|
Augus posted: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. The problem is that there is zero incentive for Youtube to change any of this. Youtube is never going to dedicate the time and resources to make sure that the system works fairly, and why should they? Fixing the system would result in them losing more money by hiring more people to verify claims and sending out more checks to content creators. And Youtube knows that they're the biggest (nearly only) game in town, so it's not like they would lose a significant amount of business from staying the course. #WTFU runs on the assumption that Youtube actually cares about making sure small-time content creators can make a living, and that's not the case at all.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Augus posted: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. The critics we're discussing getting flagged for copyright issues is not reasonable evidence that the system is a trainwreck. There's the occasional misfire, sure, but nothing approaching a trainwreck. Give youtube a fleet of people to replace contentId, and the same people crying out over their stuff being flagged would still be flagged. Hell, probably more of it would be, because you wouldn't have the ability to do editing chicanery to fool the bots. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The critics we're discussing getting flagged for copyright issues is not reasonable evidence that the system is a trainwreck. Why are you still ignoring all the examples of "serious" critics/content creator or whatever also being hosed by the system?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Why are you still ignoring all the examples of "serious" critics/content creator or whatever also being hosed by the system? You mean the ones who only use other people's stuff without permission a little bit? I mentioned them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:You mean the ones who only use other people's stuff without permission a little bit? I mentioned them. Yeah, it's usually expected that you show some footage of, for example a video game, when you are reviewing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
PassTheRemote posted: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. Except it is working. For what Google intends it to do. Which is to protect them from lawsuits. Unless you're really big Youtube doesn't really care about losing you, and there are no competitors significant (or, frankly, well designed) enough that Youtube is worried about people migrating somewhere else. Like I said, they have a huge incentive to tune Content ID to prevent more false negatives, and much less of an incentive to minimize false positives (below a certain apocalyptic level). E: Also, I'm sorry your link got buried Spheres  , it was really good. I'm a baby queer, and my first as a coming out person was Mulholland Drive, which was more accidental. I really liked it, but then I watched it because I wanted to watch a Lynch movie, I agree that it's probably not the best to watch as a first queer movie. It's kind of annoying how common dead lesbians/queers is as a trope.
Linear Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
You're debating the guy who called Rhianna Pratchett an Uncle Tom to her face on the basis of literally nothing. That's the kind of headstrong stupidity you are trying to engage with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Isn't something like 400 hours of content uploaded to Youtube everyday? You'd need hundreds of people to view and vet it before it goes up, and then you'd have the censorship slippery slope....
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Except it is working. For what Google intendeds it to do. Which is to protect them from lawsuits. Unless you're really big Youtube doesn't really care about losing you, and there are no competitors significant (or, frankly, well designed) enough that Youtube is worried about people migrating somewhere else.  Hey, you don't know. Maybe Diane survived. Maybe the tiny elf grandma and grandpa brought her back to life so her, Betty, and Rita could team up against Camilla, the evil brother of Oscar the Grouch, and Hairless Cowboy. OldMemes posted:Isn't something like 400 hours of content uploaded to Youtube everyday? You'd need hundreds of people to view and vet it before it goes up, and then you'd have the censorship slippery slope.... MrSlam fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Yeah, it's usually expected that you show some footage of, for example a video game, when you are reviewing it. Half In The Bag uses only a trailer when they discuss the latest movies. There'd be nothing lost if you removed gameplay footage from a Previously Recorded review. Brad sits in a car and discusses movies without a single frame of the movie, period. (yeah, it got dinged for copyright, and that was wrong and got resolved.) Movies, video games, whatever it is, you can do a review of it without using stuff you don't have permission to use. vvv Yes, and the point is that you could excise that trailer and getting flagged for using a trailer goes out the window. You can review stuff without using actual stuff you can't use just fine. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Half In The Bag uses only a trailer when they discuss the latest movies. There'd be nothing lost if you removed gameplay footage from a Previously Recorded review. Brad sits in a car and discusses movies without a single frame of the movie, period. Trailers get your flagged really often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
MrSlam posted:
Even if you have a team of two hundred people whose sole job is to watch youtube uploads, that's still a massive amount of data to process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:Even if you have a team of two hundred people whose sole job is to watch youtube uploads, that's still a massive amount of data to process. They don't need to watch every upload, they just need to vet copyright claims to determine if it's frivolous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Hey I'm writing an essay on Shakespeare for university and I need to cite 6 different academic sources in order to back my argument. Could you help me out on contacting the authors and copyright holders of all these sources and individually asking each one of them permission to cite their words? Also where can I find myself a lawyer to sue the rest of my classmates who didn't do this for copyright infringement and make myself a shitload of cash of which I won't give a dime to the actual authors who were being stolen from? You know for the good of society of whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Andrast posted:They don't need to watch every upload, they just need to vet copyright claims to determine if it's frivolous. Yeah, that what I was arguing for, I just didn't word it well, sorry!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:Even if you have a team of two hundred people whose sole job is to watch youtube uploads, that's still a massive amount of data to process. The point isn't to catch Youtube content as it's coming in. The point is that actual humans review copyright claims and other complaints. Copyright Claims pinpoint the exact moment in the video when there's a problem. A lot of the problems would be solved if they had a team of 10-20 or so people who go, "Oh yeah, this guy's just making a review" or "Oh, this guy's tweaking the audio so he can upload an entire movie." You could argue there's a gray area, but there'd be someone there they could call who's JOB it is to fix it. Because when someone needs a JOB done, they'd get someone with a JOB to DO that JOB. The other problem is customer service for Youtube/complaints department is an automated phone call. It's entirely useless if not non-existant. MrSlam fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Testekill posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNZPQssir4E This sounds like a variation on the Prenda Law case to me, in which a law firm used fake buyers to purchase rights to porn films, waited for people to pirate them, and sued like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Idran posted:"Someone filed a cease and desist against 'Siskel & Ebert & the Movies' for showing trailer clips and it got them cancelled? That's their own fault really, they should've known better. What kind of worthless show would do that, we didn't lose anything of value." Siskel and Ebert at the Movies got their trailer footage directly from the promotional arms of the relevant studios as part of a press package. Fair Use is irrelevant to the question because a press package carries explicit permission for redistribution and commercial broadcast. Part of the whole shitpile that is the reviewer situation is that you've got a cargo cult of children mimicking what they've seen elsewhere and assuming that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. MST3K spent the vast majority of their budget on licensing fees for the movies that they showed (barring the few that were public domain). News orgs have entire branches dedicated to spending all day securing clearance for material because "fair use" is a lovely last-ditch argument and a lot less preferable to just asking for goddamn permission. There's something mildly offensive in the notion that Doug Walker, who by all accounts managed to clear seven figures for at least one year, thinks that access is equal to permission, and that he has never once actually invested in the kind of communication infrastructure that would bypass all of this poo poo. If Mike Michaude wasn't an idiot they could have easily used their flush of cash to build a system that would deal with clearances for their entire stable of producers. Instead they bought a warehouse and made Pop Quiz Hot Shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
So how about some discussion about Internet critics and their work instead of three pages of infighting about the definition of Fair Use? Does anyone know where I might be able to find JO's old Digimon retrospectives? Were they lost forever in the great Blip purge? They were great for a nostalgia-trip for a former anime-obsessed kid like me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Ebert himself did have issues with youtube flagging. (I've seen this point poke once in a while but I couldn't find the right interview where I'd seen this.)quote:Ebert keeps scrolling down. Below his journal he had embedded video of his first show alone, the balcony seat empty across the aisle. It was a tribute, in three parts. He wants to watch them now, because he wants to remember, but at the bottom of the page there are only three big black squares. In the middle of the squares, white type reads: "Content deleted. This video is no longer available because it has been deleted." Ebert leans into the screen, trying to figure out what's happened. He looks across at Chaz. The top half of his face turns red, and his eyes well up again, but this time, it's not sadness surfacing. He's shaking. It's anger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Everyone shut up and watch the latest Every Frame a Painting instead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UE3jz_O_EM
