4 ms·

> My next problem is with theft. There are a LOT of stolen YouTube videos. That's awful. I hope Youtube will quickly find replacements for those stolen videos.

sschueller 8y ago
Most videos on YouTube were of television and movies when they started. The whole YouTube stars and original content came much later.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  Ironically you get Youtube videos on TV now, credited "YouTube".
- Torgo 8y ago
  The videos were too short for piracy, they were capped at like five minutes long. I used to watch videos by a legit "youtube star" named Brookers. They also used to have reply videos, before it got clogged with spam. It used to be a lot more social.
rjf72 8y ago
Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. Most people are just uploading stuff they want as many people to see as possible. It's ironic because you already have free access to their videos, and they would give you permission to share elsewhere if you were able to ask, but in practice you can't. Getting the permission is burdensome, and the video that's displayed on YouTube is very liberally licensed to YouTube who will aggressively claim 'ownership' and reject any efforts to use it elsewhere. It'd be interesting if sites that offer user generated content for free (and only these sites) could not force content submitters to opt-in to non-free licenses - though users could opt in to such agreements. It's their right as a company to only publish under non-free licenses, but this behavior serves no real purpose other than to be obstructionist and anti-competitive.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. This is the real question here. Are the creators getting proper credit? And for the ones who use it as a source of income, are they able to get paid the way they would on YouTube?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rjf72 8y ago
    That'd be the idea of leaving it up to the content creator to decide. If somebody believes they personally benefit from a walled garden then they would certainly want to opt out of free licensing. If they're more after just getting the content out there, then they'd want to stay on a free license. And I wouldn't just restrict this to video. Do you mind if I use your post elsewhere (with accreditation)? Probably not. I certainly don't. Yet in reality, it'd be unlawful for me to do so. It's copyrighted from the moment you write it. The only reason Hacker News can display it is because of this blurb from the terms on here: By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. Transitioning to a free license would in no way directly negatively affect Hacker News. It certainly wouldn't negatively affect users. I expect most don't even realize what they write is copyrighted. And in any case users who want to avoid their comments being legally shared elsewhere could easily opt out.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      The question isn't whether a licensing scheme like this is possible. It's not like YouTube prevents people from attaching whatever license they want to their work. But these videos are being ripped and uploaded elsewhere today, so the idea that people who don't want their work shared elsewhere could opt out is dubious. My question is: in the world that exists today, are people on PeerTube crediting creators of content they rip, and are those creators being paid in the same way that YouTube would pay them?

sschueller 8y ago

Most videos on YouTube were of television and movies when they started. The whole YouTube stars and original content came much later.

JetSpiegel 8y ago
Ironically you get Youtube videos on TV now, credited "YouTube".
Torgo 8y ago
The videos were too short for piracy, they were capped at like five minutes long. I used to watch videos by a legit "youtube star" named Brookers. They also used to have reply videos, before it got clogged with spam. It used to be a lot more social.

rjf72 8y ago

Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. Most people are just uploading stuff they want as many people to see as possible. It's ironic because you already have free access to their videos, and they would give you permission to share elsewhere if you were able to ask, but in practice you can't. Getting the permission is burdensome, and the video that's displayed on YouTube is very liberally licensed to YouTube who will aggressively claim 'ownership' and reject any efforts to use it elsewhere. It'd be interesting if sites that offer user generated content for free (and only these sites) could not force content submitters to opt-in to non-free licenses - though users could opt in to such agreements. It's their right as a company to only publish under non-free licenses, but this behavior serves no real purpose other than to be obstructionist and anti-competitive.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
> Something I also find ironic is that I think most people uploading videos to YouTube would not actually mind if their videos were shared elsewhere so long as they were given proper credit. This is the real question here. Are the creators getting proper credit? And for the ones who use it as a source of income, are they able to get paid the way they would on YouTube?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rjf72 8y ago
  That'd be the idea of leaving it up to the content creator to decide. If somebody believes they personally benefit from a walled garden then they would certainly want to opt out of free licensing. If they're more after just getting the content out there, then they'd want to stay on a free license. And I wouldn't just restrict this to video. Do you mind if I use your post elsewhere (with accreditation)? Probably not. I certainly don't. Yet in reality, it'd be unlawful for me to do so. It's copyrighted from the moment you write it. The only reason Hacker News can display it is because of this blurb from the terms on here: By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. Transitioning to a free license would in no way directly negatively affect Hacker News. It certainly wouldn't negatively affect users. I expect most don't even realize what they write is copyrighted. And in any case users who want to avoid their comments being legally shared elsewhere could easily opt out.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    The question isn't whether a licensing scheme like this is possible. It's not like YouTube prevents people from attaching whatever license they want to their work. But these videos are being ripped and uploaded elsewhere today, so the idea that people who don't want their work shared elsewhere could opt out is dubious. My question is: in the world that exists today, are people on PeerTube crediting creators of content they rip, and are those creators being paid in the same way that YouTube would pay them?