where were you when Youtube died?
>>53967835
Please tell me this is fake.
>>53967835
Are you stupid or bored enough to waste time on making this stupid thread?
>>53967835
Youtuber here, it's up to the owner of the channel to do things like this. YT providided the framework, it's up to the channel owners to monitize their content.
I barely watch youtube
>>53967884
Nah it's real
You deserve it for watching YT crap
>>53967884
just search the stupid shit i searched ... there are dollar signs on the results...
>>53967835
>He can't afford $1.49
How have you even got an Internet connection?
Can you post the link? None of those videos, or the channel, show up in my search.
>>53967835
But I can still listen to liturgical music on youtube, nothing wrong - all for free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf7LKa9w9hM
I guess only people that suffer are ones which consume degenerate media which now taxes them for destroying their soul and mind.
Youtube's been dying for ages.
It really annoys me that people have to use a site like Youtube. Rather than giving people tools to host their own websites, the modern Internet is all about centralization. In the '90s the Internet was a great site for democratic and decentralized communication, but now that's fallen by the wayside.
And there isn't a better solution. I share all my videos using torrents rather than using sharing sites, but most people aren't willing to do that. And torrents are outdated anyway. Modern peer-to-peer networks are vastly better, but for some reason they haven't caught on.
>>53967929
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eygJUYZ99Y
>>53967946
I like how religious people like boasting about their taste on things, trying to berate others for their taste. Not only is that sinful on it's own, but is also hypocritical, as I've never seen a man, religious or not, who is not free of vices and mistakes.
>>53967973
>It annoys me that people use a service that is 100% charity, keeps HD backups of your files from 8 years ago and costs you nothing... damn I hate people for doing that sheeeit.
No hate owners of the content for asking for a price or just ignore them.
>>53967989
You never looked.
>>53967992
>a service that is 100% charity
You think Youtube is a fucking CHARITY? What are you smoking?
>damn I hate people for doing that sheeeit
Didn't say that. I said that it annoys me that the Internet is growing more centralized. However, I blame the industry for that. Users are not at fault for using the products they are given.
>>53967835
I want to get off this decade
it's better than ads, since now i can easily filter out the content i don't want to waste my time on.
people who make their money with youtube don't deserve views.
in other news: pewdiepie is making a pewdiepie movie
>>53968015
>what is adblock
>>53968013
>You think Youtube is a fucking CHARITY? What are you smoking?
It is... really it's not because of my opinion it is a charity from google - they don't make a profit out of it.
>>53967884
>paid channels
Nothing new here kiddo.
>>53968023
>implying adblock stops them from making money off of people that don't use it
way to miss the point
>>53967835
phew
>>53967835
well, they need premium content to get somebody to pay for it.
>>53968045
instead of
>sorry about that
it should be you are welcome
>>53968014
That's a cute black kid.
>>53968031
But why is that bad?
>>53967973
>Modern peer-to-peer networks are vastly better, but for some reason they haven't caught on
because when you ask how to into everyone is like "bawww muh secret club".
How can we know the newer things other than torrents?
>>53968015
>>53968031
People who support them give them money thru ads and people who don't want to support them, don't. I see no problem with it.
You sound like an entitled teen.
>>53967973
>And torrents are outdated anyway. Modern peer-to-peer networks are vastly better,
Oh yeah? Like what? Memeseek? Fuck off.
>>53967983
Can someone attempt to download it? I thought youtube-dl bypassed country locks but seems like it doesn't.
>>53968008
and you have?
>>53968024
http://adage.com/article/digital/youtube-channel-5-6-billion-revenue-year/245624/
It's typical for a charity to bring in $2 billion a year in profit?
That is excluding the ways Youtube makes them money indirectly, e.g. encouraging people to make Google accounts and gathering user data for targeting ads.
>>53968061
because it is dishonest.
paid channels are at least honest, people will know that these content creators make all of their money with stupid internet videos. sponsored content is cancer.
>>53968072
if you don't want to support them, you shouldn't watch their videos. since i'm using ublock, i'll never know if the videos i'm watching were made by moneygrabbing idiots or not. with paid channels i can easily filter out those types of people.
it's like you haven't been around in the early youtube days, content was much better when it wasn't all about money.
>>53968111
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967
>>53968115
Dishonest or not, it still benefits the viewer. If this monetization catches on, for many people it will mean extra expenditure for the same content that was free before.
>>53968083
Soulseek is the same as eMule
>>53968098
Use a proxy from one of those countries.
Welcome to /g/, btw.
>go on friends PC to use youtube for a quick seconds
>ads before every video
>ads all over the page
>shitty video buffers, then switches to 144p for 10 seconds
>autoplay loads up next video automatically without even a countdown for an option to cancel it
>triggered
His recommended videos were also a bunch of police chases and chemtrail truther shit.
>>53968111
It says Google kept 2 billion of the total revenue, not that the profit was 2 billion. Idiot.
>>53968115
I agree with you take there are millions of retarded channels (mostly gaming and JUST A PRANK BRO) and I certainly don't watch their videos, but I see nothing wrong if stupid teenagers want to watch them and support them. Why do you? It's like you have the free market.
>>53968171
I just wanted someone to check if it could be done, I have no interest in the video itself.
>>53968141
which part of
>That is excluding the ways Youtube makes them money indirectly, e.g. encouraging people to make Google accounts and gathering user data for targeting ads.
did you not understand?
>>53968083
GNUnet and IPFS are the ones I'm most familiar with. They both offer sizeable advantages over BitTorrent in various areas. Both are more decentralized and resilient. GNUnet's biggest advantage is privacy, while IPFS's main advantage is being REALLY fucking fast.
The problem is that both are hard to use. For some reason, people are not interested in having these systems actually replace things like Youtube. They just treat them like interesting research projects.
paywalls are the future and much better than ads that track you or potentially install malware on your machine. i like this change, but i will avoid any paid content on the internet until the model implodes and we're back to entirely free content like in the 90's
>>53968187
>It says Google kept 2 billion of the total revenue, not that the profit was 2 billion.
Are you retarded? That's the definition of gross profit.
And you are correct: it doesn't make Google a huge amount of money. But it DOES bring in a lot of revenue and, more importantly, gathers data and reinforces Google's dominance on the Internet. Companies are not charities. They exist to make money. Anything a company does that looks like charity is actually marketing.
Most people realize this by the time they're 12 years old. For some reason people don't think the same applies to Google.
>>53967835
In 2006 I was in my second year of highschool
does paid content still have ads in it?
>>53968301
That's still revenue, not profit. It never says that Google actually made money out of YouTube. Many times Google said it didn't.
>Anything a company does that looks like charity is actually marketing.
Agreed.
>>53968312
Not YouTube sponsored ads. The person making the video is still allowed to put their own in the video itself in a manner like Linus Tech Tips for example.
>>53968329
>That's still revenue, not profit.
It's gross profit.
Gross profit = revenue - cost of goods = ~$5 billion revenue - ~$3 billion paid to channel owners = ~$2 billion.
Either way, it brings in huge amounts of money. Google is trying to take in as much money as they can. If they could turn a net profit they would be doing so. Youtube is an unprofitable business, not a charity.
>>53968426
I'm glad we agree.
>>53967923
This.
If you can't afford $1.49 you can't afford to be on /g/.
Even freetard shit costs more than that.
>>53967923
Not the issue. The problem is that Youtube used to be a fun site for sharing videos and now it's become a soulless wasteland of money-grubbing. It's been Google-ified and ruined.
>>53967923
>He can't afford $1.49
He can.
>He can't afford $1.49 X 100
Nobody can afford, because nobody can afford the sense of self-retardation from paying $149 a month to YouTube.
>>53968180
just install adblock and hide the icon
>>53968693
Don't be a faggot and fuck with someone's computer without their permission. Just offer to install an adblocker.
That also doesn't solve the entire problem. The Youtube site still sucks even with the ads disabled.
>>53968224
youtube itself is charity, free what part of that did you not understand?
>>53967835
Their channel/site, their rules
>>53967983
Why would you want to watch that video anyway? It looks awful.
>paying money to watch dennis rodman
You couldn't pay ME to watch that moron.
>>53968817
It's only free if your time and privacy are worth nothing to you.
>>53967835
Isn't this much MUCH better?
Obnoxious over-commercialized shit is now even easier to ignore, because there's no chance you're going to ACCIDENTALLY purchase a garbage clickbait video.
If anything, this is the start of the great divide between the overzealous corporate whores and the dudes just chillin' makin' their free vlogs.
Tell me I'm wrong. I wanna see the flaw in that argument.
>>53968685
>if I buy a lot of content, it will cost a lot of money
No fucking shit sherlock! Either pay up for what you want or watch the mounds of free content instead.
Hmm
>>53968967
>Either pay up for what you want or watch the mounds of free content instead.
Or pirate because digital entertainment is a very small branch of entertainment and it is irrelevant and filled with too much cancer.
>>53968929
Well, it's a point of view argument. Normies would take this fine, why? Cause they even not bother with paying such an os like Microsoft. And what you expect in /g/? a fucking normies that think it's normal?
>>53969003
>normies
REEEEEEEEEEE?
>>53967835
it's 10$ a month for youtube red and it comes with unlimited music streaming on google play music.
