7 ms·

tl;dw: Fran is a YouTube creator (mostly electronics and space videos) and has been having ongoing issues with illegitimate copyright claims made against her Yo

by breput 4y ago

tl;dw: Fran is a YouTube creator (mostly electronics and space videos) and has been having ongoing issues with illegitimate copyright claims made against her YouTube videos, including NASA public domain content and the sound of wind(!). She even has the physical copy of one Apollo 12 scene which she telecine'd to digital, uploaded, and then an unclear party made a claim against that video which is currently successful. She also discusses "Visual Claim"[0] and how this will make things worse and how copyright trolls have nothing to lose with doubling down on illegitimate claims. One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube. That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7037712?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7037712?hl=en

CoastalCoder 4y ago
Does a false copyright claim qualify as Tortuous [spelling correction: Tortious] Interference with a Business Relationship, or Slander of Title? (IANAL, so I may be totally off base with those terms.)
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  Honest answer: it really just depends on how much money you can throw at the problem in a legal sense.
  - rolph 4y ago
    every court case requiring a copyright troll to defend itself, is one less case allowing a troll to attack someone unable to fend it off. tortuous interference with a business is a good angle to start from. malignant process or malfeasance may be possible as well.
- breput 4y ago
  She discusses that a little, as well. YouTube often does not share the name of the copyright claimant, and even if they do, it is sometimes a 3rd party who is acting on behalf of the actual copyright "holder". But the bottom line is that most individual creators could never justify the legal costs of fighting copyright claims.
  - rasz 4y ago
    Google will happily share full details of the claimant .. if requested by lawyer.
    - breput 4y ago
      Happily might be an overstatement. They will have to, obviously, but good luck getting it done easily ($$$) or quickly.
    - kfajdsl 4y ago
      But that takes $$$ and time and effort that just isn't worth it for small creators
      - gaius_baltar 4y ago
        And that's why it can work in countries with small claims, no lawyers or costs required to petition. Idea behind these courts is that people can represent themselves for a conciliatory session with a judge. The judge reach a verdict and, if a part does not accept, s/he can appeal (but now there are fees and lawyers required). Verdicts by default are possible if the part does not represent, however. This usually scales well because typical lawsuits are 1:1, and very uncommon for particular person. However, if a few thousand people sue Google on a small amount, a simple demand to repair monetary damages (this seems to have a different name every country), or co-name Google with a John Doe because Google has the information on Doe or is the only presence on that particular country, they will need to represent or risk a default. And the process won't scale on their side only. A legal and ethically correct DDoS on Google, but requires thousands of people motivated enough to navigate the bureaucratic depths. And Fran's comment about lawyering up is probably valid on USA where, AFAIK, the procedure for small claims is different.
        nightpool 4y ago
        Because copyright claims are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, rather then being a state-by-state matter, they are unfortunately out of the purview of small claims courts in the US, which are designed to hear state law claims only
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I don't think you need a separate tort - filing a false DMCA claim is already actionable. I think it carries 3x damages too. However, very few youtubers understand that they have strong legal remedies against false DMCA claims, and they can file counter-notifications fairly easily too (these undo the effects of the DMCA claim).
  - Nursie 4y ago
    Are youtube copyright claims actually DMCA claims anyway? Or are they just a youtube claim, without the same legal standing?
    - phibz 4y ago
      I believe they are DMCA claims. The exist because it grants youtube imunity in the process. Youtube had no incentive to get involved except for pissing off their content creators. If you can't counter claim/sue then get loud. Let your viewers know. Edit: reading in another thread that perhaps this is content ID. Not that, that is any better.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      No, they are "copyright takedown requests"
    - mlyle 4y ago
      After 2 "appeals" adjudicated by the original claimant, YouTube requires the original claimant to file a DMCA claim. But before this, no.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      They don't say that they are DMCA claims, but they are DMCA claims.
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there's a difference between a copyright claim and a "Content ID" claim. The former has an associated legal framework, but the latter was created through some agreement between Google and the media mob (MPAA, RIAA, etc.). https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    > Copyright owners are the ones who decide whether other people can reuse their copyrighted content. I thought that was Copyright law?
