5 ms·

Sounds like an excellent tool for censorship and copyright enforcement. Can we not make things like this?

by Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

austenallred 10y ago
Because copyright enforcement is inherently evil? Please
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  Yes, if you use a shotgun approach. Fair use is a thing.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Fair use is a thing in the US. It's not a thing in most other places, at least not in anything like the same generic form. And of course a great deal of online copying isn't fair use even in the US. A shotgun approach is one thing, but speaking as someone who's seen content produced by his businesses shared online, 100% of the copies we've found were blatantly infringing. Trying to keep track of them and get them taken down does waste time that we'd rather spend on activities like making more content. Given that YouTube are awful at dealing with legitimate takedown requests from small businesses (again, personal experience talking here) a tool that would rapidly identify infringing content and let us review it and submit a properly formed takedown notice quickly could be very useful.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
      >Trying to keep track of them and get them taken down does waste time that we'd rather spend on activities like making more content Then don't. If people want to steal your content, it's going to be stolen. You cannot solve that. It's better to spend your time making more content and better content so your paying customers pay more and refer more paying friends.
      - austenallred 10y ago
        > If people want to steal your content, it's going to be stolen. You cannot solve that. It's better to spend your time making more content and better content so your paying customers pay more and refer more paying friends. You can solve a lot of it. I wrote a book that took me a lot of time and effort to produce. People started posting it for free. I forced them to take it down. That was much, much easier than writing another book (which would take me about a year)
        Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
        How many of the people who were going to steal it do you think were converted into legitimate buyers when you took down the free source? Also, I expect that your book is still available in certain circles for free.
        ygaf 10y ago
        Legitimate buyers can convert the other way.
        austenallred 10y ago
        > How many of the people who were going to steal it do you think were converted into legitimate buyers when you took down the free source More than zero. My book is a particular niche that people need, and they will pay what they have to in order to get it. If zero is an option some will take zero, if not they'll pay.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        How many of the people who were going to steal it do you think were converted into legitimate buyers when you took down the free source? I can't speak for Austen, but in our case we've seen people attempting to rip our stuff and use it in such a way that there was definitely revenue being generated. What's more, we know that the people providing that revenue liked what they saw and were looking for more of it, because some of the comments or ratings on some of the distribution channels are public. It's just that those people who were demonstrably willing to support the content were sending their support to the wrong place. Also, I expect that your book is still available in certain circles for free. Again, I can't speak for Austen, but in our case those "certain circles" would have to be pretty tight and obscure. As I said before, we operate in a relatively small world, and if someone were leaking any of our stuff on a large scale, we'd almost certainly know about it. And if anything out there is only on a small enough scale that we haven't heard about it, then almost all of our other potential customers probably haven't either. That's a big difference from seeing people putting something up on YouTube or Vimeo or whatever and watching them pick up thousands of views/listens and positive feedback in a matter of hours.
  - austenallred 10y ago
    OP's software identifies videos that could potentially be copyright infringement. The conclusion that we shouldn't build software like that because there's such a thing as fair use doesn't follow.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
      The subsequent DMCA notice that's filed is the problem. DMCA has a huge problem with abuse from automated filings. Every takedown notice should be prepared by a human. Writing software that automates the process is a crime against culture.
      - austenallred 10y ago
        Again, the conclusion doesn't follow. DMCA being abused doesn't mean that copyright is inherently wrong or that software that makes it possible for copyright holders to find offenders is evil or a "crime against culture."
tokenizerrr 10y ago
And here I was thinking porn.
- joaodmj 10y ago
  Hi tokenizerrr, I was counting down until someone mentioned porn, you were the first!!! YAY!!!! :)))
  - tokenizerrr 10y ago
    So what sites do you scrape? Just YouTube?
    - joaodmj 10y ago
      At this stage we analyze YouTube and Facebook. But we are also able to do it with LinkedIn, Vimeo, Twitter, Instagram, the Chinese platform Tencent Video and a couple of porn sites :D
darkstar999 10y ago
A knife can be used for good or for evil. You don't stop tools from being made just because they can be used in bad ways.
- Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
  Wrong. You should always consider the potential for abuse when you make software. OP seems to be pushing a commercial angle as well - who exactly do you think is going to pay?

