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

191–200 of 243 posts

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#191

Post by blumkvist »

stevenh wrote: post #121
mosquito242 wrote: post #3

This is super interesting - it seems like facebook's more likely to get away with it too because the people being ripped off are smaller independent YouTube Channels. It seems like YouTube's main incentive to build out copyright infringement tools was all of the record labels that had songs being uploaded and re-uploaded on the platform. I can see YouTube getting really aggressive in fighting FB on this legally, beca…

I wish Google would start fighting dirty. Want to access Facebook mobile? Hope you have an iPhone, because Google pushed a mandatory update last night which banned Facebook from all Android devices. Want to access Facebook through Chrome? Sorry, it seems that site has been flagged as a malicious piracy hub; however, you might enjoy this 302 redirect to an automatically-generated clone of your Facebook profile hosted…

You wanna bet how fast people will ditch chrome for FF and android for Windows?

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#192

Post by blumkvist »

austenallred wrote: post #37

This is absolutely rampant in the blackhat marketing world, (where I used to dabble, but still stay up on mostly out of curiosity). The model goes like this: Watch a few different pages and try to identify something that's bubbling up - that can be different viral facebook pages, reddit, whatever... there are a few different ways, but basically you constantly ping and scrape and try to identify stuff that's going vir…

That has very little/nothing to do with marketing.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#193

Post by AdieuToLogic »

maaarghk wrote: post #188
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #186

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with, condone, or recommend. But screaming bloody murder because they are doing to the site what that site did to others seems a bit of a stretch. If hating on Facebook needs to happen (probably does, BTW), how about it's done for reasons such as their laughable "Te…

this isn't a case that can be framed in terms of Facebook stealing from YouTube. Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators". All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" for a start doesn't excuse the law but more to the point, it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend -…

> Just like when YouTube users stole from movie and music publishers, this is Facebook users stealing from YouTube "content creators".

My point exactly.

> All this talk of "so what, YouTube did it too" ...

I didn't say "so what." I said Youtube became the billion dollar acquisition it was by doing exactly what Facebook is doing to them. I believe the appropriate term is "Quid Pro Quo."

> ... it disguises the fact that YT arent the ones who are suffering from the consequences of this trend - publishers using it as a platform are.

Cannot the same thing be said to the people employed by content producers such as Viacom et al? When Youtube used the same "we'll take this stuff down, but drag our heels doing it" tactics Facebook is doing now, were not real artists impacted? How is "publishers using it as a platform" in any way different than "publishers using Viacom as a platform?"

> By bringing up Facebooks privacy policy you are adding nothing to the discussion of the culture of FB users stealing YouTube users' videos sans accreditation.

I brought up Facebook's "Terms of Service" because I find it repugnant. If you don't see it that way, so be it.

If you are so ardently dedicated to this cause, why not follow the path of Metallica[1]?

1 - http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#194

Post by scotty79 »

Why they don't post to Facebook as well? If they have some good content and they don't push it on some market then somebody else will.

I know, I know. Piracy, copyright, "I made it, they just remixed it by cutting me out". "It's mine, where is my money?!" Internet apparently doesn't care.

Either you serve the market your content or the market gets served your content without ever knowing about you.

Is Facebook profiting from this? Sure. Was/is YouTube profiting from the same thing? Yes. Do internet providers profit from piracy in general? Of course. Same as writable DVD manufacturers were. XEROX owners and whoever.

Is that bad? It's way better than if it was to be made absolutely sure that they don't.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#195

Post by AdieuToLogic »

wodenokoto wrote: post #189
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #186

All of this outrage at Facebook doing what Youtube already did[1] is difficult to fathom. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is not a site I use, am affiliated with, condone, or recommend. But screaming bloody murder because they are doing to the site what that site did to others seems a bit of a stretch. If hating on Facebook needs to happen (probably does, BTW), how about it's done for reasons such as their laughable "Te…

Back in the old YouTube days, people couldn't understand why big players wouldn't allow them to watch music videos on YouTube, when it was literally the only place to do so. There was no legal Netflix alternative, so people felt much more okay with watching shows there as well. Now it's the little guy not only getting hurt by two big players cooperating, there even is a well functioning alternative! I'm not saying th…

I get what you're saying. And I agree that any company which profits by the uncompensated works of others is wrong.

