Content Moderation Case Study: Using Copyright To Take Down A Transformative Criticism Video (2019)
from the copyright-as-censorship dept
Summary: In the fall of 2019, talk show host Ellen Degeneres was criticized after being seen attending a professional football game with former President George W. Bush. Degeneres addressed the controversy on her show, saying she was invited by the Dallas Cowboys’ owner, and also suggesting that she was friends with the former President Bush and that people should “be kind” to people they disagree with politically.
Rafael Shimunov took the video of Degeneres giving her side of the controversy and transformed it so that the background showed disturbing images from the Iraq War which was started by President Bush. The clip used approximately half of the video that Ellen herself had posted to YouTube, with the only change being the replacement of the blue background. Soon after that video began to go viral on Twitter, Shimunov and others who had reposted it received notices saying that the video was taken down due to a copyright claim under the DMCA made by someone working for Degeneres’ TV show.
Recipients of the takedown notice said that it appeared to be the work of a social media manager for the show and not an automated takedown.
As the EFF noted in discussing the takedown, the DMCA requires that anyone filing a DMCA takedown notice take into account whether or not the content in question is covered by fair use, and there is little evidence the social media manager filing these notices did so.
Decisions to be made by Twitter:
- Is changing the background in the video transformative enough to make it fair use?
- Should you consider that the images act as commentary on the content of the video?
- How should Twitter deal with copyright holders who ignore fair use in issuing DMCA takedowns of videos?
- Should Twitter re-enable such videos following public controversy?
- Should social media companies be responsible for judging if content subject to a takedown is covered by fair use?
- Are the current rules regarding fair use and filing false takedown notices clear enough to stop such filings?
- How should the law handle takedowns over content that is fair use?
Originally posted on the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, content moderation, copyright, criticism, ellen degeneres, george bush, transformative use
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Then either wasn't contested, or Twitter isn't following DMCA!
DMCA has the content put back up when contested. There isn't any real question on that in the law. But did Twitter bother to follow the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then either wasn't contested, or Twitter isn't following DMC
It'd be an exception to mere host Twitter's utter contempt for Publishers, that is, users, so hardly surprising if Twitter didn't follow DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contested? Twitter?
From my view, bet the originator didn't contest it so would have an injury to flourish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contested? Twitter
That was all ONE comment, but got blocked for no obvious reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contested? Twi
The usual cure for that, to break up into smaller, worked this time.
AND THEN had to go through it again trying to 'splain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contested?
AGAIN, BLAME MAZ. He's The Publisher here (by his own statement when not dodging responsibility for comments). I'm just a mere "user" of the "platform", strugging with its quirks, have no effect on practices despite a complaint now and then over several years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contes
No, blame you for being a complete and utter fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are a spammer and an advocate for copyright as censorship. Should anyone really take you seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contes
Well, if you are still struggling after years of shit-posting it also means you are to stupid to learn something from your own behavior. Not very surprising...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contes
You're the only one to blame. It was solely your own decision to be a fucktard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So which is it, oh case-history guru? Not contes
Because you refuse to listen. Just wait awhile until Masnick or whoever has a chance to possibly clear it. Spamming the message is roughly like pressing the elevator button over and over again. You only struggle with the quirks because you refuse to change the basic problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the best at their job
Recipients of the takedown notice said that it appeared to be the work of a social media manager for the show and not an automated takedown.
Sounds like someone who really needs to be fired due to being terrible at their job, because as anyone familiar a little thing called the Streisand Effect will tell you nothing draws more attention to something than trying to hide it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the best at their job
Well they have been really good at hiding who the manager was.
You would think that the list of employees would include whomever does media management.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn, where’s a Karen when you really need one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question: did Shimunov file a DMCA counterclaim? (Not a Twitter appeal, not a public whine — a proper DMCA response). If not, then she elected not to proceed, period, end of controversy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever be fixed
Specifically, nailing companies to the wall for filing wrongful DMCA takedowns.
Anyone? Bueller?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever be fixed
i'll be laughing my ass off when content owners doesnt see fair use as a tool that allows anyone to use expensive movie content, if they just add some idiot talking over the soundtrack and commenting the content. Basically content owners have better theory on the role of fair use: it will only be considered once the sued parties have spent millions in lawyer's fees. Its as if fair use didn't exist at all and everyone should just follow copyright laws. Under copyright laws, the default behaviour is that any copying of the content is illegal, and fair use do not change that default.
All the fair use fans would prefer that copyright law defaulted to something else than it currently does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever be fixed
Fair use is part of Copyright laws. Otherwise, Copyright would conflict with the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever be f
If a comment does not contain a single lie about the law, you can be 100% certain the name "tp" will not ever be above it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright already does conflict with the First Amendment. The law says the government can’t abridge the right of free speech and expression, yet people routinely use copyright — a government-backed and government-enforced property right with actual penalties handed down by the government for violating it — to suppress speech regardless of whether Fair Use is a viable defense.
Copyright is control of speech and information. Never forget that baseline fact, as it forms the basis for all laws governing copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Weird how that never occured to those who wrote the First Amendment how the part about allowing Congress to create © would conflict with each other. Maybe that's why we have a judiciary for that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever be fixed
"if they just add some idiot talking over the soundtrack and commenting the content"
I'm sure that professional movie critics and historians will be happy that some incompetent Finnish guy thinks they're idiots, but fortunately their livelihoods are intact.
"everyone should just follow copyright laws."
Yes. Copyright laws that in their current form include explicit fair use rights.
"the default behaviour is that any copying of the content is illegal, and fair use do not change that default"!
It literally does, but I don't expect someone as breathtakingly ignorant as you to understand it no matter how many times it's explained to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever be f
I think you're mistaken in this situation. The information I have gathered about this explicitly says that fair use does not change the copyright law's default behaviour, but instead fair use is an exception to the rule. I.e. the default behaviour still governs 98% of all situations, and the remaining 2% fair use cases will be decided after sued parties spent millions in lawyer's fees.
Basically fair use isn't the "lets fix copyright laws" law that you try to make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That you apparently don’t see this as a problem is…telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Raise your hand if you think the DMCA will ever
"The information I have gathered about this explicitly says that fair use does not change the copyright law's default behaviour"
Yes, because it's an explicit part of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes all because of one or two easily correctible errors, we have to let pirates run rampant online, stealing all measure of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More, because a few corporations believe that they should be able to own all content, they will do their damnedest to extinguish the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I never figured out what exactly is so difficult with actually following the copyright. It isn't too difficult to evaluate tools like torrents against established copyright laws, and reject the tools instead of committing copyright infringement. That's what the laws are saying, when pirate operations are offering their pirate material to your consumption, you just decide that the product is too cheap (and thus probably illegal or stolen) compared to the effort spent on creating it that it needs to be rejected on those grounds. You can easily do the evaluation based on "effort analysis" and "price analysis", and just compare the results of those two. This means for example that huge effort in wikipedia offered for free in internet is kinda considered illegal using this metric. Same for youtube. But it also filters out pirate services very efficiently.
so its clearly possible to follow copyright, even if it also filters out some legal services too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the RIAA, MPAA and other copyright enforcement organizations refuse to properly attribute stock photos to the photographers they come from, then refuse to accept punishment when caught.
If the people tasked with following and enforcing copyright cannot actually do so, asking everyone else to obey is a moot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me how I can 100% certainty-of-God avoid any and all copyright infringement while still being able to use any interactive web service that isn’t strictly controlled by the copyright holder(s) of the content therein. That thought exercise might help you figure things out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
copyright laws deal with the "publish" operation, so it will be enough to manually review all the content before it is published.
we have this tv show called "aamun avaus" where they have sms based chat displayed on tv and there is people manually reviewing every user submission and filtering out adverticements etc.
so you shouldnt try the line where manually reviewing submissions before publishing them is somehow impossible or too burdensome. If it is too burdensome, maybe you should get more resources for reviewing, or you can make the system scope/size smaller. If you can't properly review submitted material, maybe you're not suitable vendor for maintaining such a forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I thought I'd just do a quick check since you gave us something to understand how your mind twists things, and how woefully you understand any issue.
It seems that the show you mention is on a channel called AVA, which gets less than 2% of the overall Finnish TV audience. Finland has a population of around 5.5 million, which means that the maximum possible audience it could have is around 110,000 people, assuming everyone in Finland is watching TV at any given time. This is of course ridiculous, something around half that would be a better maximum guess, though that's also likely exaggerated. But, that show is not close to being the most popular on that network, it's not even popular or notable enough for it to have its own page on the Finnish version of Wikipedia. So, the viewing figures are. going to be much lower - maybe 10,000 people, unless there's a reliable source I'm missing that states something larger. Then, of course, not everyone watching will bother to send messages at all, either because they're not interested or because conversations on that kind of show can be hard to follow if you have a bunch of people talking at once.