Get a job.
>>53967835
This is why the web sucks nowadays.
People aren't creating to be creative and share creativity, people only care about how much money its going to make them.
>>53969048
good goy
>>53968990
Bullshit. If you didn't enjoy it, you would just ignore it entirely. Pirating it means that you want it (because you expect to enjoy it), but you can't or won't pay for it.
If you *can't* pay for it, because you just can't afford it, too bad. Wait until you have more money and try again.
If you *can* pay for it but *won't*, you're just a cheap asshole who wants the latest stuff and doesn't want to shell out for it.
Piracy isn't theft, but it's about as close as you can digitally get, and it's highly unethical in all but a few edge cases (and questionable even then).
>>53967983
DENNIS RODMAN is acting as a lifestyle coach? What the fuck? He's one of the dumbest people on the planet. I wouldn't take life advice from someone who's been divorced three times.
>>53969283
>Chrome
Really, man?
>>53969270
>you're just a cheap asshole who wants the latest stuff and doesn't want to shell out for it.
Yup! I want the best stuff. If I can get it for free without hurting anyone, I will obviously do so. There are better charities than Youtube.
>>53967983
>This video is not available in your country.
>YouTube said: This video is available in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Russian Federation, United States only
Huh?
Guess my country doesn't have enough jews.
>>53968098
>>53969325
>There are better charities than Youtube.
I should clarify.
If I am going to give away my money when I don't have to, I will give it to a good charity so it can do a lot of good. I will NOT give it to Youtube. I will generously support something like the Against Malaria Foundation. I will not generously support some Youtuber.
>>53969270
>Pirating it means that you want it (because you expect to enjoy it)
You should put emphasis on (because you expect to enjoy it),
because if i don't enjoy it, then it's better if i have not supported its further production in the first place by paying, and instead diverted the money elsewhere where i truly do end up enjoying something.
At this point it's merely a war of subjective opinions of me spending money where you don't like me to spend it, because my money will get spent on something either way by the end of the month.
The only question is whether it is going to be spent supporting another brand, or supporting a different industry.
>Bullshit
Not bullshit.
Digital Entertainment is objectively the lowest common denominator in the vast field of entertainment.
That's because data in the form of entertainment is the lowest common denominator within the value system of digital information (programs, OSs, office software, being way above it), while digital information is the lowest common denominator within the value system of information (education is above it, banking is above it, social documentation is above it, etc.),
while information has it's own value system that is regarded beneath material goods and natural resources and energy.
This is Business Management and Economics 101.
>>53969320
OK Mr freedom.
>>53967989
>I'm not religious, but imma tell you what's a sin or not
>lol everybody sins brah, you shouldn't try harder
heretic/10
>>53969320
fuck off with your autism
>>53969443
Nobody cares, this is a board for 3-digit IQ people who know your god fairytales aren't true. Now go away back to >>>/x/ or >>>/pol/!
>>53967835
I sometimes want to go back in time when Newgrounds was still a thing and the Broadcast-Yourself-shit was just used for funny cat videos ;-;
>>53969443
>I'm not religious, but imma tell you what's a sin or no.
I have a greater understanding of Christianity than many Christians. Most Christians just believe what their parents did, but I struggled for years to come to terms with my faith before ultimately discarding it.
>lol everybody sins brah, you shouldn't try harder
I was thinking more:
>Then each of them went home, while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’
It's fine to criticize people for sinning. Sinning is bad. People should not sin. But it is NOT fine to attack others for their sins. It is NOT fine to smugly look down your nose at the "degenerates" who are "destroying their soul and mind." Criticize people all you like, but do not condemn them.
The real question is outside of reviews for certain products, what is worth watching?
>>53969679
I like Casey Neistat's vlogs. They are pretty good.
>>53969394
>You should put emphasis on (because you expect to enjoy it),
>because if i don't enjoy it, then it's better if i have not supported its further production in the first place
Absolutely! You take a risk, same as anything else. If you don't enjoy it, you'll probably regret paying for it. But this is what reviews and recommendations are for. You don't get the right to unlimited free trials.
If you buy a cup of coffee from a new shop, you take the risk that you might hate it. If you do hate it, you likely won't buy from them again- but you won't get a refund just because you didn't enjoy it.
If you want to play it safe, you buy a cup of coffee from the same company you always use and have high confidence that you will enjoy it. The problem is that by always doing this, you lose the chance to broaden your horizons and experience new things, whether that's coffee or internet TV.
>objectively the lowest common denominator
No, that is not objective at all. It is your own personal view, and tens of millions of people completely disagree with you. These people happily pay to subscribe to Netflix and rent iTunes movies and buy Steam games and all the rest of it, because they DO value that data highly and they DO expect to enjoy it.
