8 ms·
Roughly half of the content is about cryptocurrencies. The other half is stolen content (e.g. https://d.tube/#!/c/nba-highlights https://d.tube/#!/c/nba-highlig
by Jyaif 9y ago
Roughly half of the content is about cryptocurrencies. The other half is stolen content (e.g. https://d.tube/#!/c/nba-highlights https://d.tube/#!/c/nba-highlights ).
I don't think YT and FB are sad about losing those types of "creators".
- mtgx 9y agoAll platforms kickstart within a niche. Remember when Facebook was just for students? Or when Bitcoin was "just for drug dealers" (it wasn't, but that's what the media got everyone to believe).
- mattsfrey 9y agoSeeing some downvotes on this but TBH Silk Road and the underground economy _is_ what originally drove the lions share of demand for bitcoin as a currency, not miners and enthusiasts - everything else ballooned out from there.
- richardwhiuk 9y agoIs Bitcoin for something other than drug dealers and speculation yet?
- alphydan 9y ago> what originally drove the lions share I think that is known to be false (although it is repeated ad nauseam on HN). The best estimate around 2011 / 2012, is from this study: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7139 https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7139 which estimated SR transactions to be between 4% - 9% of the total Bitcoin transactions. Hardly what I would call "The lion's share".
- Grue3 9y agoYT wasn't very sad about stolen content when they were starting up...
- kitotik 9y agoThey still are anything but sad about it. The amount of pirated music on their platform is mind boggling.
- strictnein 9y agoA lot of that is fully monetized by the copyright owners.
- LordHeini 9y agoOr the random person who uploaded it.
- strictnein 9y agoYoutube automatically identifies almost all copyrighted music when videos are uploaded and copyright owners can decide who will be the one to monetize it. Almost all of the major players have the monetization assigned to themselves.
- LordHeini 9y agoHow do you know that? There are tons of whole albums which are definitively not "monetized" by their makers. E.g. old stuff where the band does not exists anymore or all the low selling genres where nobody cares. It is not a bad thing since i discovered a lot of cool stuff like that.
- strictnein 9y agoThere's some long tail stuff that isn't, but the large majority is. A breakdown of how the system works (they're trying to sell music for you to use, but it's still a good writeup): https://www.safemusiclist.com/can-use-copyrighted-music-youtube/ https://www.safemusiclist.com/can-use-copyrighted-music-yout...
- 9y ago
- metmirr 9y agoNot all. I am another one who love steemit and create original content for it.
- dyukqu 9y agoThey say "Good artists copy, great artists steal". :-) I'm not sure whether it's true or not. Just saying...
- always_good 9y agoThat's not what that means.
- ada1981 9y agoI actually said that originally.
- whywhywhywhy 9y ago>I don't think YT and FB are sad about losing those types of "creators". Hardly think YouTube is really in a position to be held up as an example of good taste or quality considering the sort of content they've been peddling to kids the past few years until very recently.
- barnesto 9y agonot stolen. the NBA is loose with their digital rights, even the videos on nba.tv. do a search on YT for NBA highlights, you'll get much of the same.
- edouard-harris 9y agoMuch of YouTube's own early content was stolen from elsewhere. Subversive can become mainstream surprisingly fast.
- habitue 9y agoI'll be the guy this time: copyright violation is a different thing from stealing. I'm surprised after so long this meme is still going strong.
- deong 9y agoIt's still going because that's the way people talk. You can actually "steal" an idea, even though it's not physically possible to remove the original from the person's mind. You can steal a kiss. You can steal second. Words mean what people use them to mean, and it's a perfectly acceptable use of the word "steal" to mean something like "adopted use of an artifact for the purpose of deriving a benefit rightfully belonging to its creator". I'm personally surprised the "copyright infringement isn't theft" meme is still going strong.
- wcoenen 9y ago> Words mean what people use them to mean Semantics matter though when even courts start to become confused by the inexact use of terminology. Here is a copyright infringement case that had to be taken to the US supreme court to reverse a guilty verdict for "interstate transportation of stolen property": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States
- d0lph 9y agoThe difference is that there is no loss. In the circumstances that you list there actually was something taken from someone, e.g time taken from something else, or I guess kissing someone you were not supposed to. You can argue that a person might have gone to see the movie if they hadn't downloaded it, but that's kind of a dumb argument.
- lordlimecat 9y ago>The difference is that there is no loss. In this thread, we recognize the existence of supply / demand. It is exceptionally ignorant to claim that increasing the supply of a relatively scarce thing has no economic impact on the creator / owner.