YouTube spouts some bullshit about respecting Fair Use.
-
But I'm linking to this comment:
A Step Toward Protecting Fair Use on YouTube
Posted by Fred von Lohmann, Copyright Legal Director More than 400 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. Some of those upl...
Because Mike there spells out exactly what YouTube is doing wrong in ContentID and how to fix it.
-
Mike: YouTube should be make it more fair for the little guy, as opposed to giant conglomerates YouTube is dependent on.
YouTube: Sure thing Mike, we'll get right on that!
-
I agree with whatever @Mike just said.
Seriously, though, if anyone thinks this is anything other than some Grade A Corporate Bullshit, you have a harsh meeting with reality coming up. The translation of this is "We understand that some of our biggest users-- that is the ones who pay us the most money and threaten to sue us the most-- sometimes feel they have the right to outright steal other people's work. Lookin' at you Madonna.* Anyways, when this happens, one of the peons has the audacity to open their bleat hole and cause our friends trouble. This new policy will explicitly allow Sony, Nintendo and others to "fairly use" any of you little shits. And now there's nothing you can do about it. Beside, your assholes are already stretched enough, what's one more cock up there? Love, Google or Alphabet or whatever the fuck we're calling ourselves now to avoid paying corporate taxes
"
-
Maybe the whole Google -> Alphabet thing is like when Comcast tried to rename their most hated cable monopoly "xfinity". Which didn't work because people invariably still call it Comcast.
-
Do you prefer Facebook? it does not seem to be that much better for the little guy:
How Facebook is Stealing Billions of Views – 05:02
— Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
-
Wait, can I just go around putting "this is mine" stickers on random objects and then selling the objects and keeping the money when it turns out that it wasn't actually mine? And not having any punishment at all for claiming it was mine?
-
If those objects are YT videos, apparently so.
-
TR
is that sometimes certain online games pay money for some anime owner for making the anime characters and items appear in the game. In those special stages the background music changed to those found in the anime. My brother has one or two incident that he uploaded the game play and later found the video is disabled because of copyright infrigement claims. 
Btw I'll give some credit to Sony for this: When they banned my brother's video on bulk, the next day before my brother file a counter notice, the ban has been lifted from their side. Apparently they did hire people to do review their claims be sent.
-
Wait, can I just go around putting "this is mine" stickers on random objects and then selling the objects and keeping the money when it turns out that it wasn't actually mine? And not having any punishment at all for claiming it was mine?
Red Dwarf - The Cat - That be mine! – 00:30
— Shaun Byrne
Filed under: youtube video, #ironic
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Beside, your assholes are already stretched enough, what's one more cock up there?
Say no more, seems to be how the world works nowadays.
Filed under: Have we hit peak stretch?
-
Too bad I don't have fair use laws in my country. I would have gotten lawyers to defend me whenever I decide to review The Room.
-
Maybe the whole Google -> Alphabet thing is like when Comcast tried to rename their most hated cable monopoly "xfinity". Which didn't work because people invariably still call it Comcast.
I can count how many people I've legitimately heard calling Google "Alaphbet" on the number of vaginas I have.
Our local natural gas utility is going through the same bullshit. They're disguising it as a buy out, but they've changed their name from "Enbridge" to "Dear Fucking God Please Let This New Name Not Be Synonymous With Scummy Monopoly Motherfuckers Who Outright Lie Cheat And Steal By Overcharging Senior Citizens And Using High Pressure Door-to-Door Tactics To Rope People Into Hot Water Heater Service Contracts They Don't Need And We Are Not Legally Allowed To Offer Anyways"
(Note: They're just changing the name, not any of the associated scummy business practices. Of course)
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Beside, your assholes are already stretched enough, what's one more cock up there?
Say no more, seems to be how the world works nowadays.
Filed under: Have we hit peak stretch?
If you dare to be stretched to the max, they'll just give it a little rip to make more room.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I can count how many people I've legitimately heard calling Google "Alaphbet" on the number of vaginas I have.
How many people have you heard calling it "Alphabet"?
-
This is why I hate YouTube.
-
You can if you convince YouTube you're a content creator.
Which isn't that tough.
