My immediate thought - here were some silly superhero type kids TV programs in the UK while I was growing up, including "Super Gran" and "Bananaman". Both titles were plays on the superhero name "Superman", but apart form that they bored little real similarity. As far as I'm aware, nobody from DC was suing them because, apart from the fact that people weren't rabidly obsessed with owning every possible use of a common word like they did in the 80s, nobody would ever have confused them.
"would allow 'anyone to release a Wonder Woman movie or comic', claiming 'Mum' is a subset of the word 'Woman'"
I know it's not typical for lawyers to understand these things, but some things are actual facts, and the fact that mothers are a subset of women is not something that can be argued. Nor can you stop people from creating something in the same genre as something else just because their titles are vaguely similar.
Unless they a) decide to create a comic book character and b) start infringing on other copyrights and trademarks in the process, there is little you can, or should, be able to really do about it. "We imagine that at some point in the future someone might decide to do something in a way that offends us" should not be a reason to disrupt everyone else.
"Tell that to the fans of HD-DVD that outsold BD 3:1 in the beginning"
At the beginning. Then, the PS3 was a massive hit that people often used as a cheap Blu-Ray player while you needed to buy an expensive peripheral for the Xbox 360 to play HD-DVD, and economies of scale started making standalone Blu Ray players much cheaper. Meanwhile, there were many more titles available on Blu Ray and the industry eventually agreed to standardise on the more successful format as they did before when VHS wiped out the technically superior Betamax (and other competitors like Video 2000).
That's still the market talking. No matter who you think should have won, in either "race".
"And there’s a reason VHS is still being sold in 2022."
The reason is mostly nostalgia, with new tapes being produced in small batches purely as gimmicks for some new cult movies. There's a fairly vibrant second hand market, but AFAIK nobody's even making VHS hardware any more from what I'm aware of.
"I’d love to see you attempt to prove, not DVD, but BluRay, is better than Digital VHS at 1080P."
I don't need to. Technically superior does not mean that it offers any real benefit to the end consumer, especially if it's significantly more expensive and/or requires additional equipment that the average person does not possess (while most people already own several DVD players even if they didn't buy the device primarily as a DVD player - e.g. game consoles, PCs, TVs), and the title they want to buy isn't available on the other format.
If a technically superior product fails in the marketplace or carves out a niche for itself instead of being in mainstream demand, again, that's still the market talking.
"Those are tape formats, if you didn’t realise."
Yes, and unless you're doing something really stupid and dishonest like trying to conflate domestic and professional broadcast markets, utterly irrelevant.
"VHS was killed because the drm was defeated within a year."
No, VHS was killed because DVD was cheaper to ship, cheaper to manufacture, had vastly superior picture and audio quality, offered features that were impossible to replicate on a VHS and also wouldn't leave you trying to put the damn thing together after the player chewed up your favourite tape.
The fact that the shoddy DRM that studios put on DVD in order to artificially retain some of the natural market separations that VHS had built in (such as language, picture format and distribution channels) barely registers on the list.
Re: Re: Re: Is this the start of a digital backlash
"Ironically, the thing that has held off the all digital revolution in video games is not the DRM requirements nor the backlash by gamers but the inability of the average US-based ISP to deliver real time streaming video data and player inputs at the sub-millisecond delays required by modern video games to be playable."
Well, there is more to it than that. Availability is one - if a game is delisted from a store, you typically have access to that game if you previously bought it, but you have to trust that this will always be the case and while post-release patching is commonplace the majority of non-AAA non-online multiplayer games will allow you to at least play them if you or the server are offline.
Pricing is another - quite often games in stores are cheaper physically than digitally, especially after a few months as stores try to rotate out old stock to make way for newer games. There are exceptions, with Steam, GoG and the console storefronts having regular deep discounts, but it depends on what the game is you're buying.
The third, and I think most important, is resale value. When you finish with a physical disc, you can lend or sell it. It's quite easy to trade in a few older games to buy the new title you want, even if you'll get rock bottom value if you use easy methods like GameStop. With digital, once you finish the game that's it.
