I grew up using YouTube as a nerdy kid before it got bought by Google.
I can tell you that the platform was at its best when people made things that could be enjoyed as pieces in their own right.
Whether it was animation, machinima, recording something interesting, or amateur films, there was an imperative to simply express yourself and sitting in front of a camera theorizing about stuff or rattling off news wouldn't get you anywhere.
It's becoming just another outlet for professional production, the exact opposite of what it was made to do.
I think YouTube as an idea died the moment engagement and consumption became more of a focus than creation
Ah but you left out a step. A breathlessly lauded "creator" would have to film a piece of Yellowstone, and claim to all that their work is of such "cultural significance" to our country.
The fact that a national park is involved is irrelevant. The creators reign is absolute
I can't help but remember a Peter Sunde interview I read a while ago. He was talking about how he hoped that Trump would win the election because he feels society needs to suffer a shock sufficient to open their eyes. While I don't believe copyright was the focus of the statement, I do wonder what state Hollywood would be in if this does pass. Yes the Internet would conform to their long desired view but... it's one thing to be vilified by the Internet for a bad law until the law is defeated. It's quite another to take what's left of the open internet away (and openly claim credit). I think if this passes, Hollywood is going to be dealing with backlash from a million times more people than it does now. The tech activists will no longer be shouting in a vaccum and people may think twice about seeing that awesome new blockbuster or listening to the latest mass produced crap that passes for music.
If Hollywood wanted to piss off "average consumers", a long term change like this is the best way to do it.
Do you have any basic understanding of economics?
I mean I can understand the desire to rationalize the spending after the fact, justify it but... let's say you get 500 channels for 100 dollars. That's 5 dollars per channel per month.
The fragmented streaming services cost 10/15 bucks per "channel", and so for the same amount, you get less choice and comparatively few options.
You're getting a bad deal from the price/content ratio and the tech industry at large's obsession with recurring revenue is only going to get worse. Want a truly good deal? Buy your media physically, make a backup, and rest assured it'll always be there for you to watch. Or torrent it.
But don't pretend just because you're "choosing what you pay for" that separate, multiple recurring rev subs are a good deal. Economically it's worse than cable
Exactly.
For all the pontificating out there about banning "hate speech", one needs to look no further than 9/11 and the FBI, NSA, Jim Clapper, etc to see the reality of reactionary laws impacting civil liberties in a broad way.
5% of the time it'll be used to shut up WBC, Infowars and the nuts
95% of the time it'll be used to police a new definition of "un American activities". An encrypted phone, for example, might contain "hate speech". By god people are naive. The problem isn't the law, it's the agencies tasked with enforcing and "interpreting" the law.
That's also an oversimplification. All modern day Apple has ever done is copy.
Chinese companies didn't replace the iPhone because of marketing skill, not invention.
There are a number of phones and portables with much superior build quality and hardware than Apple, Samsung and co ever have pushed out. Take Archos for example. They came out with the first HDD mp3 player, the Jukebox, a year before the iPod. The Archos 5 Internet Tablet was the first Android tablet ever to exist, and camw out 2 years before the iPad. The Archos 9 was the first and sadly one of the only full x86 PC tablets.
I'd say this is even stupider than Yoshidas claim about online multiplayer costs being about "delivering a better service and receive[ing] proper payment
I think you've touched on a particularly sad phenomenon.
He's here defending society's laws when society is likely what screwed him over in the first place.
On this site and many others... I've found overwhelming evidence the type of people that do these kinds of things do so for one reason: they've actually got decent sized intelligence and don't have an outlet for it. I've actually had a long and interesting conversation at one point with someone who was trolling like this guy and it became clear that he wasn't so much trying to impress people or force a particular viewpoint, actually he said he didn't even much agree with the point he was plugging
It was because while he had so much mental ability, socially he really sucked.
So he figured any impact was better than accepting his irrelevance.
You might ask why I devoted so much time to understanding these people and the answer is simple: I lead a similar type of life, hermit coder and author, freelance work to keep my head above water.
I was lucky enough to build a relatively small, stable social circle, find someone who accepted me and build a life together but I understand what it feels like not to even have that.
I think it's not something to be mocked, as great as the temptation is.
Some people choose isolation, some people have it forced on them. When that happens you can accept it, and learn to live your life free of concern of others opinions, or you can do something like this.
I honestly feel bad for the guy
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by AngelTheReaper.
Re: Cry all you want
I grew up using YouTube as a nerdy kid before it got bought by Google.