-
Btw I'll give some credit to Sony for this: When they banned my brother's video on bulk, the next day before my brother file a counter notice, the ban has been lifted from their side. Apparently they did hire people to do review their claims be sent.
I've had good experience with Sony too, unbelievably.
BTW the moment you get a content ID strike, like that comment I linked to says, the money your video earns goes directly to the person who striked you. And if your video doesn't have ads turned on, YouTube will turn on ads anyway. That's why I always make a video private the moment I notice a copyright strike. Which BTW frequently happens with no notice from YouTube.
So you published a shitty CD of kids' songs back in 1993, right? You upload that to YouTube and get on the ContentID creator train, choo choo. Now that you're in, you can upload additional tracks. ROCK ON. Let's raid a public domain site for classical music tracks, we now own the copyright to 1812 Overture, why not. Not like anybody at YouTube's gonna check. We end up hitting 600 videos with ContentID claims, all of them feeding money into our bank account. Of course, maybe 300-400 don't do anything about it-- either they didn't notice because YouTube doesn't email them, or they don't know how ContentID works, or they're too scared of the "contest this claim" link because YouTube surrounds it with really scary-ass text saying they'll delete everything and sue you. Ok, so that last 200 videos all contested the claim, but that's ok-- we release the claim immediately so YouTube can point to that and say "hey the system works!" and we still get trickle-in income from the other 300-400 videos. Until the end of time.
Nobody at YouTube is smart enough to figure out how this scam works. Virtually EVERY copyright strike I've gotten has been from one of these scammers.
-
It's not that they can't figure it out. Google gets their cut either way, so there is no incentive for them to do more than the absolute bare minimum required to look like they are plausibly working to resolve issues.
-
As Mike suggests, they could just bank the video's earned money until the ContentID dispute is resolved one way or the other. It still wouldn't 100% solve the problem, as a ton of uploaders will never bother disputing one, but it would sure as fuck help.
-
As Mike suggests, they could just bank the video's earned money until the ContentID dispute is resolved one way or the other.
But then the publishers wouldn't troll claims, which means less claims, which may or may not mean less money for Google.
Basically they have an excuse to put ads over your videos even if you don't want them to. Of course they're gonna milk it for what it's worth.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I can count how many people I've legitimately heard calling Google "Alaphbet" on the number of vaginas I have.
Like...as a part of your body or buried on your property?
-
Or like as many as he'll have after Google is done fucking him all ways they can think of.
-
Nobody at YouTube is smart enough to figure out how this scam works. Virtually EVERY copyright strike I've gotten has been from one of these scammers.
But ContentID is never abused or scammed. It's what YouTube apologists always tell me, so it must be true.
-
Nobody at YouTube is smart enough to figure out how this scam works.
Surely after all this time it's more like "they just don't care" than "they don't know."
-
Escrow is the proper way to do it, Google takes their cut then ecrows the contested amount. My point is Google already has their cake, and doesn't care to get up and get you a slice.
-
It seems to be working well for Jim Sterling, but I guess we'll just have to see how it goes for other people.
-
How about Google charges money for invalid claims and keeps the escrowed amount if the claim is invalid? That way, Google gets more money, the people abusing the system are either forced to lose a bunch of money or stop, and because of that last point, the content creators are happy.
-
If it's a sizeable amount of money compared to ad revenue, then you have an opposite problem - Google's going to deny legitimate claims to get at your sweet, sweet escrow. And either way, you're forcing people to bet money on whether Google's infinite wisdom is going to judge their claim worthy - which will deter smaller creators from putting up the claims, even though the copyright law should in theory protect them just the same.
-
-
Macie pretty much has it, Google should be set up as a more neutral arbitrator role, or there should be a designated company for it that it's truly third party.
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I can count how many people I've legitimately heard calling Google "Alaphbet" on the number of vaginas I have.
Damn, I thought I knew all the metric system units!
-
If it's a sizeable amount of money compared to ad revenue, then you have an opposite problem - Google's going to deny legitimate claims to get at your sweet, sweet escrow. And either way, you're forcing people to bet money on whether Google's infinite wisdom is going to judge their claim worthy
You are just going to make people use real dmca request. There is no way YouTube can handle so many requests and still stay profitable.
