Decision on YouTube proves that Capitalism has gone too far.

[usually_quiet]

Networks don't broadcast their stuff "for free" on the air - viewers pay for it by watching commercials. *
When you have to watch commercials on their website to see an episode it is not for free, you've just paid for it in the very same way as watching broadcast, what's the difference LOL.

By that logic YouTube isn't free either, and is also an advertising delivery system, though unlike the networks, they don't own it the content they host on their site. While it's easier to avoid the advertising on YouTube, it is still there and helps pay the bills.

What they do otherwise is also rather similar. With both sites, the episode you want to see may or may not be there when you vist them. It all depends on what somebody else decides to make available. However, whatever is provided is on demand, for both as well.

At some point, copyrights may prove to have been over-extended. However, up until recently extended copyrights and copy protection benefitted consumers with respect to the availability of old content. Were it less profitable to make it available, much of what we now have access to might well have stayed in the vault. Remember, the only existing copies, or well-preserved copies of a lot of works on film or video tape were at one time in private hands. If they couldn't make much money by re-releasing them why would they bother? Maybe they would have just discarded them all, which did happen anyway with some things, particularly TV shows.

Almost everything will be available on demand eventually, in all kinds of different formats, but much of the time, it won't be free. Finding the content, obtaining its use, restoring it, converting it, and making it available to its intended audience often involves costs. So, it is understandable that when a business is running the project, a small fee would be charged for the service of providing even works in the public domain, and they might be copy-protected somehow.

Look at books to see how this might work. There is a Kindle Edition containing all 15 volumes of "The Wizard of Oz" series, which are in public domain, that sells for $.99, total, though there are some other Kindle editions of the same books that cost more. You can only view these on a Kindle, but it is pretty reasonable price for the books.

eBooks provides the same thing in two volumes, available in other formats, for $9.98 total. Project Guttenburg also has the Oz books, available for free, though it is possibly less convenient to access them, and they may not be as attractively presented.

[Epicurus8a]

...Capitalism has gone too far.

I've been saying that for years. IMO it's time for a change we can believe in!

[jagabo]

Almost everything will be available on demand eventually, in all kinds of different formats, but much of the time, it won't be free.

It will be incrementally free. You will pay one monthly subscription and everything ever made will be available, organized, cross indexed, reviewed, and free of copy protection. The ability to find, watch, listen to, or read anything you want any time you want will be so valuable almost everybody will be happy to pay the subscription fee and hardly anybody will bother pirating.

The producers will be paid a portion of the subscription fees based on the proportion their product was consumed. The digital distributers will skim a little off the top and compete based on services (indexing, reviews, suggestions, etc).

[Ethlred]

First of all, apologies for the long delay.
From everything I have gone thru when I used to surf on Usenet,
I learned to avoid reading replies which probably would not be worth looking at.

I fully agree with that statement.

It looks like you have read too many presidential speeches.

I am not that hard up for reading material. Presently I am rereading the Foundation Trilogy.

1) The Ancient Greeks would not approve the use that has been given to the word
"demokráteia" by the so-called modern and progressist world, granted.

True but I was talking about a modern system using Capitalism and not an ancient slave based farming and trading system that had direct democracy. Direct Democracy just isn't feasible and chattel slavery is illegal although variations still go on, even in the US, mostly in sweatshops with Asian labor.

2) You don't (want to) know what you're talking about.
The-capitalism-according-to-Adam-Smith is unstable, and cannot last.

All systems are unstable. Life itself is unstable. The climate is unstable which is one reason why life is unstable. The Sun is a variable.

Get used to it. Everything changes and you can't stop it. However you can adapt. Hard to do in states claiming to be perfect already.

If you want to give lessons do try dealing with what I write first instead of something else I didn't say. Then tell me something I don't already know. Of course Capitalism is unstable. How does that make it Fascist?

There have been a lot of bad assumptions on this thread regarding the posters by many here. Its amazing how many have been called stupid by people with reading difficulty. Midzuki does seem to be able to read. He just thinks he knows more than he does about others.

What I am seeing is a lot that descend into unwarranted personal attacks. Much heat and little light. Nothing new for the Internet.

[PuzZLeR]

Almost everything will be available on demand eventually, in all kinds of different formats, but much of the time, it won't be free.

It will be incrementally free. You will pay one monthly subscription and everything ever made will be available, organized, cross indexed, reviewed, and free of copy protection. The ability to find, watch, listen to, or read anything you want any time you want will be so valuable almost everybody will be happy to pay the subscription fee and hardly anybody will bother pirating.

The producers will be paid a portion of the subscription fees based on the proportion their product was consumed. The digital distributers will skim a little off the top and compete based on services (indexing, reviews, suggestions, etc).

