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

221–230 of 259 posts

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

#221

Post by moksly »

kristopolous wrote: post #196
moksly wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have laws on those areas. They are both stricter and more harshly enforced. Unfortunately it’s lucrative enough for companies to exploit loop holes by utilising subcontractors, paying the fines and so on. The real issue is the proof, but it’s nothing new. When the banana industry first took off a “magical” amount of small banana farmers disappeared or sold their lands to militant groups in South America, these gro…

Disagree. We have an almost Gilbert&Sullivan level comic opera where we theater consequences. Some headline catching big fine that gets quietly reduced to insignificance. Some giant parading announcement of a commitment to zero carbon and no meaningful action taken after the cameras leave. It's pure political theater. After we landed once on a plane, air marshalls came on before anybody could leave and escorted a pas…

How do you figure that we disagree? Seems to me that we agree quite a bit.

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

#222

Post by moksly »

randomswede wrote: post #204
moksly wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it. It’s entirely YouTubes fault. Their business model is automated moderation and it’s constantly proven faulty. Yet they haven’t made a decent support system around it. Their automated systems is the primary reason why we would never consider using Google Cloud, even though parts of it would enab…

So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the bandwidth and server costs will be small in comparison to the wages for the moderation staff.

> So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site.

Why? I can want regulation of big tech corporations without building a competitor.

Are these humongous advertising companies even a net benefit to the EU? I doubt it, and if they aren’t, then why on earth should we keep them around as is?

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

#223

Post by Chris2048 »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #53
matheusmoreira wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. He'll sell his records, make his money. After a while he'll have to create more if he wants to earn more. It totally won't enable over a hundred years of rent seeking for him, descendants who could inherit his property after he's dead and of course the monopolistic copyright giants.

That's obviously facile. He's dead, and unable to make decisions anymore. I, on the other hand, am alive and would definitely have decided to become a world-renowned operatic singer, if only copyright wasn't so short that I couldn't pass on the rights to my artistic creations to my children's children's children's children's children's children's children. I could pass it on to my children's children's children's chi…

> trade secrets that can last indefinitely

and can also be invalidated immediately. AFAIK trade secret gets no formal protection outside secrecy.

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

#224

Post by randomswede »

Kbelicius wrote: post #206
randomswede wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the bandwidth and server costs will be small in comparison to the wages for the moderation staff.

So what you are saying is that if youtube cannot solve the problem of scale, those problems should be dumped on the general public instead of youtube decreasing their scale? That is some interesting logic.

I am actually all for YouTube becoming less of the behemoth in the market. One way of accomplishing that would be to enforce human moderation instead of machine moderation. Because nothing at the scale of YouTube can (sustainably) use mostly-human moderation and I suspect even "machine-assisted human moderation" would simply require too many people.

If we take "you need about 3x the time of a video to make a considered moderation decision" as a baseline, and trust the numbers from https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats/ as valid, we would need....

300 hours per minute * 1440 minutes per day * 3 moderator hours per day. Let's round that up to 1.3 million hours of daily reviewer time. Let us also assume we have super-human reviewers that can squeeze out 8 hours of solid reviewing a day. That means we need 160k - 170k reviewers. And then we need to account for illness and hols, so make that about a quarter of a million people, to keep up with the incoming and maybe make some inroads on what's been uploaded in the past.

That is actually less than what I expected, I thought the numbers would end up in the "low millions" (call it 3.14 million).

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

#225

Post by munk-a »

account42 wrote: post #213
munk-a wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At that point it'd essentially be like a book repository and while there are several big open book repositories (shout out at mek) the demand for daily consumption of those isn't there in the same way that music is consumed. I can't say for certain but I suspect we'd essentially have something that looks a lot like the search engine wars - some minor players might strike it big - but Google, Apple and MSFT would all present options backed with a lot of cash to try and dominate the market. It'd all be about the algorithm to deliver the data in a pleasantly suggested manner - and companies that could offer value here would rake in loads of money with the mobile device offers locking down their devices to dissuade users from seeking free alternatives.

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

#226

Post by jonny_eh »

AnssiH wrote: post #212
jonny_eh wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Since films are shot at 24fps, how were they converted to 25?

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

#227

Post by forgotmypw17 »

munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

> there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos.

There is a better way: setting up your own video hosting platform.

I think it is not that difficult or expensive these days, although I have not done it, to set up your own website which allows you to upload videos for your own purposes.

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

#228

Post by Aerroon »

sc11 wrote: post #145
Aerroon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requirement is there so that YouTube can't just block videos in Germany again. It's entirely there just to make sure that Google and other platforms must make a deal with the copyright holders. It's perpetuating the same garbage system and removes tools to fight back against it.

How does it force YouTube to make a deal? They could still block all copyrighted material that they didn't have a licence for, they're just not allowed to falsely block anything.

Iirc the EU law requires platforms to negotiate with rights holders. Ie Google can't just block the videos and be done with it.

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

#229

Post by exporectomy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #165
exporectomy wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the responses seem to be a bit off-target. I'm specifically talking about copyright being linked to the lifespan of the author. It's arbitrary and unfair on authors. I'm not saying we need long copyright terms. I don't know what the optimum would be - maybe 10 years, maybe forever (like indigenous culture).

It's not off-target. Copyright terms have nothing to do with the author. If we wanted to maximize author benefit, we'd just make it infinite. Copyright term duration is about society. The truth is copyright is bullshit. Artificial scarcity is exactly that: artificial. It's a lie. Society is doing creators a huge favor: we're all pretending the creator's works are scarce. We're pretending we don't know how to make cop…

Just because it's artificial scarcity doesn't mean it's not useful. Money also has artificial scarcity and that's a pretty good invention.

My point is that copyright is to incentivize authors to produce work but if it's limited by the author's lifetime, then older people will be incentivized less than younger people because they won't be able to sell the rights for as much money because they'll expire sooner. We don't particularly need work created by young people more than old people, so why incentivize it that way?

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

#230

Post by roughly »

andrekandre wrote: post #203
cool_dude85 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that has cause and effect backwards. Nobody is claiming that money does not do that, but that it did not arise because of the inefficiency of barter.

i havent read the book yet, but i am surmising that the claim is that money originally arose in order to service debts, not because (at that time) it was more efficient?

No - the claim is that money fundamentally arose for taxation (either to the government or to the priests), and may also have been useful for long distance trade between partners with no expected long term relationships.
Post reply on HN