Hacker News Reader

Comment by giancarlostoro | Hacker News Reader

> ...I'm dumbfounded at the idea of using real-life courts to enforce real-life sporting events' streaming rights by getting rapid injunctions against DNS providers as the means of striking at a multiply-redundant head of a piracy hydra when DNS TTLs are often longer than the actual sporting event being infringed upon.

There's a youtuber who breaks down samples in songs by hip hop artists, and he gets striked or all his earnings taken by someone who stalks his videos, he used to cut samples to below 15 seconds, and still gets striked. You can't even defend yourself, and arguably he is within FAIR USE of the content.

Someone, somewhere is going out of their way to strike their videos. It's ridiculous, do they strike news channels when copyrighted music plays in the background without their control too?

View on HN

> do they strike news channels when copyrighted music plays in the background without their control too?

Yes, they do. In Brazil, to avoid some news reports about stores selling contraband items, the store owners started playing Disney songs in the background, meaning they weren't able to publish the videos or broadcast them.

Maybe I haven't considered this enough but couldn't they just remove the audio and put subtitles up with what was said? Just preface this segment segment with the information that the owners of the store are playing copyrighted Disney music in an attempt to prevent them from recording them. Maybe have a voiceover explaining the situation if dead air is unacceptable for some reason.

The general public didn’t even make it through this comment, unfortunately.

Things are pretty dire, attention-wise.

Hopefully someone has pointed this youtuber at Rick Beato / Legal Eagle's initiative in this direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8HxQkk0PSY

That's not real life courts, that's an unaccountable corporation who rightly considers you irrelevant

That seems much more sensible than what is being discussed. Sure fair use offers some protections, but youtube the platform is not required to protect individual youtuber revenues for fair use. Fair use effectivly entails an exception to the normal rules, and as such, requires actual judgement on a case by case basis instead of being something that can be scaled like content id. If you actually got sued, you could use Fair Use as a defense in court, and the judge would decide if you are right or not. In the case you are discussing, no-one got sued because youtube handled it without a court, so fair use never really comes into play.

What is being discussed would be more like if a court tried to get Google to take down individual spam bot youtube accounts that had popped up that same morning. Its rediculous because the legal system doesn't move that fast (nor does DNS), so things that require that level of heavy-handedness are typically much slower processes taking months or years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com