Does she ever make it to the end zone? The footage keeps cutting away.
I prefer "quick" to "fast" because "quick" includes intelligent decison making
Also a good opportunity to mourn Darrell Royal and the death of high-level football, especially pro, which isn't football at all without a dominant running game. I like the forward pass about as much as I like the homerun, which is not all. WWI ruined everything.
"This video contains content from WMG, rumblefish, The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA), Warner Chappell, EMI and Kobalt Music Publishing, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
I blame Halford.
She's already signed with one of those companies? Now she's ruined her college eligibility.
Boohoohoo. I failed to go Rumblefish and pay $2 for easily licensable legal music for my viral YouTube video. Boohoohoohoo.
$2? $2 for the fucking soundtrack to some random youtube video? Yes, I would happily pay $2 to watch a random youtube video! I watch as many as one youtube videos a month, so this is not an onerous cost at all! Why, for the cost of a subscription to cable, I could watch as many as fifty 45 second youtube videos in a single month! What a wonderful service this is!
Er "cable" should have been "Xfinity Triple Play Plus Internet".
Or WAIT did you mean that whoever uploaded a video of their kid running for a touchdown should have independently paid for the music licensing? Because, of course, that is far stupider.
Yes, I would happily pay $2 to watch a random youtube video
To make, I think, is the issue.
Without having seen the video, I wonder if the issue is superimposed music or ambient music from the stadium that happened to show up in the video. Because if it is the latter? ULTIMATE STUPID!
The music was definitely superimposed, FWIW.
I thought youtube just muted videos like that. I would have welcomed that in this case.
My sister had a baby video muted because of music in the background playing on a radio or something. It's possible that she and the baby sang along for a bit, an activity that Halford would no doubt classify as being an unlicensed boo hoo cover band.
If the way that people normally behave makes them infringing against giant media companies which are rightsholders, it is natural and proper that people should change the way that they normally behave. Look at the constitution!
I'm not sure we should even be talking about this. Is it safe? Are we in compliance? Have I inadvertently used a registered trademark? Ignorance is no excuse.
Just better to shutup and do what the people on the commercial tell us to do. Then things will turn out pleasant.
Halford's going to be so pissed when comes back and sees all these snarky comments.
Not that I particularly care, of course.
I mean I think the point is that what is interesting and novel about the video is whatever song is owned by whatever random rightsholder that either (a) did the creative work involved or (b) signed a deal to pretend in a legal sense that it did the creative work involved. In the song. That accompanies the video. Where, again, what is interesting and novel about the video is the song that was superimposed.
24: most of these comments are generic enough to be unlitigatable as commercial property and are thus properly beneath his notice.
Or, failing that, the algorithms. Which are pretty good!
29: The link in 13 implies otherwise.
I would pay $2 not to listen to that song.
I am very uncertain what the point of Sifu's making his comments is, but perhaps he's had a hard day at school.
No I mean they're okay! Think about it this way: would it be worse for us to watch a video of a girl running down a football field while a rightsholder failed to earn their fraction of a cent, or for use to not be able to watch a video of a girl running down a football field while a rightsholder failed to earn a fraction of a cent that they may very well have earned? The answer is beyond obvious.
34 to 28.
Something-or-other to 33. I don't know what. Has it been a long day?
Has it been a long day?
Not up here, but I suppose that goes without saying.
The threads never go the way I think they will.
This thread involves a lot of speculation about what will happen to her as she becomes a teenager? That's the way I thought.
Eh, I was just making an unfunny joke based on 3.
39: We're fucking feminists, remember?
This thread involves a lot of speculation about what will happen to her as she becomes a teenager? That's the way I thought.
She becomes a dominant soccer player, I would guess.
I'm not wrong to think that some of that footage was sped up, right?
Hey, the video's back (or has been replaced with a very similar one)! The music is different, though.
Do you see the horror of the system! The eeeevil people who made music forced someone to pay somewhere between $0 and $2.00 (the cost of a Rumblefish license) for the right to legally obtain a license for the music in a viral video (worth these days vastly more than $2.00)!!!
