YouTube's content ID system. AGAIN.



  • Ok so today I got this lovely message:

    @ContentID said:

    "X-PLAY-X-PLAY (4S)", visual content administered by:

    Comcast Entertainment Group

    It's a 20-minute video. That's all the notice says. That's it in its entirety.

    What visual content infringes? Do you have an image of it? Nope? ... ok, what timecode of the video should I look at? It's a 20-minute video, it could be literally any frame infringing? Nope? No timecode?

    Do I want to dispute this copyright match? HOW THE FUCK CAN I EVEN FUCKING ANSWER THAT IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCKING MATCH IS!!!!!

    All the previous matches have been from companies who were obviously practicing fraud. This one very well may be legit-- I literally have no way of telling. No way of resolving the issue except POSSIBLY COMMITTING PERJURY. No way of contacting anybody at YouTube other than a fucking newsgroup I'm sure nobody reads.

    I used to be a staunch supporter of copyright. After seeing the kind of pain inflicted on the average joe by YouTube's buggy, badly-designed, full-of-scammers ContentID system, I'm rapidly changing my mind.



  • Oh and BTW, my video is BLOCKED WORLDWIDE and my account is PENALIZED because it "may" include the content. Because YouTube is TOO FUCKING LAZY TO CHECK!

    rage



  • @Google's ContentID help page said:

    I don't understand this! I have other questions! Help me more! How can I contact you?

    Please understand that we are not in a position to offer legal advice. We will not be able to answer questions about your rights or about copyright law. It is your responsibility to understand the law and your rights, and if you have questions we suggest you consult your own legal counsel. We will not answer concerns or hypothetical questions about our policies, though we will read them and take them into consideration for the future as appropriate. Please also note that we will not answer questions which are already answered on this page or elsewhere in the Help Center. If you have specific questions about the claims against videos on your account, or the processes described on this page, we may be able to help you. You can write to us at copyright@youtube.com.

    So I composed an email (a pretty fine one if I do say so myself) and sent it to the address listed. The response?

    @Google's evil ContentID robot who hates me said:

    This is an automated response, and your message will not be reviewed.

    Your message does not appear to contain a complete DMCA related notification. This email address is for correspondence regarding DMCA related notifications only.

    YOU TOLD ME TO SEND THE EMAIL THERE YOU FUCKING DICKBITCHSHITSDashdauwi yhviuryhiu gagdawdasgda gd



  •  Copyright is what big companies use to keep the little people from being creative, right?

    which game are you showing in this video?



  • It's Saints Row the Third, which is part of the problem... the game has music from tons of popular artists. However, I'd been careful about always turning off the in-game radio and that along with the fact that our commentary is really never silent long enough for a full song to be on the audio, we haven't gotten dinged for any audio content.

    The weird thing here is the "visual content". I understand that X-PLAY is a TV show, but I've never seen it. It's possible there's an in-game billboard for it? But without knowing what it looks like, reviewing a 20-minute video for a image that could for all I know be 20 pixels tall is ridiculous. I don't even know what the billboard would look like; I'd gladly edit it out if I knew where in the video is was.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I understand that X-PLAY is a TV show, but I've never seen it. It's possible there's an in-game billboard for it?

    If that's the reason, then this is really hilarious. Or maybe Youtube is just butt-hurt that someone is getting a free ad on their site.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The weird thing here is the "visual content". I understand that X-PLAY is a TV show, but I've never seen it.

    X-play is a game review show. You probably got unlucky enough to be driving through the same part of the game as X-play used in a review, even for one frame.


    It might be entirely possible to fix Content-ID to handle fair use and public domain, but why risk having the copyright cartels change the law?



  • Oooo! You have provided insights. It does have part of a cutscene in it called "Professor Genki's Super-Ethical Reality Challenge" which is exactly as insane as the title makes it sound, I bet when they reviewed it they showed that cutscene. Because it's awesome.



  • I think I have the whole story figured out now. So a Comcast show named "X-PLAY" reviewed this game and showed a portion of that cutscene. (Since the cutscene is the only thing in the video not from my moving camera viewpoint.) That alone isn't enough to ding my YT account.

