Youtube is going deaf

[boredjedi]

Oh well, been trying to get this new remix uploaded for viewing and it keeps getting muted for copyright no matter how I try to trick it. I liked it better when they just added adverts for buying the songs now they are going around muting the audio of clips.


This reminds me of that scene from Amadeus when Mozart was not allowed to do a ballet in one of his operas and at rehearsal he kept the music out and just had the performers dancing to nothing.


Anyone know of any good alternative places?

I've been hearing Viddler, Vimeo, and Veoh. Anyone know of any swiss video sites? I wouldn't mind the pirate bay starting a video web site.


[youtube]P3jSZhFj6jA[/youtube]

[daCanuck]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

Vimeo is the best that I can think of, and the quality of the video is very good.

[Mr_Gazpacho]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

Why is it that "Der Untergang" generates the best parodies?

[boredjedi]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

Vimeo is the best that I can think of, and the quality of the video is very good.

Are they cool about remixes and such?

[CmdrLuke]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

copyrite laws are f-ing stupid

[boredjedi]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

Here's my little take on this

[youtube]DcX_6XhXflA[/youtube]

[nindanjoe]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

Youtube is going deaf

What was that? I couldn't hear you.

copyrite laws are f-ing stupid

I disagree and agree. I agree that the extent to which these laws are pushed are ridiculous, but only for situations like with BoredJedi's remixes, people's fanvids, videos like those by AVGN, Nostalgia Critic, Spoony, and others, or other fair use vague stuff.

I disagree in that it protects people works so that they can't be stolen. Like if you were to make a really good song, but you didn't copyright it yet. As a result, I could just steal it, copyright it, and claim it as my own. You would never get any credit.

[boredjedi]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

Youtube is going deaf

What was that? I couldn't hear you.

Speak up you young whipper snapper.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not directed at you nindan just some more info.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.copycense. ... hew-dames/

This week, The New York Times has been hosting a copyright “debate” between Columbia’s Tim Wu and NBC Universal’s general counsel Rick Cotton. (The entire debate is available on The Times‘ site; the instant link is to one portion of the debate.) We use the term “debate” lightly because, as we analyze below, these commentaries are not discussions featuring opposing arguments. Instead, they are framed discussions that express implicit support for the content industries’ view that copyright and control are synonymous.

We’ll use as an example Monday’s question about the use of copy restriction technologies. The first problem with the Times‘ question is that it conflates creators of copyrighted works with owners of copyrighted works. By asking Rick Cotton (who represents a copyright owner) to respond, the Times perpetuates a common misperception that creators and owners are one and the same.

Typically in today’s commercial environment, they are not: the creator often surrenders ownership of his copyright to a corporation hoping the corporation can monetize that creation more effectively than the creator would on his own. The income stream a creator expects from this surrender may or may not occur, and history is filled with creators who never received a dime from corporate owners after surrendering their work.

Why is this conflation important to identify? It’s important to identify because one of the chief arguments corporate copyright owners put forth advocating more restrictive copyright law is that doing so will ensure compensation to the creators. This argument is — and always has been — utter garbage. Hip hop artist Q-Tip spoke for generations of stiffed artists when he rapped in “Check the Rhime”:

[nindanjoe]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

That picture is hilarious.

That copycense article is something I never knew about, or thought about. This could be an example of copyright laws sucking in that those corporations found a loophole and are willing to exploit it! I'm going to have to look this up later to see if it already exists or not, but there should be a list of names of owners and previous owners for a copyright. So that if something goes sour, the original owner can bring that up and give the corporation a bad name. There should also be a contract when the original copyright owner hands over the rights, it makes me wonder if some corporations 'forgot' it, the original owner didn't read the contract, or that they just aren't using the contract when something goes wrong.

[boredjedi]

Re: Youtube is going deaf

"Too often a big label can kill an artist's career simply by refusing to release an album or by refusing to allow an artist to perform when a record deal falls through. It's not uncommon for contracts to stipulate that an artist cannot even perform their own music up to seven years after leaving a record label, in effect destroying their career. It is this that happened to Poe back in 2000 when her label effectively pulled the plug on her record deal."


I got that from another info site and damn if I can remember where and I didn't bookmark it dang it.