|
Moreso, MisterBibs, you seem to have fallen afoul of the is-ought problem. Just because something is the way it is, doesn't mean it should be.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
^^^ As some behaviorist once said, the worst thing to do is Shoulding all over yourself. You don't deal in what should be, you deal with what Is. BravestOfTheLamps posted:it demands that internet videos get treated as a special case exempt from normal copyright process. On the contrary, it's not a special case at all. It's simply much faster to detect people using other people's stuff, for their own gain, without permission, on a platform like YouTube. Sure, it gets stuff wrong (Brads midnight reviews, as I previously mentioned), but overall it's one big "It's 2016, what did you expect to happen?" whenever a copyright flag happens. BravestOfTheLamps posted:And as for what critical works are, again, the actual quality of critical work is not a basis for defining it as critical work. Sure it is. Why would you think any differently? Someone making funny cracks over a film ain't criticism, it's someone using someone else's stuff as the basis for their own creation. I'm not watching a  review by the Cinema Snob of Chatterbox, and thinking otherwise is madness. BravestOfTheLamps posted:You seem to have some ridiculous grudge against internet critics Nope, not really. I just wish they'd either stop trying to elicit sympathy because those folks who actually own the stuff they mooch off of don't want them mooching. Do actual reviews without other people's stuff. Do it as a podcast. It's not the wild west anymore, with this stuff. You use other people's stuff without permission, you're going to get repercussions you don't like. Prevent the cause, prevent the effect. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Google and content ID don't give a crap about copyright and have little incentive to fix it. Content ID is a lawsuit prevention scheme. Google can get sued for hosting copyrighted content, and Content ID is their "practical solution" to fighting that as big as it is. Google doesn't care if your video gets taken down, or gets someone else's ads put on it. Youtube is a private site that can reject content for any or no arbitrary reason. Or put ads on it for any or no reason. Or change who the ads are going to for any or no reason. it cannot get in trouble for this. What it can get in trouble for is hosting the wrong content. It doesn't matter if it is wrong, if a company sues, that's legal fees they have to pay. They don't want to spend thousands of dollars defending Johnny Reviewer in court, so they take it down. And companies generally would go after Google and not the Reviewer because the reviewer likely doesn't make much. The real imbalance in this system, and IMO it's not really an easy fixable imbalance, is that fair use is an affirmative defense in court. If somebody sues you, you can argue that your use of the content was "fair" in a number of ways established by the actual law or legal precedent. However, that's if they sue you. Actually take you to court. That likely won't happen and even if it does these companies have the cash to keep the case going for years. Unless you find a firm looking for a test case they run pro-bono, you're screwed anyway and will probably have to settle. There's basically no drawback to them asking people to take content down. Either you do, or you don't and they sue you and bleed you dry on lawyer fees until you settle. In fact, a hell of a lot of copyright law is totally untested in court because there's never a ruling made -- it's largely settlements. Yes, from their POV there is a theoretical concern that a few cases might make it to the end and the precedent gets established in a way that their whole tower crumbles, but it's exceedingly unlikely. If they sue you, it's highly likely you'll fold within a couple of months just so you don't go broke. This has nothing to do with a creator's laziness or whether use is fair, it's an inherent imbalance in the system. In this way MisterBibs is right -- you're basically screwed so in some way your only choice is to not use other peoples' content. However, this isn't because of a lack or creativity, or who you have to blame, or whether it's really fair, or whatever other nonsense point he's making. It's because the odds are so stacked against you, and the penalty for abusing the system is so nonexistent, that's railing against it is futile unless you're a big enough channel with enough visibility to actually make Youtube care about losing revenue by losing you. Now obviously some people like Kyle have found a way to not trigger content ID bots as they currently exist and still make good content that fairly uses clips. And that's great! But all the hashtags and campaigns in the world don't really change the fact that unless someone can really challenge Youtube in the video space, Youtube has a massive pile of incentives stacked in the direction of making Content ID have as few false negatives as possible, drat the false positives, and being incredibly permissive about erring on the side of human-generated copyright takedown requests. The reason you see an imbalance in the enforcement with these old TV shows and such is that they're owned by production companies and sponsored by large corporations with big legal teams that can actually put up a real fight. Even then it likely ends in a settlement, but the settlement is far more likely to be detrimental to the suing company. (Fake edit: of course, someone could sue Google/Youtube for nebulous "damages" due to lost ad revenue and such, but I have no clue how that would go)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:"because something is the way it is, that's the way it should be." Because YouTube flags copyright fast and loose, it's right for it to do so. When somebody uses YouTube to produce content is fraudulently charged, it's an unfortunate outlier. I've never made an argument about what should be. I've made arguments based on what is. The youtube system flags stuff of yours when it has stuff that's