Triumverate of Fail



  •  I don't have too many complaints about Vimeo. One of the few non-app, non-game, non-comic websites I've willingly given money to. They make a decent product-- but hot damn if they can't figure out upload percentages. I get it that when there's multiple files being uploaded it's difficult to figure out the % done of the entire batch. And even when there's just one file, sometimes its a crapshoot. It's okay to get it wrong.

    But at least get it wrong consistently:


     



  • I wanna watch your polished floor video, give me URL!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I wanna watch your polished floor video, give me URL!


    Looks like an awesome geeky R/C car meet.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    but hot damn if they can't figure out upload percentages.
     

    It's a good world where the very worst problem is a very small roundoff issue.

     

    Wait, Mon Tap? That sounds familiar somwhow...



  • @dhromed said:

    Wait, Mon Tap? That sounds familiar somwhow...

    ITAPPMONROBOT?



  • @toon said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    I wanna watch your polished floor video, give me URL!

    Looks like an awesome geeky R/C car meet.
     

    Dance rehearsal video. The studio started rehearsals for the annual show. Every class starts with "who remembers what we did last week?"

    I realized I have a couple video cameras, tripods and the knowledge to put up a wiki. So I did.

    I started using Youtube, but fuck them with a copyrighted CD. Every video I put up got flagged. Yes it had copyrighted music. But the studio PAYS for the performance rights for every song. Not to mention that the music is low quality (ipod -> stereo system -> air -> built-in camera mic), heavily edited (2 minutes or less per routine), and in an unlisted, non-public video-- for which we have the goddamn rights for anyways. It was a "soft" warning-- no hit on my account, but it blocked the videos at random from being seen on mobile devices. Which is what about 99% of the dancers use to review the videos on.

    I tried Vimeo, was immensely satisfied, and gave them $60 for the year. Downside is they don't have unlisted videos-- uploads that don't appear in any listing or search, but you can view with the URL. Best they have is private, which just requires a password but no Vimeo account. Less than ideal, but good enough.

    (Note: I gladly would post a link so y'all could have fun watching me flail about while trying to remember choreography-- unfortunately the videos also contain about twenty other students doing the same thing who would prefer that to stay non-viral)



  • @boh said:

    ITAPPMONROBOT?

     yess thanks



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I gladly would post a link so y'all could have fun watching me flail about while trying to remember choreography-- unfortunately the videos also contain about twenty other students doing the same thing who would prefer that to stay non-viral

    All you need to do is get out some video-editing software and edit all of the other students out of the video. Then you can hog all the viral for yourself.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    (Note: I gladly would post a link so y'all could have fun watching me flail about while trying to remember choreography-- unfortunately the videos also contain about twenty other students doing the same thing who would prefer that to stay non-viral)

    Feh. This thread is useless.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    <snip>

    I started using Youtube, but fuck them with a copyrighted CD. Every video I put up got flagged. Yes it had copyrighted music. But the studio PAYS for the performance rights for every song. Not to mention that the music is low quality (ipod -> stereo system -> air -> built-in camera mic), heavily edited (2 minutes or less per routine), and in an unlisted, non-public video-- for which we have the goddamn rights for anyways. It was a "soft" warning-- no hit on my account, but it blocked the videos at random from being seen on mobile devices. Which is what about 99% of the dancers use to review the videos on.<snip>

    IANAL, but if you re-read your studio's performance rights contract, you will almost certainly find that they paid for the rights to do a live performance (and corresponding rehearsals) only. Using the material in promotional material is not covered, broadcasting in other media is not covered (including Youtube), if your local TV station does a story on the upcoming show, the studio is supposed to make sure that none of the copyrighted material is used*, etc. From what I've been told in the past, parents making recordings in the audience at the recital is also a violation (although I've never heard of anyone actually getting in legal trouble for recording little Suzy's dance recital).

