4 ms·

Not to pick on you because this seems to be a popular opinion but I would just like to point out the insanity of your what you just wrote. "as long as they don

Not to pick on you because this seems to be a popular opinion but I would just like to point out the insanity of your what you just wrote. "as long as they don't abuse copyright" Would we delete videos of the liberation of concentration camps if there was Nickelback music playing in the background? This just demonstrates how successful media companies have been in distorting the true purpose of copyright laws: to promote science, art, and culture for the public's benefit. It does not exist for fairness or personal gain. Copyright laws should be changed to better reflect this. Nobody should be able to silence any information that has a public benefit.

Spivak 9y ago
Like, Nickelback is in the original footage or someone overalyed the track on top of the footage? I would imagine if this ever really happened it would be fine in the former, and muted in the latter. You're forgetting that 'promote...' means give the creator control of that content for the purpose of limiting access and making money. Promote in the sense that it becomes possible to actually sell artistic works like commodities. And then once the value has ben extracted the public can do what they please with it.
- josinalvo 9y ago
  And we just need 140 years to extract it! :P
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Not quite on the level of concentration camp liberation videos, but wasn't there a video of a 2 year old dancing that had like a 20 second clip of some popular song playing on the radio in very low quality in the background, and it got deleted for copyright infringement? I think this was the video, but it is obviously back up now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
- tripzilch 9y ago
  > Like, Nickelback is in the original footage or someone overalyed the track on top of the footage? I would imagine if this ever really happened it would be fine in the former, and muted in the latter. While I agree that would be the most sensible course of action, if this in reality happened right now, the whole video would be deleted in both cases, automatically (assuming it's clear enough to trigger detection in the first example).
  - softawre 9y ago
    Nope, today they mute the audio.
giancarlostoro 9y ago
I only mentioned the copyright thing, because whatever site archives YouTube videos shouldn't focus on archiving all of YouTube just specific segments of it, though it might not be a bad idea to archive a good chunk of YouTube to avoid losing internet history / real world history. It'd be highly unlikely to be a factor if these videos were archived at politically targeted / history preserving archive sites though.

Spivak 9y ago

Like, Nickelback is in the original footage or someone overalyed the track on top of the footage? I would imagine if this ever really happened it would be fine in the former, and muted in the latter. You're forgetting that 'promote...' means give the creator control of that content for the purpose of limiting access and making money. Promote in the sense that it becomes possible to actually sell artistic works like commodities. And then once the value has ben extracted the public can do what they please with it.

josinalvo 9y ago
And we just need 140 years to extract it! :P
oh_sigh 9y ago
Not quite on the level of concentration camp liberation videos, but wasn't there a video of a 2 year old dancing that had like a 20 second clip of some popular song playing on the radio in very low quality in the background, and it got deleted for copyright infringement? I think this was the video, but it is obviously back up now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
tripzilch 9y ago
> Like, Nickelback is in the original footage or someone overalyed the track on top of the footage? I would imagine if this ever really happened it would be fine in the former, and muted in the latter. While I agree that would be the most sensible course of action, if this in reality happened right now, the whole video would be deleted in both cases, automatically (assuming it's clear enough to trigger detection in the first example).
- softawre 9y ago
  Nope, today they mute the audio.

giancarlostoro 9y ago

I only mentioned the copyright thing, because whatever site archives YouTube videos shouldn't focus on archiving all of YouTube just specific segments of it, though it might not be a bad idea to archive a good chunk of YouTube to avoid losing internet history / real world history. It'd be highly unlikely to be a factor if these videos were archived at politically targeted / history preserving archive sites though.