SF Debris Trek Videos removed from Youtube

[Alyeska]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8KOFVL ... dded#at=99

It seems that CBS is determined to kill its fanbase. Compliant filed against SF Debris over Trek content. Youtube provides notice. Chuck is now on his 2nd strike. All Trek content removed to avoid having the channel shut down.

[Imperial528]

It's like they don't understand the concept of free advertising. There are several VOY episodes I watched simply because I heard the reviews were good and figured that I should watch the episode first.

Although I wonder if Chuck's use of the episode's material that he reviews falls under the terms of fair use enough that he could protest.

[Alyeska]

After following policy on Ars Technica, I have come to realize the copyright and fair use is far more complicated than it seems on the surface. Fair use doesn't mean its fair.

[Sarevok]

Well they could argue that Chuck is indirectly causing them loss of DVD sales because now realize how crap VOY and ENT is.

[Crom]

Does Chuck still post here? I haven't seen anything by him for a while.

[Anguirus]

Can he find another host for his videos? That's utterly godawful if it kills SFDebris.

[Vympel]

He's on blip.tv IIRC.

[Anarchist Bunny]

Yes he is, and blip.tv for one reason or another is a much more friendly partner to the online video reviewer. thatguywiththeglasses.com and all its sub-reviewers use it on that website as well as their personal ones. He started using both due to fair use squabbles and this might just be the final nail in the coffin for dumping Youtube entirely.

[Formless]

His Blip account and archives.

Nowadays, near as I can tell if you want to do or see online criticism and parody in video format, go right to blip. Youtube has no spine, balls, or heart, and for once I'm not talking about the quality of the comments section. This would not be the first channel that got killed by DMCA bullshit.

[Zor]

A damn shame, there were a lot of good videos that he did not get around to uploading onto blip.

Zor

[Big Orange]

Leslie Moonves and CBS show themselves up as self-defeating morons once again, but it matters not since I've had Sfdebris' Blip account to my "favourites" a few months ago.

[NecronLord]

I really don't think this is contrary to their interests. The last two videos have contained a screed against the price of the DVDs (their only trek product these days) and against the horror that is Pulaski. While these rants are dead on the nose, and entirely reasonable, from the perspective of the copyright holders, that's hardly encouraging people to buy their stuff.

[Sarevok]

I really don't think this is contrary to their interests. The last two videos have contained a screed against the price of the DVDs (their only trek product these days) and against the horror that is Pulaski. While these rants are dead on the nose, and entirely reasonable, from the perspective of the copyright holders, that's hardly encouraging people to buy their stuff.

So their approach is to silence criticism by enforcing censorship ?

[NecronLord]

I really don't think this is contrary to their interests. The last two videos have contained a screed against the price of the DVDs (their only trek product these days) and against the horror that is Pulaski. While these rants are dead on the nose, and entirely reasonable, from the perspective of the copyright holders, that's hardly encouraging people to buy their stuff.

So their approach is to silence criticism by enforcing censorship ?

Err, yes. They're a heartless and ruthless corporation, that's the kind of thing such organizations do. People are saying it's not in their self interest to shut Chuck down.

Shutting Chuck down is very much in their interest, his videos basically tell people not to buy the majority of theirs, and moreover, present a range of entertainment alternatives (Flash Gordon, Doctor Who) they may wish to try instead.

I don't approve of their behavior, but it does make sense.

[Purple]

It makes sense but it is also not strictly legal. In fact, free use laws are not on their but his side. The problem is that youtube has no spine and will bend over for any corporation regardless of the rules becouse they fear lawsuits. Seriously, youtube has grown from an institution to be respected into a spineless slime that makes Wormtongue look like a knight of the round table.

[Sarevok]

Indeed. This is why I made this sarcastic comment earlier.

Well they could argue that Chuck is indirectly causing them loss of DVD sales because now realize how crap VOY and ENT is.

