Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Submission + - Where is YouTube's million dollar to fight for fair use?

eporue writes: Last year YouTube announced https://publicpolicy.googleblo... that they were going to help creators with one million dollars to help with the legal fees in cases where fair use was being abused in the site. Still, one year later, no reports on how that money has been used, and the copyright war is at its worst. I got a channel deleted after 3 years when I got 3 consecutive strikes in a week (coincidence?) https://www.youtube.com/public...

Submission + - Should YouTube create a public domain video library? 1

eporue writes: I've received a copyright strike in YouTube on a video that Wikipedia says is in the public domain. The strike has blocked my channel from monetization for 6 months.

  My channel has 169 public domain movies that had received hundreds of bogus claims in the past.

  The alleged infraction was on video "Dark Alibi (1946)", a public domain movie that you can download from wikipedia

  How can we defend from alleged copyright strikes from companies that nobody knows on videos that are clearly in the public domain? Should YouTube create a video library of movies and videos like Wikipedia is doing? Videos that can be reused by other users?

Comment Re:wait a minute... (Score 1) 213

That's the whole point of public domain. Public domain means that I am the owner of the material (same as you and everybody else), so I can make money of it, you can make money of it, everybody can make money of it. You don't realize that by blocking me from making money, they block you and all of us. And by the way, I publish the link to the original material, to make the point that anybody can do it. I do not hide it and I do not pretend that I am the sole owner of the material.

Submission + - How to "prove" a Public Domain license ?

eporue writes: YouTube claims that I haven't been able to prove that I have commercial rights to this video of Superman. They are asking me to submit documentation saying "We need to verify that you are authorized to commercially use all of the visual and audio elements in your video. Please confirm your material is in the public domain." I submitted a link to the wikipedia page of the Superman cartoons from the 40s where it explains that the copyright expired, and to the Archive pagefrom where I got it. And still is not enough to "prove" that I have the commercial rights.

So, how do you "prove" public domain status ?

Submission + - The end of Public Domain 1

eporue writes: Since I uploaded the public domain movie The night of the living dead to YouTube I got 18 different complaints of copyright infrigment on it.
Actually, I have a channel of Public Domain movies in which monetization has been disabled "due to repeated community guidelines and/or copyright issues".
The problem is that 99% of the complaints are false, they are from companies that have no rights over the movies but by issuing millions of take downs, manage to control a good number of videos in YouTube.
Is there any way to fight back ? Is there a way to "probe" public domain ?

Submission + - Public domain and Youtube

eporue writes: I get "Disputed third party matched content" in more than half the public domain videos that I upload to my Youtube public domain movies and public domain cartoons channels. I get the content from Wikipedia and Archive.org and I make sure that it is public domain. The funny thing is that many companies have nothing to do with the creators of the original videos. In the case of the Night of the living dead I got 11 different claims from 8 different companies. After "disputing" them, 8 have been released so far. How do you manage these disputes?

Submission + - Microsoft's Surface RT Was Doomed From Day One (slashdot.org)

Nerval's Lobster writes: Last fall, Microsoft launched its Surface RT tablet with high hopes. The sleek touch-screen ran Windows RT, a version of Windows 8 designed for hardware powered by the ARM architecture, which dominates the mobile-device market; it also included a flexible keyboard that doubled as a screen cover. Microsoft executives told any journalist who would listen that Surface RT would position their company as a major player in the tablet arena, ready to battle toe-to-toe with Apple and various Android device manufacturers. Fast-forward to this week, and Microsoft announcing its financial results for the quarter ended June 30. Amidst metrics such as operating income and diluted earnings per share, one number stood out: a $900 million charge (the equivalent of $0.07 per share) related to what Microsoft called “Surface RT inventory adjustments.” Microsoft had already slashed Surface RT prices by $150, so that nearly-billion-dollar charge wasn't a total surprise — but it did underscore that Surface RT is a bomb. From the outset, Surface RT had an issue with the potential to mightily trip up Microsoft: While Windows RT looks exactly like Windows 8, it can’t run legacy Windows programs built for x86 processors, limiting users to what they can download from the built-in Windows Store app hub. While the Windows Store launched with 10,000 apps, that seemed paltry in comparison to the well-developed Android and iOS ecosystems. There’s likely nothing that Microsoft could have done about this—every platform has to start somewhere, after all—but the relative lack of apps put Surface RT between the proverbial rock and the hard place: it couldn’t rely on Windows’ extensive legacy, and it didn’t have enough content to make it a true contender from the outset against the iPad and Android tablets. Then there was the matter of price. Microsoft could have taken the Amazon route and sold Surface RT at a relative pittance in order to drive adoption—something that made the Kindle Fire a sizable hit. However, that sort of pricing scheme isn’t in Microsoft’s corporate DNA: it only cut Surface RT’s price several months after release, as a defensive maneuver, when it’s likely to do much less good.

Submission + - Huawei Spies for China, Former CIA Chief Says (securityweek.com)

wiredmikey writes: Former CIA head Michael Hayden said it "goes without saying" that Chinese telecoms giant Huawei spies for China. Speaking to the Australian Financial Review, he claimed China was engaged in unrestricted espionage against the West and believes Western intelligence networks have hard evidence that Huawei had spied on behalf of the Chinese state.

"And, at a minimum, Huawei would have shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with. I think that goes without saying." When asked whether Huawei represented an unambiguous national security threat to the US and Australia, Hayden replied: "Yes, I believe it does".

Huawei denies it has any direct links to the Chinese state, but the US Congress last year called for its exclusion from US government contracts and it was also barred from bidding for contracts to build Australia's national broadband network.

Submission + - I'd pay 50 € for a Gmail-like encrypted webmail with serves in Europe, who

eporue writes: I am tired of reading about PRIMS and how everybody is reading my emails. And I am prepared to pay 50€ a year for a webmail system that allows me to us GPG, that uses SSL and with all the servers in Europe and with the data on those servers encripted using with my own private local key.

Anybody else ?

Slashdot Top Deals

The world is coming to an end. Please log off.