I can tell you that the platform was at its best when people made things that could be enjoyed as pieces in their own right.
Whether it was animation, machinima, recording something interesting, or amateur films, there was an imperative to simply express yourself and sitting in front of a camera theorizing about stuff or rattling off news wouldn't get you anywhere.
It's becoming just another outlet for professional production, the exact opposite of what it was made to do.
I think YouTube as an idea died the moment engagement and consumption became more of a focus than creation
Re: Copyfraud is worse than Copyright Infringement
Ah but you left out a step. A breathlessly lauded "creator" would have to film a piece of Yellowstone, and claim to all that their work is of such "cultural significance" to our country.
The fact that a national park is involved is irrelevant. The creators reign is absolute
I can't help but remember a Peter Sunde interview I read a while ago. He was talking about how he hoped that Trump would win the election because he feels society needs to suffer a shock sufficient to open their eyes. While I don't believe copyright was the focus of the statement, I do wonder what state Hollywood would be in if this does pass. Yes the Internet would conform to their long desired view but... it's one thing to be vilified by the Internet for a bad law until the law is defeated. It's quite another to take what's left of the open internet away (and openly claim credit). I think if this passes, Hollywood is going to be dealing with backlash from a million times more people than it does now. The tech activists will no longer be shouting in a vaccum and people may think twice about seeing that awesome new blockbuster or listening to the latest mass produced crap that passes for music.
If Hollywood wanted to piss off "average consumers", a long term change like this is the best way to do it.
Re: Re: Re: yeah but...
Do you have any basic understanding of economics? I mean I can understand the desire to rationalize the spending after the fact, justify it but... let's say you get 500 channels for 100 dollars. That's 5 dollars per channel per month. The fragmented streaming services cost 10/15 bucks per "channel", and so for the same amount, you get less choice and comparatively few options. You're getting a bad deal from the price/content ratio and the tech industry at large's obsession with recurring revenue is only going to get worse. Want a truly good deal? Buy your media physically, make a backup, and rest assured it'll always be there for you to watch. Or torrent it. But don't pretend just because you're "choosing what you pay for" that separate, multiple recurring rev subs are a good deal. Economically it's worse than cable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. For all the pontificating out there about banning "hate speech", one needs to look no further than 9/11 and the FBI, NSA, Jim Clapper, etc to see the reality of reactionary laws impacting civil liberties in a broad way. 5% of the time it'll be used to shut up WBC, Infowars and the nuts 95% of the time it'll be used to police a new definition of "un American activities". An encrypted phone, for example, might contain "hate speech". By god people are naive. The problem isn't the law, it's the agencies tasked with enforcing and "interpreting" the law.
Re: Re: Re: Drag on Innovation
That's also an oversimplification. All modern day Apple has ever done is copy. Chinese companies didn't replace the iPhone because of marketing skill, not invention. There are a number of phones and portables with much superior build quality and hardware than Apple, Samsung and co ever have pushed out. Take Archos for example. They came out with the first HDD mp3 player, the Jukebox, a year before the iPod. The Archos 5 Internet Tablet was the first Android tablet ever to exist, and camw out 2 years before the iPad. The Archos 9 was the first and sadly one of the only full x86 PC tablets.
I'd say this is even stupider than Yoshidas claim about online multiplayer costs being about "delivering a better service and receive[ing] proper payment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an aside, it's even more sad if people like this have something seriously beneficial to offer but lack the social ability to get it off the ground
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you've touched on a particularly sad phenomenon. He's here defending society's laws when society is likely what screwed him over in the first place. On this site and many others... I've found overwhelming evidence the type of people that do these kinds of things do so for one reason: they've actually got decent sized intelligence and don't have an outlet for it. I've actually had a long and interesting conversation at one point with someone who was trolling like this guy and it became clear that he wasn't so much trying to impress people or force a particular viewpoint, actually he said he didn't even much agree with the point he was plugging It was because while he had so much mental ability, socially he really sucked. So he figured any impact was better than accepting his irrelevance. You might ask why I devoted so much time to understanding these people and the answer is simple: I lead a similar type of life, hermit coder and author, freelance work to keep my head above water. I was lucky enough to build a relatively small, stable social circle, find someone who accepted me and build a life together but I understand what it feels like not to even have that. I think it's not something to be mocked, as great as the temptation is. Some people choose isolation, some people have it forced on them. When that happens you can accept it, and learn to live your life free of concern of others opinions, or you can do something like this. I honestly feel bad for the guy