not yours. There are times when it fucks up, and there's a whole lot more times when the fuckup is the uploader. I have sympathy for the former, much less for the latter. BravestOfTheLamps posted:You are not evaluating the system on whether or not it actually protects copyright, you're simply taking it as a given. Hence the silly "it's 2016" argument. What's legally and morally different in 2016? Most people know not to use other people's stuff, because there's a likelihood that you'll get flags/strikes/whatever, in 2016. Hell, most people have known that for years now. A subset of the population was able to ignore this truism for a few years, because they were on platforms where copyright violations weren't enforced. Alas, being sheltered from that truth for a few years does not make the truism any less true. Instead of creating videos  ing about Fair Use, design how to do a review of whatever you want to do that isn't just your voice/face dubbed or intercut over the thing you're supposedly 'reviewing'. Or decide how to change your format (down to the medium you'll use) to adapt to a changing environment. One of these has a future of flags/strikes/whatevers, the other doesn't. BravestOfTheLamps posted:You don't like Cinemasnob, therefore it isn't critical work. What does it matter that you're not watchig Cinemasnob?  I like Brad's work. I don't always agree with it, but I like it. I don't delude myself into thinking Cinema Snob is critically reviewing Black Devil Doll From Hell or Tales From The Quadead Zone, though. BravestOfTheLamps posted:you just want people to stop "eliciting sympathy" and "mooching". This is bias. No, it's an objective understanding of what's happening. I can like all the internet critics I like, without being blind to the notion that they need to change because the Way They've Always Done Things just isn't tolerated by the system they (willingly or not) have to work in. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
None of your suggestions are bad, but you are again ignoring the issue where the system is broken. While avoiding it is good practical advice, it's more honest and constructive to try to apply consistent standards, and not just whine about complaints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNZPQssir4E I Hate Everything did a video the other day about just how poo poo the youtube copyright and monetization system is. Basically a "company" called [Merlin] CDLTD is going around making copyright claims on behalf of people that have no idea about anything that is even happening. They actually claimed his drat Daniel video three times on behalf of Dylan Dauzat (a musician that I have never heard of) and are the ones making the money. IHE even got in touch with Dauzat who had no idea that anything had even happened and that he had never been respresented by the claimants. If some nobodies can go doing poo poo like this with youtube just going "duhhh everything is fine to us" then it's just Google being happy with being a broken pile of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Really liked Hbomberguy and Infamous Sphere's videos. Not enough to wade through all the IP law posts and quote them, alas. BravestOfTheLamps posted:None of your suggestions are bad, but you are again ignoring the issue where the system is broken. While avoiding it is good practical advice, it's more honest and constructive to try to apply consistent standards, and not just whine about complaints. The system is broken, but including NC-style videos doesn't help anyone's argument. Better to focus on examples that at least try to work within the broken system, because there are more than enough with valid complaints. Likewise, "fair use" is not an unassailable right. I remember it being a case-by-case thing for the most part, based on whether it takes money from something and what percentage is used. It's been a while though, so I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Hey guys remember when The Daily Show was sued into oblivion for using Fox New clips without permission? Yeah me neither. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Augus posted:Hey guys remember when The Daily Show was sued into oblivion for using Fox New clips without permission? Yeah me neither. That's completely different. As big as some youtube channels are that are getting taken down, they are nowhere near as popular as television yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
MisterBibs is a loving moron, film at eleven
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Critical literature is not a copy of the original literature with wacky jokes and riffs in the margins, which is the stuff that's being flagged on YouTube. And what about videos that don't do this, that highlight small segments of a work in order to provide context and then go on to comment about it in long-form without just doing funny voice overs or jokes in the margins, and that still get hit with content ID strikes? Why do you keep presenting it as though the only thing that is getting content ID strikes is something in this specific style when multiple people have told you otherwise? That is not the only kind of content getting flagged on Youtube and people have presented multiple examples showing that. And what about the situations where it isn't actually the rights holder that make these claims, allowing someone completely unrelated to get monetization income through scamming the system? If it's not okay when critic A does voice over stuff over a clip from company B without permission and gets money for it, how is it okay when unrelated party C gets money from critic A doing voice over stuff over a clip from company B without permission from either of them? If your issue is people getting money from things they didn't make, are you okay with this situation where someone gets money from something they didn't make twice over? Because this is a thing that happens on a regular basis because Youtube's system is stupid. Idran fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