    BUT! There are 3 other claims active in my account, not because they're "active" but because the copyright holder is sitting on them and has been for a week. So combined that gives 4 claims which is above the threshold for YouTube to ding the account.

    The bigger problem is at the moment my choices are to either:
    1) Delete episode 7 of Saints Row until one of those companies stops sitting on the copyright claim
    2) Not upload any new Robots in the News until the ding goes away (virtually all our episodes are longer than 15 minutes)
    3) Continue to struggle to get a human being to look at this situation and do something about it. The claim by CollegeHumor is obviously trash; and if the "review of the game" theory is true so is the claim by Comcast. If those were thrown out by an actual human, I'd be back in shape
    4) Get pissed off, toss everything off YT, move to another video hosting service that doesn't suck shit (if one exists)

    So anyway. I have no clue what to do.



  • YouTube shouldn't even HAVE automated copyright checking. If a company notices that it's losing money because of a video, there's already DMCA. YouTube seems to think anything displayed on any TV show is completely owned by that TV show.

    If a video game gets reviewed by a TV show, that entire video game belongs to that TV show, no matter what.

    The problem is that Google doesn't review games, so they've never had the problem. All of Google's videos are of Google products or Google employees talking about Google products.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The bigger problem is at the moment my choices are to either:

    1) Delete episode 7 of Saints Row until one of those companies stops sitting on the copyright claim

    2) Not upload any new Robots in the News until the ding goes away (virtually all our episodes are longer than 15 minutes)

    3) Continue to struggle to get a human being to look at this situation and do something about it. The claim by CollegeHumor is obviously trash; and if the "review of the game" theory is true so is the claim by Comcast. If those were thrown out by an actual human, I'd be back in shape

    4) Get pissed off, toss everything off YT, move to another video hosting service that doesn't suck shit (if one exists)

    They may have improved their content recognition system, but not long ago it was possible to trick it by horizontally mirroring the video. I don't know whether your video would be seriously negatively affected by that, but it not then you could try it.

    I've had problems in the past with YouTube and classical music. Now, it's true that a recording of classical music is still protected by copyright even though the music isn't - but their system assumes that just because someone with e.g. Sony released a CD with a recording of Für Elise then all videos with Für Elise are infringing it, even if they're new recordings.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I used to be a staunch supporter of copyright. After seeing the kind of pain inflicted on the average joe by YouTube's buggy, badly-designed, full-of-scammers ContentID system, I'm rapidly changing my mind.

    I dunno, you get worked up over someone simply downloading a YouTube video without asking (you should be grateful that you have nothing better to do with your time than fielding pointless questions about downloading videos). Somehow I doubt that you are entirely with “us” and not “them” ;-)

    For me, “piracy” implies a loss of some kind. My best guess is that you're getting money from YouTube on a pay-per-view basis (I don't know how they operate) and that anyone who tries to save bandwidth and time by taking copies of videos, is actually losing you money compared to if they had to visit the clip page and download it again.)



  • @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    My best guess is that you're getting money from YouTube on a pay-per-view basis

    Nope. Just doing it as a hobby.



  • @Ben L. said:

    YouTube shouldn't even HAVE automated copyright checking.

    Yes it should, but only because imagining Blakey's little face crumpling with helpless rage is so entertaining.



  • @zipfruder said:

     Copyright is what big companies use to keep the little people from being creative, right?

     

    Copyright was that thing created by the Aristocracy to prohibit the population from learning and postponing the enlightment at the end of the Midle Age / start of the Modern Age. In all those centuries, the main goal didn't change.

    For a while scientists subverted it, using copyrights to make science run faster (a Modern Age equivalent to the GPL). Also, some noobs tried to use it to protect artists, but that last one never worked out well. More recently there was Free Software... But all of those are ninche initiatives.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    4) Get pissed off, toss everything off YT, move to another video hosting service that doesn't suck shit (if one exists)
     

    So, you found the obvious answer. Give jobs for people outside of the US.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I used to be a staunch supporter of copyright.
    After seeing the kind of pain inflicted on the average joe by YouTube's
    buggy, badly-designed, full-of-scammers ContentID system, I'm rapidly
    changing my mind.
    Why should your views on copyright change because YouTube voluntarilly implemented a broken system that enforces big contents warped view of copyright?  YouTube's contentID system doesn't actually understand
    copyright law, it doesn't understand fair use, it doesn't understand
    public domain, it doesn't understand production music libraries/licences, etc.

