4 ms·

> The thing is, we have to make sure we're OK with the consequences of going this way. Would people be happy to wait for days, maybe weeks, for their video to b

• colejohnson66 6y ago
  The media companies made sure that’ll never happen again :/ That’s how we got ContentID: to prevent music and video piracy.
  • feanaro 6y ago
    Why is it a foregone conclusion that we cannot unmake this?
  • syshum 6y ago
    That is why we need Copyright reform to take the teeth out of media companies. Return copyright in the US back to the original constitutional limits
    • kingsuper20 5y ago
      Never'll happen. “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” As I read it, the law should be formed to maximize progress, not to maximize value of an idea. But, a large amorphous group of citizens will never overcome a small, highly-concentrated self interested group. I doubt you'll ever see the copyright-opening version of the NRA or SPCA.
      • syshum 5y ago
        Well the google case put a huge dent in the prevailing idea that Maximum value / profit is the constitutional purpose. The court clearly held that profitability alone should not be a factor.
      • dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I doubt you'll ever see the copyright-opening version of the NRA Corrupt influence-peddling charlatans milking the rubes? Or was there something else intended by this analogy?
        • kingsuper20 5y ago
          Simply that the power of a highly focused group can be remarkable. Substitute 'NRA' for Big Pharma trade organization or Teachers' Union if you like.
      • int_19h 5y ago
        Groups like NRA are as powerful as they are, despite their relatively small membership numbers, because said membership is really dedicated to one particular issue, to the point of coordinated single-issue voting in the primaries. So if you can find enough people who are willing to vote solely on copyright in the primaries, it might actually work.
  • ttt0 6y ago
    That's its own thing and it's just as absurd as this, but this person got a strike for "violating harmful and dangerous policy". I don't upload any videos, but if their AI for reviewing videos is as bad as their AI for reviewing comments then both should be completely scrapped. Because it's not a regex matching or whatnot, but AI, it's impossible to predict which comment or a livechat message will get through. In practice it's virtually random. And the worst part is that they don't even bother to mention that your comment was 'problematic' to them, you have to have two windows open, one for posting and one on private mode to verify which of your comments actually showed up. Just as a disclaimer, I haven't tried it in a while, so maybe it's somewhat better now, I don't know.
  • Karunamon 6y ago
    Something I never quite understood... couldn't Google have just said "no" and required them to submit DMCA takedowns? The law doesn't require the level of broken proactivity that Youtube has.
    • ttt0 5y ago
      They don't care about your average Joe user. Just look at their search results and see what comes up. What they want is to transfer the 'legacy media' to their platforms.
    • MereInterest 5y ago
      They absolutely could have, and have been entirely within the rules of the DMCA. My best guess is that the ContentID system is either (a) a bribe to get media companies to partner with youtube's paid streaming, or (b) a bribe to convince media companies that it isn't worth lobbying yet again for stronger copyright monopolies.
    • sigstoat 5y ago
      google wants the content up. it is in their interests for there to be as much mundane fluffy ad-watch-generating content as possible. having it DMCA'd down is a problem for youtube. content id is how most of the material can stay up, the riaa can stay happy, and google can sell ads.