Due to copyrights matters, lots of vedios are removed from youtube. What's left on youtube are mostly rubbish now.Youtube has been blocked in my region, So, it's not a big loss for me. But for many of you who have been enjoy youtube vedios, I guess it's really sad.Trying to protect copyrights on internet is a foolish thing in my opinion. It's like standing in the middle of the fload telling the water-- "I'm right, you are wrong".It's not that I don't want the artists to make money. But there are other ways to make money without acting against trend. Just from an example-- some artists give music to mobile producer, mobile users listen for free, and artist earn from advertisement. This is an elegant and positive way to make money, and I believe it's the right way.
i hate how alot of them remove the videos because of copyright when if you have a full film in small enough chunks youtube doesn't care as each part is not the full film. it seems stupid that music videos and other stuff gets removed when full films in small parts slip through the grid. also have you tried using a proxy to access youtube as if you get one that makes youtube think that you are in another country then youtube should work. and if it is your isp blocking youtube the proxy will get past that as well since it would be blocking the youtube domain name and the youtube ip address when a proxy means it would have different names and everything.
Accessing youtube from proxy become unnecesory now because there's not much goodies to watch after they clean out things.By the way, talking about the proxy-- seems it has become a very profitable business. God knows what's behind the door, I can only guess that the commercial proxy service providers have good friends in gov.
well proxies are actually a simple trick all that happens is the proxy loads the website in its own server and then sends all the files and each page to your browser. so it sorta clones each website you go onto and any information you send goes to them and back to the actual website. or at least thats how i think they work, if there is anyone who wouldn't mind explain proxies in more depth that would be really helpful.
I believe it is a simple tech. What's not so simple is a question -- why some got blocked, and others start making money on the blocking?In my region, with huge population, if everybody spend $1 for your proxy service, you become multi billionare.So, I get the idea that the proxy provider here must be the super power's sweat heart.
Proxies don't really load the page on to their server then pass it on, that would require huge amounts of server space. Instead the proxies work like a mirror. The connection is sent to the proxy server which then bounces it to the website, then the websites response is then bounced off the proxy back to the computer. The website will receive the connection from the proxy, so it will read your ip as the proxies ip. The proxy then encrypts the website address so the isp can't read the address and decide if it is blocked or not. In countries like china though it's very hard to find a proxy site that hasn't been blocked. Unless you have a friend in another country who can setup a private proxy and not advertise it, you will spend most of your time searching for proxies that aren't yet blocked. And then once your isp has finally figured it out and blocked the private proxy, you get your friend to change the ip and bingo, a new unblocked proxy.The videos are being removed because they violate the TOS that Youtube specifies. But as for Youtube "dying", it's not.
Due to copyrights matters, lots of vedios are removed from youtube. What's left on youtube are mostly rubbish now.
Youtube has been blocked in my region, So, it's not a big loss for me. But for many of you who have been enjoy youtube vedios, I guess it's really sad.
Trying to protect copyrights on internet is a foolish thing in my opinion. It's like standing in the middle of the fload telling the water-- "I'm right, you are wrong".
It's not that I don't want the artists to make money. But there are other ways to make money without acting against trend. Just from an example-- some artists give music to mobile producer, mobile users listen for free, and artist earn from advertisement. This is an elegant and positive way to make money, and I believe it's the right way.
YouTube has always had copyright issues, and in my opinion they've actually been getting "soft" lately, given the amount of user-uploaded music I find there. When I read the thread title I thought this would be about the advent of HTML5, though they'll probably switch to it as soon as the revision is fully implemented and working.
I guess that the original title means that youtube will be less interesting for people looking for illegal download, if illegal content starts being removed.