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Man Miss Wallace, you are spoiling me with all these Baywatching vidsSamLikesCake posted:So how about some discussion about Internet critics and their work instead of three pages of infighting about the definition of Fair Use? The Good Noose, two youtubers faithfully uploaded it so they haven't gone the way of the Shameful Sequel The Bad Noose, 8 of the 33 are blocked for copyright claim so one might argue you should download them Digimon Retrospective Playlist Esquire posted:Roger Ebert is shaking, his entire body is shaking, and he's still hitting the button, bang, bang, bang, and he's shouting now. He's standing outside on the street corner and he's arching his back and he's shouting at the top of his lungs
MrSlam fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
All i'm gonna say about Youtube is hat it keeps throwing me poo poo videos for recommendations. I sub to Cracked and now I got an Youtube telling me I might like The Amazing Atheist going on for 15 minuets on why Cracked is SJW garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Yeah it's so fun having vidoes of bigoted atheists tell me that somehow they're more righteous than christians/feminists cause they don't hate gays and blacks but muslim is fair game
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
That poo poo is why I have to delete HBG's videos from my history. Yes, thanks, YT, I watched a video with "Sarkeesian" in the name, I definitely want to watch these weirdos screeching about how feminist criticism is going to steal all our video games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
This is why I bookmarked my subs list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Looks like Spoony's been quiet due to Fair Use BS over his theme song. The one that the band explicitly gave their permission for. That he has a cameo in the official video of. Yeah, ContentID is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
You can click the 3 dots next to the video and select "not interested".
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:And how is that working to keep people's stuff from being flagged, removed, whatever? We're discussing a system where going Like you're literally victim blaming. It's victim blaming of a sorta petty crime, but due to fair use they are in the legal right. You're literally arguing for capitulation to someone denying basic artist rights to products. You are an Uncle Tom of class warfare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 01:31
|
|
MAH FAYR OOSE
|
I can't believe these copyright bots may control the fate of these reviewer's channels!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Wrageowrapper posted:Everyone shut up and watch the latest Every Frame a Painting instead That is good advice and a good video! I like how it seems like he goes off on a tangent for half the video but really, he's been talking about one subject the whole time, and how it's being used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Thanks for all the lovely comments!  kaleidolia posted:Really liked Hbomberguy and Infamous Sphere's videos. Not enough to wade through all the IP law posts and quote them, alas. Ghostpilot posted: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 Thanks so much for all your thoughts! Yeah a lot of people were confused as to whether or not to count Rocky Horror as a "queer" movie - but even though it doesn't, say, depict a romance between two people of the same sex (unless you count Rocky/Frankenfurter, which is more of a coercion/slavery thing) it's definitely about queer culture. Ghostpilot posted: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. There's not a great deal of middle ground with LGBT cinema. I think that's beginning to change, but there's certainly a lot of stuff that's so camp and trashy that I can hardly bear to watch it, or quite tragic. I'm actually fine with tragedy - in a sense I find it cathartic (you know - "Well my life sucks but at least I'm not a disabled sex worker with no money whose friend abandoned him and is now stuck in the middle of nowhere!") but not everyone feels that way, and it's nice to have something that doesn't spiral you into despair & that depicts the possibility of queer people being actually happy/having a good life. Ghostpilot posted: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. Beautiful Thing is very adorable and makes you feel very positive. I didn't see loving Amal when I most needed it - the first queer movie I saw was Food of Love, which was rancid. Then, when I was about 13 or 14 I heard about Brokeback Mountain coming