Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 237 posts

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#191

Post by ndriscoll »

crazygringo wrote: post #148
RiverCrochet wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is supposed to exist for a limited time to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The current 100 year plus regime is effectively forever and not in line with the original constitutional purpose. With reasonable copyright timeframes, at some point all copyright will expire and then everything will be legal. The notion that an artist is entitled to extract money from each eyeball or ear that enco…

What does that have to do with streaming services? Probably 80% of what is watched is from the last year, a lot of it from the last month. Most of the rest is from the past couple decades. The original US copyright law of 1790 allowed for 28 years. I mean, I agree current copyright is too long. It's just not that relevant to streaming. Not a lot of people are looking to watch old episodes of Knight Rider for free. (T…

Given that the law is broken and the entertainment industry is generally responsible for that, it seems reasonable enough to decide you don't want to give them money that they will use against you (perhaps making exceptions for indie groups). Once you've made that decision, piracy (at least downloading) becomes amoral. Whether you watch the stuff has no effect on anyone else (personally I don't, but more because I'm not interested).

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#192

Post by tim333 »

lm28469 wrote: post #169

My youtube experience: - open video - 2 unskippable ads - click somewhere in the video to skip the creator's sponsor section (more ads) - 2 more unskippable ads - video plays, the original audio was automagically replaced by a dogshit 1995 tier "ai" dub - it's not the part I wanted to see, click somewhere else - 2 more unskippable ads At that point I spent 5 minutes watching ads and forgot why I came here...

My experience - ublock lite. Haven't seen an add for ages. Watch two seconds of creator's sponsor section then skip to next bit.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#193

Post by _vqpz »

keiferski wrote: post #189

These comments are a good example of why HN can be way, way off sometimes. YouTube is clearly becoming the dominant media platform of the future. Random acts of piracy or obscure video platforms are not indicative of how 99% of the population acts.

I don't see anyone in this thread even implying that's how most of the population acts, they're simply stating their take on streaming.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#194

Post by tim333 »

keiferski wrote: post #189

These comments are a good example of why HN can be way, way off sometimes. YouTube is clearly becoming the dominant media platform of the future. Random acts of piracy or obscure video platforms are not indicative of how 99% of the population acts.

I muck about on HN and get ~80% of my video content on youtube. I think it's great overall. The rest ~5% twitter, 0% TV although I have one sitting switched off with a £174 bbc fee. 5% pirated maybe.

If you go with the official HN guide of "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" and avoid "stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities" then youtube is much better - watching Hinton explain AI and neural networks at the mo. https://youtu.be/jrK3PsD3APk and https://youtu.be/IkdziSLYzHw which is kind of interesting.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#195

Post by keiferski »

_vqpz wrote: post #193
keiferski wrote: post #189

These comments are a good example of why HN can be way, way off sometimes. YouTube is clearly becoming the dominant media platform of the future. Random acts of piracy or obscure video platforms are not indicative of how 99% of the population acts.

I don't see anyone in this thread even implying that's how most of the population acts, they're simply stating their take on streaming.

Pretty much every comment here is talking about how their YouTube experience is suboptimal, how streaming platforms are getting worse (and not how YouTube is getting better), and other dismissive takes.

It's skepticism all around. The same kinds of comments are on threads about TikTok, which are equally clueless about how big of a deal TikTok is culturally to young people.

Sorry if my comment comes off a bit cranky, I just find the lack of any substantial comments here about the future of video media, etc. to be disappointing.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#196

Post by Telaneo »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #116
array_key_first wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, just pirate it. The quality will probably be better, anyway.

Eh, depends. Pirates these days need to burn hardware keys for 4K, so only sponsored or high-popularity stuff gets it. Everything else gets 1080p, though some groups do upscaling to try and make up for it. If the content has a Blu-ray release, the pirated content will usually be better than the stream. But you could also purchase the Blu-ray yourself. Anyway, pirating is illegal. I totally respect it for those who ca…

I'll pay 100 USD a month for an 'everything' subscription. That option doesn't exist, and piracy is by far the best option outside of that.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#197

Post by Telaneo »

zaphirplane wrote: post #138
benbristow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's totally possible? They've done it with Spotify for music. No reason the same shouldn't be done for films and TV.

Making a movie or a series is way more expensive than record a song

That's an argument for having a more expensive service, not a worse one. Even ignoring price, nothing on the video side comes close to Spotify when it comes to selection, other than Netflix back in the day.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#198

Post by Telaneo »

crazygringo wrote: post #148
RiverCrochet wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is supposed to exist for a limited time to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The current 100 year plus regime is effectively forever and not in line with the original constitutional purpose. With reasonable copyright timeframes, at some point all copyright will expire and then everything will be legal. The notion that an artist is entitled to extract money from each eyeball or ear that enco…

What does that have to do with streaming services? Probably 80% of what is watched is from the last year, a lot of it from the last month. Most of the rest is from the past couple decades. The original US copyright law of 1790 allowed for 28 years. I mean, I agree current copyright is too long. It's just not that relevant to streaming. Not a lot of people are looking to watch old episodes of Knight Rider for free. (T…

You'd be surprised how many people watch Seinfeld and Friends on repeat as comfort shows. Old shows is a pretty large part of their business.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#200

Post by joseda-hg »

netsharc wrote: post #178
estimator7292 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, jellyfin is shockingly absolutely killer for subtitles. I don't remember if it's a plugin or built in, but there's a subtitle search option that cross-references your video's filename into some database that usually gives you a workable set of subs. Plus it respects your options to default subs on or off, in a language you choose, in a style you like to see. I don't think any streaming services do it this well h…

"Some database", could it be opensubtitles.org ? Sigh, if I were them I'd be annoyed that my work is hidden away behind the words "some database".

The plugin does name them, but that's the nature of work so good as to become invisible, you don't actually see it unless you already know (Or care/need to look into it)
Post reply on HN