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Copyright law is the _framework_ that sets out how Copyright owners can decide who gets to use their content.
ge96 4y ago
> will never have a chance against YouTube I pay for a Vimeo account but almost no one watches my videos compared to YouTube.
- NavinF 4y ago
  Right, and if Vimeo became popular they'll be subject the same lawsuits until they're forced to screw over uploaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues >Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material.[8][9][10] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works" >Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site >In April 2012, a court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube could be held responsible for copyrighted material posted by its users. The performance rights organization GEMA argued that YouTube had not done enough to prevent the uploading of German copyrighted music
  - Asooka 4y ago
    We can keep creating new platforms longer than they can pay their lawyers.
    - NavinF 4y ago
      Can we? Sure KissAnime and 123movies clones will always pop up when one gets taken down, but that’s not a replacement for YouTube.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
judge2020 4y ago
Sorry but what's being described is not related to DMCA or copyright. If I make coolvideos.com I can say "if you upload NASA footage I will show ads on it and give that money to a random third party company" and that's not copyright infringement; public domain is inherently 'anyone can show it for any reason, even commercially'. These "copyright" claims are just Content ID where YouTube allows media rights holders to control what content shows up on YouTube - YT says 'you can only enroll videos that you own into Content ID', however, the enforcement there relies on Google only approving appropriate rights holders/production studios for Content ID. If a rights holder either has their account hacked, or they batch enroll tons of videos they haven't verified that they own the copyright to, then it'll start enforcing Content ID on those videos - and while this is bad for YouTube and its creators, it's definitely not illegal whatsoever since it isn't invoking the DMCA or any other legal action regarding copyright. Note that, for actual DMCA claims, YouTube WILL go to bat for their creators, especially if it's an obvious case of videos falling under fair use, eg https://youtu.be/aY1CYF3MKec?t=27 https://youtu.be/aY1CYF3MKec?t=27 In general, Content ID was created in response to Viacom dragging YouTube through court for not preemptively stopping people from uploading episodes of Spongebob. Viacom was planning to take it further up the appeal process until a settlement was reached which lead to the creation of Content ID, eg "viacom will upload copyrighted material to YouTube and YouTube will automatically scan every video to check if it violates viacom's rights". After this happened, of course, other copyright holders like AT&T (WarnerMedia)/NBC/etc and small international rights-holders weren't going to let themselves miss out on this revenue stream, so YT expanded the system to allow any rights management firm or copyright holder to use the system if they were big enough or powerful enough in their region.
- masswerk 4y ago
  I think, what could be called illegal is Content ID being used to actually block public domain content from being used on such terms. Restricting monitarization of said content to the point of becoming exclusive to a single party pretty much comes down to granting copyright. Especially, if this includes monetarization of unique work and effort that has gone into providing the publication of said content (e.g., digitizing from original material, editorial work, etc.)
dylan604 4y ago
>She even has the physical copy of one Apollo 12 scene which she telecine'd to digital, Okay, so that's supposed to make a legitimacy claim. I've had arguments with the internet claiming that I made upres copies of digibetas when photographic evidence showing the 16mm prints on the telecine, but the internet still disagreed. So I KNOW the pain. However, let's say that you, me, and Dupree all have a print of the Apollo 12 scene. We all pay to have the things done to have it available as a digital file, and eventually we all post our independent videos to YT. If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? At that point, what's an algo to do?
- cowtools 4y ago
  The solution is remove the middleman (and thus legal responsibility) as much as possible (e.g. peertube)
- nybble41 4y ago
