Originally posted by killahh i thought youtube had an unflagging tool that puts the onus on the accusor to prove ownership?, thus allowing said vid to continue?
The video doesn't continue until things are resolved. Even if a video is legit, it could be offline for weeks or months.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by killahh i thought youtube had an unflagging tool that puts the onus on the accusor to prove ownership?, thus allowing said vid to continue?
The video doesn't continue until things are resolved. Even if a video is legit, it could be offline for weeks or months.
The video can continue to live online, and people can view it, but the new claimor (which in most cases is WRONG) now gets paid for the ad revenue stream. And all the hard work that went into the production of the content was for nothing.
it takes 30 days for the claimor to acknowledge the content creators dispute. If by 30 days they do not respond, the content creator gets to monetize the video again, BUT if they DO contest the dispute, they can flag the YouTube user with a strike, which with enough strikes can shut down the YouTube account.
This is what Nintendo is doing. Nintendo waits until the very end of the 30 days, then they will go full steam ahead to try to have the youtube account terminated OR they will agree with the dispute, then put in a NEW claim which now extends the video another 60 days. So Nintendo now gets paid for 60 days the video is generating views. It's happening. Nintendo is one of the biggest culprits and manipulating the system to target specific industry YouTubers who have been less than favorable towards Nintendo. This is no conspiracy theory, it is a fact. The broken part of the system is that the 30 days aren't even up yet and Nintendo is filing NEW CLAIMS on videos, which is adding 30 additional days of "Nintendo leeching" to the end of the first claim's 30 days which is not even up yet. Makes no sense and is why so many people are upset at YouTube, because someone like Google shouldn't be making mistakes like this.
So I guess TotalBiscuit did cover this. I figured it would have been plastered everywhere if he had. So I assumed he didn't and never looked. He makes a very valid point about "let's play", which people are claiming to be abusive/ bad in this thread.
On a side note, I have to sort of disagree with TB a little bit on the idea that it's more about the personality than the games. I imagine that an uploader would lose quite a few of their viewers if they all of a sudden completely switched from gaming content to music content, or film content, or just every day crap like filming themselves eating or doing the laundry. While we like to watch certain people, we are there because of the games, and if they weren't playing or talking about games then we probably would have never started watching them in the first place.
He means that it doesn't matter what game they're playing which I think is to some extent true. There are people I'll watch almost regardless of what they're playing and others I won't watch even if I'm really interested in the game they're playing because their style is abrasive or boring to me.
It's not absolutely true. I'd say it's more like 75% personality 25% game. At least for me.
That being said I can't imagine watching anyone play Call of Duty or suchlike because I have zero interest in that, even if the person was very charismatic I doubt I'd watch it.
So I guess TotalBiscuit did cover this. I figured it would have been plastered everywhere if he had. So I assumed he didn't and never looked. He makes a very valid point about "let's play", which people are claiming to be abusive/ bad in this thread.
It's bad when the uploader doesn't have permission from the company whose game they're playing. For instance, Nintendo has repeatedly said that they don't want people monetizing gameplay of their games, yet people continue to do it. Then when Nintendo, who are completely in the right, decide to take action those uploaders get all pissed off about it and scream that it's not fair. If people would just stop uploading things that companies tell them they don't want uploaded then legitimate reviews, game news and consented let's play videos wouldn't be under the knife.
Yes, the Content ID system is clearly messed up and people are taking advantage of that. But, people need to stop just being angry at Google for a second and take a step back, then look at why these companies have forced Google into these changes in the first place. A lot of youtubers have been in this mentality of uploading whatever they want because they believe their views help drive sales and don't give a damn what the dev company thinks about it. Well, look where not giving a damn has gotten everybody.
On a side note, I have to sort of disagree with TB a little bit on the idea that it's more about the personality than the games. I imagine that an uploader would lose quite a few of their viewers if they all of a sudden completely switched from gaming content to music content, or film content, or just every day crap like filming themselves eating or doing the laundry. While we like to watch certain people, we are there because of the games, and if they weren't playing or talking about games then we probably would have never started watching them in the first place.
1. Not mad. Don't have a dog in this race. It's interesting. Maybe I should just observe and not post.
2. A lot of developers have released statements saying they are puzzled by the current situation. Taking TB's word on this. Nintendo is the exception, I think.
3. He clearly showed examples of why it's the personality and not the games. I can even do that. TB does is so eloquently though I decided not to, in fear I may detract from the topic. I actually started to in that post and deleted it.
A: YogsQuest. No gaming at all. Did just as good as any of the other content the Yogscast have ever put out. People have been begging for more. They do live (real world) content from time to time and it does just as good if not better in some cases as anything else they've done..
