4 ms·

There's a bit of conflicting verbiage around this, but the 'copyright notices' that are mentioned in the linked article aren't actually DMCA takedown requests;

There's a bit of conflicting verbiage around this, but the 'copyright notices' that are mentioned in the linked article aren't actually DMCA takedown requests; they're Content ID matches. The Content ID system is a private arrangement between Youtube and various rightsholders, and it allows them to assert control without the legal repercussions involved in DMCA claims. The EFF has another article[0] which goes into more detail on the two systems, but I found that to be a bit confusing as well - it seems to conflate the two systems at times. [0]: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...

abritinthebay 9y ago
And this enabling of nonsense is why I refuse to use YouTube to host anything. Those provisions in the DMCA were about the only good thing in it, providing a way to sidestep the consequences of this kind of action has been immeasurably toxic and the fault lies squarely with YouTube and Google
- bringtheaction 9y ago
  I recently read about a decentralized alternative to YouTube called DTube. https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/ https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/3/7/17087668/steemit-dtube-bitchute-youtube-purge https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/3/7/17087668/steem... It’s built on STEEM and IPFS. > DTube is an application fully written in javascript, that runs in the browser, that allows you to upload and watch videos on top of the IPFS Network. Moreover, it uses STEEM as a database and enables earning [...] https://steemkr.com/video/@heimindanger/introducing-dtube-a-decentralized-video-platform-using-steem-and-ipfs https://steemkr.com/video/@heimindanger/introducing-dtube-a-...
  - allthenews 9y ago
    There is also lbry, a decentralized media hosting platform based on cryptocurrency. Although I'm still not convinced that the crypto is necessary here...
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      It’s rarely necessary
    - geofft 9y ago
      Depends what "cryptocurrency" means. If it's proof-of-work, it's only meaningful if there's an actual double-spend problem in the problem domain, otherwise it's just waste and buzzword. If it doesn't solve proof-of-work, it could make sense—there are lots of production systems that use technologies also used in cryptocurrencies, like Merkle trees for Certificate Transparency and for Chrome OS image signing—but "cryptocurrency" is misleading.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        A lot of places use blockchain as some kind of "all you have is a hammer" solution to hashing. Which... I mean in some (rare) cases is a good thing but is usually - as far as I can see - just a way to get VC money or buzz by saying "we use crypto".
        geofft 9y ago
        Right, and it's also usually significantly more inefficient than just using normal cryptography, so it seems like it's a long-term negative. For lbry itself it looks like they're using coins for actual payments to creators, which seems like it's a worthwhile project (and definitely has the double-spend problem), but it's not clear to me that it needs to be connected with the content distribution problem.
    - kauffj 9y ago
      A blockchain is necessary because there is no other method of having a shared, distributed database of digital content that is not owned or controlled by a single party.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    Honestly, that sounds a lot like the slow and tremendously unreliable P2P services that used to be popular before BitTorrent came out. Gnutella for web 2.0.
    - bringtheaction 9y ago
      I thought so too originally but if you go to the site it’s actually acceptably fast IMO.
mtgx 9y ago
Somewhat tangential, I think it was also Cory Doctorow or Larry Lessig arguing that DRM is bad because it goes beyond what the law requires (especially in relation to blocking all fair use). This is similar in that Google goes beyond what the law requires to appease certain content providers. People should start boycotting YouTube in the same way they have started boycotting Facebook. We won't see a major shift overnight, but eventually enough of us will do it and Google, like most other companies, will only notice when it's too late to do anything about it. Vote with your feet/clicks and plead with indie creators to switch to a different platform (such as D.tube, for instance, but any would work).
- ploxiln 9y ago
  Youtube was in perpetual high-cost lawsuits until they implemented Content ID to media conglomerates' satisfaction. The problem is the law.
  - jkaplowitz 9y ago
    At least in the US, they tended to win those lawsuits, thanks to the fact that online content hosts receive a liability safe harbor if they comply with the DMCA provisions around takedowns and terminating repeat infringers. This was one of the good details of the DMCA, although other countries implementing the WIPO Internet Treaty may have done a less hoster-friendly job. Unless the problem was lawsuits outside the US or they wanted to make the US lawsuit nuisance go away (both entirely possible!), I imagine they started playing nice with the media conglomerates so as to be able to offer Google Play Music, Movies, and Books, for all of which they need licenses. Note for anyone who looks at my profile and sees Google among my former employers: I never worked for YouTube, Google Play, or Google legal and had no involvement with these decisions. I'm not speaking based on inside information or otherwise speaking for Google here.
    - ploxiln 9y ago
      Yeah, they won, but it still cost many millions ... I guess I mean the flaw is with the judicial system. But you have a great point, the media conglomerates could with-hold cooperation which Google needed for Google Play, so Google needed to make them happy anyway ...

