7 ms·

Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Ru

Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.

kouru225 3y ago
[flagged]
- anankaie 3y ago
  Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.
  - kouru225 3y ago
    >100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me
    - Izkata 3y ago
      The comparison to the Trump clips they cut with is the commentary.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Clips of public figures saying things are fair use, period. How do you think any news media functions?
      - kouru225 3y ago
        No. As someone who works in documentaries, you absolutely have to license footage of public figures, including news footage. There’s a reason most news media shoot their own footage. If you are commentating on it and making significant changes, then it can be fair use.
        beauzero 3y ago
        Is that why reaction videos get away with playing a whole clip? I have always wondered about that.
      - SR2Z 3y ago
        The public figure can't copyright their appearance, but whoever recorded the clip absolutely has a copyright on it. The funniest thing about copyright issues is that whenever they come up, people are so confidently wrong about the actual law. Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example.
        kube-system 3y ago
        > Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example. And many of those rights-holders only allow it because YouTube built a mechanism that helps them detect these uses and then automatically siphon off ad revenue it generates.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        > How do you think any news media functions? Why do you think all of the media responses to viral things on twitter are "Hey, I'm X from Y News Corp; can we use your footage"? If it was fair use they wouldn't bother to ask.
    - tiahura 3y ago
      It's almost certainly fair use. The Copyright Act explicitly allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and the like. Courts have historically been sensitive to First Amendment concerns when copyrighted materials are used for transformative purposes. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the transformative nature of parody as a form of commentary, giving it a wide berth under fair use. Now, onto the crux of your argument about implicit commentary. Even if a work does not contain explicit commentary, the juxtaposition of clips alone can function as a form of critique or commentary. This is especially relevant when highlighting inconsistencies or ironies in public discourse. While there isn't direct commentary, the act of selectively piecing together these clips communicates a larger point or message. Courts often look at the 'purpose and character' of the use, and if it is transformative—adding new meaning or context—it's generally favored under fair use.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Thank you for explaining this. It is obvious if you think about it, but some commenters seem to think copyright can be used as some kind of loophole to shield public figures from exposure of their public behaviour.
      - kouru225 3y ago
        You can do that if you want to risk a legal battle, but Youtube doesn't care about your legal battle until its over. The fact of the matter is that footage can be copyrighted and videographers have the right to protect their copyright. If I go film Trump giving a speech with the sole purpose of selling that material to news agencies and you decide to release that footage on your own platform, then you're at risk of infringing on that copyright. The only way to completely decide if you're infringing on their copyright is through a court case. Currently, outside of unique cases like "response videos," it's common for Youtube to side with the copyright owner. So I'm betting Youtube demonetized it for infringing on copyright.
        tiahura 3y ago
        I agree that YouTube will often side with the copyright holder - I’m a Rick Beato fan, and there’s a practical risk of demonetization or removal on that platform. However, it’s crucial to differentiate between what YouTube decides to do and what the actual law permits under fair use. YouTube’s policies don’t necessarily reflect a balanced interpretation of copyright law. When it comes to copyright law itself, montage videos of politicians that serve a transformative purpose, such as critique or commentary, fit squarely within the realm of fair use, as established by various court precedents. So, while you may face a challenge on platforms like YouTube, the underlying legality of such videos is more accommodating than those platforms might suggest.
- woooooo 3y ago
  Name of the youtuber is Matt Orfalea, you can Google him or watch his videos.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.
  - splitstud 3y ago
    [dead]
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Uh, I guess one could phrase it that way but it's rather dishonest. It'd be akin to saying a police officer testifying that they saw X person shoot Y person as attempting to deplatform X person. -- Honestly the only thing questionable in the twitter files was the USG telling twiter which accounts were their cy-ops accounts so they wouldn't get banned. Twitter having a policy of you can't do Y on the platform and the USG asking Twitter if X person is violating Y is not illegal censorship.
    - prometheus76 3y ago
      Is government censorship via a third party not a problem for you?
      - costigan 3y ago
        Was it Twitter's policy or not? (Of course it was, as we see by how easily it was changed by the new owner.)
      - ToDougie 3y ago
        It clearly isn't. Wait until the tables turn on them, though :)
        lesuorac 3y ago
        You understand that USG in reference to the twitter files means Donald Trump as he happened to be in charge of the executive branch during that period?
- adamsb6 3y ago
  IIRC it was for election disinformation, not copyright.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  The reason YouTube gave is that it was recruiting for violent criminal organizations. No joke. https://www.racket.news/p/youtube-hits-orf-again-as-censorship https://www.racket.news/p/youtube-hits-orf-again-as-censorsh...
- gottorf 3y ago
  > The Twitter files were an absolute joke. Are you serious? A US District Court as well as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that those files were not in fact a joke, and that the federal executive did strong-arm private entities like Twitter to censor.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    I suspect is going to be overturned at the Supreme Court.
diogenes4 3y ago
I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform. It is now also a public square. It’s not unreasonable at that point to require it to adhere higher standards of evidence, law, and reason. In this case, I’m no fan of Brand, but I’m even less a fan of YouTube’s apparent policy of “guilty till proven innocent” here. How about waiting till he and his accuser/s have had their day in a court, and jury of peers weighs the evidence and decides his guilt?
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Now do Twitter.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    I am also very much a free speech absolutist. But demonetization is different. Anyone who wants to see the video still can, so Russel Brand has not had his freedom of speech restricted in any way. This is not a policy of guilty until proven innocent. It's a policy of "advertisers don't want to be associated with rapists." And while there is a good argument for allowing access to YouTube as a public square, there is no such argument for allowing access to YouTube as an advertising platform.
    - SkyMarshal 3y ago
      Fair enough point. Fwiw I don’t consider myself a free speech absolutist, and have no problem with restricting speech that incites harming other people, among other things.
    - 3y ago
agentgumshoe 3y ago
I think the point you're making is there's no such thing as the Far Left, despite the Far Right seeing such common use.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Those terms, particularly with the 'far' intensifier, are all relative.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    And subjective too, which is convenient.

kouru225 3y ago

[flagged]

anankaie 3y ago
Satire and commentary is covered under Fair Use.
- kouru225 3y ago
  >100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized. Doesn’t sound like satire or commentary to me
  - Izkata 3y ago
    The comparison to the Trump clips they cut with is the commentary.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Clips of public figures saying things are fair use, period. How do you think any news media functions?
    - kouru225 3y ago
      No. As someone who works in documentaries, you absolutely have to license footage of public figures, including news footage. There’s a reason most news media shoot their own footage. If you are commentating on it and making significant changes, then it can be fair use.
      - beauzero 3y ago
        Is that why reaction videos get away with playing a whole clip? I have always wondered about that.
    - SR2Z 3y ago
      The public figure can't copyright their appearance, but whoever recorded the clip absolutely has a copyright on it. The funniest thing about copyright issues is that whenever they come up, people are so confidently wrong about the actual law. Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        > Lots of stuff on YouTube is only permitted because the rightsholders allow it to stay up - every cover of every modern song, for example. And many of those rights-holders only allow it because YouTube built a mechanism that helps them detect these uses and then automatically siphon off ad revenue it generates.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      > How do you think any news media functions? Why do you think all of the media responses to viral things on twitter are "Hey, I'm X from Y News Corp; can we use your footage"? If it was fair use they wouldn't bother to ask.
  - tiahura 3y ago
    It's almost certainly fair use. The Copyright Act explicitly allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and the like. Courts have historically been sensitive to First Amendment concerns when copyrighted materials are used for transformative purposes. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the transformative nature of parody as a form of commentary, giving it a wide berth under fair use. Now, onto the crux of your argument about implicit commentary. Even if a work does not contain explicit commentary, the juxtaposition of clips alone can function as a form of critique or commentary. This is especially relevant when highlighting inconsistencies or ironies in public discourse. While there isn't direct commentary, the act of selectively piecing together these clips communicates a larger point or message. Courts often look at the 'purpose and character' of the use, and if it is transformative—adding new meaning or context—it's generally favored under fair use.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Thank you for explaining this. It is obvious if you think about it, but some commenters seem to think copyright can be used as some kind of loophole to shield public figures from exposure of their public behaviour.
    - kouru225 3y ago
      You can do that if you want to risk a legal battle, but Youtube doesn't care about your legal battle until its over. The fact of the matter is that footage can be copyrighted and videographers have the right to protect their copyright. If I go film Trump giving a speech with the sole purpose of selling that material to news agencies and you decide to release that footage on your own platform, then you're at risk of infringing on that copyright. The only way to completely decide if you're infringing on their copyright is through a court case. Currently, outside of unique cases like "response videos," it's common for Youtube to side with the copyright owner. So I'm betting Youtube demonetized it for infringing on copyright.
      - tiahura 3y ago
        I agree that YouTube will often side with the copyright holder - I’m a Rick Beato fan, and there’s a practical risk of demonetization or removal on that platform. However, it’s crucial to differentiate between what YouTube decides to do and what the actual law permits under fair use. YouTube’s policies don’t necessarily reflect a balanced interpretation of copyright law. When it comes to copyright law itself, montage videos of politicians that serve a transformative purpose, such as critique or commentary, fit squarely within the realm of fair use, as established by various court precedents. So, while you may face a challenge on platforms like YouTube, the underlying legality of such videos is more accommodating than those platforms might suggest.
