3 ms·

> "Nearly every stylistic decision you see about the channel — the length of the clips, the number of examples, which studios’ films we chose, the way narration

> "Nearly every stylistic decision you see about the channel — the length of the clips, the number of examples, which studios’ films we chose, the way narration and clip audio weave together, the reordering and flipping of shots, the remixing of 5.1 audio, the rhythm and pacing of the overall video — all of that was reverse-engineered from YouTube’s Copyright ID." Copyright and the rabid defense of IP by corporations shapes so much of what we're allowed to see and talk about and how we have to address those things. There's no telling how much better these already great videos would have been if they weren't shackled by fear of censorship or attack by media cartels. These guys had the time, skill, and energy to figure out how to work around the problem, but I can't help but wonder how much stuff we're missing out on because a system designed to encourage the creation and propagation of creative works has been perverted to control and suppress it instead.

nine_k 7y ago
No. If system == YouTube, then it does exactly what it was designed: makes money. For it, it has to play by the rules of copyright. If system == the internet, it was not built to propagate creative works either, its purpose was reliable delivery of arbitrary data.
- autoexec 7y ago
  in this case the system isn't youtube or the internet, but our broken copyright system. Many of youtube's problems are caused by their attempts to alleviate increasing pressure from powerful media industry organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who insist that youtube must aggressively enforce their copyrights for them. I think youtube should do better than they have in their efforts, but I also appreciate their position. The internet as a whole suffers in its own ways because of these company's abuse of copyrights to control our access to our own culture such as the inclusion of DRM in standards like HTML and the pressures placed on ISPs to act as copyright police and ban their customers from having any access to the internet based on nothing more than the unproven accusations that a subscriber has circumvented a corporation's copyrights.
lopmotr 7y ago
Only if you're using other people's work. Make your own original content and there isn't nearly as much of a problem. Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? especially one that's only considered good because of all the money spent on marketing it.
- caf 7y ago
  If you don't consider Every Frame A Painting to be original work, then I think this is just one of those situations where there is so little common ground between two sides that there can never be any agreement.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    I'm not sure you should even bother framing things in terms of "common ground" or "two sides" when it's clear that one party is trying to define original work so narrowly that it's doubtful anything could qualify.
- autoexec 7y ago
  > Only if you're using other people's work. Many people have had their videos censored without violating any copyrights at all. Many many more have had their original content removed for what would clearly fall under fair use. I haven't seen a case where a large media company has ever been meaningfully punished for blatant abuse of the DMCA. > Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? Who says someone should be able to buy the rights to profit off someone else's work and then continue to profit on it indefinitely? It's in our power to choose what copyright means. Right now we've ceded that power to media companies who have bribed their way into getting the laws they want passed and into positions of power within our government itself. They've used that power to turn a good idea (limited protections to give creators a chance to profit from their works) into the broken system we have now where copyrights are perpetually extended and creators are routinely screwed over by massive corporations who want to act as gatekeepers.
  - lopmotr 7y ago

nine_k 7y ago

No. If system == YouTube, then it does exactly what it was designed: makes money. For it, it has to play by the rules of copyright. If system == the internet, it was not built to propagate creative works either, its purpose was reliable delivery of arbitrary data.

autoexec 7y ago
in this case the system isn't youtube or the internet, but our broken copyright system. Many of youtube's problems are caused by their attempts to alleviate increasing pressure from powerful media industry organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who insist that youtube must aggressively enforce their copyrights for them. I think youtube should do better than they have in their efforts, but I also appreciate their position. The internet as a whole suffers in its own ways because of these company's abuse of copyrights to control our access to our own culture such as the inclusion of DRM in standards like HTML and the pressures placed on ISPs to act as copyright police and ban their customers from having any access to the internet based on nothing more than the unproven accusations that a subscriber has circumvented a corporation's copyrights.

lopmotr 7y ago

Only if you're using other people's work. Make your own original content and there isn't nearly as much of a problem. Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? especially one that's only considered good because of all the money spent on marketing it.

caf 7y ago
If you don't consider Every Frame A Painting to be original work, then I think this is just one of those situations where there is so little common ground between two sides that there can never be any agreement.
- wtallis 7y ago
  I'm not sure you should even bother framing things in terms of "common ground" or "two sides" when it's clear that one party is trying to define original work so narrowly that it's doubtful anything could qualify.
autoexec 7y ago
> Only if you're using other people's work. Many people have had their videos censored without violating any copyrights at all. Many many more have had their original content removed for what would clearly fall under fair use. I haven't seen a case where a large media company has ever been meaningfully punished for blatant abuse of the DMCA. > Who says everyone should have the right to profit off somebody else's work? Who says someone should be able to buy the rights to profit off someone else's work and then continue to profit on it indefinitely? It's in our power to choose what copyright means. Right now we've ceded that power to media companies who have bribed their way into getting the laws they want passed and into positions of power within our government itself. They've used that power to turn a good idea (limited protections to give creators a chance to profit from their works) into the broken system we have now where copyrights are perpetually extended and creators are routinely screwed over by massive corporations who want to act as gatekeepers.
- lopmotr 7y ago