Nintendo has been stealing/claiming ad revenue for recently made gameplay videos. I wouldn't draw any attention to myself if I was hosting a Nintendo gameplay video.
The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly?
It's called plausible deniability. If they don't verify it before filing, they can legally claim ignorance. That's what needs to be fixed in the law. If you use an automated tool, you should be required to make an attempt at due diligence before you can come back later and claim ignorance.
and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued.... I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
Sure, but then you lose your safe harbor protection under DMCA. Youtube would be getting prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than the video poster. Youtube is not going to take on that liability for any reason.
If it wasn't Youtube's own Content ID system, FOX could probably be sued for issuing a false takedown notice. Maybe they still could. Hiring a hit man makes you no less guilty of murder.
Of course, that could be done just fine by sequencing it now and saving the results for later. That doesn't mean you wouldn't need live smallpox to help develop a new vaccine instead of cowpox - that might be needed.
Seeing a lot of negative individual scores would tell you that. The fact that it brings down the average for the aggregate number tells you almost nothing at all. That number doesn't factor the value of a review into its weighting.
And what I get from this is that men are responding to the advertising for the show and tuning in. Which is possibly a failure in advertising, if they are attracting people who won't like the show.
When deciding to watch a show, I don't see a warning that says "The following program contains content intended for women. Viewer discretion is advised." I decide to watch a show on its own merit. Whether I do or don't like it, I probably wouldn't review it. But for the people that do, a review is just a review. Who is doing the reviewing is almost as telling as what the review says. Aggregating those scores to get a "number" that's supposed to be meaningful is the big mistake.
Just because someone's not your intended audience, doesn't mean a review from them isn't fair or valuable. If it was better TV, it might have favorable ratings across the board. And most, if not all TV programming is very pandery and not very quality.
I'm pretty sure Google's Public DNS uses anycast IP addresses. Meaning you'll probably still get the closest server in the results. A lot of CDNs do the same thing.
Okay, but you still haven't said what you think YouTube should do.
If the owner of the video is signed up for revenue sharing, the comments here seem to indicate that flagged video revenue is kept by Youtube or sent to the copyright owner, even after the DMCA claim is resolved in favor of the video owner. A correction of that is one step in the right direction.
Also, I don't think individual content owners (aka "the little guy") can sign up for content ID.
They also intentionally broke RAID functionality to force you to buy their more expensive drives. I used one or two in a RAID anyway after correcting all the firmware settings, but it still caused problems.
That's not compensation. That's just stopping Youtube from making additional money off the content. At the end of the takedown, the only person who made any money is Youtube.
The lack of fines/punishment for huge numbers of false or fraudulent takedown notices. The law incentivizes false claims and claims against fair use. There's no harm in trying to flag whatever you want.
It's a bit of a split conscience. On the one hand, fair use content should never be flagged. On the other, making ad money off of someone else's work without any way to get fair compensation isn't great either.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the video's back up, it sounds like Content ID claims never go through official DMCA channels.
Nintendo has been stealing/claiming ad revenue for recently made gameplay videos. I wouldn't draw any attention to myself if I was hosting a Nintendo gameplay video.
The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly?
It's called plausible deniability. If they don't verify it before filing, they can legally claim ignorance. That's what needs to be fixed in the law. If you use an automated tool, you should be required to make an attempt at due diligence before you can come back later and claim ignorance.
Don't want to awaken the beast (Nintendo). Nintendo has been issuing their claims on gameplay videos and taking all the ad revenue.
and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued.... I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
Sure, but then you lose your safe harbor protection under DMCA. Youtube would be getting prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than the video poster. Youtube is not going to take on that liability for any reason.
If it wasn't Youtube's own Content ID system, FOX could probably be sued for issuing a false takedown notice. Maybe they still could. Hiring a hit man makes you no less guilty of murder.
The old record was getting a bit brittle after 60 years. Indeed brittle enough to shatter.
First, it might expire
Current smallpox vaccine is stored freeze-dried and has a shelf life of 10+ years.
Of course, that could be done just fine by sequencing it now and saving the results for later. That doesn't mean you wouldn't need live smallpox to help develop a new vaccine instead of cowpox - that might be needed.
Current smallpox vaccine is made from cowpox. An engineered form might need something that's a closer match to be effective.
Is there going to be a big label on the car warning about the dangers of touching it?
They are based in the state of California.
Or literally rip their face off when combined with the momentum.
It's just a review. You can read it and decide for yourself if it has any value. There's no harm in it being posted.
Seeing a lot of negative individual scores would tell you that. The fact that it brings down the average for the aggregate number tells you almost nothing at all. That number doesn't factor the value of a review into its weighting.
And what I get from this is that men are responding to the advertising for the show and tuning in. Which is possibly a failure in advertising, if they are attracting people who won't like the show.
When deciding to watch a show, I don't see a warning that says "The following program contains content intended for women. Viewer discretion is advised." I decide to watch a show on its own merit. Whether I do or don't like it, I probably wouldn't review it. But for the people that do, a review is just a review. Who is doing the reviewing is almost as telling as what the review says. Aggregating those scores to get a "number" that's supposed to be meaningful is the big mistake.
Just because someone's not your intended audience, doesn't mean a review from them isn't fair or valuable. If it was better TV, it might have favorable ratings across the board. And most, if not all TV programming is very pandery and not very quality.
I'm pretty sure Google's Public DNS uses anycast IP addresses. Meaning you'll probably still get the closest server in the results. A lot of CDNs do the same thing.
Okay, but you still haven't said what you think YouTube should do.
If the owner of the video is signed up for revenue sharing, the comments here seem to indicate that flagged video revenue is kept by Youtube or sent to the copyright owner, even after the DMCA claim is resolved in favor of the video owner. A correction of that is one step in the right direction.
Also, I don't think individual content owners (aka "the little guy") can sign up for content ID.
They were still using 3TB Seagates in their last report (Q4 2015). They discontinued all use of them as a result of their findings.
They also intentionally broke RAID functionality to force you to buy their more expensive drives. I used one or two in a RAID anyway after correcting all the firmware settings, but it still caused problems.
I think you're really stretching here to try to make YouTube out as the bad guy
I've been clear that this is due to the way DMCA is set up. Youtube is just making money off of the bad situation.
Content ID breaks fair use. I would never sign up for Content ID and have innocent videos flagged. That's also bad.
That's not compensation. That's just stopping Youtube from making additional money off the content. At the end of the takedown, the only person who made any money is Youtube.
The lack of fines/punishment for huge numbers of false or fraudulent takedown notices. The law incentivizes false claims and claims against fair use. There's no harm in trying to flag whatever you want.
It's a bit of a split conscience. On the one hand, fair use content should never be flagged. On the other, making ad money off of someone else's work without any way to get fair compensation isn't great either.
And that's been most of what a service pack is since XP.