Face It: "When 'Youtube' Sold Out To 'The Borg' – It DIED"
 

For example, let's consider the following search-phrase:

Beauty And The Beast Final Scene

To anyone(!) of my age, that search means exactly one thing: a clip from the 1991 Disney animated movie, beginning with the point where Gaston goes on the attack and ending when Belle and the Prince dance off into the sunset.

But today, YouTube can't decide between any of "18,700(!) results," especially featuring material from Disney's live-action sequel but also including any number of thousands of "fan mash-ups" that are of no possible interest to anyone but the one fan who contributed it.

But, even just a few months(!) ago, YouTube would bring it right up.

Now, let's try something harder:

"A Shot In The Dark."

"If You Were A Woman, And I Was A Man."

Alas, both of the amazing 1980's-era videos which used to be readily-obtainable are also now entirely gone ... filled instead with a cloud of incoherent rubbish.

Many other sites have suffered a similar fate. For instance, Google long-ago stopped being a search engine, and started becoming a "great sucking sound" for information – which was on-paper a wonderful business strategy except for one wee thing: the fact that, "in the process of becoming what they now are, they ceased to be a thing that anyone would go to, except by habit."

In the day, the Internet was an "out-of-media resource" that enabled people to make-available information for other people to find.

Today, increasingly, it is de-evolving into a resource that is useless as a source of any media whatsoever. A thing that you "just turn off."

- - -

So, faced with yet-another thing that has "nothing to watch that I want, and it's too hard to find what I do want," what's next?

- - -

P.S.: Somewhere out there ... c'mon, Disney® ... there must exist a copy of the original Star Wars film that I once saw!

yeah, had to stfw for it. so wut. ;)
 

googlebookfacetube

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture.

ggaaaahhhh!!! Spoilers, man!!!!

;)

I think the biggest problem with YouTube is that everything's devolved into clickbait titles just for the purpose of getting views (monetization). The front page is full of garbage like "You won't believe it UNTIL YOU SEE THIS!!!" or it's just celebrity videos.

I've also encountered the same problem with searching. I've always been a slight weather nerd, so one of the things I like to watch are storm chasing videos. I'd literally put in the word "tornado" and YouTube would pretty much give me what I wanted. But over the past 2 years, I've noticed that the results got worse. The search results are either all-caps clickbait titles with little content, v-logs that have nothing to do with the weather or people ripping off others content and adding their uninformative narration on top of it. That, or a combination of all 3. The only way I've been able to follow original content is to find individual channels and just monitor them. Which sucks because the people who are putting out interesting things don't show up.

There's also the problem of video takedowns. Because the the uploader is guilty before proven innocent, there's a lot of clips that get yanked even if they were there for years.

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellect...utube-removals

I understand the paranoia about "takedowns." Copyright laws are, by design, very draconian. "Triple damages" is only the barest beginnings of what can happen to you. :mad:

Personally, I think that YouTube began to die when people saw it as "a way to make money," and when they decided that they knew better than you did what you wanted to find. For instance, Disney® produced a new live-action version of Beauty. Therefore, they decided that, if you were asking for that topic, you must want to see their advertising material – not the 1991 animated film.

Incidentally, if you're curious about the If You Were A Woman And I Was A Man video that I was referring to, there is still one web-page that refers to it, although as far as I know the actual video has become lost.

the worst change is that the video can't cover the search bar
I want to see the video and will scroll to do a search or cover the search bar

not with you is the google-force
"If You Were A Woman, And I Was A Man."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT_I7X_AWdg
"A Shot In The Dark."
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1v...vie_shortfilms
"Beauty And The Beast Final Scene"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDp4oepipjs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDQNOSJvh1k

stronger make google-force must you
BUT
"original Star Wars"
sorry dude but for somethings the only way is pay to play

I can't find it for free
sometimes you have to forget the youtube search and use a real search engine

as far as adds there are browser add-ons for that block them but not for the backed in adds

i guess you just have to adapt your search terms.
try this instead:
Beauty And The Beast Final Scene 1991

Weak in the Force are you.