    @Ben L. said:

    YouTube shouldn't
    even HAVE automated copyright checking. If a company notices that it's
    losing money because of a video, there's already DMCA. YouTube seems to
    think anything displayed on any TV show is completely owned by that TV
    show.
    YouTube's ContentID system is simlply a concession for big content, YouTube has no legal responsabilty to implement the system (though it could have be part of a settlement with viacom, but i don't know,) but YouTube bent to the will of big content, and now we have automated system trampling on the rights of users!

    @blakeyrat said:

    Do I want to dispute this copyright match?
    Yes; its it sounds like your video falls under fair use (most reviews would), so unless you know you did something out of bounds it's probably safe to dispute. By that I mean you know the contentID system is broken with respect to fair use, you know your video is almost certianly fair use, and you seem to have discovered that X-PLAY is a review show.

    BTW the definiton of Perjury is "The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry." (emphasis added) I highly doubt that disputing the contentID with good faith that your use is fair, could ever be construed as perjury; however I am not a lawyer.

     

     




  • @blakeyrat said:

    Nope. Just doing it as a hobby.

    I find the concept of piracy without any loss … curious.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    4) Get pissed off, toss everything off YT, move to another video hosting service that doesn't suck shit (if one exists)

    Have you looked into blip.tv? SF Debris moved from Youtube to them after he got dinged for his videos and it doesn't seem too bad.



  • @esoterik said:

    because YouTube voluntarilly implemented a broken system that enforces big contents warped view of copyright?
    YouTube's actions are "voluntary" only in the same way that paying your taxes is voluntary.  If you don't "voluntarilly" pay your taxes, you go to prison.  If YouTube doesn't "voluntarilly" take down content that is "infringing" they risk getting sued for a lot of money (enough money that even Google couldn't afford to pay it).

    More important however, is the fact that YouTube doesn't care.  Not long ago YouTube won a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Viacom, one of the biggest of "big content".  They won because they were able to convince the judge that they had a system in place that takes down content that is "infringing".  The fact that YouTube's system is horrendously broken and makes thousands of mistakes every day, is irrelevant.  As long as it provides them with the protection they need to prevent expensive lawsuits, then it will continue.@blakeyrat said:

    Do I want to dispute this copyright match?
    My experience with YouTube is that disputing a takedown is pointless.  They will simply ignore you.  There's nothing you can do about it, and they know it.



  • @Douglasac said:

    Have you looked into blip.tv? SF Debris moved from Youtube to them after he got dinged for his videos and it doesn't seem too bad.

    For some reason, Blip.tv specifically forbids video game recordings.



  • @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Nope. Just doing it as a hobby.

    I find the concept of piracy without any loss … curious.


    I think you're the only one talking about piracy here.

    Blakeyrat has every right to be angry about his content being taked down just because someone somewhere shouts piracy! without any actual proof.



  • I think he's talking about the other thread (which nobody linked to and I won't either) where I got mad that people were using my videos in ways they weren't permitted to without asking permission.

    Copyright isn't about making money, it's about ownership. I own X. I can give you permission to do whatever with X, but by default you have no permission. Either I proactively grant permission, or you have to expressly ask me permission. That's all copyright is. That's all of it described in like 4 sentences.

    Now if I were, say, Comcast, I'd say, "give me money and I'll give you permission." That's how most people who own copyright on things use copyright.

    I don't care about money, but I do care about people using the material without asking for permission (especially when I would have handily granted the permission without any issue.) That's just rude people being rude jerks.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I don't care about money, but I do care about people using the material without asking for permission (especially when I would have handily granted the permission without any issue.) That's just rude people being rude jerks.

    You did specifically brand Cassidy a "pirate", yet so far as I can see, there's no harm, no loss, no injustice involved at all. In what way are you harmed by these "pirate" downloads?