out and I got really obsessed with it - because for some reason it was the first indication I got that LGBT movies actually existed and could actually be big-name hollywood movies as opposed to things so obscure that nobody would ever see them? Also, I don't mind tragedy so Brokeback Mountain DID actually make me feel better (since it was at least treating queer sexuality seriously, and not as if it were some kind of gross joke - which was how I'd usually seen it depicted, and how most of my classmates thought about it.) Of course, a good deal of people viewed Brokeback Mountain as a gross joke - "haha, they're gay cowboys! Having gay sex! That's hilarious in and of itself!" - which sort of overshadowed its actual content. I still think it's a fantastic movie although I'm fine with not everyone liking it; just as long as your reason for not liking it isn't "eww gay sex!" Jsor posted:E: Also, I'm sorry your link got buried Spheres MrSlam posted:Drama buries good posts fast Mulholland Drive is fantastic, and it's also a bit of an outlier in terms of queer movies. For one thing - it's one of the few movies about queer women that I like that's directed by a (presumably straight) dude. Most of the other queer lady movies I'd recommend were made by queer women and the odd queer man. For another, it's an interesting story in that them being gay isn't the point of the movie, or much of an issue in the relationship. Apart from a line about "I've never done this before!", Rita and Betty could have been any combination of genders and the story would have played out in exactly the same way. My interpretation but I think Lynch and Cronenberg do OK with queer characters because they have a slightly left-of-centre sensibility and interesting understanding of sexuality themselves - whereas most straight dudes are pretty bad at it, particularly when they're trying to depict LGBT women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:02
|
|
. It never occurred to me as a queer movie until your review, though. Funny that!
|
I like EFAP a whole lot, but something Zhao misses out on a little is he has a focus on 'being entertaining', or to call it by its other name, 'telling the story I think the story should be telling'. What I mean is - he points out 'bad editing' in a film the Coens didn't direct or edit, as if the goal is to flow in the exact way as a different film with a different story to tell (that happens to have the same writers nonetheless). Rather than fail at being like a Coen brothers film, the film in question succeeds at being awkward and disjointed-feeling, in a way that serves the story really well. This isn't the first time he's straight up said 'this completely different film should function more like a Coen Brothers movie' - in the Bayhem video, he literally takes the ending of Pain and Gain and asks 'why isn't this Fargo?' Instead of 'what is this film saying?' You don't have to think Michael Bay is a secret genius to recognise that the film is saying something very different from Fargo. This isn't a mistake, so much as a product of radically different filmmaking philosophies. Like in the video I just put out, I think there's value in media that sometimes makes people feel awkward or annoyed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Infamous Sphere posted:Mulholland Drive is fantastic, and it's also a bit of an outlier in terms of queer movies. For one thing - it's one of the few movies about queer women that I like that's directed by a (presumably straight) dude. Most of the other queer lady movies I'd recommend were made by queer women and the odd queer man. For another, it's an interesting story in that them being gay isn't the point of the movie, or much of an issue in the relationship. Apart from a line about "I've never done this before!", Rita and Betty could have been any combination of genders and the story would have played out in exactly the same way. Minor digression, but I'm still kind of impressed that the trans character in Twin Peaks isn't an utter trainwreck. Like, it has a few minor problems and I'm not even sure where on the trans spectrum she is (transsexual? transvestite?) but I don't think the writers knew either, which is fine (and probably also a time period thing). You could, I guess, make an argument that Denise was meant to be "another whaaaaaaacky character with a weeeeeeird quirk" and is thus offensive, but hey, I take what I can get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:This isn't the first time he's straight up said 'this completely different film should function more like a Coen Brothers movie' - in the Bayhem video, he literally takes the ending of Pain and Gain and asks 'why isn't this Fargo?' Instead of 'what is this film saying?' You don't have to think Michael Bay is a secret genius to recognise that the film is saying something very different from Fargo. Oh that clip was in Pain and Gain? Was that shot supposed to be ironic then? Because I never saw that movie but I heard that it's more self-aware than Bay's usual stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Minor digression, but I'm still kind of impressed that the trans character in Twin Peaks isn't an utter trainwreck. Like, it has a few minor problems and I'm not even sure where on the trans spectrum she is (transsexual? transvestite?) but