From what I can see YouTube is nowhere close to dying.YouTube has always had copyright problems and this was one of the big issues that Google had with the company before they bought them. In the end YouTube is still safe from being taken down because they have a DMCA safe harbor provision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). As long as they provide a means for copyright holders to request a take-down, and do so in a timely manner, YouTube and Google cannot be held liable (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/google-cites-safe-harbor-fair-use-in-viacom-v-youtube-defense/). The perceived problem comes from the copyright holders getting trigger happy with fair use (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) and even videos they donât hold copyright to. Additionally YouTube has automated all of this work and a human doesnât make the final decision.Does a 9 year old girl singing the latest pop song in her living room constitute a copyright violation or is it fair use? Is a video with the radio playing in the background also a copyright violation? Though questions these are.I remember a TWIT episode (twit.tv) this past year that was pulled down. TWIT is a geek news show and podcast that talks about the current technology events. One of the guests on this show, Baratunde Thurston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baratunde_Thurston) (donât know the episode) also worked for The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/). They were discussing a clip from The Onion website which was both news and a promotion for The Onion. The next week the host was complaining that the show was taken down by YouTube because of this 30 second clip from The Onion. Over the subsequent weeks the audience found out that the episode was taken down because of an automated DMCA notice. The Onion didnât file the complaint and was actually pissed that some of its content was taken down without its permission. I believe the episode was eventually put back up on YouTube but this shows you that some copyright law is just plain broken. The Onion clip was a clear example of fair use because it was part of a news item and even if it wasnât the copyright holder didnât want it taken down.
I don't see why companies should get to remove all of their films from youtube espically if they are small clips from the films which people want to use for a school/college project. they just make it really hard to actually get the clips you want and pushes you to downloading them illegally just to get the clip that you want and if they complain you just tell them how they should not have a right to remove the small clips afterall. if a smaller clip is on youtube then people will see it and want to get the whole thing. instead they claim "intellectual" property must be the only intellectual that film companies have or music companies for that matter. just hope they don't annoy anon because you know what they'll do to youtube as they've done it twice before and that was the youtube p**n day.
But it still is a bit subjective by saying Youtube is dying, there is a lot of needs by people or business to broadcast to the internet, let alone to say there is so many Youtube weanna bes.
People go to youtube for all the nice vedios they love, not for those commercial purposed vedios. When they browse through, they also watch a lot that out of their interests, including the commercial ones.So, now, all the nice vedios are gone, guess why people still go Youtube? -- for business. So, give it a little time, everyone on youtube are broadcasting their business. -- Guess who is going to watch?Is it ? so why don't you give those pirates your bank account number and your cash ? if you stop them from doing that then that also appears like standing in front of tsunami and saying ' i'm right and you're wrong'.
Trying to protect copyrights on internet is a foolish thing in my opinion.
When it's someone else's property then you're free to screw or comment on it. You're expecting everything for free and nothing in return to them eh ? Why don't ya apply that to your life as well ? I'm sure you'll have no issues if someone copies your content, money or anything that is your property right ?
First of all, the copyright law is still debatable in many regions. That indicate it posibly not the right thing to do.Now the main western sociatey accept copyrights law, so we don't act as criminal-- you are right, it's the same like I don't want to get robbed.Under the law, there are many ways to make money. Technology is changing, artist also need to update their business model to catch up with the trend-- that's why I think it's foolish to stop poeple broadcasting their copyright works. Think about the CD disk industry, the companies made really nice money some years ago when I was a child. Now we arrive digital age, many CD producers have managed smooth transfer from hard CD to multi media online publishing channel, CD shops on the street are less and less. This is an example of business model changing.I don't want to rob them, but I am talking for their goodness. Market is always correct. When consumers don't want to pay for their works, they must find way out. In my previous post, I also point a way for them--- Earn from advertisement channel, which is nothing new, maybe we can also say it's already one of their traditional ways.When you think you are correct and you must be paid in fair value, then, the market will teach you hard lessons for sure. Nimbleness is always needed for survival.
Maybe a bit off topic, but people are trying to get content for free from the internet, despite music and movie industry trying to sure people against pirate or filesharing. Most recently the "Far Cry" suit case, and lots of other suits which are in making. It's interesting to see how that pans out.
Yes, it's not limited within music/movie industry. Another case is the software.See how the free software and open source software are impacting the copyrights software companies. There is another way to make money without acting against mojority people's benefits. After all, a law is valided and enforced if it is made to protect majority. If not, a rebell in one form or another will happen.Compare Google and Microsoft, we enjoy google's free service while google doesn't feel hurt at all.Microsoft sue people around the world, but a big slice of its market share lost and keep loosing. It's the trend. You may say, Microsoft is still the main stream. I agree. But it's not because people enjoy their service, it's because most of company's work flow have been build in Microsoft's way when other alternatives not available. It takes a long time for big companyes to make a change. But for sure the world in in motion.
