What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
55 Comments
- harrymcwealth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36YouTube is gonna die.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Is this the same filter which removes all remaining popularity from YouTube?
- vsujohn2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Honestly, who wants to see TV shows and movies in you-tube quality?
Bit torrent FTW! - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25"how can we make YouTube even *****"
"I know, lets pay people to make videos"
"it's a good start but it's still not ***** enough"
"...."
"I know, lets get rid of every video worth watching"
"perfect. now wasn't that more fun than setting fire to our money"
"... I guess" - geoffreyireland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I know every company goes mad about copyright infringement these days but if YouTube bans the material its going to die a horrible death and people will easily find it elsewhere. Dailymotion a good example.
- lulzlulzlulz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15In related news: common sense says YouTube 'very close' to losing most of its users
- vsujohn2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14If by "for noobs" you mean easier and with greater access to files, then yes. But as far as getting something when it comes out, irc would be the best. Not to mention some eliteftps if you can somehow get access to them.
But then again, im just a noob ;) - waterboy1628, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10YouTube has already removed 4 of my UNCOPYRIGHTED videos. The only reason people still use YouTube is because every else does. Now I upload to Veoh where there is no length limit, peopl can download the file if you allow it, and they won't remove content that is perfectly fine but they deem inappropriate.
- netferret, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I smell the death of youtube, or should that be gone down the tube.
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17'Do no evil.'
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, the networks know which 2 or 3 minutes of their programming is entertaining. That's why tv is so amazing right now. Especially the game/reality stuff. Pfft.
- JernejL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You know.. you can fill a counter-dmca notice and get the videos back up, the next time they can't fill another DMCA notice over same video, they have to sue you or leave you alone, but you'd win the lawsuit aniway!
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7was that a YouTube board meeting?
- blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The end of youtube in 3, 2, 1.....
- lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I partially agree with you.
Let's take a show like Stargate, one of my favorites. I'm in Australia, we have to wait months, usually years to see things. Being enough of a fan to go online and read fansites (gateworld.net for example), I wouldn't cope being that far behind. So I do the unthinkable, I download it via torrent within days of it airing.
But as a fan I do my bit to support the show by buying the DVDs as soon as they are released. My situation is a little different to people in the USA who can see the show fairly quickly.
I think a good option would be to provide legal and free downloads of TV shows with commercials. Yes, people will torrent the show too, but at least this way people who want to support the show will be able to do the right thing. The problem is that the industry has made watching television an amazingly bad experience. TV shows run late, they add commercial after commercial before during and after the show, even covering half the screen sometimes, and a lot of great TV shows are thrown into terrible timeslots. People love torrent because you queue up a list of your favorite shows, it downloads the new episodes and you watch them on demand when you have time. If they can come up with a method to deliver that legally, I'd say a huge portion of the public would take up the offer.
People want their shows for free without commercials, I'm against this. I'm also against people who use Adblock, I run a website and the way I feel about it is that I spend a lot of my own money running it, and if people keep hiding my Google ads I won't be able to pay for my hosting bills. I'm sure it's exactly the same for TV studios.
I do however think that the copyright issues are going too far, it's going to get to the point where you won't be able to upload your home videos if you haven't paid for the rights to the show playing on the TV in the background.
If a TV studio can find a way to release much of this content legally online, and still make their money, then I'm sure this problem will be drastically reduced. A couple of companies are playing around with it already, as far as on-demand free episodes (for USA residents). I think the itunes model doesn't work. I wouldn't pay for any digital download unless it was at the same quality as a DVD. I would however download from itunes if the show had commercials. Yes, it may not be as good quality as torrent, but it would be easy and legal, and still support the show. Just give us a way to watch our favorite show on demand without having to hand over our credit card details, and I will be happy to use it, even if it means watching commercials or having ads on the page.
It's such a huge issue, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion and reason why they do/don't download illegal content, and both sides are right and wrong on a lot of things.
