Holy goddamn this is what youtube is starting to feel like. Not all of it, just the most prominent/promoted parts. Attractive, hyperactive (post-)millennials speaking eloquently about some incredibly forced, made up situation, and it's heavily monetized and intended to build personal brand.

Half of this video was her talking about a problem that doesn't exist for real people and the rest was advertising for squarespace. Now that Bernie Sanders doesn't look like he'll be allowed to get money out of politics, he should get money out of youtube.

Monetization of art, which is what they're talking about, isn't a commodity or a service. Seems disingenuous to equate these different things. When you get breakfast, or do a workout, or have an architect design your concept, there's an underlying understanding of what's being offered. At the other end of this, you can pay a designer for something, say a website, and end up with complete dreck and you've lost your money.

Although they get close with the architect, it's still not the same.

Besides, spec only exists because people agree to it.

So this is blocked because the station owner (Tribune) used a copyright claim to keep us from seeing it. Now they have to make the tough call - "do we keep this off the air to protect the perceived integrity of our news, or do we put it back up under our own control to monetize it and more importantly drum up viral attention for our news team?"

On the other hand, why would they need the attention, when they already have reporting like "Man proposes to girlfriend with engagement ring made from his wisdom tooth"?

Yeah there are slap bands out there, but they don't work like this is presented to work. The arms would have to bend in multiple dimensions, and then straighten out and be able to provide a stable flying platform. The closest thing I think of for doing something like that is the "bendy" character toys where the metal wire is co-molded inside the body. That is a very heavy solution.
I misspoke on the 2" square, it is 2" x 2", so 4" square. I'm not sure that I agree that theirs is 6" x 3", but even if it is that would mean that the prop size would have to be about 1.25" and that doesn't work for a 6" x 3" vehicle. There isn't enough thrust and the motors at that size don't provide enough RPM's for that kind of weight.
On the electronic side, they show it connecting to a smart phone with video feedback. That means you have to have bluetooth at least, or a 5.4ghz video system if you want more than 30' range. or it has to have a Wifi TX on it. All of those thing require power. Sure it could analyze the video signal to determine subject matter, and provide guidance but you have some very serious issues there. If you do it on board it requires some processor power (More drain), if you do it on the smart phone app it will create lag.
Your phone has over 1,000 mAh in it (1440 in Iphone 5), that is a TON (4-10x) more than what this thing would have. Battery technology may be a big research project right now, but there isn't anything on the horizon that will get them to where they need to be. Most of the tech research is in sub 1C rated batteries for things like full size cars. Something like this needs a 10C rating minimum if not a 20C rating. Unfortunately most of the upcoming technology can not handle drains that fast. Things tend to go "Boom!". When you do something small, and even 6" x 3" is small, you have very serious power vs weight issues. It all comes down to issues of power density, and nothing exists today that will give it to them as they would need..

So right now these guys need to figure out:
1) A new light weight material that can lock rigid but also bend as needed in multiple directions.
2) A new battery technology that allows them to get the power they need, for a 6 axis gyro, 4 motors, control board,a RX, a HD camera and some sort of VTX while reducing weight. How long it powers all of that would be open, but if it is under 10 minutes I think people would be a little disgruntled. Right now people are wanting the video quads to get about 30-45 minutes of flight time on the 5200+mAh batteries.
3) Write code that allows them to analyze video in real time so as to provide object tracking and avoidance without lag while capable of running on a smartphone. It would also need to return to home when the battery runs low. That would be a little tricky on a cliff face, or if you are riding a bike through a forest. Another issue is that they tilt the camera down, they don't say if this is actuated, or done by hand, but it could lead to serious issues with programming object avoidance if you can't see anything above you.
4) Since they show the image as HD on the phone screen, they would also need to come up with a new way to broadcast HD video wirelessly. Right now that system costs $40K and is rather large.

All in all it is a dream product that people are going to get suckered into funding it. Some tech may come out of it that could be monetized, but I don't see the item coming out in this format, at least not in the next 3-5 years. You'd be better off going with AirDog.

The answer to most of your questions is what I already stated. The internet is full of experiments in monetization. Notice the plural. None of them have proven successful over a broad range of content, or location. Since damned near every country has it's own legal restrictions, I think it's pretty obvious why there's no single system to work for them all. The same goes for various types of content. What works for games isn't really going to work for music, or text.

And I don't think I ever suggested trying to stop piracy, or deal with those who'd rather steal than support the artists. I gave up on those a long time ago...but I have no problem with calling those who steal thieves, especially when there -are- other alternatives. Don't like the name, don't do the deed.

