Am I the only one who's noticed how many YouTube videos of musical performances no longer have audio tracks…? One (at this point…) wonders why? (Two or more may be forthcoming… :) )
(But I'll give them -Google- credit: The ads are muted too!)
For instance this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDfHvIFwiU) should be readily available, no? :) When I was a kid, she was a star — even more-so than Whitney Houston!
I find it hard to believe that copyright squabbles keep so much from being streamed… But I could be wrong.
Likewise, if copyright lawyers/owners think they're going to make more money by not playing the music, they're delusional.
What say you? Is this copyright protection…?
For instance this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDfHvIFwiU) should be readily available, no?
Is it because of the country you try to access it from Oakdale as it's working fine here. Quite enjoyable too. :up:
There may be a valid reason for censorship of current releases, they have to earn a living after all. But for something that old it is just dumb.
What say you? Is this copyright protection...?
No, they're just getting rid of audio for fun. ;)
Likewise, if copyright lawyers/owners think they're going to make more money by not playing the music, they're delusional.
Of course for artists obscurity is a bigger problem than piracy, but ad-based piracy
is real. Although apparently if it's in YouTube's content ID system then it will automatically give the right owners a share of the ad revenue. So I imagine those that opt not to have their content on YouTube at all have decided they don't like whatever cut YT takes. Which is their right, plain and simple.
Incidentally, the material you linked is readily available here. There must be weird copyright-related georestrictions in place. They're very, very annoying.
Incidentally, the material you linked is readily available here.
Yep.
However, I agree that it should have no sound for Oakdale. Rich Americans should be forced to buy it, such is capitalism. :D
Oops! It wasn't a copyright issue or censorship… Just stupidity on my part: I'd somehow clicked mute on the YouTube control. :)
A decade ago I uploaded a video on YT and after a while it removed the audio because you could hear part of some song. So it's definitely something they do in lieu of taking down a video entirely.
Thought you referred to this sort of thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_li_d_YviZ4
Clicking at Oak's link in Florida, it plays okay. Weird georestrictions indeed.
Edit: Ah, I see he fixed the problem on his end :)
Yeah: Put my reading glasses on… :)
Some mitigating circumstances, though: The buttons on my mouse seldom work anymore. Quite frustrating! (After I do what I can to fix my car, I'll buy a new one.)
Maybe a self driving car might be more suitable for you hermit man?
Have you ever owned a car, RJ? :)
You know, don't you, that the things cost money? No; of course you don't. They grow on government trees…
No never been interested in a car as it happens. As for things rowing on trees that is what the millions of poor in the ex-colonies need.
YouTube is changing a bit. Live streaming is showing how broken the copyright claim/appeal process is. They seem to be handling it better but we should see content shifts over the next year or so. What can be monetized has changed. Sponsors don't want their ads on some content, understandably. It'll take some time to reach an equilibrium. Some content providers don't rely as heavily on AdSense (Google YouTube) for money. Other's will have to adapt or die off. And still nothing stopping people that don't monetize.
Wouldn't make me mad to have less clickbaity idiot fuel on my feed. Many have took a page from rj's book of censorship and started crying and calling out abuses. I don't see making YouTube vids as a sustainable business model anyway. I don't watch ads. But a more modern consideration of "fair use" needs to be defined and we may get it yet. YouTube has started backing it's content providers more.
As for things rowing on trees that is what the millions of poor in the ex-colonies need.
Did you know that 2,300,00 children live in poverty in UK (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33266799)? There are "millions" of poor over there as well. Why is your country such a cesspool of poverty, with millions in poverty and losing their homes relying on the dole for survival? :( Such a sad state of affairs, this filth and squalor of your "millions" in poverty :( Neither Labour nor Conservative seem either willing or able to do anything about, being corporates and all. You're governed by a coalition that seems intent on keeping your "millions" of poor down only to enrich themselves. Pitiful :cry: Won't somebody please think of the children getting bitten by rats? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9914712/Girl-bitten-by-foot-long-rat-as-she-slept.html) :( :( :( or at all? :cry:
Such a sad state of affairs, this filth and squalor of your "millions" in poverty
I believe some nonsense about access to TV's and cell phones as the prelude to him praising himself over his charity work would be the standard response.
A life-long civil "servant" praising himself for charity work…? It boggles the mind! :) But is quite to be expected.
Closer to the truth, he himself has been a charity case for most of his life. He's a cog, and he's happy with that — except for his frustrations, of which he has many. He's inordinately proud of his "wider" democracy but extremely upset that not everyone agrees with him…which is childish behavior, no?