Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!
Replying to Youtube Is Dying
Posted 29 May 2011 - 06:43 PM
Youtube isn't dying. Not by a long shot. The reason it has been blocked in your country, is because
your leaders don't want to take the chance that copyrighted videos, etc, will be brought into the country.
Youtube tries to get rid of copyrighted materials, as soon as they are reported, but many slip by, due to the overcrowding of users.
They can't keep up! And they get paid from Ads which, pay on clicks, and on traffic. Youtube has insane traffic, so no,
It's not dying, probably ever.
Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:39 PM
Posted 10 May 2011 - 10:54 PM
because youtube are in the top ranked #5 websites in the world/on the internet and almost everyone go onto youtube.
Youtube and other websites have to respect copyright, youtube are one of the top website, if they are going to host illegal content that is copyright protected then, youtube are breaking the law and they will get punished or warned or something.
Posted 03 May 2011 - 02:03 AM
First of all, it was intended to protect for a limited time and that time has become effectively unlimited in the days of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the like ( http://en.wikipedia....m_Extension_Act ). The idea that, say, J.R.R. Tolkien should be allowed to make money off his works (if someone wants to buy it) is fine. As a freelance writer, I like that idea. The idea that his grandchildren still need to be making money off of his writings decades after he is dead is a bit ridiculous (barring the posthumous editing and compiling efforts by Chris Tolkien). The idea that the Tolkien descendents can say who does and does not have the right to make a film based on the works or publish fan-fiction goes much farther into detracting from the arts rather than promoting them. If you don't like Jim Bob's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings (or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) for film, don't watch it, but having to get permission to do it from people who were not even alive when the original was written makes no sense, whatsoever. What would this have done to Shakespeare's work if he could not adapt the tales of Julius Caesar for his own use? Most of what he wrote was based on older works; most of everything written today is likewise based on things which have already been done.
Now current works are a different matter. I wrote a fanfiction based around the Stargate Atlantis franchise ( http://www.scribd.co...2613/Last-Straw ). I know I cannot make any money off of that, ever, and that is fine; it was still fun to write and maybe someone who likes it will consider some of the other things I wrote. Somewhere, we have to make some kind of reasonable compromise on what 'limited time' really means, and that is something the Supreme Court continually sidesteps.
Quoting In Commentary
Another place where the bounds are seriously overstepped is in commentary. It is absolutely always fair use to quote someone's work as part of commentary and criticism. A lot of the automated DMCA drones don't care about that. They just flag anything which looks even remotely like something a media company claims, even similar titles some of the time. Every so often they do that to the wrong party, like the law professor who got a DMCA takedown-notice for home barbecue footage (if I recall correctly), but most of the time, stuff gets taken down or accounts get banned and the target has no real recourse. This chills speech across the board. I am just not going to put the same effort into something if I know it's going to get taken down or I am going to get in a big fight over it.
Copy Protection Hurts the Market
The DMCA is supposed to require the copyright holder to put in good-faith effort to ensure that they actually own the content and that it really is infringing. Does this make it hard for copyright holders to protect their media against mass-uploading? Sure. But it does not really matter. The point of Copyright in the first place was not to guarantee artists (and especially big media companies who prey on artists) a living wage. It was to promote the science and useful arts. The law is "copy right" and it is copying which is the right, not prohibiting people from copying. The cost to society, and even to artists themselves, of draconian measures to stop copying is much higher than any possible gain. The freeloaders will never net an artist profit anyway: as one poster said, these parasites don't want to (and won't) pay for anything; they are not a lost sale. The goal of an artist is always to get their work in front of someone who wants to pay. Baen Books went a long way in recognizing this with their free ebook library ( http://www.baen.com/Library/ ), requiring and encouraging their authors to freely release at least one title. A satisfied viewer/reader is the best advertiser there is. iTunes Plus or similar offerings are also a good enticement: being copy-protection free, I get a guarantee that I can use content I purchase on future devices (such as my phone). That is worth paying a little extra for and it is something I look for when buying music online. I won't buy from audible.com anymore because I am sick of dealing with their buggy copy protection.
