Google stinks (1 Viewer)

[dninc]

Here's a new place to put video's up

http://www.zippyvideos.com/

http://www.veoh.com/

 

[superchuck500]

Unfortunately (and I'm not siding with you Google) I believe the law is pretty clear about illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

That's right. Nothing has changed that now makes having those videos on there illegal. Google isn't "giving in" to anyone. It was always copyright infringement to post those videos, and now that it's Google involved, they have enough to lose to make sure that they don't get sued by the various "owners" of the material (i.e. the NFL for instance...)

You know that disclaimer that they always have (the contents of this broadcast are the property of the NFL and can only be used for personal entertainment purposes) or something like that? Well, this is exactly what that message is talking about.

It certainly was cool to have all that stuff though. But this is just like Napster. Other sites will pop up with the same content...

 

[tonyhardee]

If there was a way to download them from Youtube I would have gottem then all.

There is a way:

http://www.exploseek.com/FlvGetter/

The file you download from YouTube is a flash .flv file.
You will also have to get the flash .flv player.

 

[keefresh2]

I agree.

 

[theSpaniard]

That's right. Nothing has changed that now makes having those videos on there illegal. Google isn't "giving in" to anyone. It was always copyright infringement to post those videos, and now that it's Google involved, they have enough to lose to make sure that they don't get sued by the various "owners" of the material (i.e. the NFL for instance...)

You know that disclaimer that they always have (the contents of this broadcast are the property of the NFL and can only be used for personal entertainment purposes) or something like that? Well, this is exactly what that message is talking about.

It certainly was cool to have all that stuff though. But this is just like Napster. Other sites will pop up with the same content...

Exactly. We won't see the end of this for years. Just like the mp3 battle, replacement sites will pop up for another 3-5 years until finally it becomes almost totally regulated like mp3s are now...

 

[superchuck500]

You got a hall pass bra??

 

[DadsDream]

Google's got some other serious issues brewing.

They've officially registered a Political Action Committee (GooglePAC) and they've always been accused of slanting their search results in favor of sites which agree with their politics.

YouTube has been bowing to pressures from Muslim groups to remove anything remotely prejudiced...while at the same time, hosting vids of jihadists machinegunning U.S. convoys...

As far as NFL material, it's as simple as selling non-licensed jerseys. You can get away with it if you're based in Korea, but not if you're based in the U.S.

 

[HardCard]

are you kidding me? MP3s are in no way regulated.. not at ALL.. I could download more music for free in an hour, then I could buy off itunes in the same amoutn of time..

bittorrent, irc, ftp, newsgroups.. all ways of getting music for free, fast and easy.. MP3 is no where near regulated

 

[theSpaniard]

are you kidding me? MP3s are in no way regulated.. not at ALL.. I could download more music for free in an hour, then I could buy off itunes in the same amoutn of time..

bittorrent, irc, ftp, newsgroups.. all ways of getting music for free, fast and easy.. MP3 is no where near regulated

I know, I use bittorrents etc. too, but more of the general population is moving towards iTunes, Rhapsody et al. to get their music for a nominal fee. The more tech-saavy people can still get free stuff, but that soon will dry up.

 

[HouseCall]

<p>Google was supposed to be (or was considering) installing a filter that can determine copywritten material automatically.</p>
<p>In the past, some people used code words to post "resticted" material and avoid watchdogs (ie: westling fans posted bootlegs on Youtube under the key word "cheese souffle").</p>
<p>Now with these new filters (if they have in fact installed them) no amount of hiding and trickery will suffice.</p>
<p>I'm affraid Youtube as we know it is on the way out.. and as we now know, very quickly.</p>

 

[mrdogleg]

Napster got sued, Youtube got bought.

You can say that they are afraid of lawsuits because they have so much to lose, but the original owners of youtube had plenty to lose as well (1.6 billion?).

I think the way youtube got around the copyrighting was that the poster was responsible for their video, and since that poster wasn't making any money off of it, the big corporations had no reason to go after them. The Youtube site wasn't a big money maker, I know they were starting to run into issues where they couldn't afford the hardware to handle all the videos and traffic, but it was worth a lot due to the traffic it received.

Google said they were buying name recognition, and compared youtube to being almost as recognizable as the name "coke". I've also heard people say that Google wants it to bomb so that google video receives more traffic, but I kinda doubt that.

This is just their first step in completely redesigning the site into something completely different. I'm just mad, I wasn't stealing anything, I was simply rewatching a five second clip of something I had already seen. The nfl wasn't losing any money due to me watching a Saints highlight video a poster on here made. It's not like a song, that a company like song loses money on because people arent buying it because they stole it. The videos arent a product they offer, therefor they arent losing any money on it.

I just need a copycat site bad, I'm freaking out without Saints Highlights.

 

[LSSpam]

ha. this just means that a new "youtube" will arise and the google one will be nothing.

1.4 billion down the drain. Surely Google realizes "youtube" itself is pretty worthless. It's not a particularly innovative interface, it's search infrastructure is just going to get replaced by googles anyways, there's nothing special about it. Certainly nothing worth 1.4 billion.

Google paid for traffic, and the traffic came from the content.

So removing content (and inviting it to shift onto some new upstart) is beyond idiotic. Pay to get a license or fight it in court, but don't remove content.

 

[DadsDream]

ZDNet > ZDTV > TechTV > Bought by Comcast > merged with G4 > G4/TechTV > G4

I wouldn't discount the "buyout to dismantle" angle.

 

[LSSpam]

Napster got sued, Youtube got bought.

You can say that they are afraid of lawsuits because they have so much to lose, but the original owners of youtube had plenty to lose as well (1.6 billion?).

I think the way youtube got around the copyrighting was that the poster was responsible for their video, and since that poster wasn't making any money off of it, the big corporations had no reason to go after them. The Youtube site wasn't a big money maker, I know they were starting to run into issues where they couldn't afford the hardware to handle all the videos and traffic, but it was worth a lot due to the traffic it received.

Google said they were buying name recognition, and compared youtube to being almost as recognizable as the name "coke". I've also heard people say that Google wants it to bomb so that google video receives more traffic, but I kinda doubt that.

This is just their first step in completely redesigning the site into something completely different. I'm just mad, I wasn't stealing anything, I was simply rewatching a five second clip of something I had already seen. The nfl wasn't losing any money due to me watching a Saints highlight video a poster on here made. It's not like a song, that a company like song loses money on because people arent buying it because they stole it. The videos arent a product they offer, therefor they arent losing any money on it.

I just need a copycat site bad, I'm freaking out without Saints Highlights.

Youtube didn't get around licensing, they ignored it. They were about to get sued prior to the sell by some music company because some users use the company's songs on their own videos. Youtube had also signed a licensing deal with another company so that their content was allowed. But the "policy" seemed to be "ignore it until someone mentions it".

It wouldn't make sense for Google to want Youtube to bomb. It'd make more sense if they simply intergrated Youtube into Google search (and scrapped Google video). The reasoning being, as mentioned, name recognition and the fact that all the content is already on Youtube.

But that brings up my above point. Google bought, more then anything, the content on Youtube. That's why people go, that's why people hang around there. So any policy which involves removing content rather then expanding it is wholely counter-productive.

 

[theSpaniard]

You got a hall pass bra??