Do you think role of Google is hypocritical?

[ahjteam]

You know when people say that piracy is bad, right? I find it really hypocritical that sites like Pirate Bay get sued etc, when youtube has like literally thousands of movies and millions and millions of songs in there. I don't know how large moderation team youtube has or how strict their policy is, because many of the movies have been there for like fucking long time. For example Orson Welles 1984 has been there for a nice 3 years already.

Finding the movie is as easy as going to youtube, write down "moviename part 1". The movie must have come out on dvd/bluray/vhs/whatever and usually be atleast 2-3 years old.

 

[JMarz]

Don't jinx it.. YouTube has only recently introduced copywriting laws (resulting in them taking down THOUSANDS of good songs/videos ) and that stupid Vevo shit..

It's only a matter of time.

 

[Line666]

Youtube used to be actually worth using. Now every time I go on it every second video is like:

"NOT AVAILABLE IN YOUR REGION ARGHGHGHHG"

 

[JMarz]

Youtube used to be actually worth using. Now every time I go on it every second video is like:

"NOT AVAILABLE IN YOUR REGION ARGHGHGHHG"

Seen the one with the gigantic biscuit?

 

[joelplagues]

youtube's piracy policy is bullshit.

i made a skate film a few years ago and included a song by a.f.i, I wrote who it was written by and performed by blah blah and they took the video down because of something to do with sony. googled that same song and it was all over youtube with randomn kids videos on it.

what you do for one you must do for all.

 

[ahjteam]

Don't jinx it.. YouTube has only recently introduced copywriting laws (resulting in them taking down THOUSANDS of good songs/videos ) and that stupid Vevo shit..

It's only a matter of time.

ah. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content

First developed two years ago, the ContentID system is attracting record labels, TV producers and sports rights owners keen to make more money from the web. Google's computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against "ID files" from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders. The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.

Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.

 

[xFkx]

Yeah, don't jinx it

If I want to look up a song that my bud is chatting about, I check it out on youtube, what's the harm in that ? I'll propably never hear it again, or maybe I'll love it and order a cd..

 

[JMarz]

ah. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content

Figures. It's all about making that extra penny eh?

What ever happened to the open-endedness of the internet?

 

[slashvanyoung]

There's this huge disparity between today's "internet reality" and copyright laws that were created in context of an offline society, dealing mainly with tangible goods.

No one denies that there's a need to protect intellectual property, but instead of trying to enforce systems not adequate to thoroughly and stringently deal with the situation (and that's what collecting societies all around the world are trying to do), there needs to be a new copyright, globally standardised, that reflects creators' and consumers' rights and reality in the digital domain.

You can't ensure a sustainable treatment of copyright if inhomogeneous national laws are projected upon a global village.

 

[Kazrog]

Figures. It's all about making that extra penny eh?

What ever happened to the open-endedness of the internet?

What ever happened to profiting from intellectual property?

Seriously, advertising on YouTube is nothing new, and it's a great middle ground.

 

[JMarz]

What ever happened to profiting from intellectual property?

Seriously, advertising on YouTube is nothing new, and it's a great middle ground.

They had it right when they stuck to NOT throwing the (usually 15 second long) adverts right before videos.

I can agree to an extent, though. It's a way to protect a lot of material put out by a lot of people. But come on, it's the internet. It's not like it's not posted on 200 other different streaming video websites at any given point in time.

 

[Kazrog]

It's not like it's not posted on 200 other different streaming video websites at any given point in time.

Then it's about offsetting loss. Having free access to videos of whatever I want is great, and I can tolerate a few ads here and there. For example, I fucking love Hulu. Some of the ads are even cool/funny/informative. This is win-win and far better than things have been previously in the era of mega-corporate TV and Radio.

It costs money to produce movies, music, art, etc. Creators of quality content deserve to earn a living doing their job, period. I'm glad that there are finally some viable ways for people to do this.

Ultimately - the value of YouTube (and every other website) is driven by the size of its user base. The last thing YouTube would want to do is make their advertisements so invasive as to drive away their user base. Anyone can make a video site - what makes YouTube #1 is that it has the most users. If they fuck up, they lose that value.

Most of everything on Google is free from the end-user perspective. Google's sole revenue model to date has been relevant, minimal advertising. Advertising online constantly has to change and adapt to ever-changing user habits, to combat irrelevancy and ad-blindness. Attention is at an all time premium. It's in our hands - the users - to define what sinks or swims. What we pay attention to defines success. What we ignore defines failure. This is true for any website, not just the Google family.

 

[John_C]

Google published my grandad's books on google books without asking or paying us anything. We complained and they appear to limited access to small snippets, but apparently their attitude is just to put copyright material up and then deal with the legality only if someone complains

 

[Kazrog]

Google published my grandad's books on google books without asking or paying us anything. We complained and they appear to have taken them down, but apparently their attitude is just to put copyright material up and then deal with the legality only if someone complains

I assume your estate still holds the copyright then? Led Zeppelin assumed that "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" was a public domain song, was wrong, got sued, and lost.

Google wants to be a library, among other things. Many great books are public domain. Perhaps they (like Led Zeppelin) just made a wrong assumption. Still sucks, but at least they took it down promptly.

 

[John_C]

I assume your estate still holds the copyright then? Led Zeppelin assumed that "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" was a public domain song, was wrong, got sued, and lost.

Google wants to be a library, among other things. Many great books are public domain. Perhaps they (like Led Zeppelin) just made a wrong assumption. Still sucks, but at least they took it down promptly.

Well seeing as he died like 3 years ago and UK copyright is life+70 years, it's a pretty crazy assumption!

 

[amarshism]

You know it only got extended to 70 yrs from 50 a few years ago as it was approaching the 50th anniversary of walt disneys death to protect his copyright.

 

[John_C]

You know it only got extended to 70 yrs from 50 a few years ago as it was approaching the 50th anniversary of walt disneys death to protect his copyright.

Because...............................big business hold a scarily unreasonable sway over the governments of all western countries

 

[Harry Hughes]

Because...............................big business hold a scarily unreasonable sway over the governments of all western countries

Yeah ain't that the disgusting truth