So... an irrelevant comparison. You can't argue that a TV show watched by a few thousand people, maybe a few hundred of whom will ever actively engage with the SMS feature is going to have the same moderation challenges as something like YouTube or Twitter that are under by many millions of people. Especially since text messages of the restricted SMS format are going to be vastly easier to moderate than thousands of hours of video every minute.
Once again, even by your own information you're utterly deluded and do not understand any aspect of the real world. There is no comparison, unless you choose to be so ignorant of facts that you believe in fantasies. Which, sadly, we know you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe these companies are just trying to maintain larger system than they can properly handle. Correct solution is to make their system size smaller. Cut out countries from the system until they have something that they actually can moderate properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if YouTube could limit the amount of content it receives to 1,000 hours per day (with a length limit of three hours per video) and assign someone to review about six hours of footage every day (which would come out to 167 people), the monetary costs alone (a little over $20,000 per day to pay for eight-hour shifts for 167 people at $15 an hour) might outweigh any potential benefit. And that still wouldn’t solve the problem of how those reviewers can/should know, with the absolute unyielding certainty of God, whether a given video infringes upon any copyright held anywhere in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep on claiming that the size of YouTube is the problem and you are so very wrong. That problem is that any person anywhere in the world can create and publish on the Internet, and to reduce that flood to something manageable would mean stopping 90% of the world from publishing what they create.
New content was never rare, but what used to be rare was space in the physical production of books, records, and films, which resulted in a few editors and producers selecting a few works for publication, and not even considering the majority of submitted works. The Internet has opened the floodgates to the publication of of works by their creators, and that flood of publication cannot be catalogued with any accuracy or expediency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Cut out countries from the system "
Yeah, let's start with smaller, less significant locations like Finnish/Finland. I'm sure you'll see the objections from original content producers in your country fairly quickly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can’t guarantee, with the 100% certainty that copyright maximalists will require, that you can catch every bit of infringing content via manual review. You can’t know with that God-like certainty whether the person uploading content owns the copyright on, or has permission to use, that content. And if you can’t do it, neither can Google.
How many moderators does the show have? How many submissions are sent in every minute? For how long a period of time does the show review submissions — a half-hour, an hour, maybe more?
And even if you could answer those questions, you still miss the key difference between that show and, say, YouTube moderation: Is anybody claiming copyright on an SMS text message sent to that show?
YouTube processes more videos in a month than any person could ever watch in an average lifetime, even if they could watch it all non-stop from birth to death without any interruptions from both sleep and advertising. YouTube moderators can’t filter all that content in a way that 100% certainty-of-God guarantees a complete lack of copyright infringement. It is neither feasible nor possible.
Throwing more people at the problem won’t solve the problem, and at some point, the costs of hiring enough moderators to, say, cover every single active account on YouTube will become too much for Google to bear.
Scaling it down helps, but it still doesn’t solve the problem. Mods on a Mastodon instance with only 100 active regular users still can’t moderate or filter everything in a timely manner. (Everyone sleeps, after all.) And even if they could do that, they would still have one little problem: They can’t know, with the certainty of God Herself, whether any given post violates a copyright held by someone — anyone — anywhere in the world.
You believe — mistakenly — that detecting and stopping copyright infringement is simpler than it actually is. But even Viacom partially fucked up their lawsuit against YouTube by claiming videos posted by Viacom employees with permission from Viacom itself were somehow infringing on Viacom copyrights. If Viacom can fuck it up, a regular jackoff like you or I will never get it 100% right every time, all the time.
Your “forum” will be either awfully slow or awfully empty if it holds back every post until mods can clear those posts of any and all possible copyright infringement. And nobody will ever want to use a service that holds back every post they make for hours — possibly even days — before letting them know that they might not even get to publish it.
Twitter would become unusable, and eventually irrelevant, if it had to hold back every post people made for the sake of ensuring a given post violated no copyrights. The same goes for Facebook. And DeviantArt. And Mastodon instances, and YouTube, and Twitch, and Techdirt, and any other website that allows third-party content submissions. The Internet as we know it today would become unusable — a mere one-way broadcast medium, as the major media companies want it to become.
Which one do you want: the Internet or another TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately this argument fails. You mentioned the solution yourself in your message: the tv show didn't have any copyrighted content and thus it needed no reviewing. If you allow only text content and filter out urls or links to movies etc, then it is guaranteed that the issues are smaller. Then you only need to check that the text content doesnt have child porn in it.
Basically every service need to design their technology in such way that they can actually handle the moderation tasks properly. If you allow mp4 movies to be posted, then you get also responsibility to filter out hollywood's blockbusters from the service. If you don't allow that content, that is also possible alternative. Creating alternative (non-mp4) technology solution that doesnt have converters from/to mp4 files is also possibility. If it's not movies at all, you could be using completely proprietary formats where mp4 movie conversion is absolutely impossible, then all the review tasks wont be needed.
Obviously copyright applies to all kinds of content. So service providers need to consider how large risk of copyright infringement there is with each supported file format and technology. And then build your system to support the safe alternatives only. Going with the most popular alternatives might not be the correct choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Internet is not a television show. It is a communications network. Now explain how to prevent 100% of all copyright infringement — no matter how small or insignificant the infringement — without turning the Internet into a one-way-only broadcast network.
They do, for the most part. What you want is a system where technology and humanity alike can both discern, with God-like accuracy and in 100% of all instances, whether a piece of submitted content contains previously copyrighted material. You’re never going to get what you want.
How can a service know, with the absolute certainty of God, whether a given video infringes in even the smallest way on any copyright (Hollywood or otherwise) anywhere in the world? How can a service like YouTube prevent any kind of infringement and still be as useable a service as it is today, especially since a fair amount of content on YouTube (e.g., film criticism) depends on infringing uses of copyrighted material that Fair Use ostensibly protects?
Yeah, because creating proprietary formats for the sake of “fixing” a “broken” yet widely used format has always worked~. [cough]
I can literally infringe upon copyright with a goddamn plain text file. How do you expect Pastebin mods to know with God-like certainty whether any given…uh, pastebin — even one as small as, say, a single ten-word sentence — infringes upon any copyright anywhere in the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the video files have copyright notices. If the copyright notice has "(C) Disney" in it, but your video was posted by some internet handle like "EvilPirate", then the service should do better content checking.
Another alternative is these license files. Users posting the material would need to somehow prove that the license is available for the files. Maybe use a printer to print boilerplate copyright assignment contract, sign it with ordinary pen, and then use a scanner to scan it to the service. Then the service can verify the identity of the user and compare the signed paperwork quality against the published material quality. Some sites want a picture of your passport as the identity. Then some high quality content could be completely banned from the service, for example by limiting the file sizes, or frame rates..
I.e. there is plenty of ways how the copyright checking system can be made more robust. Printer manufacturers would probably prefer if every youtube user would need to buy one of their printer/scanner products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about videos that don’t? Unlike copyright law a few decades ago, where a work required a copyright notice to receive a copyright (an oversight that put Night of the Living Dead in the public domain), any work created these days has copyright upon publication. If someone uploads a video from SaveAFox Rescue to a PeerTube instance and doesn’t give any indication that they’re a SaveAFox representative or otherwise owns the copyright on that video, how can that PeerTube instance know with absolute certainty whether the video infringes upon a copyright — or even if the video was legit uploaded by a SaveAFox representative?
We call it DRM. It fails miserably at the job it supposedly does. You’re not reinventing the wheel; you’re painting it yellow and asking me to think it’s Wheel 2.0 or some shit.
If I had to do that shit for a single service, I wouldn’t use that service. If I had to do that shit for the entire Internet, I’d unplug my modem. Not only is your suggestion unfeasable for protecting the usability of a service, it presents so many hurdles to other people that they won’t even bother with the service. I mean, if someone is livestreaming a police encounter on YouTube through their phone, do you think they have the time and ability to send in their signature and confirm their copyright before the stream goes live?
In which case, services that don’t do those things — and don’t ask someone to give up a lot of highly personal information so they can post a thirty-second 60fps video of their cat — will end up with far more users.
Yeah, I got two words for you: That’s bait.
…now, here comes the fun part: Did I merely offer an opinion on your post, or did I quote (and thus infringe upon the copyright on) Mad Max: Fury Road? And no matter how you answer that question, how can you know — with the absolute unyielding certainty of God Herself — that your answer is 100% correct?
When you can answer that second question with anything that proves you’re an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity that can know absolutely everything (including what was in my heart and mind when I wrote those two words), you let me know. Until then: You can’t know whether I intended to infringe a copyright — and if you can’t know that, YouTube can’t know whether any given video infringes upon any given copyright anywhere in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like twitter has 200 character limit on tweets. Obviously twitter missed tons of users because of that limitation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter also allows the posting of images and video. On a daily basis, how many posts on Twitter do you think infringe upon any given copyright anywhere in the world — even if said infringement could be covered by Fair Use? (Which means that, yes, memes count for the purposes of this question.) And how is Twitter supposed to know with 100% absolute certainty whether any image, video, or text in a given tweet infringes upon any given copyright? I mean, if I posted a tweet that quoted a single movie line less than 280 characters in length, how can Twitter know that I infringed upon a copyright without me admitting either that I infringed upon a copyright or which copyright I infringed upon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Human reviewers. If they can outsource the content creation to unpaid slaves, why can't they outsource copyright checking to unpaid slaves/users? It just needs a button to every tweet that allows users to indicate that they think the content is infringing copyright or it is somehow otherwise questionable. Even techdirt has such a button, so you can't say it's impossible to implement.
