Where is our world going?

[Kionon]

It's not abused it's an expectation. Look, this isn't 1999, AJAX and web 2.0 is the way people expect things to be. If you're gonna show video you show it in a browser, you don't expect people to download it.

That's a rather childish attitude, and the very reason why there is a grain of truth in my GOML (Get Off My Lawn) jokes. The ability to preview videos, the ability to have videos even hosted at all, is a privilege, not a right. The very fact you bring up 1999, a year in which some of us did our best to host videos on studio websites, using our own personal treasure to get our videos out there, is exactly why I am so frustrated at the streaming video (oh, no filter, let's be blunt, YouTube) generation to demand everything immediately as a matter of course.

No, sir, I'm not going to be your dancing monkey.

Then get proactive about dealing with it. If you let your opponents paint the picture first you're inevitably going to be cast as the bad guy, so... go to them first. If that means adopting a youtube style advertising-attached-to-identified-content style model where you cut in the license holders in exchange for tolerance, then at least you've secured your continued existence.

I don't want to get proactive. I certainly sure as hell don't want us adopting anything "youtube" styled. Every time we take another step that direction, a small part of my interest in the hobby dies. If the org falls we'll go back to rogue studio sites. The hobby will survive. We needn't draw undue attention to ourselves by getting the targeting scanners trained on us.

[Knowname]

while I am more of an old school type I clipped my wings on new school and honestly like it just a bit more (moreso in '03-04 before all the copyright fiasco and after all the rogue studio nonsense), I agree with noob that things should change. Just don't think they should be like a YT design. I'm thinking more the industry should just give up on charging for non-premium content and leave us be.

Of coarse, that WILL inevitably happen but probly not in our lifetime. The RIAA will see to that.

As Kio says the hobby will survive, if this will cause you to quit than you probly had better things to do with your time anyway.

[downwithpants]

we need money for the server fees before we can start investing it in a legal/political fund

[verlocs]

It's not abused it's an expectation. Look, this isn't 1999, AJAX and web 2.0 is the way people expect things to be. If you're gonna show video you show it in a browser, you don't expect people to download it.

That's a rather childish attitude, and the very reason why there is a grain of truth in my GOML (Get Off My Lawn) jokes. The ability to preview videos, the ability to have videos even hosted at all, is a privilege, not a right. The very fact you bring up 1999, a year in which some of us did our best to host videos on studio websites, using our own personal treasure to get our videos out there, is exactly why I am so frustrated at the streaming video (oh, no filter, let's be blunt, YouTube) generation to demand everything immediately as a matter of course.

No, sir, I'm not going to be your dancing monkey.

The developer and administrator of a service doesn't get to quibble about unanticipated usage habits that they did not take steps to prevent. There's nothing technological preventing you from implementing a technological change that would mandate the usage pattern you advocate, so if you have not done so then the question is why. Clearly if as you say the service is being used to see videos in full (which I would say that it most certainly is), then the service must be costing you bandwidth and thus offers a tangible savings return on the time investment to implement a technological fix.

I'm thinking more the industry should just give up on charging for non-premium content and leave us be.

Which is where advocacy comes up; trying to encourage the studios to be the first to see the light and offer blanket sanction for their titles to be used in mashups and try to ride the goodwill and hopefully increased sales that would accompany it.

[Kionon]

The developer and administrator of a service doesn't get to quibble about unanticipated usage habits that they did not take steps to prevent. There's nothing technological preventing you from implementing a technological change that would mandate the usage pattern you advocate, so if you have not done so then the question is why. Clearly if as you say the service is being used to see videos in full (which I would say that it most certainly is), then the service must be costing you bandwidth and thus offers a tangible savings return on the time investment to implement a technological fix.

I'm not an administrator, I am not a mod, and contrary to the beliefs of the Romanian AMV community, no I am not the owner of the Org (that's Phade). I have no control over "implementing any technological change that would mandate the pattern advocate." If it were up to me, which it isn't, LOCAL would be a much different animal, but it isn't. And I think over the years the admin team has show, at the very least, indifference towards my views.

[guardiansoulblade]

I really don't know where the site is going, but I do think the reason the .Org doesn't get as much attention as UTube is because of the major rule we have that says you can't use downloaded footage, most AMVs on YouTube are comprised of downloaded DivX files, I did this with a non amime show, but I bought it, although I haven't felt like making AMVs for that show. I think a lot of the AMVers are actually unwilling to shell out money to buy the source footage in order to upload here, although, I DO think some people DO use downloaded footage here...You know who you are.

[Ikore]

I DO think some people DO use downloaded footage here...You know who you are.

they should be so freak out right now (...)

|:

[Koopiskeva]

After a long conversation on this, we've decided to blame the recession. and Apple.

[Radical_Yue]

yes.

[Koopiskeva]

shiny girls with shiny music.