17 ms·

CBS gets YouTube review of 'Picard' taken down for using 26 seconds

339 points by Keverw 7y ago

riffic 7y ago
edit obviously I didn't catch a detail in my comment. Please stop downvoting this. Automation fails to discern fair use. The YouTuber should file a DMCA counterclaim, but many youtubers are unsophisticated enough in copyright law to do so.
- mfer 7y ago
  According to the article it was manual rather than automation. That this was an intentional act to take this down.
- ru552 7y ago
  This specifically has nothing to do with automation. The article clearly states that it was a manual take down initiated by a person.
  - riffic 7y ago
    Content ID plus an unsophisticated overworked "manual review" step may as well just be considered automated from a high level view. Who's to say the "person" doing the manual review isn't just a Mechanical Turker?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  YouTube does not make the DMCA counterclaim process available. Youtube give the copyright holder (or claimed copyright holder) who filed the original takedown the ultimate authority to process appeals themselves. (Which is horribly broken.)
- munk-a 7y ago
  The way YouTube does copyright claims is actually an extra-legal process that's strictly harsher than the DMCA - so usually there is no DMCA claim to counterclaim on. Additionally, strikes on accounts appear to be immutable and can seriously threaten a creator's revenue source so, while it sounds nice to encourage people to stand up for their rights, it's almost never in their interests to oppose the claim. Yes this absolutely is an issue where copyright owners can file baseless claims and assume they'll be obeyed anyways but trying to resist it as an individual is futile... honestly YouTubers need to unionize at some point and let their collective power force better enforcement rules for copyright violations.
warent 7y ago
I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a product of this caliber? That represents basically a full teaser trailer.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  What ratio of length-to-caliber is appropriate?
  - krustyburger 7y ago
    It’s all about how you use it.
- monadic2 7y ago
  It's clearly fair use.
- legitster 7y ago
  It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not that it should matter for the purposes of fair use. > especially for a product of this caliber Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?
  - JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
    I read this as larger entities have quicker response times for DMCAing their own IP. Not that larger entities have more rights, although I would expect in practice they do as they have more money for lawyers to get the law interpreted in their favor.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlying work as possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it, that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that probably warrants it.
monadic2 7y ago
At what point can you file a suit for bad faith DMCA claims?
- blackearl 7y ago
  I thought youtube had their own internal DMCA-lite process so you can't make use of DMCA abuse countermeasures
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    Ultimately I think the YT process leaves the door open for legal action by the creator against the claimant. Presumably most don't bother, because these are big big companies. They can feel secure in their bad faith claims, auto-rejection of appeals, and general abuse of the system to garnish monetization proceeds.
- veonik 7y ago
  At any point. You just gotta pay the retainer
- j-c-hewitt 7y ago
  You can file a counter claim through Youtube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney, because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are counter claimable. There is a tendency among people to misjudge their actual risk and whether or not they infringed, so it is unwise to file these counter claims without advice from an attorney. You can also file in your local jurisdiction for declaratory judgment if you receive a formal cease and desist notice, and if that C&D contains false claims then the plaintiff may be in trouble. A truly false and malicious DMCA claim can be countered with a defamation lawsuit as well. You can also sue someone for any reason ("It's Tuesday! I hate you! I'm suing you!") at any time, but that doesn't mean that you will win. Using short clips of the trailer for review purposes is clearly fair use. Often times, however, Youtubers think fair use protects them more than it actually does and do go overboard such as taking entire TV episodes and commenting over them. However different judges have seen the issue differently in different situations. So, if you really did infringe, but think you didn't, and file the counter claim, you are doomed, and copyright law is very generous to victorious plaintiffs.
lostmsu 7y ago
It has been restored, AFAIK.
- hawkesnest 7y ago
  Maybe because "Angry" Joe Vargas is more recognizable than the average...uh...Joe.
henryfjordan 7y ago
Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, posters are encouraged to just roll with the punches and be glad they get any money. Youtubers at this point will openly say "I'd show a clip but then I won't make money on this video" even when that clip would 100% be fair-use. Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie / Music publishers to either give them stronger tools than the DMCA provides or face a blackout from these major publishers. They wanted final control over their IP on Youtube and they got it, damn the law. If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear.
- adamc 7y ago
  Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.
  - quest88 7y ago
    What did they do wrong in this case?
    - chc 7y ago
      They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system
jsilence 7y ago
Please start using YT alternatives like for example lbry.tv.
- pedrocx486 7y ago
  Sure, but first the content creators I watch need to go there.
  - alias_neo 7y ago
    Then they need to make an LG WebOS (TV) app where my family does 90% of our YouTube viewing. Edit: Really, a downvote? How do you expect wide spread adoption 9f an alternative service if the apps for normal-user devices (TVs) don't exist?
  - hungaropithecus 7y ago
    Most content creators have little incentive to go there because there's no money to be made, youtube is monetized by google. Maybe that's for the better and content creators who don't care for the money (or don't need it or can afford to share videos for the sake of sharing with the world) will share their videos outside youtube, and maybe maybe that'll naturally separate the wheat from the chaff..
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    How about everyone takes 90 days off watching youtube videos while people figure out what platforms, hopefully p2p, work best for different groups.
  - IronWolve 7y ago
