301–310 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the outro song he used with permission may have used another song (permission unknown). That song is from 1935 so you'd think it was in the public domain... https://www.whosampled.com/sample/231036/ProleteR-April-Show...
Public domain? Or is it death of artist plus 20 years plus 50 years plus the year of birth of their third child multiplied by 3?
Content-id has been designed to massively favor the claimants. It could have been designed in a fair-use-aware sort of way. Also a false report should = a copyright strike for all channels owned by the claimant.
Why wouldn't the claimant just switch to plain-old DMCA takedowns in that case?
https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright is necessary and isn’t the problem here. What is the problem is Youtube’s refusal to require any verification when a copyright claim is made. YouTube has essentially created a society that doesn’t abide by due process because it’s a virtual society and therefore isn’t required to follow the same laws that physical societies are held to. This is a symptom of a much more dangerous problem - as we exist more a…
I reject the notion that copyright is necessary, what's necessary is my personal ability to use my devices without random companies being able to use the state to punish me for using an abstract concept that may or may not resemble one that they at some point also used. If you would like to make money from your art there are options such as commisions, but the onus is on you to find a business model that works, it is…
Should an artist want to not register copyright for their works, they are 100% free to do so.
They won’t make any money, but that’s their choice.
You may not agree with the system, but it’s the law.
In this single case, this is actually the system working as it should.
https://twitter.com/roomieofficial/status/113018091135248793...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It protects them from legal action by copyright holders as long as they honor the process spelled out in the statute. Yes, that's what I was referring to; YouTube is now saying in some of their emails[1] about taking down a video that they are not intending to forward the counter-notification to the claimant, which they are required under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to do if they want to limit their liability as a service…
> They don't have to put the video back up or do anything when someone sends a counter notification, but that means they have full copyright liability for that video. They can now be sued directly for violating copyright for each copy they made when someone viewed the video prior to when it was taken down. Sued by whom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they would need actual lawyers with actual law degrees who've passed the bar to review each contested copyright claim. No, they wouldn't? The law clearly says that what they have to do "upon notification of claimed infringement" is "to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Nowhere does it say they are even allowed , let alone required, to legally review the claim.
The keyword is "contested". If JoeGamer uploads a video of him playing dark souls with music in the background, and MusicCorp claims infringement, YT has to remove the video without putting it past a lawyer. You and I are on the same page so far. Once JoeGamer contests the claim and says, "No, I got that from one of the dozen websites that offer CC licensed music, here is the link," YT either needs to have a lawyer r…
This is being tested. I don't think it will really happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation? Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system). And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know…
Can we fight them back? Can't we collectively submit our own DMCA requests on all their videos? Break the system so they have come to up with a new one.
1. People were using Rhinna's songs without permission in large numbers.
2. The company wrote a program to automatically send out a takedown notice to violators
3. Whoops, the program made a mistake. We didn't mean to.
I do think that companies here are "acting in good faith" in so much as I do not think they are misrepresenting their intentions. I don't think Sony has a conspiracy to increase it's revenue by monetizing Minecraft gamer channels.
However, the law is written in such a way that there is no penalty for companies that write low precision, high recall, dumpster-fire grade take-down bot software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do we have push-button screw-people-over systems at all? Because that's the way our shitty representatives in congress wrote the legislation? Google could face real legal consequences for not responding to a DMCA request. They can't face any legal consequences for complying with a false one (DMCA, or their internal contentId system). And companies with the DMCA/ContentId bots sending in these bogus notices know…
This is the whole problem. Sick and tired of people complaining about YouTube/Google. For them to "fix the problem" just for their own platform would cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year in man hours to process every single last takedown request manually with no automation. Each takedown request would take many hours of intervention to resolve properly. Who is going to pay Google's legal department $100+/hour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar story with Adwords - if you want support with that, you ain't gonna get it. It's a maze of FAQs and automated email responses with useless information. If you manage to figure out the incantation to email an actual person, they're some kind of 1st-level support whose purpose in life is to piss you off so much with useless pre-canned responses that you finally give up. Truely, incredible that they get away wit…
Google is OK with it because they do it to small spenders. They have human account managers and a very visible phone number if you spend enough. Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense.