Why do companies have their own embedded players when they could just use Youtube? I'm always frustrated by players that are either slow, glitchy or just barely usable. Is there an explanation I'm missing?

Yeah it's a pain in the ass, so many of them f***ing suck.

Because youtube are a bunch of c***s. Yes they have the best player, but they also have policies and rules and a****** users that can flag your video and have it automatically removed.
Not something other companies would want to rely on. I have videos as part of an online portfolio of my work hosted by youtube, and I have found youtube to be unreliable in making those videos available. They have removed one and muted another one and threatened me with a 6 months good behaviour bond type thing. Even though the material was part of my f***ing resume basically and compeletely legal for me to use.

Say a company like Photon FX on the gold coast wants to put up a few videos of it's work on "Superman Returns", which it did most of the visual effects and logos for. Well if youtube's automated killing robot thing comes along and spots the superman stuff it will remove the video because it violates the copyright of DC comics or some s***. But it is perfectly legal for Photon to demo it's work in order to get more high-profile work. It is even acceptable to use copyright music in such demonstrations, at least in Australia. The theory being that if animators or editors can't use copyright music - well then they're not going to have any music and not much of a good demo - and nobody is going to compose their own music just for the video equivalent of a CV. It's not like they're claiming they trained the orchestra and wrote the score.

Even a particular employee should be allowed to demo some animations or something they did without being stuffed around. Imagine you send the link to a potential employer and they go there and the video is deleted. That is a mega f*** around for everybody.

Well that's just one example. Even youtube's video bloggers have had their videos removed for violating 'community codes' or some crap. Like you can't say you 'hate' anything - because that's a hate crime. Can't talk about Nazis because that's offensive. Stuff like that...

last edited by thermite at 13:58:48 17/Dec/09

there's still a s***load of good ones that aren't using imbedded windows media player from the 2002 era.

^ good point. I would never have even thought about that.

They have removed one and muted another one and threatened me with a 6 months good behaviour bond type thing. Even though the material was part of my f***ing resume basically and compeletely legal for me to use.

Sounds like you were using copyrighted content?

Why do companies have their own embedded players when they could just use Youtube? I'm always frustrated by players that are either slow, glitchy or just barely usable. Is there an explanation I'm missing?

I can only speak for AusGamers - but we basically did it because :

a) we wanted control over the end user experience (ie, using our own player)

b) at the time, Youtube was s***ty quality compared to what we could roll out. Now they have HD and other options this is less of a concern.

c) we felt we could provide a better experience by hosting the videos ourselves. We're from the realplayer days and hate seeing "buffering", and given we have some experience in throwing out large amounts of bandwidth we figured we'd rather rely on our systems to provide a better streaming experience rather than someone else.

d) we couldn't directly / automatically interface with Google to get videos encoded. not sure if this has changed, maybe they have an API for it now allowing you to automatically submit things for encoding?

The main reason I suspect most of them suck for you is that they're hosted overseas and we're in Australia and they are on s***ty networks. The only reason Youtube works so well is cuz google pump untold millions of dollars into making sure their networks work as equally well as possible all over the globe.

Ads are the main reason not to use YouTube

Also, your sentence is like saying, "Why are there so many banks!? We only need one."

YouTube might be king now, but who knows in 5-10 years what the state of play will be.

professionalism

On a related note, DivX Plus Web Player now supports MKV files with H.264 video and 5.1 AAC audio.
http://www.divx.com/en/software/divx/web-player

But it is perfectly legal for Photon to demo it's work in order to get more high-profile work. It is even acceptable to use copyright music in such demonstrations, at least in Australia.

I don't know why you think that - they don't own the copyright to the work, so can't reproduce it without their permission (subject to Fair Use laws). Same for music; you can't include a whole song. You MIGHT be able to get away with including a few seconds here and there, but frankly I just don't think it'd be worth the effort/risk.

The theory being that if animators or editors can't use copyright music - well then they're not going to have any music and not much of a good demo - and nobody is going to compose their own music just for the video equivalent of a CV. It's not like they're claiming they trained the orchestra and wrote the score.

Doesn't matter - if you don't own the music, you can't use it.

If you want music in a video on youtube, don't use copyrighted music for which you don't have permission to use - there's a whole stack of Creative Commons licensed audio which you could use instead.