A video showing a still photo of Bonnie Tyler as she is merely singing the song is not the same as the video I was referring to. (And if you'd ever seen it, you'd know.)

Likewise, that's not "A Shot In The Dark."

Pieces of the animated movie's final scene can still be found, but most refer to the live-action movie now.

"The Original Star Wars®" was titled, "The Star Wars" on the crawl – not "Episode IV." It had not been butchered by George Lucas' constant efforts to "improve" it. Furthermore, I watched a 35mm film print of it, with the definite color-cast that is typical for such film stock.

Now, everyone dreams of making money from their stuff on YouTube. It never seems to occur to anyone that, if a million people post a video, the odds become a-million-to-one that anyone will ever find it, much less choose to watch it. The same is true of e-books, songs, and so forth. (And "apps." It was said that 60% of the material on the Apple App Store has never been downloaded even once.)

And this dilutes the value of the site. If you no longer think that you can find what you're looking for, you stop showing up. You and a million other hopefuls are all standing on the beach, waiting for your ship to come in.

^ not sure if you're replying to my post, but that search term gave me exactly (first result) what you demanded it should give (in post #1).
i guess it just once again shows how google(video) creates a personalised search bubble based on usage habits.

Very long ago, I gave up on their search-engine.

^ what? your op states the opposite.
you do know that youtube == googlevideo ???

The Centos distro has done the same

Yeah, its not that hard. Maybe you to learn a few minor tricks for how to search smarter sundialsvcs.

Using the search term "If You Were A Woman, And I Was A Man." does give you the original, full video (as far as I know its the full video, I'm not into Bonnie Tyler she sounds like Lemmy doing cabaret).

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...nd+I+Was+A+Man.

Top result is this video, which I believe the the original full version-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJOo67DtZAY

Using the search term ""A Shot In The Dark." youtube" (no quotes) in google.com give you the full movie as link #4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssia8IxONTM

*See edit below

I haven't really looked for the full 1991 "Beauty and The Beast" and its likely that you cant find it on youtube. You can find all sorts of things, like the last scene, or comparisons between the ending, 1991 vs 2017, but not the full movie. Because the short stuff generally comes under "fair use". Putting the full mvoie up would be copyright infringement.

I'm suprised the the full "A Shot In The Dark" was up but 1960s Sellers/Blake comedies aren't really that much of a target, unlike Disney animations which are sold widely to this day (yes you can find a DVD copy of "A Shot In The Dark" but its nowhere near as easy)

*edit- and I actually went to have a look at "A Shot In The Dark" to check if I'd seen if before and its been DCMAed for copyright infringement. You can still find copies on youtube though, and other places where it can be found in better quality. But I really should have seen the hint with '80s' and the other one being a Bonnie Tyler vid. But offhand I have no idea which artist did it. Unless you mean Ozzy Osbourne in which case its just "Shot In The Dark". The orignal video isn't on youtube but is around on various other sites like dailymotion.

Pretty much any major music video from the 80's onward is findable with the right search term or even a 'bad' search term used in the right place. Sure you can find music vids (and other stuff) that aren't on youtube anymore, but unless you know why they were taken down its just speculation. But often its DCMA. Artists and even recording/rights owning companies generally see music vids on youtube and other free video streaming sites as free publicity. Even if the rights owners don't agree, most music vids are reposted again fairly soon after any takedown, but not always (and that is getting less common for a few reasons but still happens). And while I and most other people wouldn't care, technically reposting, and viewing, a music vid taken down by the rights owners is copyright infringement just as much as with a modern (or 1960s!) movie.

So of the original example list, that is- one search term failure (Beauty And The Beast Final Scene), one 'I dont know what the issue was because its search result #1" ("If You Were A Woman, And I Was A Man.") and one not found on youtube at all for various possible reasons ("A Shot In The Dark.").

