How many laws have been made in the past that today we fathom to be unimaginable they were allowed to exist? How many laws are in existence today that we fathom to be unimaginable that they are allowed to persist? It might be easier to think of examples for the latter in jurisdictions we deem less civilized or ideal, but it would not be hard to find of examples in our own jurisdictions with a little research. That much I know of law, despite me not being a lawyer.
There are mass shootings frequently in the United States. Each time, there is an outcry for gun control laws. Each time, it dies like a victim in those shootings. 32 died at Virginia Tech. Nothing has changed there.
Naturally, the bigger the tragedy, the bigger the outcry. Yet, it has made no difference in the end, and we just wait for the next shocker.
What I want to know is how many people killed at an incident before you think any change to US gun control laws can be seen?
Do we need 50? Do we need to break the century barrier?
Sometime in early 2010, possibly late 2009, YouTube changed its copyright policies for whatever reason… and lost its edge.
The precise time isn’t important. Nor is the exact reasons why. This isn’t a history documentary. Just a commentary on the state of things.
I first noticed it during the Winter Olympics in 2010, in trying to find clips about which I blogged. There was either nothing, or poorly labeled posts that were taken down sometimes just hours after being put up. I thought the Olympics legal machine had threatened YouTube into temporary submission, but those egomaniacs can go smash their egos elsewhere because this was something much bigger happening.
It seemed YouTube changed conditions of what it allowed to be posted to be something like this.
1. If the obvious true copyright owners of the videos did nothing, they would be left on. That is, you’d have to file a claim of some sort to have any action taken. You’d have to prove it somehow, like if it were a legitimate music video, cut from a show, etc. I’m not sure about just the music track used being copyrighted.
2. The copyrighted videos could be left on with (Google word?) ad revenues in return.
3. The copyrighted videos could be left on but embedding had to be disabled.
4. The copyright videos could be left on with one of several targeted commercials at the start… which is REALLY annoying because they’re unexpected since most videos seem NOT to have one.
5. The copyrighted videos could be removed… en masse. This last change was the killer because YouTube seemed to have done it for entire clients, like Bob Dylan’s videos. I was disappointed a lot of Bob Dylan videos, and performances of his songs, disappeared just like that from YouTube. Not only was I disappointed in YouTube in this case, I was disappointed in Bob. I thought he was cooler than that. Really, does the man need any money? But it’s about the only thing Bob’s done that’s ever disappointed me, and that’s more than I can say for pretty much anyone else I know.
It seemed anything that qualified as “fan creation”, meaning it wasn’t just clipped or taken directly as was continuously from some source, was allowed to remain on YouTube, though. It seemed to also have applied to such fan vids using what should be copyrighted sound tracks. Maybe YouTube was being hypocritical to say it was in the video business so music copyright didn’t apply to it. I don’t know. But that seems to have been the outcome from certain videos I see and don’t see of the same music tracks that remained or were removed from YouTube.
In doing this, YouTube went from rebel teenager to responsible adult overnight. The company that once posted everything and gave the finger at anyone who complained of copyright was now waving another finger to a different beat at those who posted stuff that shouldn’t be on there.
Worse, not long after YouTube first “took down” the videos for copyright, it even removed the message about why the video was being removed. It left a black screen that did nothing, as if the poster screwed up technologically.
Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! You are still an adolescent, YouTube, in behaving like that!
Now, being like many people who got used to YouTube, I still went there to search for videos. However, I kept hitting snags of removed videos that were still searchable. Then YouTube remedied that annoyance and now I just find videos I like, share with friends, only to have some removed just days later. They must have a notification system on because there would be just too many videos to have people actually monitor them for potential copyright infringement.
Recently, however, I hit my breaking point with YouTube. I had had enough of its corporate behaviour. It wasn’t the YouTube that attracted me in the first place. So now I just search for videos on Google, under the “Video” category, and look for alternatives to YouTube first. I admit I still end up going to YouTube half the time, but that’s half the time and a lot less frustration than I used to have because I now have a grasp of what videos I see on YouTube that might not be removed days later.
So where am I going the other half of the time that I don’t go to YouTube for videos?
No one particular place, really, but I’m finding out a lot of other great video sources.
I like the Chinese youku.com (means excellent and cool) and Tudou.com (literally potato net, thought it sounds like Vietnamese for freedom). Once again, Made in China as trumped Made in the USA. Can you imagine that? I never thought I’d be saying that about Internet services, especially considering the Internet censorship in China. But they only seem to care about Communist propaganda or anti-Communist stuff. They have all kinds of stuff on Youku and Tudou you won’t find on YouTube these days! Furthermore, they don’t have a 20 minute video limit that YouTube had upped from its original 10 minute limit as late as last year. Maybe YouTube did it to compensate for the copyright move. It certainly freed up server space and bandwidth (info flow from loading up videos) with all the videos it removed! Pick your favourite historical massacre and compare the videocide to it!
I mean, really. This is just for sharing and fun. It’s like free preview in poor quality. If the people like it enough, they’ll go buy the real thing from you. You’ll probably sell more copies on that business model. The copyright pundits should really just GET OVER IT! People like me just go elsewhere to find the same things… and then trash them for it.
