I was going to comment on the OP's confession of his/her true intent too. MONETIZE?!!! Hope it's more than the tens of thousands of dollars PER COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT you'll be hit with. Especially since big money Hearst is one the companies you're still stealing (you still have cached versions of some of your videos) from!
Normally, I'd leave too. but the OP is too much. Report me for harassing you if you want, but as far as I know, I'm speaking and preserving the TRUTH and FACTS about your illegal activities, just as you're preserving the TRUTH and FACTS about DWI reports on your site!
Edit: BTW, with rare exceptions, despite the desire and need for TV channels to report the news, SURPRISE! they're commercial, money making shows for the TV stations, just as any other programming and every link that doesn't go directly to them is stealing revenue!
Results 31 to 60 of 74
A point about responsibility. Are you ready and willing to provide updates to these news stories which may correct the facts and/or exonerate the accused in the original stories? Reporting errors happen and as a person archiving those news stories, your responsibility is to relay those corrections as made. Not a lawyer, just someone with a good sense of what's right and what's fair!
More "Not a lawyer..." about monetizing news articles that aren't yours. My apologies to the other members, but the OP really gets my goat with his "Ignorance of the law IS an excuse!"
"Here is why the Court concluded that TVEyes overstepped the boundaries of fair use.
1. Potential Market Harm and Displacement of a Copyright Owner’s Market is the Single Most Important Fair Use Factor
Though the Court thoroughly analyzed and balanced all four factors in its fair use analysis, it undeniably regarded the fourth factor concerning potential market harm as the “single most important element of fair use” and weighed it in favor of Fox. The Court recognized the value of the clip viewing, clipping, and sharing functions in TVEyes’ service as analyzed and stated under the transformative prong of the first factor, but it also realized that this should not undermine the basic tenet of copyright law that copyright owners are entitled to a meaningful ability to exploit their work in the market.
The Court first noted that when evaluating this factor, it looks at how the secondary use will “’impact on potential licensing revenues for traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed’” for the original copyrighted work. It was clear that Fox had a potential licensing market in licensing clips of its programming, since “TVEyes business model demonstrates that deep-pocketed consumers are willing to pay well” for a clip-viewing service, a market that “is worth millions of dollars in the aggregate.” Because the potential market existed, and Fox was not being paid, the Court found that TVEyes displaced Fox’s revenues it should have earned on its work.
Instead of properly licensing from Fox, TVEyes decided to distribute and provide access to Fox’s content without licensing, depriving Fox of the opportunity to get properly paid for its works—again, undermining the basic rule of copyright law that a copyright owner is entitled to control how to license, if at all, to those who want to use the work. The Court stated that since “the ability to re-distribute Fox’s content in the manner that TVEyes does is clearly of value to TVEyes, it (or a similar service) should be willing to pay Fox for the right to offer the content.” The Court concluded by noting that “TVEyes ha[d] usurped a function for which Fox is entitled to demand compensation under a licensing agreement” and weighed this factor in favor of Fox."
"Quoting All or Most of a News Story
Quoting a few lines of a news story in order to provide some context to a link is just fine, but what about copying the whole thing? That’s infringement.
So where’s the line between infringement and Fair Use in a case like this? Can you post half the story? Ten percent of it?
There isn’t an obvious line. It isn’t as if there’s a specific word limit or article percentage that makes the difference.
The best question to ask yourself in a case like this is whether your post will realistically function to send traffic to the original post, or if it is substantial enough to act as a replacement for it. If your post effectively replaces the original, then it isn’t Fair Use — it’s infringement.
Last edited by lingyi; 26th Jul 2020 at 05:50.
Oh Tom (OP), you're even more laughable than I thought. From your other website, which I won't link to since I don't want to give you free traffic:
<Redacted to conform to Forum Rules as the OP's quote from his campaign website may be construed as a political statement>
Edit: To be clear, I'm not laughing at the OP's choice of political choices, rather i find it unbelievable that someone running for <Redated - political office> would so willingly use and [has] now acknowledged using he is using copyrighted material without permission. In addition, he has now admitted to planning to monetize that material:
BTW, I found his campaign website because it's linked from his main page listed on his email address on his dwichannel site.
Edit: Mods, I've made changes to my post. Hopefully this conforms to Forum Rules
Last edited by lingyi; 26th Jul 2020 at 16:42. Reason: Redacted OP's campaign quote and political office
Well due to my regular visits to the forum, I get to read to un-redacted (is there such a word ? ) version of the post(s)
Of course political comment is against forum rules but I now have another suspicion of the OP's rationale in creating this site. Now I have already been critical of the 'amateurish' look and feel of this site yet the other site of the OP looks quite polished. And he even describes his occupation as 'webmaster'. So I do wonder if he has dumbed this down deliberately only to go in full mode at some later date.