    People are broadcasting to multiple platforms at the same time. People broadcast to facebook/periscope/youtube at the same time via 3rd party apps. There needs to be a way for these new content startups to allow broadcasting on multiple platforms. If a creator has to "upload" to each site, that going to turn them away from many alternatives. I toyed with the idea of a portal for crowdfunding clone, with a threaded feed, and other technologies that already exist. Then there are dozen(s) of funding ideas for the Creators and the site. The technology is there, the knowledge is there. But little interest from investors. All Reddit would need to do is create creators subs with crowdfunding and paywalled content, subscriptions, etc, and they could easily own the market. Linus is doing floatplane, so creators do see this big giant hole that is just waiting for someone to drive a truck and smash youtube. I just can't understand why the biggest problem and the simplest solutions, and nobody has done it yet. Its like fedex\amazon, after its launches, people go, duh, that was a good idea.
macinjosh 7y ago
I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers to realize the YouTube platform is failing them and in some cases it is pitted against them. When you get down to brass tacks they only care about their advertisers. CBS is a big advertiser and partner for YouTube so they and those like them will always win. Social and legal norms be damned I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way like: floatplane.com and watchnebula.com Support creators you care about or they may not be around much longer.
- VectorLock 7y ago
  It feels like most YouTubers know and have vocalized their issues with YouTube, but lack any viable alternatives. The benefits they get with YouTube with the large audience already using the platform and potential help the 'Suggestions' system on YouTube gives them outweigh the freedom they'd get from switching platforms.
  - zadkey 7y ago
    I agree, there is about to be a large market gap for streaming content creators. If someone had the team, the skill, and the funding they could effectively roll out a viable competitor to YouTube. I'm not sure how it would go exactly, but their advertising could very easily be centered around dodging the wrongs of YouTube.
    - VectorLock 7y ago
      You could do everything YouTube does, but better, and still have a hard time of it because content creators audiences are still on YouTube
      - gvx 7y ago
        There's also the high barrier to entry due to bandwidth and storage: you're not going to be able to compete with YouTube if you don't offer at least 1080p streaming which means you have to have a pretty hefty infrastructure in place before you can launch. And then the legal issues: as a scrappy new website, you're unlikely to be able to protect your users from large copyright holders, which in practice means new YouTube competitors will be even more quick to take down fair use videos than YouTube to prevent being sued out of existence. I've been thinking about building something like that for a long time, but I just don't see how it would be feasible in the current copyright system. The only solution I see would be sites like Dropout or Nebula(? not too familiar with it), where the platform is effectively the same as the content creator. This of course is inaccessible to the vast majority of smaller creators.
zxcvbn4038 7y ago
CBS All Access needs the publicity - good or bad, Joe guy is doing them a favor. Hulu has The Orville which I think has proven definitively that anyone can take the Star Trek formula and pump out a watchable show. Who needs CBS?
- rriepe 7y ago
  I'd argue that CBS can't, but they didn't really use the Star Trek formula for Picard. The Orville has definitely shown us it's the ideas which are cherished, not the IP.
  - fullshark 7y ago
    I also think the structure: self contained episodes, is why it works. Old star trek episodes were like bite sized scifi movies with usually at least one interesting idea within them. This long form spy thriller serial format is a drag if the overarching plot isn't really compelling.
- rkuykendall-com 7y ago
  The Orville is incredible. Anyone who saw the commercials and thought it was Family Guy in space needs to give it a chance. Seth MacFarlane has proven he can make a great Star Trek story without compromising his own brand of humor or interpersonal relationships. I can't wait until it comes back.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    Bonus: The switch from Fox to Hulu is because the third season wouldn't have been ready in time and Seth didn't want to compromise on quality.
raverbashing 7y ago
A good reminder to avoid doing free publicity of big copyright content. Sure, it's fair use, it's what people are talking about etc. Still, it's free publicity. If not, content creators should be very aware of possible abuses and should add anti-abuse language to their contracts, like this: https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-content/ https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-c...
- Keverw 7y ago
  I've heard that one popular channel accidentally sent a take down for their own content once, then some companies just scan for keywords. I forget where but remember reading that some blog was a take down because some studio ran a bot looking for keywords and assuming anything that mentions their movie titles is a download even though that site didn't host an actual downloads of the movie. So say for example you had a movies review blog, just mentioning the movie can cause some studios to flag it in bulk without reviewing your website or considering any fair use. Then even if you license royalty free music, there's bot's that flag it so you can to dispute even if you paid since they don't know you got a license, they just auto assume that you didn't. Then also sound loops so, like Garageband Loops [0] you are allowed to use them in a larger project, but not the loops standalone... but some songs use these loops and samples, so say some artist used a Apple Loop in their song and got popular to be part of ContentID, then that artist starts flagging content from Apple they never created in the first place. Sounds like YouTube requires your music doesn't contain third party licensed royal free stuff within them but sounds like they still get submitted to YouTube anyways. And this isn't just a Apple Garage Band problem, happens with other music programs too like FL Studio and a bunch of others. Wouldn't surprise me if two digital drums (I guess music programs call them "virtual instruments" sounded too much alike if it would be flagged either, since remember hearing nothing but white noise got flagged once... [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201808 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201808
  - emmelaich 7y ago
    The white noise was 10 hours of white noise. Read more here, from the author Sebastian Tomczak https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidex/2018/01/22/the-aftermath-of-the-white-noise-youtube-copyright-claims-a-qa-with-dr-sebastian-tomczak/ https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidex/2018/01/22/the-after...
BitwiseFool 7y ago
It was footage from a trailer so it's not like CBS is losing money from pirated footage. They give it away freely.
gkfasdfasdf 7y ago