On the other hand though Chuck may be doing a long term favor to lesser known parts of the Star Trek. Nobody is going to remain the dreadfully boring episodes of the Voyager/Enterprise era. Chuck's criticism is actually making people think and look up stuff they may never watch again in their lives.

To use an anecdote I reviewed a few episodes of DS9 after Chuck lampooned them. If it were not for him I may never have even remembered that I still have the recordings.

Hard hitting criticism hurts but it beats being relegated to obscurity and eventually being totally forgotten.

It makes sense but it is also not strictly legal. In fact, free use laws are not on their but his side. The problem is that youtube has no spine and will bend over for any corporation regardless of the rules becouse they fear lawsuits. Seriously, youtube has grown from an institution to be respected into a spineless slime that makes Wormtongue look like a knight of the round table.

It is also not legal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia. If the law is broken the law has to change. Incase of copyright law that change is LONG overdue.

[Vympel]

I really don't think this is contrary to their interests. The last two videos have contained a screed against the price of the DVDs (their only trek product these days) and against the horror that is Pulaski

Sounds great, which are these two?

[Big Orange]

Indeed. This is why I made this sarcastic comment earlier.

Well they could argue that Chuck is indirectly causing them loss of DVD sales because now realize how crap VOY and ENT is.

On the other hand though Chuck may be doing a long term favor to lesser known parts of the Star Trek. Nobody is going to remain the dreadfully boring episodes of the Voyager/Enterprise era. Chuck's criticism is actually making people think and look up stuff they may never watch again in their lives.

He criticises a great many mediocre/awful Voyager and Enterprise episodes to be sure, but he also gives credit where credit's due with stories such as "Scorpion" and ENT's "Damage" (the review's been taken down on YouTube), and also lays into some individually shit episodes from the overall more successful/consistant/popular TNG, like "The Child" (scores/reviews in the context of the different shows, but still).

And Chuck is just carrying on in visual/audio form what was started in text reviews done by Jammer and the highly caustic Cynics Corner from many years ago when DS9, VOY and ENT were current shows, with David E. Sluss from the Corner laying into quintessentially shit VOY episodes like "The Fight" online when half the board members here were in primary school.

[Gil Hamilton]

Err, yes. They're a heartless and ruthless corporation, that's the kind of thing such organizations do. People are saying it's not in their self interest to shut Chuck down.

Shutting Chuck down is very much in their interest, his videos basically tell people not to buy the majority of theirs, and moreover, present a range of entertainment alternatives (Flash Gordon, Doctor Who) they may wish to try instead.

I don't approve of their behavior, but it does make sense.

Their prices for DVDs DROPPED recently to much more than what shows normally cost per season. StarTrek TV DVDs are practically famous for being so ridiculously expensive that most of the people who may have bought them didn't. It's not like Chuck revealed some grand revelation to the masses, he was using a fact that pretty much everyone knows to talk about the irony of a situation. Chuck could have said that the DVDs cured cancer and Pulaski being a harpy on screen works better than antibiotics on the clap and it wouldn't have made more people go out and buy them, nor do I imagine his actual content caused anyone who was going to buy those discs not to.

So their behavior doesn't make sense. If they were using sense, they'd come to the correct conclusion that Chuck couldn't possibly harm their business anymore than they already have and act on it, be more over people are actually looking at content again they they'd normally have long forgotten. No one is going to rush out and by the ST:TNG DVDs now, the people who really really wanted them ponied up the money back when they were being released and besides, now anyone can order them on Netflix for FREE anyway, including all the movies on Instant.

[Alyeska]

According to Necron Lord it would also make sense for Paramount or CBS to sue Roger Ebert for any bad review he gave too.

[Sarevok]

Well NecronLord is not defending them, rather trying to derive possible motive behind this type of takedown notices served to critics.

But I think they would do the same to Ebert if they could get away with it. They don't because Ebert is too big and powerful. Any attempts to interfere with him with would cause a massive firestorm of outrage. Small amateur reviewers like Chuck unfortunately don't have the same protection.

