HomeForumFormula OneGeneral chatOpinion: Formula One Management (FOM) too cruel in YouTube and other social media videos websites by striking the video
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
The example picture of F1 videos blocked by FOM in YouTube.
Many Formula One videos in YouTube always cruelly being blocked by Formula One Management (FOM) due to video copyright strike to users that always happened in last 13 years. Formula One Management should realize the problem of YT users uploading Formula One documentation videos in YouTube. Indonesian oldest private TV station RCTI is poising of uploading Formula One documentation news videos and footage on YouTube (user YouTube RCTI Fileshttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBjcLb ... A/featured) for nostalgic purposes such as Ayrton Senna's death, Formula 1 1999 Malaysian Grand Prix, Michael Schumacher's injury in 1999, Takuma Sato's concussion in 2002 and many more!
All Formula One fans always watching F1 retro clips on YouTube is the F1 fans multimedia's main menu daily!
How's your other opinion?
Last edited by theriusDR3 on 14 Feb 2020, 07:32, edited 1 time in total.
Sure it's their property,, They bought up everything back to 1988, However "they" aren't selling or giving access to the videos in question so they aren't losing anything and they are receiving great advertising.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
Sure it's their property,, They bought up everything back to 1988, However "they" aren't selling or giving access to the videos in question so they aren't losing anything and they are receiving great advertising.
Liberty are losing (have already lost) the respect of the old guard, and they certainly don't have a viable plan to attract new viewers. I don't know anyone younger than 30 who even thinks that there's more than one race a year.
Unfortunately, Liberty's F1 is a shadow of Bernie's F1, and that wasn't so great in the latter years...
I understand that people feel that way, but in the end, it's their (intellectual) property and their right to act.
Let's concider a few things here, playing 'devils advocate'......
Some random person (illegaly) downloads/saves video material by the FOM/FIA.
They then use that material for their own purposes, whether that being positive or negative.
Said person invested nothing in that material and has no right to use that material especially since said person has
not either asked for permission of the use of that material, nor paid for it, whilst possibly other 'media' have, and paid much.
said person then uploads it to youtube, and gains viewers (and as such popularity) and even gains directly or indirectly financial benefit from that material through either views or sponsors.
Is that earned? No. is it theft? yes. Is it gaining financial benefit from theft? yes it very much is.
It is stealing. And it damages F1/FIA/FOM. Rules have to be maintained. So PERHAPS there's somebody who simply wants to emphesasise his favourite driver and posts only positive stuff. Still, it is, THEFT. No matter our opinion on it, it is, by definition, theft through piracy. But let's just think that FOM would 'allow' such a thing, fanboy exposure.
Now we have another 'youtuber' that makes a video that is (delibaretly) damaging in it's content and intent. Talking negative about drivers, about cars, about sponsors, about F1 in general, including politics, and very much LIES.
People still (will) watch this, so this person is gaining popularity (and exposure) and possibly financial benefit from this means, still stolen/pirated. What is our opinion now? That this is bad and FOM should act?
But on which base? it must be the same base, so there is no choice.
And lets concider that in this case, not only FOM/F1 gets damage, the sponsors very much too as people now link multi-million dollar investing brands with something negative (let's claim corruption) and people will act, and the sponsors will lose money. They discover/learn that it is through these means and have to end their F1 sponsorship.
The team loses their main sponsor and thus go bankrupt. Now we need only paydrivers.
See where this is going? All thanks to 1(!) attention-craving pirate, an entire brand can go bankrupt.
If you don't believe that, then i suggest you look up the interesting case of famous Dutch Beer brand 'Bavaria' and the Buckler product. It was an alcohol-free beer/lager and it got critically made fun of by a famous Dutch Comedian, and the beer brand had to discontinue the product as nobody wanted/bought it after being rediculed and they lost lots of money due to it, an entire product got discontinued by 1 person. 1 PERSON. There are youtubers around that have much more 'viewers' than that comedian EVER had in all his shows combined through his entire career. So imagine the seriousness of a medium like youtube, whether we like it and whether we think about it or not.
Point is, there must be some sort of control.
