|
||||||||
SCD videos being taken off YouTube :eek: |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#126 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: England, UK
Posts: 5,503
|
Quote:
Can anyone out there help me, please? I'm not very good at this stuff
![]() I managed to download a vid using the site mentioned here, but it won't play for me, just says something about not being recognised ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#127 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11,409
|
Quote:
If you have downloaded the .flv file you might not have added .flv to the end of the file name by renaming it.
Thank you for replying
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,838
|
Quote:
If you mean downloading the videos off YouTube just go to: www.keepvid.com
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 163
|
Quote:
The difference is that in the case of the website, the BBC owns the rights to the programme, and will have cleared the use of the music with the appropriate rights holders for distribution via the SCD site.
On private YT channels, the BBC has NOT cleared any such rights and has no control over the distribution. So any such distribution is in breach of any rights agreements reached. And of course, rights holders would normally negotiate a fee for any distribution, the wider the distribution the higher the fee. |
|
|
|
|
|
#130 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
the other site Maltipom used last time is called veoh tv.The clips she put up before are still there hope this help's.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,472
|
Quote:
Absolutely correct. Firstly, a thank you to Maltipom, SCDancing34 and katiep for their efforts, which I'm sure many of us have appreciated. However, in addition to the copyright issue, the reailty is that BBC has no choice but to take the action that it just has as they absolutely have to be mindful of its charter and its licence fee agreement. That means that digital broadcasts of its shows have to be restricted to the UK and Northern Ireland only, which is essentially what they do with their own You Tube site and with iPlayer. If they don't take action, then all BBC licence fee payers are being treated unfairly and doubtless illegally under EU and UK law - and in the worst case, that could mean legal action resulting in the licence fee being abolished; while commercial competitors of BBC Worldwide can claim that the BBC is effectively distorting competition by allowing illegal cross-promotion of its programmes.
However ... There are ways of doing things like this that don't get people's backs up, and swooping in over Xmas and sneakily removing videos many of us have loved watching and re-watching with no annoucement or apology is just plain stupid. A press release could have been issued - or, at very least, a statement made on the official website. But, as we all know from this last series of Strictly, the BBC's management skills leave rather a lot to be desired. To say the least. So, instead, we have a situation where many people are left fuming. The BBC does not seem to realise that the efforts of Maltipom, SCDancing34 and katiep have helped contribute to the popularity of their show. They should be thanking them, not going all Gestapo. The way this has been carried out has achieved little but create resentment towards the BBC (again!). Fine if they really had to do it, but does the extremely loyal core audience matter so little to them? |
|
|
|
|
|
#132 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 2,268
|
well said!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 163
|
Quote:
I don't doubt any of the reasons you cite as the rationale behind the BBC's move - I'm sure you are right.
However ... There are ways of doing things like this that don't get people's backs up, and swooping in over Xmas and sneakily removing videos many of us have loved watching and re-watching with no annoucement or apology is just plain stupid. A press release could have been issued - or, at very least, a statement made on the official website. But, as we all know from this last series of Strictly, the BBC's management skills leave rather a lot to be desired. To say the least. So, instead, we have a situation where many people are left fuming. The BBC does not seem to realise that the efforts of Maltipom, SCDancing34 and katiep have helped contribute to the popularity of their show. They should be thanking them, not going all Gestapo. The way this has been carried out has achieved little but create resentment towards the BBC (again!). Fine if they really had to do it, but does the extremely loyal core audience matter so little to them? Secondly, even if they had wanted to, the BBC couldn't contact Maltipom et al, only YouTube can. All the BBC can do is to provide YouTube with details of items that are in breach of their copyright. If the account holders were unhappy with YouTube's methods of deleting their files, then their beef is with YouTube, not the BBC. However, if you read YouTube's terms and conditions, YouTube behaved well within what is set out. (And if you don't want to accept YouTube's Ts and Cs, you don't have to sign up. Anyone with a spare PC to act as a web server and a bit of technical knowledge can set up an identical site.) Finally, and I know this sounds harsh, but efforts and the motives are utterly irrelevant if what you are doing breaches copyright, i.e., is illegal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
|
Quote:
Having spent most of my career working for large organisations, I'd suspect that the timing had far more to do with the Christmas and New Year period being a useful quiet period to carry out a piece of dull, labour intensive, but necessary administration on the part of both YouTube and the BBC. Do you really think they want to go to the trouble and expense of trawling through millions of You Tube (and other) accounts looking for illegal video clips? Of course they don't. They do it because they have to.
Secondly, even if they had wanted to, the BBC couldn't contact Maltipom et al, only YouTube can. All the BBC can do is to provide YouTube with details of items that are in breach of their copyright. If the account holders were unhappy with YouTube's methods of deleting their files, then their beef is with YouTube, not the BBC. However, if you read YouTube's terms and conditions, YouTube behaved well within what is set out. (And if you don't want to accept YouTube's Ts and Cs, you don't have to sign up. Anyone with a spare PC to act as a web server and a bit of technical knowledge can set up an identical site.) Finally, and I know this sounds harsh, but efforts and the motives are utterly irrelevant if what you are doing breaches copyright, i.e., is illegal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,472
|
Quote:
Having spent most of my career working for large organisations, I'd suspect that the timing had far more to do with the Christmas and New Year period being a useful quiet period to carry out a piece of dull, labour intensive, but necessary administration on the part of both YouTube and the BBC. Do you really think they want to go to the trouble and expense of trawling through millions of You Tube (and other) accounts looking for illegal video clips? Of course they don't. They do it because they have to.
Secondly, even if they had wanted to, the BBC couldn't contact Maltipom et al, only YouTube can. All the BBC can do is to provide YouTube with details of items that are in breach of their copyright. If the account holders were unhappy with YouTube's methods of deleting their files, then their beef is with YouTube, not the BBC. However, if you read YouTube's terms and conditions, YouTube behaved well within what is set out. (And if you don't want to accept YouTube's Ts and Cs, you don't have to sign up. Anyone with a spare PC to act as a web server and a bit of technical knowledge can set up an identical site.) Finally, and I know this sounds harsh, but efforts and the motives are utterly irrelevant if what you are doing breaches copyright, i.e., is illegal. As far as your second point goes, I never suggested individual account holders be contacted: I suggested the BBC issued a press release and/or posted something on the Strictly website informing us, the viewers, what they were doing and why. And as for your comments about what Maltipom et al's activities being illegal, then answer me this: how come Youtube is full of clips from other BBC shows that aren't subject to this kind of policing? And, mossy2103, sorry if you feel I, and others, are getting setimental - but we happen to feel passionately about having something we enjoyed taken away from us! If it had to be done, OK - but there are ways of letting people down gently ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
|
Quote:
And, mossy2103, sorry if you feel I, and others, are getting setimental - but we happen to feel passionately about having something we enjoyed taken away from us!
If it had to be done, OK - but there are ways of letting people down gently ... ![]() As for timing - again I see it as being practical. Better to do that sort of housekeeping at this time rather than any other. No offence meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 17,224
|
The BBC have no responsibility to inform us that they are removing the stolen copyright contents from thieves.
No disrespect meant to the uploaders, but as uploaders of content that's essentially what we are. We steal things and upload them to illegally distribute to others. It is their RIGHT to take it down. It's annoying and it makes you want to pull your hair out and throw things at walls and crush glasses under your fingertips after you're stupid enough to get your third account deleted, but it's their right. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53.






If it had to be done, OK - but there are ways of letting people down gently ...