Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
May it depend from HD?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
could also be that they haven't had time to uncap everyone yet. when youtube changed into the newer worse channels, it took some time before all channels were changed.
feos wrote:
nfq, create several ones with static picture & lowest quality to test. We don't need more than 3 hours, I believe.
It turns out another account of mine got its time limit removed, even though I uploaded copyrighted material that got taken down. My main account still remains unaffected.
Was it YT who said only 'clean' accounts get their limit removed?
crap... i tried to upload my 6.5h TAS but it got rejected for being too long :/. why can't youtube write how long videos we can upload now? we just waste their bandwidth by having to test it. but you can at least have 1 hour long videos, because i saw someone who had uploaded one.
They probably don't have an easily-articulated algorithm for describing the accept/reject rules. I'd bet it includes bitrate, overall file size, and the amount of work they'd have to do to re-encode the file. This is not something you can easily describe to the average uploader, so they simply don't bother. That, and this way they're free to change the rules behind the scenes.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Derakon wrote:
They probably don't have an easily-articulated algorithm for describing the accept/reject rules. I'd bet it includes bitrate, overall file size, and the amount of work they'd have to do to re-encode the file. This is not something you can easily describe to the average uploader, so they simply don't bother. That, and this way they're free to change the rules behind the scenes.
The file I uploaded was 100 megabytes big. :p
Once again, TASVideos > YouTube.
There seems to be a simple time limit like usual. I split the tas into two parts, so it got accepted now. The first part is almost 4 hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Om_cVQxr8
The audio is off sync for some reason, even though it wasn't in the original file.
Weird. I did get that congratulatulary message before, and in December I was actually able to upload movies longer than 15 minutes (one being over 18 minutes).
However, apparently, they have re-capped me after that, for now the message no longer appears, and they have rejected uploads of mine that are 30 and 31 and 26 minutes long.
Mysterious are the ways of giant corporations.
Point probably is that his account, as well, is just a step away from getting a "strike" stain to it (get three of those, and your account is deleted along with all its videos). The fact that Konami has installed "content identification" for something in the Gradius game is alarming. That stuff is only installed for the purpose of tracking down people who use one's intellectual property, and it costs, so there is a proprietary-ownership kind of motive as well. What will happen to video game gameplay videos if the litigation hordes start infesting them as well?
Point probably is that his account, as well, is just a step away from getting a "strike" stain to it (get three of those, and your account is deleted along with all its videos).
This isn't true. I got about 20 of those (got one on Gradius also) and my account is going just swell.
Point probably is that his account, as well, is just a step away from getting a "strike" stain to it (get three of those, and your account is deleted along with all its videos).
This isn't true. I got about 20 of those (got one on Gradius also) and my account is going just swell.
I said "step away from", not "about to get". Well, maybe my meaning wasn't too clear, but I meant that the content has been identified and is now subject to whatever Konami wishes to do. As long as they choose to do nothing, that account is "just swell". But that may change.
Given many of us have an account since 2008 or so, realy i think theres no need to scare people, if konami had a trouble with anything, all our accounts would be deleted since a while by now.
(it detect also castlevania and many other stuffs)
So hmmm, it may as well never change.
One of the likely reasons for this is Konami selling the soundtracks to its games (in alarming quantities, in fact), which may have been the trigger for content identification. At least it's more likely than the sprite of Vic Viper…
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Your video, Sylvian joululaulu , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:
* Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Content Type: Musical Composition
The author of the lyrics died in 1898, and the author of the melody died in 1871. This means that the song has been in the public domain for at least 50 years. Any rights claimed by this "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" (a rather amusing name) is completely frivolous.
(No, this has nothing to do with the issue discussed here. Just wanted to share.)
!!!
Warp looks badass, and has a nice deep voice. :)
If this is the case, whoever these "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" are, they are simply trying to feed off the copyright law loopholes. They have no right whatsoever to own or administer this performance. I suppose you should point this out to Google because I'm sure they won't be happy about Public Domain Music Royalty Collecting Society, or whatever its name is, disturbing law-abiding users like that.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Bisqwit wrote:
Warp wrote:
A pretty accurate assessment. What's your point?
get three of those, and your account is deleted along with all its videos
I got 6 of those & one of them tells that my video is blocked in Germany.
The account may be deleted only if the possessor of the right complains about my vid twice. It happened to AnS & his Battlecity hack. After the first complain they deleted the vid, after the second they would have deleted the account itself.
As YouTube said, no actions are required from us if we upload vids which then were not appealed. The only thing I've noticed, when you search for Contra TAS, you'll see my copyrighted vid as vid from partners (which Konami is). Webnations has many copyrighted vids as well.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
I have one of those:
YouTube wrote:
Your video, Sylvian joululaulu , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:
* Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Content Type: Musical Composition
The author of the lyrics died in 1898, and the author of the melody died in 1871. This means that the song has been in the public domain for at least 50 years. Any rights claimed by this "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" (a rather amusing name) is completely frivolous.
(No, this has nothing to do with the issue discussed here. Just wanted to share.)
This is also why the DMCA is so awfully one-sided in favor of the corporations making these claims. They misidentified that particular upload for a different song made by one of their artists. As in: that artist performed the song, and they hold the copyright to that performance. Youtube's content identification system, brilliant as it is, is still just a program that occasionally makes mistakes like this.
Now if they request the content to be taken down, Youtube has to comply. They are not allowed to refuse as part of the Safe Harbor provision. They can put the upload back up later if they do a post-mortem investigation and find it to be in compliance with copyright law, but they're not going to do that because they don't have the time.
From my understanding of the DMCA (and I am not a lawyer), while YouTube is required to take the content down on receipt of the DMCA takedown notice, they are also required to put it back up if you contest that notice. After that it's between you and the sender of the notice to determine who's on the right side, and YouTube's only further involvement is to take the thing down again if you proved to be in the wrong.
Of course, it's unlikely that any individual is going to want to go up against a bench of corporate lawyers.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