    Of course, it's possible that the studio paid for full rights in perpetuity to use the music in any and all media, in any and all markets, for all time. If so, they either way overpaid, or the copyright holder way undersold their rights.

     

    Even if you did have said rights, did you provide a copy to Youtube, so that they knew you had the rights and could tell anyone who complained?

    It's one of those realities that we're left with after the RIAA and others threw their weight around for years. Yea, it's kind of stupid.

    I'm trying to sound really smart, but I think I first became aware of the subtleties in copyright licensing when I noticed that Beavis and ButtHead's T-shirts said "Skull" and "Death Rock" on posters instead of the expected "Metallica" and "AC-DC".

    *(Not certain on the news media point, I'm basing it on one experience working a pit orchestra. We were allowed to warm up while the news crew was there, but were instructed to make sure we weren't doing any recognizable songs from the show during that time).



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    uselss

    let's give it some value then:

     helpful excuse machine



  • @RichP said:

    IANAL
     

    Neither am I, which is why...

     @RichP said:

    Even if you did have said rights, did you provide a copy to Youtube, so that they knew you had the rights and could tell anyone who complained?

    I put in a counternotice. It was automatically rejected, meaning the "copyright holder" is using an autobot system for rejecting counternotices, in addition to using an autobot for sending out notices to begin with.

    I could follow up with official documentation on letterhead, etc, etc, to every single one. But I honestly can't be bothered to go through all of that to be ignored again, risk my account being suspended, etc etc. There just aren't enough hours in the day to want to deal with that. The end result is just that Youtube now has slightly less traffic, Vimeo has $60 extra money, and I don't have to deal with red tape. Youtube willingly gave the media cartel that much control over their system. I chose to walk away, taking my dollars and traffic with me.

     



  • @Evilweasil said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    I gladly would post a link so y'all could have fun watching me flail about while trying to remember choreography-- unfortunately the videos also contain about twenty other students doing the same thing who would prefer that to stay non-viral

    All you need to do is get out some video-editing software and edit all of the other students out of the video. Then you can hog all the viral for yourself.

     

    Y'know those videos that were popular a couple years back-- they'd take a still photo of your face and superimpose it overtop a dancing elf or some shit like that? Yeah-- those touched my uncanny valley in a no-no way. Just thinking about them really creeps me out for some reason. Entirely possible that "your brain is TRWTF", but still, the mere ancillary suggestion is bringing back some PTSD. I think I need some cocoa and whiskey.

     



  • @leonardo said:

     @blakeyrat said:

    uselss

    let's give it some value then:

     helpful excuse machine

     

    Improved version: Send this tip to a group of co-workers you don't like. Then arrange things so that they all, as a group, end up at the same "photo-worthy" situation. They will all take photos of the same flat tire, funeral, etc.

    Wait to see how long it takes for The Boss to notice the same photo being sent in as proof. Watch as unlikable co-workers get sacked.

    Then murder them, go to their funeral, and take photos as proof.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Improved version: Send this tip to a group of co-workers you don't like. Then arrange things so that they all, as a group, end up at the same "photo-worthy" situation. They will all take photos of the same flat tire, funeral, etc.

    Wait to see how long it takes for The Boss to notice the same photo being sent in as proof. Watch as unlikable co-workers get sacked.

    Then murder them, go to their funeral, and take photos as proof.


    I consider you to be a genius, and shall endeavor to put this greatly helpful tip to good use at once.



  • @RichP said:

    *(Not certain on the news media point, I'm basing it on one experience working a pit orchestra. We were allowed to warm up while the news crew was there, but were instructed to make sure we weren't doing any recognizable songs from the show during that time).

    IANAL, but this should be covered under fair use. Unfortunately, even if it is, fair use is just a defense, and they could still get sued over it, even if the court later found that they didn't infringe.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    <snip>

    Youtube willingly gave the media cartel that much control over their system. I chose to walk away, taking my dollars and traffic with me.