Regardless, if you feel this way, that's fine. Just don't buy digital entertainment. Problem solved. But instead, you insist on taking it for free.
So "I might not like it" is not an excuse, and "I don't consider entertaining data to be valuable" is both subjective and in direct contradiction to your admitted actions.
Do you have any other justifications for your piracy?
>>53969630
Can you not read? Jesus said to throw the stone! They didn't because they were all adulterers too. He also said "do not sin again", but I guess expecting literacy from an edgy fedora teen " free-thinker" is too much.
>>53968031
adblock will fall too. some sites make you switch it off if you want to watch videos. Sickening.
>>53969779
>You don't get the right to unlimited free trials.
Why not?
>but you won't get a refund just because you didn't enjoy it.
You might. Stores often go out of their way to keep customers happy, particularly places that serve food.
And that's not an even vaguely comparable situation. If you don't pay for coffee, the shop loses something: a cup of coffee. That causes harm to the shop. There is no harm with piracy.
>>53969924
You cant make unlimited google account anymore
This has been around for at least two years now.
>>53969779
>If you don't enjoy it, you'll probably regret paying for it.
Or i could just pirate it, and not regret that my money was spent on something better, rather than supporting something i don't like.
>But this is what reviews and recommendations are for.
Nope.
Recommendations and reviews are subjective and privy towards being lies or paid up, or omitting details. What you meant to say is demos. Demos only work when something is monolithic. Such as when you taste-test honey at a market, which is a monolithic product (the taste represents the whole product objectively).
However digital data isn't monolithic, a portion of it never represents the whole product, and the portion can be specially engineered to be misleading.
>You don't get the right to unlimited free trials.
You don't get the right to get my money if i don't like your shit.
>If you buy a cup of coffee from a new shop, you take the risk that you might hate it.
A cup of coffee is a natural resource, coming from a plant.
It has value far above digital entertainment.
>No, that is not objective at all. It is your own personal view, and tens of millions of people completely disagree with you.
So you are saying that what Economics and Business and Management teaches you, the hierarchy of objective value (value according to how much the survival and upkeep of society depends on it), is merely a subjective opinion?
I think you need to get some sleep anon. Your brain seems to be malfunctioning a little.
>>53969830
>Jesus said to throw the stone!
No he didn't. He told the "one who is without sin" to throw the stone, knowing full well that no one there was without sin.
>They didn't because they were all adulterers too.
They have sinned IN SOME WAY. It is not specified HOW they sinned, merely that they are not without sin. There is no textual evidence that they are adulterers.
You have a strange understanding of your religion. I strongly suggest you read your Bible again.
>He also said "do not sin again"
Yes he did. Which is why I said this:
>It's fine to criticize people for sinning. Sinning is bad. People should not sin.
I did not say sinning is OK. I said that it is an understandable and universal flaw. People should not sin, but arrogantly condemning sinners as if you are perfect is hypocritical. If you believe others are suffering because of their distance from God, they deserve pity and a sincere desire to help rather than scorn.
You are arrogantly attacking others when you are the clueless and sinful one.
>>53970204
Not him but isnt everyone born with sin now or something? Is there a movie adaptation of the bible that stays true to the source?
>>53967835
pirate tube when
>>53970226
>Not him but isnt everyone born with sin now or something?
Depends on who you ask. Some people believe there is something called "original sin." I don't think that concept makes any sense, so I won't try to explain it. It isn't a universal belief, though.
>Is there a movie adaptation of the bible that stays true to the source?
No. The Bible is fucking LONG and such an adaptation would not be terribly marketable. It would either lose all the substance or be boring as hell.
Just read the book.
>>53970229
Their is some movie strwaming site but also no paid yt conteent will do well
>>53970229
Popcorn Time was a lot like that before the MPAA killed it. The fucking movie industry keeps killing cool things.
There are several forks. I haven't used any of them, though, so I can't say if they're any good.
that shit isn't on my youtube. but i guess i have an account so different suggested videos.don't care. youtube is sitll awesome and youtube-dl exists
>>53970254
Man i tried reading genesis but forgot where i was up, i think i was at the point where cain killed abel. How does the bible work anuway with all the different versions? Is genesis stand alone?
>>53967835
>don't subscribe
>watch this shit on pirate rips
And the internet was never the same again
You know why the price is so low?
Because that's literally the level of policing google is going to do for your content.
>>53967923
wut
you pay to temporarly let your browser store a pile of bytes into your cache?
you dont even get anything material.
putting any price tag on anything like dis is completely stupid. and presses the price of real work down.