Ironically, CBS literally posted the entire first episode for free on YouTube: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21115348/star-trek-picard-cbs-all-access-first-episode-free-watch-pilot https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21115348/star-trek-picard...
- nkingsy 7y ago
  with ads they make money from
mnm1 7y ago
The main assholes are Youtube, not CBS. CBS can request shit like this and they are expected to in today's copyright climate. Youtube clearly does not believe in fair use. That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter that fair use is protected by law or anything because Youtube can do what it wants with its platform. So fair use is essentially up to the platform. In other words, it really doesn't exist anymore for people who are not willing to host their own content.
- wostusername 7y ago
  Google does not have the power to determine if something is fair use or not, that is up to the courts. You might think something is fair use, and I might disagree. We are supposed to go to court and have a trial to determine which one of us is right. Google is not judge and jury, they can't make that determination.
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    Isn't the issue that they're depriving the user of income based solely on a non-legal (not not-legal) complaint? If YouTube really justed wanted to have people Duke it out in court, they wouldn't have their own system that is massively tilted towards the studios. They're effectively allowing one side to be judge and jury.
    - wostusername 7y ago
      There are two different processes here: the DMCA and ContentID. If YouTube receives a DMCA request it will take the video down immediately (in accordance to the law). However, you can counter the DMCA claim at which point the other party has to either drop it or sue you. ContentID is the non-legal system which essentially blocks or transfers monetization (copyright holder's choice) for any detected copyrighted work in YouTube's database. YouTube developed it to avoid fighting studios. Since there are no objective standards to determine if something is fair use or not, instead it's a bunch of factors that are all supposed to be weighted against each other by a judge, there is no way for YouTube to determine if something is legal infringement of copyright (Fair Use) or illegal infringement of copyright. The solution here for YouTube is to be conservative and not allow any infringement against the rights holder's wishes. It's not a great system, but I understand why it is the way it is, and I'm not sure how or even if it could be changed.
anewguy9000 7y ago
apologies in antecessum for this post not exploring specifics or explicating a rigorous knock-down philosophical argument for its conclusion, but f cbs and f youtube.
sharpneli 7y ago
Companies typically do this to censor reviews. Is Picard really so crappy of a show that they have to resort to this?
- deadbunny 7y ago
  Indeed it is.
nimbius 7y ago
from TFA this was a manual takedown, meaning CBS had someone in meatspace take this down. If i had to guess why this happened its two reasons: - Joe had a negative review of the show, and made several valid points about its lackluster writing and dialogue. - CBS' streaming service, "All Access" is getting hammered by critics on reddit and blogs. Even after gobbling up Nickelodeon kids programming its still underperforming. A week after Picard aired, CBS released the first episode on Youtube free of charge in order to drum up business. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly-misplayed-their-hand-by-making-star-trek-discovery-a-paid-streaming-exclusive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly... https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16862278/cbs-all-access-star-trek-discovery-streaming-service-analysis https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16862278/cbs-all-access-s...
danso 7y ago
It's interesting that Angry Joe got taken down; AFAIK, RedLetterMedia's review didn't get taken down, and it featured decent chunks of non-trailer footage (not sure if any of them were 10+ seconds consecutively) [0]. And, like AJ's, it was a very negative review. I don't doubt AJ was the victim of manual review, I'm just surprised RLM wouldn't be on CBS's shit list as well. (and tangentially: both are right; the "Picard" show is depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep, but it had more gratuitous (and cheap looking) martial arts action than several seasons of TNG.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I
- modzu 7y ago
  its funny how some execs can slap the name on something and anyone expects it to be anything like what was the labor of roddenberry's life. can a bunch of people get together in a room and release a new "elvis" album cuz the name is owned by some studio?
  - danso 7y ago
    DS9 was created without Roddenberry's involvement. And to your point, it severely clashed with his original vision, particularly the inherent non-exploration built into the setting and the dark interpersonal conflicts. But it's arguably still very good – even if you dismiss the later seasons as being too serial and warfare-oriented. "Picard" imho is an across-the-board downgrade, carried only by the sentiments the fanbase has for Capt. Picard.
    - BitwiseFool 7y ago
      DS9 still had a lot of respect for the 'source material' so to speak. New Trek just wants to keep the iconography and tell whatever kind of story they feel like.
      - furgooswft13 7y ago
        Yes. DS9 dealt with the realities of Roddenberry's vision when dealing with alien races that do not buy into it _and_ share your backyard, and an existential threat that was unable to be neutralized by technobabble after a single episode. This is why, for instance, In the Pale Moonlight was so good. Sisko's actions went against the entire concept he had of himself as the goodguy Starfleet officer (a paragon of virtue!), and it _tore him up inside_. In any other show (and Star Treks since Enterprise), it would have been yet another "dark moment", probably followed by a torture scene. DS9 never abandoned the Roddenberry ideal in favor of "dark edgy and xplosions", as RLM kind of alludes to in their video. Instead they showed it as an ideal worth striving for, but complicated in the absolute and in extreme circumstances. Previous Star Trek's did this on occasion too, but never admitted it to themselves, which is something much easier to do when everything is reset after the end of each episode (looking at you Voyager).
generalpass 7y ago
YouTube can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't change the fact that Picard is DOA. I can't wait for them to completely destroy every franchise so they are forced to be creative and come up with something new.
thatGuy0000 7y ago
I think they must have put more effort into getting that review taken down than they put into the entire series so far.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m463 7y ago
All this controversy has brought the film to my attention. Intentional?
sabujp 7y ago
why is this on hn vs all the other illegal takedowns and youtube drama that happens on a daily basis? oh because it's star trek.
shadow-banned 7y ago
I truly believe stuff like this is contributing to the rise of socialism. There's no nuance left in anything, anymore.