They are setting fire to the modern library of Alexandria AND infringing on the god-given right of people who happen to be sitting in front of computers to not pay anything whatsoever to artists!!
I want my $2!!!!
One really obvious point is that if I started making money off that video I reckon the people who made the video would want a cut. Why shouldn't people pay for music? Musicians have to eat like the rest of us.
I still don't see why the sound only could be taken down.
Also, clips from the video made the CBS local news here. Hope the video makers got a cut.
46: And yet, rather than have a system where musicians get to eat, we have a system where a few select musicians get to live in palaces, and the rest get table scraps. Truly an inspiring outcome.
50: except, you know, incidental music licensing has traditionally been one of the more equitable and tradesmanlike ends of the music business.
$2 isn't a hell of a lot to pay for the rights to a bit of music.
I just think there should be compulsory licensing and youtube should pay it.
Also, now the video's just gone.
Also I think youtube's system of allowing alleged copyright owners to randomly pull stuff down is lame.
54: that's not so much YouTube's system as it is the DMCA. (I mean, strictly speaking they of course don't have to just pull stuff down, but that would mean taking on huge liability risk.)
Sorry, 55 was me. "Sort of"? What subtleties am I missing?
Well, the DMCA demands that sites have a process to either take down content or contest it, but the dopey YouTube automated system that results in public domain footage getting instantly pulled if a news station ever used it for anything is all them.
Oh, sure, ContentID is problematic in various ways; I was just responding to "allowing alleged copyright owners to pull stuff down" in 54.
Yeah, it's not just them. I have enough grumpiness for ContentID and the DMCA!
I got a free scratch ticket the other day as part of a Pennsylvania's gambling promotion efforts. I won $2. I tried to put it in the machine to get my $2 and the machine at my ticket. So I know exactly how people feel about losing $2.
Is this place safe anymore?
I am scared to visit pirate sites. They get monitored by Homeland Security.
Is this place safe anymore?
Yes, it's safe. It's very safe. It's so safe you wouldn't believe it.
So we purchased a Hilary Duff DVD at a library sale and a Disney branded music/video player at a garage sale. Caroline wants me to rip a video from the DVD and put it on the music/video player. Transferring the video to a hard drive requires breaking some encryption.
What is the best way to do this, and will it make Halford cry?
Yes, it makes Halford cry, the decryption step is technically straightforward but not legal. Scammy virus-laden packages abound. I haven't done this for a couple of years, and do not remember the name of the unwieldy but functional windows freeware that I used.
I usually look around on cnet for widely downloaded freeware and user reviews, absent a recommendation for some package, that might be a good place to start.
You already made him cry by buying used media. (From a library, no less! Looters!)
Last time I did that I used Handbrake, but it's been a while and there might be better options.
I'm not sure it will make Halford cry. Giving away Hillary Duff to hook new addicts is probably Disney policy. Wouldn't it be great if they manufactured a pop star and nobody came?
Ironically, the system in 53.1 is exactly what the studios and music publishers would (effectively) like, but what Google/YouTube has spent years and millions of dollars in litigation in trying to avoid.
Compulsory licensing at a flat rate, not set by the rightsholder.
A compulsory flat rate at less than Rumblefish prices? YouTube would spend billions trying to resist that. They like the current system, where they pay nothing.
I presume Youtube asks you whether you want your uploaded video to be one of the ones that might potentially make money from advertising. If you say you do, even if you don't expect it to get more than 500 views, it's right that you then have to pay for licensing if it somehow goes viral and starts actually getting advertising revenue.
Yet the response of "Oh come on! How lazy do you have to be to not make a deal with Rumblefish before you upload one of these things?" is still aggravating. Who the hell knows what Rumblefish is?
They pay nothing? What about all the videos where the music and artist is named? Those all happen via an explicit license purchase on the part of the uploader?
Youtube pays for the hosting and loses enormous sums of money, right?
73 -- yes, it's taken care of by the uploader, and YouTube strictly polices that line.
YouTube has settlement/business deals with some labels and studios where there's revenue sharing from ads, but that's different.
A flat-fee compulsory license (similar to ASCAP) enforceable against YouTube itself would be the publishers dream, but Google is way more powerful than the publishers so that won't ever happen.