B: Trucking Tuesdays: They played the crappiest driving Sim they could find, once a week. Literally ripped these games apart, mocked them, made fun of them, laughed at the developers expense. Yet I bet you won't ever hear a single one of those developers complain. Just like smart companies such as Blizzard won't either.
TB, Yogscast, popular uploaders like them have all trended sales on no name titles which would have tanked otherwise. Steam top sellers list has reflected this. There's been games on there that I think "How the hell is that in the best seller list." Then I remember all the youtubers who trended those games upwards. People watched their favorite uploader playing these games they've never heard of and purchased them. So it's pretty clear people went to these channels for the uploader and not what they were uploading. They go to the channel for the personalities. View count showed same as big name titles.
Nintendo definitely seems to be the exception to this. There's another company just as bad who will go after uploader's with false claims if they dislike the content for whatever reason. TB has got on his soapbox in respect to this company a few times. Name honestly escapes me atm. TB's words in short were " Why would I or any uploader ever risk my account again in respect to this publisher and their games. They put my / his/ their channel at serious risk simply because they didn't agree with what I said."
He's stated that even if specifically asked in regards to this one company he will never review or upload anything about one of their titles ever again. They kept making false claims and put his and other peoples accounts (their livelihood) in jeopardy. Not in that video but he's gotten up on a soap box about publishers like this from time to time.
On a side note, I have to sort of disagree with TB a little bit on the idea that it's more about the personality than the games. I imagine that an uploader would lose quite a few of their viewers if they all of a sudden completely switched from gaming content to music content, or film content, or just every day crap like filming themselves eating or doing the laundry. While we like to watch certain people, we are there because of the games, and if they weren't playing or talking about games then we probably would have never started watching them in the first place.
He means that it doesn't matter what game they're playing which I think is to some extent true. There are people I'll watch almost regardless of what they're playing and others I won't watch even if I'm really interested in the game they're playing because their style is abrasive or boring to me.
It's not absolutely true. I'd say it's more like 75% personality 25% game. At least for me.
That being said I can't imagine watching anyone play Call of Duty or suchlike because I have zero interest in that, even if the person was very charismatic I doubt I'd watch it.
Yeah it's what I meant. But edited to show even with no game content these guys can do just as good.
Same
Edit: I'd like to add to this.
Well kind of. If I am searching for something specific; It's Usually a help video, location video, fight explanation video ect. If the uploader is bad I definitely don't hang around long. I think that's the only times I've ever had to go searching specifically for game related content. Between the people I general watch they got review content let's play covered and I won't go anywhere else because I like them and their quality.
Release 2 videos, a monetized one and a none monetized one.
The monetized video will be a picture of the game with something like... "Like, Comment, and Subscribe" at the bottom and annotated with a link to the second none monetized video. But instead of a picture of the game that is being reviewed this one actually contains the footage and review. This way, they can make money and not break any laws.
I dont know if this would work, just throwing it out there. I think their situation is saddening but even more so is the lack of empathy I keep seeing. This is their livelihood, love, and legacy, of course they should be upset.
. This way, they can make money and not break any laws.
I dont know if this would work, just throwing it out there. I think their situation is saddening but even more so is the lack of empathy I keep seeing. This is their livelihood, love, and legacy, of course they should be upset.
The thing is they are not breaking any laws. I would even go as far to say this is breaking laws! A news organisation can obtain classified information and can publish it. They are even protected from having to tell the source they get it from. Yet someone on youtube can not use a clip from any game anymore.
The second problem is, with is a HUGE problem that only makes this all bigger is that apperently people can claim content they do not even own. Even cases where people who own everything in a video get claims against them. Against there own IP! From other companies! So now we have situations where a company that no-one knows gains money from IP's they do not own! With is what the system want to prevent in the first place.
Beside that I am sure that the only money that normally would go to the content creator goes to the companies who claim. Not the portion Youtube keeps. Maybe I am wrong here? Anyone knows?
However can the content creators simply not find there own advertisement? This might not be great, but people like Angry Joe could easily find it. The only problem is that people will start to question there reviews if companies are paying them directly.
This will all come down to users having to pay content rights for certain priviledges, it's the only win/win situation in the matter. The user pays say .99 cents to use a certain product per video yet the user makes 10x or more off of the content license, user gets money and has to pay a small fee and content owner makes money and gets free press, if I owned these companies that is what I would do as it would just work and i'm sure that is what will come of all this in due time and as long as they don't charge users ridiculous usage fees "especially considering free press", users shouldn't have a problem with it.