339 points by Keverw 7y ago

edit obviously I didn't catch a detail in my comment. Please stop downvoting this. Automation fails to discern fair use. The YouTuber should file a DMCA counterclaim, but many youtubers are unsophisticated enough in copyright law to do so.

mfer 7y ago
According to the article it was manual rather than automation. That this was an intentional act to take this down.
ru552 7y ago
This specifically has nothing to do with automation. The article clearly states that it was a manual take down initiated by a person.
- riffic 7y ago
  Content ID plus an unsophisticated overworked "manual review" step may as well just be considered automated from a high level view. Who's to say the "person" doing the manual review isn't just a Mechanical Turker?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 7y ago
YouTube does not make the DMCA counterclaim process available. Youtube give the copyright holder (or claimed copyright holder) who filed the original takedown the ultimate authority to process appeals themselves. (Which is horribly broken.)
munk-a 7y ago
The way YouTube does copyright claims is actually an extra-legal process that's strictly harsher than the DMCA - so usually there is no DMCA claim to counterclaim on. Additionally, strikes on accounts appear to be immutable and can seriously threaten a creator's revenue source so, while it sounds nice to encourage people to stand up for their rights, it's almost never in their interests to oppose the claim. Yes this absolutely is an issue where copyright owners can file baseless claims and assume they'll be obeyed anyways but trying to resist it as an individual is futile... honestly YouTubers need to unionize at some point and let their collective power force better enforcement rules for copyright violations.

