YouTube launches paid channels
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
My point is if you let people watch it, you can't protect it. The camera can record what the human eye sees and what the human ear hears. If someone can see it and hear it, it can be recorded.
The analog hole (also known as the analog loophole) is a fundamental and inevitable vulnerability in copy protection schemes for noninteractive works in digital formats which can be exploited to duplicate copy-protected works that are ultimately reproduced using analog means. Once digital information is converted to a human-perceptible (analog) form, it is a relatively simple matter to digitally recapture that analog reproduction in an unrestricted form, thereby fundamentally circumventing any and all restrictions placed on copyrighted digitally-distributed work. Media publishers who use digital rights management (DRM), to restrict how a work can be used, perceive the necessity to make it visible and/or audible as a "hole" in the control that DRM otherwise affords them.
I was saying that I'm seeing Sesame Street, UFC, National Geographic, etc., on the youtube channel. They are not producing it FOR the paid youtube channel. It's already been produced anyway, and already making money.
For these types of shows youtube becomes one more possible source of revenue. You lose nothing by putting up a youtube channel if there are not upfront costs to pay youtube.
And that's the way indies should look at it to. If you have content that ALREADY makes money, youtube paid channels are one more way you can make money.
Is it worth it to make content hoping it will make money on a youtube paid channel? Probably not. But UFC has already made their money before it ever goes to Youtube. Any Youtube sales are just gravy.
You're competing with 8 million Zumba videos already on youtube that you can watch for free.
NOne of those videos will EVER be able to compete with what GR puts out. I know Zumba because I've worked on it for years, a paid YouTube subscription with Beto leading new content would absolutely destroy regardless of what's up there right now for free.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
So what? It's still my responsibility and in my interest to protect my copyrighted works.
There's going to be a big difference in something recorded by a camera off a screen and the original audio/video file.
Would a film maker like yourself see the difference and care about it? Of course. Is it so big a difference the average audience member watching videos on the computer, smart phone, ipad, etc., wouldn't watch it? Probably not, depending on the content.
I'll take your word for it. Maybe GR and Beto, whoever they are, will do great with a youtube paid Zumba channel.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
I still don't understand what you mean.
The rights to make copies of their work is the only currency filmmakers have to trade with, so when someone takes that right away and start making copies of their own without paying a license or signing a contract, the commodity becomes worthless so that needs to be protected.
It doesn't matter if there's always another way around it, because when it happens it needs to stop. If YouTube makes it easy to just download a source file, then that's a problem, and it's going to be a problem until it's stopped.
Youtube doesn't make it any easier than ripping a DVD, in fact it's probably easier to rip a DVD. The post was in response to the statement, "I won't put my stuff on youtube because it can be copied". I'm saying the only way it won't be copied is if you never let anyone see it.
If you show it to me on my computer screen I can record it. Period. That's true for Hulu, youtube, vimeo, netflix, any other streaming service you know of. I wouldn't avoid youtube becuase you're afraid people will pirate your content. They can pirate your content just as easily off of any other distribution method.
It's not like it's easy to piraite from youtube, but hard to pirate from netflix or a DVD.
I'm not advocating piracy, I'm saying piracy is no reason to avoid youtube because it's just as secure as any other way you show people your movie.
Last edited:
That's fine if YouTube has something on the technical side that makes it too easy for the average user to download a copy to share, but for the wider issue in general, I would keep this nugget in mind.
Harlan Ellison nearly bankrupted himself suing AOL over people who were using the network (and ultimately the Internet in general) to infringe on his copyrighted works. He was able to settle and avoid bankruptcy. But despite that, one can still find his pirated material all over the Internet.
Would the world have been better served if, instead of the attention and money he had to throw at court actions that ultimately meant nothing, that he had instead concentrated on delivering more content? At what point does tilting at windmills start to interfere with the time and attention you have available to give to the creative process instead?