Slashdot Mirror
Hiding in Plain Sight: The YouTubers' Crowdfunding Piracy (engadget.com)
Some YouTube channels are publishing full-length episodes of TV shows, rights of which they obviously do not own, and on top of this, they are trying to crowdfund their piracy efforts by asking viewers to donate some cash. From a report: YouTube creators asking for money is nothing new, be it through the site's built-in membership features or third-party services such as Patreon. But trying to profit off someone else's intellectual property isn't the same as asking for support on an original video they've created. The person who runs the Kitchen Nightmares Hotel Hell and Hell's Kitchen channel did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Engadget, but their Patreon page (named YoIUploadShows) isn't coy.
"Hey! It's not as easy as you might think to make my content, I have to look for the best quality episodes I can find, download them, convert them, edit them, render them and upload them," YoIUploadShows' Patreon page reads. "This can sometimes take at least a few hours. Especially because the downloads are usually slow and the rendering itself can take a couple hours, because I started making all my uploads in HD instead of 480p to give them a little extra clarity." It's not easy, folks, so for that he or she "would really appreciate the extra support if you have any money to spare :)"
"Hey! It's not as easy as you might think to make my content, I have to look for the best quality episodes I can find, download them, convert them, edit them, render them and upload them," YoIUploadShows' Patreon page reads. "This can sometimes take at least a few hours. Especially because the downloads are usually slow and the rendering itself can take a couple hours, because I started making all my uploads in HD instead of 480p to give them a little extra clarity." It's not easy, folks, so for that he or she "would really appreciate the extra support if you have any money to spare :)"
So the US will have to seek extradition for a lot more "criminals" now to make law enforcing fair with Kim Dotcom, right?
I don't have a problem with this, of course Youtube will move mountains to find out how to sue them now that the "offense" has been exposed in the light, of course.
Yeah, random piracy is definitely the most important and relevant crowdfunding story right now, especially involving Patreon and Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...where I take this yutz's content and ask you to hit the "Click to Give" link at...
https://thehungersite.greaterg... ...would that be wrong?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Why would YouTube sue them? YouTube just cuts them off, and moves on.
Now the Copyright owners will go after Patreon. Enjoy piracy, it has costs.
The cable companies don't even do that much work. If we can pay for cable to give us the episodes, then why not a youtube channel.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Yeah. Its free. That is the best part.
Second best thing, easier to find things on the pirate sites.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
... what corporations have been doing to us via lobbying and inserting defects into software like games and OS's and calling them a "service".
The reality is out world is a hive of criminal and villainy and most people are too stupid to notice or do something about it.
Where did that stray apostrophe come from?
Does msmash need remedial English classes?
Picking Kitchen Nightmares as an example, it appears I can view the series online for free on an official venue. That is, the content is out there and not stuck behind a paywall. So if you see someone uploading it to YouTube then are they stealing ad revenue from IP holders or are they providing a competing service? Because last I knew, the Republican wet dream is a clever individual forming his/her own business in direct competition to a larger one, and consumers being able to decide for themselves which entity to support - you know, "free market" and all that other fantasy bullshit.
Somehow I don't think that's how it will be interpreted. For some totally inexplicable reason, the ideal of startups and young entrepreneurs seems to go out the window when they start to compete with the businesses who can buy politicians and other talking heads.
(To be clear, I'm talking about the case of free content. I don't have the same opinion of people uploading HBO or other paid shows.)
At least I have a way of seeing some of my episodes. Thanks uploader! Here, have 5 bux.
Looking through my youtube recommendations I don't see any infringing videos. I like small time original content like covers to popular songs, but I have to download them because they keep disappearing. Check out this guy with 350 subscribers covering Elton John: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For what? Patreon has done absolutely nothing wrong. Anyone can create a Patreon account for any reason whatsoever and nothing illegal occurs on their site.
Do the crime.
When you "pirate" Bladerunner, you're not hurting RIdley Scott or Harrison Ford.
You're not hurting the head makeup artist, the best boy or the gaffer.