     

     

    That's the best option, and the only realistic way to effect change. Youtube's certainly looking at their copyright enforcement solutions with regards to the relative costs (enforcement $$$ versus being sued by the copyright holders being one comparison) and making a calculation like you did. If coarse automated tools are used and their traffic never suffers, well, the tools will never be improved.

    Another option is to consider the source material. Try using material from artists/labels/associations that are less trigger happy with takedown notices. I'm guessing that the $60 to Vimeo is probably much less than the licensing fee paid to ASCAP, BMI, or whoever. Granted, the options are pretty limited today, and the format probably dictates that the studio needs to deal with the big players.

     



  • @ender said:

    @RichP said:
    *(Not certain on the news media point, I'm basing it on one experience working a pit orchestra. We were allowed to warm up while the news crew was there, but were instructed to make sure we weren't doing any recognizable songs from the show during that time).
    IANAL, but this should be covered under fair use. Unfortunately, even if it is, fair use is just a defense, and they could still get sued over it, even if the court later found that they didn't infringe.
     

    Fair use was my thought at the time too, since they're reporting factual events and not rebroadcasting the show. It could be an overreaction to not wanting any headaches as the show opened (this was around the time the big RIAA file sharing lawsuits were breaking open). The production staff was well experienced in the logistics of a show, so they may have had a lot more knowledge of the background on the legal issues.

    ...or maybe we just sounded like crap in the dress rehearsals and they didn't want us on tape yet, and the copyright thing was a convenient excuse to avoid brused egos.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Y'know those videos that were popular a couple years back-- they'd take a still photo of your face and superimpose it overtop a dancing elf or some shit like that?  

    Not really what I was trying to communicate, but okay...

    @Lorne Kates said:

    ...those touched my uncanny valley in a no-no way.

    Oh dear god. Why?



  • @RichP said:

    I ANAL



  • @ender said:

    @RichP said:
    *(Not certain on the news media point, I'm basing it on one experience working a pit orchestra. We were allowed to warm up while the news crew was there, but were instructed to make sure we weren't doing any recognizable songs from the show during that time).
    IANAL, but this should be covered under fair use.

    It probably is fair use, or at least you can make a pretty good argument that it should be considered fair use.  The problem is Youtube, Google and the automated copyright detection software they use doesn't know and doesn't care about fair use.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @ender said:

    @RichP said:
    *(Not certain on the news media point, I'm basing it on one experience working a pit orchestra. We were allowed to warm up while the news crew was there, but were instructed to make sure we weren't doing any recognizable songs from the show during that time).
    IANAL, but this should be covered under fair use.
    It probably is fair use, or at least you can make a pretty good argument that it should be considered fair use.  The problem is Youtube, Google and the automated copyright detection software they use doesn't know and doesn't care about fair use.

    I do know that the BBC in the UK have a blanket licence for music, so anything they broadcast and/or make available online (including all TV and radio news programmes) can basically use any music they like. This is of course in return for a hefty annual fee to MCPS, BPI, etc. (UK equivalents of ASCAP etc.).

    However, it's not cool IMHO for the OP to moan about what are probably artefacts of rounding errors on a site when they can't even spell triumvirate correctly.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RichP said:

    the only realistic way to effect change.

    A common error, you see... Wait.

    Someone used the verb form of "effect" correctly?



  • @Cad Delworth said:

    However, it's not cool IMHO for the OP to moan about what are probably artefacts of rounding errors on a site when they can't even spell triumvirate correctly.
     

    OP did say that it wasn't the rounding errors that were the issue-- but that three different parts of the same page (progress bar, title bar, tooltip) all showed different numbers. A rounding error is okay, as long as its consistent.

    And I'm sure the OP either misspelled the word for comedic effect-- or forgot to enable spell check in the "Subject" field. Or did it to piss you off. The OP is a complex guy.