Obviously such buttons are often misused for censorship purposes, but that's what you get for outsourcing your content creation to unpaid slaves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are they supposed to know whether the content of any given post infringes upon any copyright held anywhere in the world — a number that has increased by an immeasurable amount in the past twenty years?
Yes, because people would never lie and use that button to reportbomb someone else off the service~.
People who make and share content through sites like Twitter without getting paid to do so are not “slaves”.
If you really want to compare Twitter to slavemasters, I can find and quote stories about what slavemasters in America did to the Black people they enslaved so you can decide whether the comparison is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if users are flagging your tweet, it might need to be removed from the service temporarily. After proper review it can be restored to the system and maybe given more visibility since it was off the system for a while.
what do you call people who are forced to create content for the platforms without getting paid and the company doesnt even arrange salary, regular meals, computer equipment, social security, pensions, training, workplace, archievement bonuses etc? Basically unions should look into the current employment practises in the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who is being forced to create content?
Also note that not being paid for creating new works was and is the normal for the vast majority of created works. Gaining a big enough audience to be able to get paid is the difficult step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should a person whose tweet doesn’t violate either Twitter rules or copyright law have their account suspended/a tweet of theirs deleted (temporarily or permanently) because of a coördinated harassment campaign carried out by other people? You’re trying to solve the wrong “problem”.
People aren’t forced to make content for any platform. People who post their work on Twitter (or YouTube, or DeviantArt, or Soundcloud, or…) aren’t forced to post it there; they do so because they want to share their art with the world. Posting on Twitter doesn’t make someone a Twitter employee by default. (It makes them the product being sold to advertisers, but that’s an argument for another day.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"if users are flagging your tweet, it might need to be removed from the service temporarily"
Yes, so you're in favour of dishonest censorship.
"what do you call people who are forced to create content for the platforms without getting paid"
I call him "tp", and I congratulate him for doing so as regularly as he does in order to create free traffic for Techdirt and free entertainment for the rest of us. Although, nobody's forcing him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Manual review is not possible when new works are being published faster than they can be reviewed. Besides which, it is only possible to determine infringement if the reviewer is familiar with the work being infringed upon. While that may be largely feasible for works published via the big corporations, it will not work for the very much larger volume of self published. Why should those corporations be given a privileged position with respect to copyrighted works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
reviewing the material is significantly easier task than creating the material from scratch. So the argument where reviewing is considered too burdensome, but content creation is somehow anyway possible is not working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does anyone keep up the 500 odd hours a minute of content being posted to YouTube? If you cannot keep up with that content how do you find infringing works, as self published works can and are infringed on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can use exactly the same mechanism as what you use to actually create the content. I.e. crowdsource the copyright checking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That does not solve the problem, as copyright checking involves knowing the works being infringed upon. If the checker does not know almost all the works that have been published, how can the detect infringement on those works.
Or to put it another way, the problem is not looking at an individual work to be checked, but rather looking at every other work to spot infringement, and the latter is not solvable by crowd sourcing. For example, the 500 hours of videos published on YouTube in the last minute need to be checked against all prior published videos on YouTube, which is 720,000 hours for every day and 262,800,000 hours, per year at the current rate of publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's actually easier for YouTube to do that (though ContentID is of course far from perfect) than it is for them to check against all content published everywhere else. Even if they use Google's database of everything publicly published online (which they uniquely have access to, removing almost all smaller companies from the ability to compete in this area), that still doesn't give them data about things that have never been published online or are hidden behind robots.txt or pàywall blocks.
If someone creates a video, then someone else uploads it to YouTube before the original creator publishes, it is literally impossible for YouTube to know it's infringing before someone complains, as it has never existed online before and there is no register of offline content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ContentID is not a full catalogue of works, but rather a catalogue of some works where the copyright belongs to the old school publishers. Even YouTube cannot check every new submission against all previous submissions, but has instead built a system to placate a few powerful lobbying associations who also have the resources to give YouTube significant legal headaches by bringing many cases against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"ContentID is not a full catalogue of works, but rather a catalogue of some works where the copyright belongs to the old school publishers"
Given the controversies over, for example, various submissions of white noise having been flagged, I'm not entirely sure this is true. But, I'll be willing to concede if you have more info than I'm aware of.
"Even YouTube cannot check every new submission against all previous submissions"
Not really true. As I understand it, ContentID is essentially based around fingerprinting and you can create that when encoding the video for display. This is why you often find things on there with slowed down/distorted audio, video out of frame, extraneous repeated content, etc. to get around such things. But, my point is simply that YouTube can only really check against what they have access to. If they're expected to compare against all copyrighted content, that's literally impossible since much of it is not online, and there's no repository they can refer to for the rest.
"built a system to placate a few powerful lobbying associations who also have the resources to give YouTube significant legal headaches by bringing many cases against them"
This is true. ContentID was a direct response to the number of lawsuits brought against them to sue them for even content the owner had themselves uploaded. It's massively flawed and not reliable, but it's clear why it's there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not true. This kind of crosschecking against all the works in the world is not necessary to do proper copyright checking. Basically there is easier algorithm for the same thing:
1) split the work in question to parts
2) find out creation date and author for every part separately
3) combine the info from step (2) to complete list of authorship information
Basically all you need to do is find all (C) notices contained inside the work. Given that removal of the (C) notices is illegal, you can be ensured that if the work contains those notices anywhere, all those authors need to be compensated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold onto that thought…
That…isn’t easier. By a long shot. If anything, you made the “algorithm” more complicated by splitting works into different parts rather than look at the work as a whole. And not every work contains a notice of authorship; the first video uploaded to YouTube doesn’t display a copyright notice anywhere in the video, but it still remains copyrighted to the person who authored/uploaded it. You’re literally asking for employees/“volunteers” to put more thought (and work) into determining who holds a copyright on a given piece of media than the average person likely puts into whether their shit is copyrighted in the first place.
What happens when a work lacks a copyright notice — not because one was removed, but one was never put there in the first place? (Again, Night of the Living Dead fell into the public domain because of that oversight.) What happens when a work displays a copyright notice that names a corporate entity, but the corporation no longer exists and information about who actually owns the copyrights is non-existent (e.g., abandonware games)? What happens if a work is copyrighted to a company in a different country but licensed for distribution to an American company — who gets to enforce the copyright, and which company is in the right for doing so?
You keep thinking dealing with copyright is black-and-white simple. It isn’t. As has been told to you multiple times, the amount of creative works available to the world has exploded thanks to the Internet, and to truly check all copyrights — from the corporate-registered copyrights that “matter” to the Berne Convention–granted copyrights that every creative work has upon publication — you would need to check a given work against all others in existence. Not even Google has the resources to build a database that big, never mind check it with any expediency. And no such database could account for the principles of Fair Use, which means even the fairest and smallest of uses of preëxisting copyrighted content would get someone dinged.
And that doesn’t even begin to get into, say, false DMCA claims that are practically never pushed back upon in a court of law and other such tactics that route around “proper” copyright enforcement. Google has to treat those claims as legit until proven otherwise or else it loses safe harbor protections. Yes, that’s right: One of the most powerful companies in the world has little-to-no good reason to push back against even blatantly bullshit DMCA claims. (And I’m sure you think that’s a good thing.)
Sussing out who owns what copyrights where is not as simple as you’ve deluded yourself to believe. Google can’t figuratively snap its fingers and magically figure out who owns the copyright on a thirty-second cat video uploaded under a pseudonym ten years ago by someone who might have died in the interim between then and now. Your insane belief in the existence of a “simple” copyright system keeps you from even thinking about, much less addressing, the complexities of copyright that go beyond your simplistic black-and-white thinking. So long as you keep on thinking you’re in a world where copyright is as simple as High Card Wins, you’re never going to comprehend that it’s more like Texas Hold ’Em.
Keep espousing your beliefs about copyright. We here in these comments sections will keep debunking and dismantling all your failed, flawed, and frankly irresponsible beliefs about copyright — and copyright enforcement — with the targeted precision of a doctor with a scalpel. So please, I insist: Bring in your next patient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if copyright notice is lacking, then the examiner will need to spend more work to find out the real authors of the work. Obviously if some part of the work has unknown author, the there is higher risk that the material is infringing copyright.
The reason why works need to be split to small parts is because each part might have different authors. And if you didn't split the work to parts, some of the authors might be lost in the copyright checking process. Thus it is essential that works are divided to parts where authorship information can be better determined.
