Was there anything self-promoting about that youtube link?
Again, it doesn't have to be self-promotion. I suppose spelling it out for you would be in order since you aren't picking up what we're putting down. It would not be sensible for us to have a rule saying "You cannot post your own videos if they are self-promoting, but if you happen to like one of your own non-self-promoting videos (which I'm sure rarely happens because most people hate their own videos), you can post it, but you will have to announce that it is your video so we know to check it to see if it really isn't self-promotion."

We would be inundated and do not have the staff or time to sit around being judge, jury, and executioner for all of the countless self-links that would surely result, so the blanket rule exists. Without it, every member who has ever made a video or ever will would sit and post video after video of their own work hoping it would be published because they're sure the world would love their work just as much as they do. Besides, if we only allowed some self-links to be posted, how and who would make the decision for each whether it should stay or if maybe it's self-promotion? What if people start posting home video-looking videos that have a spam-like watermark in the corner of every one? How could we possibly know the "INTENT" of the poster? Would we then say everyone can post a self-link except for him, her, and the other guy because their self-links might possibly be self-promoting?

I think there is a happy medium and it involves human intervention... aka the ability to delete... to keep the bad guys out.
To reiterate (all over again), making subjective opinions is rather impossible because it is simply infeasible to determine the source and reasons for posting, let alone be the judge of every video by the poster's intent, so we must resort to being objective with one ring to rule them all. You make it all sound very easy and simplistic, but I assure you, it is much easier in black and white than gray all over.

Pardon the longwindedness, but it seems rather difficult to make the logic behind the posting guidelines apparent for some reason.

Watermarks are a shame. Too many good free editing/converting tools out there.

365 days a year? Girl doesn't know how to balance a diet.

Is it cute egg day?

"LOL expect up vote from Daphne..." pffft...stop knowing me, man.... ;-)

I love the watermark in the middle, more than eggs.

Downvoted for:
1. eBaum's World watermark
2. it's most likely staged

Actually, aside from the watermark and some translation difference, I don't find much difference. The GV codec seems worse in regards to background. *discard
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=466

Crap, I did it again. I didn't check to see if it's already been submitted. Although this one is better quality with easier to read subtitles and without the big annoying watermark.

Oh well. My apologies.

Just as soon as "cyberman" saves up $29.95 to get rid of that watermark, teh war begins!!!1!!
He also calls YTMND.com "ymndt". Twice.

it's very easy to get videos from youtube in raw wmv format. there is an extension for firefox called video downloader. check it out. only works with a few places, but i know that google and youtube are two of them, amongst others. i don't think you would run into an 'ebaums' situation as long as you didn't watermark, and if you subtitled it with "Hosted by VideoSift" and therefore avoiding legal issues. if the owner/creator didn't want it on youtube, it'd have been pulled long before it became a 'classic'. but since webhosts come and go, if the source dropped off the interwebby, VS would still have it in the 'vault'.

Actually, videosift could theoretically load third party flash content into a custom SWF -- with or without watermark.

Sayin'

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We would have start hosting videos ourselves in order to watermark, which I don't think we would do.

thank god VS doesn't watermark... please oh please don't watermark...
at least television is considerate enough to make theirs transparent.

i wonder how many copies EB got of that interview that they had to turn down. i looked, it's not there.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The irony of seeing this on VS with the YouTube watermark over the G4 TV watermark is palpable. Just needs the ebaum's World watermark for the circle to be complete.

"If any VideoSifters are looking for content on eBaum's World..."
I think that is not necessarily a good title for this clip since The Sift is not a site in which new content is provided. Iow, this is obviously not a site where VideoSift.com is watermarked on videos uploaded by its users. Rather, by definition of this site, only mere links to existing clips hosted on other sites are what may be found listed here.

Overall, it's an interesting interview, but not as groundbreaking or controversial as the title implies.

The "bad timing" part is probably fake - there's an "abc" watermark over the whole video, yet the newscast is from MSNBC...