And what if his motivation really is to make a political comment (apart from the admission of wishing to make a fast buck or two) ? If that is the case then this topic has no place in these forums. And neither has the OP.
I wondered about his motives too. But oddly, he doesn't link to this website on his campaign page, though he does link others that he claims to be the creator of. He's obviously clueless about website creation as he claims " ...all the campaign websites, which cost almost nothing to produce.", ignoring that professional webmasters, campaign managers and publicists are extremely costly.
I've been monitoring this idio...err....clow...err...person's 'planned to be bigger than the Weather Channel's' website and his latest update is beyond anything I've ever seen before!
He claims to have gotten permission to use clips from a single news channel, but for the past month or so, all the clips linked to and hosted on his site have been 404.
His latest update now has HTML code that you have to: "To include more videos, copy the code below and paste it into a blank TextEdit (Mac) or Notepad (Windows) and save the file as playlist.html and then play it on your browser.
I haven't figured out how to make the playlist skip absent videos, or loop yet."
And includes the disclaimer "You put this HTML page on your computer. You are responsible for copyright compliance. Now play the video playlist, streaming the videos from their owners’ websites."
Get's better! On the homepage he writes to the TV Stations:
Of course, there are things you can do on your end to prevent your server from delivering the videos in the above playlist, if you want to be like that. Just remember that the teenager who is told to watch the playlist before borrowing the car on prom night could crash into somebody you like. Your TV station can pay with bandwidth or innocent persons can pay with blood. You decide.
If you don’t want to pay for the bandwidth then give me permission to host your video on https://dwichannel.com <email link deleted>"
Too much fun!!!
Edit: To be clear. I agree that drunk driving is menace and crime that deserves attention. But there are right ways to do things, beginning with getting proper permission to link to and host news clips and not seek to monetize other's pain, suffering and loss.
Last edited by lingyi; 14th Sep 2020 at 23:24.
Well, I made some more changes. The vast majority of the TV stations refrained from replying. I cannot show their videos on The DWI Channel but end-users can put the playlist on their computer. They can copy and paste the code (Which has the left angle brackets "<" converted to HTML code, & lt ; ) into TextEdit and save it as an HTML page. To see how it works, the High School Edition is more brief. End-users can also select clips from https://dwichannel.com/playlist.txt
I still need some help. The first order of business is to have a playlist the end-user can copy and paste that skips absent videos instead of crashing. The second priority is to make the playlist loop. Sadly, there is no shortage of horror stories but eventually the player reaches the end.
The playlist would still have to be copyable.
When TEGNA provided a licensing request form, it mentioned that they wouldn't license anything with one of their employees in it. Since that is critical to the mission of The DWI Channel I asked, what if the employee gave permission, and I got this explanation:
We are unable to allow use of any TEGNA employees including anchors or reporters from the station. While I certainly appreciate that this material adds context to the narrative of your project, it simply isn’t something that is possible to license. Our news stations and news employees must maintain the highest level of journalistic integrity. They select and produce news stories from a standpoint of public good and viewer advocacy. To take material produced in that vein and use it in a commercial setting changes the dynamic of the content in a way that doesn’t feel right. I have no doubt that your project has nothing but the best of intentions. News media outlets have found themselves in an odd place these days. The entire industry has an image problem. Here at TEGNA media we have the ethical responsibility to stick to our standards despite what the rest of the industry is doing.
| TEGNA Media
So I guess that means, if The DWI Channel goes viral, reporters might start saying, "Let's make this sound more boring, so it won't get selected by The DWI Channel." or "Let's make this sound more shocking, so maybe it will get selected by The DWI Channel."
The end-user is still responsible for copyright compliance. I cannot imaging a movie theater showing the playlist and selling tickets, and even schools have to get a license to perform a play, but people can watch a TV news video at home. There's no way anybody would think I produced the videos, what with all the station labels they contain.
It is sad that, unlike newspapers that are microfilmed and saved for posterity, and readily available at the touch of a button, old TV news clips disappear at the whim of the TV station; and even if somebody has archived them, they cannot exactly make them available.
This 'wonderful' website has become a farce.
I glanced at the OP's code earlier today and a thought went immediately through my mind >> "It will not work"
Having better things to spend my time on, I looked at it more closely and just for a giggle did what he proposes his visitor (deliberate spelling) to do. And ran the code......
IT DOES NOT WORK !!!!!!!
It might do from the OP's own website and there is a good reason why it might. But, as it stands, it will NEVER work remotely. Or even remotely work. The words work both ways.