I don't think the writers knew either, which is fine (and probably also a time period thing). You could, I guess, make an argument that Denise was meant to be "another whaaaaaaacky character with a weeeeeeird quirk" and is thus offensive, but hey, I take what I can get. It's more or less saved by Duchovny playing the character naturalistically and charismatically, and Cooper instantly accepting his old friend's new identity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Maybe people should stop interacting with Bibs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Mad Lupine posted:You can click the 3 dots next to the video and select "not interested". Yeah, but it gets to be a pain and then more come to take the place of the fallen, like a hydra of hashtag. (And also let's plays, and then a bunch of vlogs...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Augus posted:Oh that clip was in Pain and Gain? Was that shot supposed to be ironic then? Because I never saw that movie but I heard that it's more self-aware than Bay's usual stuff. It's fantastically sarcastic. It's everything I like about the Transformers films, applied entirely to squishy humans. The film's ending features the main POV character on trial for his crimes, and his voiceover says 'I'll get through this. Because I believe in the American Dream.' SMASH CUT TO THE WORDS "SENTENCED TO DEATH" The 'it's the little things in life' line is said by a character who lives on a private island. It's got the impressively straightforward (even for Bay) message of 'only the rich have the privilege of enjoying "the little things", because they have the opulence required to not be constantly worried about homelessness, hospital bills, or losing their job'. These three things are what the characters inflict upon the rich guy in the film. The instant he loses his riches and status, he becomes a non-person that no-one will help. The only thing that holds it back from being the perfect satire is that it happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Like you're literally victim blaming. It's victim blaming of a sorta petty crime, but due to fair use they are in the legal right. You're literally arguing for capitulation to someone denying basic artist rights to products. You are an Uncle Tom of class warfare. This right here is everything wrong with the discussion. A total lack of understanding of what "the rules" actually are (let alone what's wrong with them). An inability to distinguish between completely separate problems simply because they're thematically related. Histrionic declarations that being unable to use clips of Ninja Turtles WILL HALT ALL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND ART IS DEAD. I mean, first of all, and you should tattoo this to the back of your hand so you see it when you type, is that "fair use" isn't a right and thus, no, they're not in the legal right ever unless they've received permission. Even "is fair use" cases boil down to "yes, they broke the law, but we're not going to punish them." It is literally in the same category as self-defence. Now, if you (or Doug) actually knew what they gently caress they were talking about then there would be the possibility of having a focused and nuanced discussion about the tenuous and impermanent status of Fair Use and the general desire for the status of the doctrine to shift from defence to protection, that copyright holders would be required to demonstrate a lack of fair use rather than derivative users being required to demonstrate fair use, and in such a situation fair use would become a right rather than a defence. We could also have a completely separate and in-no-way-actually-related-to-fair-use discussion about YouTube's automated copyright enforcement mechanisms and how prone they are to abuse. See, Spoony has explicit written permission from the copyright holders to use the song "Break Me" in his videos. Fair Use doesn't come anywhere near this. Fair Use is irrelevant. He has permission, end of story. His use is not "fair use" because Fair Use only applies to situations where material is being used without the permission of the copyright holders. Yet he still has to deal with automated copyright claims because the system is bad. It doesn't allow for creators to indicate licences that they have to pre-empt future claims. It doesn't allow copyright holders to indicate cases where they have granted permission, preventing future claims. We could have a mature discussion about the realities of both the fair use doctrine and how many internet reviewers have simply never bothered to actually learn it or conform within its tenuous boundaries, and from there a discussion about changing the way that reviewers approach their craft, finding creative solutions to practical problems or changing the way that they think about their relationship to and use of copyright material. I mean, after all, if they have a substantive point to make then surely that point can take other forms, or the use of copyright material can be trimmed back to the bare minimum necessary to communicate the needed information. But, no, instead it's just the end if art of MarzGirl can't do a blow-by-blow abridgement of an entire goddamn movie using nothing but clips of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 04:02
|
|