warent 7y ago

I really dislike DMCA takedowns, but am I the only one who thinks 26 seconds is actually quite a long time--especially for a product of this caliber? That represents basically a full teaser trailer.

pavel_lishin 7y ago
What ratio of length-to-caliber is appropriate?
- krustyburger 7y ago
  It’s all about how you use it.
monadic2 7y ago
It's clearly fair use.
legitster 7y ago
It was a 40 minute video. 26 seconds is barely anything. Not that it should matter for the purposes of fair use. > especially for a product of this caliber Do more valuable IPs get more legal rights? Or is the implication that this property transcends normal importance?
- JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
  I read this as larger entities have quicker response times for DMCAing their own IP. Not that larger entities have more rights, although I would expect in practice they do as they have more money for lawyers to get the law interpreted in their favor.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  To use copyright material as fair-use you [edit: usually] need to transform the work or add value in some way. A reaction video where you show the full trailer and just say "wow" would not be protected. 40 minutes of discussion is almost certainly enough. There's a balance though, and the more "valuable" or "hot" the IP is the higher the bar is probably going to be set. You also have to use as little of the underlying work as possible. If this was a 30s trailer and he used 26s of it, that's a lot, but again 40m of discussion on top of that probably warrants it.

monadic2 7y ago

At what point can you file a suit for bad faith DMCA claims?

blackearl 7y ago
I thought youtube had their own internal DMCA-lite process so you can't make use of DMCA abuse countermeasures
- caconym_ 7y ago
  Ultimately I think the YT process leaves the door open for legal action by the creator against the claimant. Presumably most don't bother, because these are big big companies. They can feel secure in their bad faith claims, auto-rejection of appeals, and general abuse of the system to garnish monetization proceeds.
veonik 7y ago
At any point. You just gotta pay the retainer
j-c-hewitt 7y ago
You can file a counter claim through Youtube: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684?hl=en Generally this should be done under advice of an attorney, because these counter notices set a ticking clock of ten business days during which the copyright holder must either sue the Youtuber for copyright infringement or the complaint will be cancelled. Not all Youtube claims related to copyright are counter claimable. There is a tendency among people to misjudge their actual risk and whether or not they infringed, so it is unwise to file these counter claims without advice from an attorney. You can also file in your local jurisdiction for declaratory judgment if you receive a formal cease and desist notice, and if that C&D contains false claims then the plaintiff may be in trouble. A truly false and malicious DMCA claim can be countered with a defamation lawsuit as well. You can also sue someone for any reason ("It's Tuesday! I hate you! I'm suing you!") at any time, but that doesn't mean that you will win. Using short clips of the trailer for review purposes is clearly fair use. Often times, however, Youtubers think fair use protects them more than it actually does and do go overboard such as taking entire TV episodes and commenting over them. However different judges have seen the issue differently in different situations. So, if you really did infringe, but think you didn't, and file the counter claim, you are doomed, and copyright law is very generous to victorious plaintiffs.

lostmsu 7y ago

It has been restored, AFAIK.

hawkesnest 7y ago
Maybe because "Angry" Joe Vargas is more recognizable than the average...uh...Joe.

henryfjordan 7y ago

Youtube has it's own system outside of the DMCA to handle copyright claims in which the claimant has all the power. If the poster of a video wants to appeal a copyright claim, they appeal directly to the claimant who gets to decide. You can then appeal to YT directly (good luck with that) but in the meantime the claimant can issue a "strike" on your account. 3 strikes and you are out. So instead of fighting claims, posters are encouraged to just roll with the punches and be glad they get any money. Youtubers at this point will openly say "I'd show a clip but then I won't make money on this video" even when that clip would 100% be fair-use. Youtube designed this system after pressure from the major Movie / Music publishers to either give them stronger tools than the DMCA provides or face a blackout from these major publishers. They wanted final control over their IP on Youtube and they got it, damn the law. If they had to file real DMCA claims, these claims on obviously fair-use materials would disappear.