I personally do not feel that removing copyrighted videos from Youtube has affected the quality or quantity of content significantly. There is still a wide breadth of videos available on basically any topic you can think. That, of course, excludes some 'dummy' videos that have a certain title or description that does not match the video attached. Recently, I have found Youtube game review videos more engaging and informative then say static review articles posted on blogs and news sites.On the side of copyrighted videos, the owner of thos videos have every right to remove their works and content from Youtube, especially if they have been upload without authorisation by a third-party. Not only do the copyright owners get no royalties, the person who infringed on copyright actually benefits as they earn money from advertisments displayed with those uploaded Youtube videos.Wrong. Market is not always right. It's job of marketers to make the crowd look as if its right. Many useless products sell in this market doesn't mean market is right. Market(crowd)goes with hype and overselling rather than needs and facts behind product.
Market is always correct.Not always, people who are engaging into piracy don't want to pay for anything that is on the internet. That freebie sucking crowd in the market is not right at any time. There is no way out of this unless artists and people sue the pirates.
When consumers don't want to pay for their works, they must find way out.CPM and ad model is not always beneficial, it doesn't pay to run dedicated servers, CDN and artist royalties. CPM and ad model for the sake of youtube or some popular site doesn't give results to merchants and advertisers because many people are ad-blind to the ads on such sites. Also with tools like ad-block plus, ads are getting tripped these days. This was the reason Murdoch made news as paid and content and still running some quality content shops effectively.
In my previous post, I also point a way for them--- Earn from advertisement channel, which is nothing new, maybe we can also say it's already one of their traditional ways.Nope. Market collapses when they insist on free all the time. This is what happened in last 3 years where people expected internet content, domains, hosting, music for free. We're just out of recession for your information and unless we pay for stuff, this recession cycle is likely to rotate again. Economy collapses when market acts like a hippie crowd on steroid.
When you think you are correct and you must be paid in fair value, then, the market will teach you hard lessons for sure. Nimbleness is always needed for survival.Err i can go on big lecture on this. Many open source developers are frustrated for using GPL license. Take case of Chris Pearson and his thesis theme, he got frustrated because he made premium theme for wordpress with restriction of distribution(which is right knowing the paid product) but got sued by wordpress foundation for his action, now talk about impact. Not a single company is feeling good because of GPL and open source PUN, it's the only server market (linux) which is in profit because OS being cheaper and so is support. People will always find a way to get free stuff or to take advantage of others. We're animals and that's natural.
See how the free software and open source software are impacting the copyrights software companies.Wrong. google's earning has affected because of free services. Many services(like notebook) last 3 years got closed because of free for all madness. Microsoft survived recession and is still strong with their launched products in comparison to dying services of google. Orkut is also on close to shutdown as facebook commercialized the service more than google.
Compare Google and Microsoft, we enjoy google's free service while google doesn't feel hurt at all.It's not that people hate microsoft service, it's about freebie sucking mentality. People love to suck others for free resources. One source to another till they get something without any effort. today linux tommorow something else. one distro dies another rises and they start sucking to it. Take case of apple they're more screwing things than MS or linux, still moody people buy apple because it works for them and it's like status quo (owing a Ferrari etc). You have to see this in terms of profit and loss of community and society and not in terms of what YOU like and make conclusion like so-and-so market thinks the same way. Market is programmed by businesses and copywriters, promoters like puppet show and people react based on the strings attached to them.
But it's not because people enjoy their service, it's because most of company's work flow have been build in Microsoft's way when other alternatives not available. It takes a long time for big companyes to make a change. But for sure the world in in motion.
We have many different views on this subject, I would address them one by one when I find free time, maybe this weekend.Before I go any further, I would point out that your statement of "freebie sucking crowd in the market is not right at any time" makes the essential difference between us.There is a reason for any existance. From my observation, there's a huge and increasing demand for freebie users ("freebie suckers" in your term).You see my point-- they are needed in the system. They are the one of the medias between company's actual sales and storage. To paint a more clear picture here-- business want to use this "freebie user", on the other side, this "freebie user" want to use products from this business too. Both sides are equal parts in the game, the smarter one gain more. If you understand the function of "freebie user" in the market system, it can help you understand further stuffs that freebie user involved including thearguments on copyrights. Copyrights products are not supose to be used by freebie users. That's correct. My previous posts suggest the copyrights business owners to make good use of freebie users in order to make more money and make it easier.
|VIEW DESKTOP VERSION||REGISTER||GET FREE HOSTING|