My point is that there are many comments here which are along the lines of "string Facebook up on the nearest tree because they allow people to put stuff up which is owned by a content creator who published it on Youtube!!!" The logic being, as you imply, that the content creators on Youtube are not being compensated.

And how is that different from Youtube profiting from their users ripping off content creators and putting it up on Youtube?

My closing point was that I believe there are better reasons to take the pitchforks and torches out regarding Facebook.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#196

Post by belorn »

talon88 wrote: post #63
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…

"Perhaps financial renumeration, while fair, isn't entirely necessary" Is it that in your world, eating and paying the rent isn't necessary either? 'Many' creative people sounds like some programmers, which is somewhat small subset of all creatives. I'd be surprised if the majority of creative people — artists, writers, actors, and more — would happily go about saying that financial renumeration doesn't matter to the…

Those old claims in favor of copyright has been either partially or fully been disproved, yet it continue to be repeated as the Single and Only Truth.

Financial renumeration per copy is not the only method to have artist eating and paying rent. Far from being the only way, historically it is just the most recent method and one which has strong down sides to it. The old way was simply to pay an artist so they can continue to create, which some artists has returned by using services like Patreon and get paid in order to creating more content. They are eating and paying the rent, and copyright aren't doing squat.

There is also substation proof that art is created regardless of renumeration. Several studies have look into why people create art, and none of them marks renumeration as the primary reason. Surveys show instead that people create art to express themselves, to improve their skills, to social interact with others, and to make their other other peoples lives better. They do however need time to be artists, and this is where the partial truth exist in. Money enable them to spend their time on art, and copyright provide one if the many way to create that money.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#197

Post by raquo »

hackuser wrote: post #152
saidajigumi wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because here, in the post-industrial world, it's very hard to make a living from one-off works of craftsmanship. That didn't used to be the case, when that was the only way to get things made. It happens today, but the economics make it an unusual situation. The labor involved forces the per-unit prices to be stratospheric, vastly limiting the market. But we have an alternative: leverage digital technology's nigh-zer…

> 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.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#198

Post by psykovsky »

pen2l wrote: post #94
ponyous wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should blame every person that watches Facebook video for not giving him a credit and not Facebook/uploader?

It's really just not about credit at this point, it's about money. Facebook has already made money... you know what the real solution is? To give they money they made out of ads to its original creator. I don't understand why this isn't happening?

They will only do that when they can do it the Google way: double dip on ads revenue, first taking a 30% cut on adwords and then another 30% on youtube, leaving the content creators with something like 49% of ad revenues and google with 51%.

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#199

Post by amelius »

It is actually quite simple to combat this, technically. Embed an (invisible) watermark into the video that encodes the domain for which the movie can be played, and have all browsers refuse to play content with watermarks that are of a different domain than the one shown in the url bar (throw a security exception or something).

Re: Facebook’s Piracy Problem

#200

Post by nothrabannosir »

thegeomaster wrote: post #159
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…

Back in the day, I uploaded a music video of my relative, with filming, production and post funded completely by her, and with her retaining all the copyright. It was a couple of years before and I was the "guy who knows this computer stuff" so I did it for her. Fast forward to 2014, and I receive a claim that a company which acts on behalf of a certain nationwide TV station here has put a copyright claim on the vide…

Isn't it possible that they automatically send the claims, but manually go over the counter claims? Somebody read your e-mail, looked up the video in question, searched for a contract proving they had the copyright. Finding none, they determined either you were right, or someone else was, but it wasn't them either way, so might just as well leave it with you.

And that's why it took a few days?

Post reply on HN