6 ms·

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC Not quite the full movie, but a substantial porti

by lovich 8y ago

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC Not quite the full movie, but a substantial portion and its certainly not being used under fair use doctrine like using these clips as examples to discuss film techniques or a parody. This took all of 5 seconds to find copyrighted content on youtube

realusername 8y ago
It's just extracts of 3min, you cannot compare that to a full movie.
- lovich 8y ago
  I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too
  - realusername 8y ago
    > I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. And how do you know exactly these short clips aren't just allowed and monetized by the copyright owners? > Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too It's exactly what they are doing now, it's called ContentID and it sucks (as expected).
icebraining 8y ago
Uh, those were uploaded by Fandango, a company that sells movie tickets, and which is itself owned by NBC and Warner. It's authorized content. All you've proven is that detecting copyright infringement is actually hard and not obvious as people here are claiming.
- lovich 8y ago
  ah, well there you go

by lovich 8y ago

realusername 8y ago

It's just extracts of 3min, you cannot compare that to a full movie.

lovich 8y ago
I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too
- realusername 8y ago
  > I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. And how do you know exactly these short clips aren't just allowed and monetized by the copyright owners? > Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too It's exactly what they are doing now, it's called ContentID and it sucks (as expected).

icebraining 8y ago

Uh, those were uploaded by Fandango, a company that sells movie tickets, and which is itself owned by NBC and Warner. It's authorized content. All you've proven is that detecting copyright infringement is actually hard and not obvious as people here are claiming.

lovich 8y ago
ah, well there you go