
Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright (2016) - pavel_lishin
https://kotaku.com/game-critic-uses-brilliant-workaround-for-youtubes-copy-1773452452
======
code4tee
Google’s engine also doesn’t seem to understand basic copyright law. Simply
having a brief clip of someone else’s content doesn’t, under many ‘fair use’
cases, constitute a copyright violation. The whole system is also grossy a
“guilty until proven innocent” setup. There’s little penalty for people just
putting out bogus claims so content creators tend to get flooded with “content
claims” even when a 2 second human review clearly shows the claim to be bogus
(see earlier posting about guy’s white noise video getting slammed with
content claims).

Google’s crappy AI tech combined with crappy policies are creating a living
hell for many content creators.

Of course here Google is basically just making up its own laws for their own
world. As a private platform they can basically do whatever they want. Does
that violate their “don’t be evil” mantra? We report, you decide.

~~~
Sylos
I'm hoping the EU's General Data Protection Regulation is going to bite
Google's arse for this (among many other things).

Its Article 22 pretty much says that you cannot impede the rights of a person
based on an automated decision.

Obviously there's exceptions for that rule, which Google is going to cling on
as much as possible, but hopefully something comes out of it either way.

[https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/)

~~~
hellbanner
What is the cost for doing this? eg. false copyright claims "My white noise
video has copyright claims"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16075325)

~~~
jonesetc
It often comes with demonetization. It's especially a problem for people who
make YouTube content for a living. Much, or possibly even most, of the income
for these videos comes in a short burst when the video is first uploaded. This
initial time can make up huge portions of a person's income.

~~~
walterbell
Are there no businesses which promote "back catalogs" for YouTube content?

------
pault
Ironically, trying to play the embedded video throws an error saying the
content is owned by WMG and can't be viewed outside of YouTube.

------
jonny_eh
This should be labeled as 2016 content.

~~~
teej
The timing of this article is important to note because Youtube has since put
in place major revisions to their monetization policies known colloquially as
“Adpocalypse” that may impact the strategy.

~~~
jackvalentine
Jim's strategy isn't about getting youtube monetization though - it's about
avoiding others monetizing the videos (which has not changed in adpocalypse as
far as I can tell).

His income stream is pateron iirc.

------
digi_owl
Copyright was hatched back when the act of copying was laborious and
mechanical, meaning that the copier likely had deep pockets and financial
backing (and there were few of them in the neighborhood).

This logic falls flat when we get a device that is basically built for
copying, the computer. A major part of how it operates is to copy data in and
out of memory.

Anyways, even before the computer various nations had exceptions in place for
copying between friends and relatives. This because even policing the likes of
cassette based copying was virtually impossible without a permanent copyright
cop in every home.

These days however said copyright cop is being implemented in the form of DRM
and the kind of content fingerprinting talked about in the article.

~~~
qubex
Since when have computers been “basically built for copying”? Computers are
designed for _computing_ , from the Turing Machine onwards storage and
duplication have merely been instruments and steps (respectively) towards
achieving universality. The idea of a computer as a communication device came
relatively late in the game (most of Shannon's Information Theory's
applicability to computation was to infra-computer communication between
circuits, or transmission “down time”, meaning storage and delay loops), and
not to intra-computer communication.

Yes, modern computers are effective communication devices and the idea of
networking has become almost indelibly welded to the idea of computation, but
on a theoretical level they are absolutely distinct, and it's probably an
accident of history that the two concepts ended up entwined. That's why
there's lambda calculus for making statements about computing and pi calculus
for making statements about process communication.

~~~
pdkl95
> Since when have computers been “basically built for copying”

 _Digital_ computers (i.e. Shannon's Information Theory) was a solution for
the S/N getting worse every time the signal was amplified. Shannon's solution
of digital circuits allowed information to be _copied_ without the limit. An
important consequence of this was the marginal cost for copying information
falling _very_ close to zero. Or, stated in economic terms, information ws no
longer _scarce_.

> computer

You're using a very narrow definition of "computer". Colloquial use of the
word obviously includes a variety of technologies and concepts - such as
Shannon's digital circuits - not just model of computation (Turing or
otherwise).

> modern computers are effective communication device

You don't even need to consider {,inter}networking; the modern devices
commonly called "computers" spend most of their time managing data. Very
little time is spent doing any actual computation. I recommend this[1] lecture
by Feynman, where he explains how what we call "computers" are are really
closer to a filing system that stores and copies data (including the store
program and most of the mechanics of computation).

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWGGDXe5MA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWGGDXe5MA)

~~~
qubex
> You’re using a very narrow definition of ”computer”

Yes, I am, and that’s because I have a mathematical background. I’m quite
comfortable in my knowledge that the common-parlance item is actually a
’computer’ as I intend it (narrowly) fused with a communicator that allows it
to internetwork with other similarly compound devices.

------
ukulele
TL;DR: guy splices random scenes into his videos that are owned by multiple
large corporations so that the firms fight each other over royalties.

Is this a "Brilliant Workaround"? I report, you decide.

~~~
TillE
The whole point is to keep the videos ad-free; it really is a clever solution
for that.