1.49$ is expensive af if you consider the market which is contacted at the second. how many videos CAN be bought per second.
say hello to meoney laundering 101
>jews continue to ruin the internet
no shit?
>>53967989
Do you even Jesus, motherfucking heretic?
YouTube died in 2006, These past 10 years are only a bad jewish imitation of its former self
>>53967946
That sounds fucking horrible, fucking Orthodox chant in English, what the fuck?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vmfMx6GFts&nohtml5=False
This is much better 2bh, L A D
>>53967835
>where were you when Youtube died?
On YouTube, watching pussy shaving tutorials. All for educational purposes of course.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vagina%20shaving%20tutorial&oq=&gs_l=
>>53970475
Oh, wow
>>53970475
Those are actually pretty hot. I find normal porn stars unappealing since they're such total whores, but those girls seem a lot less slutty.
>>53970453
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr youtube was made in 2006
>>53969779
>If you buy a cup of coffee from a new shop
1. Coffee comes from a plant and plants are part of an ecosystem vital to the survival of life by regulating the atmosphere of this planet.
2. If Coffee goes extinct, it has gone extinct. There is no coming back.
3. Coffee is limited in quantity, an exhaustible resource.
===
1. On the other hand, any digital entertainment product is not vital to this planet's life, or the survival of Humanity as a whole.
2. Digital Entertainment can't go extinct, because it is a product of Human imagination coupled with the existence of electronic devices. For it to go extinct, either Humanity has to go extinct as a whole, or the devices required for its creation need to cease existing because there is no way anymore to make them (oversaturation of required metals and resources to produce hardware in combination of a lack of any alternatives)
3. Digital Entertainment is unlimited in quantity, an inexhaustible resource so long as computers exist and Humans exist.
To equate material produce and digital entertainment is the epitome of mental retardation, and an indication that you lack any awareness of what you are talking about from a bigger picture.
>>53969720
I saw some of his videos and they are pretty nice,
>>53970559
February 14, 2005 - Oct 10, 2006, but by summer of 2006 it was filled by plebs, and the age of disillusionment began.
>>53970545
look up the breast milk, and enema videos.
those women look like repressed whole foods soccer moms who cant wait to molest the paperboy.
>>53969473
If this is a board for three digit IQ's why are you here?
>>53970475
Oh holy shit. How can stuff like that be legal to upload on youtube?
>>53970628
It's illegal to own people like this
>>53970780
It's educational, I guess
>>53969924
>Why not?
I don't even know what to say. This is blindingly obvious.
Fine: You don't get to decide the terms of distribution. The distributor does. If you don't like them, don't buy from them. If there are no distributors that offer the terms you want (free trial), just don't buy the content. This should be no great loss, since you seem to value it so little.
>You might.
But you aren't entitled to it, and they have the right to say no.
>the shop loses something: a cup of coffee. That causes harm to the shop. There is no harm with piracy.
Okay, replace "cup of coffee" with "movie ticket". Failure to pay for your ticket won't directly harm the theatre (unless it was a sold-out showing or something), but it's still clearly not morally okay.
>>53969989
>Or i could just pirate it, and not regret that my money was spent on something better, rather than supporting something i don't like.
If you honestly think that you have the right to access any information that exists for free and evaluate whether the author should have the priviledge of your money... well, I don't think I'm going to have much luck convincing you otherwise.
>[reviews might be shills, demos might be cherry picked]
Yep. These are facts of life. They don't actually change anything. You need to find resources you trust.
>You don't get the right to get my money if i don't like your shit.
That's fine. You don't want to pay, you don't get to watch my video. End of story, no interaction. Except that's not enough for you, is it? You insist on accessing it anyway, against my wishes.
>A cup of coffee is a natural resource, coming from a plant. It has value far above digital entertainment.
>hierarchy of objective value
You can assign whatever theoretical numbers you like. In the real world, something is worth whatever the market will pay for it. Most people will pay more to watch Game of Thrones than for a cup of coffee. The ACTUAL sale prices say you are wrong.
>>53970733
>enema videos
That sounds kind of disgusting.
>those women look like repressed whole foods soccer moms who cant wait to molest the paperboy.
Agreed.
I'm sure they're pretty slutty (otherwise they wouldn't be posting thinly-veiled porn on Youtube), but they're a LOT less slutty than your average porn star.
>>53970799
>It's educational, I guess
My dick feels enlightened.
>>53969395
But baby it's not about freedom. It's about love. Chrome does not respect you as a person, you need to dump it. Chrome's no good for you anymore bby. :'(
>>53970801
>Fine: You don't get to decide the terms of distribution. The distributor does.
But I DO get to decide the terms. There is nothing stopping me from getting it for free, and you have not established that it is wrong for me to do so.