I will say one thing, I've convinced many people to go out and buy DVDs of TV shows because I showed them clips from Youtube. Maybe they need to take away the opportunity for the public to upload content by uploading it themselves? Or perhaps all Youtube videos can be assigned a "copyright owner" (eg NBC), and any adclicks generated by that page go to that owner?
This whole thing is giving me a headache, I'm going back to watching my DVDs. - JernejL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The only thing i would worry about this is, false positives :| how would they handle that!?
- rstrb8r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe the system can be gamed. If you open up the movie that you want to post of, say a SNL skit, and add a personal clip to the beginning, and another on the end, creating avirtual sammich. How will the filter still see the content in the middle?
- DocXango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When are the going to program the "post video of myself/ourselves comiting illegal acts because I'm a dumb ass" filter?
Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code, which says that “whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” The law is enforced by the Secret Service.
(I was thinking more specifically of people that have gone to jail after posting violent acts on youtube. Being dumb enough to burn your own $50 bill is punishment enough.) - deepmenace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2is this going to be the classic story of one big name popularising a format/idea ( QXL, napster ) then dying a death while others spawn from their corpse to right their mistakes and achieve true greatness?
- Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Or perhaps all Youtube videos can be assigned a "copyright owner" (eg NBC), and any adclicks generated by that page go to that owner?
Yup, they are greedy enough to pull something like that.
@doctorsax: couldn't have said that better myself. We are going to end up like the movie Idiocracy! - astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, but as that goes away, another five sites like it will pop-up.
- sifelltneytandi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes, it's totally evil for Google to protect its ass by doing this. The good thing to do would be to allow users to easily upload copyrighted videos, which would result (and has resulted in the past) in YouTube (Google) being sued. You're a genius!
- EmperorAwesome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So what's the point of keeping YouTube around?
- bshock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a joke, right?
Intentionally or otherwise, it's a joke. - Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not really, the facts that everything once created by a user being copyrighted, and the possibility of a copyright holder uploading his work freely and legally within his power are why.
That is also using a blanket statement against all copyrighted works being uploaded without these conditions is, imo, illogical and wrong. - mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here is a good filtering mechanism: HUMAN MODERATORS.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1honestly i don't blame them for doing this, but the whole thing that got youtube popular was it's lack of filtering. if you want it online, upload it. the google from before they went public was pretty rebelious, and if they wanted to today i'm pretty sure they could mount a fight for letting things which technically infringe copyright, but make no sense to go after legal rather than taking the corporate "lets cover our ass" approach.
if they didn't want to deal with youtube the way it was they should have left it alone. - Quickbreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I swear they divided by zero when coming up with this lame-ass filter.
- Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kamill85
I wish I was in the super hip "underground scene" where everyone drives riced out civics and uses their traded warez to hack the gibson - herrshuster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the problem, however, is for those of us who have made fan music videos with unliscenced music
- TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The beauty of IRC is that to some degree you're networking with the beginning of the pipeline distribution of this stuff....because that's where they all hang out...
- Darkseit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ entu
I get what you're saying and I agree with a lot of it, so I dugg you up... I'm not sure if you are really aware, but TV shows are just a way to keep us glued to the tube until the next commercial, their chief desire is to make money no to "entertain us". And don't think for a second that I give a rats ass about advertisers.
I donate money regularly to sites that I feel have quality content and something worth my time (which is very little few sites these days) and I absolutely abhor advert overloaded pages, especially that terrible intelliTEXT popup garbage. In fact, the less advertisements on a page, the more I like it and the more money I want to give them, because they respect their viewers. The same people that you are defending have single handedly (well,... with the help of some porn sites) turned the internet into a vast wasteland of commercial interests. Who gets paid for all the inescapable billboard signs that I are forced down my throat every day. If I could have an adblock implanted in my head I would without hesitation, no more worthless distractions to waste my time, no more wasted bandwidth, no more crapping up of the internet. - jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Compare to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20TBo1hvir8 - Dorepoll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, now we are left with on youtube:
*Lip synchers.