How to charge and exactly what to charge for will probably be the hardest part as far as separating what is free domain and what isn't. YouTube users are just going to have to compromise i'm afraid cause this will be a losing battle as although you can own and use products you have, making them public domain and making a profit changes the game and content owners are within their rights like it or not, a compromise is all they can hope for and acting irrationally isn't helping.
Check out Angry Joes rant on the subject. He quit his job four years ago trying to do something he loved, and now google is completely destroying his way of making a living.
Does MMORPG have youtube videos up of interviews that have been stopped from monotinization?
I sure hope a competitor emerges out of all of this.
All thumbs up for OP. For some time I'm thinking to consciously stop using yout tube and my google account in general, email, storage I have purchased from them, ... Even started to think to not buy again any Android phone because of greedy google behind. All is becoming really disgusting.
I'm in complete agreement that the changes Youtube is making is absurd, however...
It's not the real problem.
The REAL problem is the RIAA/MPAA and the DMCA that they bought and paid for. We're going to keep running into this BS until we get rid of these corporate jerks who still think that business models from 1985 are still the way to go.
In the meantime, hopefully this will start a mass exodus away from Youtube towards other publishing systems.
Originally posted by dreamscaper I'm in complete agreement that the changes Youtube is making is absurd, however... It's not the real problem. The REAL problem is the RIAA/MPAA and the DMCA that they bought and paid for. We're going to keep running into this BS until we get rid of these corporate jerks who still think that business models from 1985 are still the way to go. In the meantime, hopefully this will start a mass exodus away from Youtube towards other publishing systems.
Facebook can display videos. *sigh*
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It was always strange to see that Game Reviewers had no problems with any copyright. Iam not sure if this was some kind of grey area or why Game Reviewers had such a great possibilities.
If someone would do a video review about music and actually use content of a music, they would get into really trouble.
Comments
i thought youtube had an unflagging tool that puts the onus on the accusor to prove ownership?, thus allowing said vid to continue?
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
The video doesn't continue until things are resolved. Even if a video is legit, it could be offline for weeks or months.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The video can continue to live online, and people can view it, but the new claimor (which in most cases is WRONG) now gets paid for the ad revenue stream. And all the hard work that went into the production of the content was for nothing.
it takes 30 days for the claimor to acknowledge the content creators dispute. If by 30 days they do not respond, the content creator gets to monetize the video again, BUT if they DO contest the dispute, they can flag the YouTube user with a strike, which with enough strikes can shut down the YouTube account.
This is what Nintendo is doing. Nintendo waits until the very end of the 30 days, then they will go full steam ahead to try to have the youtube account terminated OR they will agree with the dispute, then put in a NEW claim which now extends the video another 60 days. So Nintendo now gets paid for 60 days the video is generating views. It's happening. Nintendo is one of the biggest culprits and manipulating the system to target specific industry YouTubers who have been less than favorable towards Nintendo. This is no conspiracy theory, it is a fact. The broken part of the system is that the 30 days aren't even up yet and Nintendo is filing NEW CLAIMS on videos, which is adding 30 additional days of "Nintendo leeching" to the end of the first claim's 30 days which is not even up yet. Makes no sense and is why so many people are upset at YouTube, because someone like Google shouldn't be making mistakes like this.
So I guess TotalBiscuit did cover this. I figured it would have been plastered everywhere if he had. So I assumed he didn't and never looked. He makes a very valid point about "let's play", which people are claiming to be abusive/ bad in this thread.
He means that it doesn't matter what game they're playing which I think is to some extent true. There are people I'll watch almost regardless of what they're playing and others I won't watch even if I'm really interested in the game they're playing because their style is abrasive or boring to me.
It's not absolutely true. I'd say it's more like 75% personality 25% game. At least for me.
That being said I can't imagine watching anyone play Call of Duty or suchlike because I have zero interest in that, even if the person was very charismatic I doubt I'd watch it.
1. Not mad. Don't have a dog in this race. It's interesting. Maybe I should just observe and not post.
2. A lot of developers have released statements saying they are puzzled by the current situation. Taking TB's word on this. Nintendo is the exception, I think.
3. He clearly showed examples of why it's the personality and not the games. I can even do that. TB does is so eloquently though I decided not to, in fear I may detract from the topic. I actually started to in that post and deleted it.
A: YogsQuest. No gaming at all. Did just as good as any of the other content the Yogscast have ever put out. People have been begging for more. They do live (real world) content from time to time and it does just as good if not better in some cases as anything else they've done..