>If there are no distributors that offer the terms you want (free trial)
Every pirate site on the planet offers those terms.
>it's still clearly not morally okay.
I don't think it's wrong to sneak into a theater. I did it all the time as a kid. I would still do it today, but I don't go to theaters and it would not be worth the risk.
But let's assume it is wrong. That still isn't really comparable. That is using something of the theater's. It uses their resources. Wear and tear on the seat is minor harm. Wasting the time of the employees who sell and check tickets is minor harm.
Piracy has NO effect on the owner. It is a totally separate transaction. It has nothing to do with the owner.
>>53970628
If the people who create digital entertainment don't get money, they will move on to other jobs. Digital entertainment will die just like video games died back in the 80s or whatever
>>53967835
youtube-dl
>>53968243
Anyway, ethereum and maidsafe are the future - not silly ipffffs and gnufail.
When they let WMG and UMG have fun with the site years ago
Remember all the videos about WMG being terrible?
>>53970801
>You insist on accessing it anyway, against my wishes.
>well, I don't think I'm going to have much luck convincing you otherwise.
Yes. Because there are two principles being talked about here that are both the oldest principles of trade (except the Copyright one, that is newer):
1. The Customer is always right.
2. Your wish as a producer is always right.
Both are mutually exclusive principles.
The one that wins in priority and importance can be discerned with this statement:
A consumer can live without a producer, but a producer can't live without a consumer.
This is a fact of life. This isn't even an opinion.
You are either a shitty producer, and deserve to be shut down, or you are a good producer and your quality has ensured success irrespective of piracy.
The question at this point is what makes you better than other producers, that consumers should spend on you instead of others? Because money can't be spent on everyone. Money ain't unlimited, and money can't support an over-saturated market (80's video game collapse proved this).
Your position is one of a beggar. Customers are your kings. All companies that forget this fact, die slowly or die fast, but they die inevitably.
All companies that adhere to this fact, continue expending, or fine a fine line of sustenance where there is neither expansion nor deterioration.
>In the real world, something is worth whatever the market will pay for it.
Nope. Something is worth something according to the willingness of people to lose it. Not according to what they pay for it on a whim. By that logic digital entertainment is more valuable than water.
Yet lose digital entertainment and you lose nothing, but lose water and you lose life.
This is why the value system hierarchy was developed by Economics. You call yourself on arbitrary numbers. I call myself on a field run by experts who have defined this hierarchy of value based on a reason.
The same reasons piracy is a civil offense, not a crime, in law.
As long as 4chan is free I don't care.
>paying for youtube
>>53971116
4chan isn't free and never will be, and I'm not even talking about passes.
>>53968098
>cmd.exe
>>53969473
>>53970628
>Coffee 1, 2, 3
Careful coffee production can be done sustainably. It's true that in many cases it isn't- but there is no fundamental reason it has to be limited.
>Digital Entertainment can't go extinct
It kind of can, at least if we're talking about professional, high-quality content.
1. People can only produce high quality entertainment (digital or otherwise) if they have enough resources to survive.
2. If people cannot pay for these resources from proceeds from the entertainment, they will be forced to do some other job.
3. If they need to do some other job, they won't have the time to produce the high quality entertainment.
Therefore, the only way high quality entertainment can exist (at least in our current economy) is if it makes money. And this isn't even considering that there are many other costs involved than just simply making enough to survive.
>>53970955
It is completely true that an individual who torrents a movie instead of buying it will not harm the producers.
But if everyone did that, the movie would not exist. If everyone starts doing that now, no future movies will exist. You are, in effect, leaching from society by enjoying the goods that everyone ELSE is paying to produce.
>>53971101
>The one that wins in priority and importance can be discerned with this statement: A consumer can live without a producer, but a producer can't live without a consumer.
>This is a fact of life. This isn't even an opinion.
No, your conclusion is incorrect. A producer can't live if it doesn't have ANY consumers, yes. But if a particular subset of consumers is problematic (I.E they fail to provide the required remuneration for the products), it makes sense to deny service to those consumers.
This is the case for movies. Most consumers present no problems, but some enjoy the proceeds without giving back. This doesn't become okay just because the product itself can be freely copied, because it was very costly to produce the first copy.
[cont'd]
>>53971026
Etherium is a straight-up retarded suggestion. It is for distributed COMPUTATION, not file sharing.
Maidsafe seems vaguely interesting, but I'm immediately skeptical because it's based on blockchains and cryptocurrencies. No one has made a decent cryptocurrency yet and blockchains are hugely overhyped. It's using all the latest meme technologies (just missing Node.JS and Go) to pander to Silicon Valley libertarians, but doesn't have real results yet.
