Question about YouTube links on here
- Thread starter Russ Chewning
- Start date
supergreenman said:
If you say so..
To the best of my recollection, I never said drug users. I could very much see myself saying drug DEALERS should be put to death. Then again, I tend towards the conservative.
That's not the point. You cannot justify putting the clips up without Pat's permission by saying it will benefit him. That's not your decision to make. He created the product, and he has every right to let them go out of print, to be lost to time. If he wants to do absolutely ZERO advertising, that is also his right.
All I know is, me railing against you all posting his content or ANY portion thereof has ZERO chance of negatively impacting his business. You saying it is "okay" and Pat's business is being "helped" by people having access to his material for free is much more likely to harm his business. You tell me who is in the right here.
You are a bit naive, i think. You have no idea that there are pirates set up on YouTube that download compilations to the site for storage, then sell content for pennies on the dollar. It allows them to service customers in others countries, with little cost other than the electricity it costs to run a TV and PC. When they are eventually caught, their accounts are closed, and they simply open a new one, and business as usual.
Russ
Russ Chewning said:This is just rich...
I address what I see as a growing problem on the forum of people pirating Accu-Stats intellectual property, and you guys turn in into a discussion about my job.
Let's get back on target, please. Regardless of what I do for a living, you are saying you support people uploading Accus-Stats videos to be viewed freely, without any royalties going to Pat?
Nice....
Russ
Someone sees a 5 minute clip of a video from Accustats. They see something they like. Therefore they purchase the video in most cases. This benefits Pat.
Damn, you sure do whine alot.
djkx1 said:
Even so, just because it came from TV does not mean it is necessarily right.
In the case of pocket billiards, since it is generally seen as filler material for sports networks, so the networks don't make as big a fuss about it as with some shows.
For example: YouTube user uploads a South Park episode. No big deal, right? The makers of South Park make booku money, so noone is REALLY hurt, right?
Well, at some point, a company paid money for advertising during South Park episodes. Part of the contract for advertising specifies that the "owners" of South Park (not necessarily the people who created it) are not allowed to provide more than 10% of the episodes for free to the public. Because if the public gets access to the episode for free, this partially nullifies the effect of the advertising, thus costing the company buying advertising money.
Now.. If the company who "owns" South Park, for these purposes, were to say to itself "Gee, people are gonna find a way to download it anyway, so no reason to go after YouTube.", then they are gonna be in a legal MESS when the company who paid for advertising sues their arse off for not taking proper measures to secure the content.
There is a lawsuit in the works, Viacom vs Google right now over YouTube. YouTube is not taking proper action to prevent theft of intellectual property, and they are gonna end up paying for it. The lawsuit is for 1 billion dollars right now, and if the lawsuit drags on for years, Viacom WILL win, and the award for ongoing damages could be HUGE.
So, like I said, in the case of pocket billiards, it is filler material, and none of the billiard advertisers have the money to go after the broadcast networks airing matches. That does not mean just because it was on TV that it is right to republish the match on YouTube.
Russ
cuetechasaurus said:
So you want to say I haven't seen links on here for entire matches?
Russ
Icon of Sin said:
I agree...it is exposure of a much greater magnitude than Pat could ever have hoped for.
{Death and hatred to mankind...poisoning their brainwashed minds.
OH LORD, YEAH!}
a)most are not from accu stats, if you bothered to research a little you would know this
b)you're a twit
b)you're a twit
smashmouth said:
Funny.. I seem to have made clear I was referring only to the Accu-Stats videos. Someone referenced hearing Danny D commentating on one of the YouTube videos. So, if I MADE CLEAR I was only *****ing about the piracy of ACCU-STATS VIDEOS, then how am I in the wrong?
Since I made clear who/what I have an issue with, would you sir, please do the same? You call me a name, (very adult of you, sir..) but don't give any reason for why you disagree with me. That is, I assume by "you're a twit", you meant "I disagree with you, sir." Personal insults are tools of the uneducated.
Russ
Russ Chewning said:So you want to say I haven't seen links on here for entire matches?
