231–240 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Welcome to the DMCA. It's as broken as copyright and causing quite serious stifling of young creators. It sometimes feels like it's used more for evil than for its legitimate purpose.
Takedown notices on Youtube are not handled under DCMA. DCMA has protections against false accusations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who was sending these notices? There's lots of them. The most notorious one I had to deal with was Adrev. There are reports of people getting notices from AdRev for videos that don't even have any music in them. [1] [1] https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/42xLe...
Is this a new evolution of patent trolling? Except you don't even need a patent anymore...?
I used to have a Youtube channel where I posted videos of me playing the piano. I played mostly Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninoff compositions. I had around 40 videos in total. Sometime around 2014, I started getting DMCA takedown notices from various companies claiming copyright. I was getting one or two per week and I contested them and things were ruled into my favor. But then it started getting harder and harder…
Who was sending these notices? Sounds like perjury to me.
There were file sharing sites before Youtube came along and there are still file sharing sites other than Youtube now. SO - stop enabling Google-Youtube to pull this stuff and go somewhere else - its called using the Internet?
That may work if you have an established presence, but even then you will likely lose a lot of your audience.
Firstly, the assumption by google should be innocence rather than the guilt of the youtube creator. The burden should be on the accuser and not the accused. Secondly, if 3 copyright violations gets the accused banned, then 3 false copyright accusations should get the accuser banned. Under youtube's current model, it actually incentivizes companies to claim everything since there are no consequences. Thirdly, with wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a new evolution of patent trolling? Except you don't even need a patent anymore...?
Copyright trolling?
Seems like this is a great way to do copyright trolling - it's highly scalable and exists within a walled garden which means it's a legal grey area for things like this, much like how free speech on YouTube/Reddit isn't really a thing.
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Google is focusing on this the wrong way. Rather than automatically assume that ContentID is correct and notifying the user, it should instead notify the supposed owner of the music, and let them decide whether or not to make a claim. If the "owner" makes too many false claims then they should be banned form the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comparison is intellectually lazy or maybe even dishonest. One difference between a house and a recording is marginal cost of replication/reproduction: not zero in case of a house, effectively zero in case of a recording. Without a government granted monopoly on copies, the marginal financial value of a copy is close to zero in all but the most exotic cases. With a government granted monopoly comes a real cost:…
On the other hand, the society does not have a $DEITY granted right to benefit from the creations of an author, material or immaterial. The fact that in one case the creation is easily reproducible with almost zero marginal costs, speaks not of the inherent value of the original creation (that was presumably undisputed at the author's lifetime), but is mere opportunistic thinking from the perspective of the society.…
There is nothing stopping the children of the musician from continuing to listen to that music.
But nothing also stops other people from listening to it either if they lose exclusive rights to it.
Nobody is liberated from anything, as they still can listen to that music as much as they want.
Copying something is not theft. The original remains intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder if we can return the favour? If someone sends us an obvious unfair takedown (like in the article) we can name and shame them. And also do the same tactics, go to their content and report it as violation of your content. Even if it doesn't they still have to respond and go through the same hoops. If a group of us formed and we did this to all of them and gunged up the system, google would be forced to improve i…
> And also do the same tactics, go to their content and report it as violation of your content. This might work between rival game streamers or something but the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe likely do not have a YouTube channel for you to retaliate against.
Even better if you created a "burner" corporation. Ie P.O. box in Delaware and act on their behalf. They have to take you seriously because corporation, amirite?
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Google is focusing on this the wrong way. Rather than automatically assume that ContentID is correct and notifying the user, it should instead notify the supposed owner of the music, and let them decide whether or not to make a claim. If the "owner" makes too many false claims then they should be banned form the service.
I think this would require Google to care, which they clearly do not.