This "divide work to parts" system is allowing mixing and matching of copyrighted content from multiple authors. So aggregate works can be properly handled when the algorithm separates different sections of the work. This became necessary when video editing tools started allowing mixing and matching of video snippets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therein lies a major issue: How much work should be done to gather that information? Consider the problem of abandonware games — if the company that made a given game is long out of business and information about who worked for that company (or who owns the company’s assets) is basically non-existent, how much work should someone put into finding who holds the copyright on that game before either downloading it or outright distributing it? Again: Copyright isn’t High Card Wins simple, and it’s clear you lack the…well, I don’t want to be too insulting, so I’ll say you lack the skill to play Texas Hold ’Em.
You can’t know, without the information provided to you upfront, who is responsible for what part. And even so, those multiple people may have signed any possible claim of copyrights over to a corporate entity that holds the one and only copyright on the work in question, making the splitting up of the work into multiple parts an exercise in overcomplication. How is Google supposed to automagically know this information if the copyright holder may not even know it for sure?
Seems to me that if a video needs that much splitting up, maybe the content in it is being used under Fair Use principles. In any case, it’s patently ridiculous to split up full-length videos into multiple parts for the sake of copyright matching — especially since you have failed to set a baseline for just how small these parts must be. Is it one minute, two, five, or more? 5%, 10%, 20% of a work? Individual shots as determined by the amount of cuts in a scene or full scenes regardless of how many cuts they feature? And that doesn’t even get into the audio side of things…
Point is: You’re thinking this is all a simple matter and present it in simple terms that you think everyone can implement, but you’re not thinking far enough ahead to consider all the nuances (and consequences) of thie system you propose. You think automation can take care of everything, but you’re leaving the human element (and the inherent messiness of modern copyright law) out of the entire argument, as if avoiding that stuff will somehow make your proposal untouchable.
You’re so concerned about enforcing copyright in the strictest possible way that you don’t make allowances for Fair Use. You’re so enamored with the idea of automated copyright enforcement that you don’t think about how it can be manipulated to censor people. You’re so far up your own asshole with what you think can and should be done to “fix” copyright/copyright enforcement that you can’t (or won’t) acknowledge a fundamental fact: Copyright isn’t always as simple as you damn near religiously believe it is.
Keep worshipping at the altar of copyright if it makes you feel good. But God’s not here, and nothing’s changing only because you pray for simplicity in a complicated world. A refusal to accept that fact doesn’t do you any favors here. It won’t take you far anywhere else, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright system has a feature that it forces old works to disappear from the market when the original authors can no longer be reached (and money exchanged to products). Abadonware is very near that filter where large section of old works just need to disappear. This copyright's feature allows new works to be created at the same rate than how old works are disappearing from the market. If large collections of abadonware becomes popular, the rate of which new works are created might need to be adjusted or they fill the marketplace and reduces chances of new works to find customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how is that fair to the general public, who should benefit from a lack of enforceable copyright(s) on a given work by seeing that work fall into the public domain? The general public are the ultimate beneficiares of copyright, since the system is (ostensibly) designed to let cultural works fall into the public domain and become the building blocks for new cultural works. (It doesn’t do that any more, or at least not with works made within either you or your parents’ lifetimes, but still.)
For what reason should a cultural work “disappear” because it lacks an enforceable copyright? By your logic, Night of the Living Dead should’ve been “disappeared” in its entirety after its theatrical run concluded because it lacked an enforceable copyright.
New works are created at a rate far faster than that these days. You’re missing the broader point that’s sitting directly in front of your face: Old works shouldn’t need to “disappear” for new works to enter the world, nor should they need to disappear because of a lack of enforceable copyrights. Shakespeare’s works have been public domain for as long as you or I have been alive; is that a good reason to “disappear” them from existence?
Like I said: That rate already outpaces what you think it should be — and by leaps and bounds, no less. You can’t “adjust” the rate at which human creativity happens. You can only adjust the rate at which it gets published.
…which, once again, proves my theory about you: You’re not taking any sort of human element into account when you discuss copyright. You’re fixated only on automating copyright, on making copyright a “simple” system with no human error and no room for mistakes. But you’re not considering how people can and will fuck up your system, because like any system, it’s made by humans — and like humans, that system will be flawed and frail and exploitable. You’re not going to convince anyone here, except maybe yourself, that your system is a “magic bullet” and your views on copyright are rooted in anything but a slightly milder version of corporate sociopathy.
You don’t give a fuck about false DMCA takedowns, the public domain, or how your system might affect the publication of human creativity. You only give a fuck about designing a foolproof copyright enforcement system in a world where no such thing is possible. That you care less about how your ideas might actually harm content creators from numerous fields and more about protecting corporate interests is…telling.
But I don’t expect you to address that. You are, above all else, a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"By your logic, Night of the Living Dead should’ve been “disappeared” in its entirety after its theatrical run concluded because it lacked an enforceable copyright."
Then, by extension, never have become a popular Halloween staple due to its public domain status, thus never generating enough interest to follow up with Dawn Of The Dead and its many contemporary imitators, thus never inspiring the huge number of new works that have been made constantly since that film's release.
Similarly, he's demanding that It's A Wonderful Life be destroyed because it didn't make money to begin with, thus ensuring that anything from Gremlins to a bunch of yearly Christmas themed movies never exist, at least not in the form they exist now.
This psychopath is not simply wanting to remove historical works he has to compete with because he's too incompetent to create and/or market a product that people actually want to buy and use, he's demanding that huge swathes of culture never exists in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most new works "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were.
The death of older works cripples the pool of raw material for the creation of the new.
Disney would never have made its now-classic movies if the traditional stories they made them from had been force-forgotten for being too old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Most new works "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were"
I'd replace that with all new works. If you have a story that doesn't fit the theory of six (or is it seven) plotlines in the world, it might be truly revolutionary, but almost everything can be traced back to ancient Greece or similar. Creativity is how you tell the story or what it represents in your time, in the same way that cookery involves technique and innovation rather than inventing new vegetables to cook. Creative people build on what came before, always.
"Disney would never have made its now-classic movies if the traditional stories they made them from had been force-forgotten for being too old."
It's not just about the movies they made directly. No Snow White means no proof that feature length animated movies are considered viable, which means no anime and no version of a lot of similar culture. But, it means more - no Disney means no Tim Burton which means no Batman movie (in its current form at least), and whether you like his movies or not he kickstarted a lot of careers, inside and outside of the interpretation. Similarly, no NOTLD success means no Dawn Of The Dead, which might mean no career for Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright, Zack Snyder and James Gunn, which again means a lot of current Marvel/DC stuff isn't around, and could also mean that Peter Jackson wasn't inspired to make Braindead/Dead Alive, which means no Lord Of The Rings and... well, the implications mean we don't have anything we have now, really.
The cultural impact of the public domain and older movies being available cannot be underestimated. Anyone who denies this is either completely ignorant of how creative people work or... well, financially dependant on destroying culture for profit. I'm sure we can all agree we're better off without those people, even as they use the work of others to post their ignorance without payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that certainly does sum up the likes of TP and bobmail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the most frustrating falsehood is the idea that creativity exists in a vacuum. Then, they'll use that idea to defend corporations who exist solely on the use of other peoples' ideas, and blocking independents who built on them.
The basic problem is that true creativity depends on sharing and openness, while corporate profits depend on restrictions and silos. There is a balance, but someone who claims that the past should not exist to provide it is insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm very glad that the real world does not operate under your psychotic need to destroy old works in order to make the crap you shovel seem more appealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering how ToiletPaper consistently fails to defeat the single-line strawmen he crafts out of your relpies, he likely struggles at Go Fish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That approach relies on an impossibility, as indelible copyright notices on every part of a work are not possible. What you are asking for is that every second or less of sound carries an indelible copyright notice, along with every frames of every video, with sound and video each carrying their copyright notices, along and every phrase of every written work, and every recognizable part of every picture. You will end up with mode bits dedicated to copyright than are dedicated to the actual content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if you think these copyright notices are impossible to handle, there is another alternative available:
1) you can hire all the people who contributed to the product
2) employment contract will automatically assign copyright to the employer
3) when only the employer owns the copyright, all this burdensome copyright notice bullshit is reduced to "one copyright notice mentioning the employer".
That's the alternative. I don't think it is very suitable for hobbyist content, but that's the only other alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are overlooking or ignoring real practical problems of creating indelible notices, as what one person can add to a digital file for other to extract and read, another person can overwrite. Also is the notices system is fine grained enough to mark copyable elements within a file, you will bulk out the file by a factor of two or more. There is also the problem of cpu resources when using devices like mobile phones, which allow people to make and post videos and photographs on the spur of the moment.