You are hurting the media megacorp, who's trickle-down model is a ripoff for everyone.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Movie Studios c. 1970s: We can't let TV stations broadcast our movies - then nobody would go to the theaters anymore and we'd loose money! .... studios start licensing movies like The Wizard of Oz to be broadcast on TV and raking in cash...
Movie Studios c. 1980s: We can't let people rent movies on VHS - then nobody would go to the theaters anymore and we'd loose money! .... studios start selling VHS versions of movies for $80, raking in cash....
Movie Studios c. 1990s: We can't let people buy cheap movies on VHS - we have to make them expensive so people will rent them! .... studio sells Jurassic Park for $20 on release day, rakes in tons of cash...
Movie Studios c. 2000s: Digital copying is going to kill off movies! We're loosing our shirts! .... studios start selling DVDs for $10 as duplication prices come down, raking in even more money than VHS sales....
Movie Studios c. 2010s: We can't STREAM movies! We make all our money on....
It's almost as if the easier and cheaper you make it for people to buy your stuff, MORE PEOPLE WILL BUY YOUR STUFF.
Okay, so the old scammers are trying some new wrinkles to get money, but does it cross the threshold to be actual news? I don't think so, unless maybe you're a glutton for sad stories.
If the google wanted to decriminalize YouTube, they've had years of brilliance to come up with solutions. Obviously the google don't care. They must be making money from supporting the criminals or they would stop supporting the criminals. The only "law" at today's google is "All your attention are belong to us!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(I actually reached that conclusion some years ago after a dinner and drinks with a coworker who'd switched to the google. Not long after that he blackholed me. What's that newfangled term for it? Pretending someone doesn't exist anymore?)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is like making money from repairing or detailing cars. You did not make the car, but that does not mean that the car manufacturer should get the money paid for services on the car. Here people are paid not for the videos, but the work they do in gathering them and cleaning them up to make them presentable.
So let me guess, they're not just pirating content, they're using someone else's pirated content as the starting point to make their pirated content. And they expect people to give them money for that, when the bulk of the effort was time a computer spent chugging away unattended? Might as well mine Bitcoin if that's so much of a burden. Damn GoFundMe generation expects people to throw money at them for doing practically nothing except breaking laws and violating rules.
Wow, so basically this person is more or less admitting they're engaging in copyright infringement for monetary gain by indicating they wish to be compensated for their time pirating someone else's work? Damn!
I don't see this ending well for that person, this is about as blatant as you can get.
Pretty much YouTube and Patreon are going to have to hand over anything and everything they have when a lawyer comes knocking.
And if punishment is based on per infringement, the view counts are going to make this even bigger ... if they've got even a few hundred thousand views, they're fucked.
Cue the hordes of shrieking lawyers.
I want to hear how this plays out, asking for people to crowd fund you pretty much tips you into the scary end of the reaming you're gonna get for this. This is now literally someone the content owner is going want to make an example of, and in a hard way.
Good lord, this is not going to end well.
Bullshit. What is there to edit? You download the episode off Bittorrent at about 5 minutes per episode on a decent connection, upload that file to YouTube. Be honest and just say you want us to pay your connection bills + as much extra cash as you can get out of this, but don't bullshit us or seriously rethink your workflow.
When you "pirate" Bladerunner, you're not hurting RIdley Scott or Harrison Ford.
I like the fact I have all the different versions of Blade Runner, not just the theatrical cut. Those only exists because of DVD sales.
Better if we all moved to a model of crowdfunding movies, of course, and left "copyright" behind.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So, the shows themselves are in ~480p, and the uploader thinks it looks better if converted over to HD? Wasn't there a recent post here saying how upscaling HD causes distortion in the properly made film?
Plus can't the uploader use the computer to do something else while the encoding proceeds? It's not like it's being encoded on a uni-tasking operating system like MS-DOS.
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
So theft is Ok, if you really hate the victim? How about rape? Is it Ok to rape a CEO of a "megacorp who's [sic] trickle-down model is a ripoff for everyone"? How about murder? No? Why not?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How much harder is it to select a higher encoding bitrate or quality?