I doubt you're ever going to see one new strategy to rule them all (welcome to the balkanized world). If we do get one new system...it'll be because the plutarchs won, and we'll be more worried about buying our water than getting our games or movies.

@Stormsinger, then why can't I buy the music or tv shows I want from Amazon?

How come hulu or netflix aren't available in my country? I've said it before, I am happy to spend money on the content I want, just make it available to me for a reasonable price (i.e. not nearly double what people in the US are paying for it http://www.steamprices.com/au/topripoffs)

At what point is it my fault that there is literally no legal way for me to purchase the content I want due to an arbitrary geographical restriction?

So if the entire internet is an experiment in alternative monetization, it's a dismal fucking failure.

You want some examples that work?

Steam Sales
Louis CK selling his entire show for $5
Kickstarter (hell Star Citizen alone)

Some people will always choose free. Fine, maybe they just can't afford it, and telling them to just not watch it is never going to work. Forget those people. Focus on the ones who believe that good content deserves rewarding. Make it easy for them to access your content (reasonable price, no drm or arbitrary restrictions) and they will pay.

Trying to stop piracy is pointless. It's out there and as I said, someone people genuinely have a moral issue with paying for content (the OSS zealots for example). Just assume it's going to be pirated (it already is!) and make it easy for those of us who want to pay for it to get it.

I love it when people claim that content providers just refuse to find new ways to get paid...out of sheer laziness. While apparently not having any suggestions as to how to do so themselves.

Virtually the entire internet is nothing -but- experiments in alternative means of monetization. The fact is that there really aren't many options. You can sell access directly (via subscriptions, micro-transactions or some such), or you can sell advertising. Neither of which appear to be sustainable strategies; as soon as the content is made available to a few (or before), it'll be stolen and distributed for free, and advertising has been getting less and less profitable for a decade (since about the time the market got saturated, and there were no newbies left to click on the ads).

You really can't sell "support" contracts to content. I suppose you could sell crappy merchandise, like action figures and plushies, but that's wanting content creators to do something other than creating content to be able to pay the bills. Not a good trade-off, IMO.

Note, I don't have any answer either, but I'm not about to lay "a large part of the problem" on the content creators.They have -every- incentive to solve the problem...unlike the consumers, who have plenty of incentives to -be- the problem.

I agree- the organisers likely didn't brief her enough of the scope. The conference is a willy-nilly kumbaya for artists doing their own thing. Or agriculture.

But I dispute your points. Because I know about her and been following her for a while;
* no she doesn't get chances because she's a young lady. She's not that young and is actually very used to giving presentations;
* she's totally a public personality (yo, she presents how you should monetize on being your own brand!).

She did put in a good effort, I'll give her that. Good sport despite the slide fail. Which is still better than I can say for Michael Bay who probably had way better direction, support, and speech writers.

You don't have to be a stand-up comic. Drive one point. Be honest, genuine, and personable. And if you can't - you're not worth other people's time - politely decline the gig.

Never liked Facebook. And this rather illuminating video confirms it for me. They have no alternative to monetize their members. The fact that they actually restrict new messages to a selection of your followers is completely mind-blowing.

I would totally go see the CGI "Elder Scrolls Online: The Movie" in theaters.

I will NOT be buying ESO: Online the game. The first time I have not bought an Elder Scrolls game. I don't know where Bethesda got it in their heads that people wanted a TES MMO. The whole idea of playing Elder Scrolls in groups just puts me off.

Plus, no way in hell I'm paying $15/mo subscription, or submitting to any other monetizing scheme.

What really burns me is that they're wasting all this dev time on the project. Not only am I waiting a whole extra dev cycle for my next TES game...but the amount of money they're investing is staggering. What if this brings down the franchise? It's a bone headed move.

About a week ago I opened my wallet at a bar or a bank or something, and I received a compliment for having a library card in my wallet. O.G. Huntington Beach and Westminster Library card holder representin'!

Before the internet, the common man was dumber than shit and my edge was that I read books at the library. In fact, it was NOT cool to know things about things.

Now I'm comparitively dumb because motherfuckers be like "3rd law of thermodynamics, pssshhh, I know EVERYTHING bout that." /ALTAVISTA

I mean, that's cool that people know things now --but, damn, having that edge was really nice.

And then I had the internet and no one did, and my edge was even huger. I made bank designing shitty ass webpages for shitty ass old people with shitty ass businesses. Now everyone gots it and the people with money laid down the pressure and it's a machine of controlled behavior and wallet squeezing. (I squeeze wallets for a living but it's more in sync with Winston Smith working for big bro.)

But I digress... Shhhhh, I'm on my iPhone -- nope, A BOOK.