Physical media is never truly going away, as we've seen with the resurgence of the vinyl market and the continuation of boutique DVD labels that regularly sell out even if the title is available on their streaming service. But, it's certainly not going away while there's still distinct advantages over and above digital.
"should bots that can't understand context and are even bad at identifying content have the power to decide if something is infringing?"
Typically, they don't because the bots are basing their decision on information given to them by other people. If the bot says "this video contains 30 seconds of song X therefore it's infringing", unless it made a mistake it's only basing that judgement on the people who told them that song X is under copyright and to be enforced.
But, the question is - who else should make the decision? Humans can make mistakes as well, and the whole point of the system is to avoid lawsuits from the people who issued DMCA takedowns over the content being used.
"Let's put that back in the context of this article: no background music. Just the content as described. "Why" in this case is obvious: false positive in looking for infringement"
OK, so a mistake happened. Mistakes can be rectified, and even though the process can be a pain in the ass I know of several channels who have had their movie reviews that extensively utilise clips from movies restored along with their income. You'd obviously prefer it if you didn't have to challenge the request in the first place, but mistakes happen and the system is in place because of people suing YouTube for copyright infringement they didn't commit.
"For some people, this is their business."
Then, they have gone into this business solely dependant on YouTube paying them revenue even though the system you're complaining about has been in place for close to 15 years at this point.
"Problem is the dominant position of Google on this market."
...which will remain indefinitely so long as people whine and whine about YouTube instead of using competing services. Catch 22. Those services exist, but nobody's going to use them as much as YouTube if all the content they want only exists on YouTube. Why would anyone go anywhere else if they can't get your content anywhere else?
Nothing will change if your reaction to problems is to put up with them regardless. You have to take action to change things. I subscribe to numerous channels that put up content on Twitch, Vimeo and even their own hosting platform, and set up their businesses to be less dependant on YT ad revenue and use other sources of income like merch, Patreon, etc. If they lose ad revenue due to a false claim, their business suffers but is not dead.
If you're too lazy to do the same, you're part of the problem if you suddenly lose your only source of income, even if the reason for that loss it a false positive. Same with any other business - if you run a bar and refuse to get supplies from anywhere but the one supplier, it's your fault if you run out of drinks if your main supplier screws up a delivery. Not your fault the order screwed up, but your fault that all your income is coming from a single source.
He doesn't have a point because the system created to mitigate ongoing lawsuits was done before the lawsuits were settled, even though part of the reason the settlement was agreed was because ContentID existed?
"No way. 11 years, as originally conceived, with one option for renewal. If you haven't made (enough) money in 22 years, then so sad, too bad."
I'm not sure there's a perfect solution, but I've always been in favour of the idea that there should be an initial term similar to the original term of copyright. This allows for smaller creators who depend on word of mouth and other types of marketing to benefit (there's plenty of examples of slow burn successes). Past that, renewals are allowed, but they must be made manually and by the original copyright holder up until their death. After that, the copyright can be sold or transferred but does not come with renewal rights - this allows their estate to benefit for a time, but does not allow infinite locking up of culture by corporations.
Not a perfect system, but that seems to satisfy the requirement for creators to benefit if they decide they need to so, while freeing orphaned works and not allowing long term corporate control of the most profitable works.
"Star Wars itself was a rehashing of the cowboy western + hero's journey tropes, nothing new except the details."
Now now, be fair. Lucas also cribbed a lot from samurai movies, as well as world war footage, not to mention the sci-fi serials that inspired his stories after he failed to get his Flash Gordon project off the ground.
Lucas and his team did incredible work that's inspired generations, but you have to be very blind to not see all the influences he proudly utilised.
Or from any signal. If you're watching on a laptop, phone or tablet display, you're probably just wasting bandwidth unless you have extraordinary eyesight. From there it depends not only on the display, but the software. I bought a new TV a few months back, and something I noticed is that performance can vary wildly between apps on the same connection. 5G alone won't do anything significant if there's a bottleneck after the data reaches the device.
This is the real issue with 5G hype - for the most part it's an incremental change where it doesn't open up new use cases on the side of the consumer that don't already exist. There's improvements and some advantages, but they're not the world-changing type that people trying desperately to push it are claiming.
