Eg, during the takedown process, have something like:
> [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content.
> [ ] I understand that incorrectly flagging satirical or commentary videos that mention my trademarks but do not infringe upon my trademark rights may delay response to future infringement filings.
Or something similar. IANAL. Complainants must tick the boxes to be able to submit.
It could very well be that their best interest is in satisfying their big customers, the companies that invest massive amounts of money in advertising, publishing and divulging their products and services through Google platforms.
Hence the existence of Content ID as a tool for takedown as opposed to rely simply the existing tools like DMCA takedown notices.
The later is, in theory, fair as it gives the accused a clear remedy for false accusations (demand reinstatement of the video and wait for the court battle with the video in place) while the former is a process completely in control by Google and it is up to their discretion to fix the situation.
Youtube, facebook, reddit, hacker news are all private organizations. They are not legally obligated to host your content (in some cases, like copyright infringement, they are legally obligated to NOT host your content).
The only thing that keeps these sites from arbitrarily censoring their users is money. If facebook deleted every article that zuckerberg disagreed with, people would eventually stop using facebook (there might be some speculation about how their "top stories" algorithm "filters" stuff out).
Less users means less ad revenue. But on the flip side, if samsung accounts for a noticeable chunk of ad revenue and that becomes at risk, less ad revenue means less ad revenue too. If blindly DMCA'ing videos yields a loss of 2% of users, but keeping the video up yields a loss of 5% of ad revenue (from samsung's share), then I imagine they will always prefer to side with samsung.
This isn't illegal, this is just one of the truths about capitalism. If a company exists to make money, it will side with money. if a company exists to provide a quality service, it will side with quality service. Quality service often doesn't have the marketing team though.
It's amazing how, every time a private organization is criticized for how it handles speech on its platform, some tedious rando jumps out of the woodwork to smugly lecture everyone about how private organizations don't have legal obligations to host anything.
Yes. We know. We know, we know, we know, we all know. The First Amendment does not apply. We are not saying that Google is legally required to do anything. We are saying that Google's behavior is not in the spirit of free speech and chills discourse. That's it. Can we take it as read that everyone's up to speed on this and move on without the pointless derail, please?
A business owner is seen as more like the average person than is a regulator or other academic "public discourse"-spouting person.
Today they're telling Youtube what to do, tomorrow they're telling your company what to do...
See also positions on NIMBYism vs "it's my land, why can't I build whatever I want?", Uber and AirBNB vs existing regulations, and many others.
All the big platforms are private and could hypothetically block your message without offering you any recourse.
So maybe before you come rushing in to post your "ha-HA! Literally no one in history has ever considered that this is a corporation, or pointed this out, or had exactly this discussion, I must smugly educate them on that fact" lecture next time, you should do your homework first?
edit: We can certainly decide that it's in the public interest to place limits on the editorial control over sites that rely on safe harbor, just as phone companies aren't allowed to censor particular conversations. Things get to be rights because we collectively decide that they are.
edit: Deleted, because it is completely wrong.
[Your libertarianism ignores the law. In order to qualify for safe harbor under DMCA, their ability to exercise arbitrary editorial control is limited. If they want to choose what they host, they are choosing to be legally responsible for what they host.]
Tech giants have scale and effects on par with government, especially as these "independent" companies tend to make decisions in lock step. Thus libertarians should be primarily concerned with the rights of the distributed actors within these ecosystems.
It would be interesting to see what a municipal social media platform would look like.
Court decided no, but a dissent lamented that there were no public spaces in many instances.
I just searched, and the US Supreme Court has gone back and forth on this issue.
For speech to be unlawful it must incite violence:
Man that's funny. Ya, THIS TIME Google's going to care.
"It's going to take three months to get the strike removed from my channel... I got my live stream taken away," he said in a video.
"If I submit a counter-notification to say 'sue me', I wonder what they will do. Will they sue me, the kid that has cancer and just makes money off YouTube playing a video game?"
"It really sucks, because I really worked hard on this channel."