  • @Cad Delworth said:

    However, it's not cool IMHO for the OP to moan about what are probably artefacts of rounding errors on a site when they can't even spell triumvirate correctly.


    triumpherate*


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    This could happen if the tooltip and web page are several light-seconds farther from the observer than the tab title. The event (35%) occurs simultaneously as observed from a point between them, but from your vantage point they are not synchronized.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    This could happen if the tooltip and web page are several light-seconds farther from the observer than the tab title. The event (35%) occurs simultaneously as observed from a point between them, but from your vantage point they are not synchronized.

     

    Well, I did just get a new widescreen laptop. The distance between pixels is much greater now. That does make perfect sense.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    This could happen if the tooltip and web page are several light-seconds farther from the observer than the tab title. The event (35%) occurs simultaneously as observed from a point between them, but from your vantage point they are not synchronized.

     

    Well, I did just get a new widescreen laptop. The distance between pixels is much greater now. That does make perfect sense.

     

    BOFH excuse calendar for March 6th:  Improper Lorentz Transformations due to the speed of light and the greater transit time for a widescreen monitor.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @El_Heffe said:

    @RichP said:

    I ANAL

    Are you really that unaware of that acronym?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I started using Youtube, but fuck them with a copyrighted CD. Every video I put up got flagged. Yes it had copyrighted music. But the studio PAYS for the performance rights for every song.

    Performance rights, ok, but is it possible that that only covers your troupe's live performances, while not allowing you broadcast rights over recordings of those performances?  Are you necessarily allowed to sell videos of your shows by this licence?




  • @PJH said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    @RichP said:
    I ANAL
    Are you really that unaware of that acronym?

    Are you really that unaware of sophomoric humor?

     



  • @DaveK said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    I started using Youtube, but fuck them with a copyrighted CD. Every video I put up got flagged. Yes it had copyrighted music. But the studio PAYS for the performance rights for every song.

    Performance rights, ok, but is it possible that that only covers your troupe's live performances, while not allowing you broadcast rights over recordings of those performances?  Are you necessarily allowed to sell videos of your shows by this licence?

     

    A professional company does come in, videos the performance and sells it to members of the studio. On one hand, it could be a grey market, or the video company just doesn't care-- unlikely given the relatively large size of the company. They're large enough to have to be on the up-and-up.

    On the other hand, it could be completely legitimate and all the legal stuff's been handled. We have performance, broadcast, whateverthefuck rights. But it would take a mountain of paperwork to prove, and a second mountain of paperwork to prove to an American, and a third mountain of paperwork to prove it to Youtube.

    From what I understand from talking to the studio's owner (who pays the bills, books the theatre, hires the video company, etc), part of the annual extortion paid to ASCAP et all covers exactly these uses. Specifically, it's pretty much a small group of dancers putting on a show for friends and family. The videos themselves are not even a performance, they're rehearsal-- not only is there no profit from them, but it could be argued that they're fair use as educational material. On top of that, they're private videos meant for studio members only, and steps have been taken to ensure that. Hence, they aren't even being broadcasted.

    In the end, I don't have the time, inclination or legal knowledge to be bothered with any of it. I'll stick with Vimeo, and wait until the industry burns itself to the ground.

     

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @PJH said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    @RichP said:
    I ANAL
    Are you really that unaware of that acronym?
    Are you really that unaware of sophomoric humor?

     

     

    Are you really that into anal sex with dogs?

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    In the end, I don't have the time, inclination or legal knowledge to be bothered with any of it. I'll stick with Vimeo, and wait until the industry burns itself to the ground.

     

     

    Did anyone else picture that line in Jack Nicholson's voice?

    next line?:

    "You lousy legal punk, you messed with the wrong dance parent! I'll rip off your neck and shove a pointe shoe into your dead skull!"

     



  • @PJH said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @RichP said:

    I ANAL

    Are you really that unaware of that acronym?

    I am for one, every time you people use an acronym I'm not aware of (90% of the time) I just replace it with whatever comes to mind or ignore the whole sentence, most of the time is useless information anyways.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.