adamc 7y ago
Yep. Google is evil, like most other big companies. So it goes.
- quest88 7y ago
  What did they do wrong in this case?
  - chc 7y ago
    They intentionally created the system that allows this sort of abuse to happen? If you don't hold Google responsible for giving a few megacorps carte blanche to remove any content on YouTube that they don't like, who would you hold responsible?
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      Correct me if I’m wrong, but AFAIK, Google was legally required by the DMCA to make a Content ID system

jsilence 7y ago

Please start using YT alternatives like for example lbry.tv.

pedrocx486 7y ago
Sure, but first the content creators I watch need to go there.
- alias_neo 7y ago
  Then they need to make an LG WebOS (TV) app where my family does 90% of our YouTube viewing. Edit: Really, a downvote? How do you expect wide spread adoption 9f an alternative service if the apps for normal-user devices (TVs) don't exist?
- hungaropithecus 7y ago
  Most content creators have little incentive to go there because there's no money to be made, youtube is monetized by google. Maybe that's for the better and content creators who don't care for the money (or don't need it or can afford to share videos for the sake of sharing with the world) will share their videos outside youtube, and maybe maybe that'll naturally separate the wheat from the chaff..
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  How about everyone takes 90 days off watching youtube videos while people figure out what platforms, hopefully p2p, work best for different groups.
- IronWolve 7y ago
  People are broadcasting to multiple platforms at the same time. People broadcast to facebook/periscope/youtube at the same time via 3rd party apps. There needs to be a way for these new content startups to allow broadcasting on multiple platforms. If a creator has to "upload" to each site, that going to turn them away from many alternatives. I toyed with the idea of a portal for crowdfunding clone, with a threaded feed, and other technologies that already exist. Then there are dozen(s) of funding ideas for the Creators and the site. The technology is there, the knowledge is there. But little interest from investors. All Reddit would need to do is create creators subs with crowdfunding and paywalled content, subscriptions, etc, and they could easily own the market. Linus is doing floatplane, so creators do see this big giant hole that is just waiting for someone to drive a truck and smash youtube. I just can't understand why the biggest problem and the simplest solutions, and nobody has done it yet. Its like fedex\amazon, after its launches, people go, duh, that was a good idea.

macinjosh 7y ago

I am seriously surprised how long it is taking for YouTubers to realize the YouTube platform is failing them and in some cases it is pitted against them. When you get down to brass tacks they only care about their advertisers. CBS is a big advertiser and partner for YouTube so they and those like them will always win. Social and legal norms be damned I do get encouraged when I see some creators going their own way like: floatplane.com and watchnebula.com Support creators you care about or they may not be around much longer.

VectorLock 7y ago
It feels like most YouTubers know and have vocalized their issues with YouTube, but lack any viable alternatives. The benefits they get with YouTube with the large audience already using the platform and potential help the 'Suggestions' system on YouTube gives them outweigh the freedom they'd get from switching platforms.
- zadkey 7y ago
  I agree, there is about to be a large market gap for streaming content creators. If someone had the team, the skill, and the funding they could effectively roll out a viable competitor to YouTube. I'm not sure how it would go exactly, but their advertising could very easily be centered around dodging the wrongs of YouTube.
  - VectorLock 7y ago
    You could do everything YouTube does, but better, and still have a hard time of it because content creators audiences are still on YouTube
    - gvx 7y ago
      There's also the high barrier to entry due to bandwidth and storage: you're not going to be able to compete with YouTube if you don't offer at least 1080p streaming which means you have to have a pretty hefty infrastructure in place before you can launch. And then the legal issues: as a scrappy new website, you're unlikely to be able to protect your users from large copyright holders, which in practice means new YouTube competitors will be even more quick to take down fair use videos than YouTube to prevent being sued out of existence. I've been thinking about building something like that for a long time, but I just don't see how it would be feasible in the current copyright system. The only solution I see would be sites like Dropout or Nebula(? not too familiar with it), where the platform is effectively the same as the content creator. This of course is inaccessible to the vast majority of smaller creators.

zxcvbn4038 7y ago

CBS All Access needs the publicity - good or bad, Joe guy is doing them a favor. Hulu has The Orville which I think has proven definitively that anyone can take the Star Trek formula and pump out a watchable show. Who needs CBS?

