2 ms·

In a similar fashion imagine if you created a book and then streamed yourself reading it out loud for 5 hours in 1 video and then someone came in and cut that 5

by nickjj 7y ago

In a similar fashion imagine if you created a book and then streamed yourself reading it out loud for 5 hours in 1 video and then someone came in and cut that 5 hour audio book up into 100x 5-10 minute clips where you talk about a specific point and put it all up on Youtube. And now they are making $15,000 a month from the millions of views it's getting because they did a good job with titling everything. At this point they've even overshadowed your own content because Youtube's search algorithm prefers 100+ smaller videos with really good titles vs 1x 5 hour video with 1 title and also most viewers on Youtube prefer the shorter clips. Who should be the owner of these clips? In this case the re-uploader isn't adding anything new to the content. They are deciding that from 15:31 until 23:17 the original content creator was talking about X subject, so they cut out that bit and put it directly into a new video. This is a really hard problem to solve because someone else might come in and cut that ~8 minute clip into 2x 4 minute clips or even change the offsets by a few seconds and now the file is completely different from a file size perspective. That's why you see all of those videos of people who record certain shows on TV and then frame it in a weird background with moving circles and other artifacts, or they reduce the audio playback speed to 90%. It's to get around Youtube being able to detect it's duplicate content from someone else.

dleslie 7y ago
It only became a hard problem to solve because: 1. The creation of the unlicensed audio book was tolerated 2. There is a presumption that the unlicensed audio book should be protected from derivative works that profit from it It's hard because the intolerance of derivatives works in (2) is inconsistent with the tolerance of the derivative work in (1); and so raises the question of when do unlicensed derivatives convert from tolerable to intolerable. This is outside of all but the most liberal interpretations of fair use, IMHO.

by nickjj 7y ago

dleslie 7y ago

It only became a hard problem to solve because: 1. The creation of the unlicensed audio book was tolerated 2. There is a presumption that the unlicensed audio book should be protected from derivative works that profit from it It's hard because the intolerance of derivatives works in (2) is inconsistent with the tolerance of the derivative work in (1); and so raises the question of when do unlicensed derivatives convert from tolerable to intolerable. This is outside of all but the most liberal interpretations of fair use, IMHO.