    It's simply an ego trip on your part wherein you're using your copyright ownership to make people obey or be miserable. It's simply childish behaviour. Completely meaningless rules created to satisfy an ego. You're old enough to have grown out this.

    This is where I don't see a huge divide between you and those you're criticising here.



  • @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    You did specifically brand Cassidy a "pirate", yet so far as I can see, there's no harm, no loss, no injustice involved at all. In what way are you harmed by these "pirate" downloads?

    I was disrespected by a rude person. Money is not a motivator for me.

    Look, I've explained this over and over and over again. You don't get it. FINE! So you don't get it. Probably because you're one of those people who literally doesn't care about anything but money.

    But just accept that you don't get it and MOVE ON please. I'm not going to spend the rest of my life explaining it over and over and over and over and over again. MOVE ON.

    @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    It's simply an ego trip on your part wherein you're using your copyright ownership to make people obey or be miserable.

    By "obey" you mean "have people ask for permission before doing something they don't have permission to do". And if by "be miserable" you mean "..." because oh wait even when I grant permission it turns out YouTube does not, so nothing I can do can affect "net misery" or whatever the fuck you're talking about.

    @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    This is where I don't see a huge divide between you and those you're criticising here.

    I'm not blocking them from making their own videos? I'm not adding any fraudulent material to the highly flawed Content-ID database?

    You honestly don't see the difference between "please ask permission to download the video" and ... this Content-ID shit?

    That means you're either a fucking idiot, or you're trying to score cheap ForumPointz with some kind of moronic Star Trek "we're not really so different you and I" wrap-up bullshit. Oh... oh... what's that? I instantly saw through that "clever" tactic? What a fucking shocker.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    By "obey" you mean "have people ask for permission before doing something they don't have permission to do".

    And whose rules are these? The basis for these rules is what, exactly?



  • International Copyright Law.

    Will anything I type here change your mind that I'm a horrible evil villainous person? "I gave you 40 hookers?" No? Then stop wasting my time by posting fucking stupid questions. Especially ones you already know the answer to, assuming you're not fucking retarded.

    Just put me in the "I'm a horrible ogre who eats children" file in your mental Rolodex and stop wasting my time with this shit.



  • If you own the content, you get to choose what people can do with it. This means that any restrictions placed onto it are yours and yours alone. It's you, and you only, inventing these rules. My issue is that you're exercising your right to invent silly rules, not tell anyone what they are, get mad at them when no harm is done, then start a new rant about another company's use of their copyright ownership power. If you really expect anyone to care about this from your perspective, then it would be in your favour to exercise lenience with your own copyrighted material.

    This is why I drew the conclusion that pay-per-view or some other issue around money was involved: I figured you'd only brand someone a pirate if you were losing money. I can't fathom why any rational person would object otherwise.

    I'm not asking stupid questions: I'm giving you the chance to provide meaningful answers yourself, which you're simply unable to do. There's only a twisted "The Law's The Law!" mentality.



  • In this topic: blakeyrat defends his position on a strict ask-first policy for personal usage of videos and takes the opposite stance when he's the one using the video.



  • @Ben L. said:

    In this topic: blakeyrat defends his position on a strict ask-first policy for personal usage of videos and takes the opposite stance when he's the one using the video.

    What the fuck are you talking about.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Ben L. said:
    In this topic: blakeyrat defends his position on a strict ask-first policy for personal usage of videos and takes the opposite stance when he's the one using the video.

    What the fuck are you talking about.

    Your honor, I wish to plead incompetence.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @esoterik said:

    because YouTube voluntarilly implemented a broken system that enforces big contents warped view of copyright?
    YouTube's actions are "voluntary" only in the same way that paying your taxes is voluntary.  If you don't "voluntarilly" pay your taxes, you go to prison.  If YouTube doesn't "voluntarilly" take down content that is "infringing" they risk getting sued for a lot of money (enough money that even Google couldn't afford to pay it).

    More important however, is the fact that YouTube doesn't care.  Not long ago YouTube won a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Viacom, one of the biggest of "big content".  They won because they were able to convince the judge that they had a system in place that takes down content that is "infringing".  The fact that YouTube's system is horrendously broken and makes thousands of mistakes every day, is irrelevant.  As long as it provides them with the protection they need to prevent expensive lawsuits, then it will continue.

