4 ms·
> No it makes it seem that the continuous running broadcast was ended. It doesnt suggest the account was banned permanently - "YouTube Bans Lofi Girl" would be
by bilekas 4y ago
> No it makes it seem that the continuous running broadcast was ended. It doesnt suggest the account was banned permanently - "YouTube Bans Lofi Girl" would be misleading if not a straight up lie.
Okay, your point is taken, I just read it initially as a ban, my mistake.
> Designing a system whereby the known copyright owner can be claimed against and the claim acted upon with zero review
Playing devils advocate here again but there is an unhuman amount of video content being uploaded daily and I have no insight into the quantity of claims made, but its safe to assume it's high given there is an automated processes for making claims, it seems reasonable to me that there is an automated process for 'reviewing' also..
It's not ideal but I'm sure they're struggling to find a solution too and not just being `nasty`.
- shapefrog 4y agoIf a video with 668,024,599 views that someone claims to own copyright to, along with all the revenue for doesnt trigger a human review, then nothing will. They arent even trying at that point. I expect that when the algo struck the content that revenue was moved from the account of Lofi Girl to the fradulant claimant.