Alternatives to Youtube

With all the false copyright claims happening on Youtube, I’m lately asking myself why I use it at all. I guess the main reason is the Network Effect: Youtube is the most popular video host, so that’s where most people go to find videos. If my vids aren’t on Youtube, there’s a chance they won’t be found.

But I’m not sure that’s a good enough reason, in light of all the Content ID abuse. Thanks to Brewster’s comment yesterday, I’m embedding video below. If this works, it’ll be an ideal alternative.

Another alternative to Youtube is Vimeo. I’ve had problems with Vimeo’s speed, and have embedded videos fail to load. But maybe those problems will resolve.

Copying Is Not Theft from Nina Paley on Vimeo.

A bonus feature of both of these: they don’t seem to use Flash (which my current Chrome browser doesn’t support anyway).
Anyone care to comment on the quality of the and vimeo embeds above?


Author: Nina Paley

Animator. Director. Artist. Scapegoat.

17 thoughts on “Alternatives to Youtube”

  1. The embed looks a bit fuzzy and has visible JPG-style compression artifacts. True, it does not use Flash. In Vimeo, edges look crispy and the colors are much smoother. Audio is apparently a bit better, too. Here in Firefox 15 it is a Flash object, no doubt.

  2. embeds as flash for me, and Vimeo isn’t loading at all. But I’m stuck with Firefox 3.6.28 because my computer can’t handle the upgrade to a better version.

  3. The Vimeo embed won’t play, I have to visit to see the video. I have this problem with all Vimeo embeds using Firefox. The embed is fine, although it has unpleasant compression artefacts.

  4. My issue with Vimeo is that it doesn’t support WebM, only Flash and the patent-encumbered H.264, and thus doesn’t work well in Firefox. That’s starting to be an issue on Linux, since Flash will only be supported as part of PPAPI, which is only in Chrome/ium so far, and browser vendors don’t want to support H.264.

    It seems like Internet Archive only supports H.264 and OGG, which is open, but quite inferior to both WebM and H.264.

  5. Although I am not a fan of Google backing the copyright claims, since a video of mine got flagged for not crediting a song from an open-source archive, when the only sounds throughout the video were snow being crunched underneath boots, YouTube is still the only media source I am aware of which includes open-captions.

  6. Still, please, try to stay on YouTube. They are not evil themselves (in a way it is their motto, isn’t it?), they are just trying to always keep the middle ground. But
    1) YouTube works best for most users. For most not-savvy-enough, not-geeky-enough users. It’s just comfortable for people.
    2) It does have a lot more social repercussions. Due to p.1 it’s easier to share as a link, but also with all these integrated lists of favorites, automated sharing etc. – it will provide you much better coverage. It’s so much better for spreading things by word of mouth!
    3) Retreating from YouTube is already a bit of a defeat. It is the TV of the modern area. (The era may be pretty short, but so far – it is). If you are there – there’s hope. If you choose to retreat, it will make our life more dull. And the monsters of the copyright will laugh demonically.

    Please, at lest try to stay there. I hope it would work out, gradually.

  7. Internet Archive player didn’t work for me. When I try to go full screen I got 2 control bar (Firefox’s normal one and IA’s custom one) and the video stayed at it’s normal size. Vimeo is all right, however.

  8. Archive looked a little more pixel-y on my laptop with hi-speed internet. I’m a fan of Vimeo. But in general, I’m happy that there’s more light being shined on YouTube alternatives! They frustrate me a lot.

  9. The YT thing is complex.It starts with thier illegal hyjacking of everyones personal content and claiming it as thier own. This means everyone who has/had any established channel must now go through thier BRANDING process which involves lots of rules & demands. and total commercialization.
    Even major entities such as the US WHITE HOUSE arent allowed to have that seal as thier background THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY SEE. The next thing is the crazy video player that forces you into thier commercialized public player always. Then there is the FRIENDS LIST….
    until the change, my TOTALLY MUSIC ARTIST CHANNEL had over 300 bands & artists as official friends aka ENDORSERS. Their were also 25 record labels, Playboy Magazine, MAXXIM Magazine, The Boston Globe, & Victorias Secret. And it was 1) something I HAD A CHOICE ABOUT, and 2) SOMETHING OTHER PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO SEE. It was also a great way for people to connect to the OFFICIAL CHANNELS of these entities simply by clicking the friend icon. Now the only channels easily found are the HEAVILY COMMERCIAL VEVO ONES that nobody wants.
    The social contact thing should have been IN ADDITION TO THE FRIENDS LIST as a separate feature as it serves a totally separate purpose. All my personal artwork and information content was UNDER MY CONTROL as long as it wasnt infringing which it was not as I had expressed permission from the artists involved.
    I havent found any content site that even attempts to match those old YT features. I dont know why, because clearly its what we ALL WANT. There are several US court cases over the “googletube” fiasco and Im involved in one of them.
    I support bands & artists as a NON PROFIT PROMOTER. Its interesting that even MAJOR MUSIC ENTITIES LIKE: Rush, Journey, Paramore, Within Temptation, & Nightwish ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO POSSESS THEIR OWN BRAND ICONS ON THIER YT CHANNELS.
    Obviously its clear there is a MAJOR infringement issue at YT and its google that has commited it. Consider this: Upon the change, I OPTED TO MAKE ALL THE 3000+ videos and 25 playlists PRIVATE in order to protest. Weeks later I disecovered GOOGLE HAD DELIBERATELY PLACED THEM BACK AS PUBLIC…..when I contacted them and filed a complaint, I was told that my channel was: “much too important to allow to be withdrawn, cancelled, or vacated”. REALLY? If it was that important….THEN GIVE IT BACK TO ME AND LET ME DO WHAT I WAS DOING. Thank you.

  10. Copying is indeed not a theft. But making money out of someone else’s work, when that person is still alive, and not giving him/her a fair share, is also not right either. That’s why I always put a permissive license on all my works. Typically Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike Non-commercial is the license of my choice.

  11. I know this is a rather old page, but just found it.

    I loaded it into my tablet [android 4.3] using Dolphin Browser. The version looks great. The Vimeo version is still “loading” after about 20 minutes, don’t think it’s going to make it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *