3 ms·

I have a crazy idea... how about we take action on legitimate cases AND don't take action on fake ones?

by jbstack 9mo ago

TuringTest 9mo ago
What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? That's the crux of the matter.
- b112 9mo ago
  It is not the crux!! Large companies don't get to say they're too big, so therefore it is hard. Too damned bad! They can take advantage of scale, but not at the cost of breaking the law, or just doing their job improperly. If it makes service at scale difficult, well that's just too bad. Sucks to be them. Maybe a competitor will do better. No excuses because "oh poor widdle me, I'm too big"
  - TuringTest 9mo ago
    Who is going to stop them when they do the current shenanigans, and how are they going to enforce it?
    - samat 9mo ago
      Legal system supposed to… Too bad it’s working only for the powerful. Marx was right about some things…
- jbstack 9mo ago
  Why does scale matter? If I have 100 customers and I have to spend 1 hour a week dealing with legal compliance requests then if I have 200 customers I have to spend 2 hours a week dealing with legal compliance requests, but I also have more resources to do it with. In fact, scale usually makes it easier rather than harder because you can take advantage of economies of scale to streamline the process. And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.
  - SR2Z 9mo ago
    The only way to guarantee compliance with the DMCA is to remove any content the moment a complaint is submitted. Copyright can only be determined in court. The fact that not all copyright complaints lead to a video going down is because Google is willing to take on some liability when they believe a complaint is not legit, and leave the video up.
    - jbstack 9mo ago
      I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. What you said applies whether you are hosting 1 video a month or 1,000,000 videos a month. My point was that scale isn't an excuse. What applies to large applies to small and vice versa.
      - SR2Z 9mo ago
        The point is that regardless of the size of the company, copyright is such a shitshow that there are only less bad ways of handling it. The only way for a company to guarantee that they never violate copyright law is to do a takedown every time there is a complaint. Obviously, this is not something they can do, because offering random people the ability to take down random videos with only the courts as recourse would be a disaster. Neither do these companies want to be in the business of deciding if a complaint is valid or not, because if they decide one way and then a judge decides the other, they get screwed. Google tries to take a measured stance and evaluate complaints for obvious issues, but otherwise they do generally just act on them, and if the other parties involved can't agree on whether or not there is infringement, they just throw their hands up and tell them to take it to court. Copyright is so complicated and fraught that it's virtually impossible to manage it in a way that satisfies everyone, regardless of how big or small a player is.
        jbstack 9mo ago
        That's not the debate we're having here. See the comment I originally replied to: > What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? The suggestion is that scale makes a difference. I was refuting that.
esrauch 9mo ago
Every system has some type 1 errors and some type 2 errors. The notion that they could just have neither if they cared a little more is just kind of absurd and doesn't at all reflect the messiness of the world we live in. Even if Google paid Harvard JDs to read every DMCA notice (of which there literally aren't enough of them), even then they would sometimes be tricked by adversaries and sometimes incorrectly think someone was an adversary some of the time. I worked at YouTube in the past and I can tell you copyright ownership isn't even fully known by the lawyers. Concretely there's a lot of major songs where the sum of major companies affirming they have partial ownership sums to more than 100% or less than 100%. Literally even the copyright holders don't actually know what they themselves own without lots of errors, and that's without getting into a system that has to try to combat adversarial / bad-faith actors.
kazinator 9mo ago
The problem is telling them apart. Do you leave it to some LLM decision? Or one moderator's judgment?

I have a crazy idea... how about we take action on legitimate cases AND don't take action on fake ones?

by jbstack 9mo ago

I have a crazy idea... how about we take action on legitimate cases AND don't take action on fake ones?

TuringTest 9mo ago

What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? That's the crux of the matter.

b112 9mo ago
It is not the crux!! Large companies don't get to say they're too big, so therefore it is hard. Too damned bad! They can take advantage of scale, but not at the cost of breaking the law, or just doing their job improperly. If it makes service at scale difficult, well that's just too bad. Sucks to be them. Maybe a competitor will do better. No excuses because "oh poor widdle me, I'm too big"
- TuringTest 9mo ago
  Who is going to stop them when they do the current shenanigans, and how are they going to enforce it?
  - samat 9mo ago
    Legal system supposed to… Too bad it’s working only for the powerful. Marx was right about some things…
jbstack 9mo ago
Why does scale matter? If I have 100 customers and I have to spend 1 hour a week dealing with legal compliance requests then if I have 200 customers I have to spend 2 hours a week dealing with legal compliance requests, but I also have more resources to do it with. In fact, scale usually makes it easier rather than harder because you can take advantage of economies of scale to streamline the process. And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.
- SR2Z 9mo ago
  The only way to guarantee compliance with the DMCA is to remove any content the moment a complaint is submitted. Copyright can only be determined in court. The fact that not all copyright complaints lead to a video going down is because Google is willing to take on some liability when they believe a complaint is not legit, and leave the video up.
  - jbstack 9mo ago
    I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. What you said applies whether you are hosting 1 video a month or 1,000,000 videos a month. My point was that scale isn't an excuse. What applies to large applies to small and vice versa.
    - SR2Z 9mo ago
      The point is that regardless of the size of the company, copyright is such a shitshow that there are only less bad ways of handling it. The only way for a company to guarantee that they never violate copyright law is to do a takedown every time there is a complaint. Obviously, this is not something they can do, because offering random people the ability to take down random videos with only the courts as recourse would be a disaster. Neither do these companies want to be in the business of deciding if a complaint is valid or not, because if they decide one way and then a judge decides the other, they get screwed. Google tries to take a measured stance and evaluate complaints for obvious issues, but otherwise they do generally just act on them, and if the other parties involved can't agree on whether or not there is infringement, they just throw their hands up and tell them to take it to court. Copyright is so complicated and fraught that it's virtually impossible to manage it in a way that satisfies everyone, regardless of how big or small a player is.
      - jbstack 9mo ago
        That's not the debate we're having here. See the comment I originally replied to: > What precise process do you suggest to tell them apart at Google scale? The suggestion is that scale makes a difference. I was refuting that.

esrauch 9mo ago

Every system has some type 1 errors and some type 2 errors. The notion that they could just have neither if they cared a little more is just kind of absurd and doesn't at all reflect the messiness of the world we live in. Even if Google paid Harvard JDs to read every DMCA notice (of which there literally aren't enough of them), even then they would sometimes be tricked by adversaries and sometimes incorrectly think someone was an adversary some of the time. I worked at YouTube in the past and I can tell you copyright ownership isn't even fully known by the lawyers. Concretely there's a lot of major songs where the sum of major companies affirming they have partial ownership sums to more than 100% or less than 100%. Literally even the copyright holders don't actually know what they themselves own without lots of errors, and that's without getting into a system that has to try to combat adversarial / bad-faith actors.

kazinator 9mo ago

The problem is telling them apart. Do you leave it to some LLM decision? Or one moderator's judgment?