|sme restricts playback of this video in playlists. watch this video in a standalone player. What does this mean?||applelovesHim||6/23/11 10:37 AM|
I tried playing videos on my playlist but it doesn't work for some reason and this message pops out. So, what does it mean?
|Re: sme restricts playback of this video in playlists. watch this video in a standalone player. What does this mean?||procorphome||6/23/11 7:36 PM|
Its a new Sony label restriction I believe. Very frustrating.
|Re: sme restricts playback of this video in playlists. watch this video in a standalone player. What does this mean?||applelovesHim||6/24/11 10:01 AM|
Dang it! So there is no way to solve it? D:
|Re: sme restricts playback of this video in playlists. watch this video in a standalone player. What does this mean?||trails456||7/19/11 8:38 PM|
its strange it plays for a little while then I get that restriction notice.
but it is after the playlist has to repeat several times
on my single video playlist it plays around 5 times before I get the message
google is just messing up youtube again!!!!
one way to get around it is to play the standalone player then load up playlist its been working for me so far but its so annoying
|gbcali||7/19/11 9:57 PM|
Time and time again Music Labels have provided the world with examples of how they are their own worst enemy... looks like SONY has given us another example of ineptitude.
|louiseduvee||7/20/11 5:21 AM|
Please! If You Tube can't remove these Sony and SME problems, remove your contacts with these entities/companies!
|greenflams||7/20/11 8:31 AM|
If they remove the contracts, you will NOT even be able to find those videos on YouTube. You will need to order the DVDs the traditional way, lol.
Thousands will lose their accounts to copyright claims / strikes.
|trails456||7/20/11 4:30 PM|
it strange throw
some of these videos have been on hear for years and wore not touched untill now
besides some are theme songs for the opening and closing and some are games being played by someone with differnt music
|greenflams||7/20/11 8:07 PM|
Each day, new companies are being invited to join the YouTube Contend ID program.
The companies only recently found out about their content being uploaded illegally to websites. So they are contacting websites asking them to take down their material.
YouTube, as the most civilized UGC video site, now invites those companies to join the Content ID program so that they can easily catch the thieves of their content and decide whether to track, block, or monetize the content.
|usagonsadie||8/5/11 11:23 AM|
When I run a playlist on YouTube, I get advertisements popping up every few songs. Maybe if YouTube ponied up a little bit more of that coin to SME they wouldn't ruin my playlists.
|Kest F||8/10/11 2:09 AM|
it means Sony wants you to pirate their music instead of taking advantage of youtube's advertising
|t.a.hassan||8/25/11 1:16 PM|
|methsor||8/25/11 1:31 PM|
Perfect example of why Gen X and all other modern users of the internet hate Sony, money grubbing dinosaurs of the digital past. At least they will go under soon; help to speed that up by boycotting all Sony products like me!
|greenflams||8/25/11 3:58 PM|
@methsor, you said:So you're implying that you're a Sony product?
|boldbearings||8/29/11 10:13 AM|
why can't they just leave it alone?
|taylrbd||9/1/11 7:00 AM|
What I don't get is how the big music companies fail to realize the sales gained by having their music out on YouTube. Heck, over 3/4 of my entire sprawling hard copy (CD, DVD) musical collection (read that "PURCHASED musical collection") has come from finding an artist on YouTube that I would in no other way have found out about. Good grief, just who plays music like George Winston or myriads of classical or foreign artists (or any other non-pop) on American overwhelmingly pop music stations? What store carries millions of artists CD/DVD's in their stores in any meaningful way? Seems to me YouTube is the best way to market an artist/music around the globe, yet as usual, the Blue Suits would rather control control control then see the future. The "it's mine" mentality.....geez. When will they see the light?
|Silverw||9/3/11 4:14 PM|
taylrbd is absolutely right. Research shows that people buy MORE CDs when they have access to free songs online. If they find an artist they love, they'll often buy the CD. If it wasn't for the internet access, they wouldn't even find out about many of the artists, or if they already know about them, they wouldn't be able to form a bond to their music.
|ConditionOfAnonymity||9/3/11 11:56 PM|
.... hey gbcali, wut ineptitude? it dat a new band? cuss it is, i don't like em.
|ConditionOfAnonymity||9/4/11 12:14 AM|
between the SME problems with their standalone players and the commercials with vevo and or random commercials and ads, Youtube is going downhill quickly. c'mon folks, somebody fix this crap already. i'm getting mighty tired of arguing with my puter, i tell my wife that i'm just teaching my puter language skill, in a heated up manor. most of the music exces, has no common sense even some with no sense at all. i've found many of different artists, bands, singer/songwriters on YT that i would of never heard any other way, and bought the CD's. so, shows to go ya, that free air play does make-em money in the long run. what dum-masses. hey Sony, bite me, and not in any good way. and while we're at it, Vevo, bite me... and i'm saying this in a nice way, you really don't want to hear what i really think.
|louiseduvee||9/5/11 4:35 PM|
I am boycotting Sony now - oh boy, did they just lose some money!
|TheSloopi||9/10/11 2:25 AM|
youtube its been nice knowing you, ive had enough, i just want to enjoy some music and ill be damned if im gonna be enterupted in my reverie by having to change the disc or wait for the sales pitch to end. there are other sites im out!
|ConditionOfAnonymity||9/23/11 6:23 PM|
....... i hate vevo, sony and all this crap their doing to YT, and google YT is bout the only thing good going for ya right now in my book. ya messed the news page up, stop it already... stop this SME sh!t already. the whole propose of building playlists is to just let them play, you f****** idiots. why is it someone always has to screw over we the damn people? on anything and everything, someones alway trying to muck it up. i'm waiting any minute when i sit on the toilet a stinking commercial will start playing, and before you can wipe ya arse you have to listen to some arsewipe sell their damn wares. i personally will go out of my way "not" to buy your stinking wares that you idiots think i can't live without. go ahead YT, Giggle, Sony and whoever, screw it up futher. then you'll end up losing the whole kit-n-kaboola....
.............. signed, a pissed off user of your losing marketshares... COA ...
|nightskull82||10/14/11 3:59 PM|
I think it's stupid for record companies to put any restrictions on anything because the whole point of letting others listen to artists is to hopefully want to hear more and want to buy the whole records,cds,cassettes, or pay to download it.Ifthey are constantly putting restrictions on things they themselves are restricting themselves of any and all monies earned from people buying their music after hearing it on youtube or anyother web site
|djmambito||10/17/11 12:22 AM|
Something is very wrong here.
In a embedded playlistplayer it depends on which browser is used
for that "sme restricts playback in playlists" shows up.
ie: in one browser it shows and the video wont play
in an other browser..same playlist...same video ...no "sme restricts" message and the video plays fine.
So what is this ? exactly another bug ! since we dont believe that SME also restricts certain browsers
Since this happens all the time and since it causes problems for my embedded player on my website
i like this repaired.
So can someone pass this to yt-staff and confirm that to me ?
|ConditionofAnonymit2||10/22/11 10:41 PM|
Stop removing comments unless ya have to.
|Denzel75||10/28/11 2:52 AM|
there only one good reply to this. i was actually considering buying the Asteroid's galaxy tour and was listening to the tracks in a playlist, when this message came up. i have now decided to not buy it, but pirate it in stead.
you reap what you sow, Sony!