*People kicking each other in the groin
*Vlogs...oh god the Vlogs.
What did I miss? Because this hurts more than a flying chair to the face ever could. - estvir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7IRC is horrible unless you love 3 day queues. :P
HTTP (Impossible to find unless you know where and have very short lives but good speeds) > FTP (If you aren't in the know most will be dead by the time you find them or you'll be stuck with 5KBPS on some hijacked server) > USENET > IRC (Queues unless you know good, private channels) > Torrents
Of course, there are better ways than those but they're if you're 'very in the know.' - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My favorite quote from the article: "Ah, Viacom, you're either doing business with them or being sued by them."
- justice7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this will essentially kill what is unique about youtube
- gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ummm youtube/google.... I hate to break it to you but ALL works of video have some sort of copyright attached to them. What you are allowed to do with it depends on what rights they reserve. This has driven me nuts for too long and had to be said.
- vsujohn2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I think that this is to allow the content providers to put the videos up themselves and under their own terms, rather than some guy posting it. Most of the major networks already post videos on a regular basis. Dick in a box was put up by NBC.
- slapout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ok, I've got a YouTube filter for you: Hire some kid and pay have them just sit around and watch the stats. If a video is becoming popular, watch it. If it looks like copyrighted material, check into it. Problem solved.
- vsujohn2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I never said anything about whether the things they post are entertaining, but it makes sense that google would want to make peace with the content providers.
- goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12do no evil??? what ever do you mean by this? I'm pretty much a pirate, but i know copyright infringement is against the law. Do you expect a company to be rebellious or something.... would that cause a lawsuit? Shouldn't you think just a little bit more??? eh eh? I hate you, and all like you.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7The "copyrighted *****" in question here is owned by people who've spent a lot of money to produce it. They've been giving it away for free for decades (paid for by ads -- they're called "commercials"). If you like the "*****" enough to want to watch it, you should like it enough to be paying for it somehow (watching ads, buying a dvd, whatever).
I don't really understand what it is that you people want. You want the content in high quality, for free, on any device imaginable. How, exactly, do you propose that the content providers make money in order to continue producing this content?
Other entertainment industries have viable means of supporting their business outside of ads, paid subscriptions, or dvd sales:
- Music industry has concert sales (something people will gladly pay for and is usually worth the ticket price)
- Movie industry has theaters (impossible for most people to replicate this experience in their homes)
- Video game industry has paid add-on content and subscription services (MMOs and the like)
The television industry, however, does not. There are basically two business models here -- they can sell the service for a premium (like HBO), or they can run advertisements. If people just take their content and make profiting from their labor not possible, the television companies will simply stop producing content and their parent companies will invest in more lucrative industries. If you like the content, support the creators.
If Google doesn't get a proper filtering mechanism in place, they'll be successfully sued for a very large sum of money (Viacom has a $1bn lawsuit pending right now), or at the very least be ordered to shut the site down.
No site anywhere near the size of YouTube can get away with the kind of rampant copyright infringment that goes on there right now. YouTube is a target because of their deep pockets. If they didn't exist, the next big player would be targeted, and so on and so forth. Once the dust settles on the current lawsuits, the various content owners will start suing all the other video hosting sites that aren't preventing copyright violations.
The worst part is that, because so many people choose to violate the law, we'll probably wind up with more *****, draconian copyright legislation that infringes on our ability to do what we want with copies of content that we've rightfully purchased. Thanks a lot, freeloaders! - edgareinstein, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2this is happy day at the livemotion headquarters..
- Incognito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Thats funny I thought Google expanded into China not the other way around
- SuperMoses, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Umm, I get my copyrighted ***** from DailyMotion. Youtube will be a place for lame vblogs and released material from partnered networks..
- santocki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Interesting
- my10cent, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I think he is full of it, there is NO way they can filter something unless the uploader actually tag it correct, like if you upload South Park you just call it $outh Park and people will find it but no filter will.
- degolar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1why does nobody talk about Joost?
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is