    You missed the point, the DMCA safe harbor provision does not require YouTube to implement ContentID, they Implemented it on their own at the behest of viacom.  Your analogy is broken, not paying your taxes is breaking a law, the analog with YouTube would be not responding to DMCA notices. A more apropriate analog would be a school yard bully asking for your lunch money, you can pay or you can fight. YouTube had a similar decision; suck viacoms dick or fight them in court, they voluntarilly chose to fellate viacom!



  •  @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    If you own the content, you get to choose what people can do with it. This means that any restrictions placed onto it are yours and yours alone. It's you, and you only, inventing these rules. My issue is that you're exercising your right to invent silly rules, not tell anyone what they are, get mad at them when no harm is done, then start a new rant about another company's use of their copyright ownership power. If you really expect anyone to care about this from your perspective, then it would be in your favour to exercise lenience with your own copyrighted material.

    This is why I drew the conclusion that pay-per-view or some other issue around money was involved: I figured you'd only brand someone a pirate if you were losing money. I can't fathom why any rational person would object otherwise.

    I'm not asking stupid questions: I'm giving you the chance to provide meaningful answers yourself, which you're simply unable to do. There's only a twisted "The Law's The Law!" mentality.

    A copyright does not give one free reign to do dictate what others do with your content, there are rights defined by copyright law that deliniate what may be enforced.  In addition copyright law provides for fair use of the material provided some conditions are met, a copyright owner cannot void fair use, though many have tried and big content lobbies against fair use constantly.

    You ever see "all rights reserved" next to a copyright notice? This is the copyright owner un-nescesarily stating their rights (IIRC back in the day a notice may have been required.) Some times, like in say a RPG manual, there will be pages, like say character sheets, that say something to the effect of permission to copy this page for personal use is permitted; this is the copyright owner specifically granting a right to the consumer!

     



  • Ooh goody I get my very own pedantic dickweed =) How adorable.



  • @pjt33 said:

    I've had problems in the past with YouTube and classical music. Now, it's true that a recording of classical music is still protected by copyright even though the music isn't - but their system assumes that just because someone with e.g. Sony released a CD with a recording of Für Elise then all videos with Für Elise are infringing it, even if they're new recordings.

    Nah, that's just them applying the the 1964 Bremen Convention, which bans the use of Für Elise for anything except hold music.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Copyright isn't about making money, it's about ownership. I own X. I can give you permission to do whatever with X, but by default you have no permission. Either I proactively grant permission, or you have to expressly ask me permission. That's all copyright is. That's all of it described in like 4 sentences.
    Close, but still not right. The default position is that everyone is allowed to do anything they want, and copyright is an attempt to restrict those rights. The original idea behind copyright is a good one, but these days it's just gone all crazy weird and is far too restricting.



  • </lurk>

     Uh-oh.  I agree with Blakeyrat on something.

    It is the courteous and proper thing to do to ask someone's permission before using their work.  For example, I only use code snippets online that the author gives express permission for, and I credit said author.  If they don't provide express online permission, I attempt to contact said author.  I can definitely see Blakey's frustration there.  Then again, common courtesy and common sense aren't very common in this day and age.

    <lurk>


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    But the person in question was just watching the videos offline, because streaming them proved too choppy at any decent resolution. He wasn't using them for any purpose whatsoever other than watching them privately; it's not even clear that he was retaining the files after watching them. There's some magical fine line between watching them streaming in his browser and watching them offline in a dedicated video player, and since he couldn't see that line he decided to just stop watching Blakey's videos.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    There's some magical fine line between watching them streaming in his browser and watching them offline in a dedicated video player, and since he couldn't see that line he decided to just stop watching Blakey's videos.

    The fine line is the Youtube Terms of Service, which pretty clearly prohibits that unless either Youtube or the owner grants permission. It's clear to me why Youtube (and many content providers) care, because it definitely is a monetary issue.

    For other reasons, it's clear why blakey would be upset: He has a genuine offense against his rights, which gives him another opportunity to rant about something that's ultimately extremely trivial.