"At one point, the report claims some of the "ambush attack" data came from a source that only categorized three ways: "ambush", "traffic stop", or "interaction with mentally ill""
"Interaction with the mentally ill" there being the type of interaction where "defunding the police" literally means that someone with experience in dealing with the mentally ill is sent instead of a cop. Weird how they'd oppose that... (well, not weird but you know what I mean).
Yeah, I'm very interested in how they define "ambush". It could be that, it could be that they're been forced to follow groups of people into such situations as people who would normally be in the street were inside due to curfews or other lockdown situations, or some other unusual situation related to the pandemic.
We'll probably have to wait until the figures from this year come out to see if there's any long-term trend not related to COVID, but until then I'm thinking they shouldn't make too much of a big deal out of them having to deal with greater risks that affect every public-facing industry. Fast food workers seem to be at far greater risk of violence and even death when they ask certain types of people to follow basic pandemic measures such as mask wearing, but I don't see that being used as a call to do anything about how makes them more armed or give them special powers.
"In 2021, police officers recorded the highest number of on-duty deaths on record"
It's been noted in the article, but that's really their own fault. Police unions have opposed some COVID mandates, and a lot of officers have died due to COVID. There's not a direct causal effect as officers are at risk due to their need to deal with the public, but no more than the average fast food worker and they're likely at less risk than most healthcare workers.
Then, to add to that, there seems to have been a spike in suicides in recent year. I don't see it listed on the full report associated with the linked article unless I'm missing a euphemism I'm unfamiliar with so it's possible they're not listed, but my understanding from other sources was that they, along with deaths in traffic accidents, comprised the largest non-COVID cause of death.
Then, the full report offers something interesting on closer examination - in many of the non-COVID death types, deaths are going down. For example, traffic related deaths - while there seems to be a spike related to officers being hit while outside their vehicle, the average for this decade is lower than any, and significantly lower than the previous spike in the 2000s.
So what can be done about this? Ironically, one of the best solutions is the one they oppose - defunding the police. What that term actually means is that other people more suited to dealing with certain types of calls are sent as a first response, which mean that there's less likelihood of an officer overreacting to a suicide threat or welfare check in a manner that results in a shooting, so presumably less risk of being fired back on and less risk of a depression-causing suicide for the officer who gunned down an innocent person. Most suggestions also deal with redirecting funds currently used for military surplus to training, so that officers are more able to de-escalate situations non-violently, in line with the way it's done in many other countries. Overall, this means less calls and less interactions, which reduce the risk of both COVID and traffic accidents.
Obviously, it's a complicated issue with no single real solution, but looking through the report - other than a few concerning outliers - the major issue is COVID (which, the cops would be well advised to remember is affecting EVERY line of work, so don't make themselves out to be a special level victim).
Then, a lot of the other issues seem to be things that could be related to COVID - more oppositional defiance on the parts of populations who don't like being told what to do, or it strikes me that the "ambush" style attacks could be happening because more people are forced inside due to COVID? I'm not sure, but I suspect that this is something where they need to get rid of the pandemic, not give cops more power.
Then, it should be silly if that gets taken down, but the first thing to look at is why. Did you use background music you didn't write or licence? Is the takedown notice coming from the music, or is it coming from the car manufacturer? Is it a complaint from another similar channel who are accusing you of something? The subject of your channel does not mean it can't infringe.
"how is it that whoever runs these robots that continuously point their digital fingers and lob accusations of felonies aren't open to libel lawsuits?"
Because although they seem random to the end user, they're not. They're making a best guess judgement based on data given to them by the major record labels and other corporate entitles for whom the modern copyright regime is designed. Whenever there's doubt, they will side with the people who sent them the notice to take down on the first pass.
"In what other circumstances is it perfectly okay to falsely accuse someone of federal crimes"
They're not accusing you of federal crimes, they're accusing you of a civil copyright infringement, and they're doing so based on the legal notice given to them by the original holder of the copyright you're accused of infringing (that is, it's actually the record label/whoever accusing you).
There are of course ways to respond to such a claim, but you should be aware that most of those thing (such as fair use) are defined as a defence in court, not a reason why YouTube shouldn't react to takedown notices.