woooooo 3y ago
Name of the youtuber is Matt Orfalea, you can Google him or watch his videos.
jtbayly 3y ago
The Twitter Files were precisely what Taibbi said. The USG telling social media companies which people should have their speech censored.
- splitstud 3y ago
  [dead]
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Uh, I guess one could phrase it that way but it's rather dishonest. It'd be akin to saying a police officer testifying that they saw X person shoot Y person as attempting to deplatform X person. -- Honestly the only thing questionable in the twitter files was the USG telling twiter which accounts were their cy-ops accounts so they wouldn't get banned. Twitter having a policy of you can't do Y on the platform and the USG asking Twitter if X person is violating Y is not illegal censorship.
  - prometheus76 3y ago
    Is government censorship via a third party not a problem for you?
    - costigan 3y ago
      Was it Twitter's policy or not? (Of course it was, as we see by how easily it was changed by the new owner.)
    - ToDougie 3y ago
      It clearly isn't. Wait until the tables turn on them, though :)
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        You understand that USG in reference to the twitter files means Donald Trump as he happened to be in charge of the executive branch during that period?
adamsb6 3y ago
IIRC it was for election disinformation, not copyright.
nvm0n2 3y ago
The reason YouTube gave is that it was recruiting for violent criminal organizations. No joke. https://www.racket.news/p/youtube-hits-orf-again-as-censorship https://www.racket.news/p/youtube-hits-orf-again-as-censorsh...
gottorf 3y ago
> The Twitter files were an absolute joke. Are you serious? A US District Court as well as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that those files were not in fact a joke, and that the federal executive did strong-arm private entities like Twitter to censor.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  I suspect is going to be overturned at the Supreme Court.

diogenes4 3y ago

I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.

SkyMarshal 3y ago
At some point the private platform becomes so influential over the information environment and politics that it can no longer be considered merely a private platform. It is now also a public square. It’s not unreasonable at that point to require it to adhere higher standards of evidence, law, and reason. In this case, I’m no fan of Brand, but I’m even less a fan of YouTube’s apparent policy of “guilty till proven innocent” here. How about waiting till he and his accuser/s have had their day in a court, and jury of peers weighs the evidence and decides his guilt?
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  Now do Twitter.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  I am also very much a free speech absolutist. But demonetization is different. Anyone who wants to see the video still can, so Russel Brand has not had his freedom of speech restricted in any way. This is not a policy of guilty until proven innocent. It's a policy of "advertisers don't want to be associated with rapists." And while there is a good argument for allowing access to YouTube as a public square, there is no such argument for allowing access to YouTube as an advertising platform.
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    Fair enough point. Fwiw I don’t consider myself a free speech absolutist, and have no problem with restricting speech that incites harming other people, among other things.
  - 3y ago

agentgumshoe 3y ago

I think the point you're making is there's no such thing as the Far Left, despite the Far Right seeing such common use.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Those terms, particularly with the 'far' intensifier, are all relative.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  And subjective too, which is convenient.