This Video is private (You Tube) -what's happening?

I click on this link called "Lets Go 66 Brit Invasion Pt1" that I saved 7 years ago



And get - "This video is private. If the owner of this video has granted you access, please sign in"

 

Just sign in already.

 

Since it didn't require sign in when I first found it, I'm curious what's going on. Legal matters?

 

You can change a video from private to public even years after it was uploaded... I did it in the last couple of days. But you have to be logging into your google account to do it.

 

The user has changed the status from public to private since you last watched it.

 

OK, but why. To gain "Followers"? Or to escape being taken down by viewers or interests who might find it violated copyright?

 

I'm getting the same thing for these videos:



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=khnol2o8K9o&feature=share

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XKsSGgt8Eq4&feature=share

 

I would suspect it's to avoid copyright reports. If Youtube's automatic copyright checker doesn't automatically flag it*, a manual report from a user still might. At this point, only the uploader will be able to view the video.

*which was less likely 7 years ago, but could still happen after the fact if the copyright status with Youtube of one of the recordings changes

I'm currently logged into Youtube and I can't view the video. Says private for these and the ones @MikaelaArsenault shared.

If it was unlisted, it could be viewed by people that still have the link; that's different than what's happening here. Public, Unlisted, and Private are the only options.

 

If they don't want me to watch, I'll be glad not to.

 

when this happens I figure they have their reasons...in turn it sucks for us. I've also had a few that have gone rogue...

 

but we have no choice! ; )

 

Unfortunately, these dead links and file deletions are going to be more and more common in the future as Article 13 slowly takes over YouTube and the Internet...
...Thanks Paul McCartney!

Will Article 13 really kill YouTube? Read it for yourself – it’s just over 450 words long (UPDATE) - Music Business Worldwide

Sir Paul McCartney tells European Parliament: Vote through Article 13 to ensure a ‘sustainable future for music’ - Music Business Worldwide

 

It's more likely to kill music stars. Music offered for free will continue to gain traction over "the hits", and the freebies will continue to grow in numbers.

 

Explain to me how the artist makes money on music given away for free.

 

To gain word of mouth traction on whether they're music can compete with the saturation of content in the market that bombards millions of eyeballs and ears.

This is why I suspect remastering is intentionally made to sound bad in order to get folks talking about the tenth time a ' 70's artist collects more money for the same decades old content they made with the original mastering.

I did not buy Chicago's CTA Jessup remix and remastering because it's so bad I didn't want it if it was free. There's way too much competition. Might as well implement take down notices for crap anyway. Sure! Go ahead. It's crappy music anyway whether it's free or for purchase.

This is the new market for music. Better get used to it.

 

Are you serious? Have you never heard the term, "promotion"?
Do you not know how radio works? Do you not know how that sells music to listeners? Who become purchasers?
Have you never been in a smoke-filled dorm room, and asked, "hey, what's that music playing?" Have you never understood why Dark Side Of The Moon was on Billboard charts for years?

 

You guys are always ranting about how evil it is to expect free stuff until they take away your free stuff.

 

My current favorite band, Pomplamoose, releases a performance video every week on YouTube. That is their business model. They've been doing cover songs and originals every week for the past three years. They have been a YouTube-based artist for over 10 years. They make their money on views. Clicks. "Hits". It's just the two of them, husband and wife, and it's what they've been doing since they graduatated from business school. The wife is on her third album now, and releases her own videos as well. The two of them are equally adapt at editing and post-producing. The band has been working with other YouTube artists, not only using them in performance collabs, but helping them start their own careers.

In fact, husband Jack got this crazy idea, to help loan money to artists and creators for just this purpose. And, while running this band, he started a company. Maybe you've heard of it: Patreon. That's right, the guy who started "the 'Kickstarter' for creators", runs a band. Totally separate operation. And in fact, he drives to L.A. and spends four days in the corporate office...and (before COVID), three more days in a studio, shooting performance videos with crack session musicians - that's what makes the videos so damn good. This year during COVID, he pledged his corporate profits to paying his collaborators to do what they do best: make music. So he's taking his profits and helping even more musicians through a difficult time.

You can find dozens of great performance videos on YouTube from this band. You can watch them for free. And that is how Jack Conte and Nataly Dawn gamed the system, and started an industry in their spare time.

And that's how an artist makes money on music given away for free.

 

I keep forgetting to sign into my SHF account to activate my bozo list.

 

If you're going to passively insult people in this forum at least give them or us something to think about, learn from or just know how not to be on your bozo list or whatever bug we have put up your butt to make you come up with that kind of unhelpful comment.

That was not meant as a passive insult to you of course.

 

Yes, I'd really love to know what it was about the message preceding that one, that made you think of the old "Ignore Cop-out".

Ad for myself, I only use in in the case of a person who goes after my positions more than four times, including insulting language, as well as demeaning my position with no reason other than they don't agree with it.

And even then, I usually let the oldest offender out once I get more than three in there...because it does get kinda stinky with all those sweaty platitudes crammed together...

But, I guess, you're not even gonna see this one, so...[JOHNNYFEVER]...booger.[/JOHNNYFEVER]

 

As a certain generation is fond of saying, nothing in life is free. Somebody's gettin paid, especially in this era of the Internet and ads.

The difference is, of course, an artist choosing to offer up some of their craft in hopes of making money on more of it, and someone with money trying to convince an artist into working "for the exposure."

 

I think people stealing music or TV shows or feature films and posting them on YouTube, then getting upset when they get taken down, are very foolish. I don't have a problem if an artist deliberately chooses to post their work up on YouTube, because that's up to them. But if somebody else does it and the artist doesn't make a dime, that's a problem.

 

I'm not sure how Article 13 changes much/anything in the US.

Currently, YouTube uses AI to identify copyrighted material.
Currently, YouTube will honor takedown notices.

So what's new?

 

In 2009 I have a private video flagged and removed. I think it was a short clip of a Jon Stewart show I wanted to show a friend.

I'm aware of several instanced of falsely flagged/removed material from YouTube.

Some of the "anti-bullying" rules recently implemented can also be a bit bizarre. Basically anything resembling a comment on how someone else looks/sounds is off limits, excluding major political figures.

"Shadow banning" is also becoming very common on YouTube. Some public videos are on youtube but won't turn up in search function and are only seen if users put outside links elsewhere online.