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

YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

improbable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 259 posts

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#71

Post by jchw »

anigbrowl wrote: post #44
jazzyjackson wrote: post #9

This mentions something that has always irked me, YouTube trying to be informative about who the music is licensed by. For one, it's completely useless on classical piano music because the Content ID algo finds similarity in a dozen different recordings. But even when there is one canonical recording, such as Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up, I'm informed that the music is licensed by: (on behalf of Sony BMG Mus…

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it.

Sadly, it seems like it’s going to be the norm now. I recall hearing the EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#72

Post by ThrustVectoring »

t-3 wrote: post #63
jimbob45 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until copyright length is something more sensible, there’s really very little YouTube can do to rectify the situation. When they’re looking at policing copyright on basically all modern works versus just the last 20 years worth of works, there has to be some automation involved. When you involve automation, you’re inevitably going to see dehumanizing situations like this. They can’t just decide to not uphold the law…

> They can’t just decide to not uphold the law though. Why is that? Google is not, nor should they be, a law enforcement agency. There are multiple law enforcement agencies and interested individuals/organizations (the copyright holders) who should bear the responsibility for enforcing copyright. Putting the onus on the "public square" to police speech is the worst solution for all parties with the possible exception…

There's a name for deliberately hosting a service that blatantly disregards copyright enforcement. It's called "contributory infringement", and the litigation of which will have existential amounts of potential damages.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#73

Post by ThrustVectoring »

anigbrowl wrote: post #47
1970-01-01 wrote: post #24

The problem isn't that this video was quickly taken down by an algorithm, but that it cannot be restored by the same. Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube. We should hear from her why YouTube's systemic takedown problem can not be rectified.

I wonder too why there is no option to pre-file an assertion of fair use or public domain material and have it acknowledged as filed by YT. Some people put disclaimers in the opening frames of their video or in the description but there's no indication that YouTube acknowledges this in any way.

When rightsholders give notice of alleged infringement, YouTube can't simply be like "well, they say it's fair use, so we're going to ignore this." If they did, they'd be knowingly contributing to copyright infringement and lose out on safe harbor provisions.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#74

Post by NKosmatos »

This phrase right here is what’s wrong with all major sites/networks/apps/services >>> “We have so far been unable to find a human at YouTube who can fix that.” Replace YouTube with Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and it pretty much sums up the problem of moderation or human decision. This can be solved very easily by these big corporations, by using some of the millions they have as profit, by hiring more people who will take the results of the algorithms and have a second look at all appeals by using common sense :-)

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#75

Post by exporectomy »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #20

Presumably this will encourage the creator of the 1914 work to create new works.

This argument that dead people's work shouldn't be protected because they can't be encouraged to make more is wrong, even where copyright gets extended afterwards. Predicting future value allows others to pay for it while they're alive, possibly by speculating on future enhanced copyright law.

Corporations can persist beyond the life of any humans within them for a good reason. It enables longer term investment and decision making to achieve things that can't be done in a single lifespan. Why should human lifespan be some essential time limit on property rights?

It also has the ethical problem that old or unhealthy people's work would be worth less than young healthy people's.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#76

Post by jkonline »

soperj wrote: post #26
EvanAnderson wrote: post #20

Presumably this will encourage the creator of the 1914 work to create new works.

I personally have been waiting for new John McCormack material for a long long time.

See, by siding with just McCormick, though, you're absolutely missing out on all the great Schmick content. They're Collab albums, produced much later and (of course) in John's heyday, are amazing. Spicy, even.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#77

Post by zuminator »

nomaxx117 wrote: post #51

Ingroove is known to be a fraudulent troll. They have been doing this to massive amount of creators, in many cases asserting rights to music they do not own the rights to.

If we can call copyright infringement theft, then improperly asserting rights to media one has no rights to ought to be considered theft against the Commons or the valid rightsholder, and a flagrant repeat violator should be subject to punitive damages. Charges of fraud and identity theft should also be on the table.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#78

Post by amelius »

NKosmatos wrote: post #74

This phrase right here is what’s wrong with all major sites/networks/apps/services >>> “We have so far been unable to find a human at YouTube who can fix that.” Replace YouTube with Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and it pretty much sums up the problem of moderation or human decision. This can be solved very easily by these big corporations, by using some of the millions they have as profit, by hiring more people wh…

> by hiring more people who will take the results of the algorithms and have a second look at all appeals by using common sense

Who wants to work for these companies anymore?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#79

Post by mucholove »

roughly wrote: post #64
anigbrowl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a pity there's no way for people to sue Youtube for abuse of the commons. Many economists like to invoke the tragedy of the commons' as a justification for property rights (real, maritime, or intellectual) but they tend to sidle around the fact that it's almost impossible for anyone to get legal standing to advocate on behalf of the commons.

Incidentally, “tragedy of the commons” is one of those things like “inventing money because barter is inefficient” that exists in the lore of economists but doesn’t seem to exist in the real world, and most societies at most times in most places in history seem to have done just fine managing “the commons” as a shared resource through social compact and peer pressure.

As you point out—there are also fantastic administrations of shared resources.

For example, many fisheries in the USA have recovered tremendously through smart limits. The Atlantic cod fishery is often cited. I personally have experienced the Pacific North West salmon fishery and can confirm that the fishing gets better up there every year while the Dominican fishery gets worse. The DR fishery has experienced the tragedy of the commons.

The DR also experienced fantastic forest preservation in the 1970s. This was after all the old growth was destroyed. There was a success of the commons following a tremendous tragedy. Still, in the last few years these old laws have been disrespected and so the forests have been decimated to make way for Haas avocado plants. Do not buy Dominican Haas avocado.

The tragedy of the commons is very real. Learn more about the success and failure of different shared resources through Elinor Ostrom’s work.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#80

Post by EvanAnderson »

yesenadam wrote: post #45
city41 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic all software should be free too.

According to another comment on this page by the GP, >> ownership of digital products >There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional. I'm a musician working on an album at home at the moment. It's a bit odd to hear I'm delusional, or worse, "simply delusional", for thinking that the music I'm making will be in some sense mine! Maybe I should go ba…

Most creators of "intellectual property", or their mentors, grew up in a world where physical scarcity in distribution created artificial scarcity of information. Earning a living under that system makes people ascribe morality and self-evident "correctness" to those business models.

Scarcity of information is gone because information isn't tied to physical distribution anymore. Tomorrow's bits will be easier to copy than today's. Short of legislating away general purpose computers bits aren't ever going to get harder to copy. Staking your livelihood on a business model where bits get harder to copy is probably a bad business decision.

Will this mean the end of some types of for-profit artistic expressions? Yeah-- probably. If those types of expression are valuable to humanity creators will figure out how to get people to pay for them.

Will this be the end of all for-profit artistic expression? Not likely.

As per-copy-based business models dry up "intellectual property" creators will be forced to move to new business models or find other jobs. After awhile (maybe a generation or two) the new business models will seem as self-evidently "right" as those that came before.

The morality ascribed to old business models probably won't disappear until the people who grew up in earlier times die. (I am reminded of John Philip Sousa railing against sound recordings in a 1906 Congressional hearing). Hopefully the legal copyright regime will evolve as people coming of age under in a world of easy-to-copy bits take the reigns of power.

Alternatively I suppose we could end up in a dystopian "Right to Read"[0] world, with general purpose computers heavily regulated and old business models enforced by jack-booted thugs.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Post reply on HN