rriepe 7y ago
I'd argue that CBS can't, but they didn't really use the Star Trek formula for Picard. The Orville has definitely shown us it's the ideas which are cherished, not the IP.
- fullshark 7y ago
  I also think the structure: self contained episodes, is why it works. Old star trek episodes were like bite sized scifi movies with usually at least one interesting idea within them. This long form spy thriller serial format is a drag if the overarching plot isn't really compelling.
rkuykendall-com 7y ago
The Orville is incredible. Anyone who saw the commercials and thought it was Family Guy in space needs to give it a chance. Seth MacFarlane has proven he can make a great Star Trek story without compromising his own brand of humor or interpersonal relationships. I can't wait until it comes back.
- Izkata 7y ago
  Bonus: The switch from Fox to Hulu is because the third season wouldn't have been ready in time and Seth didn't want to compromise on quality.

raverbashing 7y ago

A good reminder to avoid doing free publicity of big copyright content. Sure, it's fair use, it's what people are talking about etc. Still, it's free publicity. If not, content creators should be very aware of possible abuses and should add anti-abuse language to their contracts, like this: https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-content/ https://hacked.com/sony-filed-copyright-claim-man-licensed-c...

Keverw 7y ago
I've heard that one popular channel accidentally sent a take down for their own content once, then some companies just scan for keywords. I forget where but remember reading that some blog was a take down because some studio ran a bot looking for keywords and assuming anything that mentions their movie titles is a download even though that site didn't host an actual downloads of the movie. So say for example you had a movies review blog, just mentioning the movie can cause some studios to flag it in bulk without reviewing your website or considering any fair use. Then even if you license royalty free music, there's bot's that flag it so you can to dispute even if you paid since they don't know you got a license, they just auto assume that you didn't. Then also sound loops so, like Garageband Loops [0] you are allowed to use them in a larger project, but not the loops standalone... but some songs use these loops and samples, so say some artist used a Apple Loop in their song and got popular to be part of ContentID, then that artist starts flagging content from Apple they never created in the first place. Sounds like YouTube requires your music doesn't contain third party licensed royal free stuff within them but sounds like they still get submitted to YouTube anyways. And this isn't just a Apple Garage Band problem, happens with other music programs too like FL Studio and a bunch of others. Wouldn't surprise me if two digital drums (I guess music programs call them "virtual instruments" sounded too much alike if it would be flagged either, since remember hearing nothing but white noise got flagged once... [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201808 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201808
- emmelaich 7y ago
  The white noise was 10 hours of white noise. Read more here, from the author Sebastian Tomczak https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidex/2018/01/22/the-aftermath-of-the-white-noise-youtube-copyright-claims-a-qa-with-dr-sebastian-tomczak/ https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidex/2018/01/22/the-after...

BitwiseFool 7y ago

It was footage from a trailer so it's not like CBS is losing money from pirated footage. They give it away freely.

gkfasdfasdf 7y ago

Ironically, CBS literally posted the entire first episode for free on YouTube: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21115348/star-trek-picard-cbs-all-access-first-episode-free-watch-pilot https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/30/21115348/star-trek-picard...

nkingsy 7y ago
with ads they make money from

mnm1 7y ago

The main assholes are Youtube, not CBS. CBS can request shit like this and they are expected to in today's copyright climate. Youtube clearly does not believe in fair use. That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter that fair use is protected by law or anything because Youtube can do what it wants with its platform. So fair use is essentially up to the platform. In other words, it really doesn't exist anymore for people who are not willing to host their own content.

wostusername 7y ago
Google does not have the power to determine if something is fair use or not, that is up to the courts. You might think something is fair use, and I might disagree. We are supposed to go to court and have a trial to determine which one of us is right. Google is not judge and jury, they can't make that determination.
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  Isn't the issue that they're depriving the user of income based solely on a non-legal (not not-legal) complaint? If YouTube really justed wanted to have people Duke it out in court, they wouldn't have their own system that is massively tilted towards the studios. They're effectively allowing one side to be judge and jury.
  - wostusername 7y ago
    There are two different processes here: the DMCA and ContentID. If YouTube receives a DMCA request it will take the video down immediately (in accordance to the law). However, you can counter the DMCA claim at which point the other party has to either drop it or sue you. ContentID is the non-legal system which essentially blocks or transfers monetization (copyright holder's choice) for any detected copyrighted work in YouTube's database. YouTube developed it to avoid fighting studios. Since there are no objective standards to determine if something is fair use or not, instead it's a bunch of factors that are all supposed to be weighted against each other by a judge, there is no way for YouTube to determine if something is legal infringement of copyright (Fair Use) or illegal infringement of copyright. The solution here for YouTube is to be conservative and not allow any infringement against the rights holder's wishes. It's not a great system, but I understand why it is the way it is, and I'm not sure how or even if it could be changed.

