6 ms·

All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for thi

by iameli 5y ago

All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for this restriction." Translation: "We have no idea if you actually own this content or not, but it would be _way too expensive_ for us to find out for sure! So you're out of luck, but don't worry — it's all worth it so we can make sure children can't stream Marvel movies from Google Drive! Thank you for your contributions to Disney+'s bottom line."

JamesBarney 5y ago
It'd be nice if the law had a escrow appeal process. Alleged violator now posts a $100 escrow, now accuser has to do the same. Then Google reviews it, makes a decision, and loser has to pay for it.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  Sounds like some shenanigans you’d see on a blockchain. Though, if a blockchain did something like that to reverse a transaction, that’d be amazing.
- amne 5y ago
  It should be the other way around. The claimant must "bet" $100 that he owns the copyright. Then the defendant can call the bluff and say "I raise $100000 that you do not in fact own this output04.txt file with a 1 in it". If the the claimant still thinks he can win he can call the $100k and prove ownership. Otherwise the defendant just made $100. How cool would that be?
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    An observation made by shrewd businesspeople throughout history is that you can only trust money. No amount of words, documents, statements, etc... matter unless someone is willing to put up real cash. If there are no consequences, then by definition misdeeds aren't punished and will be effectively incentivised. E.g.: You can trust a legally enforced warranty with full refunds guaranteed by the government, because it costs real money to the manufacturer. You can't trust a "Best Quality!" sticker. It basically costs nothing. It's just words. Copyright protection laws are the same kind of thing. While the marginal cost of enforcement is zero, there is similarly zero incentive to do it correctly and respectfully of the law. If there was enforced financial penalties for each screw up, then it is assured that any errors like this will be ironed out very quickly. No penalty? No bug fixing!
  - kofejnik 5y ago
    Bloody brilliant, and of course will never happen
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Wicher 5y ago
  > Then Google reviews it, makes a decision, and loser has to pay for it. I'm afraid they'll have incentives to automate that review, and then simply repeat that you can't appeal. Now you still can't access your file AND you're out of a $100 :-/
vidarh 5y ago
A legal requirement to provide an appeals process for automated decisions would be a good step. Many places have restrictions like that for limited things like loan decisions, but it's about time to start forcing companies to provide a manual appeals process for other types of decisions that can significantly affect people.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  A legal requirement that disallows removing content until the claim has been proved would be sensible.
PostOnce 5y ago
Disney robbed us, our children, their children, and possibly generations beyond that with their more-than-a-century copyright terms. I thought about posting this comment the other day and decided not to, but your mention of Disney+ stirred the idea in me again. We have so much modern media about Dracula, Sherlock, Cthulhu, etc, a thousand flowers bloom... new movies, new games, new art of all kinds. Disney & friends stole that from us. We won't have a million new takes on (for example) The Hobbit for decades because of them. We have copyright terms of up to 120 years... stuff like Pong was made before I was born and won't be public domain until long after I'm dead. Disney kills culture by ensuring that by the time the copyright expires, no one cares anymore, because no-one was exposed to it in the many decades after it's initial-release profitability (think abandonware, not-in-print books, etc). I think this is true for 99.999% of all works, not the outliers that the corporation milked for a century or more.
- op00to 5y ago
  Man, what a bummer. People have to come up with new ideas rather than rehashing old ones. How will we ever stay entertained?
  - mahogany 5y ago
    Except... Disney heavily relies on rehashing old ideas from the public domain. That same public domain that they fight against. If the Brothers Grimm were still under copyright, would Disney even have been started? For example, you may want to take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...
    - yissp 5y ago
      Huh, Snow White (1937) was released 74 years after the death of Jacob Grimm (1863). Didn't Disney lobby for the extension of copyright to 70 years after the author's death? I wonder if that's why they decided on that number.
  - andybak 5y ago
eterm 5y ago
Not just own, but you can't even license the use of copyrighted works because even if you were somehow licensed the automatons will take over and you'll get flagged off the internet anyway. We've gone from copyright as a mechanism for sharing works and licensing others to a situation where there are the in-group, the big media corporations who are allowed to license and remix content, and a sub-class who essentially are not.
kaetemi 5y ago
So Google Drive is not an option for safely storing documents that you don't want to lose. And by extension, Google Docs is equally dangerous.
- jfoster 5y ago
  Yeah, based on this, any GSuite presentation containing a logo seems like it might meet Google's criteria for getting blocked.
  - rattray 5y ago
    Or, like, a quote. Yikes.
yeetaccount4 5y ago
Fuck that, you’re the big game in town, you get the big bitches. Fix your shit.