  > If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? Flagged for what, exactly? The perceptual hash would show that all three of you uploaded the same video, but not that any those uploads were infringing. Nothing should happen unless someone (either one of you, or another party) tries to claim that they're the copyright holder for that video. Which ought to require at least some hard evidence. Ideally[0], if that were to happen, YouTube would manually investigate the claim to determine whether it was reasonable, and the parties accused of infringement would have a chance to challenge the claim or offer another reason why the uploads are not infringing, such as prior permission or fair use, before anything permanent was done. Since the video is in the public domain, the claim should be rejected and the video marked as public domain in the content database after the investigation to preempt any further false claims. Of course investigations like this require actual work. It's always going to be easier to just take down the video—especially since they're hosting it for free. Ad revenues won't cover the cost of investigating claims, much less protracted legal fights. [0] Ideally ideally, copyright would simply be repealed and we'd all be much better off. But short of that…
squarefoot 4y ago
> One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube. That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. What if every time a creator receives a bogus claim+demonetization he/she immediately deletes the content from YouTube and moves it to a different platform, making sure there is a link somewhere to reach it without breaking YT rules? The troll won't get the money as well and some users could still watch the content. Yes, other platforms aren't comparable wrt the user base, and that would also defeat the initial purpose, but once the video is demonetized the creator wouldn't get the money anyway, so it could be a way to hurt the trolls where it matters most.
- mulmen 4y ago
  Dave Jones of EEVBlog fame frequently encourages his YouTube viewers to follow him on alternate platforms. I believe this is in preparation for when he finally runs afoul of the algorithm and his YouTube presence is no longer viable. If a creator waits until that inevitable moment they don't have much recourse. I'm not sure how a link to an alternate platform can be placed on YouTube with any kind of reach. The best way as far as I can tell is proactively moving the audience to alternate platforms.
  - squarefoot 4y ago
    > I'm not sure how a link to an alternate platform can be placed on YouTube with any kind of reach. Assuming explicit links are disallowed (didn't check) the link could be exported as a torrent hash; it's not a link per se but search engines would find it, and they usually have a pretty long lifetime. As an example, the following hash: 2E28D47963BF639EDAADCA33583546B39156D62D Brings a 10+ years old Debian Linux image. The file would probably be dead now, also younger hashes are a lot easier to find, but all we need is the hash leading somewhere. There are other ways to embed links in a video; for example either a barcode-like pattern on video, or short fsk sequence embedded in audio, that could be translated on the fly by a browser extension into ad address and lead there without any user intervention.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Odysee/LBRY is just moving to a new lord's fort. If it's successful it will at best buy a year or two of good behavior before they do the same thing, or something worse. I had high hopes for the nebula model, but the platform owners have already clearly telegraphed their intent with regard to harvesting user data, nickel and diming, and at some point inserting ads. The only solution is a platform that respects everyone. peertube is a good contender, although curation and payment for content (which are separate problems to distribution and discovery) need work. Tilvids seems to be doing okay curation-wise (although adoption is low). Perhaps for payment, a client that locally tracks your view count and then stochastically tells you to deliver your payment to a particular creator to avoid a middleman holding the tin and sticking their fingers in.
- 4ad 4y ago
  LBRY is a distributed p2p platform. Nobody can censor anyone. Odysee is just a website frontend for LBRY. Of course, Odysee operators can choose who to show on their website.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Odysee is a centralised service with centralised comments that makes centralised decisions about which videos to platform and how to rank them. Its relationship to LBRY is no different to uploading a youtube video and posting a magnet link to a torrent of the same video in the description except you have to pay their cryptocoin (which they've reserved about 50% of for their own purposes) to add the link. They could remove lbry at any time and most of their user base would not even notice. Pretty good heuristic for these things is to assume cryptocoins are always at least one scam.
Grollicus 4y ago
> One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube Youtube is free to do whatever they want on their own platform, within the law. Arguing that they dominate the market brings antitrust laws into play here. On these grounds their TOS about ContentID (basically we'll decide whatever we want and you'll take it) can be evaded.
roenxi 4y ago
> That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. Why would the government do that though? The main complaint in this instance is that YouTube is attempting to enforce the government's rules. As far as I've seen, major complaints against YouTube when they act in the interests of a government (or political party in some instances).
ChrisRR 4y ago
It's a shame that Fran just can never seem to catch a break. She's such a lovely woman with a genuine passion for her work, but she always seems to be fighting one battle after another.