They might go for it if it was low enough!
Licensing issues aside, I've come to intensely dislike sports highlights set to music.
The threads never go the way I think they will.
I'll say. I was ready with a comment about how awesome the video is, but peewee football should be banned.
Who the hell knows what Rumblefish is?
Theoretically, Youtube could tell video uploaders about it when they upload videos.
78 is correct. The "taking a hit" section shows how proud the parents are of having their daughter damage her brain.
At least they're not doing something crazy like taking her to brain-breaking psychology researchers.
At least my kids are getting paid for having their brains broken. No amateur restrictions for clinical trial subjects!
The "taking a hit" section shows how proud the parents are of having their daughter damage her brain.
Ugh! Thanks for mentioning it. I think I'll pass on watching that.
I watched the first couple minutes when the first version was up and never saw a hit. It left me thinking that 9 year olds aren't that good at tackling. Anyway, she needs to stay healthy so she can help pay off her parents' debt to the recording studios.
85- the "taking a hit" is the final section, after the "breaking tackles." I don't know if it's due to the speeded-up footage, but there's some neck snapping going on.
That sounds horrible. I'm glad I missed it.
The "taking a hit" section shows how proud the parents are of having their daughter damage her brain.
Are kids actually getting concussions in peewee football? I feel like this is overly alarmist.
88: Yes. There was a thing on NPR about it. In one football game, the losing team racked up 5 concussions, but no one called the game off. Some group of doctors is advocating flag football only for pre-HS kids.
(And I am once again getting all tense about rugby. Goddamn the girl, couldn't she have kept swimming and just messed up her shoulders?)
As someone with a messed up shoulder, there have been nights when I would've traded some brain damage for the ability to sleep on my right side. Or remove a t-shirt unaided. Of course, empirically I've shown a willingness to trade brain damage for a few hours entertainment, so.
Joey has also taken up a dangerous sport. If you are sitting in a chair, he will climb on the back of it, scream, and pounce on you.
Rugby might be a better alternative.
If you are sitting in a chair, he will climb on the back of it, scream, and pounce on you.
Children are born Republicans.
95: I am ashamed to say that that's exactly what I was thinking too.
Mara's version of 93 is that when she sees an adult at the bottom of the stairs, she leaps and expects to be caught. No matter how many times we've told her that sometime the person won't be ready to catch her, she's been very successful so far.
(I also finally got her scheduled for a pica evaluation at the feeding clinic. They said to bring some of her favorite foods and some foods she doesn't like. I'm so tempted to clip a lock of her hair and bring that, since she ripped more out and ate it yet again today at naptime. I am running out of inspiration for hairstyles that camouflage the growing spots and cut down on good places to yank.)
Sorry, 97.1 was going to be a request that someone figure out what alien race she'd belong to. I suspect just human child.
96: I am proud of my out-of-date-and-not-particularly-indepth nerdiness.
I suspect just human child.
Eeeeek! The most terrifying of all!
Topically off topic: Does chewing on your finger nail count as a pica? That is, not just biting off the nail, but keeping the removed portion of the nail so you can continue to chew on it and maybe even putting it in your pocket for later.
Is it the same pocket where guacamole is stored?
Why does it matter if it counts as pica? Are you trying to win a contest?
Is it just as good later or does it get stale and linty?
Like the reed of of clarinet, you need to soften it up again after a period of non-use.
I don't like to tell people because then they stare at my mouth when I'm talking.
Not everyone can make a font joke that fast.
My reaction to the OP was pwned by 78 and subsequent comments. This comment is extremely unnecessary, but I'm working on filling up the sidebar.
Ha ha, Kraabie is sleeping, I can totally displace her from the sidebar if I keep this up.
108: Nobody really seems to know. Behaviour modification, I guess. If it's nutrition-related you can sometimes fix that by fixing the underlying food problem. I have no idea what they're going to suggest for Mara, who has a combination of self-soothing chewing/eating and then sometimes just for the hell of it eating stuff at other times, like the sticker the doctor had just given her. Sadly it wasn't the pica doctor, because that would have been hilarious.