    Ironically, he's now being censured over something he did that is extremely trivial, but actually not a violation of anyone's rights. And both issues have probably reduced the number of times his videos will be viewed.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    But the person in question was just watching the videos offline, because streaming them proved too choppy at any decent resolution. He wasn't using them for any purpose whatsoever other than watching them privately; it's not even clear that he was retaining the files after watching them.

    It doesn't matter what he was doing with them, it only matters that he didn't have permission to do it and didn't bother asking me for permission.

    If he had asked me, I would have:
    1) granted permission (duh)
    2) advised him that YouTube doesn't really give him permission to do that even if I do, but I don't care that's YouTube's problem

    One of the issues here is that people simply don't get that the thing I'm upset about is not being asked for permission. People keep misreading this as, "you didn't give him permission to download the videos!" No, I never said that-- in fact I expressly said the opposite roughly 43728461234 times. Apparently that point is too subtle for the morons here.

    (As a side note, it's ironic that this forum is full of pedantic dickweeds when it comes to talking about technical minituae nobody gives a fuck about, and yet when it comes to reading my posts people misread them constantly. What the fuck? Remember that browser thread? "What you're doing is a hack." "I know it's a hack, I wish there was another way" "It's totally a hack." "I know it's a hack. I wouldn't do it if I could avoid it." "But it's a hack." "{SCREAM}")

    Which is one of the reasons I want to stop discussing this because people obviously aren't reading what I type and so there's no point in my typing it and I don't like wasting my time. And yet here someone brings it up AGAIN.

    @joe.edwards said:

    There's some magical fine line between watching them streaming in his browser and watching them offline in a dedicated video player, and since he couldn't see that line he decided to just stop watching Blakey's videos.

    See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. To be clear ONE MORE TIME:

    I DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE DOWNLOAD MY VIDEOS AND WATCH THEM OFFLINE.

    Think it'll sink in this time? Not a chance in hell.



  • LOL, get the fuck back in line citizen or we'll predator drone your ass, seize your propery without due process, send you to gitmo where you will wait to have your charges read to you, or we'll just cutoff your access to your two local ISPs.



  • @pauly said:

    LOL, get the fuck back in line citizen or we'll predator drone your ass, seize your propery without due process, send you to gitmo where you will wait to have your charges read to you, or we'll just cutoff your access to your two local ISPs.

    Gitmo has more quality local ISPs than I do? Damn.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    The confusion for me is that you implicitly grant permission for people to view your content because you post it publicly; then when someone watches your video, with your permission, you are upset over HOW they watch your video.

    It's really the heart of the DRM war. DRM is enforcement not just of who is authorized to watch what content (which I am OK with) but in what ways they are permitted to watch it (which I am not OK with). This player (Flash) is OK but that player (VLC, etc) is not.

    My point, which you deliberately fail to see, is not about whether or not you did grant permission, but that your permission is required beyond simply if it is OK to consume your content. "Yes, you may view my content without asking permission unless you want to use a player other than Flash embedded in a web browser, then you have to ask." This double standard makes little sense. He has your permission to watch your content, why does he have to ask again to use the player of his choice?

    This remains an issue with me regardless of what the terms of service or even international copyright law say. In my view, you have every right to require permission to watch your video, but if someone wants to watch it in some other player - having already been granted permission to watch it -, why do you have any say there?


    What's next, TV shows that can only be watched on Sony TVs?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    The confusion for me is that you implicitly grant permission for people to view your content because you post it publicly; then when someone watches your video, with your permission, you are upset over HOW they watch your video.

    I'm not upset over HOW they watch my video. YOU DID NOT READ THE PREVIOUS POST. YOU ARE NOT READING WHAT I AM TYPING.

    For revenge, I will now not read what YOU type and yet respond to it anyway:

    @joe.edwards said:

    It's really the heart of the DRM war. DRM is enforcement not just of who is authorized to watch what content (which I am OK with) but in what ways they are permitted to watch it (which I am not OK with). This player (Flash) is OK but that player (VLC, etc) is not.

    My point, which you deliberately fail to see, is not about whether or not you did grant permission, but that your permission is required beyond simply if it is OK to consume your content. "Yes, you may view my content without asking permission unless you want to use a player other than Flash embedded in a web browser, then you have to ask." This double standard makes little sense. He has your permission to watch your content, why does he have to ask again to use the player of his choice?

