|
|
Post by telemelbs on Dec 27, 2018 17:25:46 GMT 10
I've removed over 400 videos (mainly content from 2012-18) which could be the ones that Nine are more concerned about having online. Do you think they are targeting more recent content or older content?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 21:14:53 GMT 10
I've removed over 400 videos (mainly content from 2012-18) which could be the ones that Nine are more concerned about having online. Do you think they are targeting more recent content or older content? I'm not certain on this, but they're probably targeting more recent content. Because Nine have copyright claimed some 2013/14 Promo Montage uploads because it contained 60 minutes promos.
telemelbs and EyewitnessTV like this
|
|
|
|
Post by EyewitnessTV on Dec 28, 2018 0:07:38 GMT 10
Do you think they are targeting more recent content or older content? I'm not certain on this, but they're probably targeting more recent content. Because Nine have copyright claimed some 2013/14 Promo Montage uploads because it contained 60 minutes promos. It is really hard to tell for me. Nine haven’t copyrighted me on newer content but Seven have and quite a bit of it is old stuff from the 90s. It’s very hit and miss with what they deem worth claiming. I wonder, if you removed those 60 Minutes promos and left the rest as be would it escape the copyright claim?
telemelbs likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Dec 29, 2018 15:50:04 GMT 10
I wonder, if you removed those 60 Minutes promos and left the rest as be would it escape the copyright claim? Possibly, but I think there would still be a good chance that they would likely issue a copyright claim anyway. 
|
|
|
|
Post by EyewitnessTV on Dec 29, 2018 17:31:23 GMT 10
I wonder, if you removed those 60 Minutes promos and left the rest as be would it escape the copyright claim? Possibly, but I think there would still be a good chance that they would likely issue a copyright claim anyway. True. Though zampakid said “because it contained 60 Minutes promos” which Nine seems to dislike. 
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 18:27:28 GMT 10
For a fact the proper Channel Ten YT hasn't been active since 2016. They haven't updated the banner, icon or everything, nor even uploading the rebrand promos! Although they did upload some videos in May 2018, this may explain why their content hasn't been blocked on YT yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Dec 30, 2018 18:35:07 GMT 10
For a fact the proper Channel Ten YT hasn't been active since 2016. They haven't updated the banner, icon or everything, nor even uploading the rebrand promos! Although they did upload some videos in May 2018, this may explain why their content hasn't been blocked on YT yet. That's interesting to know. Mind you, it still wouldn't surprise me if they began to hand out copyright strikes to YouTube users in the next few months, especially now that both Seven and Nine are doing it. I think Seven and Nine's actions will inspire them to follow a similar path in regards to protecting their content.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 6:32:17 GMT 10
I'm sure @sharksfan99's YT doesn't check some uploads with a load of copyrighted material. Two years ago, he uploaded a 2-minute 2Day FM aircheck during the period when he got good Sydney FM reception, and it got instantly blocked.
Now, as you should know a music video that's also on a VEVO channel will get the video instantly blocked if someone uploads it. That includes your 35-minute MTV aircheck from a VHS tape you uploaded 8 hours ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 13, 2019 14:11:20 GMT 10
I'm sure @sharksfan99's YT doesn't check some uploads with a load of copyrighted material. Two years ago, he uploaded a 2-minute 2Day FM aircheck during the period when he got good Sydney FM reception, and it got instantly blocked. Now, as you should know a music video that's also on a VEVO channel will get the video instantly blocked if someone uploads it. That includes your 35-minute MTV aircheck from a VHS tape you uploaded 8 hours ago. Ah, yes I do, that's why I made the decision to privatise all of my YouTube uploads so that they wouldn't infringe copyright. Also, I uploaded that MTV Aircheck video onto Archive.Org., not Vevo. I don't have a Vevo account.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 18:06:16 GMT 10
I'm sure @sharksfan99's YT doesn't check some uploads with a load of copyrighted material. Two years ago, he uploaded a 2-minute 2Day FM aircheck during the period when he got good Sydney FM reception, and it got instantly blocked. Now, as you should know a music video that's also on a VEVO channel will get the video instantly blocked if someone uploads it. That includes your 35-minute MTV aircheck from a VHS tape you uploaded 8 hours ago. Ah, yes I do, that's why I made the decision to privatise all of my YouTube uploads so that they wouldn't infringe copyright. Also, I uploaded that MTV Aircheck video onto Archive.Org., not Vevo. I don't have a Vevo account. You don't upload your MVs onto Vevo, the label does. And the aircheck was also on your YT, although you might've blink-and-missed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 13, 2019 18:15:42 GMT 10
Ah, yes I do, that's why I made the decision to privatise all of my YouTube uploads so that they wouldn't infringe copyright. Also, I uploaded that MTV Aircheck video onto Archive.Org., not Vevo. I don't have a Vevo account. You don't upload your MVs onto Vevo, the label does. And the aircheck was also on your YT, although you might've blink-and-missed it. Why would major record labels want to upload random videos off Archive.Org onto Vevo? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Prove it to me then. Show me evidence that a multi-billion dollar music record label has re-uploaded someone's Archive.Org. video onto Vevo. You're making no sense. Besides, how do you know that I uploaded it onto my YouTube channel? The video is blocked worldwide, so it was never made public. I never even mentioned that I had uploaded it onto YouTube until you brought it up. Is there something you're not telling me? I think I might have to change my email address and password now...
Qwerty likes this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 23:12:14 GMT 10
It's been decided, i'm going to be uploading content onto archive.org.
Link to my archive.org page:
archive.org/details/@zampakid (add the @ before 'zampakid')
telemelbs likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by telemelbs on Jan 21, 2019 13:54:17 GMT 10
Hmmm.. Warner Music made a copyright complaint on a video (random 30 second Channel 11 recording) I uploaded privately and have never made it public. I can understand why (since that song 'Alive' was in it), but does that mean people can copyright videos even if they are private?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 14:19:17 GMT 10
Hmmm.. Warner Music made a copyright complaint on a video (random 30 second Channel 11 recording) I uploaded privately and have never made it public. I can understand why (since that song 'Alive' was in it), but does that mean people can copyright videos even if they are private?Yes. As I was told a few years ago, Content ID systems can still scan through the videos that are private or unlisted.
telemelbs and EyewitnessTV like this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jan 21, 2019 14:20:01 GMT 10
Hmmm.. Warner Music made a copyright complaint on a video (random 30 second Channel 11 recording) I uploaded privately and have never made it public. I can understand why (since that song 'Alive' was in it), but does that mean people can copyright videos even if they are private? That's a bit concerning. You wouldn't think that there would be a way for the media companies to have access to content that is privatised, although I suppose the files themselves are uploaded onto the YouTube database regardless.
telemelbs likes this
|
|