Good thing it's actually legal in my country to download the files, it's only illegal when you upload, so my pirated copy is going to be perfectly legal.
read this and learn, Sony, you've just pushed a potential customer away.
|BASEMENT0||10/29/11 10:46 AM|
@louiseduvee I bet you don't even call young males boys...
|jtestes00||10/30/11 10:21 AM|
I can't bitch about this retarded practice enough; I am only 38 and don't wish to waste the rest of my life doing so. It gets really old having to stop my computer work every time SMfuckingE bounces my playlist because I listen to a song more than once. Can anybody direct me to a public live streaming music site that does not suck?
|Nardin31||11/6/11 6:53 PM|
ok im watching videos of a band that are not signed on with sony...why do i still get this stupid msg...?????
|Berzul||11/7/11 5:17 AM|
Here is a quick fix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBp1cm7yRZc&feature=mr_meh&list=PLED798BCA5D49C867&lf=rellist&playnext=0 this wont work anymore however if you go to the channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Saalvatorio#p/c/ED798BCA5D49C867/1/tP28nXTEVqg and just put "ED798BCA5D49C867" at the end of http://www.youtube.com/user/Saalvatorio#p/c/ it will work normally - replaying the entire playlist... And this is just an example you can do it with any Playlist really, even those that are hidden by users.
|BaseDeath||11/12/11 11:38 AM|
Why does sony feel the need to block bands that have nothing to do with them at all?
I get the SME restriction on almost every band I listen to, and I know for a fact most of them aren't with Sony and I am pretty sure non of them are..
|gbcali||11/12/11 4:41 PM|
|dragos pop||11/17/11 6:29 AM|
Dang - they pissed me of - have to download it - done
And without paying a dime. Well - Sony - so long to you and may your bank account wonder why a guy's listening to music you own a part of and you didnt get payed. And with the money I didnt give sony I bought a T-shirt for the artists web page.
So the artist is happy - I am happy - sony .... who cares ...
|Lightshroud85||11/22/11 7:52 PM|
Just means I will have to clean out my playlist more often to track down new uploads of the songs that have not yet been blocked. Changes nothing and barely inconveniences me, certainly not enough to stop.
|dillinger9999||12/9/11 1:49 PM|
I have to play the song in another browser If I want to listen to it again...
|GhostSniper1981||1/20/12 9:28 PM|
I say we all ban together and boycot sony. They mess with our playlist we can mess with their sales. Also mass e-mail them just to give them a headache like the one they are giving us. Not a good thing to piss people off sony. HURRAAAAHHH
|sonidogus||1/27/12 9:43 PM|
Sony. . . *sigh* Why do you insist on annoying the consumers. Don't you want them to _buy_ your products. What a lack of foresight.
|alaskacajun1||1/31/12 9:10 PM|
I won't ever buy anything from sony again.I just spent the last 3 hours building a list and now 3/4 of it is blocked and this is country songs from the 80s for crying out loud.
|theguy95||2/7/12 1:40 PM|
|littleluigi2524||4/1/12 3:20 PM|
It's called censorship. Abusing the authority given to them by the law makers. If Pipa/sopa get passed, this is exactly what will happen on a much larger scale.
|LDighera||4/21/12 10:59 AM|
As you will infer from the information provided below, it is not contrary to copyright law to include only a portion of copyrighted material. It's called "Fair Use". Google should let the copyright holders fight it out in court with those they believe have infringed. DCMA not withstanding, Google/Youtube should not place themselves in the role of judge and jury of suspected copyright infringement. They just expose themselves to liability from those they have decided are infringing.
Perhaps if those who have had their video content removed from Youtube because of alleged copyright infringement actually took the copyright holder to court as the DCMA permits, some of this tyrannical censorship would cease.
In any event, I believe a good case could be made in the case of Fair Use of copyrighted material, that the copyright holder actually stands to benefit from the interest in their product generated by its public exposure.
I have a good faith belief that the material was disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification, and that I am not intentionally abusing this dispute process.
The brief sound snippet does not infringe as it is not competitive, and is solely for public benefit.
The music clips in my video are a very small percentage of the web page from which they were cut; they are not competitive; they are research for non-profit educational uses. Commercial gain is not involved, It is intended for public benefit.
If you disagree with my view, perhaps you'll be good enough to detail
the grounds for your disagreement.
Fair use is addressed here:
Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a
proposed use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts
to consider the following questions in deciding this issue:
Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially
affects the sales of the copied material, it's usually not fair.)
