from there is that that sort of situation doesn't just discourage use of free alternatives—it discourages development of them.

I agree with you but at the same time look how TikTok rose from the ashes of Vine. And now TikTok is the biggest Facebook and YouTube competitor for digital ad spending in the last decade.

I think if you want to compete against behemoths you need to dive into niches they do not dare to explore. For example imagine search engine which would allow you to search for "ad-free" websites. Google would never think of creating such feature yet implementing it would be unimaginable because they run the ad show on the web.

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

#119

Post by stjohnswarts »

corrral wrote: post #7
tmountain wrote: post #5

It's a pretty terrible situation for folks that build their livelihood curating a channel to have to accept the risk that their channel could be taken down at any moment due to a false positive regarding copyright violation. Making matters worse, it sounds like there's no real recourse beyond taking your grievance onto social media and hoping your channel has enough clout to get Youtube's attention. In this case, it…

> 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.

Yeah I don't like your solution. Not everyone has plenty of money like HN commentors tend to have. Some are fine with ad supported channels. They just want youtube to cut the funny business and require those who are claiming "copyright infringement" actually show real, concrete proof of their claims.

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

#120

Post by kzrdude »

buzzwords wrote: post #6

YT couldn't care less if creators are unhappy with anything at the moment. There is no real competition, so creators have to just deal with it. I hope for a real competition, where there will be a mass exodus.

Wendover's video from today looks a bit closer at the ecosystem as it is now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoWcQUjNM8o - says Youtube is the best option for creators right now
Post reply on HN