Bottom line is all your efforts to monetize your channel isn't going to work. I hope my reports to the news channels were instrumental in your failure. Stop trying to earn money off other's tragedies and do some honest work for honest pay.
I applaud your intent in bring and keep DWI's in the public's mind. Just lay off trying to exploit others hard work and pain for your monetary gain!
article especially these two paragraphs:
"Years ago, there were many websites that would “aggregate” news by taking significant portions of news stories from other sites and make it available to the aggregator’s readers. There was a rash of lawsuits where content owners, including newspapers and others, claimed that aggregators using even a paragraph or two of the original story were infringing on their rights to their content. Content owners had real concerns about this aggregation sites, as a reader can usually get the gist of the story from the introductory paragraphs and, even when the aggregator provided a link to the full story, the readers would be far less likely to go to the full story when they had already been given its substance. Today, to avoid these lawsuits, most such news aggregators provide at most a headline (and sometimes even the headline can be creative enough to pose a copyright risk if run on an aggregator’s site – so just a generic paraphrase of that headline is often used), and at most a very brief description of the story on the originating site – a description that only directs the users of the aggregator site to the originating site and does not use any of the originating story’s language or original reporting, e.g. a statement that “you can find a good story about Virginia’s collapse in the NCAA tournament in this story” or “for more developments on latest in the personnel changes in the Trump Administration, check out this story in the Washington Post.” Using more than this kind of generic referral is a risk, and fair use is no often going to be available as a defense."
"The more educational or informational a use, the more that factor weighs in favor of a finding of fair use. The greater amount of the work that is used, the more likely a fair use defense is to be rejected. If the kind of use that is being made is one for which a creator could make money, the less likely fair use is to be found. But each of these factors needs to be weighed, and a court has to make a final determination of where the weight of these factors plays out. How that analysis will be resolved in most cases is hard to predict and thus makes risky all but the most limited and benign use of copyrighted content unless permission from the copyright owner is first secured."
Bottom line is, despite what YOU think SHOULD be, most news videos and newspaper articles are COPYRIGHTED and the copyright owners have to RIGHT to choose how and if they're used by third parties. It is NOT in the public domain, no matter how much you think they SHOULD be. You want to make a change in the laws. Run for political office. Oh wait, you're already doing that! How's your campaign going???
Or wait until someone sues you and make your case in court and wait until your appeals make it to the U.S. Supreme Court as Copyright Laws are Federally enforced.
ust in case I didn't make myself clear, this is from the Terms of Service from CBSnews.com
The audio and video materials, photographs, text, graphics, logos, layouts, designs, interfaces, software, data and other content associated with the Services (“Content”) are protected by intellectual property and other laws in the U.S. and in other countries. You must comply with all such laws and applicable copyright, trademark or other legal notices or restrictions. You shall not remove or alter any copyright, trademark, or other legal notices marked on the Content. As between you and CBS Interactive, CBS Interactive will retain all right, title, and interest in and to the Services and the Content. No transfer of ownership to any portion of the Content shall be made as a result of any access you are granted. Except as specifically provided below, we reserve all rights to the Services and Content.
You are only permitted to access and view the Content for personal, non-commercial purposes in accordance with these Terms, and may not build a business or other enterprise utilizing any of the Content, whether for profit or not. Except as provided in Section 4(a) or otherwise expressly authorized by us in writing, you may not either directly or through the use of any software, device, internet site, web-based service or other means download, stream capture, store in a database, archive or otherwise copy any part of the Services or Content; upload, sell, rent, lease, lend, broadcast, transmit or otherwise disseminate, distribute, display or perform any part of the Services or Content; license or sublicense any part of the Services or Content; or in any way exploit any part of the Services or Content. In addition, except as provided in Section 4(a) or otherwise expressly authorized by us in writing, you are strictly prohibited from modifying Content; creating, distributing or advertising an index of any significant portion of the Content; or otherwise creating derivative works or materials that otherwise are derived from or based in any way on the Content, including mash-ups and similar videos, montages, translations, desktop themes, fonts, icons, wallpaper, greeting cards, and merchandise. This prohibition from creating derivative works is applicable even if you intend to give away the derivative material free of charge."
And from my local newspaper's website:
"The Service and its contents are protected by international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way any material from the Service, including code and software. You may download material from the Service for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices."
Nothing in there that says: "Except if you want to campaign a good cause and make money off of our COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY. Oh, then, it's okay!"
Again, my apologies to the other sane, understanding, rational members. This type of things just gets my goat and cow and pigs. Heck, the whole farm! J
The playlist starts on my PC but then gets stuck on the first news video, where Firefox does not read the .m3u8 file. When I put the URL of the .m3u8 file into the location window it displays the text of the .m3u8 file. I change the ending of the URL to media_b3659760_0001.ts and it asks what to do with it. I select Windows Media Player and it plays that segment of the clip.