    This remains an issue with me regardless of what the terms of service or even international copyright law say. In my view, you have every right to require permission to watch your video, but if someone wants to watch it in some other player - having already been granted permission to watch it -, why do you have any say there?

    Yes but the point you're missing is that Dorothy IS the biggest enemy in Oz, she's outright killed two people who were just doing their jobs. Furthermore, Firefly is the most overrated show on TV by far and it's not like fucking Joss Whedon needs your support considering he still gets greenlit series constantly despite every single one sucking ass. And finally, the tag on the mattress is for the retailer only, you can tear the tag off after you've bought the mattress if you want. It says so right on the thing if you take a look.

    Geez.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE DOWNLOAD MY VIDEOS AND WATCH THEM OFFLINE.
    So why do you complain when people download your videos and watch them offline?



  • @boomzilla said:

    The fine line is the Youtube Terms of Service, which pretty clearly prohibits that unless either Youtube or the owner grants permission.
    I've never read YouTube's Terms of Service (that I remember). Nor have I ever read Vimeo's. Nor of other sites which provide embeddable video players whose names I don't know/remember/care about.

    Nor do I ever look for the Terms of Service of every blog of which I read a post. I'm crazy like that.

    @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    I DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE
    DOWNLOAD MY VIDEOS AND WATCH THEM OFFLINE.
    So why do you
    complain when people download your videos and watch them
    offline?
    I have yet to see where he complained about this specifically. Daniel said he seems to get worked up when people download his videos, and blakey didn't directly contradict him. Other than that:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I think he's talking about the other thread (which nobody linked to and I
    won't either) where I got mad that people were using my videos in ways
    they weren't permitted to without asking permission.
    I don't know where this thread is or what it's been said there, and I don't know what "ways they weren't permitted to" means. So I'm giving blakey the benefit of the doubt.



  • @Zecc said:

    @boomzilla said:
    The fine line is the Youtube Terms of Service, which pretty clearly prohibits that unless either Youtube or the owner grants permission.
    I've never read YouTube's Terms of Service (that I remember). Nor have I ever read Vimeo's. Nor of other sites which provide embeddable video players whose names I don't know/remember/care about.

    I only read them after Cassidy mentioned his nefarious downloading and blakey caught him out.

    @Zecc said:

    I don't know where this thread is or what it's been said there, and I don't know what "ways they weren't permitted to" means. So I'm giving blakey the benefit of the doubt.

    IIRC, it was the (most recent) giant CLI thread, and you don't want to go there now. Basically, Youtube says you have to just watch in your browser unless there is an actual download button displayed on the video's page, and then you can use that to download the video. I suspect this is mainly so they don't get wget-like downloaders that avoid ad impressions and such. I don't think blakey even really has any say over the matter, except where he might be able to configure his videos to have that download option available. But even then, he'd probably have to pay Youtube or be some mega-account holder whose videos give Youtube a lot of ad revenue or something.

    It's really a very silly nontroversy, which is par for the course around here, of course (and it's almost always fun to poke at blakey when he gets worked up about something like this). blakey did assist Youtube by bringing Cassidy in from the cold on the Youtube TOS, so score one for the copyright abusing juggernauts of the Intertubes!



  • @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    I DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE DOWNLOAD MY VIDEOS AND WATCH THEM OFFLINE.
    So why do you complain when people download your videos and watch them offline?

    I never did that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @PJH said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    I DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE DOWNLOAD MY VIDEOS AND WATCH THEM OFFLINE.
    So why do you complain when people download your videos and watch them offline?

    I never did that.

    Yes you did.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't recall giving you permission to download them and YouTube sure as fuck didn't.



  • @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @PJH said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    I DO NOT CARE IF PEOPLE DOWNLOAD MY VIDEOS AND WATCH THEM OFFLINE.
    So why do you complain when people download your videos and watch them offline?

    I never did that.

    Yes you did.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't recall giving you permission to download them and YouTube sure as fuck didn't.

    Have a relevant quote?


Log in to reply
 

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