Youtube as we know it won't last very long because of of the copyright issue. Google want it to remove all the copyrighted content, like South Park, music videos, and even silly people doing crappy karaoke in their living-room.
It kinda sucks. I know the company who produce such shows want to make more money, and that's basically what it comes down to. But it wil probably mean that, in time, Youtube will be the new Napster. I.e., crap.
And that, in all likelihood, you'll have to pay to access most of the decent videos on Youtube.
Selling out sucks.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Selling out
Selling outFollow
That's what happens when a website is bought up by large corps. Myspace is owned by Murdoch and they're starting to clean up the site of all the illegal music. I hear that these sites are even going so far as to remove home movies using copyrighted music. Not sure of the extent and reach of this. Only time will tell.
I wouldn't be surprised if the masses just switch to another user made site and drop YouTubes hit rate into the garbage.
I wouldn't be surprised if the masses just switch to another user made site and drop YouTubes hit rate into the garbage.
So, in this case, "selling out" refers to following the law and preventing legal battles with media giants like Viacom over clips of The Daily Show?
This isn't even like Napster. At least Napster had the argument that they were merely a conduit for file exchanges and couldn't control the content. Here, the content is being hosted on the YouTube servers. There's an obvious liability issue here.
This isn't even like Napster. At least Napster had the argument that they were merely a conduit for file exchanges and couldn't control the content. Here, the content is being hosted on the YouTube servers. There's an obvious liability issue here.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I am surprised they have been around this long.
I guess it will just turn into a video blog for emos and maybe host original content like homemade movies, skits, contests, etc.
I guess it will just turn into a video blog for emos and maybe host original content like homemade movies, skits, contests, etc.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Selling out sucks.
This reminds me of another site that did the same thing. Hmmm, can't remember what site that was off the top of my head but I seem to remember an influx of new admins after it happened.
It'll come to me after I press post I bet....
Yeah, but we copy & paste copyrighted news articles all the time and Alla doesn't try to stop us.
Forum=4 > YouTube!
Forum=4 > YouTube!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Anyone who has an issue with anything "selling out" needs to come with me to live in the woods, chew a point on the end of some sticks, and start attacking cars and busses with them.
Even if they weren't sold, it would've happened anyways. The site is in the public eye too much to not be noticed. If they did squat, then they would've been sued into the ground.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Whing about selling out is so emo.
'Cept for Liz Phair. I'm still bitter that the last time I heard a song of her's on the radio, I spent two weeks thinking I was listening to Avril Lavigne until I heard a DJ announce it.
Or maybe I'm just emo!
Or maybe I'm just emo!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
'Cept for Liz Phair. I'm still bitter that the last time I heard a song of her's on the radio, I spent two weeks thinking I was listening to Avril Lavigne until I heard a DJ announce it.
She needed the money.
Apparently the wall mart crowd liked the idea of playing xbox on your floor better than wanting to fuck you like a dog and take you home and make you like it.
All relative I suppose.
Edited, Nov 1st 2006 at 8:24am PST by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Isn't selling out just another form of surrender?
OP, hypocrite much?
OP, hypocrite much?
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, but we copy & paste copyrighted news articles all the time and Alla doesn't try to stop us.
Forum=4 > YouTube!
Forum=4 > YouTube!
Ya, but most times people only copy portions of the article and provide a link to the original site (increasing their hits), for the full text.
Free advertisement is bad, yes.
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
I'm not saying Google are bastards. They obviously have to follow the law. Same argument as the record companies trying to crack down on P2P.
Whenever a company becomes "big", or gets bought by a big one, then the dynamics change. Sure.
There are still tons of sites on the web where you can get, for exemple, South Park clips. And they're not being sued. It's only when they get too big that these things happen.
And it's a shame it happened to Youtube, because it was a great little site, and now it's going to become a crappy big site.
That's all. It's more pre-emptive nostalgia than emo-ness.
And "morally", I do think there is a difference between downloading an album and watching a Sp clip on Youtube.
Not a huge one, but it won't affect the company in the same.
Whenever a company becomes "big", or gets bought by a big one, then the dynamics change. Sure.
There are still tons of sites on the web where you can get, for exemple, South Park clips. And they're not being sued. It's only when they get too big that these things happen.
And it's a shame it happened to Youtube, because it was a great little site, and now it's going to become a crappy big site.
That's all. It's more pre-emptive nostalgia than emo-ness.
And "morally", I do think there is a difference between downloading an album and watching a Sp clip on Youtube.
Not a huge one, but it won't affect the company in the same.
Quote:
There are still tons of sites on the web where you can get, for exemple, South Park clips. And they're not being sued. It's only when they get too big that these things happen.
Yes because it makes so much more sense shooting 40 dogs who tear up 3% of your garbage rather than 1 dog that chews up 75% of your garbage ... /shakes head
Kronig wrote:
Quote:
There are still tons of sites on the web where you can get, for exemple, South Park clips. And they're not being sued. It's only when they get too big that these things happen.
Yes because it makes so much more sense shooting 40 dogs who tear up 3% of your garbage rather than 1 dog that chews up 75% of your garbage ... /shakes head
One more time, with feelings.
Redphoenixxxxxx wrote:
There are still tons of sites on the web where you can get, for exemple, South Park clips. And they're not being sued. It's only when they get too big that these things happen.