by breput 4y ago

CoastalCoder 4y ago

Does a false copyright claim qualify as Tortuous [spelling correction: Tortious] Interference with a Business Relationship, or Slander of Title? (IANAL, so I may be totally off base with those terms.)

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
Honest answer: it really just depends on how much money you can throw at the problem in a legal sense.
- rolph 4y ago
  every court case requiring a copyright troll to defend itself, is one less case allowing a troll to attack someone unable to fend it off. tortuous interference with a business is a good angle to start from. malignant process or malfeasance may be possible as well.
breput 4y ago
She discusses that a little, as well. YouTube often does not share the name of the copyright claimant, and even if they do, it is sometimes a 3rd party who is acting on behalf of the actual copyright "holder". But the bottom line is that most individual creators could never justify the legal costs of fighting copyright claims.
- rasz 4y ago
  Google will happily share full details of the claimant .. if requested by lawyer.
  - breput 4y ago
    Happily might be an overstatement. They will have to, obviously, but good luck getting it done easily ($$$) or quickly.
  - kfajdsl 4y ago
    But that takes $$$ and time and effort that just isn't worth it for small creators
    - gaius_baltar 4y ago
      And that's why it can work in countries with small claims, no lawyers or costs required to petition. Idea behind these courts is that people can represent themselves for a conciliatory session with a judge. The judge reach a verdict and, if a part does not accept, s/he can appeal (but now there are fees and lawyers required). Verdicts by default are possible if the part does not represent, however. This usually scales well because typical lawsuits are 1:1, and very uncommon for particular person. However, if a few thousand people sue Google on a small amount, a simple demand to repair monetary damages (this seems to have a different name every country), or co-name Google with a John Doe because Google has the information on Doe or is the only presence on that particular country, they will need to represent or risk a default. And the process won't scale on their side only. A legal and ethically correct DDoS on Google, but requires thousands of people motivated enough to navigate the bureaucratic depths. And Fran's comment about lawyering up is probably valid on USA where, AFAIK, the procedure for small claims is different.
      - nightpool 4y ago
        Because copyright claims are exclusively under federal jurisdiction, rather then being a state-by-state matter, they are unfortunately out of the purview of small claims courts in the US, which are designed to hear state law claims only
pclmulqdq 4y ago
I don't think you need a separate tort - filing a false DMCA claim is already actionable. I think it carries 3x damages too. However, very few youtubers understand that they have strong legal remedies against false DMCA claims, and they can file counter-notifications fairly easily too (these undo the effects of the DMCA claim).
- Nursie 4y ago
  Are youtube copyright claims actually DMCA claims anyway? Or are they just a youtube claim, without the same legal standing?
  - phibz 4y ago
    I believe they are DMCA claims. The exist because it grants youtube imunity in the process. Youtube had no incentive to get involved except for pissing off their content creators. If you can't counter claim/sue then get loud. Let your viewers know. Edit: reading in another thread that perhaps this is content ID. Not that, that is any better.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    No, they are "copyright takedown requests"
  - mlyle 4y ago
    After 2 "appeals" adjudicated by the original claimant, YouTube requires the original claimant to file a DMCA claim. But before this, no.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    They don't say that they are DMCA claims, but they are DMCA claims.
anonymousiam 4y ago
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there's a difference between a copyright claim and a "Content ID" claim. The former has an associated legal framework, but the latter was created through some agreement between Google and the media mob (MPAA, RIAA, etc.). https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6013276?hl=en
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > Copyright owners are the ones who decide whether other people can reuse their copyrighted content. I thought that was Copyright law?
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Copyright law is the _framework_ that sets out how Copyright owners can decide who gets to use their content.

ge96 4y ago

> will never have a chance against YouTube I pay for a Vimeo account but almost no one watches my videos compared to YouTube.

