6 ms·

The Gamers Nexus GPU Blackmarket deep dive was great at digging into this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3xQaf7BFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3xQaf7B

The Gamers Nexus GPU Blackmarket deep dive was great at digging into this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3xQaf7BFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3xQaf7BFI And the entire Bloomberg takedown drama added fire to the flames.

hangonhn 7mo ago
Yeah what as the story behind the BBerg take down drama? I just remember it being something absurd.
- ipsum2 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - noir_lord 7mo ago
    He used a clip legally under fair use without permission, which you don't need if it is under fair use.
    - cogman10 7mo ago
      I'd just add, it was like a 1 minute clip in like a 2 or 3 hour video.
    - dessimus 7mo ago
      Equally important, it was of a US government official speaking, not content Bloomberg specifically created, such as one of their employees giving analysis.
  - matkoniecz 7mo ago
    Worth noting that it was entirely legal do so, due to fair use rules.
    - anonymousiam 7mo ago
      The problem with fair use is that the rules are subject to challenge and interpenetration. Defending an argument for fair use costs a lot of money, and involves significant risk. The content creators know this, and they'll leverage their money and legal teams to sue for copyright violation, ignoring fair use. Fair use is a valid defense, but the defense must be presented and adjudicated, and that takes time and money.
- Namahanna 7mo ago
  GN used Bloomberg clips of US Gov officials speaking on AI chip matters, fully under fair use. And Bloomberg did a DMCA takedown through youtube, copystrike in parlance which pulled the video down for a week. GN had no recourse other than to wait and counterclaim. Week timed out, Bloomberg did nothing but be the bully. Louis Rossmann's excellent explainer video here on the Bloomberg bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI
  - nazgulsenpai 7mo ago
    They did have the video uploaded to archive.org (or at least link to someone else who did) and gave permission to anyone else to repost it. Which is how I saw it, some rando burner account on YouTube :)
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >Louis Rossmann's excellent explainer video here on the Bloomberg bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI As always, Louis is being a bit sensationalist and stretches the truth to whip up outrage. Contrary to what he claims, GN could have easily quoted the president without Bloomberg's video, and that would be fine. "that outlet now has a monopoly on who is able to quote the president" is just a totally false premise. Moreover he tries to argue that GN's video falls under fair use, because it's a 1 minute clip in a 3 hour video. However it's not hard to think of a rebuttal to this. If news organizations can copy each other's clips of official speeches, who would bother going out and making such recordings? Usually how this would be resolved would be by citing precedents, but he doesn't bother citing any.
    - timschmidt 7mo ago
      > If news organizations can copy each other's clips of official speeches Brother, wait until you learn about the associate press. In U.S. copyright law, the four factors evaluated to judge fair use are: 1: Purpose and character of the use: including whether the use is commercial or nonprofit educational, and whether it is transformative. 2: Nature of the copyrighted work: for example, whether the work is more factual or more creative. 3: Amount and substantiality used: both how much was taken and whether it was a qualitatively important part of the work. 4: Effect on the market: whether the use harms the potential market for or value of the original work. Courts weigh all four factors together. There is no fixed rule like "under 30 seconds" or "under 10%." GN's use seems to satisfy all four factors.
rmoriz 7mo ago
A couple of years ago Bloomberg reported about spy chips/hw backdoors in SuperMicro mainboards but to my knowledge without a smoking gun proof. Maybe they had to settle outside of court and also had to sign papers to help protect the company from further damage in the future. Using (other) Bloomberg material may have triggered this. Of course this is a wild speculation. I have no evidence or insider knowledge.
- throwingtruth 7mo ago
  [dead]

hangonhn 7mo ago

Yeah what as the story behind the BBerg take down drama? I just remember it being something absurd.

ipsum2 7mo ago
[flagged]
- noir_lord 7mo ago
  He used a clip legally under fair use without permission, which you don't need if it is under fair use.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    I'd just add, it was like a 1 minute clip in like a 2 or 3 hour video.
  - dessimus 7mo ago
    Equally important, it was of a US government official speaking, not content Bloomberg specifically created, such as one of their employees giving analysis.
- matkoniecz 7mo ago
  Worth noting that it was entirely legal do so, due to fair use rules.
  - anonymousiam 7mo ago
    The problem with fair use is that the rules are subject to challenge and interpenetration. Defending an argument for fair use costs a lot of money, and involves significant risk. The content creators know this, and they'll leverage their money and legal teams to sue for copyright violation, ignoring fair use. Fair use is a valid defense, but the defense must be presented and adjudicated, and that takes time and money.
Namahanna 7mo ago
GN used Bloomberg clips of US Gov officials speaking on AI chip matters, fully under fair use. And Bloomberg did a DMCA takedown through youtube, copystrike in parlance which pulled the video down for a week. GN had no recourse other than to wait and counterclaim. Week timed out, Bloomberg did nothing but be the bully. Louis Rossmann's excellent explainer video here on the Bloomberg bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI
- nazgulsenpai 7mo ago
  They did have the video uploaded to archive.org (or at least link to someone else who did) and gave permission to anyone else to repost it. Which is how I saw it, some rando burner account on YouTube :)
- gruez 7mo ago
  >Louis Rossmann's excellent explainer video here on the Bloomberg bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RJvrTC6oTI As always, Louis is being a bit sensationalist and stretches the truth to whip up outrage. Contrary to what he claims, GN could have easily quoted the president without Bloomberg's video, and that would be fine. "that outlet now has a monopoly on who is able to quote the president" is just a totally false premise. Moreover he tries to argue that GN's video falls under fair use, because it's a 1 minute clip in a 3 hour video. However it's not hard to think of a rebuttal to this. If news organizations can copy each other's clips of official speeches, who would bother going out and making such recordings? Usually how this would be resolved would be by citing precedents, but he doesn't bother citing any.
  - timschmidt 7mo ago
    > If news organizations can copy each other's clips of official speeches Brother, wait until you learn about the associate press. In U.S. copyright law, the four factors evaluated to judge fair use are: 1: Purpose and character of the use: including whether the use is commercial or nonprofit educational, and whether it is transformative. 2: Nature of the copyrighted work: for example, whether the work is more factual or more creative. 3: Amount and substantiality used: both how much was taken and whether it was a qualitatively important part of the work. 4: Effect on the market: whether the use harms the potential market for or value of the original work. Courts weigh all four factors together. There is no fixed rule like "under 30 seconds" or "under 10%." GN's use seems to satisfy all four factors.

rmoriz 7mo ago

A couple of years ago Bloomberg reported about spy chips/hw backdoors in SuperMicro mainboards but to my knowledge without a smoking gun proof. Maybe they had to settle outside of court and also had to sign papers to help protect the company from further damage in the future. Using (other) Bloomberg material may have triggered this. Of course this is a wild speculation. I have no evidence or insider knowledge.

throwingtruth 7mo ago
[dead]