Russ
You will rarely find those on Youtube. On Google Video, you can, but those were matches from the US Open, and BCN found out and took them down. On youtube, I think the max time per video you can have is like 10 minutes. You can show a whole match in segments, but that is pretty rare. 99% of them are just clips, that advertise for Pat more than anything.
I have a suggestion for you-take some Valium. Hope it helps with whatever problem you have.
Russ Chewning said:
Viacom (MTV Nickelodeon), aka Sumner Redstone, fired Tom Cruise, then said it wasn't so. It remains to be seen if the lawsuit goes anywhere. What they are really looking for is a cut of the Google-youtube advertising revenue.
News Corp (Fox and MySpace) and NBC Universal, MSN, AOL and Yahoo are proposing to combine forces to set up competition to youtube. Content distribution will be restricted to the U.S. The theory is that if you watch their offerings you will have less time to watch youtube
Since I'm not in the U.S. I'll just have to keep searching youtube.
cuetechasaurus On youtube said:
My bad, yours is the post right above mine and I had already hit quick reply before you posted so I missed that.supergreenman said:
But as far as the actual thread goes I gotta agree that little snippets actually make me wanna buy the whole video more than just not buy it becuase I've already seen some shots from it.
Russ: Not trying to jump on you but, I'm inclined to think that youtube would have taken those videos down if they were illegal. I've seen a few videos in there that only stayed for a couple of hours before being yanked out by youtube due to copyright issues. I'm pretty sure they check videos being uploaded. Maybe not right away, but sooner or later.
i agree 100 percentsky.. said:
sky.. said:
Oh come ON..... Do you guys even do your research before you post stuff like this? YouTube serves 100 million videos per day. Sixty five THOUSAND NEW videos per day! How could they POSSIBLY check even a significant percentage of the videos per day?
Their main goal is to prevent uploading of pornographic/offensive material. To that end, they "might" view a 1-2 second snippit of each film. More likely is they both use software and actual people to scan the video titles.
Yeah, I really see "Efren v Busta" getting caught by the YouTube filters, either software or human. Rrrrrrrrright.
Furthermore, many tech people have noted that the whole YouTube membership is a very "anonymous" affair. YouTube doesn't realy "know" it customers. If someone DOES upload protected content, the biggest thing that can happen to them is YouTube cancels their account. Then they open up another the one in an hour, change the names of the videos, and reupload.
Seriously, before you people comment on the YouTube legality/business practice issues, you need to read what the tech industry is saying about it. It is just a matter of time before YouTube loses a MAJOR lawsuit. A lot of people are calling YouTube "Google's Waterloo".
Viacom HAS to sue YouTube or get sued by it's own advertisers. And if Viacom decides to go all the way, they WILL win. It's a no brainer. 1 billion dollars could be a drop in the bucket. YouTube has already done a LOT of damage to a few big shows on TV.
Russ
I think "sooner or later" is eventually not going to be good enough to avoid a massive, crippling verdict against Youtube. The point Russ made about copyright violations is unassailable. Of course the copyright owners may eventually see the wisdom of some of the earlier self-serving posters: that stealing commercial property somehow does in fact benefit the owner. But I doubt it.sky.. said:
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy looking at Youtube clips myself, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it's my right. My guess is that they will eventually come to some kind of compromise. Perhaps they'll allow something like a 90-120 second clip to fly under the copyright laws.
Doc
<-----has an incredible porn collection
<-----saved literally thousands of dollars on music and DVDs
...and seriously, of all the things pool players do to get over on one another, you pick video piracy? Cmon man, there are fixed tournies, sandbagging, dumping, prize splitting, and your complaining about video piracy???
<-----saved literally thousands of dollars on music and DVDs
...and seriously, of all the things pool players do to get over on one another, you pick video piracy? Cmon man, there are fixed tournies, sandbagging, dumping, prize splitting, and your complaining about video piracy???
Icon of Sin said:
I have spoken out against fixed tournies, dumping, and prize splitting here in one thread or another.
I have only played maybe three weeks of league, ever.. So sandbagging I have no complaints on. 
Russ
Russ, you're starting to sound like a man whose wealth of knowledge is easily balanced by his shortsightedness and eclipsed by a large mouth.
Russ Chewning said: