81–90 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds a lot like Pump.io or Diaspora. MediaGoblin is going to support federation soon as well.
I personally think there should be a protocol that would turn everything into one big social network where you could sign up on any server and then OAuth to other servers. We are building it: http://platform.qbix.com (Better than Diaspora* :)
YouTube is about to begin testing the new service – which will charge people to watch and listen to music without ads, and download songs to their mobile devices – within the next few days, initially within Google. So, Adblock Plus and Youtube to MP3?...
Annnnd...now we know why Chrome 35 doesn't even allow you to install 3rd party extensions in Developer Mode anymore, and they all need to be installed from the web store. They might leave the blocker if it comes from the well known ones like Adblock or Adblock Plus, but they will reject any other extension that is purposefully built to block such ads in the new service.
And it is only applicable on Windows, and not applicable to developer or enterprise channels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Annnnd...now we know why Chrome 35 doesn't even allow you to install 3rd party extensions in Developer Mode anymore, and they all need to be installed from the web store. They might leave the blocker if it comes from the well known ones like Adblock or Adblock Plus, but they will reject any other extension that is purposefully built to block such ads in the new service.
No, the reason you can't install extensions from third-party sources is to stave off crapware and worse from being installed by other programs, which is a real problem. And it is only applicable on Windows, and not applicable to developer or enterprise channels.
Plausible breakdown of Google/YT's side of the story: 1. Youtube wants to offer users a subscription service with no ads. 2. Youtube needs to update its licensing/terms with artists: If a video plays for a subscriber they see no ads, artist gets money from subscription pool. If a video plays for a non-subscriber they see ads, artist gets money from ads pool. 3. Artists need to explicitly agree to these terms because…
Taking all that at face value it certainly disregards the actual user, who in the vast majority of cases will not be subscribing to this new service. It sounds like Google+ all over again; where Google is spiting the vast majority of its users (removing content that they wish to see) in order to launch a (likely to fail) service that directly replicates one or more services already widely available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking all that at face value it certainly disregards the actual user, who in the vast majority of cases will not be subscribing to this new service. It sounds like Google+ all over again; where Google is spiting the vast majority of its users (removing content that they wish to see) in order to launch a (likely to fail) service that directly replicates one or more services already widely available.
No, it doesn't affect the non-subscribing users. They will see ads either way. It is the artists and the subscribers who would be adversely affected by artists that do not participate.
Adverse affects for independent artists who do not sign up translate to adverse affects for non-subscribers that want to watch those artists on YouTube.
Plausible breakdown of Google/YT's side of the story: 1. Youtube wants to offer users a subscription service with no ads. 2. Youtube needs to update its licensing/terms with artists: If a video plays for a subscriber they see no ads, artist gets money from subscription pool. If a video plays for a non-subscriber they see ads, artist gets money from ads pool. 3. Artists need to explicitly agree to these terms because…
Why not? Make it clear on signup that it's a premium service with guaranteed quality content, and x number of major labels are on board where you won't be seeing ads.
If there's actual value to users (and artists--their brands won't be associated with random ads) in something like this, there should be enough pressure to encourage these indie labels to agree to terms and go ad-free, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Annnnd...now we know why Chrome 35 doesn't even allow you to install 3rd party extensions in Developer Mode anymore, and they all need to be installed from the web store. They might leave the blocker if it comes from the well known ones like Adblock or Adblock Plus, but they will reject any other extension that is purposefully built to block such ads in the new service.
No, the reason you can't install extensions from third-party sources is to stave off crapware and worse from being installed by other programs, which is a real problem. And it is only applicable on Windows, and not applicable to developer or enterprise channels.
Youtube blocks all videos they don't have the rights to. If an indie label refuses to give google the rights to show their videos, then youtube can't play those videos. That isn't youtube blocking indie labels, it's indie labels refusing to licence their music to youtube.
If read it four times, but the logic in this statement is bizarre. Your first sentence clearly states "Youtube blocks all videos they don't have the rights to" . That's YouTube doing the blocking. Period. Of course they can play those videos, copyright hasn't gotten that far out of hand yet.
Youtube blocks all videos they don't have the rights to. If an indie label refuses to give google the rights to show their videos, then youtube can't play those videos. That isn't youtube blocking indie labels, it's indie labels refusing to licence their music to youtube.
If read it four times, but the logic in this statement is bizarre. Your first sentence clearly states "Youtube blocks all videos they don't have the rights to" . That's YouTube doing the blocking. Period. Of course they can play those videos, copyright hasn't gotten that far out of hand yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't affect the non-subscribing users. They will see ads either way. It is the artists and the subscribers who would be adversely affected by artists that do not participate.
It is the artists ... who would be adversely affected by artists that do not participate. Adverse affects for independent artists who do not sign up translate to adverse affects for non-subscribers that want to watch those artists on YouTube.