When I logged into YouTube a few minutes ago, YouTube recommended a music video by Lil Wayne. So I cliked the link and when I was taken to the page, the video had been taken down by YouTube because it had been uploaded illegally. In according with current statist laws and ideology, shouldn't YouTube be persecuted for promoting and facilitaing the viewing of a video that had been uploaded illegally?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
1. Don't give them ideas.
2. What seems to have happened is that the unlicensed uploader simply used Youtube's paid promotion tool. They're actually very stricts on this stuff, and have a highly advanced recognition system, and 'owners' of media have far-reaching control of what they want to happen to matches from the recognition system.
3. Really? Lil Wayne? Maybe try this , for something different.
While we're at it, Vitamin String Quartet sounds nice :P
Nielsio:2. What seems to have happened is that the unlicensed uploader simply used Youtube's paid promotion tool.
Really? I thought recommendations were made only by YouTube's algorythm, but paid for by the uploader. I mean, it wasn't on of background promotions you see on pages of VEVO videos. It was under http://www.youtube.com/#recommendations.
In my defense, I click on the recommendations once in a while for the hell of it.
Oh, yes, that is a YT algorhythm. But what does that matter? It just means someone uploaded the video, it was detected, and by the time the 'owners' got around to checking their updates, they got it deleted.
This shouldn't be so surprising if it did happen though. That's how they got to the position their in now:
"[Co-founder Steve] Chen twice wrote that 80 percent of user traffic depended on pirated videos. He opposed removing infringing videos on the ground that 'if you remove the potential copyright infringements... site traffic and virality will drop to maybe 20 percent of what it is.' Karim proposed they 'just remove the obviously copyright infringing stuff.' But Chen again insisted that even if they removed only such obviously infringing clips, site traffic would drop at least 80 percent. ('if [we] remove all that content[,] we go from 100,000 views a day down to about 20,000 views or maybe even lower')."
It's really a concept that applies to a greater sector. Broadband, disc media, burners, etc. firms are based on sharing copyright material. YouTube is merely an updated operating model of file sharing that integrates ad revenue, copyright material and original material into one. Firms of this type always worked on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis.
They're actually very stricts on this stuff, and have a highly advanced recognition system, and 'owners' of media have far-reaching control of what they want to happen to matches from the recognition system.
I uploaded a cover of a song and then uploaded a better version. It only flagged the second as matched third-party content. I'm baffled by that because the superficial difference is next to nil.
Very simple. YouTube is not legally required to monitor content uploaded on their website. They have always made it very clear. When the DMCA Takedown Service sends them an injuction to remove content, they comply. DMCA rules are much laxer than the media industry would like: for example the storage provider is not responsible for content uploaded from third parties (that's why Youtube is not legally required to monitor content), must comply with takedown injuctions (which Youtube does) and must not profit from infringement.
This last concept is what the Viacom lawsuit is all about. The lawsuit alleges Youtube executives uploaded copyrighted material in 2005 and 2006 to increase traffic and hence get more money out of Google, which ended up buying Youtube in 2006. This lawsuit is likely to drag out for a very long time and probably make it all the way to the Supreme Court because Viacom itself admitted hiring marketing agencies to upload their own content (often doctored to look "pirated") on Youtube on a regular basis for promotional purposes. Viacom admitted the practice but proved unable to provide details on which content is "theirs" since marketing agencies were more or less given free rein and created hundreds of accounts not easily traceable to themselves. In short it's impossible to tell which content was legally authorized by Viacom itself and which was illegaly uploaded.
Kakugo: Very simple. YouTube is not legally required to monitor content uploaded on their website. They have always made it very clear. When the DMCA Takedown Service sends them an injuction to remove content, they comply. DMCA rules are much laxer than the media industry would like: for example the storage provider is not responsible for content uploaded from third parties (that's why Youtube is not legally required to monitor content), must comply with takedown injuctions (which Youtube does) and must not profit from infringement.
Yes. I know all this. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about YouTube specifically promoting and encouraging the viewing of a specific video which later was taken down because it infringed copyright. I'm my case, the video has already been taken down. I don't know why YouTube recommended a video that it had already taken down.
It's very simple. They copy down your IP address when you click on the illegal link. And then they send it to Lil Wayne. Lil Wayne then tracks the exact location using special software that he has developed.
Lil Wayne now knows where you live. Expect a visit very soon.
Did you think he was gonna give his tunes for free? Please!
...And the F is for "force."
The "You" in "YouTube" explains it all. YT isn't about content, it's about viewing behavior and tying viewing behavior to individuals. Don't be surprised if/when prosecutors start subpoena'ing YouTube viewing history in order to prove sexual deviancy, anti-semitism, racism, hate-beliefs, etc. The MPAA/RIAA can whine and cry all they want but I believe the Elites (sans record label/studio owners) have chosen to "move on" from information censorship to information-access monitoring as the primary means of social control and conditioning.
Clayton -
"viewing history in order to prove sexual deviancy, anti-semitism, racism, hate-beliefs, etc."
haha... what kind of videos have you been looking at?
My history looks pretty safe.
the Elites (sans record label/studio owners) have chosen to "move on" from information censorship to information-access monitoring as the primary means of social control and conditioning.
Sort of like leftist thinking has switched from completely centralized economic planning to just regulation?
From a libertarian perspective? :P