AEW AEW TV (Week of July 24, 2023)

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

18 minutes ago, Dolphman 3000 said:

She got outed for doing DMCA takedowns a while back

Jon Barber was a similar tryhard anti-piracy stooge back in the day

edit - read the insanity yourself

https://jonbarber.weebly.com/anti-piracy.html

Is there a reason why you keep bringing him up? You did this a few weeks ago re: sockpuppets. The guy's dead.

... unless he's a zombie. ARE YOU ZOMBIE JON BARBER?!

[Elsalvajeloco]

44 minutes ago, Curt McGirt said:

Well that's pretty rotten. I like her, but as a dyed-in-the-wool Blackbeard I hate that shit. 

Has someone not allowing people to steal their content rotten? Mad, I get that. I don't see rotten. Also, didn't Tony say he was fine with Botchamania after their was some initial confusion about that when Maffew got some content strikes?

Now that said, just because he's released like 600 editions doesn't mean he isn't walking a fine line. I know his channels have probably been nuked a bunch of times, but I am surprised he can continue to do it. 

I mean one of my favorite channels just got taken down (Jay Seklow) which basically had a serious amount HBO and Showtime boxing content in pretty good quality from the 80s until the 2010s. I mean I wasn't shocked, but a good amount of boxing content from those networks has been on Youtube untouched since Youtube was thing. So you can find old fights not uploaded by an official content partner going back to 2006. I'm pretty sure if Viacom/Paramount didn't go after it, WBD did. As a completist I'm pissed, but I don't find it to be rotten. At some point, people are going to hammer down on that. I was fun while it lasted though. 

[Dolphman 3000]

13 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

I mean one of my favorite channels just got taken down (Jay Seklow) which basically had a serious amount HBO and Showtime boxing content in pretty good quality from the 80s until the 2010s. I mean I wasn't shocked, but a good amount of boxing content from those networks has been on Youtube untouched since Youtube was thing. So you can find old fights not uploaded by an official content partner going back to 2006. I'm pretty sure if Viacom/Paramount didn't go after it, WBD did. As a completist I'm pissed, but I don't find it to be rotten. At some point, people are going to hammer down on that. I was fun while it lasted though. 

There was an article about 5 years ago about some guy who had an extensive VHS collection of boxing VHS tapes, and I believe he was the source for most of the DVD "career comps" you used to be able to find on eBay back in the day. If I'm remembering right he died suddenly and his kids were trying to find someone to take all the footage. Wonder whatever happened to it.

There's a giant debate online now about "lost footage", and I'm of the opinion that if a network has the masters somewhere then it's not exactly "lost". People online these days just assume because they can't find something easily it's "lost" which isn't the case most of the time - but having stuff inaccessible to the public really sucks.

edit - here it is

NYC widow searching for new home for late husband's collection of boxing tapes, DVDs

Edited July 31, 2023 by Dolphman 3000

[Curt McGirt]

Airing a clip of someone fucking up a move isn't the same as showing a full match (if I even cared about that). Her snitching on them for the frivolous use of a clip is beyond silly, and honestly feels kinda low. Nitpicking that might actually get someone in trouble for something not worth it. 

[Elsalvajeloco]

24 minutes ago, Dolphman 3000 said:

There was an article about 5 years ago about some guy who had an extensive VHS collection of boxing VHS tapes, and I believe he was the source for most of the DVD "career comps" you used to be able to find on eBay back in the day. If I'm remembering right he died suddenly and his kids were trying to find someone to take all the footage. Wonder whatever happened to it.

There's a giant debate online now about "lost footage", and I'm of the opinion that if a network has the masters somewhere then it's not exactly "lost". People online these days just assume because they can't find something easily it's "lost" which isn't the case most of the time - but having stuff inaccessible to the public really sucks.