Your point is still valid that, if you want to upload something AND you do have permission, it is much safer to avoid going to YouTube in case their automated bots strip it out. There are mechanisms for getting it re-approved and republished etc but it's totally not worth the effort so it's definitely a good reason to

Youtube actually offer CC licensed music for videos if you are unable to source your own. Everything I've uploaded has been a tutorial so it's not required music but I did see the option there while waiting for it to process my videos to HD.

I just don't think it's a good idea for _any_ professional outfit to regularly rely on any third party that they don't have an explicit agreement with to host their content.

For most of the same reasons that you wouldnt host all your site's graphics on imageshack, you wouldn't host all your videos on Youtube.

Trog, I think your post is an excellent example of how people misunderstand copyright. They hear 'copyright' and think 'illegal' - that's probably what our friends at yahoo/youtube are thinking. That isn't always the case, and there are situations in the industry where you can use copyright content that does not violate copyright laws. It has been made perfectly clear to me, on several occasions, by industry professionals, that what I am (and others are) doing is not illegal. I have the rights to stick this content on a website, or on a DVD and show it to anyone I want.
I do not have the paperwork that Youtube requires to prove I 'own' the work - because I don't, so therefore I am in violation of Youtube's policies, and that's it.

The fact is that EVERYTHING I am paid to make is copyrighted by someone else, if copyright laws were relevant to showreels; there would be no showreels. I absolutely do have the right to show people my previous work, e.g; for employment purposes - there is no official paperwork that says that, though, but that is how it is. A showreel/portfolio is expected almost in lieu of a CV in this industry - and part of the showreel of an editor is in how it is put together, and music is 50% of that. It is very unusual for an editor to own the rights to the music he is using - that never happens. If you look at an editor's work you will by definition be seeing the work of others, you can't prevent that, you just have to understand that the point is not that they created the music, or shot the footage, or built the props, or trained the actors, the point is that they have crafted these things together. A showreel tends to be something that is expected to be very well polished, with graphics and sound and music, regardless of who made those components, and as an editor, I have made showreels not just for myself, but for camera operators and art department crew. I have used plenty of ripped off music and got people jobs at channel 7 and 9, and on feature films.

A good argument for why Youtube has the policies they do is that they could be seen more as a broadcaster, which implies money is being made for the content, say through ads, which would put Youtube in violation of the copyright law.

I just don't think it's a good idea for _any_ professional outfit to regularly rely on any third party that they don't have an explicit agreement with to host their content.

Thermite, what ever your opinion is/law actually is... the you-tube lawyers find loopholes and to protect themselves from some giant company ass raping them over something stupid they just block it all by policy.... Welcome to the internet.

Trog, I think your post is an excellent example of how people misunderstand copyright.

Funny, I was thinking the same about yours :P

They hear 'copyright' and think 'illegal' - that's probably what our friends at yahoo/youtube are thinking.

They have one motive - to not get sued because jackass people that upload a video of their stupid cat with the latest song by Britney. There is no way they think copyright == illegal - YouTube operates (in the US) strictly in accordance with the DMCA.

A big part of their operation is set up so rights holders can manage their content - specifically because the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people that post copyrighted content do not have the rights to do so.

You are right in that most people misunderstand copyright.

That isn't always the case, and there are situations in the industry where you can use copyright content that does not violate copyright laws.

Yep, it's called "Fair use" and it is notoriously vague. Here is the copyright.org.au FAQ on fair dealing which goes into some deal. Note that reproducing copyrighted works for the purposes of a resume is not covered.

It has been made perfectly clear to me, on several occasions, by industry professionals, that what I am (and others are) doing is not illegal. I have the rights to stick this content on a website, or on a DVD and show it to anyone I want.

As above, you do if you're doing it in the sense of 'fair use'. Further, 'industry professionals' are not lawyers and are prone to make the same mistakes about copyright law that many other people are! Also, I am not a lawyer. But I have spent a f***ton of time researching this stuff and talking to lawyer types about it, so I'd trust me over an industry professional :)

If by "what you are doing" means, putting works you have created up on a portfolio/demo reel, then unless your employer is a total cock OR you're working on projects that are still under NDA, you'd be pretty unlucky to run into copyright issues.

I absolutely do have the right to show people my previous work, e.g; for employment purposes - there is no official paperwork that says that, though, but that is how it is

what sort of 'previous work' are you referring to? There's a whole slew of reasons why you might not have the right to show them that; NDAs are one of them.

If you are using copyrighted music in a video (the substantial part of), you (almost certainly) absolutely do not have the right to include that in your video - see the Music FAQ.