abritinthebay 9y ago

And this enabling of nonsense is why I refuse to use YouTube to host anything. Those provisions in the DMCA were about the only good thing in it, providing a way to sidestep the consequences of this kind of action has been immeasurably toxic and the fault lies squarely with YouTube and Google

bringtheaction 9y ago
I recently read about a decentralized alternative to YouTube called DTube. https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/ https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/3/7/17087668/steemit-dtube-bitchute-youtube-purge https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/3/7/17087668/steem... It’s built on STEEM and IPFS. > DTube is an application fully written in javascript, that runs in the browser, that allows you to upload and watch videos on top of the IPFS Network. Moreover, it uses STEEM as a database and enables earning [...] https://steemkr.com/video/@heimindanger/introducing-dtube-a-decentralized-video-platform-using-steem-and-ipfs https://steemkr.com/video/@heimindanger/introducing-dtube-a-...
- allthenews 9y ago
  There is also lbry, a decentralized media hosting platform based on cryptocurrency. Although I'm still not convinced that the crypto is necessary here...
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    It’s rarely necessary
  - geofft 9y ago
    Depends what "cryptocurrency" means. If it's proof-of-work, it's only meaningful if there's an actual double-spend problem in the problem domain, otherwise it's just waste and buzzword. If it doesn't solve proof-of-work, it could make sense—there are lots of production systems that use technologies also used in cryptocurrencies, like Merkle trees for Certificate Transparency and for Chrome OS image signing—but "cryptocurrency" is misleading.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      A lot of places use blockchain as some kind of "all you have is a hammer" solution to hashing. Which... I mean in some (rare) cases is a good thing but is usually - as far as I can see - just a way to get VC money or buzz by saying "we use crypto".
      - geofft 9y ago
        Right, and it's also usually significantly more inefficient than just using normal cryptography, so it seems like it's a long-term negative. For lbry itself it looks like they're using coins for actual payments to creators, which seems like it's a worthwhile project (and definitely has the double-spend problem), but it's not clear to me that it needs to be connected with the content distribution problem.
  - kauffj 9y ago
    A blockchain is necessary because there is no other method of having a shared, distributed database of digital content that is not owned or controlled by a single party.
- jandrese 9y ago
  Honestly, that sounds a lot like the slow and tremendously unreliable P2P services that used to be popular before BitTorrent came out. Gnutella for web 2.0.
  - bringtheaction 9y ago
    I thought so too originally but if you go to the site it’s actually acceptably fast IMO.

mtgx 9y ago

Somewhat tangential, I think it was also Cory Doctorow or Larry Lessig arguing that DRM is bad because it goes beyond what the law requires (especially in relation to blocking all fair use). This is similar in that Google goes beyond what the law requires to appease certain content providers. People should start boycotting YouTube in the same way they have started boycotting Facebook. We won't see a major shift overnight, but eventually enough of us will do it and Google, like most other companies, will only notice when it's too late to do anything about it. Vote with your feet/clicks and plead with indie creators to switch to a different platform (such as D.tube, for instance, but any would work).

ploxiln 9y ago
Youtube was in perpetual high-cost lawsuits until they implemented Content ID to media conglomerates' satisfaction. The problem is the law.
- jkaplowitz 9y ago
  At least in the US, they tended to win those lawsuits, thanks to the fact that online content hosts receive a liability safe harbor if they comply with the DMCA provisions around takedowns and terminating repeat infringers. This was one of the good details of the DMCA, although other countries implementing the WIPO Internet Treaty may have done a less hoster-friendly job. Unless the problem was lawsuits outside the US or they wanted to make the US lawsuit nuisance go away (both entirely possible!), I imagine they started playing nice with the media conglomerates so as to be able to offer Google Play Music, Movies, and Books, for all of which they need licenses. Note for anyone who looks at my profile and sees Google among my former employers: I never worked for YouTube, Google Play, or Google legal and had no involvement with these decisions. I'm not speaking based on inside information or otherwise speaking for Google here.
  - ploxiln 9y ago
    Yeah, they won, but it still cost many millions ... I guess I mean the flaw is with the judicial system. But you have a great point, the media conglomerates could with-hold cooperation which Google needed for Google Play, so Google needed to make them happy anyway ...