Shit, all that probably ended on TC Boxing or a similar torrent site. You can tell bunch of the content you find either on torrent sites or Youtube is straight from a compilation or straight off VHS/DVD recording. AFAIK Showtime and HBO through either Max or HBO Go or whatever iteration had never made their boxing library public unless it was something fairly recent before HBO stopped doing boxing. Jim Lampley had a show for like 3 or 4 years before boxing was gone from HBO that sometimes replayed old fights so there are like a handful of fights uploaded in 1080p on Youtube, which is pretty great. Showtime sometimes uploads old fights on their anniversaries (i.e. the first Showtime boxing main event Hagler vs. Mugabi from 1986 or Castillo-Corrales I from 2005). However, where else are you going to get that content?

 

[peachchaos]

10 minutes ago, Curt McGirt said:

Airing a clip of someone fucking up a move isn't the same as showing a full match (if I even cared about that). Her snitching on them for the frivolous use of a clip is beyond silly, and honestly feels kinda low. Nitpicking that might actually get someone in trouble for something not worth it. 

Counterpoint: cheap edits like Botchamania and PromoJoe do more harm than good for wrestling and the term "botch" itself is fucking stupid

 

I also wear an eyepatch but this feels like a greater evil. 

 

[odessasteps]

Just look at the wrestling "holy grails" that showed up, including the Last Battle of Atlanta. 

I don't know if anyone actually knows what all the wwe have in their library now. 

Heck, who else knows what JC has in his collection that might be thought to be lost that he actually has now? 

[peachchaos]

4 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

Heck, who else knows what JC has in his collection that might be thought to be lost that he actually has now? 

Wasn't someone given permission to catelog Dave's shed at one point? Did we ever see the fruit of those labors? 

[Elsalvajeloco]

43 minutes ago, Curt McGirt said:

Airing a clip of someone fucking up a move isn't the same as showing a full match (if I even cared about that). Her snitching on them for the frivolous use of a clip is beyond silly, and honestly feels kinda low. Nitpicking that might actually get someone in trouble for something not worth it. 

Whether it's three seconds or the full match, he doesn't own ANY of it. To the people who own the content it is, it is worth it. Maffew started doing this whole Botchamania thing when it was easier to fly under the radar. Now he is showing up at fan conventions and Starrcast and shit like that. You're going to be a target. He's stealing content. Someone like Aubrey is just an intercessor. WBD has lawyers to put him jail or at the very least get his entire shindig shut down. I mean he doesn't uploaded stuff from New Japan IIRC cause they told him not to. If you can still upload content you clearly don't own, it would probably wise to follow certain orders cause you're not in position to argue otherwise.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

20 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Whether it's three seconds or the full match, he doesn't own ANY of it. To the people who own the content it is, it is worth it. Maffew started doing this whole Botchamania thing when it was easier to fly under the radar. Now he is showing up at fan conventions and Starrcast and shit like that. You're going to be a target. He's stealing content. Someone like Aubrey is just an intercessor. WBD has lawyers to put him jail or at the very least get his entire shindig shut down. I mean he doesn't uploaded stuff from New Japan IIRC cause they told him not to. If you can still upload content you clearly don't own, it would probably wise to follow certain orders cause you're not in position to argue otherwise.

Not to mention that he's monetizing this sort of content (even if he's not monetizing his YouTube channel he's got his Patreon and merch).

I mean... I've made content. I've made content that people have bootlegged and monetized before. I've also DMCAed that content because... like... why do they get to make money off of my work just by putting a couple of wacky sound effects on it? If you want to talk about licensing that content, absolutely, let's discuss, but just stealing it, putting some Final Fantasy fanfare on it, and calling it brand new content and calling it fair use AND making money off of it? Nah. Call me a snitch if you want, but that's not cool.

[Elsalvajeloco]

20 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

Not to mention that he's monetizing this sort of content (even if he's not monetizing his YouTube channel he's got his Patreon and merch).

I mean... I've made content. I've made content that people have bootlegged and monetized before. I've also DMCAed that content because... like... why do they get to make money off of my work just by putting a couple of wacky sound effects on it? If you want to talk about licensing that content, absolutely, let's discuss, but just stealing it, putting some Final Fantasy fanfare on it, and calling it brand new content and calling it fair use AND making money off of it? Nah. Call me a snitch if you want, but that's not cool.

