241–250 of 262 posts
but: "PeerTube uses the BitTorrent protocol to share bandwidth between users. It implies that your public IP address is stored in the public BitTorrent tracker of the video PeerTube instance as long as you're watching the video"
Does this have GDPR ramifications?
I know this is just filtering for now, but I've been backing up entire channels for fear they'll one day disappear because global policy or legacy media conglomerates won't allow for it. I imagine the "you" in YouTube will be mostly gone in the next decade. The writing's on the wall.
Another reason to backup HD Youtube videos is that they'll "demote" them to SD if they don't get enough views.
Blender seems to be testing #peertube but: "PeerTube uses the BitTorrent protocol to share bandwidth between users. It implies that your public IP address is stored in the public BitTorrent tracker of the video PeerTube instance as long as you're watching the video" Does this have GDPR ramifications?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to some, YouTube's copyright filters / markers aren't good enough to satisfy the EU directive. It's insane. The DMCA is bad enough already. Copyright should be loosened, not tightened. Then maybe we'd see some competition in video hosting.
I've always felt like false assertion of copyright should cause the loss of copyright. Seems like a fair balance for me. And before someone gets on me...I realize that these are automated filters that are rarely asserted by the actual copyright holder.
I'd say that a pattern of such behavior should trigger a penalty. It's not a single claim that's the problem. It's patterns of such claims en masse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "dark" mean in this context?
Publishing of content that would cause legal or other harm to the Internet Archive. It’s still stored on disk, but not accessible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i do think the search, recommendations, following, ease-of-uploading, and unlimited hosting capacity that youtube gives you are of real, incredible value. i can find videos on youtube of how to do practically anything, uploaded by every kind of person imaginable. practically speaking, people creating their own webpages and hoping to get indexed by a search engine or included in a hand-curated directory is not going t…
i do think the search, recommendations, following, ease-of-uploading, and unlimited hosting capacity that youtube gives you are of real, incredible value. They're certainly useful. I just question whether we wouldn't have found other ways to achieve these kinds of benefits if we didn't have YouTube, with the entire Internet interested in the results and well over a decade to come up with something.
random example of youtube shittiness i just stumbled over:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the DMCA requirements, it doesn't appear like it would require a lot of human intervention. 1. Copyright owner provides written notification of the alleged infringement. The notification has to provide reasonably sufficient information to allow Google to locate the alleged infringing material; provide contact information for the claimant; include a statement that the claimant has a good faith believe that…
The problem is a lack of liability for the content creators. Confusion can happen (such as particular renditions of a work who's basis is public domain information (IE a classical music score)), but willful lies should be punished with actual consequences. Right now things are stacked entirely against one class of content creators (video creators). Additionally if I'm a public institution or someone else that's again…
1) Classical music is still being composed today, and there’s a huge volume of post-1927 work that is very much under copyright in the US (excessive though that may be IMO).
2) Even if a composition is PD, the recording is absolutely copyrightable if it’s post-1927, and the arrangement may be as well. This isn’t a matter of confusion; it’s an actual piece of intellectual property.
Not to say that any of this is right; I believe fair use protections need to go much, much farther than they do.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Google gets roasted by the press no matter what it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think in practice that would lead to something like patent trolls — organizations designed no face no threat from the normal consequences. Plain old money based fines should work. Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough, given the scale of the internet.
> Even a tiny fixed fee of $50 per error might be enough If the fine went to the person who uploaded the work, this would be good because it would force the filter to be robust in the face of adversarial attacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or what about a system like they use in Finland to deal with speeding tickets - the fine is based on your income. The local paper has a weekly list of top offenders, which is amusing to say the least.
Sorry to hijack the thread slightly, but is only to introduce some visibility to the fact that this particular issue is nothing to do with the EU, or content ID, or anything like that. Google is blackmailing the Blender foundation to try and get them to enable adverts. https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende... edit - and Blender have now got https://video.blender.org/ in testing already. I didn'…
The Blender team never did that, and also never reacted to any youtube support mails.