Hacker News Reader

Comment by unimpressive | Hacker News Reader

Right now your comment seems to be at the bottom of the page.

Don't take that to mean nobody is reading.

I personally feel the same way about youtube writ large. Google has made youtube one of the greatest video libraries ever compiled. Downloading videos is not allowed by the software (No, various add ons and browser extensions are not acceptable.), and on top of that it's disallowed by their TOS.

I can only imagine the tragedy set to occur when youtube inevitably shuts down.

One of the most egregious examples I've seen thus far is on the older Tay Zonday videos where it says the license is creative commons but there is no way to download the video.

EDIT:

" This MP3 is subject to a Creative Commons License. Creative Commons License Details:"

Interesting. Guess I didn't read close enough the first time.

View on HN

It is at the bottom because it is a new account, it is a new account because HN ghosts accounts at the drop of a hat. Oh well.

My problem with the CDBaby/Youtube relationship is that CDBaby was essentially created to take advantage of blanket claims. Youtube's algos create a set of hashes or something of track audio. This is fine. The first to make a copyrighted claim, even if non-copyrighted uploads already exist, get precedence. This is not fine.

So the hundreds of copies of the man singing his heart out matter nothing once CDBaby uploads one copyrighted track that includes a part that matches. Copyrighted claims override the others for some horrific reason.

Leaving me to defend a dead man. Thanks to @ioerror, Telecomix and others for keeping it real respecting the dead's rights.

CDBaby predates Youtube by many years, so it was fairly obviously not created to abuse anything related to Youtube.

That's nice. It's fairly obvious CDBaby's mode of operation is what I have described. Looking into them after they obtained my attention resulted in finding many similar stories from others.

I have NEVER seen anything from CDBaby's presence with actual CD sales, be it in retail shops or online, on the other hand their mode of operation since starting to use Youtube indicates this is their main line of income.

"Represent" artists by claiming copyright on any under-protected samples that they may have used.

Including voice samples of men who have had their throats slit.

Force users dispute it on Youtube, disputed videos get resolved but every other copy of the media that was uploaded does not. Leaving each of the other users who uploaded to fight it one by one on their own. Blanket claims on swaths of video are made by CDBaby forcing individual defense from users for each of their uploaded copies. Not all users notice the copyright claims, not all care, even less have the motivation to try to set things right.

CDBaby over time gets claim to a larger and larger portfolio of media that doesn't belong to them.

It's all fairly obvious, regardless of how the original company started and operated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com