Post a complete cover of a song (not a play-along, a ground up cover where you've done every instrument over) and the chances are you'll be knocked off the site immediately when the band's label notices. And this dick-brain that likely runs some scripted bullshit to grab freebies online and repost them to the tubes gets a pass so everybody can shake their heads and wag their fingers?
Impressive googletube. Most impressive.
Copyright infringement = theft = rape...nice strawman and giant false analogy.
Please, shut up.
this seems like a really, really bad idea.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If the copyright owners were to utilize the same business model - serve movies/shows on YouTube and link to a Patreon account then they would probably render the piracy less interesting.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Make that pitch to them, they're free to listen or not, as they see fit.
Some have, others haven't.
so many people on youtube think talking to there phone is a job and everyone should pay for them being lazy and jobless. youtube rather then stop such online panhandling/scams adds superchat to profit off it.
Nice self-serving, incomplete logic.
Do you really think that the negotiating power of the A-list stars and directors is entirely independent of the profitability of the industry as a whole?
As it happens, the stars of yesterday were compensated based on the profitability of yesteryear. Not every economic compensation loop is forward-biased.
It's the young up-and-coming stars who are presently deprived of negotiating power because the industry is less profitable than it might have been if piracy were less of an intrinsic problem. This causal relationship exists in the large as surely as long-term starvation causes weight loss (if you can't afford to pay for a medically trained doctor to perform bariatric surgery, wait a little longer and the worms will do it for free).
Short-term causality is complex, and is riddled with moguls, humps and fluctuations. It's therefore a trivial exercise in motivated reasoning to assert that the broad outer box is far too large to matter, and that any smaller box is far too erratic to understand.
(We absolutely know that the modern food environment is instrumental in the modern obesity epidemic, but to slice this picture any finer is the domain of a thousand rabid hucksters; what passes for consensus is limited to tobacco, trans-fats, chronic indolence, and excessive refined sugar intake—everything else has devolved into a three-ring macro-nutrient circus of differently hued social-media clowns).
So this kind of argument is just completely ridiculous. You can't honestly argue that shrinking the pie doesn't hurt specific individuals who claim a stake in that pie. Even if there are such individuals who are getting shafted at the pie table, that's theirs to judge and juggle, and not yours.
(Turns out, Mortdecai was a heist movie, only Charlie Mortdecai was merely a plant, and it was actually Johnny Depp who rode off into the sunset in sole possession of the Brinks truck.)
What you can argue is that there's shenanigans all around. The studios perpetrate all kinds of shit they shouldn't be doing (e.g. Hollywood accounting). Cable companies and networks are some of the brashest corporate oligopolies known to man. Copyright term extension is cynical and destructive of what had started out as a workable economic, cultural, and social compromise. Retroactive copyright extension is beyond farce.
I would be conceptually prepared to slap YouTube's wrists over this, but for this: wake me up when retroactive copyright extension is well and truly off the books (and everything that had been slated to expire at some past date actually has expired).
Meanwhile, my governing attitude amounts to: karma gonna karma.
While any single artistic work remains in a state of retroactive copyright protection (protection that would otherwise have expired), the studios and the networks—and everyone else feeding from this pie, no matter how small their canary cage—have the least and last and lowest claim on progressive cultural outrage.
But I'm not going to lie about the economics. Those marginal impacts surely exist.
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
I think he's saying that you are not hurting the head makeup artist, the best boy or the gaffer who actually worked on BladeRunner.
Now, as you point out, if rampant copying is tolerated (well, if it is tolerated for all content, not just for decades old content), then you will hurt current and future workers, as it will become difficult for the movie industry to make money.
But that's a subtler point and more difficult for many to grasp.
Copyright infringement = theft = rape...nice strawman and giant false analogy.
No, crime = crime = crime. Sure some crimes are more severe than others, but it is neither strawman nor false analogy to ask where the cutoff is between crime that is acceptable and crime that is unacceptable. It is simply a question, nothing more, nothing less.
Both the creator and the pirate upload kings are doing productive work. Just like I have no issue paying the cook I have no problem leaving a tip for the waiter/waitress. Tipping one does not exclude the other. However if the creator insists on enforcing his copyright in such a way that I've got no good routes to both contribute and download I take no pity for solely tipping the upload pirate. Not being able to tip one does not exclude the ability to tip the other. Both provide services and both in my view are voluntary activities (ie paying or tipping the author/uploader/etc).
