Peter Kay washing YouTube of others talent?

[shoulders]

the owners of the copyright material preferring that a third party not upload their stuff without their permission and certainly not get ad revenue off it.

That happens anyway, I mean if you know where to look you can obtain these shows in a few minutes to watch on repeat until the heat death of the universe.

On YouTube the benefit artists receive from exposure on that platform is clearly overall in their commercial interests, so most prefer the compromise of maintaining a high profile. After all, that ensures a new generation of fans, so indirect long term revenue.

It's Kay's decision either way but it is short sighted and it doesn't change the fact the content remains very, very accessible for free, ad free. So cutting off his nose to spite his enormous face.

[thr0b]

That happens anyway, I mean if you know where to look you can obtain these shows in a few minutes to watch on repeat until the heat death of the universe.

On YouTube the benefit artists receive from exposure on that platform is clearly overall in their commercial interests, so most prefer the compromise of maintaining a high profile. After all, that ensures a new generation of fans, so indirect long term revenue.

It's Kay's decision either way but it is short sighted and it doesn't change the fact the content remains very, very accessible for free, ad free. So cutting off his nose to spite his enormous face.

Again though - nothing to suggest it's Kay directly. Couchtripper's channel exists mainly to upload shoddily "upscaled" versions of other people's stuff. Other stuff has been removed from it as well.

Ultimately, if you're going to put up material that is not yours, where the IP owners are traceable, YouTube is not the place to put it. 

(On the flip side, good work to the folks who have got loads of TVS content and have been  happily uploading that to YouTube for the last few weeks, without fear, as no bigger knows who owns the rights to any of it.)

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

People geddin ont youtubes and watching Peter's videos wi out payin fer it? Shut that shite down, lad.

[frajer]

Couch? Tripper?

'Course yer trippin' over the couch, you've not put big light on, dick'ead!

[Snrub]

Read Kay's latest book about TV and he does mention briefly that some of his stuff is on YouTube (usually the older obscure stuff) and that people can go there to watch it if they want to know what he's on about. I'm guessing he doesn't mean full episodes of Phoenix Nights or whatever though but he gives the impression he's doesn't care too much about stuff being on there.

Mind you not sure his book means anything, I mean he claims he can't possible have known who the real Keith Laird was because he was Scottish...! Case Closed

Also not sure it's a push for people to buy the DVDs - I don't think they are still "in print" or whatever the phrase might be. I think he's just incredible controlling of his archive. Perhaps that does stem from the beef with co-writers, but it's the same with stuff he's written solo like Max and Paddy.

Absolutely not a conspiracy though

[idunnosomename]

There's no darker force than the owners of the copyright material preferring that a third party not upload their stuff without their permission and certainly not get ad revenue off it.

And presumably they'd also prefer it all not be bizarrely "upscaled" so everyone looks like a fucking waxwork.

but the way youtube works is that if a party claims ownership on a copyrighted element of a video, any monetisation for the uploader is disabled and the copyright owner can have ad revenue from it go to them.

[mojo filters]

but the way youtube works is that if a party claims ownership on a copyrighted element of a video, any monetisation for the uploader is disabled and the copyright owner can have ad revenue from it go to them.

I'm technically only a YouTube watcher, but that's simply not how it works. Theoretically the copyright holder can determine what happens, from leaving third party uploads be, through demonetization/redistribution of proceeds, all the way to having content removed completely. In reality YouTube does not treat each individual copyright holder equally, and their rights are only as good as the enforcement mechanisms available!