>>53971271
The point of ethereum is to perform distributed, remunerated, provably correct computations. The point of maidsafe is to provide distributed, remunerated storage space. Together, you can form a fully distributed, decentralized web with turing-complete scripting.
>>53970780
Same way how National Geographic is the only channel allowed to show bare breasts at 3pm.
>>53971260
>It's true that in many cases it isn't- but there is no fundamental reason it has to be limited.
The fundamental reason is that it is limited by its existence.
It has a lifespan, and it can only sustain as many people as there are plants.
>It kind of can
Professional high-quality content does not define the existence of the digital industry, it's merely an evolution of a successful few. So long as there is interest, there is evolution.
What you are talking about is the extinction of AAA brands that have turned shitty, because they have alienated their customers that much that they are slowly deteriorating. A few shitty AAAs doesn't necessarily mean that other AAAs will operate with the same philosophy and shitty management.
[cont'd]
>>53971101
>You are either a shitty producer, and deserve to be shut down, or you are a good producer and your quality has ensured success irrespective of piracy. The question at this point is what makes you better than other producers, that consumers should spend on you instead of others? Because money can't be spent on everyone. Money ain't unlimited, and money can't support an over-saturated market (80's video game collapse proved this).
If I'm a shitty producer, it's my own problem. if no-one buys my products, I'll go out of business. Nobody's fault but mine.
But what if my products are good, and everyone agrees they're good, and yet some people insist on consuming them without paying? Even if I stay in business despite those lost potential sales (because my products just happen to be that good), that's still money I could and SHOULD have made from those people, lost forever.
Most 80s video games were absolute shit, and since the shit was easy to produce, the market got saturated as you said and people simply stopped buying any of said shit. This isn't a moral problem. The products were just all bad, and getting worse. A few years after the crash, a new company came out with much higher quality products, and the games market was reborn.
By the way, the customer is NOT always right. This was never true. The customer is usually completely wrong. In many cases, it makes business sense to *pretend* the customer is right, because it makes me look good. But this is up to me, the producer. It's essentially a marketing decision.
>Your position is one of a beggar. Customers are your kings. All companies that forget this fact, die slowly or die fast, but they die inevitably.
You may or may not be correct. It is NOT your place to decide. It is NOT your place to take my products whether I want you to or not. If I'm wrong, I'll go out of business and you can gloat if you like.
[cont'd]
>>53971312
>Together, you can form a fully distributed, decentralized web with turing-complete scripting.
And jaw-droppingly poor performance. In Ethereum, computations are run on ALL nodes. Let me repeat that: computations are run on ALL nodes. Adding 1 + 1 means having EVERY node run 1 + 1 and using the consensus of their results.
Using Ethereum for the new Internet would slash performance by about nine orders of magnitude. No biggie! And that's being generous, since there would be extra overhead.
>Together, you can form a fully distributed, decentralized web with turing-complete scripting.
You COULD if anyone could figure out how to make cryptocurrencies and blockchains work in real applications. Right now there are interesting in theory but total failures in reality.
>>53971480
Furthermore, there are concerns about Etherium's security.
>>53971480
Oh, you're just trolling. Carry on then.
[cont'd]
>>53971101
>By that logic digital entertainment is more valuable than water.
This is contextual. If I'm crawling out of a desert and dying of thirst, water is at that moment the only thing on the planet with any value to me at all. A box set of my favourite show would be of equivalent value to sand.
But if I'm comfortable, well-hydrated, and bored in my home- additional glasses of water are absolutely worthless to me, and the box set is suddenly rather valuable.
>Yet lose digital entertainment and you lose nothing, but lose water and you lose life.
/Access/ to water is of course infinitely more valuable than /access/ to TV. But when I am already assured of access to water, I can have the luxury of forgetting about it and thinking instead about TV. I can have both, and I'm willing to pay for both, and so are tens of millions of people just like me.
>>53971425
>The fundamental reason is that it is limited by its existence.
>It has a lifespan, and it can only sustain as many people as there are plants.
It can be grown sustainably. It is, in some cases- and it could be so for ALL cases, if only people were willing to pay more.
There will come a day when the mass of non-sustainable coffee runs out, and only sustainable production can happen. We can be almost certain that coffee won't die out, because there are too many people interested in making sure it doesn't. It will just get more expensive.
>Professional high-quality content does not define the existence of the digital industry, it's merely an evolution of a successful few. So long as there is interest, there is evolution.
I'm not interested in watching a thousand terrible youtube videos. I want to watch a handful of very high quality videos with very high production values that appeal to my interests. This is expensive to make, but I'm able and willing to pay for it, and I'm not alone.
