What to do about Youtube
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unfortunately, reality defies simplicity. The problem is a lot of things, to the point where the only real problem is human nature.canadamus_prime said:
Please. Define "piracy". Because I don't think it means what you think it means.zumbledum said:
But now youtube gave a reason to be less accessible. If they don't fix their mess, the other sites destined to never be popular have a chance to become popular. The internet and it's users run off convenience, and people will move to what is most convenient.Wickatricka said:
Then you clearly don't understand the problem right now. Actual pirates are quite few when compared to the literally thousands of people getting flagged by an automated, and broken, service. Using angry Joe as an example he went to E3 and interviewed a lot of people. He got to interview the minds behind The new Tomb Raider, officially. That interview was flagged because there is some Tomb Raider going on in the background, during his completely legal and official interview. Supposedly it was flagged by the minds behind Tomb Raider, but that is quite unbelievable since they approved of the interview to begin with. Whats more, a lot of devs and producers are coming out and saying that they are not flagging these people themselves. The current disaster is some knucklehead thinking you can automate something like piracy control, but you can't. It is either sheer hubris or ignorance that leads a man to believe that a completely automated system can handle the issue. A computer doesn't understand the laws, doesn't understand the fair use acts.zumbledum said:
The way I understand it, you seem to be clumping everyone together in the "pirate" category. What I said, also, has quite a bit of bearing on the situation since it is the reason why people are panicking. If some people uploading music they downloaded somewhere where the only ones busted there really wouldn't be a conversation. I would like to know what is not so clear and what is wrong about what I said, even if it just is completely unrelated to what I saw you say.zumbledum said:
I'm in the 10%... yay? Google+ can eat it.. I haven't made a comment on youtube or uploaded a video since they tried to force me to get google+. I really only use google search and that's it. Either people are going to get so fed up that Google is going to change their stance or (more likely) people won't care and just lie down and take it.
It seems like a lot of people misunderstand what's going with youtube and gaming content right now.
The system is not exactly broken, but it's crippling for this kind of professional use.
To circumvent this problem, the whole Multi-Channel Networks(MCNs) were established, that protected their partners from this and allowed to make deal with content publishers to use their content without difficulties for the channels. They shielded their members from content ID system and some types of active claims.
Some MCNs abused this system and Google changed their policies making MCNs more vulnerable and dividing partnered channels into two categories. Managed and Affiliates. Managed partners are still protected, but now MCNs take much more responsibility for them. Affiliates are now not protected from content ID matching and monetization reviews.
The problem with Angry Joe is that he was protected from content ID for a long time. Now he is just an affiliate member of the network. Content ID stuck gold. His content is legit, but he uses A LOT of trailers and pieces of music and other types of content. If he was subject of content ID checking he would have to deal with these claims one by one. Now he has to deal with them all at the same time. I assume most of it will be resolved positively for him.
Something has to change. Content ID works. It prevents people from posting full movies, trailers etc. But it also prevents legitimate content.
The number of publishers who actually actively try to prevent gaming content on youtube is not that big. What they try to do is to limit outright posting of cutscenes, reposting of trailers etc. They add them to the content ID database. The problem is, content ID system doesn't give a fuck about context of identified content. In a lot of cases you can contest the the claim without much trouble. The problem is that you can't monetize the video while your video is claimed and it takes time to remove the claim. And this means that people who make those videos lose huge amount of revenue.Flatfrog said:
The system is not exactly broken, but it's crippling for this kind of professional use.
To circumvent this problem, the whole Multi-Channel Networks(MCNs) were established, that protected their partners from this and allowed to make deal with content publishers to use their content without difficulties for the channels. They shielded their members from content ID system and some types of active claims.
Some MCNs abused this system and Google changed their policies making MCNs more vulnerable and dividing partnered channels into two categories. Managed and Affiliates. Managed partners are still protected, but now MCNs take much more responsibility for them. Affiliates are now not protected from content ID matching and monetization reviews.
The problem with Angry Joe is that he was protected from content ID for a long time. Now he is just an affiliate member of the network. Content ID stuck gold. His content is legit, but he uses A LOT of trailers and pieces of music and other types of content. If he was subject of content ID checking he would have to deal with these claims one by one. Now he has to deal with them all at the same time. I assume most of it will be resolved positively for him.
Something has to change. Content ID works. It prevents people from posting full movies, trailers etc. But it also prevents legitimate content.
That's probably because piracy has little, if anything, to do with people Let's Playing on Youtube. Though I suppose I can't blame you, since copyright law is woefully outdated and it's not like the publishers are going to do anything about it since it's outdated in a way that benefits them the most, but most of the really big Youtubers who actually monetize their videos do get express permission from companies before making their videos. That's why a majority of the time they have to abide by the same non-disclosure agreements that critics and reviewers sign. And, unless I've just been missing recently-changed fine print, most EULAs simply forbid you from copying or redistributing the content, not recording it, which is a fine distinction but still one that exists.zumbledum said:
The problem is that the laws are still stuck in the mindset of the burgeoning electronic boom of the 80's, while technology is moving ever forward at a breakneck pace.
If recent announcements are to be believed, most of the content being claimed isn't actually coming from the companies who own the respective copyrights. How much worth you put behind that depends on how much you feel you can believe publishers, I suppose, but very few of them have ever tried actually directly tackling Youtube LPers before so I find it difficult to accept that they've all decided en masse to suddenly destroy that specific industry. Especially when people who create their own music or such have been getting claims as well.canadamus_prime said:
While you are correct in the sense of taking someone's work, it does not apply to copyright infringement in general. The term piracy is applied primarily when you download something like a movie or a video game without paying for it. So one of the few ways LPers could be actively supporting piracy is if they said "Guys, this game is awesome. Go and download it at genericpiratewebsiteurl.com"zumbledum said:
I'm still not entirely sure what your original post was saying; the grammar was nearly unreadable. If I interpret it correctly, you were saying that LPers are worse than pirates? How so? I've bought games and DLC because of LP videos showing them. How does it hurt a company to basically do free advertising for it?zumbledum said:
No, from what I gather from that article about Ubisoft and others stating stating that they actually supported a lot of the content creators who were getting nailed with these copyright claims, many of these companies seem to go through a 3rd party for their copyright enforcement and it's this 3rd party that has the Orwellian zero-tolerance policy.shrekfan246 said:
This is the way I see it as well. Just saying that content providers should use another service is not really going to help in the long run because the bigger those other services get, the more they'll be under basically the same pressure that Youtube/Google is. The problem is in the framing of the policies, how content producers right are/aren't protected and how, honestly, online content producers generally just aren't respected.Flatfrog said:
Now, I could be wrong in that maybe those other services already do have some sort of built in protection that Youtube just doesn't have. Maybe they truly are better services than Youtube is on the content creator side. Just throwing them up as better alternatives simply because they "aren't Youtube," however, isn't addressing the actual problem.