Reporter Turns Ghetto in 3 Seconds

@BanMaster

Granted, I didn't submit it, but I wouldn't call that blogspam either. YouTube allows videos to be embedded into sites and blogs. It is my understanding that if the person who posted it to YouTube wanted to, he or she could block the 'embed' feature and deny viewers access to the code.

There is something to be said for the blogger who consistently sorts through the millions of videos on YouTube and picks out some really good ones to share with his or her readers. What is it about that that you see as "spam"?

Personally, I don't see why Google should have exclusive rights to any-and-all profits generated from the videos posted at no cost to Google on their site. If the person who filmed or created it didn't want their content being used in this manner, surely they would take simple steps to prevent that from happening such as not posting their videos to YouTube, or at the very least removing the 'embed' code from the YouTube page.

As far as I'm concerned, using these videos is fair game. Each blog owner can assemble a unique collection of these videos that have a unique value in terms of relating to the readers/visitors of a given site or blog. Additionally, these videos can be mixed with other content, so as to enhance the relative uniqueness (that's an oxymoron, I know) of the offering.

All that said, please explain your reasoning for dumping blogs that republish YouTube videos in with auto-generated scraper blogs and blog farms under the umbrella of "blog spam".

Comments (3)

- BanMaster
Any reason why the original youtube video wasn't linked to instead of the blogspam site?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUS6nKpddec
- (0 Kudos received)
- FatLester
@BanMaster

Granted, I didn't submit it, but I wouldn't call that blogspam either. YouTube allows videos to be embedded into sites and blogs. It is my understanding that if the person who posted it to YouTube wanted to, he or she could block the 'embed' feature and deny viewers access to the code.

There is something to be said for the blogger who consistently sorts through the millions of videos on YouTube and picks out some really good ones to share with his or her readers. What is it about that that you see as "spam"?

Personally, I don't see why Google should have exclusive rights to any-and-all profits generated from the videos posted at no cost to Google on their site. If the person who filmed or created it didn't want their content being used in this manner, surely they would take simple steps to prevent that from happening such as not posting their videos to YouTube, or at the very least removing the 'embed' code from the YouTube page.

As far as I'm concerned, using these videos is fair game. Each blog owner can assemble a unique collection of these videos that have a unique value in terms of relating to the readers/visitors of a given site or blog. Additionally, these videos can be mixed with other content, so as to enhance the relative uniqueness (that's an oxymoron, I know) of the offering.

All that said, please explain your reasoning for dumping blogs that republish YouTube videos in with auto-generated scraper blogs and blog farms under the umbrella of "blog spam".
- (0 Kudos received)
- revital9
@FatLester I couldn't have said it better. I think it's an automatic reflex inherited from Digg - where every embedded video becomes spam.

But hey, this is Mixx. I ain't worried :)
- (0 Kudos received)