>>53968660
>"wahhhh I am entitled to be entertained for free!"
The white privilege is real I thought those were all memes
>>53971718
>The white privilege is real
You're on the wrong board, friend.
>>>/lgbt/
>>53971858
Did you get "triggered"? Maybe you should just kill yourself you soft-skinned weenie
>>53970453
>2006
This. This is where I was when YouTube died.
>>53969679
There are some pretty good instructional videos on YouTube.
Vehicle diagnoses, repairs. Fabricating (welding, machining, woodworking, anything diy-tier).
Also, old/'classic' music videos. I don't know where else to watch those online.
>>53969871
>some sites make you switch it off if you want to watch videos
There's always ways around this. Just become familiar with the Chrome DevTools / JS console.
>>53971155
>wake up sheeple
>>53971688
No. Computations on Ethereum are SHOCKINGLY slow. It is for extremely high security and reliability at the cost of losing many orders of magnitude of performance. If you think that is trolling, you're either ignorant or a shill.
And it's still very much experimental, so whether or not it would work at a large scale is uncertain.
>>53971971
>Chrome
>>53972013
OK pajeet. Calm down. I'm sure you'll get your 0.0003 rupee for your post.
>>53971709
>It can be grown sustainably. It is, in some cases- and it could be so for ALL cases, if only people were willing to pay more.
No amount of people paying more will produce a new planet to increase the limited amount of coffee that can exist, or suddenly make a plant mature.
No amount of money can bring back an extinct species.
You are just rationalizing against empiricism at this point. The most foolish of all stances.
>We can be almost certain that coffee won't die out, because there are too many people interested in making sure it doesn't.
The global climate changes have already made many species of chai extinct in Asia despite the gigantic interest in keeping it alive.
Even diseases can wipe out whole species. Just because you wish for something, or society wishes for something, doesn't automatically make it happen. Otherwise we'd all be capable of shitting out magic from wands at this point. You are operating on idealism rather than realism.
>I'm not interested in watching a thousand terrible youtube videos. I want to watch a handful of very high quality videos with very high production values that appeal to my interests. This is expensive to make, but I'm able and willing to pay for it, and I'm not alone.
And you are not the only one. The problem here is that piracy is the only objective tool which ensures that the thousands of crappy idiots aren't scamming consumers, or being kept alive by consumers.
The lack of regulation in the digital entertainment industry is staggering. Piracy is a tool. There is no morality to a tool, there is only morality to how a tool is being used.
Most of your proceeds as a producer might actually be coming from pirates who have decided that your shit was worth spending money on after pirating it to try it.
Latest studies from a few Universities have already proven that pirates actually buy more than non-pirate consumers. This stems from their self-confidence and increased experience (knowledge). Think about this.
>>53971874
No, you're the one talking about white privilege not me.
>>53972034
Use whatever schoolyard taunts you want. The fact remains that you know nothing about the meme technology you're shilling.
>>53970453
Really I thought it died when Google took it over in 2010, just like vidya and TV really. Tody's normalfags ruin everything.
>>53970751
Underrated Post
>>53972146
Whatever helps you sleep at night pajeet.
>>53972240
I think the people here can decide for themselves who's the shill.
Bye!
>>53972308
I'm sure you won, pajeet, I'm sure you won! Give yourself a nice tap on the back now!
>>53968180
>recommended videos
any way to disable this shit? i could have it turn off my 'watch history' but i want it to keep track of that, helps me find videos i've watched longer back than my browser history goes.
>>53967892
>Youtuber here
If you're going to smug it in that you're a youtuber,
at least post your channel so I can rate your existence.
>>53967923
I know it's bait but why the fuck would anyone ever pay to watch YouTube
>>53974465
why would anyone ever pay a camwhore? why would anyone every buy a steam game?
anyone know of an easy way to search/view your /entire/ watch history?
I went to my normal history and kept clicking "load more" at the bottom of the page for about an hour, and it recorded videos I watched back to like mid-2012. I saved the enormous laggy page as a 53MiB history.html file to my computer, but even when I view it from there it's incredibly slow and unresponsive to scroll through and look at.
The layout post mid 2011 is absolute cancer.
>>53972350
/g/ really has gotten to the point where they think everybody but themselves is the 'botnet'
Anyone remember when you could customize the way your channel looked with different fonts and shit?
>>53975406
shut up, botnet
>>53975406
OK botnet
>>53975479
holy fuck :/
>>53975406
It's okay anon.
I will always love you.
>>53967835
I've been buying stuff on YouTube for a long time.
You get Google Play content with a better video player.
>>53969003
>fucking normies that think it's normal
They are normies for a reason.
>>53967835
Whatching Porntube, or smth
