Attack On Wrestling LIVE Returns!!

[ABMorales787]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Tm6lsO0mo

6:30pm West Coast (Pacific)
9:30pm East Coast (Eastern or is it Atlantic?)

I have no fucking clue what the rest are. Fuck time zones, really.

I sit on my sofa bed to get Dagger to talk about Wrestlemania Weekend from his end plus talking the late Chyna, Samoa Joe just winning the NXT title, lolTNA sale, Payback, other stuff. And a chat! Yes. Ask questions. Like.... What fast food did I order before recording. Which I have yet to decide. All that and more. Tomorrow.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Will you be using the same format as last time?

*Checks original post*

For some reason it took about five minutes to buffer in the feed last go round, but it went smoothly after that.

 

[Dagger Dias]

20:30 in Central Time

 

[ABMorales787]

We're live. I think.

 

[klunderbunker]

It keeps cutting in and out, as usual.

 

[klunderbunker]

Dagger is very, very quiet.

 

[ABMorales787]

I think it's fixed.

 

[ABMorales787]

Welp, that was quite the train wreck.

 

[klunderbunker]

What happened?

 

[ABMorales787]

I have no clue. The video afterwards comes off just fine. But in trying to see the live broadcast it just never appeared live.

 

[klunderbunker]

I didn't know there was supposed to be video.

 

[ABMorales787]

There was a Chyna video at the start. Which WWE immediately took copyright claim for. No infraction for me. But they're getting whatever ad revenue the video gets. The fuckers.

I cleared up tons of stuff. I'm gonna play some videogames through the livestream for a bit. If anyone wants to just jump and tell me if its steady, it would be help.

https://www.youtube.com/live_dashboard

 

[Coco]

Which WWE immediately took copyright claim for.

This isn't my line, so I'm curious: Are they normally so aggressively on top of that stuff? "Immediately" sounds pretty quick.

 

[klunderbunker]

This isn't my line, so I'm curious: Are they normally so aggressively on top of that stuff? "Immediately" sounds pretty quick.

From what I understand about how copyright works on Youtube, they have a system that electronically checks content. If something in a video you make matches, it's taken down by the system, not automatically the content owner.

 

[Coco]

Must be kind of shit system considering how many videos I see with halfhearted boilerplate descriptions rambling on about fair use. Though mirrored content suddenly makes much more sense to me.

Sounds interesting.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah a lot of does seem ridiculous. The problem seems to be getting hold of a person to show that fair use actually applies.

 

[Coco]

It's hilariously reminiscent of someone yelling FREE SPEECH without possessing even a loose understanding of what that right actually entails.

Of course I say this as the world's foreleast expert in fair use.

 

[ABMorales787]

It was mirrored. They flagged Chynas theme.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's hilariously reminiscent of someone yelling FREE SPEECH without possessing even a loose understanding of what that right actually entails.

Of course I say this as the world's foreleast expert in fair use.

Short version: fair use is a legal precedent (not sure if it's a law) that says if you're doing a review/parody/educational presentation on a topic, limited use (read as clips) of something can be used. In other words, if I'm making a video and use a fifteen second clip of something to prove a point/make a joke etc., it's completely legal. The problem is the Youtube system is all electronic and therefore claiming fair use is REALLY hard to do as any same human would be able to look at a video, realize that the copyrighted material is all of 1% of the content, and agree that it's not being used to skirt copyright.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I never use youtube anymore because that crap was too much of a pain to deal with. It wasn't worth it.

 

[Coco]

Short version: fair use is a legal precedent (not sure if it's a law) that says if you're doing a review/parody/educational presentation on a topic, limited use (read as clips) of something can be used. In other words, if I'm making a video and use a fifteen second clip of something to prove a point/make a joke etc., it's completely legal. The problem is the Youtube system is all electronic and therefore claiming fair use is REALLY hard to do as any same human would be able to look at a video, realize that the copyrighted material is all of 1% of the content, and agree that it's not being used to skirt copyright.

On a surface level, I get all that. What boggles the mind is when I consume boatloads of TV/movie tribute videos, all of which are propped up on nearly 100% copywritten content. How does that stuff get past the system? Is that somehow covered under the review/educational type stuff? How does that hold up?

Not asking you specifically. Just shouting into the void.

 

[NSL]

Short version: fair use is a legal precedent (not sure if it's a law) that says if you're doing a review/parody/educational presentation on a topic, limited use (read as clips) of something can be used. In other words, if I'm making a video and use a fifteen second clip of something to prove a point/make a joke etc., it's completely legal. The problem is the Youtube system is all electronic and therefore claiming fair use is REALLY hard to do as any same human would be able to look at a video, realize that the copyrighted material is all of 1% of the content, and agree that it's not being used to skirt copyright.

Having written and signed some (rather small) music contracts, you basically got it right. When you're writing a song, you can have a certain percentage that is exactly the same as an existing work before it becomes a copyright issue. This is how Vanilla Ice eluded shit with Queen, but also how Led Zeppelin has been in a world of shit for almost their entire catalogue.