Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

F VEVO

is the main statement really. I'm hoping if it spreads within the actual youtube community it will carry weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLm8NxHVCLI

what do you guys think?

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

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Why exactly? Just wondering why you dislike it so much.

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

Praise Be To Helix!

Because they're paid to provide copyrighted music videos, every click on their vids = income for them. YouTube meanwhile takes down other copies of the same material and bans the person who uploaded it.
This is just part of the copyright/copywrong debate: stalwart capitalists won't see anything wrong with this picture but I do.. Hell Silvagunner - a youtuber who uploads shedloads of videogame music, got his account suspended because of copyright issues >=|

TL;DR - They're profiting from youtube, I'm not, I'm jealous.

btw what do you think of the sound of my vid... it is of my own design

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

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

I quite like Vevo myself, it allows consistent favoriting of full songs that I'd otherwise have to buy or download illegally. It's also a good source of music videos. I think in the age of all sorts of nonsense with copyrights, it's pretty nice that the consumer can get this for free whenever they want.

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

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

You've missed the point. The videos, the information, was up there already on Youtube and other video sites. Some better quality, some worse - its thanks to vevo that the choice of different versions is now gone. Like I said: videos and accounts removed.

Barret wouldn't put up with this shit.

Also.. if someone else wants to pitch in with an argument that can be summarised thus: " but i like music videos! "
Then please, keep your tunnel vision to yourself, Cheers.

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

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 15th January 2011 16:57)

You've missed the point. The videos, the information, was up there already on Youtube and other video sites. Some better quality, some worse - its thanks to vevo that the choice of different versions is now gone. Like I said: videos and accounts removed.

Barret wouldn't put up with this shit.

Also.. if someone else wants to pitch in with an argument that can be summarised thus: " but i like music videos! "
Then please, keep your tunnel vision to yourself, Cheers.

I think YOU'VE missed the point. Note what I put about the "nonsense with copyrights" - this allows the actual owners of the music to get their product out to the consumer, and we still benefit by not being charged. In addition, you're focusing your blame on the wrong thing here - the removal of accounts using copyrighted material was happening WAY before Vevo ever came along.

Additionally, I don't appreciate my posts being wrongly summarized and stuck at the end of snide afterwards, and it doesn't make you look good at all either.

This post has been edited by Neal on 16th January 2011 01:53

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

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 15th January 2011 19:50)

This is just part of the copyright/copywrong debate:

There's no debate. If you make something, then you have the right to use it. Silvagunner was using music without permission, which clearly violates Youtube's rules. And clearly, Vevo has the right to use them. Youtube users get free video content, and the artists get what amounts to advertising. I don't see the major issue, unless it's jealousy.

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

Praise Be To Helix!

Again: The artists were and are still able to put their material on Youtube before Vevo came along.
Yes copyright claims led to video removal before but now it is far more frequent. If you think simply putting up videogame music on a streaming site for fans to listen to and enjoy is WRONG then I think your moral compass needs adjusting, or detatched from the business world.

Also, two dislikes on the video? I wonder who could've done that.

Edit: To anyone who doesn't know much about the whole thing, this video touches on the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsDOG9u-a34

This post has been edited by Blinge Odonata on 16th January 2011 10:46

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

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 16th January 2011 06:45)

Also, two dislikes on the video? I wonder who could've done that.

No offense, but... it really wasn't a video. I didn't do it, but really, there was nothing in the video.

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

Praise Be To Helix!

As said before, it's simply Capitalism: the market was there to be cornered, and Vevo figured out how to do it. I'm not getting into an economic debate whether this is right or wrong, but that's the way this country works. Like Neal said, it's not Vevo taking the videos down, it's Youtube, however if Vevo owns the rights to distribute the videos in this medium, than of course they're going to protect their interests by taking down others putting up the copyright they own. It's no different than a movie studio trying to remove bootleggers. And as stated, it's still free, and if it's sponsored by a company as opposed to being put up by individuals, at least we can be assured of its quality.

Personally, I'm all for the free availability of art, with my music and poetry I try to keep it free (not that, of course, anyone would actually want to pay for most of my stuff). But the fact is that America, as a capital-based society, will always try to find a way to make a profit from everything, art included. That may change someday, but that day isn't here yet.

I did like the soundscape in the video, though.

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

"If art doesn't risk upsetting expectations and challenging its audience, it can only stagnate."

