3 ms·

Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes? It's YouTube and Instagram that are brok

Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes? It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.

darkwater 5y ago
Because YT automated removal of copyrighted content here is just the loophole used by the police officer to avoid being recorded and published (which it's a citizen right in the US, according to the article). So it's the sergeant attitude the problem here, he would use another loophole if this one wasn't available. Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
- ballenf 5y ago
  I think both are fair readings here. There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP. Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other. The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.
deadbunny 5y ago
I could be wrong but doesn't YouTube just remove any monetisation from the uploader and assign it to the artist/label if it detects copyrighted music?
a9entroy 5y ago
Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced. You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Laws don't force YouTube to preemptively detect and demonetize or remove anything. They chose to do that.
acituan 5y ago
I have no doubt you will receive remarks about whataboutism, maybe rightly, but I find this peculiar too. On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
squeaky-clean 5y ago
It's copyright law that's broken. Youtube and etc are just an ugly stack of mismatched patterned band-aids covering a large infected wound that really needs antibiotics and not just bandaids.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I mean, I do take issue with that. But police officers behaving inappropriately is a MUCH larger problem, and so the focus on my concern.
lancesells 5y ago
I think you're reaching a little here. There are many, many things wrong with YouTube but just because someone found a hack on attempting to stop things from going viral doesn't mean they are really to blame here. Also, YouTube is not the internet or the world's preservation archive of video. It's a massive tv station from a massive ad company. I can't imagine there won't be a time where YouTube doesn't start deleting videos that are uploaded to their service just because they are taking up storage. So let's not give YouTube that power.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The video, including Taylor Swift music, is available on YouTube and has not been removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the system actually works.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  Right, the mistake was not playing Hotel California instead.
sixothree 5y ago
Can't a person be upset about both? Why do you need to present a distraction here?

darkwater 5y ago

Because YT automated removal of copyrighted content here is just the loophole used by the police officer to avoid being recorded and published (which it's a citizen right in the US, according to the article). So it's the sergeant attitude the problem here, he would use another loophole if this one wasn't available. Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?

ballenf 5y ago
I think both are fair readings here. There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP. Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other. The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.

deadbunny 5y ago

I could be wrong but doesn't YouTube just remove any monetisation from the uploader and assign it to the artist/label if it detects copyrighted music?

a9entroy 5y ago

Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced. You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.

nitrogen 5y ago
Laws don't force YouTube to preemptively detect and demonetize or remove anything. They chose to do that.

acituan 5y ago

I have no doubt you will receive remarks about whataboutism, maybe rightly, but I find this peculiar too. On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

squeaky-clean 5y ago

It's copyright law that's broken. Youtube and etc are just an ugly stack of mismatched patterned band-aids covering a large infected wound that really needs antibiotics and not just bandaids.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I mean, I do take issue with that. But police officers behaving inappropriately is a MUCH larger problem, and so the focus on my concern.

lancesells 5y ago

I think you're reaching a little here. There are many, many things wrong with YouTube but just because someone found a hack on attempting to stop things from going viral doesn't mean they are really to blame here. Also, YouTube is not the internet or the world's preservation archive of video. It's a massive tv station from a massive ad company. I can't imagine there won't be a time where YouTube doesn't start deleting videos that are uploaded to their service just because they are taking up storage. So let's not give YouTube that power.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The video, including Taylor Swift music, is available on YouTube and has not been removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmZmo81Cdcc I suspect the idea that they can play music in the background to prevent YouTube views is a misconception about how the system actually works.

slowmovintarget 5y ago
Right, the mistake was not playing Hotel California instead.

sixothree 5y ago

Can't a person be upset about both? Why do you need to present a distraction here?