Bring it back! Don't let Barnes & Nobles close dooooowwwwn. You may dis on the B&N, but that's part of the levee of popular opinion; how assholes of the future will monetize. If our corporate overlords and money trading thugs realize that books ain't selling, they won't hesitate to shut down a library. For the people. For the taxes. For God. You got a book. It's the bible now STFU.

Then we'll only have the internet and information will successfully be filtered down into an easily manipulated data stream -- which it is, but it's not fully there yet. We need to INTEGRATE FACEBOOK WITH EVERY ASPECT OF EXISTENCE.

Shut down all printing presses. When you pick up a book in the future it will turn to dust in your hands and then the CAVE PEOPLE WILL DEVOUR YOU.

Brains. Brains. Nom. Guts and gore. Your children will be eaten alive; torn to shreds, while blood flows out of their arteries into the machines of death.. Force fucked women of your sub-species impregnated by the semen of the dead in order to make more food. More foooooooooooooood -- YOUR PROGENY ARE FOOD.

And all because of the system which interrupts a motherfuck for reading a book.

Some people can't take criticism. Especially bad when you got proof they gave permission before you made the video, and aren't doing things equally.

Some of the channels I watch are critical of Young Earth Creationists, proving how the YEC people are providing false witness by lying about the actual facts in an effort to confuse their audience into believing the Earth is only 6,000 year old, and they get take down notices all the time. In those cases it is fair use at play since the channels they are being shown on aren't getting revenue, and are educational. In TB's case, he had permission from the company, signed by the very guy who later complained.

As TB notes, this isn't really about him and his video though, but others who do the same thing who don't have a powerful network behind them to recover or fight, and has more to do with YouTube's default action, without giving proper recourse for the content maker to address it fairly, and of course the DMCA itself which is probably the core of the problem. Hopefully, if any of the videos he pointed out as still being up are taken down after he pointed them out, his Network will help those people.

The subject of Let's Play videos and their legality is a difficult one. TB's WTF videos are basically Let's Play with an initial impression. Even without a blanket and specific permission granted, they should be legal, as it is critique, not just a pure Let's Play without commentary of the entire game. I can see the argument against showing a large portion or entire game and monetizing it without permission, but a shorter Let's Play or critique should be fair, especially critique.

It should be noted that the Developers have since pulled their complaint to YouTube after the negative publicity. Gee... take down notice to one of the biggest YouTube game reviewers out there, somebody who's professional name and reputation is "cynical" and you don't think there would be fallout?

Can't brew better beer in your shed that you can buy in store.

Laws will stay until corporate America can properly monetize and copyright it. Then it'll be everywhere.

Call of Duty and Battlefield have forever ruined shooters on ALL platforms. They've intentionally capitalized and completely monetized the market so that you HAVE to keep buying their games. There is never a time when a piece of DLC or another brand new version of the game is coming out.

If you gave EA money for this abortion, you are part of the reason why some publishers (EA, Ubisoft, Activision...) want to treat PC games as $60 rentals, and you are most definitely part of the problem. There are an ABUNDANCE of better, cheaper PC games developed by companies who want your business and won't treat you as just an open wallet. Sim City was a great franchise once, but just like Diablo, Crysis, and anything from Bioware nowadays, it's been consolized, socialized, and/or monetized into crap that most PC gamers want nothing to do with.

This "real cities do not exist in a bubble" is just corporate blathering to justify the always-on DRM, as if fans of the series have forgotten it has always been, first and foremost, a single player game, and a very enjoyable one at that. It is ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC to force such a drastic change in gameplay/genre into a game that has been so defined by it's gameplay/genre over the years. Same thing when EA remade Syndicate as a FPS. A FPS Syndicate ISN'T SYNDICATE! I don't want to play with anyone else. I don't want my fucking savegames on your shitty server, even if it was an awesome server. If I give you $60 for your game, it's now MY game, and you leave me the fuck alone!

AAARRG! It's like PC game developers are all being run by fucking console kiddies and greedy shitstain corporate types who never played NetQuake or DWANGO, or Heretic, or System Shock, or X-Com, or any of the Black Isle or pre-Dragon Age 2 Bioware stuff, or any Diablo without a "III" behind it, or Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, or the Ultimas, or the Roberta Williams adventure games, or Wing Commander, or Tie Fighter, or MechWarrior. Deus Ex! A full fucking Deus EX play-through would be required before I'd even THINK about hiring your ass to develop a new PC game! On second thought, play it three times, once for each ending!

uuuuugh... so... anyway... yeah, fuck EA.

Ok, fine. Rage.