NavinF 4y ago
Right, and if Vimeo became popular they'll be subject the same lawsuits until they're forced to screw over uploaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues >Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material.[8][9][10] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works" >Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over 12 terabytes of data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site >In April 2012, a court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube could be held responsible for copyrighted material posted by its users. The performance rights organization GEMA argued that YouTube had not done enough to prevent the uploading of German copyrighted music
- Asooka 4y ago
  We can keep creating new platforms longer than they can pay their lawyers.
  - NavinF 4y ago
    Can we? Sure KissAnime and 123movies clones will always pop up when one gets taken down, but that’s not a replacement for YouTube.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

judge2020 4y ago

Sorry but what's being described is not related to DMCA or copyright. If I make coolvideos.com I can say "if you upload NASA footage I will show ads on it and give that money to a random third party company" and that's not copyright infringement; public domain is inherently 'anyone can show it for any reason, even commercially'. These "copyright" claims are just Content ID where YouTube allows media rights holders to control what content shows up on YouTube - YT says 'you can only enroll videos that you own into Content ID', however, the enforcement there relies on Google only approving appropriate rights holders/production studios for Content ID. If a rights holder either has their account hacked, or they batch enroll tons of videos they haven't verified that they own the copyright to, then it'll start enforcing Content ID on those videos - and while this is bad for YouTube and its creators, it's definitely not illegal whatsoever since it isn't invoking the DMCA or any other legal action regarding copyright. Note that, for actual DMCA claims, YouTube WILL go to bat for their creators, especially if it's an obvious case of videos falling under fair use, eg https://youtu.be/aY1CYF3MKec?t=27 https://youtu.be/aY1CYF3MKec?t=27 In general, Content ID was created in response to Viacom dragging YouTube through court for not preemptively stopping people from uploading episodes of Spongebob. Viacom was planning to take it further up the appeal process until a settlement was reached which lead to the creation of Content ID, eg "viacom will upload copyrighted material to YouTube and YouTube will automatically scan every video to check if it violates viacom's rights". After this happened, of course, other copyright holders like AT&T (WarnerMedia)/NBC/etc and small international rights-holders weren't going to let themselves miss out on this revenue stream, so YT expanded the system to allow any rights management firm or copyright holder to use the system if they were big enough or powerful enough in their region.

masswerk 4y ago
I think, what could be called illegal is Content ID being used to actually block public domain content from being used on such terms. Restricting monitarization of said content to the point of becoming exclusive to a single party pretty much comes down to granting copyright. Especially, if this includes monetarization of unique work and effort that has gone into providing the publication of said content (e.g., digitizing from original material, editorial work, etc.)

dylan604 4y ago

>She even has the physical copy of one Apollo 12 scene which she telecine'd to digital, Okay, so that's supposed to make a legitimacy claim. I've had arguments with the internet claiming that I made upres copies of digibetas when photographic evidence showing the 16mm prints on the telecine, but the internet still disagreed. So I KNOW the pain. However, let's say that you, me, and Dupree all have a print of the Apollo 12 scene. We all pay to have the things done to have it available as a digital file, and eventually we all post our independent videos to YT. If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? At that point, what's an algo to do?

cowtools 4y ago
The solution is remove the middleman (and thus legal responsibility) as much as possible (e.g. peertube)
nybble41 4y ago
> If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? Flagged for what, exactly? The perceptual hash would show that all three of you uploaded the same video, but not that any those uploads were infringing. Nothing should happen unless someone (either one of you, or another party) tries to claim that they're the copyright holder for that video. Which ought to require at least some hard evidence. Ideally[0], if that were to happen, YouTube would manually investigate the claim to determine whether it was reasonable, and the parties accused of infringement would have a chance to challenge the claim or offer another reason why the uploads are not infringing, such as prior permission or fair use, before anything permanent was done. Since the video is in the public domain, the claim should be rejected and the video marked as public domain in the content database after the investigation to preempt any further false claims. Of course investigations like this require actual work. It's always going to be easier to just take down the video—especially since they're hosting it for free. Ad revenues won't cover the cost of investigating claims, much less protracted legal fights. [0] Ideally ideally, copyright would simply be repealed and we'd all be much better off. But short of that…

