201–210 of 795 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you can be part of the solution! Isn't this nice?
being part of the solution doesn't pay the bills
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was involved a bidding war between GCP and AWS where each was offering a healthy six figures in free credits to move our business to their cloud. GCP was offering nearly 3x as many but ultimately I didn’t want to move to a service where there was a chance offerings were going to get the axe with no warning. Their reputation has indeed hurt them — at least in one instance.
What services got the axe with no warning? It seems like for all of the Google ex-products I can think of, they gave advance notice of at least a year.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9374251?hl=en > It’s important that creators always have detailed knowledge about who is claiming content in their videos, where it appears, and what they can do to resolve the claim. That’s why all new manual claims will require copyright owners to provide timestamps to indicate exactly where their copyrighted content appears in videos they claim, and we’ve updated our editi…
They don't care, and they don't follow that policy. Even if that is "just a technical issue", no one cared enough to spend resources to fix their underlying system to reflect that policy.
Youtube is just so beyond broken at this point. I wish everyone could move somewhere else, but it's a catch 22. They're so cemented as the standard
> Youtube is just so beyond broken at this point. It's not entirely fair to blame YouTube exclusively for the complicated mess that is copyright laws. In fact most of this video & thread are misdirected blame. Per the video it sounds like he received 5 DMCA copyright strikes to which he issues counter-claims. That's not youtube's system and youtube is bound to follow the laws outlined by the DMCA. YouTube didn't issu…
Actually, I believe YouTube uses a mechanism which is explicitly not-DMCA for its copyright claims.
Under the DMCA, a user has the right of counterclaim, where the user says "your claim is wrong, here's why, see you in court", and the service provider has to reinstate the claimed material (unless it actually goes to court). I don't believe YouTube's ToS gives the user that provision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the important thing is to have a mitigation strategy. Google was very smart in how they commoditized cloud offerings by inventing Kubernetes. You can explode your manifests into GCP, you can explode your manifests into AWS, and it mostly works the same. Obviously you can really screw yourself by not having offsite backups (backup your GCP database into AWS, or vice-versa), or by using their proprietary stuff…
Perhaps the mitigation strategy for youtubers is to find something like RSS for video? "Like this video, subscribe, and don't forget to add this channel to your video-RSS feed. Link in the description below." ? Edit: Looks like this functionality already exists: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6224202?hl=en Looks like Vimeo does too: https://help.rasa.io/hc/en-us/articles/360045535193-How-to-c...
Personally, I'd try a simple app that OAuths from YouTube/Google accounts and collects an email, so you control content announcements, even in case YouTube fails. It also has the advantage of being independent from other social media platforms.
Imagine if you showed up to a self-storage facility one day and find a different lock on your unit. You go to the manager and ask what the hell is going on. > Oh, you ? Yeah, your unit was full of stolen goods, so we seized it and changed the lock. > There was nothing stolen in there! What about a bunch of banged up furniture and old cans of paint made you think it was stolen? (the manager stares blankly) > Well?! (c…
Actually, I would modify that comparison. More like, imagine if you show up to your storage one day and the lock is changed. You talk to the manager and he says, "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules in our 5,000 page terms of service". "Which rule did I break?", you ask. He answers, "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube works in its own little court, they're not real DMCA notices. Otherwise companies wouldn't be allowed to blanket claim random stuff with no repercussions.
Sorry that I didn't read much. But above comment section there are directly contradicting comments. One person says he may have received 5 DMCA notices and another person says it is not true. I have seen similar very contradictory things in other social medias too. How is this possible? How to quickly find who is lying without spending too much investigating?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, covers aren't fair use. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-yo... Thousands (millions?) of people post covers on YouTube with no issue, but sometimes people get unlucky. I don't think monetization makes a difference in the eyes of the law (maybe it would for proving damages? I'm not a lawyer.) What's unusual is that he said he got 5 copyright strikes without telling him why. I'…
Covers might not be fair use, but teaching is. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Apparently you can have YouTube videos blocked or demonetized for even mentioning the name of a song from some very famous artists who have very active legal teams.