Re: Doubleclick wont go away

[Ron Lopshire]

Ron Lopshire wrote:

> someone@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:24:00 GMT, Ron Lopshire <notron@ovbl.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>YouTube took over where Napster left off. Number One trafficker of
>>>pirated media content on the internet. YouTube cannot get sued out of
>>>existence fast enough for me.
>>
>>Thats weird, I have never seen ANYTHING pirated on Youtube, unless you
>>include some video clips from TV programs such as all the Superbowl
>>commercials they have had since the game.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ed&btnG=Search
> Short Version: http://************/2poeta
>
> Being a purveyor of pirated media content is a lot like being pregnant.
> Either you are, or you are not. There is no grey area.

Am I prophetic, or what? That's rhetorical. [bg]

YouTube expected to filter content

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm

BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.

MPC Thread
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3806465

K-Lite
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/...Codec_Pack.htm

ffdshow
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffdshow

YouTube Video Download Tool
http://www.techcrunch.com/get-youtube-movie/

I really don't see any reason to connect to Adobe's ad servers in order
to view content that probably isn't worth the trouble anyway.

Ron

[kurt wismer]

Ron Lopshire wrote:
[snip]
> YouTube expected to filter content

yeah, but not automagically...

> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm
>
> BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
> content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.

??? i'm pretty sure vlc does it natively...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

[Ron Lopshire]

kurt wismer wrote:
> Ron Lopshire wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>YouTube expected to filter content
>
>
> yeah, but not automagically...

But eventually it will be automatic, or they will go the way of Napster.
YouTube cannot continue to allow the hosting of pirated media content
indefinitely. Once the lawyers take notice of your activity, you are
screwed.

>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm
>>
>>BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
>>content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.
>
> ??? i'm pretty sure vlc does it natively...

Sure it does. And just like WMP, it allows content to be delivered from
Adobe's ad servers. Whether you want it or not. And whether you know it
or not. That is the point of using MPC --- no Spyware, no Adware, no
DRM, no BS.

Ron

[kurt wismer]

Ron Lopshire wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> YouTube expected to filter content
>>
>> yeah, but not automagically...
>
> But eventually it will be automatic, or they will go the way of Napster.
> YouTube cannot continue to allow the hosting of pirated media content
> indefinitely. Once the lawyers take notice of your activity, you are
> screwed.

i think you're misunderstanding their legal obligations under the
DMCA... they have an obligation to take down infringing content *when
they are notified of it's existence*... they are not obligated to police
the content of the site so long as they qualify for the safe harbour
exemptions (which sites such as that generally do)...

i think you're also misunderstanding what is technically possible... it
is not possible to identify infringing works algorithmically...
identical digital copies, sure, but copyright infringement covers a wide
array of things beyond the scope of identical digital copies...

if there is a move towards attempting automated filtering it won't be
because of legal pressure but rather as a way of appeasing hollywood so
as to enter into lucrative partnerships for online distribution of
commercial content...

>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm
>>>
>>> BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
>>> content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.
>> ??? i'm pretty sure vlc does it natively...
>
> Sure it does. And just like WMP, it allows content to be delivered from
> Adobe's ad servers. Whether you want it or not. And whether you know it
> or not. That is the point of using MPC --- no Spyware, no Adware, no
> DRM, no BS.

??? i must have missed something - vlc serves ads? are we talking about
the same vlc?

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

[Ron Lopshire]

kurt wismer wrote:

> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>kurt wismer wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>YouTube expected to filter content
>>>
>>>yeah, but not automagically...
>>
>>But eventually it will be automatic, or they will go the way of Napster.
>>YouTube cannot continue to allow the hosting of pirated media content
>>indefinitely. Once the lawyers take notice of your activity, you are
>>screwed.
>
> i think you're misunderstanding their legal obligations under the
> DMCA... they have an obligation to take down infringing content *when
> they are notified of it's existence*... they are not obligated to police
> the content of the site so long as they qualify for the safe harbour
> exemptions (which sites such as that generally do)...
>
> i think you're also misunderstanding what is technically possible... it
> is not possible to identify infringing works algorithmically...
> identical digital copies, sure, but copyright infringement covers a wide
> array of things beyond the scope of identical digital copies...
>
> if there is a move towards attempting automated filtering it won't be
> because of legal pressure but rather as a way of appeasing hollywood so
> as to enter into lucrative partnerships for online distribution of
> commercial content...