"the purposes of taking away their income? Restraint of trade?"
They can't do any such thing. All they can do is withhold the part of ad income that they have agreed to pay you based on the popularity of the videos you host on their property. They can't affect the same video hosted elsewhere, and having videos taken down won't really affect your offline business unless you're intend on publicising it.
That's a different problem, though. Under the current copyright regime, if the artists signed over ownership of their copyrights under their label contract, then the label are the copyright owner that YouTube have to obey if they issue a DMCA takedown notice.
I doubt that any external audit would reveal anything that wasn't already well known during the 90s, when major artists like Prince and George Michael launched very public protests against how little money they were getting. The only difference between then and now is that there's more options for artists to go independent (or if they wrote their own music, re-record and release independently as numerous artists have done), but the basic "sign with a major label and you'll get an advance in return for your future artistic and financial soul" paradigm hasn't changed much.
I'm all for artists getting paid as much as possible, but if the reason they don't get much is because they agreed to sell everything for bottom dollar when they were starting out, there's not much the rest of us can do.
Yes it's a voluntary development to try and get from under the weight of the massive number of DMCA related lawsuits, including from people like Viacom who were suing them over content they uploaded themselves.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that this means they're not doing it out of necessity, or that obeying these legal orders means that defence of voluntary moderation elsewhere is hypocritical. But, here you are...
Another day, another person inventing a fictional version of what's been said in order to pretend there's a problem.
YouTube aren't moderating the site as they see fit, they are doing what they're being ordered to do under the DMCA and problems arise when the people sending those orders are lying. If YouTube were allowed to make a moderation decision without being held liable for not doing so, the content would not have been taken down. This is perfectly consistent with other positions stated here.
"which is why I rarely look at this gaslighting website anymore"
Please continue not reading it, and go whine elsewhere more suitable to your limited reading ability, since the content here is obviously far too nuanced for your mind to process.
In theory, John Cage's 4'33 is a copyrighted work. It's also possible to automate takedown notices for what is meant to be a statement under penalty of perjury from the individual making the claim.
If the system is so broken that these things are possible, then until copyright law is fixed to a more sane version, the sad fact is that they can claim whatever the hell they want and whoever gets the legal takedown order needs to decide between the victim and the abuser. Hosts are unlikely to be getting enough significant revenue from the car purring video for them to be able to fight it.
"The hosting providers who go along with the rights-holders by default"
They don't really have any choice. They don't have any control over the content before publication, so they have to react to what happens before that (unless there's a ContentID or similar match on upload, which is equally full of problems on a different level and is really only an attempt to fend off the huge level of notices received).
Then, the choice is to either obey what should be a DMCA notice that's issued under penalty of perjury from the claimant, or fight each individual request in court. Given that YouTube was at great risk of going under due to Viacom suing them over files they uploaded themselves, and that nobody except YouTube really has the resources to even consider going to court with millions of claims, hopefully you see why this blame would be misplaced.
It would be nice if other ways of reacting were available, but if you're blaming providers for obeying legal takedown notices, your actual problem is with the DMCA, not the people trying to obey the law. At best, you can argue that takedowns have to be verified by humans before a takedown occurs, but this is a huge undertaking that can't be solved just by throwing people at it, as even a tiny margin of error still means thousands of videos blocked by false claims.
So... you're saying that you blocked a basic function that would make the software useless for a lot of people because you're so intent on enforcing copyright.... but the tool is free to use for all sorts of other types of copyright infringement if people wish?
He'd destroy the bridge, then rebuild it from toothpicks and then complain that nobody's using his superior design that removed all the problems with using concrete.
For someone who claims to be a master coder and wants copyright to be strictly enforced, I don't think I've ever seen anyone who knows less about those subjects than our friend here.
On the post: DC Comics Goes To UK High Court Over Trademark Granted To Unilever For 'Wonder Mum'
My immediate thought - here were some silly superhero type kids TV programs in the UK while I was growing up, including "Super Gran" and "Bananaman". Both titles were plays on the superhero name "Superman", but apart form that they bored little real similarity. As far as I'm aware, nobody from DC was suing them because, apart from the fact that people weren't rabidly obsessed with owning every possible use of a common word like they did in the 80s, nobody would ever have confused them.
