I seen a whole post on flagging, the flag was never meant, according to that article, to be abused to censor people's opinions as long as the person was being civil in their response. It's flat out wrong to flag people just because you have a different opinion or see something differently. Half this platforms problem is people fear giving their opinion out of being flagged...probably a contributing factor many bloggers who could help grow the platform leave. I agree with the use of the flag for what he was doing, I don't see anything wrong in what he was doing but for the amounts of money he was getting most definitely yes.
Contents on steemit is supposed to be original. If you just copy and paste you are making profit from other people's creation. That is what's wrong with what he was doing
He can do that as long as it's attributed. He found a niche, nothing wrong with that, it's just not worth what he's getting for it. Ten bucks or under for his endeavor to bring movie reviews to steemit seems okay.
These are not movie reviews, these are trailers. It's just scraping trailers off YouTube and posting them 5+ times a day profiting off other people's work. If movie companies saw this there would be DMCA notices.
Sharing is one thing, profiting off is a very different thing.
Regardless, this is freaking ridiculous.
I agree the amount of money is ridiculous. I made a comment to a woman who was running a stock market guess what the rate will be tomorrow contest and she was ranking in hundreds. All she had to do was keep posting the same contest and writing down people's answers. We talked, I haven't checked but I think she better understands what the problem was, huge profits for little effort. Like I just said in another comment on here if the movie industry is putting stuff on Utube they know that stuff is going to get shared....maybe even edited and used as meme's. They know the risk involved putting their stuff out there and as long as he's not claiming he did the trailer it's not against the rules. If he gets sued that's on him, if you want to stop abuse of the rewards pool that's on you.
There is no DMCA issue. He has no clue what he's talking about. I shared URLs that link to a YouTube video. He's a computer guy so I'm guessing he's just pretending to be ignorant of the fact that these videos are all hosted on YouTube with the blessing of the rights holders. The blockchain and Steemit Inc are not hosting any copyrighted work. Any transgressions would fall on the YouTube account. That is why I try to select YouTube accounts that appear to genuinely have rights to the content as to ensure longevity of the post. It's not a huge detail but it's just one of tiny bits of effort I put into each post. I will never claim the posts are arduous but there is some effort and stamina involved.
I do have to agree with him though that the rewards you are getting are ridiculous, a lot of people been on here for quite a while writing highly intelligent stuff, putting a lot of effort into it and their post get ten, maybe fifteen bucks. We all need to be conscious of the rewards pool in order for Steemit to survive in the long run.
I can understand your opinion. There are a couple points I would like to bring up though.
First is I'm paying a high amount to get high reward votes to be listed high and gain exposure I'm buying up SBD on the market to spend which helps the economy and price. I'm not going to lie this usually results in a positive ROI because I like to time my bids during beneficial windows but it has also resulted in a negative ROI I've promoted these posts during bear markets as well at a loss. After you account for a 25% cut to curation and 50% coming in the form of SP not SBD the margins shrink rapidly.
Second point is that the rewarded amount will only ever go to someone else that is paying for it as long as one person is bidding in a window which is pretty much guaranteed to be the case every time. Those bots vote on a timer which uses their vote power as a countdown and then doles out the votes only to those that paid them. Those funds are carved out of the reward pool already by the bot owner's stake and essentially reserved for vote buyers. Any thoughts that I am taking away from hardworking minnows pouring their lives into content just isn't so. I'm competing with other bidders over that stake and anyone else can do it easily too.
If you have a problem with vote selling in general you should really take it up with @themarkymark he does appear to be the largest vote seller on steemit running bots I didn't even know he owned until recently looking into it. The really high paid screen grabs he likes to show were voted on by his bots.
He's the vote pusher, I'm just an addict.
Don't you think it's wrong to copy someone's work and profit from it? If I copy but attribute your work, put on my blog and got even $10 for it while you posted it up for free, do you think that is fair for you? I feel like that was what steemit was originally design for - for creating new content, not sharing contents that someone else has done. Except for may be information that is censored otherwise, but movie trailers doesn't fall into that category does it?
Of course people are entitled for their own opinion, and that what flagging is for, so I guess that brings it back to @themarkymark's point. If it's fair call to copy other people's work and profit for it, it's fair call to be flagged for it as well, so don't whinge about it.
There's nothing wrong with what he's doing. It's allowed on here. What else you want me to say? I am sure the movie industry doesn't care...it's just another avenue getting info out to movie goers. I am sure when they put that stuff out on Utube they know people are going to share it....that's why there's a share tab. You just can't write someone's stuff and attribute it to yourself. That's the rule, I didn't make it.
This argument is bogus. You are allowed to stab people too, but you only get in trouble after you do it. Does that make it right?
There is a big difference between sharing and profiting off other people's work.
I found these arguments as fruitless as planting stones. They just don't give a shit. They think that because the platform "allows it" that it's okay or that because it's "promoting" the work it's okay, or because copyright is bullshit that it's okay. They just use post hock reasoning to justify unprincipled, amoral and devious behavior. They know it's destructive to the network, but they don't care. As long as they get theirs. Content skimmers and plagiarists are just thieves and thieves don't care if they hurt others.
I have spent three years blogging and most the blog sites I've been on copy and paste news article for discussion, very few only use part of a article and link....I think most news site really don't care because the link is always required, it puts their name out...free advertising, if people like the article or several articles from the site they are more apt to start following the site. More followers more advertisers advertising.
I watched four movie trailers...(though I didn't want to...lol), one came with a warning at the end that said it was copyrighted and the trailer couldn't be use for blah, blah and so on, another just said Imax was a registered trademark of Imax, and the other two had nothing at the end. So I guess it's a mixed bag, if they don't label it copyrighted material I would image all is fair game. I have seen some things removed from Utube before that song artist have done that say this was removed for copyright reasons....and I've also seen where in news articles they've placed a video off utube in the article and you go to click on it and it will say the video was removed due to copyright.
That's all fine if you're sharing it on Facebook, the moment you start profiting from it, I guarantee if Hollywood saw it they would be all over it with lawyers.