Sometime those photographs and videos will be very similar, like 30+ people at a beauty spot photographing and filming the spectacular sunset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don’t forget that a file can be used with permission, then that permission be withdrawn without YouTube or whoever being notified. Then, that false claims are commonly made so even a perfect system is still going to be under attack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the alternative would be for youtube to create all their content themselves, which might be slightly more burdensome alternative. If they want to use content created by other people, then accepting small bit of license uncertainty is not an onerous requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re literally fucking insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re asking a third party with no access to contract agreements to unfailingly verify contracts that can change seconds after they verify them without their knowledge. Then, expecting that work to be equally accurately replicated by companies that have none of the resources that YouTube do.
It’s not just impossible, it’s insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still has the same problem as hiring actual employees to do the checking: How is the average person supposed to know — or find out on their own — if even a single frame of a video infringes upon any copyright (registered or not) held anywhere in the world?
Also:
Content creation is, 99.999999999% of the time, a far easier task than sussing out whether the content violates any copyright anywhere in the world. Like the other poster said: Back when people could feasibly track the amount of works published to the public in a given year, your ideas might hold weight. But we’re not in that world any more.
On a given day, sites like DeviantArt, YouTube, Soundcloud, Twitter, TikTok, Tumblr, Wordpress, and a myriad selection of others receive a whole hell of a lot of user-generated content. Any work that isn’t merely a reposting of a copyrighted work in its entirety (e.g., a full copyrighted movie on YouTube) or in part (e.g., a screencap of an anime) gains a copyright of its own. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of submissions every day from across the entire Internet and from around the entire world. (And mind you, that’s being highly conservative.)
Now how do you figure anyone moderating such platforms (either as an employee or as a “freelance” crowdsourcer) can feasibly keep up with who owns the copyrights to what work when every one of those submissions has its own copyright by default (thank the Berne Convention for that one), no platform for UGC has a centralized copyright database of any kind, and creating one might even be unfeasible due to copyright law and the nature of Fair Use? (Fan art and fanfiction are derivative works of existing copyrighted works and technically infringing, after all.) And how do you keep believing, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, that you have the One True Solution — the “magic bullet”, the “holy grail”, the singular idea that handles all of this shit and is both easy to implement and cost-effective vis-á-vis time and money — when literally everyone before you who has considered how to solve this “problem” has yet to make one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other problem is that the same file can be infringing or not infringing depending on who uploaded it. Say I create a video and upload it to YouTube, that's legal. A friend copies the video and uploads it to YouTube, with my explicit permission - still legal. Then, I have a falling out with my friend and I revoke the permission. Suddenly, one copy is legal, the other is not, and if nobody told YouTube about the revocation, they're at risk despite not having done anything wrong.
This is why our friend here is so delusional - he fails to understand how things actually operate in the real world, yet, he resists any of the ways this can be fixed (in this case, ensuring that copyrights and licences have to be registered, rather than depending on some nebulous system of crowdsourcing that will magically work so long as you block large numbers of people from using your service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you should only trust those uploaders that are explicitly mentioned in the copyright notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens to videos uploaded by people who end up removed from those notices — do the videos get deleted even though they were legally uploaded at the time? What happens if someone uploads a video with the permission of the copyright holder, but the copyright holder fails to let…well, basically the entire world know that the uploader has that permission?
You think it’s easy to do what you say, but it’s not. And it never will be. Hell, even Viacom fucked up this basic premise by suing YouTube over videos uploaded by Viacom employees who had the permission of Viacom itself to do so. If a giant multimedia conglomerate can get it wrong despite all the resources it has at its disposal, what makes you think some regular jackoff posting videos of their cat on YouTube can get it right 100% of the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
twitter or youtube does not need to remove the history of those people who upload videos without permission. Youtube's position that they allow all uploads, and then only later check them against copyright infringement is just ok, they just need to take responsibility of illegal stuff between the time when video became visible to the public and the time when the copyright aspects were checked. Obviously repeat infringers need to be banned from the system, so if their automatic bots are detecting that copyright notices are not matching the information about uploaders, then they might need to ask for further clarifications from the uploader. This can all happen after upload happened.
Youtube's system that they never delete uploads is pretty ok, given that if they have illegal uploads, those instances need to be recorded to the system so that repeat infringers can be identified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how is YouTube supposed to know, in every possible case, whether a video was uploaded unlawfully? Again, I point you to the Viacom case: If even Viacom can’t keep track of the videos it allowed employees to upload, how do you expect Google to do the same for every video on YouTube (and every video that isn’t currently on YouTube but could theoretically be uploaded some day)?
What if the automated bots are tricked somehow — tricked into thinking an illicit upload is a legal one, and vice versa — and Google doesn’t catch it until a good while later, possibly after some bad PR? You’ve failed to account for human ingenuity in this scenario (and likely all the others you’ve proposed), and it shows when you fail to address these key points until after someone brings them up. If you were smart, you’d answer these questions before anyone else brought them up.
But you didn’t. So…yeah…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
well, there is 300k dollars damage awards available for anyone if youtube fails to do this diligently. That money is significant enough to give platforms incentive to build working copyright checking systems. And its also big enough that original authors have incentive to sue the pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, I see you once again ignored all the hard questions and went for the one you thought was the easiest to answer. Your cowardice in addressing the “this is the real shit” questions is matched only by your nigh-dogmatic zealotry for copyright enforcement at all costs.
And yet, no amount of money will ever be able to build a system that understands context. An automated system can process a YouTube film review that uses footage from the film being reviewed and match that copyrighted footage to its source; that much is true. But that system can’t detect whether that footage is being used under Fair Use principles. If you think your copyright-detetcing system can do this thing that literally no other copyright-detecting system in the world can do, you might want to explain how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"well, there is 300k dollars damage awards available for anyone if youtube fails to do this diligently"
Again, you are unable to deal with the real world, so you have to dive off into an imagined tangent.
The reason the Viacom case is always raised is that YouTube DID act diligently, but they were sued anyway because Viacom was too incompetent to do their work properly. YouTube accepted content from authorised Viacom representatives, it was Viacom's records that were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"you should only trust those uploaders that are explicitly mentioned in the copyright notices."
OK, so you can never sell the work to anyone else? No agencies that do the distribution work on behalf of artists can ever exist, they have to do all the work themselves in every country? No work can ever be distributed after the individual in the copyright notice (which does not exist in the first place for the majority of created work) has died?
Your "solutions" always have major issues that outweigh the imagined benefits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I didn't yet implement this system properly. My own web site just got feature complete status on displaying 3d models. But my copyright enforcement system isn't yet implemented. I'm still thinking about how to implement it.
This is exactly the problem why noone has working copyright system available: It is not actually needed to get the technical aspects of the service working. Companies just take high legal risks when their solutions are not able to do proper copyright checking.
Nice thing about copyright system is that it removes liability, and thus when you implement the technology, there is more legal options availble to you and you dont need to restrict your service so badly for legal reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judging by everything you’ve said about your proposal, you haven’t thought your cunning plan even halfway through.
But the tech element will always have something working against it: the human element. Copyright isn’t as simple as “X part of this video matches Source Y, it’s a violation, kill the video entirely”. Fair Use, abandoned/unknown copyrights, public domain/CC Zero content, false DMCA claims…all of this, and likely more that I can’t think of, are issues you have consistently ignored or written off. No automated system can discern context; hell, people can’t even get it right all the time. What makes you think your system, as miraculous as you claim it to be, can get everything about copyright flawlessly correct 100% of the time when actual people fuck it up on a daily basis?
Companies don’t like to take legal risks unless they have a damn good chance of winning. No company will take a legal risk with copyright unless the higher-ups (or their legal team[s]) think victory in a legal proceeding is more likely than not.
Except your system will artificially limit what can go on the service because it can’t, by definition, discern context — i.e., whether an uploaded work makes use of copyrighted content under Fair Use principles. Your system is “X matches Y, nuke it from orbit”; it will prevent any content that uses existing content under Fair Use principles from ever being published. That won’t cut out piracy alone — it’ll cut out entire swaths of content, ranging from parody to film criticism, that requires Fair Use to even exist. Nobody will want to use any site that has your system installed because your system will suppress numerous kinds of speech with seemingly little-to-no recourse for appeal (or invoking the Fair Use defense). And what’s worse is, you don’t seem to give a fuck about any of that because you’re a copyright maximalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you underestimate the technological limitations that are existing in my current code. I don't think parody is possible at all. I'm not building a video site that can display any video available in the web. I'm building a system that displays 3d models and animates them. Parody might be impossible with the technology. It allows displaying text elements and jpg images, but still parody might be completely outside of the scope of the technology.
Given that there are technological limitations of what kind of content can be displayed, few legal limitations are not too big issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I think I’m estimating them perfectly. If ContentID can’t discern context, neither can your theoretical system.
You might want to talk to the U.S. Supreme Court about that, then.
Neither is YouTube.
You’ve been discussing a theoretical copyright enforcement system where other commenters and I have mentioned YouTube numerous times. Your pissant website has no relevance to that discussion (partly because nobody cares enough to pirate your shit, which I’d bet hurts you on some level). Stick to the discussion at hand, rather than the one you want to have that would make it easier for you to “win”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I'm building a system that displays 3d models and animates them"
So... you're creating copyrighted material that may or not be similar to other material that already exists? Think about that for a moment...
"It allows displaying text elements and jpg images"
So, copyrighted material?
"parody might be completely outside of the scope of the technology"
Only if you have made a system so poor that it allows zero creative input from the user. Which, I suppose, might well be possible, knowing you. Broadcast quality 3D animation was being created with Commodore Amigas 25-30 years ago, why does your software fail so badly on vastly more powerful machines?
"Given that there are technological limitations of what kind of content can be displayed"
There are no technological limitations, only limitations of your own ability to use a particular tool. Which is presumably why you keep whining about the likes of Blender and Pixar - their software allows the creativity you have devoted yourself to destroying, thus people use them instead of your badly designed mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We will never know for sure, until someone actually tries the system.
If I started a competition that required readers of techdirt to create parody with the existing 3d modelling system, how many people would be interested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We will never know for sure, until someone actually tries the system."
I'm sure you've claimed in previous posts that you had some users, you were just whining that more people weren't being attracted to it away from far superior established platforms by your incomprehensible bus adverts. So, people have tried it. I take it the feedback wasn't good?
"If I started a competition that required readers of techdirt to create parody with the existing 3d modelling system, how many people would be interested?"
Not many, but that's because the idea doesn't make a huge amount of sense and the end results would have a tiny audience, if any. But, if you want users of Techdirt to create a parody of something generally, well the annual public domain jam is happening soon, as announced on the front page currently, and both parody and 3D modelling would be acceptable parts of that for those interested.
Maybe you should be on those threads encouraging people to use your preferred tools to create new works, rather than in this one complaining that the public domain exists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I understand that when I don't yet have copyright checking system implemented, the system might be dangerous for users to use. :)
The end result that I would expect after few days of work would look something like this:
https://meshpage.org/meshpage.php?p=2&id=378
As you can see, the end result isnt as good as many would hope from a professional quality 3d modelling software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which would probably explain why nobody uses your software: When tools from 30 years ago can produce results superior to your “modern” tool, your tool won’t find much use in the here and now.
The only way anyone would use your software would be if they were forced to do so. (Possibly at gunpoint.) That isn’t anyone’s fault but your own. You failed — so the least you can do is own your failure. And maybe, I’unno, move on with your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
already doing that, since i got a dsp job starting in january. So wont have time to tweak the 3d stuff any longer. Its up to the internet to find good use for the available system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t know what use you expect that to be, other than an example of hubris meeting ignorance and immediately deciding to fuck it out behind a dive bar at 3 in the morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
people in this thread has said that "parody" is some kind of groundbreaking stuff that needs to be available and copyright laws shouldn't try to break that pattern. Now I have tech available for implementing that aspect, so its all good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Now I have tech available for implementing that aspect"
You do. You also built that hilariously bad product for a very competitive and quite crowded market, with the promise that you might be able to recreate a toddler's sketch in a few days rather than the 2 minutes in which they can already do it. That's even before we get to the part where the tool will apparently block you from working with it if it doesn't like what you're doing.
Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that "parody" is a creative expression that's available to everyone, whether your chosen tool is a pen, a paintbrush, a 3D modelling program or the spoken word. The simple fact that you think that the program you wrote somehow enables that expression speaks volumes about how little you understand this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, I understand that when I don't yet have copyright checking system implemented, the system might be dangerous for users to use."
So, it's not that you're incompetent at design or marketing, it's just they you feel the need to completely restrict what users can do with your tool before you try to sell it to them?
Yeah, good luck with that. Meanwhile, the flood of original copyrighted content that you're trying to filter for are being created by users of your competitors, without such issues.
"As you can see, the end result isnt as good as many would hope from a professional quality 3d modelling software"
Well, you have that right lol. Why would anyone bother to use that piece of crap software if that's all you can expect from it? You claim it's a piece of 3D modelling software, yet that result looks like something my 6 year old niece knocked up in MS Paint in 10 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't expect techdirt readers to be able to use the advanced features with less than 3 days of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What advanced features?
No worries, anyone reading this with any interest whatsoever in 3D modelling will already be familiar with at least one of your established competitors, and will be similarly laughing their asses off at the idea that your travesty is even remotely a real alternative option to what they already use. You might as well be trying to convince Wall Street traders to switch from their existing systems to the new abacus you just built.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Things like voxels, volumes, animations, recursive structures, boolean operations, phong/snow/flat shading, sprites, input handling, state machines, character animation rigging etc... stuff like that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, outdated functions and stuff other competitors already do better...?
OK..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
mine is still easier to use even though 3 days might not be enough to teach it to techdirt regulars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh, proof is here: https://meshpage.org/meshpage.php?p=5 the section "How does the site work?"... It has all the steps needed to get some 3d stuff output.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could learn Blender in three days and do far more with it than anyone ever could do with your bullshit after any amount of time. Your system is so outdated that it makes the CGI in the anime film Golgo 13: The Professional look like something from a modern Marvel film in comparison. And that doesn’t even get into the 2D shit that your system apparently does, which anyone could do far more easily in both free applications like GIMP and free web applications for animated text.
Nobody uses your system because nobody needs to use it. It offers nothing — quite literally nothing at all — that other, widely known, widely available applications can’t do themselves. You fill no specific niche that would lead people to require your system. You offer nothing new to the world with your system. You can keep crowing on and on about how you’ve got all these big plans for it, but in the end, it’s never going to be anything more than a passion project where you are the only person with a passion for it — and that’s on a good day.
Your problem is you think you’re inventing the wheel in an age where everyone is already driving electric vehicles. You’re so far behind the times that even Marty McFly would wonder how you got to this day and age without a DeLorean. And no matter how hard you try, you will never — and I mean never — be able to even come close to making your system anything worth using in comparison to your “competitors”.
I’d tell you to give up and move on, but you clearly believe — with the kind of frothing-at-the-mouth faith seen only in fervently dogmatic evangelical clergy — that you’re going to hit upon some magic formula that makes your shit worthwhile. You won’t. You won’t get people to use your system, you won’t get people to metaphorically (or maybe literally) suck your dick for creating that system, and you won’t go down in history in any way for what you’ve made.
Take it from someone who can rightfully say this: You are a failure, and it’s time you told yourself that so you can stop lying to yourself and move on to doing something worth a good god’s damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So your alternative is to quit while you're ahead and play dead for the rest of your life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the alternative is to find something else to do with your life instead of continuing on with this charade where you think your outdated shit is ever going to be useful to anyone but yourself. Sunken costs fallacy, ever heard of it? Because that is literally all your system is: sunken costs going nowhere and doing nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"mine is still easier to use even though 3 days"
It's really not from what I've seen, but even if it was, why should someone use your crap instead of what's already accepted by professional productions? You can't turn up at Pixar and say "I know Meshpage" when all the other candidates know Renderman, and you absolutely will not compete with the other people if your output is that laughable image. Even if you were correct about your program being easier to use, the end results make it useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if they use the same tools than everyone else, it'll look like they cloned each others work when everything uses the same stuff. My solution is clearly different in such way that noone else gets the same result, and thus brings the patent pending unique feel to the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"if they use the same tools than everyone else, it'll look like they cloned each others work"
No, that's another one of your fantasies. You probably use the same tool (browser) as many people to spout your nonsense here, yet your words are breathtakingly original idiocy.
"My solution is clearly different in such way that noone else gets the same result"
So, nothing gets done. I used to think you might be a talented coder, as you often claim, who just got confused with your move from embedded systems to end user focussed products. Someone who creates something useful but just lacks the ability to sell it. But, apparently, your failure is because you're trying to block people from achieving anything with your software. Literally the only unique selling point of your program that you've provided is that it stops you from being creative, everything else is supplied elsewhere.
"thus brings the patent pending unique feel to the product"
I can name a movie I saw this year that was generally original, highly effective, commercially successful and was entirely filmed using Zoom. I can name multiple movies that have been successful and unique and original that were created by cameras and animation tools that are used by many other people. I can look at your provided example and claim of work time required, and can laugh heavily at your claim that the shoddy result of your "few days" of work outweighs the result of the tools that are designed to free rather than restrict the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if these other tools are so great, where is your output after using those tools?
Given that such output doesnt exist, i get the feeling that the tools you praise are simply too difficult to use for ordinary techdirt regular. If you need a professional artist to use the tool, the end result that you mention actually costs too much and is completely unavailable for ordinary people. Then even if you manage to create the content, the output of the tools simply fails to work in your web page.
basically you praise tools that do not deserve your preaise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"if these other tools are so great, where is your output after using those tools?"
I'm not a 3D artist, but I enjoy their work.. Thousands of successful artists who provide quality output are such, and I'm not aware of one of them using your tool. Therefore, unless you have other information I don't know about, I assume they prefer those tools rather than your "my tool will let you design a toddler's drawing in 3 days if I don't think it might be infringing" option.
