Turn off YouTube ads, please
category: general [glöplog]
Also, Alpha & Omega #1 had a real 3D can in it.
So did Tint, fully HAM8 and texture-mapped to boot.
@ɧคɾɗվ.
Even if a channel owner has ads turned off, third party copyright holders (!) can claim copyright and then YT switches ads back on for these videos. There is nothing a channel owner can do against this.
Even if a channel owner has ads turned off, third party copyright holders (!) can claim copyright and then YT switches ads back on for these videos. There is nothing a channel owner can do against this.
@Korvkiosken
I don't mean to belittle your position, but did you consider that the amount of work you put into your demo is incomparably higher?
I'm saying this as somebody who has 1.5 decades of video encoding experience. Demoscene videos are some of the easiest ones to encode since you don't have to denoise, deinterlace, deband, nor otherwise post-process a video, which is something that takes expertise and a case-by-case approach, and thus time and effort. I could see some of that with old platforms with no digital output nor faithful enough emulation (but even then I'm not aware of many channels mass-uploading processed captures from old and obscure platforms). With most demoscene products, however, it's as simple as setting up kkapture to capture losslessly, waiting for it to finish its work and then waiting again for the YT upload—you get maximum possible quality and save yourself trouble. Some, like Annikras, add another step to put in a tiny watermark or something else like that, but that's hardly significant.
Encoding and uploading takes a while, sure, but actual human effort is a few seconds of clicking around and a few minutes of writing up the video description. You get extra views and sometimes subscribers in return, if that is of any relevance to your channel. It's usually a win/win scenario for an encoder: they put in a negligible amount of effort uploading a video of something that took hours and days to produce. Why shouldn't they buy YOU a beer instead? If you're contributing your product for free, then what uploader does must also be free. You're free to donate to them, however. The point is everything should be kept on a voluntary basis.
If there's any party that can be expected to take revenue in this whole setup is YouTube itself. Because it's a business that provides a very high-quality, feature-reach video hosting expecting it to be profitable. We use it because it saves us money on bandwidth, server space and other things that would be extremely expensive and challenging to arrange without YT's assets. Somebody would have to pay for such a service regardless, as it's not as simple as volunteering one's personal or CPU time. So as long as YT even allows disabling ads, we should thank them and consider it about as good as we should expect to have it.
Quote:
In that sense I haven't minded if a good youtube-capper (e.g. someone who does good captures and corrects errors when made aware of them) got a tiny bit of monetization - mainly because the amount of money they get from my puny Amiga stuff can't possibly be very much. It's a bit like me buying them a beer as a thank you.
I don't mean to belittle your position, but did you consider that the amount of work you put into your demo is incomparably higher?
I'm saying this as somebody who has 1.5 decades of video encoding experience. Demoscene videos are some of the easiest ones to encode since you don't have to denoise, deinterlace, deband, nor otherwise post-process a video, which is something that takes expertise and a case-by-case approach, and thus time and effort. I could see some of that with old platforms with no digital output nor faithful enough emulation (but even then I'm not aware of many channels mass-uploading processed captures from old and obscure platforms). With most demoscene products, however, it's as simple as setting up kkapture to capture losslessly, waiting for it to finish its work and then waiting again for the YT upload—you get maximum possible quality and save yourself trouble. Some, like Annikras, add another step to put in a tiny watermark or something else like that, but that's hardly significant.
Encoding and uploading takes a while, sure, but actual human effort is a few seconds of clicking around and a few minutes of writing up the video description. You get extra views and sometimes subscribers in return, if that is of any relevance to your channel. It's usually a win/win scenario for an encoder: they put in a negligible amount of effort uploading a video of something that took hours and days to produce. Why shouldn't they buy YOU a beer instead? If you're contributing your product for free, then what uploader does must also be free. You're free to donate to them, however. The point is everything should be kept on a voluntary basis.
If there's any party that can be expected to take revenue in this whole setup is YouTube itself. Because it's a business that provides a very high-quality, feature-reach video hosting expecting it to be profitable. We use it because it saves us money on bandwidth, server space and other things that would be extremely expensive and challenging to arrange without YT's assets. Somebody would have to pay for such a service regardless, as it's not as simple as volunteering one's personal or CPU time. So as long as YT even allows disabling ads, we should thank them and consider it about as good as we should expect to have it.
Quote:
I don't mean to belittle your position, but did you consider that the amount of work you put into your demo is incomparably higher?
Of course. However, my point was that as long as I'd like there to exist a video capture and I'm not going to do it myself then I'm still grateful someone else can be arsed to do it (well).
Yeah, I mean, as a token of gratitude, sure, that's cool. But not in the form of monetization, that's just wrong if you consider who puts in the most qualified workhours.
Quote:
Yeah, I mean, as a token of gratitude, sure, that's cool. But not in the form of monetization, that's just wrong if you consider who puts in the most qualified workhours.
If my prods alone were their big money maker then I'd agree with you & move in to get that sweet cash myself.
However, as that's not the case I'm not gonna get all outraged by some guy getting 3 extra followers because he had a good cap of the latest Spaceballs release. In that sense *you* are all wrong in telling me how I should manage my own IP. :)
Note: I'm not saying this should apply to everyone, it's just how I deal with it on my own behalf.
Now let's just wait for the musicians who contributed to the prods to march in here and disagree with me. :-D
The issue I see with ad monetization as a form of gratitude, much like several people above, is that it inconveniences everybody else. People who you don't expect to pay for your work still have to deal with something that would otherwise interfere with their watching experience, on behalf of a decision that wasn't really your own (I wouldn't call it management if you only agree/disagree with somebody else's actions). However small that burden is, it's not exactly fair to put it on the viewers of a free work as a thanks to a person uploading it. I don't really see a valid reason to inconvenience anyone at all unless it's purely voluntary.
(Needless to say, monetization only works if the ads are seen, so you can't at the same time suggest everyone use adblock.)
(Needless to say, monetization only works if the ads are seen, so you can't at the same time suggest everyone use adblock.)
Quote:
it's not exactly fair to put it on the viewers of a free work
But they're not watching the free work I made. They're watching a video capture of it.
Also, who's to say what is a fair treatment of someone who themselves choose to watch a work produced by someone else? It's not like people in general are entitled to have free access to all of this stuff.
But enough splitting of hairs for now. As I mentioned in my original post my own personal limit for what I think is ok in this sense is probably reached with unskippable ads. However, that's because of the inconvenience of it, not because some internet jockey made a few cents from the fact that I like to play with outdated computers.
When it comes to Amiga captures, ED 209 is doing a very good job and it's free of ads.
But it's not just the ads. What's really horrible in my opinion are "channel intros" in front of the actual demo, like here for example.
However, my favorite fail is this 240p capture of Elements with swapped red/blue channels and >80k views...
But it's not just the ads. What's really horrible in my opinion are "channel intros" in front of the actual demo, like here for example.
However, my favorite fail is this 240p capture of Elements with swapped red/blue channels and >80k views...
hfr: needless to say, all those examples would be removed/replaced with a big smile
Wherever there's value, there's soon a cottage industry.
They spend their time capturing demos and then make money of youtube? Assholes. As a side note, capture it by yourself or watch on real hardware?