I find it hard to believe there is a thread here from a long time poster complaining about a lack of search skills and/or access to copyright infringing materials.

This is the conclusion I came to also.
Besides, YouTube was always "free to the viewer" so, obviously, the people paying dictated the videos.
Coincidentally I had a discussion with a friend recently about possible politicisation of YouTube prior to the last US election. My response to him was, in essence, "So how much are you paying for this service you're complaining about?".

It's especially ironic given the OP's posting history, e.g.

Many of the "copyright-infringing materials" of the day were actually official videos that were put up by their official owners. And that's what I miss. Many of the others got tagged with advertisements – which I fortunately am able to easily block.

To me, those videos always were, primarily, a form of advertising: you wouldn't go out and buy them from MTV, and in fact you couldn't. But a "cool video" persuaded me to buy many an album.

YouTube does have a revenue model now, so that people who still knew about, sought out, and found those materials would, in fact, send a coin to the material's owners. But, the materials are gone.

No, I am n-o-t wishing for the return of any days in which the owners of copyrighted material do not get paid. (Remember: "I do get those royalty checks, myself!") But I still think that those materials enjoyed exposure in those days that they can no longer get today. The royalty statements itemize everywhere the materials are used, and noticeably absent are "American videos."

I know that there has been talk of producing a "purely by subscription" YouTube (or equivalent) service, which I would find interesting.

Yes, we succeeded in "stopping piracy," which is a good thing. But, did we cut off our noses in spite of our faces? Did we leave money on the table, by making it impossible for buyers(!) to find what they still want? In the earliest days of the music video, there were some incredible visual artists out there.

I'm not wholly convinced that what you miss seeing on YouTube is missing because of anything other than the passage of time. Things go in ant out of favour and become easier and harder to find depending upon the whim of the age. I also wouldn't know why Google would remove content provided by the copyright holders.
I also go back to the point that these things are provided to the world without cost so any choices made by the people paying to host the site are their own and have always been choices designed to make money in some way. I'll admit that, in part, the previous isn't just a reply to this thread but a cut-down version of a conversation with a friend who was annoyed about the politicisation of YouTube prior to the last US election. My argument being that it's always been politically censored because it's a corporate entity and if people want free speech then a website built to make money isn't the place for it.

What I did suggest, however, and I think brings this post back to topic is that it is perhaps time for a free (as in speech) video hosting site paid for by those who can afford it in any currency they see fit and hosted in a country researched to be unlikely to pull content or provide details to law enforcement willy-nilly (I'm sure some would object to any information being given to law enforcement but personally I'd accept a pragmatic having to give data if arrested but wiping logs where possible).

if it kicks off, it will require huge servers and traffic through-put.
yes, someone would need to pay for it.
or maybe it could be on a decentralised, p2p basis?
we already have that for social media, i think.

To me this is the crux of the matter. If you're not paying you've no choice and don't know who is paying and why.
Most of the web seems, at the moment, to be based upon selling all the information about the people providing content. It won't change because most people don't want privacy or choice.

i find even seasoned geeks are blinded when something is free as in beer.
suddenly it's easy to believe the reassuring-sounding statements like "it's all about the community" and "we believe in online privacy & freedom" - when it doesn't take a genius to figure out:

- this project is designed to attract LOTS of users
- and it will grow
- and the servers still can keep up with it
- but it's all completely free & libre (or so they claim)
- so where does the money for the servers come from?
- isn't it much more likely that someone invested into this in the hope of getting much more out of it?

recent example: letsencrypt

LQ is free as in beer, does that mean we're all suckers?

Potentially, yes.

no, not "we", but the people/company running the site.
i think it's very clear that jeremy & probably a few others are getting something out of this.
i prefer it this way: it's visible, out in the open.
i think they're being very fair about it (log in to get rid of those ads; the rest is just links that you can click, like LQ Deals).
not my definition of sucking.