How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which
the material was a part? (The more someone takes, the less likely
it is that the use is fair.)
How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the
material was used to help create something new it is more likely
to be considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim
into another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research,
scholarship and non-profit educational uses are most likely to be
judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a
commercial gain are less likely to be fair use).
As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody
else's work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use
is to benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the
other hand, if you take large portions of someone else's
expression for your own purely commercial reasons, the rule
usually won't apply.
I have a good faith belief that the material was disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification, and that I am not intentionally abusing this dispute process.
Procedure for Making Claim of Copyright Infringement
Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"), you may file a Notification of claimed infringement with the Designated Agent of a Service Provider if you believe that a Web page hosted by the Service Provider is violating your rights under U.S. copyright law. (See Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(3)). The DMCA provides the following procedure for parties to follow who wish to file a Notification of claimed infringement with a Service Provider.
To serve a Notification on Cox® Business; Cox® High Speed InternetSM; and/or Cox Interactive MediaSM, send your Notification to:
Name of Designated Agent to Receive Notification: DMCA Agent
Address to Which Notification Should be Sent: 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30319
Telephone Number of Designated Agent: (404) XXX-6830
Facsimile Number of Designated Agent: (404) XXX-8432
Email Address of Designated Agent: XX...@cox.net
In order to be effective under the DMCA, the Notification must (i) be in writing, and (ii) provided to the Designated Agent of a Service Provider.
In order for such a complaint to be effective under the DMCA, Notification must include the following:
A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single Notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the Service Provider to locate the material.
Information reasonably sufficient to permit the Service Provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
A statement that the information in the Notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Upon receipt of the written Notification containing the information described in 1 through 6 above, Service Provider will:
Remove or disable access to the material that is alleged to be infringing.
Take reasonable steps to promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.
If a notice of copyright infringement has been filed against you, you may file a Counter Notification with a Service Provider's Designated Agent. In order to be effective, a Counter Notification must be written and include substantially the following:
A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the Service Provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided Notification or an agent of such person.
Upon receipt of a Counter Notification containing the information as outlined in 1 through 4 above, Service Provider shall:
Promptly provide the complaining party with a copy of the Counter Notification;
Replace the removed material or cease disabling access to the material within 10 to 14 business days following receipt of the Counter Notification, unless the Service Provider's Designated Agent first receives notice from the complaining party that an action has been filed seeking a court order to restrain alleged infringing party from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on Service Provider's system or network.
NOTE: Under the DCMA, claimants who make misrepresentations concerning copyright infringement may be liable for damages incurred as a result of the removal or blocking of the material, court costs, and attorneys fees. See Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(d).
NOTE: The information on this page is provided to you for informational purposes only, and is not intended as legal advice. If you believe your rights under U.S. Copyright law have been infringed, you should consult an attorney.
|mya12||4/26/12 11:03 PM|
been listening to the same playlist i put together for months up until this morning. just a little over an hour later, some songs are blocked. F you SME!
|MissKoala||4/29/12 2:31 PM|
I miss the old youtube. The new one is annoying , unhelpful and harder to navigate.
|newlifer||4/30/12 12:57 PM|
They might as well get rid of playlists! Horrible!
|bayne420||5/11/12 6:46 PM|
i was bored so made a playlist of just ONE video IE SOAD 36 and it was set to auto-play, well low and behold it will just keep trying to after playing constantly 5 times+ it would put the SME restriction banner. So yah know from helpful advise to just go with standalone player (Ex. same original video source) then just backspace back to player then reload the page. Well so i was curious as to why it would not just cache the info as THIS from the playlist IS the original content?
Upon further investigation, seems that the restriction will just keep reloading the one video in the playlist regardless to knowing that IT has been placed on a restricted side... IDK who first thought up the playlist feature in youtube, or why SME has any control over it, unless they intend for youtube to not have a playlist feature.
|Random Rage||6/15/12 5:23 PM|
What is the gd f-ing difference whether or not it is in a playlist or not?!?!?! WTF!!!!
|Klementine||6/15/12 8:06 PM|
Hello Random Rage
If you really must know the the truth - then here is the truth -
Women are very smart. Especially when matters come to who gets more attention. So the record label hires the women to do the advertising and promotion - because we know how to get what we want.