B: Trucking Tuesdays: They played the crappiest driving Sim they could find, once a week. Literally ripped these games apart, mocked them, made fun of them, laughed at the developers expense. Yet I bet you won't ever hear a single one of those developers complain. Just like smart companies such as Blizzard won't either.
TB, Yogscast, popular uploaders like them have all trended sales on no name titles which would have tanked otherwise. Steam top sellers list has reflected this. There's been games on there that I think "How the hell is that in the best seller list." Then I remember all the youtubers who trended those games upwards. People watched their favorite uploader playing these games they've never heard of and purchased them. So it's pretty clear people went to these channels for the uploader and not what they were uploading. They go to the channel for the personalities. View count showed same as big name titles.
Nintendo definitely seems to be the exception to this. There's another company just as bad who will go after uploader's with false claims if they dislike the content for whatever reason. TB has got on his soapbox in respect to this company a few times. Name honestly escapes me atm. TB's words in short were " Why would I or any uploader ever risk my account again in respect to this publisher and their games. They put my / his/ their channel at serious risk simply because they didn't agree with what I said."
He's stated that even if specifically asked in regards to this one company he will never review or upload anything about one of their titles ever again. They kept making false claims and put his and other peoples accounts (their livelihood) in jeopardy. Not in that video but he's gotten up on a soap box about publishers like this from time to time.
Yeah it's what I meant. But edited to show even with no game content these guys can do just as good.
Same
Edit: I'd like to add to this.
Well kind of. If I am searching for something specific; It's Usually a help video, location video, fight explanation video ect. If the uploader is bad I definitely don't hang around long. I think that's the only times I've ever had to go searching specifically for game related content. Between the people I general watch they got review content let's play covered and I won't go anywhere else because I like them and their quality.
Well... could they do this?
Release 2 videos, a monetized one and a none monetized one.
The monetized video will be a picture of the game with something like... "Like, Comment, and Subscribe" at the bottom and annotated with a link to the second none monetized video. But instead of a picture of the game that is being reviewed this one actually contains the footage and review. This way, they can make money and not break any laws.
I dont know if this would work, just throwing it out there. I think their situation is saddening but even more so is the lack of empathy I keep seeing. This is their livelihood, love, and legacy, of course they should be upset.
The thing is they are not breaking any laws. I would even go as far to say this is breaking laws! A news organisation can obtain classified information and can publish it. They are even protected from having to tell the source they get it from. Yet someone on youtube can not use a clip from any game anymore.
The second problem is, with is a HUGE problem that only makes this all bigger is that apperently people can claim content they do not even own. Even cases where people who own everything in a video get claims against them. Against there own IP! From other companies! So now we have situations where a company that no-one knows gains money from IP's they do not own! With is what the system want to prevent in the first place.
Beside that I am sure that the only money that normally would go to the content creator goes to the companies who claim. Not the portion Youtube keeps. Maybe I am wrong here? Anyone knows?
However can the content creators simply not find there own advertisement? This might not be great, but people like Angry Joe could easily find it. The only problem is that people will start to question there reviews if companies are paying them directly.
This will all come down to users having to pay content rights for certain priviledges, it's the only win/win situation in the matter. The user pays say .99 cents to use a certain product per video yet the user makes 10x or more off of the content license, user gets money and has to pay a small fee and content owner makes money and gets free press, if I owned these companies that is what I would do as it would just work and i'm sure that is what will come of all this in due time and as long as they don't charge users ridiculous usage fees "especially considering free press", users shouldn't have a problem with it.
How to charge and exactly what to charge for will probably be the hardest part as far as separating what is free domain and what isn't. YouTube users are just going to have to compromise i'm afraid cause this will be a losing battle as although you can own and use products you have, making them public domain and making a profit changes the game and content owners are within their rights like it or not, a compromise is all they can hope for and acting irrationally isn't helping.
All thumbs up for OP. For some time I'm thinking to consciously stop using yout tube and my google account in general, email, storage I have purchased from them, ... Even started to think to not buy again any Android phone because of greedy google behind. All is becoming really disgusting.
I'm in complete agreement that the changes Youtube is making is absurd, however...
It's not the real problem.
The REAL problem is the RIAA/MPAA and the DMCA that they bought and paid for. We're going to keep running into this BS until we get rid of these corporate jerks who still think that business models from 1985 are still the way to go.
In the meantime, hopefully this will start a mass exodus away from Youtube towards other publishing systems.
Facebook can display videos. *sigh*
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It was always strange to see that Game Reviewers had no problems with any copyright. Iam not sure if this was some kind of grey area or why Game Reviewers had such a great possibilities.
If someone would do a video review about music and actually use content of a music, they would get into really trouble.