Content Ban-anza - YouTube to ban video uploads

[hobobobo]

so YouTube would finally become CompanyTube, sounds about right for a suicidal solutuion. YT got way too much inertia to just die off from 1 stupid decision, but the list of them is getting longer, and no force is infinite

 

By no means i think this is solely on yt, eu laws come in all flavors of awesome and awfull, but i find it hard to belive that this is the best solutuion yt was able to come up with. It looks more like a fu/challenge to the lawmakers then a real way forward

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, NotKalo said:

Soooooooooooooo, wont a VPN solve this?

Like: "ALL EU MEMBERS MUST HAVE THEIR MEDIA FILTERED"
A guy with a VPN: "I AM IN LATIN AMERICA SENIOUR, QUE?"

i was going to write the same, a vpn solves all this. They are no longer expensive either.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

So far Google has had totally free advertising platform including news (Google steals the news stories from other sites, posts them as their own and include their own ads and rarely even include link to the source because that would create traffic to the original site which may use other than Googles ad platform).

I thought it just opens up the site's mobile version....

[TacoSenpai]

9 hours ago, Shorty88jr said:

Never heard of bitchute before just checked it out it's cool. I had actually thought about making a p2p YouTube like service before but never got around to making a prototype or anything so it's cool to see the concept in use.

Yeah uploading to it is surprisingly fast and easy I've been trying it out myself as well.  I believe they are crowdfunding to develop their own comments since they currently use Disqus.  I know they just recently got around to adding the dark theme, playlists, and autoplay.  The search and tagging could use some work but the model is going strong I believe the platform is more than a year or two old.  It certainly has less issues than vidme had especially financially.

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, Mihle said:

You don't understand how the  laws work and what the  problem was.

What apple does doesn't affect other companies because they are the only one that can use IOS. If Google was the only one that could use Android and customize it, EU wouldn't have done anything. But what's Google did affects companies like Samsung without being fair.

 

 

I do understand how the law works. My point is that it shouldn't matter. It's a price of software that can be considered part of the operating system. There is no reason why them having chrome being apart of Android is an issue. The EU is just trying to find problems to solve. Also apple products can have other web browsers so it really makes no sense. I mean how about if they don't want to use chrome they go and build their own operating system. Again Windows still comes with edge by default and they haven't been fined recently. The whole idea that having android come with chrome is an antitrust issues is beyond rediculus. 

[suicidalfranco]

stop youtube access in from the EU

advertise new vpn that gives you access to rest of the world youtube

starts at 1,99/month

?????

Profit

 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Apple hasn't had a dominant market share.

 

Windows has specific anti-trust versions available in Europe and South Korea.

 

It does make sense to prohibit software bundling, as that's a way to abuse a monopoly. It's not fair competition between browsers if one is installed by default on most PCs.

 

Video freebooting is a big problem.

 

 

There's no requirement to scan in real time in the proposal.

 

(and it's not law yet)

It makes 0 sense to not allow software bundling. Now they are going to fine Microsoft for bundling snip it with Windows because it's unfair to other software that does the same thing. If they have a good enough product people will use it anyways. I mean look at Microsoft edge and how nobody uses it even though it comes with Windows. People just get chrome or Firefox because they are better. If Firefox and edge were good enough alternatives then people would use them on android simple as that. Saying that having chrome preloaded is an issue is just nonsense. Now they are going to go after Windows for having Windows defender because why not. Let's just make operating systems suck with no included software because competition. Again if they had blocked you from using diffrent browsers then yeah it would be an issue but simply having it come with chrome isn't. 

[Mihle]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I do understand how the law works. My point is that it shouldn't matter. It's a price of software that can be considered part of the operating system. There is no reason why them having chrome being apart of Android is an issue. The EU is just trying to find problems to solve. Also apple products can have other web browsers so it really makes no sense. I mean how about if they don't want to use chrome they go and build their own operating system. Again Windows still comes with edge by default and they haven't been fined recently. The whole idea that having android come with chrome is an antitrust issues is beyond rediculus. 

They should have fined MS for Windows, they do break the law in W10. Especially with regularly asking chrome users to switch to edge.

 

Microsoft have gotten a fine for it in a past, that's why windows 8 had a special version in Europe that didn't have media player and you could choose browser out of the box. Don't know why they haven't gotten a fine for W10 

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

It makes 0 sense to not allow software bundling. Now they are going to fine Microsoft for bundling snip it with Windows because it's unfair to other software that does the same thing. If they have a good enough product people will use it anyways. I mean look at Microsoft edge and how nobody uses it even though it comes with Windows. People just get chrome or Firefox because they are better. If Firefox and edge were good enough alternatives then people would use them on android simple as that. Saying that having chrome preloaded is an issue is just nonsense. Now they are going to go after Windows for having Windows defender because why not. Let's just make operating systems suck with no included software because competition. Again if they had blocked you from using diffrent browsers then yeah it would be an issue but simply having it come with chrome isn't. 

It took a decade to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the browser market, which they didn't win in the first place by having a better browser.

 

Edge is a new product, separate from IE, and the competitive market is completely different today - smartphones and tablets are a big deal now, and Microsoft has zero OS market share there.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Mihle said:

They should have fined MS for Windows, they do break the law in W10. Especially with regularly asking chrome users to switch to edge.

Yeah the asking part I think isn't ok but simply having it come standard is fine.

[Brooksie359]

23 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It took a decade to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the browser market, which they didn't win in the first place by having a better browser.

 

Edge is a new product, separate from IE, and the competitive market is completely different today - smartphones and tablets are a big deal now, and Microsoft has zero OS market share there.

It took better browsers being avaible to break that trend. The whole idea that you can't bundle software is asinine. They own the software's so why the he'll shouldn't they be able to have them loaded together? They aren't stopping People from using other browsers so I am unsure why the EU has a stick up butt about it.  People use other browsers than chrome on android. Goodie doesn't have a strangle hold on the mobile browser market they just have a good product. If other browsers were better then more people would use them. Again android is a software and it makes sense that it has more than one program that it comes with. The EU is trying to regulate things that aren't really an issue. 

[Syntaxvgm]

7 hours ago, NotKalo said:

Soooooooooooooo, wont a VPN solve this?

Like: "ALL EU MEMBERS MUST HAVE THEIR MEDIA FILTERED"
A guy with a VPN: "I AM IN LATIN AMERICA SENIOUR, QUE?"

Yes, but this might cause a problem for any existing channels what are int he region. I have no idea how that will work.

Honestly, fuck it fine. If this is what it takes for regular people to see the real harm in digital copyright laws, I do not care. Youtube is practically dead to me (with no replacement) anyway.

[Drak3]

43 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

which they didn't win in the first place by having a better browser.

They won by having the best price and the lack of competition that justified their prices.

[Sakkura]

21 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They won by having the best price and the lack of competition that justified their prices.

Lack of competition? So Javascript and NPAPI just appeared out of nowhere?

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Lack of competition? So Javascript and NPAPI just appeared out of nowhere?

Try again, and this time, read the whole thing.

[Sakkura]

17 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Try again, and this time, read the whole thing.

So you ran out of arguments, okay, good to know.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

So you ran out of arguments, okay, good to know.

The competition couldn't justify their prices. That's the key point you're ignoring?

[Sakkura]

27 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The competition couldn't justify their prices. That's the key point you're ignoring?

You said lack of competition. I addressed the lack of competition.

 

Pricing is an aspect of competition.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

and Microsoft has zero OS market share there

No surprise since both of their attempts were(actually 10 is still a unusable mess) a half @ssed bodge job...

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

You said lack of competition. I addressed the lack of competition.

 

Pricing is an aspect of competition.

So in short, you stopped reading half way through.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Thaldor said:

I could say Google is a bit bloating the problem because EU is actually killing off one of the Googles milking cows: Google News. So far Google has had totally free advertising platform including news (Google steals the news stories from other sites, posts them as their own and include their own ads and rarely even include link to the source because that would create traffic to the original site which may use other than Googles ad platform). And that's actually the meat of the whole directive. Article 13 and 15 are still in there and they are fearful, but the main meal is to stop news stealing.

 

Also Google should be very well informed that the whole directive still waits for dissection and article by article voting. Google is just trying to get people completely against the EU so that they can save the Google News which quite clearly (even by the standards of the US) is stealing and apparently very profitable for Google.

 

And on top of that if I read article 13 properly youtube already meets all the requirements to be absolved of legal repercussions.   In fact because of the DMCA in the US youtube is already well above and beyond the legal requirements of article 13.

[ZacoAttaco]

I’m more interested in the rapid increase of uploads to YouTube. They had to change something. Especially considering last I heard they still lose money on YouTube, it’s crazy the infrastructure YouTube is actually running.

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

So in short, you stopped reading half way through.

"Prices" is literally the last word in your post.

[Trik'Stari]

Let it happen.

 

We need an alternative to the likes of Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. If they want to cripple themselves, so be it.

 

As much as I might hate the EU (because it is a blatantly undemocratic organization that is a blatant violation of national sovereignty) and article 13, this could still cause something good to happen.

[LinusOnLine]

This is something that has been pushed through because of content owners demanding it. Your basic greed argument. The funny part is that the content owners are as usual shooting them selfs in the foot.