I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary, but so far I've only seen results I would have laughed at in the late 80s, and there's been a hell of a lot of progress since then. Maybe the tools are not the problem and your artistic skills are lacking, but when you're literally saying that you want to compete with Pixar you need to step up your game..
"i get the feeling that the tools you praise are simply too difficult to use for ordinary techdirt regular."
I get the feeling that you don't understand who that is. I personally don't believe that a blog that deals with issues of tech, copyright and law would not attract readers familiar with computer animation. They might not be regular commenters or reveal their credited names, but your assumption that nobody here has a passing familiarity with Maya, Renderman or Blender is laughable.
"If you need a professional artist to use the tool, the end result that you mention actually costs too much and is completely unavailable for ordinary people. Then even if you manage to create the content, the output of the tools simply fails to work in your web page."
If you need a professional result, you pay a professional. That's true whether you need a quality website or a professional car repair or a professional cake. A poor professional blames their tools - that's an old saying. But, no professional chooses to use tools that are not suited for the job.
This is your problem. You think that your tool will enable things that people can't do otherwise, but all you're really doing is trying to sell professionals crayons instead of brushes. You think that you can sell VHS camcorders to people and allow them to make videos their iPhones already allow them to produce in 4K... only that they should also block them from filming something that other people filmed before them. You seem to literally be trying to say that your software that returns worse results than an Amiga in 1995 is competing with the software that created the last Pixar movie because it blocks people from using copyrighted material, and that this is more creative. It's an amazing lack of awareness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so you just google someone elses work? if my tool exceeds the quality required by your first googling, you'll just google something else and claim my tool can't compete against the whole world and every requirement that google search can find? But when someone wants custom stuff with the same quality, you simply cannot deliver it. You pick the best work from the planet and claim that its the level of quality required, but when you need to implement that required quality, your card house falls apart and delivers nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"so you just google someone elses work? "
What's wrong with that? Is it wrong to learn about the tools and techniques used by artists now?
"But when someone wants custom stuff with the same quality, you simply cannot deliver it"
I can't, but experienced, talented, successful professionals in the field can... and they don't use your shitty software. If I need to do something myself, I'll go with the free software they recommend.
Meanwhile, the example you gave of what your software can deliver is something I would have been embarrassed about if I'd have created it on my Atari ST in 1989.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can do that too:
https://cgsociety.org/galleries/featured
https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/staffpicks
https://poly.go ogle.com/
These all were not done by renderman, so renderman must suck.
All these artists are creating great work, but all of this is done without
the help of renderman. Why do you praise renderman if professional artists
are not actually using it?
The argument is basically bullshit. Comparing any tool with the combined effort of the whole world is compltely bullshit comparision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I can do that too"
Yes, you managed to Google a bunch of people using Blender, Maya and Poly, among other software, that competes with the rancid crap you're trying to release...
"These all were not done by renderman, so renderman must suck"
Nope. Renderman is a tool with advantages and disadvantages like any other. Some artists will swear by it, some will disagree. If you want to give a more basic example, it's like if a Linux admin wants to use vim, nano, emacs or something else... ultimately, the results are down to the user, the tool they prefer is up to them.
But, according to you, the major selling points of your "tool" are that it will actively try to prevent you from being creative if it feels you're going to use something similar to a copyrighted work, and that if you work for a few days you'll end up with something an 8 year old knocked up in Paint in 10 minutes.
It's no mystery why you failed. The only questions are why you think the equivalent of throwing my cat on to a Casio keyboard will result in a classic concerto, and why you're blaming the conductor for not buying into that plan instead of hiring a full orchestra.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if you add my web page to the above list of googled web sites, you
should use the url:
https://meshpage.org/meshpage.php
while my page still cannot compete against all the googled stuff, i can still claim
4 position in the world with my web page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"if you add my web page to the above list of googled web sites, you
should use the url"
Using which search terms? I dare you to provide a link that includes your site with the others you listed.
"while my page still cannot compete against all the googled stuff, i can still claim
4 position in the world with my web page"
LOL, no you can't. You can claim that in a cherry picked list you gathered using different search terms (assuming you used a search for the last one) that your site appears on it. In an honest search, your site would not appear.
I mean, seriously. It's like a discussion about the best movies ever made and after Citizen Kane, 2001 and Vertigo are held up as the consensus, Tommy Wiseau comes in to say The Room is the runner up. People might disagree with the first 3 choices and they're free to do so, but nobody's going to agree with the last one... except for comedy value of course. Again, I've had better results than your example from software on a demo floppy disk in 1991, why would anyone prefer your software to a professional standard program now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Browsers removed support for adobe flash, and they're offering webassembly as the replacement. But sadly there isn't any animation frameworks built with webassembly (except meshpage), so the developers that still use flash to write their web animations might need to move to my product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or — and I know this might be hard to wrap your head around, so try to stick with me here — they already have other tools with which to make animation. And they have an output format waiting to go, too: It’s called “any widely used video codec in existence”.
You seem to suffer from the delusion that other tools that have been around far longer than yours — and with far more ubiquity than yours will ever have — can’t do what you claim yours can. But they can. Shit, as far as animation goes, Aseprite can do that for pixel art, GIMP can do that for animated GIFs, and plenty of 3D modelling and animation software — Blender and Source Filmmaker, for example — can do that for 3D animation.
You’re trying to write MS-DOS in a world where everyone uses Windows 10. You’re trying to write the first short story in a world where thousands of novels are published every year. You’re trying to invent the biplane in a world where Elon Musk is launching rockets. The point is, you’re trying to invent something to do what people have been doing for decades and acting like your “invention” (such as it is) does everything better. But by all objective standards, your system does it far worse that all the popular software for literally any kind of art creation/graphic design.
If I spent a day learning your system and a day learning Source Filmmaker, I’d get more done with Source Filmmaker after that one day that I ever could with whatever you think you’ve made. You’re not making some hot new application that everyone will want to use. You’re inventing something that somebody already made 30 to 40 years ago and you’re mad that you can’t even get credit for the idea. Your system is shit and your dream is dead. Now fuck off to Parler or some equally obscene shitpit of braindead mouthbreathing morons that might accept your system as a technological marvel on par with the creation of fire instead of an outdated piece of shit that everyone else can see is an outdated piece of shit.
I won’t get any kinder than this from here on out, by the way. You need to learn that you’ve failed at whatever it is you thought you would accomplish with this system you’ve made, and the only apparent way to teach you is to keep drilling through your thick skull until the drill hits paydirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we didn't know you were responding to a admitted deliberate troll of "known" identity, if would be easy to assume you're describing that conspiracist twat who didn't invent email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the developers that still use flash to write their web animations might need to move to my product"
It certainly wouldn't surprise me that your ideal target market consists of people with skills a decade out of date, who haven't bothered to learn new skills until they literally can't use the old skills despite that decade of warning, and still somehow create animations that can't be played back with standard codecs built in to every browser.
I hope you and those 2 other lazy morons are happy together, the rest of the world will be using your competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try this Thingiverse search for example of things designed using blender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S.
You could of course search Youtube for 'Blender', where things to with the software outnumber things to do with the machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do not understand art at all. Vincent van Gogh and Rembrandt are both Dutch painters, using the same tools and medium, but their works are distinctive in style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Vincent van Gogh and Rembrandt are both Dutch painters, using the same tools and medium, but their works are distinctive in style"
I think that our friend here neither understands influence nor tools. He thinks that a unique tool decides the result. He doesn't understand that decades, centuries or more influence art, and that tools are the means rather than the ends. I'd imagine him as an IBM salesman trying to demand that the word processor he sold to Stephen King was a more important influence on writing IT than King himself and so he deserves the rights to the latest movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"reviewing the material is significantly easier task than creating the material from scratch"
Using free FLOSS libraries is so much easier than creating them from scratch, yet you use those liberally in your own software...
Also, those are two completely different tasks. It's easier for Netflix to licence a movie than make it themselves, should that mean that they are forced to undergo some unnecessary burden before they can show it to their customers, or does it mean that their service benefits the people who pay them to pay the content creators with the minimum of issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If they can outsource the content creation to unpaid slaves"
The fact that you're ignorant of the fact that many companies hire people to run their Twitter presence is only another mark on how out of touch with reality you are.
"It just needs a button to every tweet that allows users to indicate that they think the content is infringing copyright or it is somehow otherwise questionable"
Yes, and people lie.
"Even techdirt has such a button, so you can't say it's impossible to implement."
Did you somehow miss the shitstorm and rage that occurs every time a certain person is correctly flagged here?
"Obviously such buttons are often misused for censorship purposes"
Therefore, protections need to be in place to ensure that innocent people aren't censored?