If you look at an editor's work you will by definition be seeing the work of others, you can't prevent that, you just have to understand that the point is not that they created the music, or shot the footage, or built the props, or trained the actors, the point is that they have crafted these things together.

That is not really relevant to copyright law.

If I was reviewing a showreel (I assume that's what we're talking about here?) then I would actually want to know the editor putting it together understood the concepts of copyright and rights management and knew they couldn't just go and download an mp3 from the Internet and throw it into a demo reel.

I have used plenty of ripped off music and got people jobs at channel 7 and 9, and on feature films.

That's awesome, and if you can keep doing it and getting away with it, then that's great - but just bear it in mind if something you do that infringes copyright gets online, or you produce something for someone that infringes copyright and they use it and get sued, there could be trouble.

A good argument for why Youtube has the policies they do is that they could be seen more as a broadcaster, which implies money is being made for the content, say through ads, which would put Youtube in violation of the copyright law.

Money making doesn't make any difference from a youtube perspective - they were getting takedown requests longgg before they had ads on their site.

The only time money makes a difference is if you're licensing your copyrighted works under something like a Creative Commons license which has a non-commercial clause.

Note: IANAL; if you've received legal advice that differs from this then you should trust your lawyers. But basically when playing with copyright, the SAFEST thing to do is to assume you need explicit permission from any copyright holder, unless you have read their license terms and they clearly state you can use it in the way you're using it.

Cliff notes:
If you're broadcasting (i.e. internet, lecture theatres, etc) then you are breaching copyright. THAT is why YouTube cannot allow copyrighted material that you do not own, to be presented.

Also, back on topic - I agree that YouTube is a better video player at the moment, but it is best not to rely on one site/company. Variety is the spice of life.

last edited by Seven at 20:49:33 17/Dec/09

Saw this related article today, 81% of viewers will leave a video site if they have to wait for rebuffering.

If you're broadcasting (i.e. internet, lecture theatres, etc) then you are breaching copyright.

Only if you don't have a license to broadcast that content. If its Creative Commons, for example, then you can broadcast away, assuming you're doing so in such a way that you are compliant with the license.

Yeah pretty sure if you're using copyrighted music for your showreel you'd still need to license the said music and images from the copyright holder. Yes you have "fair use" to it but clearly youtube doesn't want to play in the murky waters so they'll just nuked them automatically as the first line of arse-covering-policy.

Even restaurants playing legally purchased copy of CDs have to pay both APRA and PPCA for the rights to play _any_ copyrighted music (LOL name me any well known artist that you can purchased on CDs that are open source) owned by publishers/artists that belonged to these agencies. The license structure for music for them depends on what sort of venue you are etc. This is simply because you do not have the broadcast rights in public or even semi-public or use their licensed products for your own gain. You can _however_ play radio or FTA TV in your restaurant because the stations already have broadcast rights to them etc. That or you make you own music, or license the material directly from the copyright holder(s). Which may work if you have a lot of indy artists that want to get their material heard etc. or you are particularly talented musician.

So to assume that simply because you can do it, and got away with it, it's legal to do is well, silly. As trog said, most industry "experts" don't even understand the complexities when it comes to the legality of copyright laws. Unless the advice you've received from the said "experts" was from an "expert" copyright lawyer specialising in entertainment business then I'd say you've been given bad advice, or ignorant. Neither of which is a defence in the court of law.

I'm clearly no copyright lawyer but I thought I did the right thing so imagine my surprise when I get mails from APRA and PPCA both asking me to pay license and until I did the research I didn't even know the difference between them. Copyright law is definitely a slippery slop for everyday joe like me so, that's why I'd say get advice from a real lawyer and not some self proclaimed "expert", because push comes to shove, you can pretty much count these "experts" out for accountabilities. At least with a lawyer you can say hey man you've given me bad advice, it's your fault.

/my $0.02



last edited by Opec at 17:48:59 21/Dec/09

Saw this related article today, 81% of viewers will leave a video site if they have to wait for rebuffering.

I figure that's why redtube took off.

xxnx was awesome in the day but their tech sucks balls

(LOL name me any well known artist that you can purchased on CDs that are open source)

Not open-source but creative commons - Nine Inch Nails:

Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/faq


last edited by parabol at 23:43:48 21/Dec/09

Here's a question, is that stupid benny hill theme music copyrighted? I hear that s*** on just about every "funny" youtube video, I can only dream of the day youtube nukes that audio as soon as people upload their videos.

That's ok, there's always http://bennyhillifier.com/