But what could YouTube have done?
Well, for one thing, they could have come up here to Canada. Our dollar is still cheaper.
And our copyright laws are so worthless we didn’t even bother copyrighting them!
Anything done politically to try and change them is just a facade. The result would allow a politician to say we’ve got this and that going, but it wouldn’t address the issue and get the money to the right people who own the copyright. Lawyers or organizations fighting on behalf of the people and such would get the revenues. If one does get any revenues, the fees paid to register to get it would cut a lot of it away for most people, or a few would benefit from the lack of gains by the many. Good old capitalism at its best… though without true free market forces. Just greedy bastards out to get you and make themselves look good at the same time.
It’s just a thought. But I’d be stupid to think YouTube would listen. It’s all grown up now and lost all sense of adventure. I just refer to it as BooTube now, even though I know that name’s been copyrighted.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 6.4
This post deals with two topics. The first is regulating usage of tanning beds by minors due to some science-based suspicion of melanoma or skin cancer resulting from it, a real problem going on today. It sets up the second topic which is a philosophical question regarding racism against coloured people and the hypocrisy to look a little more like them to be elitist in a trendy sense.
According to Wikipedia, sun tanning started becoming a modern fad in the 1940s as women’s magazines encouraged sun bathing and the bikini was introduced in 1946. Since then, it has gathered steam and possibly peaked this year, at least in media and government attention. A total of 17 states, including “sunshine states” Florida and Hawaii, are currently considering laws controlling tanning bed usage by minors [Toronto Star, Mar 26 2009]. Furthermore,
Florida already requires parental approval before minors can use tanning salons. If the new law passes, it would be among the strictest in the nation. Only one state, Wisconsin, bans teens 16 and under from using tanning beds, though a handful of others – California, New York and New Jersey among them – ban the under-14 crowd. At least 29 states have some regulations governing tanning by minors.
Teens are flocking to these tanning beds, apparently. At least 25% of American teens 15-18 years old have used indoor tanning, and many of them might go anywhere from 1-3 times a week!
But, of course, there are stupid politicians, or should I say Republicans, who don’t know anything about regulations who oppose it using Republican “logic”. Florida Republican Senator Mike Bennett said “I gotta tell you, you cannot regulate everything in this world, I suppose we could say the same thing and outlaw tanning on the beach.”
Well, it’s not quite like that Mike. You see, on the beach, it’s not only natural sunlight, but Mother Nature has placed controls on how many suitable sunshiny days you get to sun tan. She regulates how many days in a row and our lifestyle would only permit us so much time during sunshine hours to tan. This is a man made problem, tanning salons, and it needs a man made solution. You don’t need to regulate beach tanning because Mother Nature has already done that for you. If you’re not going to do anything, at least say let evolution take care of itself and weed out the dumbsters who can’t even take advantage of sunshine in places like Florida and Hawaii but have to resort to tanning beds.
Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot you Bible hugging, creationist dogma chugging Republicans don’t believe in evolution. But find a smarter reason than what you said so you don’t sound so stupid, eh?
But Mike, at least, wasn’t as stupid as Republican Texas State Representative Burt Solomons, who said it made no sense to ban minors from tanning just like they’re prohibited from buying cigarettes because both are known carcinogens.
Sunshine as a carcinogen! There’s a good one for the anals of science if I’ve ever heard one! It’s a wonder Burt’s not a vampire… at least a literal one. It’s so sad that a wonderful ideal as democracy can be warped so much as to get idiots like these in political offices when evolution should be wiping them out!
So all that being that, I say ban the under-14 crowd and require Parental permission for the under-16 crowd. Make the under-14 get sunshine the natural way with Mother Nature’s regulations, and let the rest be subject to natural evolution that if they were stupid enough to over do their tanning, they can remove themselves from the gene pool for it.
Now, as for this tanning fad, I’ve never been able to understand it ever since I came to Canada as an 8 year old. As a child, things were simple and clear, or just sometimes come through that way, and my observations on the paradox of racism and tanning has never changed since. I saw racism towards coloured people, though was fortunate to experience very little of it. Yet, I kept seeing Caucasian people flaunt their tans that made them temporarily browner, genuinely by sunshine or artificially in a salon, as a status symbol! It confused me, and still befuddles me to this day. The only difference is that I now see that paradox as hypocrisy, regarding
Why is it cool to be brown only for a few weeks at a time?
Now, I live in Canada, where the hypocrisy is only generally seen from Caucasian demographics. In Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and many other countries, though, the coloured people even buy into it so much as to try and be whiter to push the hypocrisy from the coloured demographics. There is skin bleaching going on with creams and other means, to the extent it’s called a phenomenon [Jamaica.com, 2002]. There is also black women trying to marry white men in successive generations to improve the white stock of their skin, as described by Malcolm Gladwell in his personal lineage story as part of his book, Outliers. They do these things despite the Caucasian people around them tanning in their glorious sunshine environment! Yes, so I ask again
Why is it cool to be brown only for a few weeks at a time?
Tell me if you can…
And tell me why white body builders feel like they need to all be brown as well.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 10.2