It's a tort, not a crime and yes, you will find Patreon facing a lawsuit if they don't cover their ass.
https://www.spectronet.org/spe... This is open source USGS software.
There, I said it. Copyright is toxic. The less money these conglomerates get the better.
Your argument is a false dichotomy. The actual workers are not harmed enough to create such a link. Diminishing profit does not diminish the pay for everyone either.
It's wrong to take something that is not yours to take as a principal but to make bogus claims such as you are doing is equally counter productive.
Everyone knows that the make-up artist is not getting a penny more when they step off the set. But the IP holder will make as much money as the law allows them to make at the expense of our cultural identities.
Is it okay for businesses to lock up our culture behind a paywall and intellectual property rights?
The only thing I see are a few thieves complaining that another thief is stealing something from them. comeuppance is a good word for this entire situation.
Can't steal an idea. Period end of story.
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
The studios keep saying that the films don't make any profit, so what's the problem?
Hollywood Accounting and unions do more to hurt the rise/fall pay rate of hairdressers than piracy. Piracy fundamentally removes the production of new works and whole new jobs, not the pay scale of almost all individuals who work on a movie.
If stealing from a criminal okay? Is raping a criminal okay? Is murdering a criminal okay? If not, congratulations, you disagree with the criminal justice system that tolerates, endorses, or engages in all the above.
Are many criminals not prosecuted? Should criminals who are clearly, with evidence, guilty be prosecuted? Are CEOs of many megacorps guilty of crimes that are clearly in public record, no matter how minor the crime? Does their position tend to make them immune from direct prosecution? If you agree with the above, congratulations, you think many megacorp CEOs should be stolen from, raped, or murdered.
Btw, I don't think megacorps CEOs should be raped or murdered. Stolen from to pay fines or other compensation under court of law through due process, yes. Confined and deprived of their freedom of movement under court of law through due process, yes. Unfortunately, there's little effort to actually stop rape or murder by inmates, and the US at least still believes murdering people by the State is general okay. So, unfortunately a prison sentence could turn out far worse than depriving of their freedom of movement.
I don't believe in vigilante justice. I don't think such is any justification for piracy. I do find your arguments full of hyperbole and not generally thought out.
Except all the annoying ads
As a parent, far worse than this case IMO is the phenomenon of grown adults playing with childrens' toys/playdough, etc, maybe throwing in a few color/number repetitions and calling it a day. Sadly some of these videos have a hundred plus million views and as a result these hucksters are doing quite well financially I would imagine, all the while hooking toddlers on videos of little to no educational value.
How long until you declare jews as nazis for not following your exact political beliefs?
The point is that you're saying it's ok to break a law or injure someone because you don't like them.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Are you saying it would be wrong to assassinate the orange man?
It's the world's smallest violin.
PS Let's rethink your workflow. Or your priorities.
Disclaimer IANAL
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The principles of rent-seeking, supply and demand have been harnessed by these pirates. They are the zenith of modern capitalism. Best of all, payment (by the consumer) is totally voluntary.
Copyright infringement is not theft and copyright shouldn't even exist. To make a record of a discovery shouldn't be so expensive.
I'm pretty sure everyone who worked on that movie has already gotten paid. In fact, I bet many of them are no longer working due to retirement.
So theft is Ok, if you really hate the victim?
No, theft is Ok when the "victim" is a thief! It's ok to steal from thieves. Fuck them! Your appeal to authority notwithstanding.
And things that shouldn't be a crime at all?
What Rosa Parks did was a crime, but it shouldn't have been a crime at all.
The anti-copyright people are trying hard to bring the copyright laws back to reasonable levels, but they have a hard fight because the pro-copyright people have made lots of money off prolonging copyright protection.
Because crime is a natural force of nature, not a policy established through the exercise of power and privilege, often in violation of assumed social contract. Right.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I will steal from the Atlantic Records catalogue at will, with a clean conscience.
Jerry Wexler became a wealthy man, while many of the real artists died in near poverty.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."