Seriously, even if I was a hardcore download pirate, I would still want to subscribe to this service just for peace of mind. In fact, pirates should be the early market and enthusiasts for such a service.

And it makes sense for the content owners who will get compensated, and good for capitalism in general when it will force the content providers to produce quality content to win a bigger piece of the shared fees. YouTube can then be fully considered as an advertiser for them when nobody would want some blocky clipped version when the "good one" is available with your service.

There are such services however available, but the reason it's not taking off is total irony. They seem to have the reputation of being scams or over-regulated or not having the good stuff. Funny how the full-blown illegal sites seem to be worthy of the title "credible".

It's still a long way from theory to implementation, but I certainly have, and still do, agree with such an idea.

[dcsos]

Here's my beef
I posted Videos that I either directed or edited.
I do not own these clips.
My account was shut down for this.
What happened was wrong. I was only trying to demo my work as an editor and director, and they accused me of stealing like a pirate.
Additionaly, they've left my site entirly intact!
If they cared one whit about copyright, they'd pull it down!
but NO, they just froze my access to it and continue to serve ads around MY WORK which I can no longer TOUCH

THEY HAVE STOLEN tHE CONTENT FROM ME and I have no ability to sue them this sucks

[DereX888]

Networks don't broadcast their stuff "for free" on the air - viewers pay for it by watching commercials. *
When you have to watch commercials on their website to see an episode it is not for free, you've just paid for it in the very same way as watching broadcast, what's the difference LOL.

By that logic YouTube isn't free either, and is also an advertising delivery system, though unlike the networks, they don't own it the content they host on their site. While it's easier to avoid the advertising on YouTube, it is still there and helps pay the bills.

That's right
(although I must add - it really depends on the way you want to watch it and what you use, i.e. my browser, Mozilla K-Meleon, was easily set to remove or at least block any advertising and I have no problem with any crap short of the ads injected into the videos itselves).

Furthermore (aside of "pirated" clips and such) people who post "their own" are being stripped of any copyright ownership whatsoever (that's why I wouldn't ever post any of my even stupidest clips taken with phone there - because I wouldn't own it, and someone else would try to make money with ads and such around my "work").
I don't think anyone debates here is it wrong or right for youtube to host copyrighted material.
My beef with copyrights is that they are overtly exaggerated in the length of time they have been extended to. They were already way too long before, and now they are inheritable and lasting more than a f***ing century! I can't believe anyone sane can even think it is right.

Still yet (regarding youtube) any excerpts or clips are just what they are, how anyone (except for lawyers) can deny it, geez.

Here's my beef
I posted Videos that I either directed or edited.
I do not own these clips.
My account was shut down for this.
What happened was wrong. I was only trying to demo my work as an editor and director, and they accused me of stealing like a pirate.
Additionaly, they've left my site entirly intact!
If they cared one whit about copyright, they'd pull it down!
but NO, they just froze my access to it and continue to serve ads around MY WORK which I can no longer TOUCH

THEY HAVE STOLEN tHE CONTENT FROM ME and I have no ability to sue them this sucks

Perfect case example what I have posted earlier: the copyright laws, and the law enforcement wasting time on it, are here to protect big fat rich corporations only (which someone said is not true).

I have a better example:
Someone steals a $20 worth DVD-Videos or CDs (or even a few) from a Big Fat MPAA/RIAA Member and "our" law enforcement and "our" judiciary system goes after them to the full extent of law - even if they don't have a clue after whom are they going, they initially make cases against "John Doe #12345".
You get your property stolen (any expensive bicycle, radio, whatever) and the cops will tell you "Sorry, but it is below $5000 worth, we don't even make reports for small shit like this". NO "John Doe" CASE for you, not even a report, just "**** you Citizen, and get lost now" in other words.
United Corporations of America is what this once great country has become, and one have to be really blind or fooling himself not to see it nowadays.

[jagabo]

Abraham Lincoln said it: "government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations..." Or something like that.

[Midzuki]

Ethlred wrote:

Of course Capitalism is unstable. How does that make it Fascist?

The Very-Rich Ones are always ready for supporting a totalitarian regime
as long as they themselves are not the most oppressed ones. As I had said,
and as you conveniently "forgot" to quote, the so-called human nature(read:
animalish nature) makes things be so. Full-stop.

Presently I am rereading the Foundation Trilogy.

What a waste of time.

[Ethlred]

The Very-Rich Ones are always ready for supporting a totalitarian regime
as long as they themselves are not the most oppressed ones.

What world are you living in? Not the same I am thats for sure. The US isn't totalitarian nor fascist. It does sometimes support regimes it really shouldn't however, that I won't disagree with but you sure aren't clear on what just what your intent was in that.