[Mayabird]

He still has his copies of all his reviews and even before this he'd been cleaning them up and reposting them to his blip.tv account around times when he was doing his new reviews (and there were a great many of them beyond his Star Trek reviews). Now with this it looks like he'll be speeding up his rate; for at least the next week he'll be putting up another remastered-of-sorts review every day.

Chuck still posts here occasionally but most of the time I'm guessing he's too busy. On principle I'm going to blame CBS for that.

[NecronLord]

It makes sense but it is also not strictly legal. In fact, free use laws are not on their but his side.

Law does not apply. Youtube will treat almost any request from a media publisher seriously, and has the legal right and ability to terminate service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with no warning.

The problem is that youtube has no spine and will bend over for any corporation regardless of the rules becouse they fear lawsuits. Seriously, youtube has grown from an institution to be respected into a spineless slime that makes Wormtongue look like a knight of the round table.

Quite. But in their defense, sucking up to copyright owners is integral to their business model. Can you imagine the issues they'd have if say, the RIAA started filing delete requests on all the music videos they could find?

Sounds great, which are these two?

The Neutral Zone for the DVD bits.
The Child for Pulaski.

So their behavior doesn't make sense.

Allow me to rephrase. It makes sense, from my interpretation of the knee-jerk reaction of the employee of a heartless corporation. Probably an employee whose job is to protect the brand from criticism, and who can get them wiped from youtube by firing off an e-mail, and who earns his crust in doing so, and keeps his job by making sure he sends a lot of those e-mails and looks busy.

It is not strictly rational, but the actions of businesses in such matters frequently aren't, but they are very concerned with image and brand. It makes sense, in that it is consistent with my expectations of such an organization.

I am not defending their actions in any way shape or form, it's a niggardly and cheerless behavior. But would I imagine a corporation acting in a miserable and petty way? Why, yes, yes I would.

According to Necron Lord it would also make sense for Paramount or CBS to sue Roger Ebert for any bad review he gave too.

A better way to say it, is if they had a magical button they could push to get his reviews of any material that they produced that were negative erased hassle free, and without recourse to law, would they?

I certainly think that they would.

[Connor MacLeod]

NecronLord has a point. Youtube provides what is in essence a free service to people, much like Television. While popularity and keeping their user base is someting of a deterrent to their acitvities, it is still their service, and they can do what they like and dictate whatever policies they want. And taking chuck's stuff down, while it is going to irritate people, is unlikely to put a significant dent in their user base at this time. Hell this isn't the first time they've evne done this, and it hasn't hurt them yet. It might hurt them in the future, but if and when is not something we can predict.

And yes, it does make sense for them to do it (Again as NL points out) because Paramount carries far more weight than Chuck or any of his fans do (both in terms of economic and legal power.) Youtube is first and foremost a business, and they are going to act in accord with that principle, even if it makes retarded sense to other people. That's the end result of a decades-long corporate American mindset for you.

[Purple]

Law does not apply. Youtube will treat almost any request from a media publisher seriously, and has the legal right and ability to terminate service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, with no warning.

You miseed the point. The law I was talking about was the fact that by law Youtube was not oblidged to comply with said request nor any request for that mater as long as it is not a clear breach of IP. So what I was saying that as far as the law was concerned this was completely open and up to their good will.

Quite. But in their defense, sucking up to copyright owners is integral to their business model. Can you imagine the issues they'd have if say, the RIAA started filing delete requests on all the music videos they could find?

Ignore them? Seriously what are they going to do that is going to be worse than the backlash that would occur if they complied with such a request? Yes, youtube could lose a lot of money if they did not comply but if they took down all music videos than they would lose 99% of their user base thus loosing advertisement profits thus loosing even more money. And that is not even mentioning the retribution that certain computer savvy users would wreak on them. If such a massive request was made how long do you think would pass before youtube would go the way of the 3 and 1/2 inch floppy in favor of blip and other services?

Personally, I can't wait for the day that youtube will be forced to give the middle finger to either the corporations or their user base. And that day ain't so far off.