Sfdebris.net

https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/t198.php

This episode is not loading for me.
"Content Rejected"
"This content has been removed due to a breach of the terms of use"

Looks like the filter/censor bots are fully active again. Lots of old reviews died and now they're hitting his fresh reviews as well.

And after all time and effort he spend moving videos to new platform.

OK, so I need someone to help me out here in clearing up some facets of American law as not being American myself I do not have all the facts:

Reviews are covered by something known as ''fair use'' correct? How does Chuck keep on having these problems on every platform he posts to?

clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:25 pm OK, so I need someone to help me out here in clearing up some facets of American law as not being American myself I do not have all the facts:

Reviews are covered by something known as ''fair use'' correct? How does Chuck keep on having these problems on every platform he posts to?

The fact that there's never enough human eyes to actually monitor the amount of video that's uploaded on video platforms. What that means is that these things get removed because of algorithms that scan videos and, if they see a shot of material that looks copyright-such as an easily recognizable character from a famous TV show-the algorithm assumes it's an illegally uploaded episode of Star Trek and shuts it down.

Chuck is in the right, legally, but he's getting buried in the process.

clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:25 pm OK, so I need someone to help me out here in clearing up some facets of American law as not being American myself I do not have all the facts:

Reviews are covered by something known as ''fair use'' correct? How does Chuck keep on having these problems on every platform he posts to?

What Bronnt said, with the primary concern video hosting companies like Vimeo, youtube, whatever, being that they don't want to deal with lawsuits, so they set up their websites to favor the large corporations that potentially get reviewed. It's cheaper to automate the process and just accept whatever they say as valid, and since there's no human there to say, "Wait, this doesn't apply.", or a counter method to say that this isn't infringement.

So, if Chuck has to make a counterclaim about video A. He has to wait on that one, while also dealing with counterclaims on Videos B, C, D, E, etc.. And if there's a three strikes policy with assumed guilt, Chuck doesn't have a leg to stand on with that video hosting service. It's what happens when things are enforced by companies who don't want to take care of their content creators, but do want to receive profit off of their ad revenue.

The companies get all the reward, and none of the risk, and the content creators get all the risk foisted onto them.

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:50 pm What Bronnt said, with the primary concern video hosting companies like Vimeo, youtube, whatever, being that they don't want to deal with lawsuits, so they set up their websites to favor the large corporations that potentially get reviewed. It's cheaper to automate the process and just accept whatever they say as valid, and since there's no human there to say, "Wait, this doesn't apply.", or a counter method to say that this isn't infringement.

So, if Chuck has to make a counterclaim about video A. He has to wait on that one, while also dealing with counterclaims on Videos B, C, D, E, etc.. And if there's a three strikes policy with assumed guilt, Chuck doesn't have a leg to stand on with that video hosting service. It's what happens when things are enforced by companies who don't want to take care of their content creators, but do want to receive profit off of their ad revenue.

The companies get all the reward, and none of the risk, and the content creators get all the risk foisted onto them.

To add just a little bit more, it's all about where the risk lies. In their case, the risk is of a big lawsuit from Paramount/CBS or whoever owns the rights to the Star Trek Franchise. Those people have several good lawyers, and in order to shield themselves from liability, these platforms have to be able to say that they're doing everything possible to prevent illegal distribution of those properties.

They don't really want to alienate content creators, but pissing off a one-man operation like SFDebris is much less risky for them than being lax and pissing off CBS. Chuck simply doesn't have the resources to make them suffer like CBS can.

clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:25 pm OK, so I need someone to help me out here in clearing up some facets of American law as not being American myself I do not have all the facts:

Reviews are covered by something known as ''fair use'' correct? How does Chuck keep on having these problems on every platform he posts to?

For what it's worth, I'd like to preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer, and this is only a personal interpretation of what I've seen and read.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to enforce the fair use defense. By claiming fair use, you are essentially admitting to doing what accusers would call copyright infringement; your argument is that you're allowed to do it in this particular case because of certain factors that are defined by the law. Because of this, only a judge can determine if a certain piece of work can be considered fair use or not, and therefore, it would be far too expensive for most people to get to that point.

There are other factors too. Copyright law provides the owner with a lot of power over the work they've acquired, and the DMCA is very owner friendly. Because of this, a host has to be as neutral and as un-obstructive as possible. They are also required to show that they are taking action against keeping copyright offenses off their platforms. This is the main reason why hosts will remove videos until the creator disputes them. If a host receives a complaint, and they reject, ignore, or fail to review it, the host can be sued directly as it could be argued that they have made a determination on the video and have taken responsibility for it.

Bottom line is that any changes are going to take a long time and have fierce resistance.

LiteYear wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:38 pm Bottom line is that any changes are going to take a long time and have fierce resistance.

And these fights have been going on for decades already, but it's not an issue people vote on, so it tends toward the increasingly draconian over time.