Quote (Neal @ 15th January 2011 18:44)

Additionally, I don't appreciate my posts being wrongly summarized and stuck at the end of snide afterwards, and it doesn't make you look good at all either.

Yeah! That's for mods only!

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 15th January 2011 16:50)

TL;DR - They're profiting from youtube, I'm not, I'm jealous.

If that's the point of all this, it's stupid and you are stupid for making it. End of story, not even up for debate, stone cold Rock-Of-Gibraltar solid stupidity.


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

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Narratorway - that little TL;DR was a joke, and if you entertained the thought that I was being serious then you are guilty of stupidity, not I. Also, is the heavy handed authoritarian, nauseating use of language just for mods only too?

Quote (BlitzSage)

there was nothing in the video.

Haven't spent long on Youtube clearly...

Quote (trismegistus)

I did like the soundscape in the video, though.

Soundscape! exactly I was thinking of making more music like this.. a little hobby.

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

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 16th January 2011 17:06)

Quote (BlitzSage)

there was nothing in the video.

Haven't spent long on Youtube clearly...

I think I know when I see nothing in a video. You just had one tile stating "F Vevo" and that was it.

Two things aren't going to happen. 1) You're not taking down Vevo. It's a joint venture with all the major labels. And 2) you're not going to pull us over to your side by insulting us.

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

Praise Be To Helix!

...
This "video" is a juvenile outcry. You are behaving like you DESERVE free music and VEVO is somehow denying you free music.

Also, this "copyright/copywrong" is a load of bull. If they're making money from it, it's because they payed for the streaming license in the first place. It's like bashing Crunchyroll for uploading anime for people to watch for free because they payed for the streaming license unlike other streaming sites.

Also, you're being quite the jerk about that "TL;DR", which was actually quite an adequate summary of your so-called arguments and it was well within reason to assume it was at least half-serious. You in turn insult the person who questions whether it's smart to raise such arguments, congrats.

BTW, I forgot. One of them dislikes is mine.

This post has been edited by SilverMaduin on 17th January 2011 01:10

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

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

BO, this little topic of yours is a joke and if you entertained the thought it should be taken seriously, then you are guilty of stupidity, not I.

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

Arts

Farts

Twarts

A lot of invective going on. There's really no reason to let this get uncivil.

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 16th January 2011 02:45)

Again: The artists were and are still able to put their material on Youtube before Vevo came along.
Yes copyright claims led to video removal before but now it is far more frequent. If you think simply putting up videogame music on a streaming site for fans to listen to and enjoy is WRONG then I think your moral compass needs adjusting, or detatched from the business world.

I'm still not entirely certain that it's accurate to say that Vevo has increased the frequency of videos being removed and accounts being suspended, especially since you specifically brought up video game music. If Vevo did have the streaming rights to the video game music, they would've put it up, but as far as I know, they're only streaming things that you'd hear on the radio or see on MTV and the like (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, etc). The way YouTube works when presented with a copyright claim is exactly how it's detailed in the law - they work quickly to remove it. I doubt Vevo bought the streaming rights to the video game music if they weren't going to use it, so it wouldn't be them who requested to have the movies taken down....in this case, your animosity should probably be directed toward the companies themselves, such as Squenix, Nintendo, Game Freak, or others.

I think it's definitely reasonable to be disappointed with the removal of some of these videos. I mean, just recently I utilized over 130 of them to run a contest, and having those videos up made it easier (and to be honest, was really a key factor in the contest even being POSSIBLE) to actually hold the contest. I don't think it's reasonable to be outright angry. It's easy to oversimplify it and claim that the companies are doing this just to be dicks to fans, but it is a business, whether it seems right or wrong. Whether or not people like SilvaGunner acquired the music legally in the first place, the Copyright Police are more concerned with unauthorized distribution of the music, and that's what they're doing. It's incredibly easy to install plug-ins to the browser that allow you to download the actual videos from YouTube, and it's a very simple audio extract from there, and all of a sudden you have entire music libraries without paying. I was familiar with SilvaGunner's account, and he had TONS of soundtracks up on his space. It was only a matter of time before it was removed (he said it himself). In the meantime, more people will continue to pop up (PeyserConley, etc) to distribute the music.

