Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 188 posts

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#61

Post by dariusj18 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #33
jbob2000 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily…

> they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers. Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."

There needs to be stiff civil penalties for companies acting in bad faith and/or not doing due diligence.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#62

Post by Wowfunhappy »

MereInterest wrote: post #46
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are either idiots, or greedily trying to steal revenue from YouTubers. Third option: some record label set up an automated system and indiscriminately fed it all the music they've produced. They didn't consider the edge case of "recordings we own of public domain songs."

That sounds like it could fall under either of the categories listed, but definitely falls under either foolishness or greed.

It's nonchalance. They put in the minimum amount of effort because they aren't the ones who'll be hurt by the side effects.

You could certainly describe that behavior as greedy, but it isn't an active attempt to steal revenue.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#63

Post by hungaropithecus »

pedrocx486 wrote: post #32
jsilence wrote: post #24

Please start using YT alternatives like for example lbry.tv.

Sure, but first the content creators I watch need to go there.

Most content creators have little incentive to go there because there's no money to be made, youtube is monetized by google. Maybe that's for the better and content creators who don't care for the money (or don't need it or can afford to share videos for the sake of sharing with the world) will share their videos outside youtube, and maybe maybe that'll naturally separate the wheat from the chaff..

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#65

Post by henryfjordan »

smacktoward wrote: post #43
henryfjordan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlyin…

> To use copyright material as fair-use you need to transform the work or add value in some way. This is not true. Transformative use is just one of four factors a court would look at to determine whether a use is fair or not (see https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ ). A use doesn't have to have all four factors apply to it in order to be fair. Transformative uses are more likely to be judged…

Yes, thank you for clarifying.

I have heard of takedowns / copyright claims on videos because of some song playing in the background while they film in a public space (think the radio playing in a store while someone films themselves shopping), so that might be one case you could argue fair-use without transformation of the underlying work. I wouldn't ever want to be in that position though.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#66

Post by Teever »

henryfjordan wrote: post #23
legitster wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not that it should matter for the purposes of fair use. > especially for a product of this caliber Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?

To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlyin…

> There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set.

Why? Isn't that like saying that law enforcement should prioritize the return of stolen diamond to a wealth person over the return of a a stolen car to a middle class person?

Where's the utility in that?

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#67

Post by MichaelDickens »

mywittyname wrote: post #45
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

YouTube has been behaving like this for over a decade, so I don't expect it to be their undoing any time soon.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#68

Post by cormullion »

jbob2000 wrote: post #31
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Some claimants are so hilariously (or nefariously?) wrong too. My partner uploaded a video of her playing Greensleeves on violin. Though it only has about 10 views, it received a claim from some random company in the states. Greensleeves was written sometime in the 16th century. That a company set themselves up an automated tool to search for people playing this song tells me that they are either idiots, or greedily…

I used a track from the Open Goldberg Variations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Goldberg_Variations) recorded by pianist Kimiko Douglass-Ishizaka. Some company sent me a copyright claim presumably for a different recording... Perhaps the automated technology can't easily distinguish different performances...

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#69

Post by shadowgovt »

henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

Not just a blackout---they were threatening to put legal pressure both on YouTube directly (to show it was violating the safe-harbor provisions of DMCA) and the tech sector in general (to modify safe harbor to give copyright owners more control via legal remedy).

YouTube capitulated to a technological solution in part to avoid a legal solution being forced upon them.

Re: CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

#70

Post by shadowgovt »

mywittyname wrote: post #45
henryfjordan wrote: post #18

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, p…

I wonder if this will be the undoing of YT. If large content creators start inserting segments saying, "I can't show the clip here, but if you go to my vimeo channel , you can see the full review." That will offer people a segue off of YT.

In general, this possibility has been back-stopped by lack of alternatives. The companies in question have enough money to throw around to buy up alternatives that threaten to become as big as YT without the technical clout to implement the same kind of fingerprinting YT did. Blip (my personal favorite that seemed to be attracting reviewers when ContentID went live) met this fate.

YT is about the only player in the market that the MPAA can't scrounge enough pocket change to meet the price of, but they don't have to because it plays ball with their demands.

Post reply on HN