231–240 of 795 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://Ibry.tv appears to be worst then CNN... ideally it would worst then Fox too
A heads up/warning that you linked to "i" as in eye-bry.tv, which appears to be a scam website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Per the video it sounds like he received 5 DMCA copyright strikes to which he issues counter-claims. 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…
This is just the general trend with things running on Google owned services. I don't think I've ever had to deal with a more customer/user hostile company. I've had an Android app get payments blocked and had to deal with repeated back-and-forth resending of the same documents over and over before they unblocked it. I never did get an answer on why any of that was necessary or why it was impossible to ever speak to a…
As someone who has been responsible for large cloud budgets, I wonder if Google is aware that their "support strategy" toward both content creators/contractors and customers across the entire brand has completely ruled out GCP for me. GCP might have great support. They may not have automated bots suspending accounts. They might actually follow the DMCA counterclaim process instead of some weird process on top of it.…
The feature has not worked for more than 8 months now, customers complaining and all. We have done everything on our hands (all documentation sent, demo app showing the feature, video explaining all usages, etc..) and it's as good as shouting to the abyss.
We were recently evaluating alternative cloud providers (our main one is AWS) and we discarded GCP because of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't touch GCP with a barge pole for these reasons.
Or their free email. If you use them, ask yourself, if they locked you out, what data would you lose? And how many accounts at other services are going to give you grief because you can't reply from that address now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DMCA notices are not issued by YouTube. I think you're confusing this with Content-ID, which is youtube's auto-algorithm thingy. That's not what happened here, though, per the video.
OP is talking is quoting a support article about manual claims, and how google require these manual claims must include a timestamp and description. Something that is notably missing from the strikes shown in the video. GP is saying that their system shouldn’t let copyright claimants just ignore Google’s policy. Which is clearly what’s happened here. Which just further demonstrates Google’s contempt for its creators.
The point of confusion here is that there's multiple ways to issue a copyright strike on YouTube. If this is via YouTube's internal mechanisms, then yeah this is bullshit. But if it's not and is instead a DMCA notice, and the evidence suggests it is a DMCA notice, then YouTube has no authority over the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but won't help very much either. According to Google Support [1], they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it. Funny enough, they cite a case where a content creator (h3h3 productions) was able to prove fair use in court as an…
> they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it. Well.. that doesn't sound right? That sounds like Google's decided it will treat the accused as guilty unless/until they defend and prove their innocence? Could it not equally decide all claims…
Of course, taking all other videos down and disallowing to open another channel ever, those are not measures which should be used until both parties agree that this has been settled or one of the two supplies a court document. But I don't think it's entirely unreasonable (debatable, sure; unreasonable... not sure) to make the video(s) in question invisible to everyone except the owner, copyright holder, and youtube employees until they agree it's settled or the court settled it for them.
More than 25,000 YouTubers now publish to the LBRY protocol, with more coming over every day, for reasons just like this. The total reach of these creators is more than 400,000,000 people. We're just rolling out our mainstream video product explicitly designed to compete with YouTube @ https://odysee.com To learn more about the protocol itself, check out https://lbry.tech
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search for the word “Jews” in your site.
I see you've rediscovered the publisher vs. platform dichotomy! Those of us who believe in free speech understand that people will say things we don't like, and further understand that the sacrifice of ignoring content we dislike is worth it for the greater principle. I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative that doesn't resul…
One core value that a platform could have is common decency, which is not the same as censorship, but it is given up even easier than what your argument calls free speech.