- November 20, 2009 1:28 pm
Just when you thought YouTube was becoming this all knowing all loving *now HD* online video giant, they go and pull some stupid crap like revoking the rights of countless 3rd party hardware and service partners by making their API’s off limits. Specifically, the new YouTube ToS prohibit anyone from using YouTube API’s if they are “created for use on television set top boxes, television game consoles, or video screens packaged and marketed as television sets”. Wow, asshole move there isn’t it? There are a ton of 3rd parties who use YouTube’s API’s and will therefore be hurt by this newfound douchery.
Mind you, not all 3rd parties are being excluded from using the API as there are a few exceptions. So far the “few exceptions” appear to be the likes of Sony’s Playstation 3, Nintendo’s Wii, TiVo, Panasonic, Samsung, and several other licensed partners are safe. So in the end it’s all about the money again. Unfortunately that leaves many start ups and innovative services such as the now YouTube-less “Popcorn Hour” (YouTube denial pictured above) out of luck and less one highly sought after feature.
So we have to ask, is this something related to a Google-based decision, or is it because of they’re new buddy buddy relationship with the various assholes in suits big recording labels?
Engadget
- November 19, 2009 10:39 am
Living in the UK and using the internet, particularly any type of torrent or P2P software/service whether legal or illegal is soon going to become a nightmare. The reason for the hoopala is because of an planned change to the Digital Economy Bill currently under debate by Pariliament. The person seeking those changes, Secretary of State Peter Mandelson, is aiming to create a “secondary legislation” that can amend laws and bills at will and without debate or approval from any other government party as long as it’s in the name of “copyright protection”. Bullshit. This guy is a f’ing idiot. It gets worse…
I often start posts regarding stupid copyright decisions and laws on a negative and cynical note. I figured why not switch it up — this one ends favorably for the accused. So, in the spirit of adventure and trying to always stay fresh, here it is: The accused in this story gets an apology and flowers…that’s it. Whew. Since that’s over, if you’d like to know the reasons why flowers and an apology were warranted, continue on…
How’s this for stupidity — Sandra Burt of Clackmannanshire, Scotland was contacted by the PRS (Performance Rights Society) because of her frequent “performances” at work. Mind you, the only reason she had to sing her days away was because the same organization contacted her employer and demanded a performance royalty for playing a radio within earshot of customers. (Let’s not even begin on how stupid a performance royalty is in the first place as content owners already have several other taxes and royalties that get levied before hand). Since her employers complied with the local Satan, Sandra had no other choice but to begin singing. All seemed well until she herself received a letter claiming she was to pay a performance fee for singing popular music to a crowd. The stupidity is overwhelming though unsurprising from such an organization.
Again, coming back to where we started, all ended up just fine and dandy for Sarah after a mountain of public uproar. After which the PRS sent dear Sandra another letter. This second letter sang a more apologetic tune for “a big mistake” and came complete with flowers to boot. How nice. The question however is how do these sorts of “big mistakes” even happen in the first place? Don’t these organizations of some sort of fact checking or system of checks and balances? Oh well, at least Sandra is free (literally) to sing ’til her hearts content without fear of prosecution.
Don’t you like happy endings…
Slashdot > BBC
Having a continence based guilt trip because you downloaded that one Hanson song back in the day that you had to have? Or, are you a full fledged pirate who is eschewing old ways of plunder and instead looking for a way to give back? Leak water from your eyes no more as Piracy Payback is here to help. Now, if you’re thinking what I think you’re thinking (follow that), yes this is real and no this is not a joke. Aiming to give back to artists and copyright owners, Piracy Payback users can donate to the site and have their donations given to the various labels. Drew K, the Australian proprietor of Piracy Payback got the idea back in the day when he couldn’t find one of his fave TV shows and instead turned to downloading it…illegally. Feeling bad, he wanted a way to repay someone for what he had done. Behold: Piracy Payback.
PP is a relative baby all things concerned as it was just launched in January of 2009. Again, the main purpose of the site is to donate money which PP turns around and gives to “beneficiaries”. Who are they? What label do they belong to? Which artists are actually getting accurately paid? All said details are in the dark as those involved don’t actually want people to know they’ve partnered with PP as they feel it would encourage further illegal file sharing ways. Besides paying back all of those artists you stole from, 12% of donations get held back for site upkeep. Hey, they have to make money somehow don’t they?
Personally I see this as a good idea…on paper. Translated into the real world however isn’t as promising. For one, I’m not about to give money to a company that I haven’t the slightest clue where my money is going. Not to mention such small problems as artist A getting more than artist B all while not knowing extremely important facts such as many times was artist A or B’s songs actually downloaded. You see, this is a an entirely too simple solution for an entirely too complex situation.
Finally, there’s this whole idea that big labels and content owners sipmly can’t get t hrough their think skulls, that is, simply slapping a price tag on any product or service has absolutely no correlation to value. If you’re product is deemed worthless of or little value by the public, no matter how valuable you feel it is, no one will pay. Create something actually worth consumers’ time or money and you have yourself a money tree.
More power to them. But they won’t see a dime of my money. What do you think? Good idea?
Ars Technica
Image Source
