Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

improbable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 259 posts

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#211

Post by LightG »

I remember a time before youtube. Recording tunes on a tape recorder as a child. It's not so fanciful to project that history to the digital now and run with it.

I'm rambling, but I'm over youtube. I'll access it via third party tools stripping adverts, and recording (just like I did as a child) but I don't see them as necessary.

Youtube was a delight before. And generally still can be. But not necessary and increaslingly clunky and way too overly advert dominated.

Maybe they should rebrand it as a historical archive and be done with it. If they can't make the copyright work, sunset it like almost everything else and let other players emerge who can.

/endrant

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#212

Post by AnssiH »

jonny_eh wrote: post #144
hermitdev wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is happening here? Music (and likely other media) is typically licensed for distribution regionally or nationally. What you're seeing here is probably the (unexhaustive) laundry list of different rights holders for various international markets. Remember region locking for DVDs? That wasn't (just) due to NSTC vs PAL.

> That wasn't (just) due to NSTC vs PAL Correct, in fact most DVDs were encoded 480p and 24 fps, so they're neither NTSC nor PAL.

> most DVDs were encoded 480p and 24 fps

Only in NTSC regions. PAL region DVDs are generally 576p and 25 fps.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#213

Post by account42 »

munk-a wrote: post #119
michaelcampbell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turned into a gigantic industry How did it becoming a huge money maker for people who already have way too much change your views?

Assuming copyright was dissolved it wouldn't be a huge money maker for the recording industry (questionably legitimate money receivers) or the artists (definitely legit) it'd be a huge money maker for apple and spotify that'd harness all that uncopyrighted stuff to make money on.

How would it be a huge money maker for Apple and Spotify when anyone else can provide the same content, driving the cost down to the minimum required to cover the hosting and bandwidth.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#214

Post by knorker »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #112
knorker wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that. Like I said, you're making no sense at all. With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable. We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy. Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Pira…

> ... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too. I'd argue the world is different now. We've only had general purpose computers and ubiquitous ultra-cheap networking for the last few decades. Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. I think it's also safe to say there was typically financial incentive behind most mass infringement in the past (i.e.…

> Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past.

No it didn't. More, yes. But 40 years ago you just needed two VCRs and a blank tape. The only thing preventing mass reproduction was copyright law.

And pre-copyright this is also what happened. Because it was just not that hard. Even 500 years ago.

> I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections.

I bet less now than 20 years ago. Today you can buy spotify, apple music, google music, or whatever. You can stream stuff.

Blockbusters didn't die because of piracy, but because of streaming.

> I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby

It's your argument. If a thing cannot be prevented, then it should be legal. Right?

> Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.

That's wilfully missing the point.

Take shoplifting instead, then.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#215

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #121
knorker wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that. Like I said, you're making no sense at all. With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable. We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy. Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Pira…

So copyright is enforceable because you can theoretically sue everyone? There aren't enough courts. > See how it's nonsense? It's not. Computers are increasingly non-free and DRM is a big reason. The copyright holders want guarantees that I can't run unathorized software against their data even though it's my machine. Combine this with worldwide governamental desire to regulate or ban encryption. It's an existential…

> So copyright is enforceable because you can theoretically sue everyone? There aren't enough courts.

This applies to every single crime. Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't. You can have the name of the thief, with video of them stealing it, and it won't be worth their time.

Also won't be worth your time and money to sue them civilly.

So theft should be legal?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#216

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #110
knorker wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just talking nonsense. I don't think you thought this through at all. I own a house. In what way? The land registry says that I do. If it starts saying something else, then I don't. The police and courts will make it real. My wallet is only mine because that's what we agree. The brand Coca Cola is just information. But if you start selling your own under their brand you'll find out just how real intellectual p…

All of your examples are real things. They exist in the physical world. Naturally finite, tangible. It makes intuitive sense to most people. Data is the opposite of all that. Society is trying to retrofit all of that physical world intuition into the virtual world. It doesn't work. It sorta worked up to the mid 20th century because data was still tied to the physical world. Now that computers exist and are globally n…

> All of your examples are real things. They exist in the physical world. Naturally finite, tangible.

"Ownership" isn't physical.

> It makes intuitive sense to most people.

This is just pleading to the anonymous crowd of an imagined silent majority who agree with you.

Ask a majority if they think it should be legal to open a store selling bootleg copies of Britney Spears CDs, videogames, and whatever else they want to sell.

> Police, courts, entire industries worth trillions of dollars, entire countries have been trying to make it real for what, over 50 years?

So you think it's not real? Go ahead. Try it then. You're saying it's both ethical and de facto legal. Seems like a slam dunk million dollar idea. Good luck.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#217

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #126
knorker wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read up on the history of copyright.

I have. To infringe copyright at scale in the old world, you needed industrial hardware like printing presses. Centralized operations of significant size. Easy target for litigation. Now nearly everyone on this planet has a pocket computer capable of creating and transmitting unlimited numbers of any piece of data at practically zero cost. People don't even realize they're doing it, it's so natural. They create truck…

Ok, so littering should be legal, too?

Running a red light? And yellow light?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#218

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #131
knorker wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrup Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. They'll do just fine suing people who infringe, and/or get criminal conviction. As they have been doing. They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders.

> Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. Then why do they keep doing it? Get them to stop, please. Make them stop adding DRM to everything. Make them get rid of DMCA anticircumvention laws. Just stop interfering with our computers.

Again, it's not hard to stab someone, or to shoplift. Or run a red light.

Why keep doing it? Because they made a thing, and they want to make money selling it. Pretty obvious, no?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#220

Post by jchw »

howaboutnope wrote: post #202
jchw wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is absolutely the battle YouTube fought that lead to Content ID and the claims system that doesn’t have the leniency you wish that it did. It’s not even ambiguous; this is the system that we got. In fact, the system actually improved vastly since it was initially implemented. Really. It was all a direct reaction to the lawsuits: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114 When I say it has improved, I mean…

> I’m sure they’ve heard every idea imaginable. And they didn't try the one that is the actual subject of this subthread. > asking “why don’t they just do this?” is not productive That doesn't make your answer to it valid. > the answer to that is that copyright is broken Why not go further back? Why is there greed? Why aren't all humans brothers? If only we could fix that, some of these problems would literally disap…

This is going nowhere. At this point, I can only conclude that you willfully don’t want to admit that the principle actor causing this mess is probably not YouTube.

For what it’s worth, Twitch has not implemented this idea either.

Post reply on HN