squarefoot 4y ago

> One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube. That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. What if every time a creator receives a bogus claim+demonetization he/she immediately deletes the content from YouTube and moves it to a different platform, making sure there is a link somewhere to reach it without breaking YT rules? The troll won't get the money as well and some users could still watch the content. Yes, other platforms aren't comparable wrt the user base, and that would also defeat the initial purpose, but once the video is demonetized the creator wouldn't get the money anyway, so it could be a way to hurt the trolls where it matters most.

mulmen 4y ago
Dave Jones of EEVBlog fame frequently encourages his YouTube viewers to follow him on alternate platforms. I believe this is in preparation for when he finally runs afoul of the algorithm and his YouTube presence is no longer viable. If a creator waits until that inevitable moment they don't have much recourse. I'm not sure how a link to an alternate platform can be placed on YouTube with any kind of reach. The best way as far as I can tell is proactively moving the audience to alternate platforms.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  > I'm not sure how a link to an alternate platform can be placed on YouTube with any kind of reach. Assuming explicit links are disallowed (didn't check) the link could be exported as a torrent hash; it's not a link per se but search engines would find it, and they usually have a pretty long lifetime. As an example, the following hash: 2E28D47963BF639EDAADCA33583546B39156D62D Brings a 10+ years old Debian Linux image. The file would probably be dead now, also younger hashes are a lot easier to find, but all we need is the hash leading somewhere. There are other ways to embed links in a video; for example either a barcode-like pattern on video, or short fsk sequence embedded in audio, that could be translated on the fly by a browser extension into ad address and lead there without any user intervention.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Odysee/LBRY is just moving to a new lord's fort. If it's successful it will at best buy a year or two of good behavior before they do the same thing, or something worse. I had high hopes for the nebula model, but the platform owners have already clearly telegraphed their intent with regard to harvesting user data, nickel and diming, and at some point inserting ads. The only solution is a platform that respects everyone. peertube is a good contender, although curation and payment for content (which are separate problems to distribution and discovery) need work. Tilvids seems to be doing okay curation-wise (although adoption is low). Perhaps for payment, a client that locally tracks your view count and then stochastically tells you to deliver your payment to a particular creator to avoid a middleman holding the tin and sticking their fingers in.

4ad 4y ago
LBRY is a distributed p2p platform. Nobody can censor anyone. Odysee is just a website frontend for LBRY. Of course, Odysee operators can choose who to show on their website.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Odysee is a centralised service with centralised comments that makes centralised decisions about which videos to platform and how to rank them. Its relationship to LBRY is no different to uploading a youtube video and posting a magnet link to a torrent of the same video in the description except you have to pay their cryptocoin (which they've reserved about 50% of for their own purposes) to add the link. They could remove lbry at any time and most of their user base would not even notice. Pretty good heuristic for these things is to assume cryptocoins are always at least one scam.

Grollicus 4y ago

> One issue I have with her is her insistence that alternative video platforms, such as Odysee/LBRY, will never have a chance against YouTube Youtube is free to do whatever they want on their own platform, within the law. Arguing that they dominate the market brings antitrust laws into play here. On these grounds their TOS about ContentID (basically we'll decide whatever we want and you'll take it) can be evaded.

roenxi 4y ago

> That's definitely true today but anti-trust or other government action could eventually shake that up. Why would the government do that though? The main complaint in this instance is that YouTube is attempting to enforce the government's rules. As far as I've seen, major complaints against YouTube when they act in the interests of a government (or political party in some instances).

ChrisRR 4y ago

It's a shame that Fran just can never seem to catch a break. She's such a lovely woman with a genuine passion for her work, but she always seems to be fighting one battle after another.