[nickjj]

Hi,

Is there a way to request items that were submit get removed? Can you provide a way to contact you such as an email address? There wasn't one posted on your site.

It's just a suggestion, I mean right now anyone can submit anyone's videos without their consent or ownership verification. How do you plan to handle that? I'm sure there will be folks out there who wouldn't feel comfortable that a site will be scraping their video content attempting to generate a large network of pages on 1 domain with loads of SEO terms. It provides a conflict of interest with the original creators. This conflict of interest is around SEO competition, reducing views from original creators and then there's the other can of worms of any future plans to monetize your site through subscriptions, paid features or ads where you'd be profiting from the content of others without their consent.

I posted one of my videos just to see what would happen and then it created a permanently hosted page on your domain with an AI generated recap of the video. I didn't realize that was going to happen. There was no warning, label of how it works, TOS that I agreed to or options available to make it private and there's no option to delete it. I put in the URL, hit submit and that was it.

It's nothing personal and I hope you don't see this as a deterrent. I'm all for building cool things and generally openly share almost everything for free (I've been blogging and making videos for ~9 years and don't have a single ad on anything I ever posted) but the idea of having inaccurate AI generated content does rub me the wrong way.

> The guides are generated from pure transcript so you don't have to worry about it being AI.

You mentioned it's generated from pure transcripts but most of the phrases used aren't what was mentioned in the video. It looks like a paraphrased version of it but it's also missing all of the details that would allow someone to follow along.

Directly under the video on the page it says "This response is AI generated". One one hand you say it's not AI generated but then on the other hand it is.

[meiraleal]

Well, this place is called hackernews, after all. Information should be free so if Youtube makes it public, public it should be.

[nickjj]

Public doesn't mean it's available for someone else to use however they see fit.

That's why we have licenses and YouTube's default license ensures creators retain ownership of what they upload and are protected by copyright. The license allows YouTube to broadcast the content.

[_akhe]

You're not the only one with this take on this thread and I'm really trying to understand it...

Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds on a website???

[nickjj]

> Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds on a website?

YouTube embeds are a different story, that is an official YouTube feature which allows folks to embed a YouTube video on a 3rd party website. I have no problem with that. YouTube even allows creators to enable or disable that on a per video basis. I keep it enabled because it's useful and promotes sharing of the original content as it was delivered.

I have a problem with a 3rd party site taking a video and making a derivative of it without the consent of the copyright owner. It's violating the license that the video was uploaded under. They even went as far as explicitly claiming copyright ownership on all content on their site (at the time of this comment their footer reads: "© 2024 Stepify - All rights reserved.").

I don't like making assumptions but look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments. They replied to a ton of people, but not this comment. They've also made an explicit decision not to include any way to remedy this issue or even contact them through their website. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.

I wouldn't have even minded as much if the generated text was good but in this case it was wildly inaccurate and missed all of the details that would have let you follow along without the video. The site's official tagline is "Get a step-by-step tutorial of any video to follow along". If someone sees the text generated they might infer a video was of poor quality because this site claims it can produce a step by step tutorial of ANY video to follow along. That sheds negative light on folks who created the original video.

[_akhe]

Yes and to be clear the creator gets the revenue, not this website: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-...

> Only YouTube and the video owner will earn revenue from ads on embedded videos. The owner of the site where the video is embedded will not earn a share.

Furthermore, the YouTube creator can choose to not let their video be embedded if they wanted that.

Do you have a problem with every news website that has a video at the top, then an article describing what happens in the video? How would that violate the licensing? It's unrelated to licensing - they're using the official YouTube embed. YouTube manages the copyright of the embedded content and can even control whether or not the video can be viewed in your country, etc. based on such restrictions.

> look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments but they ignore this request

Irrelevant, but I think because it's obvious you're misunderstanding copyright, or because you wrote such a big paragraph with many separate points being made that it's a lot of work to reply to. The copyright in his footer is for his IP, it of course would not apply to the content inside a YouTube embed. And it's not IP theft to summarize a video in what is essentially a blog post.

[j45]

It's really interesting how some folks don't see this as an additional way to drive traffic to the video, when so many channels have a website of their videos.

This type of tool could help create much more meaningful blog or website type content to build a mailing list around the community.

[nickjj]

Are you replying to the correct comment btw?

In the comment you're replying to (mine), I literally wrote:

> YouTube embeds are a different story, that is an official YouTube feature which allows folks to embed a YouTube video on a 3rd party website. I have no problem with that. YouTube even allows creators to enable or disable that on a per video basis. I keep it enabled because it's useful and promotes sharing of the original content as it was delivered.

In your comment you've written things like "Furthermore, the YouTube creator can choose to not let their video be embedded if they wanted that." which implies you haven't read the comment I wrote because I mentioned that. I'm also not in disagreement that embedding is generally useful and I support it fully.

That makes me think you might have replied to the wrong person?