Mark Kent wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Monday 02 April 2007 13:55 \__
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mysterious company" censors unflattering Steve Jobs video
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | While Robert X. Cringely says that the posting of five minutes of
>>>> | the show was probably in breach of copyright, he hadn't complained
>>>> | and neither had the programme maker Oregon Public Broadcasting.
>>>> |
>>>> | The take down notice came from an outfit called NBD Television,
>>>> | which neither Cringely or Oregon Public Broadcasting had heard of.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38644
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if these copy protect people have folk watching every video on
>>> youtube to make sure nothing copy protected is played. They can't do it
>>> only by a word search because many a post is named differently to the
>>> contents.
>>
>>
>> They have even removed an OLPC video, quite blindly. Viacom requested the
>> takedown of 100,000 videos and I think that Google promptly did this
>> unselectively, over the weekend. Go to YouTube, search for "Viacom" and
>> see the effect of 'false positives', in the form of video rants.
>>
>>
>>> There are apparently 210000 videos on youtube, some of those are the
>>> same video renamed and reposted, some chopped up (the dull bits taken
>>> out etc).
>>
>>
>> I thought they had many more. Putting the figure above to add
>> perspective, Viacom may have really emptied YouTube. What I hate the most
>> is the fact that many of my references to YouTube (including embedment in
>> Web page) must have broken. I don't even know which one...
>>
>>
>>> It can't be an easy job trying to pick out the protected ones.
>>>
>>>
>><snip />
>>
>
> This has nothing at all to do with so-called "protected content",
> rather, it is all about Viacom losing audience to youtube. Just like
> Microsoft have been trying to fight free software, so the broadcasters
> are trying to fight user-selected content. They will use any technique
> that they can, and unfortunately, unlike free software, a lot of youtube
> content is a mix of new material and selections of copyrighted material.
> I'm not convinced that showing a short clip of copyrighted material is
> necessarily a violation of any copyright law, however, it could be.
>
> What the youtube generation lack, so far, is a Richard Stallman-like
> figure who's prepared to stand up for freedom. That said, there are a
> lot of bands who are creating free content, and several individuals who
> are surely doing the same. I suppose it won't be long before there's
> enough out there to fill youtube with legitimate material, indeed,
> enough to crush viacom's rather nasty effort to kill youtube.
>
>
I was wondering how long someone like Google has to take down a copy
protected document, there must be a reasonable grace period to it. There
doesn't seem to be anything specific in a google search.
I really like youtube, and yes I would say it is better than TV in some
ways. Things like these,
I watched a series of science videos that were an ordinary school teacher in
a school in America talking about properties of materials and doing some
experiments. He wasn't a presenter he was a teacher, but he was very good,
about 20 minutes each video. I really enjoyed watching them and there is no
way in the world that 'show' would have found it's way onto TV.
Another science one, four buckets, two wires and some water and you can
generate electricity. It's very simple I fancy a go of that one when I sort
the shed out. But the point is that I found it interesting, it was well
made, but it wouldn't have been shown on TV.
Then music, call me sad if you like but I really like Frank Sinatra but I
only like him live. He seems to lose some of the magic on studio
recordings. On youtube there was a series of about 20 minute videos of his
last live concert in Japan, it was fantastic. It has since been taken off
because of copyright, but I would never have got to see that if it hadn't
been for youtube. You can't buy that concert, not in the UK anyway, so why
copyright it if its not on sale.
Oh, my own little giggle jerker at the moment is videos of people playing on
the Wii. My sister recorded me boxing. I looked a right pratt too, I must
say I never realised how much the belly-n-bum bounce around when boxing, no
wonder boxers wear those big belts.
Youtube will get more popular because Google have agreements with the likes
of the BBC and others and you do see things filtering in that give some
kind of indication that it is legal or copyrighted content. The troubles
are building though, because it is very popular there is more often now
heavy delays on videos.
|
|
