RIAA finally asserts monopoly control over youtube content.

[Brickjectivity]

The public no longer has a public server that it can freely share videos from in youtube. The deal has changed. Now that it is well known and powerful, its suddenly unethical to download things. Sharing videos has to happen a different way, and if you want to share your content you must put it somewhere else.

Observe the notice served to those who would download videos from youtube:
github/dmca

If yt-dl is getting served then so are all the other downloading services...but wait. Downloading was part of youtube from the beginning...so what happened? Monopoly control of all entertainment is what happened. Betrayal of the public, as usual.

Far better that youtube should exclude Vimeo. Its a crap service anyway. Then maybe the Riaa can jump off of everyone's backs.

 

[McBell]

um...
what does this mean for the "average" user?

More specifically, what doe sit mean for users like myself, who only go to Youtube via web links from Google searches or to get a bigger version of an embedded video?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You Tube is just a bunch of control crazy sjws, politically correct idiots, and corporate shilling running the show now that has all but ruined the website for just about everyone who last gave a damm.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You Tube is just a bunch of control crazy sjws, politically correct idiots, and corporate shilling running the show now that has all but ruined the website for just about everyone who last gave a damm.

Its quite diverse politically. Maybe you're watching the wrong idiots.

 

[Rival]

You Tube is just a bunch of control crazy sjws, politically correct idiots, and corporate shilling running the show now that has all but ruined the website for just about everyone who last gave a damm.

I still find there's a good number of religious lectures and shows on there; I like those.

 

[Brickjectivity]

um...
what does this mean for the "average" user?

More specifically, what doe sit mean for users like myself, who only go to Youtube via web links from Google searches or to get a bigger version of an embedded video?

Not a lot, unless you want to download the video. It means that a lot of older videos will be treated like they are RIAA and youtube property.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I still find there's a good number of religious lectures and shows on there; I like those.

I agree but as you can see the algorithms and intrusive unskippable ads are unmistakably getting progressively worse shilling for their 'premium service'.

Its crazy administration needs to finally make You Tube a strict pay to view website from now on and just get it over with while everyone else will happily leave for a more open free venue.

 

[MNoBody]

are there any options, or does it just lead to this choke point?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You Tube is just a bunch of control crazy sjws, politically correct idiots, and corporate shilling running the show now that has all but ruined the website for just about everyone who last gave a damm.

YouTube was way better before Google bought it. They ruined it. Now it's just a soulless corporate abyss full of nihilistic, vapid fame whores.

 

[Twilight Hue]

YouTube was way better before Google bought it. They ruined it. Now it's just a soulless corporate abyss full of nihilistic, vapid fame whores.

The out of control stupid expressions on the thumbnails are reason enough alone to want to cram something into their dumb*** looking faces.

At least one person appears feels the same way.....

 

[Twilight Hue]

are there any options, or does it just lead to this choke point?

You need to have a good layer of teflon or just pay them money. Personally, I'm not keen on helping enrich people like that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree but as you can see the algorithms and intrusive unskippable ads are unmistakably getting progressively worse shilling for their 'premium service'.

Its crazy administration needs to finally make You Tube a strict pay to view website from now on and just get it over with while everyone else will happily leave for a more open free venue.

I've no problem paying and do pay for premium. They can't make it pay only though, because a lot of it belongs to the public, and the original deal was that videos would be available to all. They can only do that to newer videos (I think), legally. That's why this anti download strike is in a gray area to me. At frst its fine that everyone downloads the occasional video, but now its not unless you're paying premium and then only under XYZ conditions using their software etc. If it was in the beginning a pay service I'd consider it a different situation. This is more like seizing intellectual property which is in the public domain. Now...if they were to drop old videos then their premium service would not be in a gray area.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Have you guys tried Youtube's download service though? It confused me. I downloaded a video and it didn't save to my phone or anything. It just preloaded in the internet stream.

Sorry if I'm getting this wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not surprised. Just look at how cut-throat vicious the traditional "mass-mass" media have been with television and music broadcasting and usage rights. "Happy Birthday" only became public domain a few years ago (it's why restaurants wouldn't and couldn't sing it).
Digital media is even worse, because even if you pay for something you do not own it. The "Agree" button included a bit about how you agree to not own anything and instead you are paying for the privilege of use.

I've no problem paying and do pay for premium.

I have a spotify subscription (I basically haven't bought physical music media in many years unless it's a small/local band who actually gets the money), but I don't spend much time in front of a TV so the occasional splurge in HBO or Hulu or whatever is basically way better than video rental. Longer usage period, bigger selection, and truly no late fees (unless I forget to cancel). And since video rental stores are very rare now, this is how they make a new "conveyor belt" of money, with strict legal regulation to ensure as little money as possible can fall off and roll away.
It's like the stories of Robin Hood, with the RIAA, MGM, etc. all., being Princes Johns with their Lawyers of Nottingham

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've no problem paying and do pay for premium. They can't make it pay only though, because a lot of it belongs to the public, and the original deal was that videos would be available to all. They can only do that to newer videos (I think), legally. That's why this anti download strike is in a gray area to me. At frst its fine that everyone downloads the occasional video, but now its not unless you're paying premium and then only under XYZ conditions using their software etc. If it was in the beginning a pay service I'd consider it a different situation. This is more like seizing intellectual property which is in the public domain. Now...if they were to drop old videos then their premium service would not be in a gray area.

The thing is, it could shift monetization benefiting the content creator over to benefiting You Tube.

The only possible silver lining is if it eliminates the click bait garbage creators are putting out because there is no monetary motivation anymore.

They will thereafter have to find real jobs. Oh vey!