This is just insane.

Now, I agree that ripping a dvd and putting online for sharing and thousands of people downloading that and watching it, free of charge, with nothing going back to those that created it is wrong. I do it, but it's wrong, you can't justify it really. (I do buy the movies on DVD if I like them... but wait, that's a justification).

BUT... to then take a situation which is fair use and say... well, actually yeah, there is this really simple way you could do it which is free and convenient and results in no quality loss. OR, hey, we'd prefer you to do it this convoluted way... um... because, well... really, we don't want people to know about how easy it actually is to do it digitally, and we have this weird mentality that doing THAT is wrong (because of our copy protection)... but doing it THIS way, this RETARDED way... well, that's ok.

"So, sir, about doing this EXACT same thing in a movie theater?"

"Oh no... no, you can't do that... that's illegal for another reason... um, hang on... let me wade through this really large legal binder..."

I can't help it, I'm gay for your heterosexual love.

*quality

Arrgh, there it went off again!

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
You totally gone and did it dint you, did you not go ahead and do that. All over my post? Dirty boy, but I thank you

I was genuinely heading for no quality though, didn't wanna seem like I was whoring or anything

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I'll give myself a promote, because I like to play with myself.

You totally gone and did it dint you, did you not go ahead and do that. All over my post? Dirty boy, but I thank you

I was genuinely heading for no quality though, didn't wanna seem like I was whoring or anything

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I'll give myself a promote, because I like to play with myself.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mario, no, quality' to 'mario, no, quality, no quality' - edited by peggedbea

>> ^Fjnbk:
Chinese food has no quality control. I may have inadvertently poisoned all my close friends with Big White Rabbit Candy before it was recalled for having melamine in it .


Actually, this is not true. The whole aim of Chinese dairy farmers adding melamine into milk was, ironically, to pass the quality control for milk protein content. It was a case of unscrupulous farmers and suppliers staying a step ahead of an inexperienced reglatory body. In North America, quality control and regulation of diary is much easier with prevalence of large industrial farms.

Anyways, that distinction is moot considering the chocolates in this video are counterfeit. I mean it's pretty fucking stupid to expect quality from fake food.

Chinese food has no quality control. I may have inadvertently poisoned all my close friends with Big White Rabbit Candy before it was recalled for having melamine in it .

The BBC is realising the licence fee isn't sustainable anymore. In the long term it will go because there is a limit to their remit and what they can reasonably charge for this.
The problem is there is no quality programming on BBC1. You might find something interesting on BBC4 but the homegrown stuff is appalling. I don't believe they can go on wasting our money and running unpleasant reminders like this that jar with the expectations of a nice evenings viewing.
Also I imagine it disturbs the fee paying majority but those who don't will not give a crap about the "database".

The only advantage of the BBC is no advertising but now that I have a Tivo-style device I rarely see adverts anyway.

The Sift is biased against blogging. There are no quality blog posts I guess.

Well, I think that was Silvercord, but I can't be too sure, who posted in SiftTalk. He was offering some sort of free for all youtube account where you could upload yourself. Anyhow, I tend to keep backups of all my videos in case Viacom goes insane. You know that pizza baseball video got taken down? It just drives me nuts that I didn't make a backup of it! gah



In reply to your comment:
“Ah excellent! Didn't you post about that in Sift Talk a while ago? Anyway, a great service to keep in mind. In this case I was lucky enough to find an exact duplicate of the YouTube video on GVid which didn't have the embed disabled.

Fun note: the GVid version was published September 2006, while the YouTube post was upped November 2006, and it's THAT post which is now getting attention around the web. Just feels like the YouTube poster was being a little arrogant in disabling the embed on it. Whatever, in this case, I suppose :-P

In reply to your comment:
“if you need to upload the videos on youtube that are disabled embeds, just give me a holler. I'll download the flv and reupload it into my own youtube account and enable embed with little or no quality loss

The YouTube post had disable embed code, but the Google Video version did not. However, the YouTube version had the above + more.

Additional info here.””

Ah excellent! Didn't you post about that in Sift Talk a while ago? Anyway, a great service to keep in mind. In this case I was lucky enough to find an exact duplicate of the YouTube video on GVid which didn't have the embed disabled.

Fun note: the GVid version was published September 2006, while the YouTube post was upped November 2006, and it's THAT post which is now getting attention around the web. Just feels like the YouTube poster was being a little arrogant in disabling the embed on it. Whatever, in this case, I suppose :-P

In reply to your comment:
“if you need to upload the videos on youtube that are disabled embeds, just give me a holler. I'll download the flv and reupload it into my own youtube account and enable embed with little or no quality loss

The YouTube post had disable embed code, but the Google Video version did not. However, the YouTube version had the above + more.

Additional info here.”

if you need to upload the videos on youtube that are disabled embeds, just give me a holler. I'll download the flv and reupload it into my own youtube account and enable embed with little or no quality loss



The YouTube post had disable embed code, but the Google Video version did not. However, the YouTube version had the above + more.

Additional info here.

There is no question in my mind that the looris post is higher quality. (Hah . . . odd to use the word "quality" and "kid pwned by soccer ball" in the same comment thread)
luol

But if the ockhamist post was indeed so low-quality or no-quality, then why does it have 68 votes? People are really desperate for bank shots, I guess.
lol! no, come on, people see a nice video and think "hey quality could be better but fun anyway". That's not the point, you know

i agree with you it's pointless to have both videos award points to both, we'll think of something.

There is no question in my mind that the looris post is higher quality. (Hah . . . odd to use the word "quality" and "kid pwned by soccer ball" in the same comment thread)

But if the ockhamist post was indeed so low-quality or no-quality, then why does it have 68 votes? People are really desperate for bank shots, I guess.

All I am saying (besides what I have already said) is that this Sift should not have 125 or so votes divided between two duplicate pieces of content. And the admins can replace faulty or less desirable embed codes with relative ease. Merge it or re-embed and then go take that Jake Shimabukuro down from its permanent #1 perch.