"would allow 'anyone to release a Wonder Woman movie or comic', claiming 'Mum' is a subset of the word 'Woman'"
I know it's not typical for lawyers to understand these things, but some things are actual facts, and the fact that mothers are a subset of women is not something that can be argued. Nor can you stop people from creating something in the same genre as something else just because their titles are vaguely similar.
Unless they a) decide to create a comic book character and b) start infringing on other copyrights and trademarks in the process, there is little you can, or should, be able to really do about it. "We imagine that at some point in the future someone might decide to do something in a way that offends us" should not be a reason to disrupt everyone else.
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don’t know?
"Tell that to the fans of HD-DVD that outsold BD 3:1 in the beginning"
At the beginning. Then, the PS3 was a massive hit that people often used as a cheap Blu-Ray player while you needed to buy an expensive peripheral for the Xbox 360 to play HD-DVD, and economies of scale started making standalone Blu Ray players much cheaper. Meanwhile, there were many more titles available on Blu Ray and the industry eventually agreed to standardise on the more successful format as they did before when VHS wiped out the technically superior Betamax (and other competitors like Video 2000).
That's still the market talking. No matter who you think should have won, in either "race".
"And there’s a reason VHS is still being sold in 2022."
The reason is mostly nostalgia, with new tapes being produced in small batches purely as gimmicks for some new cult movies. There's a fairly vibrant second hand market, but AFAIK nobody's even making VHS hardware any more from what I'm aware of.
"I’d love to see you attempt to prove, not DVD, but BluRay, is better than Digital VHS at 1080P."
I don't need to. Technically superior does not mean that it offers any real benefit to the end consumer, especially if it's significantly more expensive and/or requires additional equipment that the average person does not possess (while most people already own several DVD players even if they didn't buy the device primarily as a DVD player - e.g. game consoles, PCs, TVs), and the title they want to buy isn't available on the other format.
If a technically superior product fails in the marketplace or carves out a niche for itself instead of being in mainstream demand, again, that's still the market talking.
"Those are tape formats, if you didn’t realise."
Yes, and unless you're doing something really stupid and dishonest like trying to conflate domestic and professional broadcast markets, utterly irrelevant.
"VHS was killed because the drm was defeated within a year."
No, VHS was killed because DVD was cheaper to ship, cheaper to manufacture, had vastly superior picture and audio quality, offered features that were impossible to replicate on a VHS and also wouldn't leave you trying to put the damn thing together after the player chewed up your favourite tape.
The fact that the shoddy DRM that studios put on DVD in order to artificially retain some of the natural market separations that VHS had built in (such as language, picture format and distribution channels) barely registers on the list.
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Is this the start of a digital backlash
"Ironically, the thing that has held off the all digital revolution in video games is not the DRM requirements nor the backlash by gamers but the inability of the average US-based ISP to deliver real time streaming video data and player inputs at the sub-millisecond delays required by modern video games to be playable."
Well, there is more to it than that. Availability is one - if a game is delisted from a store, you typically have access to that game if you previously bought it, but you have to trust that this will always be the case and while post-release patching is commonplace the majority of non-AAA non-online multiplayer games will allow you to at least play them if you or the server are offline.
Pricing is another - quite often games in stores are cheaper physically than digitally, especially after a few months as stores try to rotate out old stock to make way for newer games. There are exceptions, with Steam, GoG and the console storefronts having regular deep discounts, but it depends on what the game is you're buying.
The third, and I think most important, is resale value. When you finish with a physical disc, you can lend or sell it. It's quite easy to trade in a few older games to buy the new title you want, even if you'll get rock bottom value if you use easy methods like GameStop. With digital, once you finish the game that's it.
Physical media is never truly going away, as we've seen with the resurgence of the vinyl market and the continuation of boutique DVD labels that regularly sell out even if the title is available on their streaming service. But, it's certainly not going away while there's still distinct advantages over and above digital.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re: Re: Libel?
"should bots that can't understand context and are even bad at identifying content have the power to decide if something is infringing?"