Come on, Kurt. These are the same arguments we saw from and about Napster.

"If we find pirated material, we remove it"

"If someone continues to upload pirated media content,
we will prohibit him/her from using our service."

"We don't have the resources to monitor every single
binary file that comes across our servers."

"It is not technologically feasible to automate the filtering."

This BS did not work for Napster, and it won't work for YouTube. Suffice
it to say that the lawyers always win.

If I continue to upload copyrighted material illegally to any server,
and the owner of the server does nothing more than remove the content,
the owner of the server is liable and will get sued. You cannot do this
with any other medium, why should the internet be any different? In the
end, of course, it won't be.

Once YouTube enters into these partnerships, it will lose its allure. If
YouTube's business model is legal (safe from the lawyers), why has no
one else copied it? It is, after all, the top site (with MySpace) on the
internet. ISTM that others would want a piece of that action.

Don't get me wrong, Kurt. I am in your court on this issue. I just don't
see any outcome other than that which happened with Napster. This
intellectual property BS has been going on since the beginning of the
20th century (1900). As an libertarian/anarchist, I have been following
the DCMA, RIAA, MPAA, DRM, issues for quite some time. As I said, it is,
and has always been, about the lawyers.

http://preview.************/3xzr6z

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. No business can
survive for long if all of their receipts go to pay their lawyers. Dirty
*******s.

>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm
>>>>
>>>>BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
>>>>content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.
>>>
>>>??? i'm pretty sure vlc does it natively...
>>
>>Sure it does. And just like WMP, it allows content to be delivered from
>>Adobe's ad servers. Whether you want it or not. And whether you know it
>>or not. That is the point of using MPC --- no Spyware, no Adware, no
>>DRM, no BS.
>
> ??? i must have missed something - vlc serves ads? are we talking about
> the same vlc?

VLC has ActiveX capability, among other things. Why would anyone with
half a brain allow a provider of media content to use ActiveX controls
on his or her computer? Which ports does VLC use when downloading
streaming media? IIRC, I could not use VLC without changing my setup.
Have you ever monitored the data transmission, in and out, when using
VLC for online content?

IIUC, VLC is just another media player like WMP, RealPlayer, and
Quicktime. Instead of being provided by greedy capitalistic *******s, it
is provided by open-source commie *******s. Is there really a
difference? [bg]

I will look into VLC again (I just downloaded it), and let you know. I
would really like to have an option other than just MPC. Remember, I
only play media content offline. That in and of itself eliminates most
of the BS. But it also precludes me from using most players with their
settings.

Ron

[kurt wismer]

Ron Lopshire wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
[snip]
>> i think you're misunderstanding their legal obligations under the
>> DMCA... they have an obligation to take down infringing content *when
>> they are notified of it's existence*... they are not obligated to police
>> the content of the site so long as they qualify for the safe harbour
>> exemptions (which sites such as that generally do)...
>>
>> i think you're also misunderstanding what is technically possible... it
>> is not possible to identify infringing works algorithmically...
>> identical digital copies, sure, but copyright infringement covers a wide
>> array of things beyond the scope of identical digital copies...
>>
>> if there is a move towards attempting automated filtering it won't be
>> because of legal pressure but rather as a way of appeasing hollywood so
>> as to enter into lucrative partnerships for online distribution of
>> commercial content...
>
> Come on, Kurt. These are the same arguments we saw from and about Napster.
>
> "If we find pirated material, we remove it"
>
> "If someone continues to upload pirated media content,
> we will prohibit him/her from using our service."
>
> "We don't have the resources to monitor every single
> binary file that comes across our servers."
>
> "It is not technologically feasible to automate the filtering."
>
> This BS did not work for Napster, and it won't work for YouTube. Suffice
> it to say that the lawyers always win.