I am happy when people's content on YouTube gets flagged because I'm jealous that they get to make a living talking about things on the internet while I have to work a nine to five, assuming I'm not on government assistance because there is something super wrong with me
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
-MisterBibs
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
DStecks posted:MisterBibs is a loving moron, film at eleven The film will not be seen tonight, due to a content claim regarding the film containing video clips of MisterBibs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
I'm just going to drop this here, MisterBibs, alongside a reminder that videos that do critical reviews in the standard style of showing short clips interspersed with commentary on the content long-form are getting Content ID flags as well as the "do a voiceover over a film for the whole thing" style. Since I think you literally do not understand what "fair use" means. 17 USC § 107: quote:...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Critical literature is not a copy of the original literature with wacky jokes and riffs in the margins, which is the stuff that's being flagged on YouTube. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is critical literature no matter who hates it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
please remember to take your medication, MrBibs
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
It wouldn't even be that big an issue if you were going "well it's not how copyright is supposed to work but YouTube does it this way so you should adapt", MisterBibs, but you keep describing it as though this is how copyright actually legally works, as though under copyright law as it is now you literally can never use any part of any copyrighted work. And that is just outright false.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Idran posted:It wouldn't even be that big an issue if you were going "well it's not how copyright is supposed to work but YouTube does it this way so you should adapt", MisterBibs, but you keep describing it as though this is how copyright actually legally works, as though under copyright law as it is now you literally can never use any part of any copyrighted work. And that is just outright false. Moreover, he seems to be arguing that, because this is the way it is, nobody should complain or agitate for change, because apparently the status quo is immutable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
More pressing than all of this discussion of what is and isn't criticism or fair use is the fact that content ID is so broken and so inadequate that you can easily find multiple instances of channels being flagged for videos in which the channel shows off their own original content that they own and that didn't exist until they made it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps summed it up pretty well when they said it a conflation of several different positions, namely, your own position on copyright, the actual usage of copyrighted material by third parties, the US law concerning copyright and Youtube policy concerning it. Those are important to make, since fault with one doesn't necessarily imply the other is right ow works as intended. E.g. just because some Youtube reviews use too much footage in their own videos doesn't mean that Youtube's content id system isn't broken. In that regard, the Jim Sterling video is really great, because he actually makes several, very important distinctions and actually puts Youtubes actions into a broader context concerning their status as defacto monopolist when it comes to private internet videos.
e X fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Infamous Sphere posted:Well...uh...if anyone would like to see it I used my expertise as a Professional Internet Queer and Expert at Watching Gay Movies to put together a list of recommendations of the best movie to watch as your first queer movie! If I can help anyone avoid having their first queer movie be something crappy like FOOD OF LOVE, my work here is done. Watching this, I started thinking about what my first queer movie I ever saw and rather struggled with it. As it so happened, your list reminded me that it was RHPS, which I saw at around 9 years-old at the local theater when my weekend babysitter was cast as Riff Raff. I ended up getting the full rice-throwing experience  . It never occurred to me as a queer movie until your review, though. Funny that!I became a teen during the 90's and besides having a complete identity crisis in regards to my sexuality there just wasn't much in the way of an outlet, especially once I ended moving from the outskirts of the gay center of San Diego (Hillcrest) to a suburb in the deep South at 15. The only time one could run across something in the realm of queer cinema at the time was if whatever video store you went did wasn't aware of what it was (which often meant that you weren't aware, either). Even then, it's a matter of working up the nerve to by looked at and judged for renting something like that, which is the last thing you'd want as a teen in a small town. Some movies that were mainstream, like To Wong Foo, Bound, Philadelphia or to a lesser extent Priscilla Queen of the Desert were exceptions, but pickings were slim and none were remotely relatable to a teenager. Once I finally came out in my early 20's and the Internet matured some, I was able to actively search for queer movies and much of what I found fell into two categories: overwhelmingly camp or soul-crushingly depressing with virtually nothing in between. It became frustrating being unable to find a queer movie that could be enjoyed as just a movie without the worst parts of homophobia, oppression, drugs, disease or some other facet as a plot point - typically the sort of thing you'd put a movie on to escape from, not be reminded of. I saw about half the movies on the list and the ones that left the greatest impression were RHPS, a Beautiful Thing, and But I'm a Cheerleader. A Beautiful Thing was one of the rare movies I came away feeling good about after, though it did have some dark