I also don't think it has anything to do with a moral compass, and if anything, bringing morality into the equation hinders your argument instead of enhancing it. To be specific, the "moral" position in this situation agrees with the "business" position - allowing consumers access to content in a manner that doesn't provide compensation to the person who created it is neither moral nor viable from a business standpoint. I still think the anger is misplaced, and if Vevo actually DID have the streaming rights to the VG music that I'm guessing brought about this ire, they'd use them to provide such content, and I think in that situation you'd have glowing praise for their service instead of your displeasure.

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

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

Vevo does not disallow the original artist of the work from posting their own content. Vevo does not, themselves, actively engage in the policing of copyrighted materials that fall under their parent-corporation's umbrella. They are simply a service designed to allow for the sharing of the music videos, and do so with much better quality than many of the independent uploaders. They do gain a marginal profit from each favorite, view and what have you, but considering the fact that you, yourself, are not paying a single cent to use their services, and they're actively providing you the content you're looking for in the first place WITH the permission of the artist, copyright holders and record label, I don't see any merit in your position at all. It's not like they're obstructing the sharing of user-generated content, nor are they involving themselves with the politics of what youtube allows or polices. This is actually a much more consumer-friendly method than, say, calling for mass lawsuits against the uploaders who infringe on copyright laws, insist that the viewers of each video are law-breaking pirates and engage in some silly witch hunt! From the very beginning, youtube has maintained that if you upload content which contains material that does not belong to you, infringes on copyright law, or expressively violates any other of their terms agreed upon when creating your account, they reserve the right to take down the videos and/or suspend your account. Admittedly, it went largely unpunished for some time because the sheer volume of content uploaded regularly is staggering, but that doesn't mean these policies weren't always there and enforced.

So, yeah, now you won't find 40 different uploads of the exact same video in various qualities, most of which are poor, some of which are secretly rickrolls, or containing silly captions that obscure the video itself expressing the opinions of the uploader that you never cared for. No, now you just get one singular, easily accessible, stream-lined source that always provides high-definition content on demand, free of charge and completely legal. Yeah, screw those guys.

This post has been edited by Dragon_Fire on 17th January 2011 07:38

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

Okay, but there was a goat!

Quote (Neal @ 17th January 2011 08:20)

I think it's definitely reasonable to be disappointed with the removal of some of these videos.  I mean, just recently I utilized over 130 of them to run a contest, and having those videos up made it easier (and to be honest, was really a key factor in the contest even being POSSIBLE) to actually hold the contest.  I don't think it's reasonable to be outright angry.  It's easy to oversimplify it and claim that the companies are doing this just to be dicks to fans, but it is a business, whether it seems right or wrong.  Whether or not people like SilvaGunner acquired the music legally in the first place, the Copyright Police are more concerned with unauthorized distribution of the music, and that's what they're doing.  It's incredibly easy to install plug-ins to the browser that allow you to download the actual videos from YouTube, and it's a very simple audio extract from there, and all of a sudden you have entire music libraries without paying.  I was familiar with SilvaGunner's account, and he had TONS of soundtracks up on his space.  It was only a matter of time before it was removed (he said it himself).  In the meantime, more people will continue to pop up (PeyserConley, etc) to distribute the music.

That's a legitimate grievance I agree. I'm a bit disappointed in Google's position considering they had such a battle over their Google Books content. I would've thought they were more sympathetic to people's sharing and using of music and film. I don't know about the US but over here it's difficult to be criminally charged for breaching copyright. It's predominantly a civil matter. I imagine it's fairly similar in the US. So in this respect I'm disappointed Google didn't use their clout to keep YouTube as available and independent as possible. It's nice to just put a song over a piece of video and not get stung for it. Or make a mix and share it. To be fair to Google I think they did make an effort.

I have no idea how Vevo got somehow pulled into this overall debate. Blinge, if you're in England, why don't you just download Spotify? There's no game music but you can listen to just about anything else for free. It has an absurd amount of music. And it has a brilliant 'related artists' feature that I've found most of my favourite new music with. YouTube and Vevo is weak in comparison for listening to free music. Plus as I'm sure you know a lot of the stuff on Vevo is unwatchable for us anyway because of copyright infringement! Honestly, I've come to the realisation that Spotify is better than downloading music for free, and that's quite an amazing thing to achieve.

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

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Hmmm, perhaps a bit off tangent to the current discussion, but still on the topic of youtube...

The only real grievance I've had with the place is that dang new layout they use. I really, really miss the old one. Seemed so much more intuitive. This one just... never clicked with me.