[WR] 5.66 3x3x3 Single Feliks Zemdegs

[mitch1234]

fazdad where did feliks get his Dayan Zhanchi? Most people don't even know where to get it at the time, the only thing I've seen is pre-ordering it.

 

[Kirjava]

I realise copying is huge on the internet. Doesnt make it right.

Is it illegal to do this? Genuinely curious.

So a "portion" of the community thinks its OK to steal from Feliks? Thats effectively what copying achieves. He works very hard to achieve what he does.

I think you're confused about what the word "steal" means.

I dont think laziness deserves any reward.

I don't see how this is relevant. Who is profiting from being lazy?

 

[Stefan]

Feliks does not have any sponsorship so the only regular income he gets is from youtube hits. I believe he has earned this income. I do not apologise whatsoever in trying to remove any copies that take income from him.

Also... re-uploading usually reduces quality, scatters views and discussion, and confuses viewers.

 

[Hays]

I realise copying is huge on the internet. Doesnt make it right.

Is it illegal to do this? Genuinely curious.

Copying Feliks' video is similar to uploading music by an artist that isn't you. It "steals" views away from them and gives them to someone who owns no part of the video they uploaded; this also steals money in the form of advertisement.

So a "portion" of the community thinks its OK to steal from Feliks? Thats effectively what copying achieves. He works very hard to achieve what he does.

I think you're confused about what the word "steal" means.

No, you're confused about what the word "steal" means.

From Dictionary.com: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:
The "property" in question is YouTube hits and revenue generated by said hits.

I dont think laziness deserves any reward.

I don't see how this is relevant. Who is profiting from being lazy?

The people that are uploading Feliks' content are being lazy by not uploading their own original content, and they are profiting off a video that does not belong to them.

Oh and congrats to Feliks, that's really fast.

 

[Stefan]

I just realized Feliks is finally in the top 10 "Sum of all single ranks":
https://worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#6

It "steals" views away from them and gives them to someone who owns no part of the video they uploaded; this also steals money in the form of advertisement.

Well...

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point.

 

[uberCuber]

I just realized Feliks is finally in the top 10 "Sum of all single ranks":
https://worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#6

lol if only he practiced magics ;_;

 

[Kirjava]

Copying Feliks' video is similar to uploading music by an artist that isn't you. It "steals" views away from them and gives them to someone who owns no part of the video they uploaded; this also steals money in the form of advertisement.

I understand the point that you/whoever is trying to make here.

However, 'stealing' implies that the property is transferred to the person who stole it. I don't think people uploading copies are receiving the revenue that Faz doesn't.

No, you're confused about what the word "steal" means.

From Dictionary.com: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:
The "property" in question is YouTube hits and revenue generated by said hits.

No, you're confused about what the word "steal" means. The revenue is not transferred to the 'thief', it is simply not produced in the first place.

Also, just because someone watched a copy of the video doesn't mean they would've watched the real thing otherwise.

The people that are uploading Feliks' content are being lazy by not uploading their own original content, and they are profiting off a video that does not belong to them.

I see nothing that indicates that people copying videos are making money off them. I find that extremely hard to believe.

This problem is not as big as you think. If you look at the 7.08 video, I assume Erik hasn't been militantly removing copies of it, since there are a few of the same video. These videos have around 50 views each. Has this even made an impact at all?

I think even fazdad will agree that copying isn't an inherently bad thing.

 

[David Zemdegs]

I think even fazdad will agree that copying isn't an inherently bad thing.

If someone has sought my permission to do something creative with my videos and acknowledges where the originals come from then I dont have a problem. Its the straight copying without permission that I disapprove of.

 

[Hays]

I understand the point that you/whoever is trying to make here.

However, 'stealing' implies that the property is transferred to the person who stole it. I don't think people uploading copies are receiving the revenue that Faz doesn't.

Even if they aren't, they are still "stealing" the views.

Also, just because someone watched a copy of the video doesn't mean they would've watched the real thing otherwise.

If I watched Feliks' slowed down WR solve on some random channel, why would I not be as motivated to watch it on Fazdad's channel? (Assuming I had already not watched it already)

This problem is not as big as you think. If you look at the 7.08 video, I assume Erik hasn't been militantly removing copies of it, since there are a few of the same video. These videos have around 50 views each. Has this even made an impact at all?

I agree, it's hardly a problem at all considering how little views the alternative videos get. It's similar to stealing a few dollars from a millionaire.

 

[aronpm]

A view isn't property.

 

[Kirjava]

Even if they aren't, they are still "stealing" the views.

A view of a copy doesn't mean that a view of Faz' channel is lost. Maybe some people viewing the copies want to know more and find their way to Faz' channel? I wonder if lost views even actually outweighs gained views.

If I watched Feliks' slowed down WR solve on some random channel, why would I not be as motivated to watch it on Fazdad's channel? (Assuming I had already not watched it already)

Maybe they saw it on a channel they were subscribed to and weren't aware of fazrulz1.

I'm glad you agree with me otherwise.

 

[ianography]

OH MY GOD JUST WATCH THE VIDEO PLEASE

 

[Andrew Ricci]

OH MY GOD JUST WATCH THE VIDEO PLEASE

Who are you talking to? Quoting is cool.

 

[Jungleterrain]

I was away from home for a couple of days and I come back to find Feliks breaking the Official WR again. What a beast.

 

[ianography]

Who are you talking to? Quoting is cool.

The people that keep arguing over the slow-mo video/stealing thing. It's silly in my opinion

 

[N Zhang]

it's his legend

 

[qqwref]

I don't think views count as a form of property which can be *stolen*. In real-life terms, even if someone is paying you $1 for each 1,000 people who look at you on the street, it would be ridiculous to claim someone is stealing something from you if they are (for example) acting so crazily that people look at them instead of you. It would even be ridiculous if they are using the same exact tactics you are to accumulate views.

Also, I'm not sure copying is involved anyway if someone takes an existing video and posts a slowed-down version on their channel. I don't think the video is the same, and I also don't think the person who films the video (or the people in it) is ethically right to remove any remixes of that video that they didn't personally approve of. Removing exact copies is a somewhat different story, but whatever the case, it's also a bit mean-spirited to tell Youtube to remove someone else's video for copyright reasons, even if those reasons are justified. As everyone should know by now, Youtube is pretty strict about those things, and they tend to disable or delete accounts after a few of those removals. So immediately going to the Youtube authorities instead of talking to the uploader to try to resolve the situation is a deliberate act of harm against someone who might not even know you disapprove.

 

[tjtj_pr0]

We must do smt to stop him

 

[pjk]

Congrats Feliks.

Feliks does not have any sponsorship so the only regular income he gets is from youtube hits. I believe he has earned this income. I do not apologise whatsoever in trying to remove any copies that take income from him.

If people blatantly copy the video that Fazdad recorded, it is completely reasonable for him to request to have them removed (regardless of the reason; he owns the video). If people took their own videos of the WR solve, they should be free to post them without worrying about it being removed.

 

[teller]

@Fazdad: Google is smart and the search results will put the authentic videos near the top, so I wouldn't worry about hits. Feliks is the source, and all of this is just good viral attention toward him. How to fully monetize his achievement outside of YouTube is the real question, and I wish you the best at achieving that.