You suck, Youtube.

[Phil]

I had to remove ten of my videos on Youtube due to them being blocked from every place on the planet except the United States. No joke, I looked and I never saw the United States on there.

So that means I had to remove the Online Cantina 1875 series AND the SWRP Chronicles....

Why, Youtube? WHY? YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, YOUTUBE!!!
:CStern:CStern:CStern:CStern:CStern

 

[Brandon Rhea]

**** the rest of the world.

Keep them up for America. It's what Jesus would've wanted.

 

[Phil]

Ima gonna re-upload them eventualy, just fix the music since those god damn, shit eating, butt licking snobs at whatever get so butt hurt over if you use their things... reminds me of freaking Tommy Wiseau and that idiot John At The Room Movie.com.

:CStern

 

[Jerek Odres]

The Room referenced ftw

 

[Casimir Goetschl]

Wow.

That truly does suck

 

[Santoro]

My peeve with youtube is the 30-second video before a minute long video.

 

[Random Hero]

Even YouTube believes the world is not ready for Mulluns.

I kid.

My peeve with youtube is the 30-second video before a minute long video.

[rage] Commercials on the internet. [/rage]

 

[Sheridan]

That must suck, having to delete videos and such. Why would they be blocked though?

My peeve with youtube is the 30-second video before a minute long video.

Blah, any video like that in general, Specially those on failblog, 30 second ad, 45 second video.

:CStern

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Lol @ people bitching about ads on YouTube.

If it wasn't for those ads, there would be no YouTube.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

there used to be a youtube that had no adds, before they sold to google.

 

[Random Hero]

there used to be a youtube that had no adds, before they sold to google.

It painfully reminds me of twenty years ago: "Sign up for cable television, there won't be any commercials, we promise."

 

[Phil]

My peeve with youtube is the 30-second video before a minute long video.

Aye. Especialy when they have a hard time loading and you cannot skip it.

That must suck, having to delete videos and such. Why would they be blocked though?

Because they seem to hate it when Star Wars music, Halo music or any sort of licenced music is in a film even when I credit where the music is from.

Lol @ people bitching about ads on YouTube.

If it wasn't for those ads, there would be no YouTube.

I'll answer this...

there used to be a youtube that had no adds, before they sold to google.

With this.

I also remember being able to upload nearly anything(Within reason) before they started to delete videos due to ridiculous copyright garbage.

It painfully reminds me of twenty years ago: "Sign up for cable television, there won't be any commercials, we promise."

Hah! Did they really say that?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'll answer this...

With this.

There used to be a Wikia without ads too. Guess who they were bought by?

No one.

The fact of the matter is that as an internet company, the more you grow the more revenue you need to survive. Without ad revenue, there would be no YouTube. The fact that they were bought out by Google is irrelevant.

I also remember being able to upload nearly anything(Within reason) before they started to delete videos due to ridiculous copyright garbage.

Copyright garbage? You mean the law?

 

[Santoro]

Lol @ people bitching about ads on YouTube.

If it wasn't for those ads, there would be no YouTube.

They could have banner ads, or make them like Hulu- 4 second add for a 30 second video, instead of a 30 for a 30.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

They could have banner ads, or make them like Hulu- 4 second add for a 30 second video, instead of a 30 for a 30.

The longer it is, the more ad revenue they receive. They made a choice based on how much they need to a) survive and b) generate even the slightest bit of profit.

 

[Phil]

Copyright garbage? You mean the law?

I'm talking about when an innocent video is uploaded, with some cool stuff, but one song is taken from say... the soundtrack of Star Wars. Then when the film is over, the song is credited in both the video and the description box. No money is made off the video and all that stuff.

THEN, Youtube or who ever marks the videos comes along, see's this, and turns into a butt hurt moron who says this video is marked for copyright infringment and is blocked or worse, deleted because some company does not like that one little song/tune is used from their stuff when it's already scattered all over the internet and media.

What is worse is when there is a video that just has the song in it, all credit is given and all, and it's been there since first year Youtube opened and it's not removed, but all others are.


EDIT: And for the record, Wikipedia does not seem to have adds(The Original one), but all others like Wookieepedia, Mass Effect Wiki, etc seem to be overrealmed with them.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I'm talking about when an innocent video is uploaded, with some cool stuff, but one song is taken from say... the soundtrack of Star Wars. Then when the film is over, the song is credited in both the video and the description box. No money is made off the video and all that stuff.

THEN, Youtube or who ever marks the videos comes along, see's this, and turns into a butt hurt moron who says this video is marked for copyright infringment and is blocked or worse, deleted because some company does not like that one little song/tune is used from their stuff when it's already scattered all over the internet and media.

What is worse is when there is a video that just has the song in it, all credit is given and all, and it's been there since first year Youtube opened and it's not removed, but all others are.

Credit doesn't mean it's acceptable under copyright.

If someone makes a complaint about the video, and that someone is a copyright holder or is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, YouTube has no choice but to take the video down or risk legal action being taken against them.

"One little song with credit" is still copyright infringement.

EDIT: And for the record, Wikipedia does not seem to have adds(The Original one), but all others like Wookieepedia, Mass Effect Wiki, etc seem to be overrealmed with them.

Wikipedia has an annual donation drive, and it needed about 16 million dollars in donations this year. That cost will continue to climb, AND it's a much smaller operation than YouTube. It's because Wikipedia is a non-profit site. People wouldn't donate enough on YouTube because it's generally kids who don't care enough to donate enough money.

P.S.
To avoid seeing Wikia ads, view wikis when logged into your account.

 

[Phil]

Credit doesn't mean it's acceptable under copyright.

If someone makes a complaint about the video, and that someone is a copyright holder or is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, YouTube has no choice but to take the video down or risk legal action being taken against them.

"One little song with credit" is still copyright infringement.

That does not stop it from being any more moronic on their end. At this rate, all that we'll find on Youtube is blogs, kids doing stupid/funny things, home footage of stuff, and possibly videos with original music or people playing music on their instruments.

In the end, it's gonna start sucking fast.

Wikipedia has an annual donation drive, and it needed about 16 million dollars in donations this year. That cost will continue to climb, AND it's a much smaller operation than YouTube. It's because Wikipedia is a non-profit site. People wouldn't donate enough on YouTube because it's generally kids who don't care enough to donate enough money.

P.S.
To avoid seeing Wikia ads, view wikis when logged into your account.

With the way things go, that does not surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That does not stop it from being any more moronic on their end. At this rate, all that we'll find on Youtube is blogs, kids doing stupid/funny things, home footage of stuff, and possibly videos with original music or people playing music on their instruments.

In the end, it's gonna start sucking fast.

No it's not moronic, and your stubborn refusal to see that they have no choice in the matter is just laughably immature, really.

With the way things go, that does not surprise me in the slightest.

Remember that there are also other cost factors, namely the overhead costs, that most people don't think about. They have to pay employee salaries, employee health insurance, rent for the building(s) they're in, server costs, supply costs, data center costs, etc.

It's very easy to stick your fingers in your ears and go "NANANANANA ADS ARE ST00PID" when you're not actually thinking clearly about how much this shit costs.

 

[Phil]

No it's not moronic, and your stubborn refusal to see that they have no choice in the matter is just laughably immature, really.

I'm talking about the copyright holders marking harmless videos because something of theirs is in it(See past posts), not Youtube having no choice but to remove. If it makes me laughably immature for thinking the copyright holders are being stupid about the whole thing, then I'll gladly be called immature about it.