Personally, I think that "music videos" were always intended to be "promotional items."

In the day – and, "I was there" – "cable television" was a by subscription service ("a complete novelty," mind you ...) which immediately started playing by different rules. Ted Turner invented a "Cable News Network," which included a "Headline News" channel that gave you the news, every 30 minutes, 24 hours a day. Someone else invented "Music Television," which played music videos around the clock.

At the time, "CNN" and "MTV" were merely acronyms ... :rolleyes:

"Insomniacs were often rewarded." Turn on the television, and you might see something you'd never seen before.

Decades later, the Internet – and, specifically, YouTube – briefly re-created that same experience for "Internet insomniacs."

"Well, then ... you finally 'wised up,' as you say." You "cracked down," as you say, "on all that 'piracy.'" But do you have a revenue model to replace it? Is "the money rolling in" for you, now? Or did you, as I now suggest, just "cut off your nose?"

I never "paid money" to "watch a music video," and I frankly don't intend to pay money now. Those videos were distributed without charge in order to promote the sale of songs – just as they were played over the airwaves, and still are. I really don't think that they have financial value outside of an "available free-of-charge ... one way or the other" venue. But, I do think that they still "have value," if only "available free-of-charge ... one way or the other" was not now, short-sightedly (IMHO), regarded as "criminal." :rolleyes:

The recording industry has never been gifted with foresight. At one time, they vigorously opposed the sale of cassette tapes (and all equipment designed to play them), on the basis that "they would keep people from listening to the radio." They did squash-flat the DAT = Digital Audio Tape.

Yeah, "it's their copyright (by gawd!)," and therefore, yeah, "it's their business." But they sure do seem to me to have a very-short nose!

Therefore: the crux of my entire thread should be construed as openly questioning the wisdom of their business decisions – not the legal sanctity of the Copyrights that legally entitle them to do short-sighted things make them.

Isnt that already around, its called usenet? :D

Paying in money? Nothing (unless someody has youtube red). Lets not forget that google is a company into data and almost every yuotube veiwer 'pays' in that currency.

I think thats more your taste than anything else. IMO the 'good' music videos didnt even start until the mid 80s.

Sure some music videos were put up by the owners- but not a huge number, and I really doubt that obscure and rather lame music vids from over 15 years before youtube existed were in that subset.

Are you being disingenuous here? By that logic singles that "you couldnt go out an buy them from a radio station" were also primarily a form of advertising for the album. Hmm, albums? You cant buy them from a radio station either and they can be also considered as a form of advertising for the tour.

BTW, many bands did release video singles. The IIRC the only one that really got much sales in the western world was 'U2- Numb'. In Asia, the VSD (Video Singe Disc) was far more popular than in the west. IMO if it wasnt for the VHS/Beta/VSD/Laserdisc mess 'video singles' would have had much more impact.

While they can be seen as advertising dont forget how much bands have been forced to spend on music videos over the years. Its not quite so bad now with cheap digital cameras and editing, back 'in the day' $300,000+ or more on a music video was almost standard.

Many artists spent far more on music videos than they ever did on recording audio.

Its one of the many reasons why I actually have been buying some music videos here and there for ages, even back into the VHS days. To be honest its also because to use an example I dont feel bad about having a 'pirated' copy of the Severed Heads - All Saints video when I have both the Severed Heads ‎– Paleolithic DVD and a dead copy of Severed Heads -Vidipus on VHS. (The "All Saints" video version I 'pirated' is not available anymore, just the lame version on Paleolithic. I have no idea why- the version I grabbed years ago is one of the 1st computer animated music videos and wasn't bettered until the late 90s, over 10 years after)

The revenue model has litte or nothing to do with videos being taken down. The video takedowns are mostly DCMA. The official owners should know about any takedowns.

So either the owners know about the takedowns and for various reasons have decided not to put them back up, or they were videos put up by the fans, not the owners. In which case why dont you send an email to the companies involved and tell them they are missing out on possible revenue and coverage?

