You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Welcome To The Steemit That Vote Buying Hath Wrought

in #abuse7 years ago

You obviously don't understand what plagiarism is and have the myopic view that Steem is only for long form content.

Those posts are all attributed and sharing/embedding them is encouraged by the owners. It's literally doing what the creator hopes for. The plagiarism angle is moronic.

What you actually have a problem with is short form or unoriginal content. Social networks are largely about sharing links and opinions. Steem needs to grow so people are buying it and keeping the price up and so there are people to upvote the posts. Mainstream growth is short form and link sharing.

Rewarding short form content as well as long form is better for Steem. Most of the internet are not long form authors, why would someone who's not a long form author going to sign up and vote and buy Steem if they are going to get slapped down for trying to use it like it was intended. You do know the name Steemit stems from Reddit right? A place where link sharing get's upvotes as well as long form content.

Sites like DMania and Zappl understand that not everyone is a long form author and Steem is not exclusively for them.

Sort:  

You are a complete and utter liar:

Do this on YT and you get a copyright strike, again, strongly implying I am correct:

Can you legally use a movie trailer in your youtube video and still have ads and make money? If so, how?
6 Answers
Amlan Tripathi
Amlan Tripathi, YT (https://www.youtube.com/still22videos) & Lead at Information Technology (2010-present)
Answered 26w ago · Author has 58 answers and 96.1k answer views
Both YES and NO!

"YES - There will be copyright strike and your channel will be warned a couple of times before your channel being taken down altogether. These kind of situation happens when you upload a complete audio visual end to end without any modification and monetization is turned on for your videos."

...

"In the case of a picture or image, you must first get permission from the owner of the image, unless the image is public domain. You should also attribute all images back to their original site (i.e. site you got the image from) and content creator/owner."

Doubling down on lies (and/or not knowing what the fuck you are talking about):

""In the case of a picture or image, you must first get permission from the owner of the image, unless the image is public domain. You should also attribute all images back to their original site (i.e. site you got the image from) and content creator/owner."

"Having an embedded youTube video on your online article or website is exactly like having an embedded image - thus permission must also be given from the owner of the youTube video.""

Produce written permission to reproduce the content you plagiarize.

But you won't, because you can't.

Also,

Studios all enter these agreements specifically because YT demonetizes any incorrect use of these trailers and funnels ALL revenue to the uploader (rights-owner's) monetization.

This is the explicit agreement on which YT's permission, on which the embedding permission, also relies.

No studio would approve of @movietrailers end-run roundabout on monetization that is happening here. Were they aware, they would immediately C&D or revoke these permissions, assuming the $ amount was material.

The "agreement" that you are claiming protects you would be moot given the spirit of it is being directly circumvented. You are actively working to undermine this agreement.

You would be given no legal quarter, and as Kevin says on Shark Tank, you would be crushed like the cockroach you are.

Even if you had a much better argument than you do.

You have obviously never worked in media or marketing. Your ignorance of their goals is laughable. What's even funnier is that you think I even posted a video. I posted a URL .

Exactly. You've done fuck all. You've been as lazy as you could possibly be, and done, literally nothing. And you are making far more than people who actually put work into their content. You're wrong. Shut up and disappear, or don't, and keep building your blog to an estimated worth of a million or whatever. AND THEN sit back and er, ENJOY THE FUCKING VIEW OF YOUR FOUR CELL WALLS, because what you are doing is illegal, and WHEN they catch up with you, they will sue the fucking shit out of your sorry arse.

"and done, literally nothing."

Misuses the word literally.

"they will sue the fucking shit out of your sorry arse."

Ummm okay that's what my arse is for. You and them are welcome to all the shit from it you want.

You know someone just needs to fuck off and give up when their responses are nothing more than picking at the way you have worded your comment :')

I already pointed it out. The written permission is in plain site. The rights holder allowed for sharing when submitting their work to YouTube and I used the 'Share' button supplied by YouTube. You just refused to accept the facts and have gone on some manic google cherry picking spree.

