When you need to rant...

[Drtooth]

Eh... I only really care about Archer on that network. They seem to have got rid of Chozen, which is a shame.

It's no less a bargain bin than TBS is.

What really gets me is that they feel the need to move everything (thankfully not Archer) to FXX, and you have to get the bigger package for that one. It's a real shame it's the only place to see Simpsons reruns. My local syndication outlet was the local Fox station, and it turned into an almost TMZ and crappy knockoff of TMZ channel during the day.

 

[mr3urious]

Mr. Enter's YT channel was terminated thanks to corporate brats abusing the Content ID system, namely Viacom. He's the guy who reviewed a lot of much-hated SpongeBob episodes released during the post-movie era, among other episodes of shows.

Hopefully the counter-claim he sent will re-instate his channel within 2 weeks.

 

[D'Snowth]

Hopefully the counter-claim he sent will re-instate his channel within 2 weeks.

Not very likely.

Not only does Viacom not believe in the Fair Use act (they recently nuked my HEY ARNOLD! Poop a few weeks ago), but YT itself is a corporate kiss-butt: if a video has a copyright claim on it, they're not going to remove it to stay on the good side of whatever company made that claim. They recently completely removed the audio from my PUPPET POWER special because of the use of KISS's "Shout it Out Loud," but they won't let me remove just the song... because that would remove the copyright claim, which, heaven forbid, they remove a copyright claim.

 

[Drtooth]

Yeah. that's why a lot of other review shows went off site. You're kinda playing with fire, no matter what free use that can be claimed. Yet, no one stops uploads of movies and TV shows like they do with unprofitable reviews or remixes.

It's Youtube. A network that once aired the show and since lost the rights or a home video company that held the rights to releasing a couple videos in an international market or a dubious music claim because some song was used on a long out of print compilation CD... just one of those can kill an account.

 

[mr3urious]

I don't see why more companies can't put ads in front of videos that contain their content so they can make money off of them, kinda like what Nintendo does, or at least I think they still do. It would certainly be a lot more cost effective than yanking them entirely.

Anyway, I'm just glad Enter he still has a lot of his vids saved, which are being uploaded to Dailymotion for the time being (which has its own set of problems altogether).

 

[D'Snowth]

At least, though, when you receive a copyright strike as opposed to a claim, those eventually go away. I think if you can keep your channel in good standing, that any strike you have is removed after 16-18 months, or something like that.

I don't have any on my play/goof-off channel now, over the course of the last several years, I've had strikes from Bagdasarian Productions (for posting a repitch of "Diamond Dolls"), from Disney (for posting Grover's appearance on Jimmy Kimmel, which was the first vid I ever uploaded), from Sesame Workshop (for posting EW entries that were requested of me), from Fox (for posting a M*A*S*H Poop), and I forget who else.

 

[Drtooth]

I don't see why more companies can't put ads in front of videos that contain their content so they can make money off of them, kinda like what Nintendo does, or at least I think they still do. It would certainly be a lot more cost effective than yanking them entirely.

I don't see where internet review show=loss of profits. Then again, I don't get the whole business model of (inhales)...

Refusing to release anything via legal sites, streaming, DVD, downloads, or whatever because they don't think they're going to make enough money to warrant releasing it, yet refusing to give the rights to a second party because they might just lose money on the transaction by not releasing it themselves even though they refused self release because they don't think it's good enough, yet too good for a company that has experience releasing cult stuff that flies under the radar and yet having the copyright police stomp down all over any illegal uploads of said show at the risk of losing money on something they refused to make money off of or let anyone make money off of because they're afraid of losing the money they refused to make.

GAAAAAASSSSSP!!!

 

[D'Snowth]

And I know I've brought this up before, but what gets me is even production music receives third-party claims now... the stuff that's specifically made free for use for anybody ranging from film/video students to actual studios who don't have the budget to hire composers to score their projects now receive third-party claims.

It's kind of like all these apps that you can supposedly download for free on your phone or tablet, but then you go to download them and find there's actually a fee to download them for free.

 

[D'Snowth]

Time to drudge up an old topic.

50 SHADES OF GRAY.

So, the mommy porn book was popular enough to warrant a film adaptation (and it really squicks me out to know my mom and her best friend intend to see it)... but now it's been adapted into a musical.

Honest to God...

 

[Drtooth]

It's not the subject matter that ticks me off, even though the woman supposedly has a terribly ignorant grasp on bondage (I'm told). It's the fact the thing is a bullcrap fan fic of Twilight characters with the names changed. I wouldn't even give it the distinction of porn. That's too good for it. I do not by any means want to be the guy who's jealous someone fell butt first into fame by doing what thousands of geeky girls do on the internet (better) anyway. But the fact that these dorks keep coming up with bad fan fiction, stealing characters from other books and making a fortune from them is a travesty. I don't see why more sexual fan fic writers aren't up in arms about it. I'm sure even they're better and at least have a working knowledge of the fetish they're writing.