Okay, you know how Youtube's apparently gonna use this new policy that may threaten youtube channels for Let's Play videos, gameplay trailers, or even video game reviews.
I've seen abit of uproar among some people online, especially Angry Joe, and someone even tried to petition to get Youtube to cancel using their content ID thing on video game-related videos (see here: http://www.change.org/petitions/review-your-content-id-copyright-policies-youtube)
Yet, just days after the whole thing got out, everyone seemed to have stopped talking about it entirely, and Angry Joe even posted another video apparently surrendering to the change and claiming he'll still post his reviews on Youtube, but with some alterations to it.
Is there something going on that I don't know about? is the youtube content ID thing actually not that horrible of a thing? is there a plan to make a new website to post video game videos more freely? Why does it seem like suddenly no one's bothered by the whole thing anymore?
The thing about this is that it's one among many big things companies are pulling that - when it causes more and more bullshit - people aren't going to stand. EA is as dumb as a brick with really shitty practices, so we we give them hell. Microsoft's latest console, tablet, OS is vile and hated, so they're getting ALOT of flak over it. It's not going to go away, the hatred that is. Youtube is a horrible mess that doesn't work half the time. They've had problems for YEARS and now this? There isn't a happy ending for them in this.
I'm just wondering when another website is created for such content without the restrictions and when the community will make the move. Once a migration to a better service starts, its hard to stop. Remember the Myspace episode?
There is no upcoming Content ID policy. Content ID is old and not that horrible.
The thing that changed was Youtube's MCN(multi channel network) policy. Some MCNs abused their privileges, and now Google made MCNs more vulnerable. In addition to this, they've defined two types of MCN partners. Managed, protected from content ID scans, but MCNs now share the damage from copyright strikes against them, and affiliates, that are not protected from content ID scans, but they can't damage their MCNs.
Angry Joe was protected from content ID for years. Now that he is not, he got hit for all the videos that were never scanned. He will probably dispute most of the claims without any problems.
I personally don't since I'm never on Youtube for anything anymore. For gaming info I just use this site. It doesn't affect me in the least so... meh =S
It's in my mental folder of "momentarily things that pop out when I run into them". Like VEVO or some other... thingywut pulling a country restriction.
ContentID is a proprietary product; all videos discussing it were flagged for copyright strike.
Okay, okay, serious face now.
Misterian said:
Okay, you know how Youtube's apparently gonna use this new policy that may threaten youtube channels for Let's Play videos, gameplay trailers, or even video game reviews.
I've seen abit of uproar among some people online, especially Angry Joe, and someone even tried to petition to get Youtube to cancel using their content ID thing on video game-related videos (see here: http://www.change.org/petitions/review-your-content-id-copyright-policies-youtube)
Yet, just days after the whole thing got out, everyone seemed to have stopped talking about it entirely, and Angry Joe even posted another video apparently surrendering to the change and claiming he'll still post his reviews on Youtube, but with some alterations to it.
Is there something going on that I don't know about? is the youtube content ID thing actually not that horrible of a thing? is there a plan to make a new website to post video game videos more freely? Why does it seem like suddenly no one's bothered by the whole thing anymore?
There are actually two separate (but related) issues here: the upcoming changes to YouTube's MCN partner policy and the recent CopyrightID "dragnet." Now, I'm not a YouTuber, and I don't know too much about how YouTube does things, but this is what I've come to understand . . .
YouTube content producers (YouTubers) can monetize their videos provided that they are YouTube partners. These partners come in two flavors: "managed partners" and "affiliates." Managed partners are so-called because they are managed by a multi-channel network (MCN), such as the Polaris gaming network (host of TotalBiscuit, HuskyStarcraft, and others). Affiliates are sort of YouTube free-agents, producing monetized content free of a network. In the past, managed partners were largely given free-reign when it came to uploading videos, YouTube trusting the partner's network to, well, manage them. Affiliates, on the other hand, were subject to greater scrutiny, as their only oversight was YouTube itself. Prior to upload, that is. After upload, there are two means by which a copyright holder may lay claim to YouTube content: copyright strikes and ContentID matches.
Copyright strikes are your standard-issue DMCA takedown notices. The uploader is alerted to the strike and the content is blocked or removed. According to YouTube policy, a channel that receives three copyright strikes is suspended. Such a channel cannot upload new videos and has all existing videos removed.
ContentID matches are a slightly different beast. ContentID is an automated system that copyright holders may use to match and "claim" YouTube content that the holder believes they own. According to the linked help page, a video that is subject to a ContentID match may be blocked, muted, or monetized for the alleged copyright holder's benefit (not the channel's).
ContentID is the subject of the most recent round of hullabaloo. Apparently videos displaying gameplay were being matched in droves not by the game company that made the game, but by third party music companies. You see, many game companies don't have in-house composers and instead choose to outsource their soundtracks. Apparently, such a soundtrack remains the intellectual property of the company that produced it, presumably licensed for the developers use.
The other fuss is upcoming changes to YouTube's policy concerning managed partners. Apparently, beginning in 2014, YouTube will begin a program where randomly selected videos uploaded by managed partners will be reviewed by YouTube employees before they are available for viewing. This has lead to a host of complaints, the foremost of which seems to be timeframe. After all, it's hard to be topical when your video might be trapped in review for upwards of a week.
Despite all the bad that's happening here, I wouldn't be too quick to vilify YouTube/Google for it. Part of the problem is that YouTube has to do stuff like this to avoid being held liable for the copyright infringement of their users. ContentID, for example, was introduced in response to actual lawsuits from copyright holders, one of which is still pending today. This is not Google the BBEG gleefully crushing YouTubers' dreams. This is Google desperately trying to avoid losing billions of dollars to entertainment companies exploiting a broken law for undeserved profit.
Yet, just days after the whole thing got out, everyone seemed to have stopped talking about it entirely, and Angry Joe even posted another video apparently surrendering to the change and claiming he'll still post his reviews on Youtube, but with some alterations to it.
I thought what he posted was an "okay, I've calmed down now, let's see where this thing takes us" rather than an "I give up" deal. Unless he's posted yet another one on the matter.
I admittedly don't follow AJ that close, but I've seen my share of vids recently. And speaking of, has it really settled down? I'm still getting vids in my YouTube feed which are related to the subject.
"Man, that Youtube thing sure is shit!"
"I know right? Totally shit!"
"Shittier than the shittiest of the shitty shits!"
"Oh, I agree. Definitely shit."
"Indeed. Very shit."
"Quite so, 'tis shit."
"Very much so."
"Totally."
"Shit."
[sub][sub][sub](Remember kids, swearing is bad, m'kay?)[/sub][/sub][/sub]
I mean, where do you take the conversation after that?
Maybe if some people were defending it then there'd be an ongoing shi... discussion. But I haven't seen that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