the lawsuit against napster wasn't a simple cut-n-dry case and saying
youtube's situation is essentially the same (as you seem to be trying to
do) is a gross oversimplification...

napster 1.0 built it's business on copyright infringement, the court
found that there was no substantial non-infringing use of the service
and so they lost the case... youtube, on the other hand, came about
during the rise of user generated content - there really is a
substantial amount of non-infringing works on there (people actually
carry on video debates through the service, among other things)...

further, napster didn't always comply with the notice and take-down rule
of the dmca (which is a prerequisite for eligibility for the safe
harbour exemptions) whereas, to the best of my knowledge, youtube has...

> If I continue to upload copyrighted material illegally to any server,
> and the owner of the server does nothing more than remove the content,
> the owner of the server is liable and will get sued.

perhaps, but not for copyright infringement... notice and take-down is
what the dmca requires of service providers and is supposed to spare
them from liability for copyright violations by 3rd parties...

> You cannot do this
> with any other medium, why should the internet be any different? In the
> end, of course, it won't be.

i think you're being disingenuous with your use of the term medium
here... the only other comparable medium is the telephone network and
service providers definitely do not actively police the content of that
medium...

> Once YouTube enters into these partnerships, it will lose its allure. If
> YouTube's business model is legal (safe from the lawyers), why has no
> one else copied it?

???? *lots* of folks have copied it... including aol, yahoo, and
microsoft...

> It is, after all, the top site (with MySpace) on the
> internet. ISTM that others would want a piece of that action.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Kurt. I am in your court on this issue. I just don't
> see any outcome other than that which happened with Napster. This
> intellectual property BS has been going on since the beginning of the
> 20th century (1900). As an libertarian/anarchist, I have been following
> the DCMA, RIAA, MPAA, DRM, issues for quite some time. As I said, it is,
> and has always been, about the lawyers.
>
> http://preview.************/3xzr6z
>
> It will be interesting to see how this plays out. No business can
> survive for long if all of their receipts go to pay their lawyers. Dirty
> *******s.

considering google had their own video portal before, there would have
been no reason for them to pay billions for youtube if they thought they
were going to be pissing away all their profits on lawyers...

>>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16765777.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I am investigating using K-Lite or ffdshow such that I can view FLV
>>>>> content offline with Media Player Classic. It looks promising.
>>>> ??? i'm pretty sure vlc does it natively...
>>> Sure it does. And just like WMP, it allows content to be delivered from
>>> Adobe's ad servers. Whether you want it or not. And whether you know it
>>> or not. That is the point of using MPC --- no Spyware, no Adware, no
>>> DRM, no BS.
>> ??? i must have missed something - vlc serves ads? are we talking about
>> the same vlc?
>
> VLC has ActiveX capability, among other things.

ok, you've got me again - activex in vlc? huh? what on earth would it do
with it?

ok, according to their wiki it's for integrating with browsers (ie.
internet exploder) and is an optional install...

there's nothing in the wiki about adobe, however...

> Why would anyone with
> half a brain allow a provider of media content to use ActiveX controls
> on his or her computer?

only if that person was an ie user and wanted vlc integrated into their
browser...

> Which ports does VLC use when downloading
> streaming media?

the ports required by the streaming protocol(s) in question, i would
imagine...

> IIRC, I could not use VLC without changing my setup.
> Have you ever monitored the data transmission, in and out, when using
> VLC for online content?

no...

> IIUC, VLC is just another media player like WMP, RealPlayer, and
> Quicktime.

as is media player classic...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

[Ron Lopshire]

kurt wismer wrote:

> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>>You cannot do this
>>with any other medium, why should the internet be any different? In the
>>end, of course, it won't be.
>
> i think you're being disingenuous with your use of the term medium
> here... the only other comparable medium is the telephone network and
> service providers definitely do not actively police the content of that
> medium...