And to get what we want is to first remove all the competition - in this case - the rest of your playlist.
By doing so - she boots out the fotter and all eyes must now focus on her - AND any related videos that she wants you to notice.
That's why ;-)
|Youtube troll||7/27/12 4:43 AM|
i've been playing the same song fine for like a few months now and suddenly they give me this crap....
|Blaiyan||7/28/12 5:33 AM|
It's just another typical abuse of copyright and using it to do silly things for no reason.
|real common sense||9/11/12 9:15 PM|
well YEP, artist should control their music not labels, label are often way more greedy, and i know this "restriction can be dealt with using macros and scripts and plugins" so why the heck bother utube?
all this does is encorage people to learn to break your rules and make the origanal content less enjoyable.
|indirsgame||10/2/12 1:18 AM|
This Works PERFECTLY !!!
Simple easy quick and it works...
|sme restricts playback of this video in playlists. watch this video in a standalone player. What does this mean?||Fernand Klapp||11/6/12 12:42 AM|
|sme restricts playback of this video in playlists. watch this video in a standalone player. What does this mean?||Fernand Klapp||11/6/12 12:44 AM|
|fabalan||11/11/12 9:51 AM|
yes. my experience was also after the playlist play several times, SME pop out. shit do i have to play the standalone player or live in US for this freaking annoying thing?
|bob tailor||3/11/13 9:18 AM|
f uck ACTA !!! _|_
|Joseph Stanaback||3/28/13 1:52 AM|
Someone in an earlier POSTING, posted this site. It does the job...
|jake hedgehog||4/25/13 2:01 PM|
is mike posner the offspring and avril lavigne part of sony if not wth cuz thats all on my playlist
|gbcali||4/26/13 11:44 PM|
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:01:20 PM UTC-7, jake hedgehog wrote:is mike posner the offspring and avril lavigne part of sony if not wth cuz thats all on my playlist
Mike Posner is on RCA Records.
The Offspring are on Columbia Records.
Avril Lavigne is signed to Epic Records.
Sony Music Entertainment owns all three: RCA Records, Columbia Records and Epic Records.
|UDim Witt||5/7/13 1:31 AM|
Please correct me if i am wrong though.. is not Youtube a public domain site? or in other words anything posted on YouTube is considered Public Domain and accessible to the public.. Even copyright laws allow for the posting of videos do they not??? I stand corrected if i am wrong...
|gbcali||5/7/13 1:57 AM|
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:31:02 AM UTC-7, UDim Witt wrote:Please correct me if i am wrong though.. is not Youtube a public domain site? or in other words anything posted on YouTube is considered Public Domain and accessible to the public..
NO! YouTube is NOT a public domain website. You may not copy content from YouTube.
Even copyright laws allow for the posting of videos do they not???
Copyright laws protect videos. You must have written permission from the copyright owner of any copyrighted video you wish to upload.
YouTube makes all of this very clear ––> youtube.com/yt/copyright
|. Ollio||6/17/13 1:25 PM|
Just click where it says to play it in the stand alone player... then when the stand alone player opens, hit the back button and refresh the page - there, all done!
|UDim Witt||6/19/13 8:21 PM|
A lot of people refer back to the copyright act as it says it allows you to post content for various reasons. The restrictions of various countries is understandable, though What makes this totally laughable is the fact that you have content being sold in two countries.. one of those countries is restricted on copyright even though the content is still sold in both countries.. (that is two respectable countries) Why sell the content in the first place? add this to the fact that you get to chose a stand alone player or playlist?.. LMAO.. that is nit picking and it just is "Annoying" you restrict it to a country that knows the content very well?...LOL might as well take all the genuine copies back from the genuine people that bought it instead..