Typically, they don't because the bots are basing their decision on information given to them by other people. If the bot says "this video contains 30 seconds of song X therefore it's infringing", unless it made a mistake it's only basing that judgement on the people who told them that song X is under copyright and to be enforced.
But, the question is - who else should make the decision? Humans can make mistakes as well, and the whole point of the system is to avoid lawsuits from the people who issued DMCA takedowns over the content being used.
"Let's put that back in the context of this article: no background music. Just the content as described. "Why" in this case is obvious: false positive in looking for infringement"
OK, so a mistake happened. Mistakes can be rectified, and even though the process can be a pain in the ass I know of several channels who have had their movie reviews that extensively utilise clips from movies restored along with their income. You'd obviously prefer it if you didn't have to challenge the request in the first place, but mistakes happen and the system is in place because of people suing YouTube for copyright infringement they didn't commit.
"For some people, this is their business."
Then, they have gone into this business solely dependant on YouTube paying them revenue even though the system you're complaining about has been in place for close to 15 years at this point.
"Problem is the dominant position of Google on this market."
...which will remain indefinitely so long as people whine and whine about YouTube instead of using competing services. Catch 22. Those services exist, but nobody's going to use them as much as YouTube if all the content they want only exists on YouTube. Why would anyone go anywhere else if they can't get your content anywhere else?
Nothing will change if your reaction to problems is to put up with them regardless. You have to take action to change things. I subscribe to numerous channels that put up content on Twitch, Vimeo and even their own hosting platform, and set up their businesses to be less dependant on YT ad revenue and use other sources of income like merch, Patreon, etc. If they lose ad revenue due to a false claim, their business suffers but is not dead.
If you're too lazy to do the same, you're part of the problem if you suddenly lose your only source of income, even if the reason for that loss it a false positive. Same with any other business - if you run a bar and refuse to get supplies from anywhere but the one supplier, it's your fault if you run out of drinks if your main supplier screws up a delivery. Not your fault the order screwed up, but your fault that all your income is coming from a single source.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He doesn't have a point because the system created to mitigate ongoing lawsuits was done before the lawsuits were settled, even though part of the reason the settlement was agreed was because ContentID existed?
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No way. 11 years, as originally conceived, with one option for renewal. If you haven't made (enough) money in 22 years, then so sad, too bad."
I'm not sure there's a perfect solution, but I've always been in favour of the idea that there should be an initial term similar to the original term of copyright. This allows for smaller creators who depend on word of mouth and other types of marketing to benefit (there's plenty of examples of slow burn successes). Past that, renewals are allowed, but they must be made manually and by the original copyright holder up until their death. After that, the copyright can be sold or transferred but does not come with renewal rights - this allows their estate to benefit for a time, but does not allow infinite locking up of culture by corporations.
Not a perfect system, but that seems to satisfy the requirement for creators to benefit if they decide they need to so, while freeing orphaned works and not allowing long term corporate control of the most profitable works.
"Star Wars itself was a rehashing of the cowboy western + hero's journey tropes, nothing new except the details."
Now now, be fair. Lucas also cribbed a lot from samurai movies, as well as world war footage, not to mention the sci-fi serials that inspired his stories after he failed to get his Flash Gordon project off the ground.
Lucas and his team did incredible work that's inspired generations, but you have to be very blind to not see all the influences he proudly utilised.
On the post: Superbowl Ads Try To Make 5G Sexy, But Consumers Still Aren't Buying The Hype
Re: Re: Why 5G?
Or from any signal. If you're watching on a laptop, phone or tablet display, you're probably just wasting bandwidth unless you have extraordinary eyesight. From there it depends not only on the display, but the software. I bought a new TV a few months back, and something I noticed is that performance can vary wildly between apps on the same connection. 5G alone won't do anything significant if there's a bottleneck after the data reaches the device.
This is the real issue with 5G hype - for the most part it's an incremental change where it doesn't open up new use cases on the side of the consumer that don't already exist. There's improvements and some advantages, but they're not the world-changing type that people trying desperately to push it are claiming.
