Wow now I'm really getting angry over this Content ID disaster from +YouTube regarding the Mars landing. On Sunday night I hosted a live broadcast with contributors from CTTechJunkie.com and NASASpaceflight.com to watch the landing live. We brought in footage provided by NASA, including their live feed of the landing. NASA footage is released into the public ___domain and can be freely used by anyone.
I just came home to my inbox filled with dispute claims from no less than FIVE news organizations claiming this footage as their own. BS. It's mine. And now Youtube says it might start running ads against content I created and handing that money over to these crooks who are essentially bigger players with the ability to claim rights to content they do not own.
The worst part is that Google clearly is not requiring these "rightsholders" prove they actually own the content. But it's somehow incumbent upon me to prove my innocence. This is outright theft of my content - plain and simple.
If anyone from YouTube is listening, this needs to stop. It's completely unfair that me as a small content producer gets screwed out of revenue like this.
You can watch the broadcast here: CTTechJunkie Mars Coverage - Live!
I don't know, and I suspect that the task of tracking down definitively and conclusively exactly what the conditions are when I can and cannot read things would be lengthy and relatively unrewarding.
I have better things to do than play "hunt the foible" on Google.
In my experience, the conditions are pretty much as described.
If Google knows you have an account because of tracking devices, they require you to log in because you are more salable.
If you're anonymous, you're more salable if they just show you the content.
In so far as I recall, originally G+ wouldn't show content without javascript turned on - i.e. the price of content was to allow Google to track you more closely.
Nope, not without logging in. Probably need to clear cookies or something. But in any case, the grandparents are not lying or stupid afaict so stop downvoting them.
You are wrong. If you have previously logged into a Google+ account, but are not logged in, you are blocked from seeing the article w/o logging in.
To circumvent, you can put your browser into Private or Incognito browsing, and you can then read the post w/o logging in. (Which also logs you out of HN, so you can't comment or vote.)
So, for any of the HN audience with G+ accounts but who don't surf "logged in", a login is required unless the user takes extra steps (EDIT: such as incognito or child comment's noscript approach).
I have a G+ account. I don't surf "logged in." A login is not required for me to view the content. I suspect this is because surfing "not logged in" is not the starting point for improving my surfing experiences. The starting point is noscript.
Actually, there are situations in which you get a G+ login prompt. An incognito window solves it, but it's annoying. Google Groups does the same thing.