Let me add, if somebody would be willing to subsidize such a service (large co, or gov), it would be possible to compete (market share, not ad revenue obviously).
Except that such a large co or gov would probably not allow certain videos against itself. Can I force them to host it against their wishes?
I don't mean to add this link sarcastically: https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ Maybe we have hope with ipfs? It looks promising to me https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_pla...
Edit: obligatory sample video https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBN...
Benevolent 501c3, maybe?
Really, the answer would be in symmetric last-mile internet connections, no? Having the ability to host and distribute/stream video would change many things in these industries.
I don't know why basically all providers don't allow to adjust the ratio, I suspect to much "complexity" for to little demand. (Quite a while back a German ISP had that for their ADSL connections, was popular with web developers and other professionals that needed fast upload occasionally)
This is chicken-and-egg bullshit.
I am sure it is not that difficult to provision.
The area I resided in, had only DSL.
Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it.
The DSL was oversubscribed, and provisioned for less than 6Mbps/768kbps. However, it was only $35/mo.
Once the cable company offered service, it was $60 (plus modem rental or purchase) for 6Mbps/1Mbps.
Many people switched to the fake-fiber cable network, freeing up capacity on the DSL, so now the DSL is provisioned at 12Mbps, but upload is still 768kbps, and still $35/mo.
To get 5Mbps upload via the cable company would require a plan costing over $100/mo. That is their upper limit of upload speed. They can do 105Mbps down (closer to $150/mo), but 5Mbps up is the max.
I would love to have even 3Mbps upstream from the DSL provider
For now, I can use LTE for periodic uploading, where I can get 20 to 50Mbps, but I am paying much more for that privilege.
But, when time is money, I cannot afford to wait 3 hours for data to transfer at 768kbps (not considering encapsulation - yes, the DSL is PPPoE).
Not to sound rude, but you don't actually believe that, do you?
I agree, it sounds like total BS to me. But, I am not surprised considering it is a cable company.
By participating, you would be caching content for other users.
Unlike Facebook, Youtube isn't a monopolic walled garden with such powerful network effects, so for most purposes it's not an awful alternative. Therefore, unlike Facebook, I don't think that Youtube ia under any moral obligation to be a fair playing field.
If Samsung waste Google's time with false takedowns of satirical content, Google won't be able to respond to, eg, companies marketing fake Galaxy phones or similar as fast as they would otherwise.
Likewise if trolls incorrectly flag videos critiquing them Google won't be able to respond as quickly to someone just pirating their material.
Lack of real recourse against false flagging and takedowns, new "advertiser friendly" rules, the new hero system (top 10 or so most downvoted video on youtube, absolutely the worst ratio
If they really start pushing on enforcement of this bullshit there will be nothing for me to watch there, just shitty non-content nonsense.
AvE is not PC, EEVBlog also is not PC, Louis Rossman swears in his videos, singsing streams are full of racial jokes, stereotypes and the like.
1) As I understand it, parody is not inherently non-infringing, it's just one factor that weighs in favor of a judge finding that a use is non-infringing.
2) I doubt that the DMCA allows a provider to punish copyright owners in this way (though this might be applied to YouTube's mechanisms that go beyond DMCA requirements). The law requires that "the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". Intentionally delaying processing is pretty much the exact opposite of "acting expeditiously".
They just need to go back to all DMCA. Then at least someone with pockets deep enough can challenge these fraudulent requests.
"Copywrite" and "copyright" are not synonymous.
Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system so that these claims will be more costly to the claimant.
We need to break open the head here, people! We're scientists, right? Step back from your political ideologies and your fears and tell me what the real problem is with this biological system.
Right: it's that a single actor can make the decision to censor these things. It's fundamentally a weak link problem.
Whether or not we fix DMCA, which I'm sure we will, we need to fix the problem that the weak link exists in the first place. A centralized Youtube will not do for the information age. Our organism must build immunity such that, no matter the tantrums of the state, nobody is capable of giving in and handing over the lollipop.