patches. But I'm a Cheerleader was less for the movie itself, but because it was the first outwardly queer movie I didn't see alone and put in motion the series of events that lead to my coming out to my family. Your summary of loving Amal made me wish it'd come along when I was younger, as that would've absolutely spoken to me as a kid trying to reconcile his identity and may have helped me in coming around to accept myself far earlier than I did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Testekill posted:If some nobodies can go doing poo poo like this with youtube just going "duhhh everything is fine to us" then it's just Google being happy with being a broken pile of poo poo. Tracula posted:I Hate Everything is having loving issues with youtube again already. Mischalaniouse posted:I've never used SA's ignore function before, but there's a first time for everything, Christ. MrSlam fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Mischalaniouse posted:I've never used SA's ignore function before, but there's a first time for everything, Christ. Something Awful's User Ignore Feature is completely useless, since all it does is stop people from seeing the actual comments made by assholes. You can still see their usernames, so you know when they interject bile into the thread, and you can still see what they say in quotes from other users, which will be plentiful as other users will be quoting the morons en masse as they try to engage with the brick wall by running headlong at it. It's almost an inverse of the problems with YouTube's system, where it kinda works, sometimes, and is more useful as a feature they can claim to have more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
You could always ignore them the old fashioned way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
YouTube's channel ban functionality is just broken. You can ban people from commenting in your channel, but that doesn't retroactively scrub their comments, you'll need to do that manually. And it doesn't keep them from continuing to reply in the Google+ thread for that comment, so if they're replying via the notifications tab they might not even notice they were banned. Yes it is a feature I use a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
DStecks posted:MisterBibs is a loving moron, film at eleven What's actually wrong with him? He talks like a scary spaz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
My biggest issue with #WTFU is that it keeps coming at the issue from a legal perspective. What is and is not Fair Use is completely irrelevant to this situation. Youtube is a privately owned company and they have no obligation to acknowledge Fair Use as the videos are being hosted on their service; Fair Use is a legal defense and nothing more. The real issue isn't Youtube's policies towards content deletion, it's the ways those policies can be abused fraudulently. And let's be real here, Youtube actively stands to gain from looking the other way on abuse to deny payment to as many users as possible. The only real answer to this situation is that if content creators want to make a stable living off of videos that heavily use copyrighted content, they're going to have to find a different service that actually gives a poo poo about them or continue using Youtube at their own risk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
I just want more videos done about it by lawyers to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Idran posted:And what about videos that don't do this, that highlight small segments of a work in order to provide context and then go on to comment about it in long-form without just doing funny voice overs or jokes in the margins, and that still get hit with content ID strikes? One would hope that in situations like this, the person would learn that "Well, I'm only using someone else's stuff a little bit" is still doing funny voice overs in the margins, that there are consequences to doing so, and would stop using other people's stuff. Idran posted:And what about the situations where it isn't actually the rights holder that make these claims, allowing someone completely unrelated to get monetization income through scamming the system? Exceptions that prove the rule. Those flaws confirm that the bulk of these claims are not some nefarious scam whom the Illuminati, the Pope, and House Dimir are all working with Youtube over innocent folks. Mostly, it's people using stuff they don't have permission for, dealing with consequences of using stuff they don't have permission for. Idran posted:I'm just going to drop this here, MisterBibs, alongside a reminder that videos that do critical reviews in the standard style of showing short clips interspersed with commentary on the content long-form are getting Content ID flags as well as the "do a voiceover over a film for the whole thing" style. Since I think you literally do not understand what "fair use" means. And how is that working to keep people's stuff from being flagged, removed, whatever? We're discussing a system where going  MAH FAYR OOSE doesn't stop your stuff from being flagged and potentially removed. So, given this as a status, are you going to continue going MAH FAYR OOSE every time your stuff is messed with:, or are you going to operate in a way that prevents your stuff from being messed with?You cite Fair Use, you're being Jimmy. Jimmy cracks corn, and I don't care. Puppy Time posted:Moreover, he seems to be arguing that, because this is the way it is, nobody should complain or agitate for change, because apparently the status quo is immutable. Unless there's another video platform lying around that ignores copyright stuff, the status quo is that the only major video platform doesn't ignore copyright stuff. People using other people's stuff without permission moved away from Youtube, long ago, did so because youtube was a video platform that didn't ignore copyright stuff. That other platform(s) failed, so they have to operate on a video platform that doesn't ignore copyright stuff, again. Talk about Fair Use until you're blue in the face, we knew collectively for half a decade by now that Youtube + Stuff Made From Other People's Stuff = Bad Mojo. There's nobody going to invent a new video platform where they ignore copyright stuff. So yeah, I'd say that in this situation, the status quo is rather immutable. A video movement and twitter hashtag isn't going to change anyone's mind, because it's incarnate.Even if youtube goes the way of the dino today, whatever replaces it will at least treat copyright stuff on the level YT does. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Jim Sterling is a professional reviewer who has worked at multiple sites and is listed on Metacritic, does mostly serious videos with serious critical and ethical discussion about the industry, and his video was flagged for using a few seconds of Splatoon gameplay also you're a dingus also also MisterBibs posted:Exceptions that prove the rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:One would hope that in situations like this, the person would learn that "Well, I'm only using someone else's stuff a little bit" is still doing funny voice overs in the margins, that there are consequences to doing so, and would stop using other people's stuff. Holy poo poo you're dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Please stop quoting Bibs 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Holy poo poo you're dumb. Is there a cool story about what's wrong with him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Friendly reminder that MisterBibs is the guy who does not understand the concept of satire and takes everything at face value, always.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:My biggest issue with #WTFU is that it keeps coming at the issue from a legal perspective. What is and is not Fair Use is completely irrelevant to this situation. Youtube is a privately owned company and they have no obligation to acknowledge Fair Use as the videos are being hosted on their service; Fair Use is a legal defense and nothing more. The real issue isn't Youtube's policies towards content deletion, it's the ways those policies can be abused fraudulently. And let's be real here, Youtube actively stands to gain from looking the other way on abuse to deny payment to as many users as possible. The legal definition is the definition Youtube is claiming they're upholding. They're saying one thing and doing another, and it's not the consumers' fault for assuming a company is going to stand by their word. Youtube is the treasurer and Google is city hall and you can't fight city hall, but you can raise a ruckus. Whether or not that means anything is personal. MrSlam fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:My biggest issue with #WTFU is that it keeps coming at the issue from a legal perspective. What is and is not Fair Use is completely irrelevant to this situation. Youtube is a privately owned company and they have no obligation to acknowledge Fair Use as the videos are being hosted on their service; Fair Use is a legal defense and nothing more. The real issue isn't Youtube's policies towards content deletion, it's the ways those policies can be abused fraudulently. And let's be real here, Youtube actively stands to gain from looking the other way on abuse to deny payment to as many users as possible. Problem is that they had a service, called Blip. The issue is that most if not all video hosting services lose money. YouTube does not make money. Had it not been bought by Google in 2006, it would be defunct by now, Google's profits keep YouTube afloat. The recent wave of Where's the Fair Use is coming from Doug, because after living in Blip's comfort zone, Doug had to return to YouTube when Blip ceased to be. The issue is that Doug as a spokesperson is tainting the argument, because his way of reviewing media is a stretch to call it fair use. Using a scene to illustrate either good film-making or bad film-making is one thing, but using like 20% of a movie to do a plot synopsis with some jokes? Blip hurt a lot of people by allowing them to be lazy in reviewing and lazy in editing. Look at Rifftrax. They make full riff on some movies, but usually b movies, not hollywood blockbusters. Those they only sell the mp3 of the riff. Youtube's Content ID is not great. What needs to happen is that there needs to be reforms in place, one of the big ones is people looking at the claims. This automated crap ain't working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:46
|
|
wins.
|
PassTheRemote posted:Look at Rifftrax. They make full riff on some movies, but usually b movies, not hollywood blockbusters. Those they only sell the mp3 of the riff. Hell, look at what happened to MST3K at the end. Many reasons led to its demise, but one of them was studios realizing that the rights to their lovely movies were suddenly valuable to the show. The folks in charge of the show couldn't afford the rights to show the movies, so they didn't show the movies. Christ, I think there was (at one time, not sure if it's still true) where it was going to be difficult to get some sold episodes put on DVD, because the rights owners want more cash. PassTheRemote posted:What needs to happen is that there needs to be reforms in place, one of the big ones is people looking at the claims. This automated crap ain't working. Wasn't that the official way Blip spun their we-don't-care-about-copyrights policy, by saying that unlike youtube's automated system, an actual person(s) does all the claim-handling (and it just happened to coincidentally be really slow)? There's an issue of scale. You can have people manually looking at everything on a smaller service, but something as big as youtube would need a lot more people. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:There's an issue of scale. You can have people manually looking at everything on a smaller service, but something as big as youtube would need a lot more people. There is indeed an issue of scale, which is exactly why the current system is a retarded trainwreck. Youtube can't handle its own size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:10
|
|