I was going to bring that up, but I figured someone else would at some point.

That's basically a plague on social media and content platforms in general. It may take you geniunely five minutes or more to find a certain video. You can find reaction videos or just a video of some person critiquing that particular video underneath in five or ten seconds. Knowing how easy it is for these platforms to demonetize the actual original content, it is just making things worse. It's insidious. I also cannot stand on Instagram a video where some person is playing a video half screen or 3/4th of the screen while they're tucked away in the corner sitting in their car or on their couch or inserted as a floating disembodied head silently nodding in agreement. Why am I watching you watching something that I could probably find on my own and that you didn't create or even give credit to the original creator (btw I don't count watermarks already in the video)? Pro tip: This video isn't as profound if I have to see some jackass just nod their head to every point being made.

[odessasteps]

In modern digital world I'm not even sure anymore what would constitue "fair use use" in terms of criticism? 

If I have Matt on the podcast to discuss French catch, how long of a clip could I reasonably show under fair use? 

I had a much better understanding of these issues for print. 

[odessasteps]

5 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

I was going to bring that up, but I figured someone else would at some point.

That's basically a plague on social media and content platforms in general. It may take you geniunely five minutes or more to find a certain video. You can find reaction videos or just a video of some person critiquing that particular video underneath in five or ten seconds. Knowing how easy it is for these platforms to demonetize the actual original content, it is just making things worse. It's insidious. I also cannot stand on Instagram a video where some person is playing a video half screen or 3/4th of the screen while they're tucked away in the corner sitting in their car or on their couch or inserted as a floating disembodied head silently nodding in agreement. Why am I watching you watching something that I could probably find on my own and that you didn't create or even give credit to the original creator (btw I don't count watermarks already in the video)? Pro tip: This video isn't as profound if I have to see some jackass just nod their head to every point being made.

The worse thing is looking for a match on youtube and then finding stuff from wwe2k23 or whatnot. 

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

32 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

I was going to bring that up, but I figured someone else would at some point.

That's basically a plague on social media and content platforms in general. It may take you geniunely five minutes or more to find a certain video. You can find reaction videos or just a video of some person critiquing that particular video underneath in five or ten seconds. Knowing how easy it is for these platforms to demonetize the actual original content, it is just making things worse. It's insidious. I also cannot stand on Instagram a video where some person is playing a video half screen or 3/4th of the screen while they're tucked away in the corner sitting in their car or on their couch or inserted as a floating disembodied head silently nodding in agreement. Why am I watching you watching something that I could probably find on my own and that you didn't create or even give credit to the original creator (btw I don't count watermarks already in the video)? Pro tip: This video isn't as profound if I have to see some jackass just nod their head to every point being made.

Now how did you know why I got out of content creation? LOL

I can't stand those types of videos, and they were the easiest ones to get struck down because they often weren't transformative enough.

29 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

In modern digital world I'm not even sure anymore what would constitue "fair use use" in terms of criticism? 

If I have Matt on the podcast to discuss French catch, how long of a clip could I reasonably show under fair use? 

I had a much better understanding of these issues for print. 

It varies on 1) what you're using the video for and 2) how much of a transformative work you're using. If you're just showing footage, it's not fair use. If you're providing a commentary on the footage or using it as a reference point (for example, describing a move or sequence then showing a few seconds of it), then that would be fair use. Think of it as quotations when in print, only in video, as opposed to wholesale plagiarism of lifting entire paragraphs and stating it's your own work.

So personally, I would not consider Botchamania fair use, because it is not transformative; it's just segments of wrestling matches or promos with music cut over top. There's no commentary or critique, it's just a display of mistakes which you could find in the original content, and the addition of new music does not make it a new work. Whereas if someone was discussing a match, then playing snippets of that match to highlight their discussion, I would consider that fair use.

Of course, if Botchamania is licensing the material, that's a different kettle of fish, because now the creator of the original work is involved. Otherwise, it's just lifting material wholesale from multiple sources, smushing them together, and going "this is mine now".