anewguy9000 7y ago

apologies in antecessum for this post not exploring specifics or explicating a rigorous knock-down philosophical argument for its conclusion, but f cbs and f youtube.

sharpneli 7y ago

Companies typically do this to censor reviews. Is Picard really so crappy of a show that they have to resort to this?

deadbunny 7y ago
Indeed it is.

nimbius 7y ago

from TFA this was a manual takedown, meaning CBS had someone in meatspace take this down. If i had to guess why this happened its two reasons: - Joe had a negative review of the show, and made several valid points about its lackluster writing and dialogue. - CBS' streaming service, "All Access" is getting hammered by critics on reddit and blogs. Even after gobbling up Nickelodeon kids programming its still underperforming. A week after Picard aired, CBS released the first episode on Youtube free of charge in order to drum up business. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly-misplayed-their-hand-by-making-star-trek-discovery-a-paid-streaming-exclusive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/09/25/cbs-badly... https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16862278/cbs-all-access-star-trek-discovery-streaming-service-analysis https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16862278/cbs-all-access-s...

danso 7y ago

It's interesting that Angry Joe got taken down; AFAIK, RedLetterMedia's review didn't get taken down, and it featured decent chunks of non-trailer footage (not sure if any of them were 10+ seconds consecutively) [0]. And, like AJ's, it was a very negative review. I don't doubt AJ was the victim of manual review, I'm just surprised RLM wouldn't be on CBS's shit list as well. (and tangentially: both are right; the "Picard" show is depressingly bad and derivative. I've only watched the first ep, but it had more gratuitous (and cheap looking) martial arts action than several seasons of TNG.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQdf93e63I

modzu 7y ago
its funny how some execs can slap the name on something and anyone expects it to be anything like what was the labor of roddenberry's life. can a bunch of people get together in a room and release a new "elvis" album cuz the name is owned by some studio?
- danso 7y ago
  DS9 was created without Roddenberry's involvement. And to your point, it severely clashed with his original vision, particularly the inherent non-exploration built into the setting and the dark interpersonal conflicts. But it's arguably still very good – even if you dismiss the later seasons as being too serial and warfare-oriented. "Picard" imho is an across-the-board downgrade, carried only by the sentiments the fanbase has for Capt. Picard.
  - BitwiseFool 7y ago
    DS9 still had a lot of respect for the 'source material' so to speak. New Trek just wants to keep the iconography and tell whatever kind of story they feel like.
    - furgooswft13 7y ago
      Yes. DS9 dealt with the realities of Roddenberry's vision when dealing with alien races that do not buy into it _and_ share your backyard, and an existential threat that was unable to be neutralized by technobabble after a single episode. This is why, for instance, In the Pale Moonlight was so good. Sisko's actions went against the entire concept he had of himself as the goodguy Starfleet officer (a paragon of virtue!), and it _tore him up inside_. In any other show (and Star Treks since Enterprise), it would have been yet another "dark moment", probably followed by a torture scene. DS9 never abandoned the Roddenberry ideal in favor of "dark edgy and xplosions", as RLM kind of alludes to in their video. Instead they showed it as an ideal worth striving for, but complicated in the absolute and in extreme circumstances. Previous Star Trek's did this on occasion too, but never admitted it to themselves, which is something much easier to do when everything is reset after the end of each episode (looking at you Voyager).

generalpass 7y ago

YouTube can do whatever it wants, but it doesn't change the fact that Picard is DOA. I can't wait for them to completely destroy every franchise so they are forced to be creative and come up with something new.

thatGuy0000 7y ago

I think they must have put more effort into getting that review taken down than they put into the entire series so far.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

m463 7y ago

All this controversy has brought the film to my attention. Intentional?

sabujp 7y ago

why is this on hn vs all the other illegal takedowns and youtube drama that happens on a daily basis? oh because it's star trek.

shadow-banned 7y ago

I truly believe stuff like this is contributing to the rise of socialism. There's no nuance left in anything, anymore.