On the post: Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms
Re: Re:
"At one point, the report claims some of the "ambush attack" data came from a source that only categorized three ways: "ambush", "traffic stop", or "interaction with mentally ill""
"Interaction with the mentally ill" there being the type of interaction where "defunding the police" literally means that someone with experience in dealing with the mentally ill is sent instead of a cop. Weird how they'd oppose that... (well, not weird but you know what I mean).
On the post: Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms
Re: Re: Re: 115% increase in "ambush attacks"
Yeah, I'm very interested in how they define "ambush". It could be that, it could be that they're been forced to follow groups of people into such situations as people who would normally be in the street were inside due to curfews or other lockdown situations, or some other unusual situation related to the pandemic.
We'll probably have to wait until the figures from this year come out to see if there's any long-term trend not related to COVID, but until then I'm thinking they shouldn't make too much of a big deal out of them having to deal with greater risks that affect every public-facing industry. Fast food workers seem to be at far greater risk of violence and even death when they ask certain types of people to follow basic pandemic measures such as mask wearing, but I don't see that being used as a call to do anything about how makes them more armed or give them special powers.
On the post: Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms
"In 2021, police officers recorded the highest number of on-duty deaths on record"
It's been noted in the article, but that's really their own fault. Police unions have opposed some COVID mandates, and a lot of officers have died due to COVID. There's not a direct causal effect as officers are at risk due to their need to deal with the public, but no more than the average fast food worker and they're likely at less risk than most healthcare workers.
Then, to add to that, there seems to have been a spike in suicides in recent year. I don't see it listed on the full report associated with the linked article unless I'm missing a euphemism I'm unfamiliar with so it's possible they're not listed, but my understanding from other sources was that they, along with deaths in traffic accidents, comprised the largest non-COVID cause of death.
Then, the full report offers something interesting on closer examination - in many of the non-COVID death types, deaths are going down. For example, traffic related deaths - while there seems to be a spike related to officers being hit while outside their vehicle, the average for this decade is lower than any, and significantly lower than the previous spike in the 2000s.
So what can be done about this? Ironically, one of the best solutions is the one they oppose - defunding the police. What that term actually means is that other people more suited to dealing with certain types of calls are sent as a first response, which mean that there's less likelihood of an officer overreacting to a suicide threat or welfare check in a manner that results in a shooting, so presumably less risk of being fired back on and less risk of a depression-causing suicide for the officer who gunned down an innocent person. Most suggestions also deal with redirecting funds currently used for military surplus to training, so that officers are more able to de-escalate situations non-violently, in line with the way it's done in many other countries. Overall, this means less calls and less interactions, which reduce the risk of both COVID and traffic accidents.
Obviously, it's a complicated issue with no single real solution, but looking through the report - other than a few concerning outliers - the major issue is COVID (which, the cops would be well advised to remember is affecting EVERY line of work, so don't make themselves out to be a special level victim).
Then, a lot of the other issues seem to be things that could be related to COVID - more oppositional defiance on the parts of populations who don't like being told what to do, or it strikes me that the "ambush" style attacks could be happening because more people are forced inside due to COVID? I'm not sure, but I suspect that this is something where they need to get rid of the pandemic, not give cops more power.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Libel?
"If I post a video about vehicular maintenance,"
Then, it should be silly if that gets taken down, but the first thing to look at is why. Did you use background music you didn't write or licence? Is the takedown notice coming from the music, or is it coming from the car manufacturer? Is it a complaint from another similar channel who are accusing you of something? The subject of your channel does not mean it can't infringe.
"how is it that whoever runs these robots that continuously point their digital fingers and lob accusations of felonies aren't open to libel lawsuits?"
Because although they seem random to the end user, they're not. They're making a best guess judgement based on data given to them by the major record labels and other corporate entitles for whom the modern copyright regime is designed. Whenever there's doubt, they will side with the people who sent them the notice to take down on the first pass.
"In what other circumstances is it perfectly okay to falsely accuse someone of federal crimes"
They're not accusing you of federal crimes, they're accusing you of a civil copyright infringement, and they're doing so based on the legal notice given to them by the original holder of the copyright you're accused of infringing (that is, it's actually the record label/whoever accusing you).