EDIT TO ADD: I am not a copyright attorney, this is just my experience in using others' footage for reference points and when I've needed to license it. You may need to consult your own attorney.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Sparkleface

[odessasteps]

I'd agree that botch sites/videos likely wouldn't fall under fair use. 

It does like more podcasts these days are playing clips of other podcasts or media, some of whom I'd bet cleared it legally (Stephen P Neu).

I usually just reference that people can watch something online or on youtube etc. 

(Although I do sometimes play movie clips on the solo pod, but in short segments).

[Elsalvajeloco]

33 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I'd agree that botch sites/videos likely wouldn't fall under fair use. 

It does like more podcasts these days are playing clips of other podcasts or media, some of whom I'd bet cleared it legally (Stephen P Neu).

I usually just reference that people can watch something online or on youtube etc. 

(Although I do sometimes play movie clips on the solo pod, but in short segments).

Not that I am saying I can read his mind or anything, but Maffew specifically I don't think had fair use in mind when he started Botchamania. All those botch videos and that series itself started when you could just make a music video with like Aerosmith or U2 or Metallica and it stay up for more than a few months. I remember when those videos use to be like six or seven minutes long. Now it's like 15-20 minutes long with skits and segments, which is probably why I no longer watch on top of not really caring to see a replay of cringeworthy moments.

How is it any different than a troll account like AEWBotches or AllPetiteSuckz66939 other than people like Maffew and less personal attacks on the talent? The latter definitely would be the target of copyright strikes just cause you're using our content to try to ridicule us. With Maffew, maybe something has changed in the interim but Tony didn't have to make it clear that he could use AEW content. He's just a person who knows how to edit shit together. No more, no less. Moreover, that's not something TK can entirely control. If AEW or WWE are going after someone explicitly for copyright infringement, it's the platforms where the content is airing on that's truly leading that mob.

[Curt McGirt]

I could go all pirate-defender, anti-monetization-of-art here but I'm not. I respect everyone else's opinion even though I disagree. 

See kids? THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT. Give a salute and bow out. Don't start a fucking flame war. 

(I will say one thing though about Botchamania. Unlike probably all the rest of those accounts [and I cannot stand anything with the picture-in-picture either], it is actually funny, and for me that's what really matters.)

[odessasteps]

I don't know that ever watched any of his stuff intentionally. Same with Wrestlecrap, if RD still does that. 

Not my thing, but then, I was a huge MST fan back in the day. I feel there's a difference but can't articulate it at the moment. 

[odessasteps]

6 minutes ago, Curt McGirt said:

I could go all pirate-defender, anti-monetization-of-art here but I'm not. I respect everyone else's opinion even though I disagree. 

Just please don't invoke the phrase "late stage capitalism." I like you too much to banish you to the ignore folder.

[Matt D]

5 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

Not my thing, but then, I was a huge MST fan back in the day. I feel there's a difference but can't articulate it at the moment. 

At some point between 1989 and today the whole world became MST.

[Elsalvajeloco]

6 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I don't know that ever watched any of his stuff intentionally. Same with Wrestlecrap, if RD still does that. 

Not my thing, but then, I was a huge MST fan back in the day. I feel there's a difference but can't articulate it at the moment. 

More AWA references?

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

7 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I don't know that ever watched any of his stuff intentionally. Same with Wrestlecrap, if RD still does that. 

Not my thing, but then, I was a huge MST fan back in the day. I feel there's a difference but can't articulate it at the moment. 

MST3K licenses their material, most places don't. It's nice to opt-in to the mockery.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

2 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

More AWA references?

Tom Servo calling out for Wally Karbo always made me laugh and I still don't know why.

[Raziel]

To be fair, the actual Botches part of Botchamania is still like, 6 minutes long.  The actual good parts are the endings which take up to the last 10 minutes and are actually a bit creative (as far as coherent editing goes), and of course the Northern Boys videos.

[odessasteps]

18 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

MST3K licenses their material, most places don't. It's nice to opt-in to the mockery.

I was more thinking about the viewer/audience aspects, not the creator end. It would probably be using words like metatext and electronic shadow memory and other things I wrote about in 1995 while in grad school.