I think it's different, it's less of an admission that YT is better and rather that all the creators are on YT at this moment.
I think PeerTube needs to find a way to watch youtube videos on the instance (YTDL maybe?) and to monetize videos (Patreon link? Paypal? etc?)
The only question about YouTube is whether you get the money or some scammy uploader does.
I'm watching a video on peertube right now and it took literally one click. Nothing to install, the user experience is just like YouTube.
I'm fairly new to Peertube but I haven't found any that won't load. Sometimes they buffer a bit in the first moments, but then they're fine.
Piracy is not theft. And we can't have it both ways. It's either centralization with censorship and all kinds of enforcement of rules or decentralization with resistance to censorship and piracy.
I plan on writing more about the Fediverse in the future.
Thank you for your attention and the fun ride. I hope that you'll visit me again.
I am not claiming the status quo is proven to be the cause of these issues, but I do claim that I know of no proof which proves the system to be resilient against such manipulation. Perhaps if one succeeds in designing a system that is provably resilient in some sense, the problems would automagically disappear?
That's awful. I hope Youtube will quickly find replacements for those stolen videos.
It's ironic because you already have free access to their videos, and they would give you permission to share elsewhere if you were able to ask, but in practice you can't. Getting the permission is burdensome, and the video that's displayed on YouTube is very liberally licensed to YouTube who will aggressively claim 'ownership' and reject any efforts to use it elsewhere.
It'd be interesting if sites that offer user generated content for free (and only these sites) could not force content submitters to opt-in to non-free licenses - though users could opt in to such agreements. It's their right as a company to only publish under non-free licenses, but this behavior serves no real purpose other than to be obstructionist and anti-competitive.
This is the real question here. Are the creators getting proper credit? And for the ones who use it as a source of income, are they able to get paid the way they would on YouTube?
And I wouldn't just restrict this to video. Do you mind if I use your post elsewhere (with accreditation)? Probably not. I certainly don't. Yet in reality, it'd be unlawful for me to do so. It's copyrighted from the moment you write it. The only reason Hacker News can display it is because of this blurb from the terms on here:
By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
Transitioning to a free license would in no way directly negatively affect Hacker News. It certainly wouldn't negatively affect users. I expect most don't even realize what they write is copyrighted. And in any case users who want to avoid their comments being legally shared elsewhere could easily opt out.
My question is: in the world that exists today, are people on PeerTube crediting creators of content they rip, and are those creators being paid in the same way that YouTube would pay them?
When you watch videos on YouTube the license you are bound to is not the content creator's, but YouTube's. When a user uploads a video to YouTube they agree to grant YouTube a license that is extremely generous to YouTube, not dissimilar to what you agree to when posting on here. And so when you then go and watch a video on YouTube you are bound by their terms that they then attach to to access to their licensed content. This includes a prohibition on duplication. Their terms and conditions also expressly prohibit commercial solicitation of users for their content.
It creates this really weird scenario. A user wants their content to be shared as much as possible. They upload it on YouTube, now suddenly that content is effectively owned by YouTube and all lawful sharing stops there. If YouTube were required to allow users to default to free use licenses it would in no way negatively affect their content, but people would be able to continue sharing videos beyond YouTube - it would help enable competition and the freer spread of information and ideas.
> For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content
> You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.
Which is to say, creators don't give up any rights by uploading their videos to YouTube. The license they give to YouTube is nonexclusive, meaning they can still distribute their videos however they want. (This is also how the licensing on this site works , as well as most other sites with user-generated content AFAIK).
YouTube's license does specifically disallow its users from ripping its videos and distributing them elsewhere. But that's fine — unless they specifically choose to license their videos in that way, the normal copyright owned by the creator doesn't allow for that either! In that case, the content creators themselves are preventing sharing, and YouTube has nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately most sites, including e.g. YouTube, do not allow this. They require uses to agree to non-free licenses. One of the primary reasons they do this is to help prevent and obstruct competition. YouTube goes a step further by making it against their terms to contact users for licensing inquiries. This is all extremely anti-competitive.
So what can be done?
Well that's pretty easy. Free licensing would in no way meaningfully burden or, in itself, harm YouTube or other such publishers. If a site primarily generates revenue by providing free access to user generated material, then require that the users be allowed to enter into free licensing agreements with that site, if they so wish. While creators could be incentivized to agree to non-free licenses, such as by payment, the content itself would be treated identical whether a user chose to enter into a free licensing agreement, or a non-free licensing agreement.
The goal is to turn "free" into free. And in the process help spur more competition and a wider spread of information and knowledge.
The term is 4H, "You agree not to solicit, for commercial purposes, any users of the Service with respect to their Content.".
That would include licensing requests. Commercial purpose does not mean e.g. only for pay. It has a broad definition that would almost certainly include a peer to peer company reaching out to content creators to try to host their content, even for free. Once again, that is their exclusively for anti-competitive purposes as I doubt even users that just want to share their content with no expectation over remuneration would opt in to having any and all proposals preemptively killed off.
The whole YouTube stars and original content came much later.