141–150 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody should keep their children far from morals? What?
"once upon a time a beautiful but poor girl married a rich dude and everything was great"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s only a valid positive take if it were in any way novel. But there are already loads of such cases. The Content ID system is just broken by design, and they’ve clearly demonstrated no interest in fixing it. The system is designed for abuse. Most notably here, even a successful dispute on the grounds of the work being in the public domain doesn’t stop the claimer from claiming new videos that match , which it very…
I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay. - If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the original stories the bad guys are punished in a cruel and horrible way. Like forced to dance with red-hot iron shoes.
The Girl Who Sold Matches is my personal favorite.
Moral of the story: Don't sell matches without a permit -corporations would starve. R.I.P. Eric Garner
From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better bal…
Google has two options here: 1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes 2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for liability It's no surprise Google chooses option 1 given the scale they must operate at. It's a consequence of the legal system which makes Google liable for not taking action immediately on valid claims, but also making it such validity not determined until aft…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lessig isn't saying we should keep children away from morals. He's criticizing how Disney adapted the Brothers Grimm's stories, which often preached heavy-handed and regressive moral lessons in a moralizing manner.
No, he's referring to the Grimm stories. They are indeed violent. They simply are a product of their time. The Disney version is easier to digest. All of this should not detract from his main point, tho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lessig isn't saying we should keep children away from morals. He's criticizing how Disney adapted the Brothers Grimm's stories, which often preached heavy-handed and regressive moral lessons in a moralizing manner.
This is an almost impressive misinterpretation. What lessig is likely referring to is the violent and grotesque consequences of the original Grimm stories as well as their brazen antisemitism. https://www.history.com/news/the-dark-side-of-the-grimm-fair...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say it's broken by design - it's just a matter of incentives that heavily favor taking content down over allowing it to stay. - If Youtube issues a copyright strike that wasn't warranted, a single creator will be pissed of. And apart from Mr. Beast and a handful of others, youtube's relies on large numbers of small creators, so is quite resilient on that front. Apart from that - where are these creators go…
Youtube has to follow the DMCA, yes. And much of the problem is the fault of the law, not of Youtube. But nothing in law requires them to implement Content ID at all, let alone to allow big corporations to claim any content they want, or for users who dispute Content ID claims to have their claims adjudicated by the corporation who made the claim, or to allow those corporations to retain their access to the system af…
And since copyright and fair use law is very much decided on a case-by-case basis, there wouldn't be the one big victory which ensures they're being left alone - just an endless string of costly litigation.
Youtube isn't a public interest group or a civil rights movement that's in it for a legal or ideological goal. They're a business looking to make money. I know it sucks for the creators, but I think that's what it comes down to.
If someone scans a recent DVD release of SW, is it still public domain? Or must you have access to an original film reel from the early 1900 and scan that? Do anyone have besides in some Disney archive? Has issues like that ever been clarified?
If you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality the answer seems to be "it depends" For example, in the US there have been cases where high quality reproductions of old public domain paintings did not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright. Remastered audio recordings with adjustments such as equalisation and sound editing were ruled to be eligible for copyright in 2016, the…
From a moral philosophy perspective, corporations like Google display a concerning ethical imbalance when they fail to proactively uphold the common good in scenarios where there's no direct financial benefit. A question to HN, since there are a ton of Googlers on here, what are the justifications of those who work within such organizations, particularly when there are other companies that seem to manage a better bal…
Google has two options here: 1) Accept all take down notices at face value and let the courts handle disputes 2) Become a mediator and open themselves up for liability It's no surprise Google chooses option 1 given the scale they must operate at. It's a consequence of the legal system which makes Google liable for not taking action immediately on valid claims, but also making it such validity not determined until aft…
If Google’s management is not responsible for Google’s pathological behavior, then nobody is.