There are of course ways to respond to such a claim, but you should be aware that most of those thing (such as fair use) are defined as a defence in court, not a reason why YouTube shouldn't react to takedown notices.
"the purposes of taking away their income? Restraint of trade?"
They can't do any such thing. All they can do is withhold the part of ad income that they have agreed to pay you based on the popularity of the videos you host on their property. They can't affect the same video hosted elsewhere, and having videos taken down won't really affect your offline business unless you're intend on publicising it.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re:
That's a different problem, though. Under the current copyright regime, if the artists signed over ownership of their copyrights under their label contract, then the label are the copyright owner that YouTube have to obey if they issue a DMCA takedown notice.
I doubt that any external audit would reveal anything that wasn't already well known during the 90s, when major artists like Prince and George Michael launched very public protests against how little money they were getting. The only difference between then and now is that there's more options for artists to go independent (or if they wrote their own music, re-record and release independently as numerous artists have done), but the basic "sign with a major label and you'll get an advance in return for your future artistic and financial soul" paradigm hasn't changed much.
I'm all for artists getting paid as much as possible, but if the reason they don't get much is because they agreed to sell everything for bottom dollar when they were starting out, there's not much the rest of us can do.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re: Re:
Yes it's a voluntary development to try and get from under the weight of the massive number of DMCA related lawsuits, including from people like Viacom who were suing them over content they uploaded themselves.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that this means they're not doing it out of necessity, or that obeying these legal orders means that defence of voluntary moderation elsewhere is hypocritical. But, here you are...
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re:
Another day, another person inventing a fictional version of what's been said in order to pretend there's a problem.
YouTube aren't moderating the site as they see fit, they are doing what they're being ordered to do under the DMCA and problems arise when the people sending those orders are lying. If YouTube were allowed to make a moderation decision without being held liable for not doing so, the content would not have been taken down. This is perfectly consistent with other positions stated here.
"which is why I rarely look at this gaslighting website anymore"
Please continue not reading it, and go whine elsewhere more suitable to your limited reading ability, since the content here is obviously far too nuanced for your mind to process.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: All gain, no pain
In theory, John Cage's 4'33 is a copyrighted work. It's also possible to automate takedown notices for what is meant to be a statement under penalty of perjury from the individual making the claim.
If the system is so broken that these things are possible, then until copyright law is fixed to a more sane version, the sad fact is that they can claim whatever the hell they want and whoever gets the legal takedown order needs to decide between the victim and the abuser. Hosts are unlikely to be getting enough significant revenue from the car purring video for them to be able to fight it.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re:
"The hosting providers who go along with the rights-holders by default"
They don't really have any choice. They don't have any control over the content before publication, so they have to react to what happens before that (unless there's a ContentID or similar match on upload, which is equally full of problems on a different level and is really only an attempt to fend off the huge level of notices received).
Then, the choice is to either obey what should be a DMCA notice that's issued under penalty of perjury from the claimant, or fight each individual request in court. Given that YouTube was at great risk of going under due to Viacom suing them over files they uploaded themselves, and that nobody except YouTube really has the resources to even consider going to court with millions of claims, hopefully you see why this blame would be misplaced.
It would be nice if other ways of reacting were available, but if you're blaming providers for obeying legal takedown notices, your actual problem is with the DMCA, not the people trying to obey the law. At best, you can argue that takedowns have to be verified by humans before a takedown occurs, but this is a huge undertaking that can't be solved just by throwing people at it, as even a tiny margin of error still means thousands of videos blocked by false claims.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re:
So... you're saying that you blocked a basic function that would make the software useless for a lot of people because you're so intent on enforcing copyright.... but the tool is free to use for all sorts of other types of copyright infringement if people wish?
Good work, as ever....
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
He'd destroy the bridge, then rebuild it from toothpicks and then complain that nobody's using his superior design that removed all the problems with using concrete.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
For someone who claims to be a master coder and wants copyright to be strictly enforced, I don't think I've ever seen anyone who knows less about those subjects than our friend here.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Some people really do seem to get their ideas from movies. Bad ones at that, judging by his takes here.
Next >>