4 ms·

That's not evil. Youtube is at the mercy of "big content " and they have to comply with copyright claims. They're not in the business of judging whether a som

That's not evil. Youtube is at the mercy of "big content " and they have to comply with copyright claims. They're not in the business of judging whether a something can be copyrighted - that's a job for the courts.

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
Well, I disagree. it is evil. The argument they "have to comply" due to third parties and presumption-of-infringement laws may be true. If it is, that is beside the point; that doesn't make it a good action.
- jobu 15y ago
  Why downvote this? It's a valid comment. A 'good' action would be for Google to revoke Rumblefish's takedown ability, and force them to use a real DMCA request. At least that would allow for legal recourse when Rumblefish commits fraud.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
    If you really want to debate if this was evil or not (and if it becomes less evil if you outsource it, pass the buck or bend over to big content) then there was a HackerNews discussion (Maybe two or three...) on this topic. People trotted out their apologies there for this unacceptable action, so I'm sure there are good rebuttals there. The basic question that I asked was: Why is MS held to a different standard to the big guys of the internet (chiefly Apple, Facebook, Google, Oracle, paypal/ebay)? What recent actions do we have to compare them on?
    - icebraining 15y ago
      The basic question that I asked was: Why is MS held to a different standard to the big guys of the internet (chiefly Apple, Facebook, Google, Oracle, paypal/ebay)? What recent actions do we have to compare them on? Why does it have to be recent? Should we just whitewash the past? It was ten years ago, not in the 19th century. They even have the same CEO. But in any case, they're still extorting companies using their grotesque FAT patents.
    - nkassis 15y ago
      What about the secure boot story http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-manda... That's recent and it is evil. Microsoft never was completely evil they just put the mighty dollar above everything else including software quality.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
        Good answer, thanks. I agree that MS is profit-driven. I just don't see how that puts them on a different plane from Facebook, Google, Apple, Oracle, Paypal et al.
        knewter 15y ago
        If Google sells ads to me, or my personal information that I gave them down the road, then that affects me. If Microsoft uses their power to force future hardware to be unable to boot linux / other FOSS OSes, then that affects me WAY MORE. So much more that I consider such actions to be on a different plane.
        SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
        Google and Apple are both involved in OS and hardware. Their locking decisions could be comparable, i.e. on the same plane.
- nknight 15y ago
  You want Google to be sued into oblivion and have its executives possibly jailed for criminal copyright infringement because you judge compliance with applicable laws to be evil?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
    That's not what I said. There are many other options, no need to bring your false dichotomy and straw-man scenario into it.
    - nknight 15y ago
      Actually, it's exactly what you said, whether you know it or not. Google's action was dictated by US law. If you have some magical way for a US company run by US citizens residing in the US to get around US law, I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear it.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
        You're a laywer as well as the development and operations that your profile mentions? Funny thing, I thought that the DMCA was the legal path. This was not used. And this alarms some lawyers: http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ And the "review", supposedly by a human being which failed to spot that this birdsong was not the same copyrighted recording was also an exact legal requirement? And the lack of any appeals process after that too? I said, after you put nasty words in my mouth, that there were other options, and there are. You're not thinking this through.
        nknight 15y ago
        No, but I'm clearly better versed in the law than you are. The DMCA wasn't used because Google negotiated a separate agreement. Without that agreement -- in which Google also had to give things up -- the DMCA would control, dictating both immediate compliance and a ten-day waiting period before the video could be returned. You arrogantly behave as if you know better than me. Put up or shut up.
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  If you consider content removal evil, I think you need to get your moral compass re-calibrated. There are numerous adjectives that could describe that specific situation, like stupid or even lazy, but evil is a stretch. When the Feds can come kick your doors down and haul your servers out for non-compliance, what choice do you have? Not to say Google is good either, but the content mess isn't really their making. In fact, their technology has helped more than hindered the spread of content.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
    > If you consider content removal evil, I think you need to get your moral compass re-calibrated. That's not what I consider in general, and I don't know how you came up with that reading. I agree that it's not the worst action ever in the history of evil (and most was just stupid), but you're not even arguing the right point: the content was not removed, it was a case of automated copyright abuse for profit: > "Youtube informed me that I was using Rumblefish’s copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company" http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted-music/ http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copy...
    - icebraining 15y ago
      First, why is Youtube evil? Wasn't the company that abused? Second, how is Youtube evil for doing whatever they want with the ads in their own website? Sure, they claimed it was due to copyright reasons, but that doesn't make the action in itself "evil". Google has done a lot of crap, from the obvious privacy problems to outright fraud in Kenya. Picking on that seems ridiculous.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
        > First, why is Youtube evil? Youtube decided to enter into this agreement with Rumblefish. If Youtube outsouces this abuse, does that put Youtube in the clear? See also: US Army outsourcing to Blackwater, etc. It's too easy to avoid responsibility this way.