The Artist Formerly Known As Prince upheld a similar behaviour with his content appearing on youtube.
After all, it's more or less the same: people buy a product, then without permission upload something and other people 'pirate' that music without investing.
Let's make it personal:
You, or me, we either invent or invest in something unique, we trademark it to protect, and we have something that is ours. Then this random unknown person copies what we invested in without actually investing in it, without your/my permission, and gets views, paid, and popularity due to it and gains so much that he/she is able to influence your/my product.
it might look from time to time like there's a cannon aimed at a bug, a nuke at a spider, or a tank versus a bike.
but in the end, it's the only and correct decision to make. Whether we like it or not.
Last edited by Manoah2u on 16 Feb 2020, 22:02, edited 1 time in total.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
I understand that people feel that way, but in the end, it's their (intellectual) property and their right to act.
Let's concider a few things here, playing 'devils advocate'......
it might look from time to time like there's a cannon aimed at a bug, a nuke at a spider, or a tank versus a bike.
but in the end, it's the only and correct decision to make. Whether we like it or not.
But their product is basically advertising, and what is YT? That's right, advertising! So yes fair enough there are extremes that Liberty have to protect themselves from, but what fans and teams and sponsors want is to have F1 broadcast so we can watch and buy all their products . it's not about rights. It just doesn't work if you have a mean little bunch of guys in a basement trying to keep every little bit of it for themselves so nobody can see it
They ought to open up the data too, that would be incredible, if sites could do stuff with the temperatures and all that in real time during races
Devils Advocate: You could of course apply Manoah2u's logic to discussion forums. I'm sure Liberty would like to limit F1 discussion to authorised boards with their own moderators in order to control the message.
Devils Advocate: You could of course apply Manoah2u's logic to discussion forums. I'm sure Liberty would like to limit F1 discussion to authorised boards with their own moderators in order to control the message.
I actually don't see the similarity. Could you elaborate?
NBA think of it in a completely different sense. They view fan-uploaded clips and highlights as a contribution to NBA's popularity. That is why there are so many fan-made NBA channels and vids on youtube, and some of channel owners are even able to make some profit with the NBA highlights they upload.
F1 operates in a different business model of cause, so it's hard to expect Liberty to be as open as NBA, but for sure there's room for Liberty to be open'er'.
BTW, I used to have a channel and it's not FOM, but Star India that gave me copyright strike three times which erased my channel.
If you directly copy old races from say a video and upload it to YouTube with your aim to earn money. That is pretty much theft, you don’t own it.
If you took old video and did a video where you compared cornering speed at say spa over the last 30 years with you providing editorial. That is transformative, while there is still grey areas on the video itself, the primary focus on the content is your own. So it can be argued that you have the right to upload it, also if the clips are short you also put the focus on your content not video.
The above being said, Liberty probably need to allow a little more. My second example would probably still get a strike, but you could probably appeal it based on it transformative nature. Liberty do seem to be slightly better than in bernies world where if you had the word f1 your website he would come after you (this site is an example of this). Also bernies blanket ban on social media.
I believe in the chain of command, Its the chain I use to beat you till you do what i want!!!
I wish they had made the testing video free. Just put it on Youtube or somehow let everyone access their video at F1.com for free.
They are being penny wise and pound foolish. It is in their interest to "give away" the testing programming in hopes of luring more into subscriptions for the regular season.
This is only testing afterall...should have been televised for free. I'm surprise they don't see that.
That's not Liberty's first priority. They actually have a legal duty to try and make a profit, first and foremost. Here's one of the responsibiliities of a director
"2. Promote the success of the company
You must act in the way you consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.
Success will generally mean a long-term increase in value but fundamentally it is up to each director to decide, in good faith, whether it is appropriate for the company to take a particular course of action."
So liberty's board is not really allowed to sacrifice profits in return for sponsor exposure, UNLESS in the board's opinion the long term growth is worth more than the current licensing rights. Which it may well be.
I like the NBA example, it seems a lot less bone headed.
. it's not about rights. It just doesn't work if you have a mean little bunch of guys in a basement trying to keep every little bit of it for themselves so nobody can see it