Well, I figured out how to build a .wpl file that runs on my old Windows Media Player. The demo, featuring a video clip from a TV station that gave me permission, is at https://dwichannel.com/Playlist1.wpl
My old version of Windows Media Player does not run .m3u8 files and I don't know if newer versions do, but it runs .ts files. The player, happily, skips absent videos. I tested by modifying one URL to point at a non-existent .ts file. The player can also be set to loop.
The problem now is that the player pauses between the .ts files. Back to the old drawing board.
It is VERY easy to create a playlist of the external clips and play them locally.
But it does NOT work for your own videos because they are not streamable. So you work out how to create a m3u8 file for each local video to load from your site. I will not tell you how to create the playlist (just let Google be your friend)
But having said that, no one will be interested in downloading a file, play it locally and soon get dis-interested after viewing one or two at the most videos.
And there are also ways to create a 'menu' system so that only one video will play.
And this is not a copyright issue. It is a bandwidth-theft issue. And do you not think that the channels now do not have you in their sights and will sue you off the face of this earth by sharing these links ?
Yep. Jelly because unlike you, I have a sense of what's right, fair, moral and ethical.
You want your website to go viral. I hope it does. Not because of your message, but because of the underhanded, devious, unethical things you're doing.
Yeah, like trying to share a message like this. Look at the video. It aired for a whole two minutes and change on a station in Texas. Shame on me for trying to bring that couple's message to more at-risk viewers all over the country. https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/i-love-you-mama-mother-shares-last-text-from-h...3-6a495b9e492f
puppies and kittens which has a much relevance about your " Stealing from others, encouraging others to steal, being petty because the news stations asserted their rights, protecting their costly assets and protecting themselves against potential lawsuits, and your trying to profit off other's pain and suffering?"
As I stated earlier. I applaud your effort to bring and keep the issue in the public eye. What I disagree with are the methods of your effort, which I'm guessing the whopping 2% of those who voted for you may appreciate. Yes, information about just about anything is readily available to those with an interest. Oh wait, you mysteriously didn't link to your website from your campaign website. Hmmm...
Originally Posted by lingyi;2595361
And here's a video of [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCpsIS90F0"
Just paid my daily visit to the OP's site to see what changes he has made.
Of course his one video still (eventually after some delay due to pre-loading etc.) plays but the blonde does have some nice puppies
PS. This post works both on a PC and a Mac
Tom*, I spent over a decade consulting with Internet startups during the 1990s, and I learned to never judge too harshly anyone's ideas because often the entrepreneur could see an opportunity that I just didn't "get."
That said, I think you've got some pretty big issues.
1. Video hosting. It is pretty clear that you are a neophyte with limited experience in website design as well as the mechanics and engineering of a video hosting facility. Even if you have a commercial service host your videos, you need to be intimately familiar with the engineering issues. You have been using GLOWHOST.NET since July of this year. It is a cheap hosting service that I suspect may have issues delivering consistent video streaming. I had several issues while watching the demonstration on your main page.
You got throttled initially for exceeding the small file storage quota they provide, and you solved that by removing some of your video files. However, if you have any success at all driving traffic to your site, you'll soon get throttled for exceeding the bandwidth their TOS allows you. That will be a MUCH bigger problem because, if you start getting enough users to cause a bandwidth throttle, your site will go down just as your business is taking off, your users will abandon you, and you will fail.
2. Storage. You are going to need a lot of storage for even a modest amount of video. Low-end hosting companies can't provide what you'll need.
3. Copyright. You obviously understand the issue because your site says that the videos you host have permission from the copyright holder to be shown. However, getting permission from 1,000+ major market (top 200 cities) TV stations is going to be a long process and, as you have found, most of them will not give you a blanket license to stream their content. Each negotiation could take several months, requiring lots of letters, emails, and phone calls. You'll probably need to hire some sales reps to handle this.
But here is the big issue: if you violate copyright, you will get a cease and desist letter. If you ignore that, you WILL get sued. Even if things don't go that far, the smart lawyers representing the copyright holders will send copies of each cease and desist letter to the company that hosts your content, and it won't take more than two of these for your hosting service to shut you down.
My advice: since you know so little about hosting, you really should try to "prototype" your idea on YouTube where a few copyright strikes probably won't shut you down. YouTube also has the massive advantage of having all sorts of tools to help you drive traffic to your channel. By contrast, for every new website that gets "discovered" and goes viral, there are 100 that languish and disappear as soon as the annual hosting agreement expires.