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago

Well, I disagree. it is evil. The argument they "have to comply" due to third parties and presumption-of-infringement laws may be true. If it is, that is beside the point; that doesn't make it a good action.

jobu 15y ago
Why downvote this? It's a valid comment. A 'good' action would be for Google to revoke Rumblefish's takedown ability, and force them to use a real DMCA request. At least that would allow for legal recourse when Rumblefish commits fraud.
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
  If you really want to debate if this was evil or not (and if it becomes less evil if you outsource it, pass the buck or bend over to big content) then there was a HackerNews discussion (Maybe two or three...) on this topic. People trotted out their apologies there for this unacceptable action, so I'm sure there are good rebuttals there. The basic question that I asked was: Why is MS held to a different standard to the big guys of the internet (chiefly Apple, Facebook, Google, Oracle, paypal/ebay)? What recent actions do we have to compare them on?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    The basic question that I asked was: Why is MS held to a different standard to the big guys of the internet (chiefly Apple, Facebook, Google, Oracle, paypal/ebay)? What recent actions do we have to compare them on? Why does it have to be recent? Should we just whitewash the past? It was ten years ago, not in the 19th century. They even have the same CEO. But in any case, they're still extorting companies using their grotesque FAT patents.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    What about the secure boot story http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult.ars http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/microsoft-manda... That's recent and it is evil. Microsoft never was completely evil they just put the mighty dollar above everything else including software quality.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
      Good answer, thanks. I agree that MS is profit-driven. I just don't see how that puts them on a different plane from Facebook, Google, Apple, Oracle, Paypal et al.
      - knewter 15y ago
        If Google sells ads to me, or my personal information that I gave them down the road, then that affects me. If Microsoft uses their power to force future hardware to be unable to boot linux / other FOSS OSes, then that affects me WAY MORE. So much more that I consider such actions to be on a different plane.
        SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
        Google and Apple are both involved in OS and hardware. Their locking decisions could be comparable, i.e. on the same plane.
nknight 15y ago
You want Google to be sued into oblivion and have its executives possibly jailed for criminal copyright infringement because you judge compliance with applicable laws to be evil?
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
  That's not what I said. There are many other options, no need to bring your false dichotomy and straw-man scenario into it.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Actually, it's exactly what you said, whether you know it or not. Google's action was dictated by US law. If you have some magical way for a US company run by US citizens residing in the US to get around US law, I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear it.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
      You're a laywer as well as the development and operations that your profile mentions? Funny thing, I thought that the DMCA was the legal path. This was not used. And this alarms some lawyers: http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ http://waxy.org/2012/03/youtube_bypasses_the_dmca/ And the "review", supposedly by a human being which failed to spot that this birdsong was not the same copyrighted recording was also an exact legal requirement? And the lack of any appeals process after that too? I said, after you put nasty words in my mouth, that there were other options, and there are. You're not thinking this through.
      - nknight 15y ago
        No, but I'm clearly better versed in the law than you are. The DMCA wasn't used because Google negotiated a separate agreement. Without that agreement -- in which Google also had to give things up -- the DMCA would control, dictating both immediate compliance and a ten-day waiting period before the video could be returned. You arrogantly behave as if you know better than me. Put up or shut up.
tatsuke95 15y ago
If you consider content removal evil, I think you need to get your moral compass re-calibrated. There are numerous adjectives that could describe that specific situation, like stupid or even lazy, but evil is a stretch. When the Feds can come kick your doors down and haul your servers out for non-compliance, what choice do you have? Not to say Google is good either, but the content mess isn't really their making. In fact, their technology has helped more than hindered the spread of content.
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
  > If you consider content removal evil, I think you need to get your moral compass re-calibrated. That's not what I consider in general, and I don't know how you came up with that reading. I agree that it's not the worst action ever in the history of evil (and most was just stupid), but you're not even arguing the right point: the content was not removed, it was a case of automated copyright abuse for profit: > "Youtube informed me that I was using Rumblefish’s copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company" http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copyrighted-music/ http://c4sif.org/2012/02/youtube-identifies-birdsong-as-copy...
  - icebraining 15y ago
    First, why is Youtube evil? Wasn't the company that abused? Second, how is Youtube evil for doing whatever they want with the ads in their own website? Sure, they claimed it was due to copyright reasons, but that doesn't make the action in itself "evil". Google has done a lot of crap, from the obvious privacy problems to outright fraud in Kenya. Picking on that seems ridiculous.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
      > First, why is Youtube evil? Youtube decided to enter into this agreement with Rumblefish. If Youtube outsouces this abuse, does that put Youtube in the clear? See also: US Army outsourcing to Blackwater, etc. It's too easy to avoid responsibility this way.