I, myself, don't bother putting copy protection on my online works and anyone buying CDs of, say, my Herbal ( http://www.scribd.co...d-Edition-Draft ) could certainly copy and upload them somewhere. Actually, most of my work ends up licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ ) anyway, so people could do so legally in many cases and major chunks of my herbal have been free online for years ( http://www.mistymano...arkHerbal/html/ ), some early drafts of articles and research were posted here on Astahost ( http://www.astahost....ort_t11270.html ). I usually bar commercial reuse (without permission) because I want the opportunity to negotiate/deny resale if I want to, but it is on the honor system. I usually also post drafts of my works because I often get good and useful feedback.
Big Media Is a Dinosaur
A big part of this is that the big media sales model is neither beneficial to the customer nor to the artist. Artists used to give the lion's share of their revenue to the media companies, big publishers, etc., because the publisher really did something for the money: they sought out talent and read through the 'slushpiles' of submissions, absorbed capital costs associated with publication/distribution, took financial risk, and got the artist's work in front of potential customers. Now, they have largely gotten out of the habit of doing anything for the money and technology has made it easier to just go around them. There is a really interesting blog post/discussion by two self-publishing writers on this subject ( http://jakonrath.blo...ing-dialog.html - Long but really worth reading through). A big publisher wants to give me about 11% of revenue for the privilege of publishing my ebook, putting it under customer-annoying copy-protection and screwing up the marketing. Scribd gives me closer to 70% and I have the option of copy protection if I really want it (which I don't). Lulu (http://lulu.com) and so forth give me a lot better options if I want a paper-bound book and still want to preserve future residual income. There just is not a place anymore for the big media companies and they don't like being locked out of the process. Cry me a river.
So, if you want to support my work and pay me for it, please do, but I will not support heavy-handed approaches to making people support my work--- or anyone else's. Find a business model that works, find a patron, take the traditional route of the artist and starve (or get a day job), or whatever, but the law is not there as an endowment of the arts. If people pay me, I'll produce more work, faster. If people don't, I'll still write because it is something I have to do, but it is obviously going to take a back seat to other priorities.
Posted 02 April 2011 - 09:40 PM
Just have to be smart about it.. I have a few accounts -- one where I upload possible videos that could go against TOS and an account that is completely personal videos.
But besides that, YouTube draws millions of people per day and ads are on there a good amount of the time. A website that is making billions of dollars per year is not going anywhere anytime soon. Even if possible lawsuits are filed.. Google / YouTube are doing their best to make everyone happy.
Can't say they are succeeding, but no one has ever been perfect! But without YouTube, my site wouldn't exist. So I depend on YouTube, in a way.
Posted 27 March 2011 - 11:20 PM
Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:03 PM
For a lot of people it's quite expensive to buy software, music and movies, as it's really expensive for most people. For enterprise it's cheap, but for example, for teenagers it's a different call. It's quite a big problem and needs to be solved differently, now they just seem to hunt you, give you a fine which sometimes are so huge that I doubt you can ever pay and most people have zero income from using pirated material..
Moreover, it usually gives me a laugh how companies count their lost profit for lets say downloaded music, that some album was download 25 000 times, so they lost $250 000, but I think that over 90% wouldn't even buy those albums, same with movies. People won't go to cinema more frequently, as usually most of people go to cinema, who once or twice download a movie from the Internet, but of course a lot of different situations can be in different countries.
If it would be impossible to download everything pirated, then I guess a CD or DVD would cost less than $1, then maybe something would change, but their current costs include the expenses, they now the market, they know how much will buy, they give a price and sometimes a software package cost more than all the hardware.
Looking at TV, people who make movies, create POP music for which usually these things start as underground music doesn't really care to much about piracy, those people are rich and they don't care as intermediary is who wants money for doing nothing.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 02:49 AM
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.
Posted 24 January 2011 - 02:46 PM
Market is always correct.
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.
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.
Posted 24 January 2011 - 10:46 AM
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.