Sounds like an excellent tool for censorship and copyright enforcement. Can we not make things like this?

austenallred 10y ago

Because copyright enforcement is inherently evil? Please

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Yes, if you use a shotgun approach. Fair use is a thing.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Fair use is a thing in the US. It's not a thing in most other places, at least not in anything like the same generic form. And of course a great deal of online copying isn't fair use even in the US. A shotgun approach is one thing, but speaking as someone who's seen content produced by his businesses shared online, 100% of the copies we've found were blatantly infringing. Trying to keep track of them and get them taken down does waste time that we'd rather spend on activities like making more content. Given that YouTube are awful at dealing with legitimate takedown requests from small businesses (again, personal experience talking here) a tool that would rapidly identify infringing content and let us review it and submit a properly formed takedown notice quickly could be very useful.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    >Trying to keep track of them and get them taken down does waste time that we'd rather spend on activities like making more content Then don't. If people want to steal your content, it's going to be stolen. You cannot solve that. It's better to spend your time making more content and better content so your paying customers pay more and refer more paying friends.
    - austenallred 10y ago
      > If people want to steal your content, it's going to be stolen. You cannot solve that. It's better to spend your time making more content and better content so your paying customers pay more and refer more paying friends. You can solve a lot of it. I wrote a book that took me a lot of time and effort to produce. People started posting it for free. I forced them to take it down. That was much, much easier than writing another book (which would take me about a year)
      - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
        How many of the people who were going to steal it do you think were converted into legitimate buyers when you took down the free source? Also, I expect that your book is still available in certain circles for free.
        ygaf 10y ago
        Legitimate buyers can convert the other way.
        austenallred 10y ago
        > How many of the people who were going to steal it do you think were converted into legitimate buyers when you took down the free source More than zero. My book is a particular niche that people need, and they will pay what they have to in order to get it. If zero is an option some will take zero, if not they'll pay.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        How many of the people who were going to steal it do you think were converted into legitimate buyers when you took down the free source? I can't speak for Austen, but in our case we've seen people attempting to rip our stuff and use it in such a way that there was definitely revenue being generated. What's more, we know that the people providing that revenue liked what they saw and were looking for more of it, because some of the comments or ratings on some of the distribution channels are public. It's just that those people who were demonstrably willing to support the content were sending their support to the wrong place. Also, I expect that your book is still available in certain circles for free. Again, I can't speak for Austen, but in our case those "certain circles" would have to be pretty tight and obscure. As I said before, we operate in a relatively small world, and if someone were leaking any of our stuff on a large scale, we'd almost certainly know about it. And if anything out there is only on a small enough scale that we haven't heard about it, then almost all of our other potential customers probably haven't either. That's a big difference from seeing people putting something up on YouTube or Vimeo or whatever and watching them pick up thousands of views/listens and positive feedback in a matter of hours.
- austenallred 10y ago
  OP's software identifies videos that could potentially be copyright infringement. The conclusion that we shouldn't build software like that because there's such a thing as fair use doesn't follow.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
    The subsequent DMCA notice that's filed is the problem. DMCA has a huge problem with abuse from automated filings. Every takedown notice should be prepared by a human. Writing software that automates the process is a crime against culture.
    - austenallred 10y ago
      Again, the conclusion doesn't follow. DMCA being abused doesn't mean that copyright is inherently wrong or that software that makes it possible for copyright holders to find offenders is evil or a "crime against culture."

tokenizerrr 10y ago

And here I was thinking porn.

joaodmj 10y ago
Hi tokenizerrr, I was counting down until someone mentioned porn, you were the first!!! YAY!!!! :)))
- tokenizerrr 10y ago
  So what sites do you scrape? Just YouTube?
  - joaodmj 10y ago
    At this stage we analyze YouTube and Facebook. But we are also able to do it with LinkedIn, Vimeo, Twitter, Instagram, the Chinese platform Tencent Video and a couple of porn sites :D

darkstar999 10y ago

A knife can be used for good or for evil. You don't stop tools from being made just because they can be used in bad ways.

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Wrong. You should always consider the potential for abuse when you make software. OP seems to be pushing a commercial angle as well - who exactly do you think is going to pay?