Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Space Stations, Space Shuttles and Beyond - The Aerospace Discussion Thread
pwhodges:
Copyright is a strange thing; but there is copyright in a recording of a non-copyright event. Was the source of the video on YouTube a National Geographic recording of the NASA feed?
Jimor:
Right, normally just creating something also embues a copyright whether the owner wants it or not, but the U.S. Constitution specifically puts all government created "documents" into the public domain for all to use, thus an official NASA broadcast (as opposed to the SpaceX life feed, which would be under copyright) is free and clear for anybody to use.
However, what probably happened is that National Geographic probably used some of that footage in some kind of news report on the matter, and then when they fed their own broadcast into YouTube's copyright fingerprinting system, it of course also fingerprinted the NASA footage within it, and then when the original NASA footage matches as a "copy" of NG's stuff, YT's system pulled it as a violation.
This is a VERY common fault in YouTube's system, and has caught several independent rocket launch streams who create their own original content with bits of NASA audio/visual feed when NBC/Universal did the same thing, flagging the NASA elements as violating *their* copyright of the NASA elements during the aborted first try of the launch a few days before.
The problem with YouTube in this respect is that 1) independent creators do not have access to this system for their own works, unless they go through some kind of content management company that has an agreement with YouTube to represent creators and seize ad revenue on their behalf, and 2) anybody who does NOT wish their work to be used to claim ad revenue of other uploaders also do not have access to this system to keep their works from being claimed by others.
Not only do you get massive numbers of accidental false positives like the NG/NASA one, but it gives a loophole for bad actors to find unclaimed material, use a shady content management company to upload it on their behalf and then illegitimately claim ad revenue knowing most people aren't going to bother to dispute. And if they DO dispute, guess who gets to arbitrate that dispute? The thieves who stole the material in the first place! And if they deny your claim, the NEXT step to get YouTube to act is to actually file a lawsuit in court, spending the filing and attorney's fees to then attempt to regain the funds.
When they do get caught, they just change their name and move on to other targets, never having to pay any price, and the content management company just says "oops, we didn't know they were thieves using our service!"
YouTube's system is massively broken, and as long as there's no consequences for false claims *at all*, it just gets worse and worse over time. (Why does that seem to be a recurring theme in today's world?)
Pilchard123:
"Coooorner three!"
Is it cold in here?:
So there was a discussion a while back of how big a structure would need to be in order to maintain human comfort while spinning to simulate gravity.
One estimate is about a kilometer for 1 g.
Several people think such a structure could be launched on a single Falcon Heavy.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2021_Phase_I/Kilometer-Scale_Space_Structures_from_a_Single_Launch/
Even cooler, we do have experience with multi-decade deep space missions. So make an ultralight nanoprobe, accelerate it with a huge laser, I mean *really* accelerate it to 0.2c, and in twenty years it's an Alpha Centauri flyby. https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3
Is it cold in here?:
The conventional wisdom is that the test ban treaty put an end to Orion. Lawyers are wondering if it could be legal after all.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4057500
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version