No, television, radio, periodicals, are subject to the same concerns. I
cannot use copyrighted material when I send a letter to an editor, call
a radio station, use public access TV, etc. Of course, this is rarely an
issue because it is not scrutinized as much as something like YouTube.

Here in the US, last January many radio stations were issued cease and
desist orders for using the copyrighted term "Super Bowl" in any of
their promos, and many were bleeping callers to certain radio programs
when they used the phrase. The NFL is entering a new paradigm when it
comes to their property. The DCMA and DRM issues are crossing over into
other areas, as everything can be construed as /digital/.

>>Once YouTube enters into these partnerships, it will lose its allure. If
>>YouTube's business model is legal (safe from the lawyers), why has no
>>one else copied it?
>
> ???? *lots* of folks have copied it... including aol, yahoo, and
> microsoft...

Then why did YouTube end up with the market share that it enjoys? The
others were around long before YouTube.

>>IIUC, VLC is just another media player like WMP, RealPlayer, and
>>Quicktime.
>
> as is media player classic...

But the differences are in the options. There are no features that I
don't want in MPC. I cannot say that about the others. As I said, I will
check out VLC.

Ron

[kurt wismer]

Ron Lopshire wrote:
> kurt wismer wrote:
>
>> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot do this
>>> with any other medium, why should the internet be any different? In the
>>> end, of course, it won't be.
>> i think you're being disingenuous with your use of the term medium
>> here... the only other comparable medium is the telephone network and
>> service providers definitely do not actively police the content of that
>> medium...
>
> No, television, radio,

this is where the disingenuous part comes in... television and radio are
not comparable to the internet - they are *broadcast* media... all
the content comes from the stations, they are solely responsible for
it... the internet is a communications medium... the content comes from
users (sometimes users are corporations but sometimes they're
individuals too) and so it's the *users* who are responsible for it...

> periodicals, are subject to the same concerns.

periodicals are also not a communications medium, they are a publication
medium - the publisher is responsible for the content...

> I
> cannot use copyrighted material when I send a letter to an editor,

false - you *can* use copyrighted material when you send a letter to the
editor... the editor simply cannot publish it...

> call
> a radio station, use public access TV, etc. Of course, this is rarely an
> issue because it is not scrutinized as much as something like YouTube.

just because call-in radio and public access tv has content produced by
common folk doesn't mean they the broadcaster isn't responsible for that
content... they solicited the content... it's still a broadcast medium
and as such requires different treatment than a communications medium...

[snip]
>>> Once YouTube enters into these partnerships, it will lose its allure. If
>>> YouTube's business model is legal (safe from the lawyers), why has no
>>> one else copied it?
>> ???? *lots* of folks have copied it... including aol, yahoo, and
>> microsoft...
>
> Then why did YouTube end up with the market share that it enjoys? The
> others were around long before YouTube.

since aol, yahoo, and microsoft are copying youtube it stands to reason
that youtube was around before their copies... being earlier to market
counts...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"

[Moderator]

kurt wismer <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> this is where the disingenuous part comes in... television and radio
> are not comparable to the internet - they are *broadcast* media...
> all the content comes from the stations, they are solely responsible for
> it... the internet is a communications medium...

BWAHAhAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LMAO

> periodicals are also not a communications medium, they are a
> publication medium - the publisher is responsible for the content...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Ron Lopshire]

kurt wismer wrote:

> Ron Lopshire wrote:
>
>> ... why did YouTube end up with the market share that it enjoys? The
>>others were around long before YouTube.
>
> since aol, yahoo, and microsoft are copying youtube it stands to reason
> that youtube was around before their copies... being earlier to market
> counts...

Of course. But IIRC (I no longer use any AOL or Yahoo! services),
content similar to that offered on YouTube had been offered by these
services long before YouTube, but never really took off. As you point
out, it is all marketing.

I was using this long before YouTube took off.

http://www.viralx.com/

And that was with /dial-up/ ... a lot of planning involved. LOL.

And you are absolutely correct about Google buying YouTube. Google did
not become the behemoth that it is by making stupid business decisions.

Ron