...but yes, I am thrilled! The internet increasingly seems to have a will about it, and one that organizes around basic principles of freedom and decentralization. So that's good news.
I haven't quite picked a video delivery solution yet; I'm still largely a YouTube user. Do you have a suggestion or guide?
In 2016 you navigate to https://youtube.com to browse videos
in 20X6 you navigate to my_agi://videos/ to browse, and it figures out how to quickly surf youtube and many, many other platforms to present your videos
In that way, personalized and ubiquitous AGI allows end users to access the plethora of video content sites in one single easy to understand endpoint that is controlled by the user.
True, the Apples of the world will sell you an iAGI that is walled-garden, and then we're back to square one. damn. Well, I tried.
Increasingly, we live in a world of corporate ownership. Not private property.
Does fixing the issue really mean making all material (copyrighted or not) always available and impossible to take down?
I don't think that there is a per se connection between the definition of a right (ofI think that the human) or tendency (of the internet organism) as absolute with a viewpoint which is politically extreme. (In other words: sometimes the moderate position is the one which seems absolute, and the position of relativity or balance is the extreme one).
The notion that speech and expression always supersede "intellectual property" seems to be the tendency of the distributed network. I'm prepared to argue that holding on to industry-age statues regarding "intellectual property" (ie, that some actors justly have authority to change the shape of the network in order to subvert access which they claim violates their IP) is an extreme position - an extreme clinging to policies which are unrealistic and inapplicable to the internet.
The weak argument is, "look at the current case! This was clearly, obviously not Samsung's IP and yet they were able to effectively erase a meme from a popular platform for a short time." This is sufficient to show that indeed it is a free speech issue.
The stronger argument is that the internet doesn't seem to recognize this concept of "material that they are not permitted to distribute." Introducing it has meant (often intentionally) causing all sorts of damage to various protocols and services. Even if it makes sense in the context of industry-age culture (and I'm not sure it does), it seems to go decidedly against nature now.
step 2: ...
It's a bit draconian, but you can thank US legislation for that beauty.
I had a situation recently by uploading a dashcam video recently, it had song played from a radio and it got flagged. I appealed from it that it is fair use (no monetary gain, it doesn't affect their sales (very bad quality, not whole song), it's not center part of the video (in fact I would prefer if it wasn't there).
The studio owning the song responded that blocking it is still valid and youtube informed me that I can appeal again, but if I lose again I can lose my account, which at that point I gave up. I doubt that studio has any consequences for labeling things incorrectly.
Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned.
Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks.
Copyright does not protect basic look and feel.
There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves.
This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place.
If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing.
You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways.
I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-bill...
Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringeme...
Keep in mind that in general all gameplay videos are copyright violations because they display copies of textures belonging to video game studios, just usually the studios don't do anything about it since it's actually free advertisement.
Whoever made the texture in the mod owns the copyright to that texture. Even assuming it's made from a photo of an actual Note 7, the copyright is still that artist's, not Samsung's.
Think about the implications -- can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7? Of course not.
Samsung probably has some design patents on the Note 7, but that means you can't manufacture phones with the same design. It doesn't mean you can't distribute images of that design.
> can Samsung assert copyright over any real-world photograph of any person holding a Note 7?
Uh, yes, of course they can. That's why on TV shows they blur out logos of T-shirts, etc. That's why an indie filmmaker was sued because his film had a scene with The Simpsons playing on a TV in the background.
I don't know what you're referring to, but if a filmmaker is sued because the Simpsons is playing in the background of a movie... that is definitely a possible legitimate copyright issue. I'd assume that fair use would apply, though.
How can that be? Every artistic work is automatically under copyright (see the Berne Convention, which the US adopted in 1988), so why wouldn't logos be?
Yes, and i'm saying it is possible they didn't make the texture, but downloaded a jpg from Samsung's website and used that directly, in which case Samsung would have a solid and legit case.
The entire rest of your post assumes i had said something else, so i hope you don't mind i skip it.
It's a shame that you don't have time to read the rest of the comment, because it explains why your view of how copyright works is incorrect. Your videogame footage example makes this very clear.