So your point was?
Quote:
So your point was?
You are whining that a website that is probably one of the largest copyright infringements in current existence is being put on a leash. Your entire argument is based on the fact that the information is located elsewhere and youtube shouldn't have to change because of its size.
Flawed reasoning for teh win!
Kronig wrote:
Quote:
So your point was?
You are whining that a website that is probably one of the largest copyright infringements in current existence is being put on a leash. Your entire argument is based on the fact that the information is located elsewhere and youtube shouldn't have to change because of its size.
Flawed reasoning for teh win!
Are you purposely trying to make yourself look stupid by misundersanding a rather simple post, or is this some sort of Halloween joke I don't know about?
Do me a favour and get basic comprehension skills. This really isn't very complicated.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
It's more pre-emptive nostalgia than emo-ness.
I mean, if you're upset about things after they happen, then you're just part of the machine!It's not selling out. It's called buying in.
Suing for copyright infringement is the new black. After all, Metallica did it.
Suing for copyright infringement is the new black. After all, Metallica did it.
Suing for copyright infringement is the new black.
I don't think anyone really begrudges copyright holders the right to do this. Even *I* aren't that far on the "information wants to be free" spectrum to not see the point of view there. The thing that strikes me as nonsensical is that copyright holders seem completely unwilling to examine the potential positive revenue impact to be had by allowing free distribution of some media. I'd have never started watching Lost if I couldn't have downloaded the first two seasons to catch up. There is zero chance I'd have ever bought or rented the DVDs, but now they have increased their potential revenue stream because I watch the show, and ostensibly the ads.
Copyright holders would, on balance, be wise to realize that they are wasting a massive amount of money trying to provide proprietary outlets for digital media that are almost always cumbersome and close to useless when they could have an entirely free fast efficient distribution channel simply by selectively choosing not to enforce copyrights on sites like youtube. No one's ever lost money overestimating the stupidity of large media corporations though, so I doubt they'll get to that point any time soon.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
What Smash said.
Anyway, on one hand, Viacom (for instance) is not some two-bit operation. It's not as if some kid in his basement is telling Google he's going to sue -- this is a major media conglomerate with a warehouse full of lawyers stacked like cordwood for just an occassion as this.
On the other hand, Google isn't some two-bit operation either. They just paid an amount exceeding the Gross Domestic Product of Greenland for ownership of YouTube. I find it hard to believe that they won't come to some arrangement or terms to protect their investment.
Anyway, on one hand, Viacom (for instance) is not some two-bit operation. It's not as if some kid in his basement is telling Google he's going to sue -- this is a major media conglomerate with a warehouse full of lawyers stacked like cordwood for just an occassion as this.
On the other hand, Google isn't some two-bit operation either. They just paid an amount exceeding the Gross Domestic Product of Greenland for ownership of YouTube. I find it hard to believe that they won't come to some arrangement or terms to protect their investment.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Yeah, Smash put it better than I ever could.
I just fear Youtube is going to become a pay-as-you-go scheme, which would render it as useful as online videostore, or some monthly scheme that wouldn't be much better. I don't think the money from the advertising will reach what the corporations entitled to sue would want, and so it probably won't stay "free". Which will kill its basic purpose, and yes its a shame.
Call it emo or whiney, sure. It might make me part of the machine, but so what. Having internet is being part of the machine.
I also find this idea of preventing these crappy home-made karaoke, on the basis that it infringes the rights of the song in the background, compltetly ridiculous. As if anyone would refrain from buying a CD simply because they can hear bits of the song on such video.
So this is whole thing is kinda silly and poorly thought-out economically and commercially.
I don't doubt some other form of will Youtube will show up, and might already have, so yeah, it's very shrugable indeed.
It's still a shame though.
I just fear Youtube is going to become a pay-as-you-go scheme, which would render it as useful as online videostore, or some monthly scheme that wouldn't be much better. I don't think the money from the advertising will reach what the corporations entitled to sue would want, and so it probably won't stay "free". Which will kill its basic purpose, and yes its a shame.
Call it emo or whiney, sure. It might make me part of the machine, but so what. Having internet is being part of the machine.
I also find this idea of preventing these crappy home-made karaoke, on the basis that it infringes the rights of the song in the background, compltetly ridiculous. As if anyone would refrain from buying a CD simply because they can hear bits of the song on such video.
So this is whole thing is kinda silly and poorly thought-out economically and commercially.
I don't doubt some other form of will Youtube will show up, and might already have, so yeah, it's very shrugable indeed.
It's still a shame though.
You've mentioned karaoke twice but I didn't see it anywhere in the article. Are you basing this off of something or are you just imagining worst case scenarios to make this sound worse than it is?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
No, I read it in a newspaper. I'll try to find a link online.
Got one, not that its the place I had read it in.
But if you can't trust "PC Pro", who can you trust...
Edited, Nov 1st 2006 at 3:09pm PST by RedPhoenixxxxxx
Got one, not that its the place I had read it in.
But if you can't trust "PC Pro", who can you trust...
Edited, Nov 1st 2006 at 3:09pm PST by RedPhoenixxxxxx
Recent Visitors: 211
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (211)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Selling out
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC