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

121–130 of 130 posts

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

#121

Post by nhinck2 »

SilverBirch wrote: post #47
aetherson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They haven't sorted it out, but it's also fundamentally not really something that Google can sort out. They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors, from an era of... I don't want to say "copyright maximalism," but something closer to copyright maximalism than the balance is today. We need to reform the legal responsi…

Yes they could, hire a team to review every individual claim to a high standard. They just don’t want to pay the costs of running a service correctly.

That's not how the dmca works.

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

#122

Post by KptMarchewa »

Nextgrid wrote: post #116
derefr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They probably do, but it's somewhere in 10MB document written in legalese indistinguishable from Klingon.

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

#123

Post by Tyr42 »

corrral wrote: post #56
StewardMcOy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a really, really tough sell to move people off YouTube. The network effects are just too good. I might be projecting my preferences onto the masses here, but I suspect this is a common feeling. I've been watching quite a few videos from a fairly popular Youtube channel, tldrnews. At the beginning of a lot of their videos, they've been advertising an alternate video platform, Nebula, with exclusive and mo…

> I know it's greedy and irrational, but I want everything centralized into one service so I don't have to think about where to go to watch a thing. I want a monopoly, but without the problems that come with a monopoly, and I suspect a large enough percentage of users feel the same way that other platforms just can't get off the ground. Podcast model. Client handles discovery and "subscriptions" and all that. Hosting…

Okay, but how would you compete with "free hosting" on YouTube?

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

#124

Post by trasz »

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…

>the cost of serving the sheer number of people Google serves

That cost is mostly imaginary. First, it’s already tiny - computers are cheap - and second, 90% of that cost is for stuff that only matters to Google; you could make that part disappear without hurting user experience.

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

#125

Post by codewench »

aetherson wrote: post #26
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…

They haven't sorted it out, but it's also fundamentally not really something that Google can sort out. They have a legal responsibility to respond to these copyright claims, with major penalties if they don't -- this is from DMCA and its successors, from an era of... I don't want to say "copyright maximalism," but something closer to copyright maximalism than the balance is today. We need to reform the legal responsi…

Also, a DMCA claim has (in theory at least) some recourse for filing false claims. Google's ContentID system however doesn't, at least not in any material sense, so why not file false claims? There is no legal repercussions, and the damage which can be done to your competition is well worth the minor bad press

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

#126

Post by antifa »

BudaDude wrote: post #8
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.

This is becoming less true, TikTok is a major competitor. Yeah there is Youtube shorts, but its largely just reuploaded TikTok videos.

> Yeah there is Youtube shorts

You could already upload short videos, why would a shit UI for short videos be a plus?

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

#127

Post by antifa »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #13
BudaDude wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is becoming less true, TikTok is a major competitor. Yeah there is Youtube shorts, but its largely just reuploaded TikTok videos.

I’m delighted to see that people are recognizing what a threat tiktok poses. I don’t blame people for being skeptical. It’s easy to forget that big companies die due to being transcended, not replaced. The YouTube killer won’t look anything like YouTube, and tiktok fits that bill nicely. Case in point: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR2KUDn8/?k=1 Google is realizing how bad it is that they can’t index TikToks, the same wa…

I missed the beginning of the video because it autoplayed while muted. Then I couldn't go back to the beginning because there are no video controls.

Tiktok does not fit the bill.

Tiktoks not being indexed is a win for content and UI quality.

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

#129

Post by derefr »

trasz wrote: post #124
derefr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>the cost of serving the sheer number of people Google serves That cost is mostly imaginary. First, it’s already tiny - computers are cheap - and second, 90% of that cost is for stuff that only matters to Google; you could make that part disappear without hurting user experience.

We're talking explicitly about the cost of putting humans in the loop as content moderators / customer-service representatives / ombudsmen / etc. That cost, industry-wide, grows at O(N) with the number of customers; as some constant fraction of people will always call with their problems rather than attempting to engage with automated support systems.

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

#130

Post by trasz »

derefr wrote: post #129
trasz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the cost of serving the sheer number of people Google serves That cost is mostly imaginary. First, it’s already tiny - computers are cheap - and second, 90% of that cost is for stuff that only matters to Google; you could make that part disappear without hurting user experience.

We're talking explicitly about the cost of putting humans in the loop as content moderators / customer-service representatives / ombudsmen / etc. That cost, industry-wide, grows at O(N) with the number of customers; as some constant fraction of people will always call with their problems rather than attempting to engage with automated support systems.

So? That doesn’t justify shifting that costs to society. You’re assuming corporations have to be allowed to do whatever they want, because otherwise they would earn less money, and you’re assuming that’s not an acceptable outcome.
Post reply on HN