From what I've said above, its pretty obvious that I dotn think that most of the old stuff (up to the mid 90s ate the earliest) was put up by the owners at all. But lets assume that it was.

Even that Bonnie Tyler - If You Were A Woman (And I Was A Man) video which has been up for over 7 years only has 3 million hits. Even if the whole period is monetised (which I dont think it is) on average thats about $6K US.

Even if only 3000 people who watched that youtube video actually bought the Bonnie Tyler "The Videos" DVD , the owners would be a long way in front when its normally going for $10-12 a pop-

http://www.maximumsound.org/Bonnie-T...VD_p_7511.html

*edit- after looking more it seems that how much you get paid per view for youtube is pretty complicated. It could be as low as $0, it could be higher than $6K. Its almost impossible to guess.

Buyers?

Pl-ease. You also wrote this-

So you state baldy that you have never paid for a music video, don't think they have any financial value, and have no intention of changing? That would OK if you were not also at other times lecturing people about copyright.

When you do that while also using the arguments you've used on this thread, its hypocritical.

Through all my days, no one ever asked me to "pay for a music video." In the day, "I paid money(!) to 'watch TV,'" which was a notion totally unheard-of. ("Television" was something that came to you for free ... you stuck your rabbit-ears up in the sky and you had your choice of three channels. :rolleyes:) In return for paying your money, you could now watch news broadcasts 24 hours a day. You could watch "Home Box Office" movies. And, you could watch Music Television.

Quite honestly, I think that the entire notion of a "music video" was, and still is, "entirely promotional." They wanted you to buy the song. (In those days, of course, "the album.") They gave-away the video. (And, as the Copyright Owners,™ they chose to.)

Of course, the truth of the matter was that "MTV paid them something." Of course they did. Each and every time their video was played, anytime day or night, whether anyone was actually watching or not, the bean-counter dutifully counted another bean.

My only thought, then, is this: "How many of these 'beans' really constitute 'a bean worth counting?'" How many of them should be written-off 'promotional expense?' (How many of them were, basically, "promotional expense all along?")

I am not suggesting that "all of these beans, each and every miserable one of them," did not represent Collectible Royalties. Quite obviously they did ... and, still do. But I just can't help but notice how some Copyright Trustees ... (like the ones who protect my interests, too) ... took a very different view of the matter than other Trustees did. Some video properties are still out there, as "freely available" as ever they were. Meanwhile, a great many others are not.

Without saying that any Trustee did not act, as they saw it, "in the best interests of the Copyright Holders whose interests they were bound to protect" ... (including mine) ... I simply regret the actual decisions that so many of those Trustees actually made. (Especially since I think that the Copyright Holders whose Trustees did not make those same decisions, came out ahead!)

Unfortunately, today I count must count myself in the former category. ("Thanks for looking out for me. Thanks for nothing.")

and onwards...
just leaving this here, on a more positive notes (youtube videos can be found for most entries):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct..._Michel_Gondry

Some of the silliness that has arisen is, for example, that the Bonnie Tyler video that you say is "the original version" ... "isn't available in my country (the United States)."

Why on earth not?

Why make it complicated?

Music videos were always "easily consumable, promotional items" that nobody ever had to pay for – apart from their cable television subscription. And, I was introduced to a whole lot of artists and wonderful songs due to insomnia.

It is the legal decision of the copyright Trustees. I simply don't agree with the choices that some (but, not all) of them are making. My royalty statements are extremely detailed as to the country in which a song was played, and the type of use that it was. It's very nice to see a "video" being played in "Ireland." But, "the United States" is much bigger. And, obviously, I do get paid when a video is played anywhere. Why are my Trustees making my checks smaller than they could be?

Music singles were "easily consumable, promotional items" that nobody ever had to pay for – apart from the cost of a radio. But its all about your checks eh? Hypocrite.