Perhaps you meant that remark as a claim that I am some of Very-Rich supporter of a totalitarian regime. It wouldn't surprise me since you seem to have some picture in your head of me that has no relation to reality. Nor have you managed to make a clear statement that actually deals what I really wrote yet. You evade and dodge and generally make up my position for me. I really don't care for that sort of straw man nonsense.

What a waste of time.

Not for me. Perhaps you should read it. I notice that you don't claim you did so how do you claim authority on what constitutes a waste of time?

Now I can say something about the books. I have read them. They are not as good as I remembered them, despite their winning a Hugo. I suspect Asimov didn't approve of the governments he created either. The intent to replace an Empire with another one whose main difference was to have a bunch of hidden psycho-technocrats really running the place was just a bit wrong headed to me. I think he wrote himself into a corner.

Now if you wan to reply please this time try to make it relevant to what I SAID. Not another random phrase from the crackpot playbook that has no relation to my post.

Then again maybe you shouldn't reply. You should look again at the first page. You know the post about what is allowed on the site. Though I think that takes the fun out of off-topic areas. Bunch of kill joys that handle hot topics. It is possible to discuss politics and religion rationally. Its very hard though. Too many can't handle having their beliefs questioned. Too few can express themselves clearly. Then there is reading difficulty many have as can be seen on this thread.

[Midzuki]

The US isn't totalitarian nor fascist.

Like in the 50's, it's ready to become totalitarian in a wink of an eye.
If you and some of your dearest fellas don't want to perceive the truth,
that's an entirely different story.

Yes, I do know more things than most people would consider "acceptable".
Principally because I cannot be fooled by sophisms or fallacies of any nature.
Yes, I did read The Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov in 1980.
Today, I know that it is an inferior work. I would not read it again, therefore.

Yes, I do have studied History, Philosophy, the history of the scientific thought,
the history of the ideas in Economics, and many many many other things.
Be careful.

Too many can't handle having their beliefs questioned.

Self-reference, certainly. But my book says,
truthfulness is far more important than mere beliefs.

It wouldn't surprise me since you seem to have some picture in your head of me that has no relation to reality. Nor have you managed to make a clear statement that actually deals what I really wrote yet. You evade and dodge and generally make up my position for me. I really don't care for that sort of straw man nonsense.

Self-reference, again.

Now if you wan to reply please this time try to make it relevant to what I SAID. Not another random phrase from the crackpot playbook that has no relation to my post.

Hi! I am Midzuki --- I am not a looking-glass standing in front of yourself.

Too few can express themselves clearly.
Then there is reading difficulty many have as can be seen on this thread.

Self-reference, for a change.

Good-bye.

[ E. O. T. ]

"But keep one thing in mind:
I'd happily kill you for free."
{ Nathan Algren, in "The Last Samurai" }

\\\\\\\\

[Ethlred]

Like in the 50's, it's ready to become totalitarian in a wink of an eye.
If you and some of your dearest fellas don't want to perceive the truth,
that's an entirely different story.

It didn't go Fascist in the Fifities. True McArthy was a Fascist wannabe but he lost out. Perceive the truth.

Yes, I do know more things than most people would consider "acceptable".

Actually I said nothing either way about that. Just that you made things up about ME.

Principally because I cannot be fooled by sophisms or fallacies of any nature.

You seem pretty fooled to me. Quoting a Marcuse fallacy shows you CAN be fooled at least by the fallacies of that nature.

I would not read it again, therefore.

Fine. Next time make it clear. Its not that hard. There are a lot things that are inferior even if they didn't seem that way at one time. At another time I might again like the books better. For instance I actually like Gray Lensman more when I read it again last year than I did 7 or 8 years before that. Of course I don't read it for its subtlety of observation of human nature. Just as a slam bang adventure with little or no need for introverted thinking. Context in ones life counts. I was short on new things to read. Waiting for Stephen Brust's Jaeghaala to show up at the library.

Be careful.

Heh. I am. I have discussed all those online, and I look things up to avoid foot in mouth disease.

Self-reference, certainly. But my book says,
truthfulness is far more important than mere beliefs.

Gosh I never thought truth might be better than belief. What a stunning revelation. I can't go on. I have been brought to my knees.

Get over yourself.

Same for the next.

You know calling things self-referential isn't the same as a clear and cogent reply. You really should try responding to what is said. Straw men is what I accused you of and here you do it again.

Hi! I am Midzuki --- I am not a looking-glass standing in front of yourself.

You sure do act like one, that is a distorting one with cracks and paint. Not once have you responded to what I said except to invent things about me.

Self-reference, for a change.

Good-bye. sleepin.gif

I thank you for stunningly irrelevant non-observations. I will cherish them for at least 30 seconds.

[redwudz]

mats.hogberg already posted one warning earlier about straying into political discussions with this thread and it seems to still be a problem. The provocative title didn't help.

Time to move on. Thread locked.

Moderator redwudz