What's hilarious is that this is exactly what those companies hope for. They want their trailers to go viral and be shared all over the internet.

You are a perfect storm of ignorance.

On a technical level you don't understand what a URL is and what was actually published to the blockchain.

On a legal level you have no clue where to begin and just jumping to anything you can google to support you without realizing it's not applicable.

On a business acumen level you have failed to understand the motives of the companies releasing these trailers and how mass marketing works.

..Judge Jerome Siandle wrote:

"Trailers have become more than advertising material for other products; they have become valuable entertainment content in their own right, as web surfers continually frequent the internet to view these on-line commodities prior to movie releases, [...] and such previews increase web site traffic and on-line 'stickiness,' which give web site owners additional time and opportunities to market their services and products."

They know you are stealing revenue (or, they don't, because you are miniscule.) They only don't take you down because you are peanuts, not because they legally can't.

Do you know what a piece o0f shit is? Someone that uses others work in geed to fill their pockets, whilst hard working content creators are fucking trod on and forgotten about. Fuck you.

So in other words you have no fucking clue.

Do you even read any of the comments aimed at you? Remove yourself from the face of the earth

@lexiconical is factually wrong in some ways, but I agree with him in making visible these zero effort, zero contribution posts. It's not just lazy, it's cynical. The account does not author anything, it's just sharing other content without adding a single thing - not one single thing.

That is fair opinion and you are right nothing is added. I'm of the opinion that sharing links I like, like on Reddit is a perfectly valid use of Steem. As for the rewards, that is coming from my investment in personal stake and bid bots.

I see absolutely no harm taking place to other authors. Those bots will vote on a timer regardless and no one that isn't paying them will ever get those votes. That reward I'm gaining can only come at the expense of other bit bot buyers in the same window.

I took a risk and invested in promoting this account's content at a possible loss. It obviously worked at gaining exposure and with the down swing in price might not have even been profitable without the flags.

Sure, it's as valid as anything else. My opinion is just my opinion.

I view the kind of posting you're doing as a kind of farming. You've got a stake, for sure, and you can use it however you want. The platform facilitates thinly veiled zero effort posts such as yours as a means to harvest the crop of your stake, like Farmville but for real. Code is law though so enjoy it! I just wouldn't expect to avoid people calling you up on it.

That is actually a great balanced response. I'm surprised he was surprised people called him out on it.

You know what I think most fail to realize, is that when you operate as if you are an island you could literally be isolating yourself from social value and the protection it may offer.

For example, because I want to be specific and clear, if our friend here movietrailers was to, lets say lose access to his accounts (not that I wish anyone to lose his money) and have to start from scratch.

There would probably not be a single one of us that would want to help him. He might be OK with this, I happen to not desire such an existence, but to some people isolation is safe, it requires less emotional involvement.

No movie studio would give rights for this cynical cash grab that makes their content look like garbage.

The only reason he's not being C&D'd, REGARDLESS of whether there is legal merit, is he's not making enough with his little shit-factory here.

As I suspected there was some logical contortionism in the works behind the justification. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree, because when I first started to ponder as to the definition of Proof of Brain, copy pasting youtube videos was not one of the first things that jumped into my head.

But don't worry, carry on, it's your right to be wrong and if you have completely covered all bases as to not feel the slightest ounce of guilt for your activities you are doing just fine.

Cheers.

I'm impressed that you can make such a vapid comment and still feel as though you made a point. You should count yourself as lucky the proof of brain bar isn't set too high.

Yes, the bar is low. That is why you are here.

Thanks I appreciate your candor. I also wanted to suggest that it might be smart not to use your botnet to upvote your replies, after all some of them were to supposed to be secret. It's bad for business.

You lie reflexively on a regular basis.

Are you a compulsive liar?

ROFL you are claiming I'm lying about something I could only know. You're really wound up today your mind seems to be spinning all over. Did you drink too much coffee?

Ad hominem - still the leading choice when losing arguments everywhere.

(I prefer irony. Get it?)

Luckily, I was only talking about this one.

  1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.