by iameli 5y ago

JamesBarney 5y ago

It'd be nice if the law had a escrow appeal process. Alleged violator now posts a $100 escrow, now accuser has to do the same. Then Google reviews it, makes a decision, and loser has to pay for it.

withinboredom 5y ago
Sounds like some shenanigans you’d see on a blockchain. Though, if a blockchain did something like that to reverse a transaction, that’d be amazing.
amne 5y ago
It should be the other way around. The claimant must "bet" $100 that he owns the copyright. Then the defendant can call the bluff and say "I raise $100000 that you do not in fact own this output04.txt file with a 1 in it". If the the claimant still thinks he can win he can call the $100k and prove ownership. Otherwise the defendant just made $100. How cool would that be?
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  An observation made by shrewd businesspeople throughout history is that you can only trust money. No amount of words, documents, statements, etc... matter unless someone is willing to put up real cash. If there are no consequences, then by definition misdeeds aren't punished and will be effectively incentivised. E.g.: You can trust a legally enforced warranty with full refunds guaranteed by the government, because it costs real money to the manufacturer. You can't trust a "Best Quality!" sticker. It basically costs nothing. It's just words. Copyright protection laws are the same kind of thing. While the marginal cost of enforcement is zero, there is similarly zero incentive to do it correctly and respectfully of the law. If there was enforced financial penalties for each screw up, then it is assured that any errors like this will be ironed out very quickly. No penalty? No bug fixing!
- kofejnik 5y ago
  Bloody brilliant, and of course will never happen
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Wicher 5y ago
> Then Google reviews it, makes a decision, and loser has to pay for it. I'm afraid they'll have incentives to automate that review, and then simply repeat that you can't appeal. Now you still can't access your file AND you're out of a $100 :-/

vidarh 5y ago

A legal requirement to provide an appeals process for automated decisions would be a good step. Many places have restrictions like that for limited things like loan decisions, but it's about time to start forcing companies to provide a manual appeals process for other types of decisions that can significantly affect people.

raxxorrax 5y ago
A legal requirement that disallows removing content until the claim has been proved would be sensible.

PostOnce 5y ago

Disney robbed us, our children, their children, and possibly generations beyond that with their more-than-a-century copyright terms. I thought about posting this comment the other day and decided not to, but your mention of Disney+ stirred the idea in me again. We have so much modern media about Dracula, Sherlock, Cthulhu, etc, a thousand flowers bloom... new movies, new games, new art of all kinds. Disney & friends stole that from us. We won't have a million new takes on (for example) The Hobbit for decades because of them. We have copyright terms of up to 120 years... stuff like Pong was made before I was born and won't be public domain until long after I'm dead. Disney kills culture by ensuring that by the time the copyright expires, no one cares anymore, because no-one was exposed to it in the many decades after it's initial-release profitability (think abandonware, not-in-print books, etc). I think this is true for 99.999% of all works, not the outliers that the corporation milked for a century or more.

op00to 5y ago
Man, what a bummer. People have to come up with new ideas rather than rehashing old ones. How will we ever stay entertained?
- mahogany 5y ago
  Except... Disney heavily relies on rehashing old ideas from the public domain. That same public domain that they fight against. If the Brothers Grimm were still under copyright, would Disney even have been started? For example, you may want to take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...
  - yissp 5y ago
    Huh, Snow White (1937) was released 74 years after the death of Jacob Grimm (1863). Didn't Disney lobby for the extension of copyright to 70 years after the author's death? I wonder if that's why they decided on that number.
- andybak 5y ago

eterm 5y ago

Not just own, but you can't even license the use of copyrighted works because even if you were somehow licensed the automatons will take over and you'll get flagged off the internet anyway. We've gone from copyright as a mechanism for sharing works and licensing others to a situation where there are the in-group, the big media corporations who are allowed to license and remix content, and a sub-class who essentially are not.

kaetemi 5y ago

So Google Drive is not an option for safely storing documents that you don't want to lose. And by extension, Google Docs is equally dangerous.

jfoster 5y ago
Yeah, based on this, any GSuite presentation containing a logo seems like it might meet Google's criteria for getting blocked.
- rattray 5y ago
  Or, like, a quote. Yikes.

yeetaccount4 5y ago

Fuck that, you’re the big game in town, you get the big bitches. Fix your shit.