It's not considered self-promotion if you didn't post the video in the first place. And it is simply too much of a hassle to make someone else download a video, post it on YT, and then resubmitting it on videosift.

As of right now yes, it is. Check out the link in the poll.
But yeah I agree .. it's a pain in the ass to have someone else fix your embed when you already have the video.

"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

I'd quote scripture, but those are more like guidelines. In my opinion it's not a self-link if you fix a video that you did not submit yourself with an embed from your youtube account. You don't get a star point, you don't "cheat" your way up in ranks and you did not submit it - that last one is crucial. As long as you did not submit it, your nose is clean.

On a related note, you are also allowed to make your own playlist on your account and submit that, if the source embeds are not from your own account.

Alright I'm just going to post it here so people understand why I started this.

I asked Lucky about this awhile ago and this was what I was told:

"Funnily enough, that's actually been discussed before, and the final verdict was that, yes, it is still a self-link.

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
Hey Lucky,
Quick question. If I fix someone else's dead video with an embed from my own youtube account, is that considered a self link?
Thanks."

Link

So that was the word from an admin 3 months ago. Fixing someone else's dead video with your own hosted file is considered self linking.

Here's the poll to change that.
Personally, I would like to be able to not just fix others .. but my own dead sifts as well. (with embeds I am hosting)

"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

Notwithstanding Lucky's response to you bt, my impression was that it was always ok to fix someone else's dead with a video you had hosted elsewhere. Beyond that, Lucky's response was in the days when a star point was awarded for fixing deads. At the time, I can see how that might have been considered self-linking because you'd end up getting a star point for a video that you were hosting. That's irrelevant now.

As for fixing your own dead video with a video you have hosted, I don't see how that's any different than posting your own video originally. The result is certainly the same.

Legally we'd be fucked because we'd all be linking and cross linking copyrighted materials. It could get the sift into trouble given that the site enables and encourages it.

I think we should simply let videos go, videos are ethereal and some of my favourite ones are forever gone. I deal with it because there is more out there.

>> ^jonny:
... As for fixing your own dead video with a video you have hosted, I don't see how that's any different than posting your own video originally. The result is certainly the same.

The result is also the same if I ask you to go download this
http://www.speedyshare.com/761429266.html
then throw it on some obscure site .. then send me the embed code (or fix it yourself assuming the poll goes well)
and then I fix http://www.videosift.com/video/SYTYCD-Kameron-Lacey-Contemporary with it.

what's the difference if you do it or I do it?


>> ^Farhad2000:
Legally we'd be fucked because we'd all be linking and cross linking copyrighted materials. It could get the sift into trouble given that the site enables and encourages it.
I think we should simply let videos go, videos are ethereal and some of my favourite ones are forever gone. I deal with it because there is more out there.


We're already doing it. I'm hosting several embeds for people right now. The difference is, I gave them the embed code and let them fix it themselves because I was told that fixing it myself is self linking.

>> ^burdturgler:
what's the difference if you do it or I do it?

The difference is that if I do it, you derive no benefit on the hosting site. While it may seem like a minor detail, some hosting sites do provide various benefits to views, links, etc. (money, in some cases), and I believe that was part of the original inspiration for the no self-linking rule.

holy shit well .. that never occurred to me.
so if you do it only you get the cash then?

in other words .. it makes no difference .. since either side could take advantage of that.
although .. I'm having a hard time imagining the whole "I'm going to fix my own dead embeds and get rich" scheme.

I just want to fix my videos. And other people's videos.

^ yeah, I'll concede it's more of a philosophical argument than a practical one. I brought it up only because I think it was part of the original thinking behind the no self-linking rule.

seriously though .. someone grab that file please .. lol

"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

Someone please give blankfist attention.

^How about I come down there and punch you in the face for Jesus?!

I just turn the other cheek.
You're welcome

^downvote for sticking your tongue out at me. I hate eager gays.

>> ^burdturgler:
I just turn the other cheek.
You're welcome


Although I have no input on the current poll, I have to thank you for that link, nice cheeks.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours.