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

91–100 of 259 posts

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

#91

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #50
torben-friis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. So are books. What do we do with writers?

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be a…

> To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom.

It's also trivial to stab someone. Not all crimes can or should be prevented by technical means.

In fact most cannot even in principle be prevented. Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.

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

#92

Post by anigbrowl »

jchw wrote: post #71
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.

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.

YouTube isn't a scrappy little startup with no resources left over after keeping the servers up and running 24-7. They absolutely have the talent, capital, and legal resources to innovate in this area and to assess things like public domain claims.

The concept of public domain resources is not a difficult one, you don't need special legal training or advanced math to understand the idea that copyright expires and that works whose copyright has expired are free to all. There is no mechanism to even assert public domain status on Youtube.

You have to wait and offer it as a defense if subjected to a copyright infringement claim, and the copyright infringement claim is presumed to be valid and the claimant is the first judge of the public domain assertion.

Youtube didn't invent the system, but they are far from being helpless victims as you imply.

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

#93

Post by type0 »

RyJones wrote: post #65
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 have a video with a copyright claim by a third party. The music on the video is from the YouTube library they provide creators. You would think YouTube would recognize a library they own?

> You would think YouTube would recognize a library they own?

Happens all the time, they don't give a shit, in fact I'm starting to suspect that some music creators do this on purpose.

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

#94

Post by maweki »

Operyl wrote: post #60
quwert95 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct. The Youtuber is James Stephanie Sterling. She called it the "Youtube Deadlock" mechanic. Though the trick seems to be less successful now.

That’s them! I could remember the details just not the name, they rely primarily on Patreon supporters for their revenue. EDIT: changed pronouns, been a while since I last looked into this creator.

She goes by "her" now.

Edit: Yep, they/them. Should've looked it up.

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

#95

Post by Igelau »

smoldesu wrote: post #8
munk-a wrote: post #5

I know that music rights is a complicated subject with no really easy answers[1] but there's got to be a way to do it better than the current system where you need to chase after platforms to actually get them to unblock your misclassified videos. 1. Unless you believe artists should make money solely from performances and not from streamed music which I was sorta onboard with until streaming-music-as-a-service turne…

This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.

Throw buzzwords! See if they stick!

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

#96

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #23
smoldesu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my least popular opinion, but NFTs should have been applied here. We desperately need a legally binding, decentralized and distributed way for us to attest ownership of digital products. Sure, sure, "blockchain bad" and "don't apply crypto to everything", but this genuinely seems to me like the most mutually beneficial way to proceed.

> ownership of digital products There is no such thing. Data is just bits. Really big numbers. Asserting ownership over numbers is simply delusional. The second that number is published, it's already over. Non-fungible tokens do absolutely nothing to change those facts. They just let people delude themselves into believing they actually own stuff. The only thing they own is the token.

You're just talking nonsense. I don't think you thought this through at all.

I own a house. In what way? The land registry says that I do. If it starts saying something else, then I don't. The police and courts will make it real.

My wallet is only mine because that's what we agree.

The brand Coca Cola is just information. But if you start selling your own under their brand you'll find out just how real intellectual property is.

Everything is society is only real because we make it real. "Ownership" isn't any more or less real of tangible or intangible things.

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

#97

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #91
matheusmoreira wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be a…

> To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. It's also trivial to stab someone. Not all crimes can or should be prevented by technical means. In fact most cannot even in principle be prevented. Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.

Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that.

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

#98

Post by astura »

maweki wrote: post #94
Operyl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s them! I could remember the details just not the name, they rely primarily on Patreon supporters for their revenue. EDIT: changed pronouns, been a while since I last looked into this creator.

She goes by "her" now. Edit: Yep, they/them. Should've looked it up.

If you're going to correct someone, at least get it right - they prefer they/them pronouns.

https://twitter.com/JimSterling

>They/Them. Pan & Trans Gendertrash in Non-Binary Finery. Indie wrestling supervillain. Polyantagonist. Hated by Gamers(tm)

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

#99

Post by RyJones »

type0 wrote: post #93
RyJones wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a video with a copyright claim by a third party. The music on the video is from the YouTube library they provide creators. You would think YouTube would recognize a library they own?

> You would think YouTube would recognize a library they own? Happens all the time, they don't give a shit, in fact I'm starting to suspect that some music creators do this on purpose.

You're obviously right; the claim is by Syntax Creative, on behalf of Pro Piano Records. The content is 14 Bagatelles, Op. 6: Lento by Jerome Lowenthal.

I made the video[0] public so people can see it, but I hate the idea that these creeps get to make money off of a scam on my part, so I usually mark them private.

0: https://youtu.be/a__9f4yh4qU

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

#100

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #88
matheusmoreira wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be a…

We kinda need an answer to that before we abolish the police... err I mean intellectual property.

Do we? To me the choice is simple: either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code.

It's an easy choice for me. As it should be for anyone who browses Hacker News. In a copyright world we won't be able to hack anymore.

So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrupt. We must not keep inching ever closer to the dystopia where the government and monopolist corporations own our computers.

Post reply on HN