Also your comment about the video footage is inane. Yeah, sure, it would likely be resolved under Fair Use, but only once a judge gets involved. The DMCA request is still entirely valid.
And in general about YouTube and similar companies: This is what happens when the court principle of innocent until proven guilty is inverted to be guilty until proven innocent.
There is a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, and Google (and other companies) should adhere and respect the intentions behind it.
This is just damage control for their products not to become complete jokes.
The block backfired.
Nice job Samsung!
I've also grabbed a copy of the mod in case they decide to abuse copyright to take that down too, pretty sure I can upload it to sites faster than they can DMCA them. The real lesson here is don't make exploding phones.
Either way, it's a crummy situation to deal with. Sometimes rebooting helps.
Risk of brand damage if the mod was not taken down, vs. Risk of brand damage if they took down the mod and the blogtwitfacesphere laughs about it...
And as I write this I notice I'm sitting in front of a Samsung LCD monitor, shit I hope it doesn't explode!
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.
I don't remember them trying to bribe a president.
If some people find them moral, maybe they will find this a bit less moral:
Let's be realistic for a second.
No-one is saying your beloved Apple is the only company that hides behind corporatism as an excuse to be shitty, they're saying Apple is also such a company.
"Fell from apartment building after losing an iPhone prototype in his possession. Prior to death, he claimed he was beaten and his residence searched by Foxconn employees."
It could have happened in another factory. However, it surely wouldn't have happened in every single factory. And it shouldn't have happened in any factory. If large corps like Apple are in a position to influence a change such than things like this do not happen in the factories they rely on, then perhaps it is their moral responsibility to do so. If not them, who else would do it?
With Halloween coming up, expect plenty of pics and videos of people wearing Samsung Note 7 wrapped around them as a suicide vest.
Keep in mind, this is not related to DMCA or copyright at all: this is a software system in use by a private company. No laws were broken, it is just extremely scummy behavior.
I might follow your lead and add links to Wikipedia's entry for...
GTA V: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V
The BBC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
and Youtube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
Just in case anyone out there has NFI what these are.
I can't find it now but I saw an image of a terrorist with a Note 7 belt under his jacket. Nice.
Why can't they think of a fun way to deal with this PR disaster, how hard can it be? Jeez what are they thinking??
That was a satirical sentence. Now let's examine your argument as applied directly to this very comment. Why is it in YCombinator's (the organization that runs this forum we're both posting in) interest to "keep up" this comment, which is obviously satirical by being over-the-top.
Because the default is "keeping up."
They would be crazy to remove it, which won't happen. The situation might be different if this were a new account not making a valid, albeit satirical, point. The fact that "YCombinator is not a public service" is not right, because yes, in some ways, Hacker News is a public service in a sense, and so is YouTube.
Maybe not exactly, but it is not highly administered to promote only a single thought.
Note: I want to add the disclaimer that I really actually don't have negative feelings about YCombinator, in case someone misunderstands. I'm literally just making a point by showing that just because they run this service doesn't mean they would remove a comment like this one. You need really, really good reason to remove something. By default things stay up.
There is no WAY youtube would remove a video of an exploding samsung, just because samsung is a partner.
That said, I think your post was well written and right on spot - but the first sentence is a so obvious trigger that there are always going to be people that won't even bother reading past it. After all, there's so much to moderate and --- "Oh, hey! There's another post that looks dangerous! I've just noticed some words!"
Actually the fact that my original phrasing did not meet the nominal guidelines on civility (because it invoked Godwin's law) whereas this one does is an important point: after all the video obeys YouTube's nominal guidelines. (For example it doesn't contain nudity.) So my present, quite civil (in line with HN guidelines) phrasing is the best analogy/demonstration.
All this is going to do is encourage tens of thousands of young kids to figure out what things like "DRM", "free speech", "EFF", "privacy", "copyright" and the like mean. Maybe we get a few good lawyers out of this, a lot of great parody and a lot of great art.