3 ms·

It seems like it would be easy for Facebook to support takedowns since it could remove the video from feeds.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>It seems like it would be easy for Facebook to support takedowns since it could remove the video from feeds. Why would they want to until they're somehow forced to? Much like all the fake accounts and associated "like" markets, there's zero incentive for them to correct the issues.
edgarvaldes 11y ago
>Facebook typically complies, they said—but often not until a day or two later, by which time the video’s virality has run much of its course. Two days, Sandlin told me, is “basically forever in Internet time.”
jboggan 11y ago
Takedowns suck. Content creators don't want that and people driving traffic to their page don't want that. The crucial thing about YouTube and ContentID is that you can leave the videos alone but choose to monetize (take all ad revenue) from a re-uploaded video instead of just showing a black box and a takedown notice. It works and it is seamless on YouTube but I don't know if Facebook has built anything similar. More interesting will be how Facebook and YouTube handle content exclusively uploaded on one platform or the other but re-uploaded cross-platform. Shameless plug: we (FullScreen) have a video uploader service that uploads to both platforms with several custom options such as staggered release on the two platforms or say putting a short preview clip on Facebook that links to the full video on (monetized) YouTube: http://www.fullscreen.com/2015/05/21/fullscreen-uploader-is-here/ http://www.fullscreen.com/2015/05/21/fullscreen-uploader-is-...
- leephillips 11y ago
  "Takedowns suck." No, stealing (yes, stealing) people's work sucks. Unjustified takedown requests do suck (and what makes them suck so much is platforms' craven response to frivolous requests). But we're talking about real, willful infringement here. "Content creators don't want that" You probably shouldn't try to speak for all of us, because you are wrong.
  - taejo 11y ago
    What does the content creator gain from the user seeing a black box? That's way worse than them seeing the content and the creator getting money for it, from both the user and the creator's perspective.
    - leephillips 11y ago
      Firstly, the copyright holder gets to decide what's in his best interest, not you. Secondly, just playing along, what he gets is his audience going to the legitimate source for the content, where he will get his full measure of remuneration, where the work will be seen in its proper context, and where he can ensure that it's not tampered with.
  - jboggan 11y ago
    I can't speak for everyone in a small comment but, here's the nuance I left out in the interest of brevity: An overwhelming number of creators prefer to set their match policies for ContentID to monetize. Some have tiered track/monetize/block policies that are contextually dependent on match length, % match, and country of viewership. But the great majority of creators prefer to monetize. Your mileage may (and does) vary.

>It seems like it would be easy for Facebook to support takedowns since it could remove the video from feeds. Why would they want to until they're somehow forced to? Much like all the fake accounts and associated "like" markets, there's zero incentive for them to correct the issues.

edgarvaldes 11y ago

>Facebook typically complies, they said—but often not until a day or two later, by which time the video’s virality has run much of its course. Two days, Sandlin told me, is “basically forever in Internet time.”

jboggan 11y ago

Takedowns suck. Content creators don't want that and people driving traffic to their page don't want that. The crucial thing about YouTube and ContentID is that you can leave the videos alone but choose to monetize (take all ad revenue) from a re-uploaded video instead of just showing a black box and a takedown notice. It works and it is seamless on YouTube but I don't know if Facebook has built anything similar. More interesting will be how Facebook and YouTube handle content exclusively uploaded on one platform or the other but re-uploaded cross-platform. Shameless plug: we (FullScreen) have a video uploader service that uploads to both platforms with several custom options such as staggered release on the two platforms or say putting a short preview clip on Facebook that links to the full video on (monetized) YouTube: http://www.fullscreen.com/2015/05/21/fullscreen-uploader-is-here/ http://www.fullscreen.com/2015/05/21/fullscreen-uploader-is-...

leephillips 11y ago
"Takedowns suck." No, stealing (yes, stealing) people's work sucks. Unjustified takedown requests do suck (and what makes them suck so much is platforms' craven response to frivolous requests). But we're talking about real, willful infringement here. "Content creators don't want that" You probably shouldn't try to speak for all of us, because you are wrong.
- taejo 11y ago
  What does the content creator gain from the user seeing a black box? That's way worse than them seeing the content and the creator getting money for it, from both the user and the creator's perspective.
  - leephillips 11y ago
    Firstly, the copyright holder gets to decide what's in his best interest, not you. Secondly, just playing along, what he gets is his audience going to the legitimate source for the content, where he will get his full measure of remuneration, where the work will be seen in its proper context, and where he can ensure that it's not tampered with.
- jboggan 11y ago
  I can't speak for everyone in a small comment but, here's the nuance I left out in the interest of brevity: An overwhelming number of creators prefer to set their match policies for ContentID to monetize. Some have tiered track/monetize/block policies that are contextually dependent on match length, % match, and country of viewership. But the great majority of creators prefer to monetize. Your mileage may (and does) vary.