"but that's what you get for outsourcing your content creation to unpaid slaves"
Says the person willingly creating content, unpaid, for Techdirt, using more characters than Twitter allows...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Twitter is one of many tools used by people to communicate with each other. It is often used as a means of notifying others of the publication of new longer form content on services like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc. In fact most people that uses Twitter or a similar service also use services that allow them to also post longer form content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Like twitter has 200 character limit on tweets"
Again, it's no surprise that someone as poor with technical facts like you has such a problem getting people to use their code. Twitter used to have a 140 character limit, but increased that to 280 years ago. There's no part of what you said that was accurate.
"Obviously twitter missed tons of users because of that limitation?"
Probably. Competing services offer different use cases and different advantages. Twitter is not a platform for long form communication (outside of video, which you seem to ignore), other platforms are better suited to those discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Well, the video files have copyright notices."
Nope, under current laws in the US, every video is copyrighted the moment it's created. I agree that we should return to a system where corporations need to register with a central authority to request copyright protection, but at the moment that is not reality.
"Users posting the material would need to somehow prove that the license is available for the files"
Bear in mind that one of the major lawsuits affecting YouTube was Viacom, where they presented videos their own employees uploaded themselves as examples of infringement, and it should be obvious why this is flawed.
"Then some high quality content could be completely banned from the service, for example by limiting the file sizes, or frame rates.."
So, you are demanding that no independent producer should be able to upload their content at the same quality as Hollywood content? Again, non-delusional people should easily understand why your ideas are crap.
"Printer manufacturers would probably prefer if every youtube user would need to buy one of their printer/scanner products."
I'm not entirely sure what mental condition you have that suggests that video content online should be managed via paper printouts, but I am grateful for the entertainment value of the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"the tv show didn't have any copyrighted content and thus it needed no reviewing"
So, your TV show has nothing but public domain content on it (which you claim shouldn't exist)? Interesting... Oh, and SMS can absolutely infringe, you know what stops it being a legal issue? Fair use...
This is why I like mocking and goading you, you're not only wrong, you're fractally wrong and the errors in your understanding of reality is only surpassed by the ignorant arrogance you present your arguments with.
"If you don't allow that content, that is also possible alternative"
Yes, and it's an alternative that will kill distribution for a huge amount of legitimate content, which is why your ideas are not welcome to those who understand things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everybody in the world can create original works, and with access to the Internet publish them. Because of that there is now way to manually, or automatically cross reference very item published, especially if translations into different language are considered. The very idea that works can be checked before publication come from an era when very few works were ever published. It is still possible to list every book, record, movie or T.V. program published by traditional book publishers, labels and studios.
Now consider that something like 500 hours of original content is uploaded to YouTube every hour, and thousands of photographs a minute onto the photo sharing sites, along with all the articles published on all the blogs that exist etc. It is just not possible to keep track of human creativity, and those asking for strong copyright are asking for a privilege to be granted to old school publishers, and to the disadvantage of self publishers.
Have you checked every program on GitHub, Gitlab etc. to see if anything similar to yours has been attempted, or would that be too much work to do before starting development?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not so much extinguish as warp and control, as the internet can be incredible lucrative to them so it's not in their best interest to kill it outright so much as cripple it and turn it into tv 2.0, where only a select few are able to post and the gatekeepers are once more in the position of being able to control every step of the process and reap the rewards from doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
so, if pirate material disappears from internet, it'll cripple internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, if in fighting piracy (which has existed long before the internet, and will continue to exist afterwards), you do things that destroy the ability of everyone to do things on the internet, you will cripple the internet.
I know that you being an utter failure at your attempts to create and distribute content on the internet skews your viewpoint a little, but you depend on the things you're trying to destroy as much as anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't use services that have pirate content available. If those services disappear from the earth, its just positive development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. That cuts off a hell of a lot of the Internet for you.
And I’m almost certain that what you do use also has some form of infringement, unless it’s a one-way broadcast service like Netflix. After all, you’re commenting on this site, and I know for sure that in addition to the memes this site posts on an infrequent basis, I’ve quoted movies and TV shows in the past without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Fair Use or not, those memes and quotes still infringe upon copyright — and by using this site, you’re using a service that has pirate content available.
Even you can’t escape infringement without severely limiting what you can do on the Internet — or cutting yourself off from it completely. If you can’t do it, how can you reasonably expect everyone else in the world to do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is "pirate content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To him? Probably anything not on Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, or Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It always strikes me as both funny and sad that as far as I can tell their arguments ultimately boil down to 'every industry on the planet should have the duty to make sure that copyright infringement not only doesn't but cannot occur on their platforms/products'. Talk about the ultimate sense of entitlement and indifference to collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't use services that have pirate content available"
Huh... I'm sure you've claimed to create stuff on itch.io before. Are you a liar or just deluded?
https://itch.io/games/tag-copyright-infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As always have fun fighting the fictional reality and arguments in your head, because (thankfully) it has nothing to do with the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright enforcement presents more of a threat to speech, expression, and creativity than copyright infringement ever will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The world disagrees, Mike-Er, "Steve."
The few instances of wrongful enforcement can be easily undone.
The CASE Act also is opt-in, and makes defending a claim much simpler, but most pirates don't really have a defense. It's like the people who want to stop evictions and call landlords evil for suing money the tenants either couldn't or wouldn't pay.
Does the "institute" here publish its financials? Who gives it money and how much? Who does it pay and how much? Given who runs it, these are very relevant questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s cute, that you think we’re the same person. But it’s not true. Mike has no reason to sockpuppet here, and I have no reason to lie about who I am. Also, if you paid any attention to typography in any way, you’d likely note that my posts differ from Mike’s in certain key ways (e.g., “curly quotes”). That, and I’m far more crude and vile when I drag myself into the gutter to shit on the likes of you.
And in the time that passes to undo that “wrongful enforcement”, the speech that was taken down may have become irrelevant to the current news cycle or social moment — and that doesn’t begin to cover legal cases where lots more time that two weeks may pass between the bogus takedown and a court saying “that was a bogus takedown”.
[citation needed]
Landlords make money by making other people pay for a place to live. That’s not work; that’s legalized extortion. Fuck landlords, fuck the system that lets landlords exist, and fuck the government for not doing more to house all its citizens.
Your threats to “expose” Mike have been going on for years now. Either expose him or shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am in no way related to nor affiliated with the previous AC who clearly lacks any kind of mental foundation based in reality. However...
Um, no. Landlords make money by owning a property and renting/leasing it to others to live in. Nobody is forcing anyone to live there.
Again, no. Owning rental properties is most certainly work, just not the same as a 9-5 job. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's much worse. And again, nobody is forced to live there.
Then... don't rent? Landlords would not exist if there was no market for rental properties. The fact is that there are countless people who cannot buy their own home for whatever reasons. Those people rent. Without landlords and rental properties all of those people would be homeless. Which brings us to your last "point"...
The government already does a fair bit to house or help house those who could not otherwise get a home loan or who can't make rent at market rates. Are you suggesting that the government should provide free housing? Should it pay for everyone's home across the nation? Maybe it should become the Soviet Union 2.0 and supply everything to the populace while actually supplying far too little?
I don't know what you're angle is but I grew up in poverty and climbed my way out of it, now living quite comfortably. I had no advantages, no helping hands, couldn't even get scholarships to help pay for my education. I'm all for social programs to provide a helping hand to those who really need/deserve it (example: those put out of work due to COVID restrictions should be able to collect subsidized employment insurance) but expecting handouts is a bridge too far.
If you're struggling to make your rent, adjust. Get a [better] job, move to a region you can afford to live, go in with some friends to share the load, whatever. It is not the government's place or responsibility to bail you out of poor life choices.
Going back to the COVID restrictions' effect on the economy, if you chose to be an independent contractor as your career and did not prepare for an extended period with no income then you made a poor life choice and do not deserve anything. If you worked at a restaurant that was closed down, did not look for another job and took no action to make sure that the rent would get paid (roommates, moving, etc), probably while also buying a new iPhone, then you have no one to blame but yourself when the eviction notice comes. Life happens. Be prepared for it and stop expecting someone else to salvage the mess you made.
Nobody is responsible for you but you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Manafort says hi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Nobody is responsible for you but you."
That may be a good philosophy to fall back upon when needed for motivational purposes, but the reality is people need a living wage and taxpayers are tired of subsidizing business via various government programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cute. After all this time, you can't imagine that you're arguing with individuals, you have to invent a conspiracy theory where the object of your obsession is the only other person on this site.
It must be so exhausting, having to constantly invent fantasies instead of accepting reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing is more time-consuming than having an enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you expect anything less from a cheerleader of Paul Hansmeier?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's more projection from Woody, the way he's the one that pretends to be multiple/other people all the time.
Not sure if it's more pathetic when Bob forgets to change tor nodes before making a "this guy is totally right" reply to his own post, or when he types the username of a real person's profile onto his comment like it would fool anyone but himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I understand that, it's just amusing. Whether he's telling the truth about him thinking it's a single person conspiracy or whether he's playing it up when he gets noticed trying to pretend people agree with him, it's equally pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]