From Pin Eight
Revision as of 02:21, 25 May 2018 by Tepples (talk | contribs) (Tepples moved page User talk:Eighty5cacao/misc/copyrobeast to Talk:Copyrobeast: Ready for prime time now, I believe)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Scratch work: On Magibon's YouTube Partnership[edit]

Claim: Magibon had already lost her YouTube Partnership when she uploaded 蝶 ~Butterfly~.
Evidence: Said video lacks advertising (equivalently, it loads successfully in the HTML5 player), which is not true of any of her other videos.
I will still try to work Maru into the essay somewhere. Eighty5cacao 21:11, 25 April 2012 (MST)
On Oct. 22, Magibon uploaded video #55 of the main mu series. No word on any new attempts to apply for a Partnership; nor have I verified the HTML5 playability of that video, but the request list shown by Adblock Plus suggests that some monetization is going on. Eighty5cacao 21:29, 2 November 2012 (MST) (last edit 14:08, 5 November 2012 (MST))

All the above is outdated; almost everything is playable via HTML5 on modern browsers, so that doesn't mean much by itself. What is evident is that no yellow dots indicating the times of ads show up on the seek bar for any of Magibon's videos. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Even NASA is not safe[edit]

NASA's Mars rover crashed into a DMCA takedown --Tepples 18:28, 6 August 2012 (MST)

Routine link maintenance: Eighty5cacao (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Too big to fail[edit]

Yahoo! News story referring to YouTube as too big to fail Eighty5cacao 17:28, 17 August 2012 (MST) (// on 07:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

YouTube Alters Copyrobeast[edit]

From Wired via Slashdot: YouTube Alters Copyright Algorithms, Will 'Manually' Review Some Claims. See also YouTube Copyfraud on --Tepples 16:42, 4 October 2012 (MST)

An update to the Slashdot story states: "Google has clarified its earlier comments. The user videos will be placed in a queue for manual review not by Google, but by the content owners" (emphasis and external link theirs). So in my best judgment, the threat is still present. --Eighty5cacao 23:13, 6 October 2012 (MST) or[edit]

Your comment about Dailymotion gave me an idea:

If you have a web site, do consider encoding your videos to WebM or MPEG-4 and displaying them on your own web site using HTML5 video or Flowplayer.

For example, draft versions of a video of a game I'm working on were posted here first. Good or bad idea? --Tepples (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds ok. I meant to specifically put in a comment saying that personal websites (and services like Dropbox, SpiderOak etc.) are a TODO to be mentioned, but I forgot.
For what it's worth, the reason I mentioned Dailymotion specifically was its relatively liberal content policies (similar to YouTube, as opposed to Vimeo which forbids gameplay videos, or Blip which is mainly for serial shows). Also, Dailymotion supports HTTPS almost as well as YouTube, without a requirement for login or premium membership (but some bugs affecting embedded videos have led to its HTTPS Everywhere ruleset being disabled by default).
As for "abuse of my own definition," the specific incident was this edit summary. For context, some GameCenter CX fansub groups have been moving their work to Dailymotion after Fuji TV started broadly enforcing its copyrights on YouTube. (I should try writing about the value of GameCenter CX as a tool to help game developers understand the difference between "good" and "bad" difficulty, but I digress.) --Eighty5cacao (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The wording "almost as well as YouTube" may need reconsidering now that YouTube is starting to implement HTTPS support for video streams. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Fuji Television has made some attempts to enforce its GameCenter CX copyright on Dailymotion as well; the fansub group in question is moving to two other video hosts (I'd prefer not to disclose which ones, at least until I know everything is settled).

It's worth mentioning the possibility of using a general-purpose file host; for example, ZetaPlays temporarily used SpiderOak with a Flash player of unknown origin after a spurious suspension of his YouTube account. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's joke; don't panic[edit]

original title: The Copyrobeast won

The Copyrobeast lost a couple battles but may have won the war. Though Veoh and Google successfully defended themselves in lawsuits from IO Group and Viacom challenging the scope of OCILLA protection for service providers, it proved so costly that Veoh went bankrupt three years ago and Google is planning to shut down YouTube this April. Google is trying to cover it up by announcing that YouTube has been an eight-year contest to find the best short film. But how many people will this coverup fool? --Tepples (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not me. I read about it on Daily of the Day first (though I suppose that's cheating?...) --Eighty5cacao (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Manual counterpart to Content ID confirmed[edit]

It is confirmed that certain large copyright owners have access to the "Content Management System", which allows the copyright owner to manually claim and block a particular video without using the automated Content ID system or the formal OCILLA process.(ref)Mike Masnick. "An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload's Video". Techdirt, 2011-12-16. Accessed 2013-05-21.(/ref) --Tepples (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged - it will take me some time to reword the page so as to make clear my knowledge of this. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this edit of mine was meant to address the issue, but Tepples later judged it inadequate (in light of new news?). --Eighty5cacao (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ready for mainspace[edit]

Any objections to taking this article into mainspace? --Tepples (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say yes, given that this page is about a neologism and expresses some of my personal opinions (is there a wiki-wide policy about either?). I admit that I can't come up with any strong objection. You might want to re-draft in your userspace first...? (At least the "Note on terminology" section should be moved to my top-level userpage. I'll do that ASAP.) --Eighty5cacao (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the TODO mentioned above has been done, and I have no objections that relate to the quality of the content. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
So should we explicitly include a disclaimer (using the word loosely) about this term being a neologism? --Eighty5cacao (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Robo Roll follow-up[edit]

There probably would have been a better place to post this (Talk:Songs that sound alike?) but...

This Robo Roll demo mentioned on the NESdev forums was misidentified by Content ID as an entirely different meme-worthy song (You Spin Me Round (Like A Record)). --Eighty5cacao (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Template for neologisms[edit]

Once we have one more article or draft about a neologism, would it be worth creating a template similar to {{WMG}} and {{or is good}} to warn readers?

To what extent does "Android pod touch" count as a neologism? --Eighty5cacao (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that neologisms would make a good category. But I'm not sure filling half the height of the screen with hatnotes (OR/WMG/rant, nutshell, neologism, and what next?) is a good idea. --Tepples (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wikipedia normally applies such categories via templates. What about giving all these templates a |msg= parameter to control whether the transclusion produces a visible box, with the default being "yes" for {{WMG}} and {{or is good}} and "no" for any template for neologisms? --Eighty5cacao (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Link dump[edit]

YouTube Flags Cat Purring as Copyright Infringing Music - TorrentFreak --Eighty5cacao (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals... Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background - Techdirt --Eighty5cacao (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Casualty of YouTube’s “Contractual Obligations”: Users’ Free Speech - Electronic Frontier Foundation --Eighty5cacao (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical sanctions against viewers[edit]

My mind has often toyed with the idea that several years from now, merely attempting to watch a YouTube video unavailable for copyright reasons may lead to sanctions against the IP or account. I am unaware of any evidence that Google is considering such a (mis)feature. IANAL, and I know you aren't either, so I'm not going to guess (or ask for guesses) about the legal justifications or lack thereof; all I can say is that comments/questions are welcome. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC) (subsequent minor edits: 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

Content ID for white noise[edit]

And there goes the canary. Content ID just found five matches in ten hours of white noise.[ref]Chris Baraniuk. "White noise video on YouTube hit by five copyright claims". BBC News, 2018-01-05. Accessed 2018-01-05.[/ref] --Tepples (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged; no response other than that I am no longer actively maintaining this page. --Eighty5cacao (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)