I don't get it
Nintendo can't put ads on this video and monetise it because it has other company's games in it that Nintendo doesnt own.
I don't get it
Also known as the Three Stooges Effect:
If multiple people want a cut of the video's monetised value through a copyright claim, none of them get one as soon as one of them flags it as 'non-monetised', I think.I don't get it
Came for this gif and was not disappointed.
Hahaha, well done. However, new changes will go into effect surely when this catches on.
Will it ever though?Hahaha, well done. However, new changes will go into effect surely when this catches on.
Yeah, so if he knows he's going to get flagged anyway (by showing literally seconds worth of footage, as some companies like Nintendo are just that consistently notorious) he might as well not have people make money off of his work who have no ethical claim to monetising it but are able to cos Content ID is a bag of shite.
Personally, I see no problem with the ads when at least a healthy majority of the revenue generated is going to the video's creator. When companies can just jump in and leech money off of things they have no right to, well...The time has come for YouTube alternatives, anyway. Forced, unskippable 6s commercials embedded in the video stream? Screw you.
This is what happens when you give too much power to a single company.
Well, it's not a flawless system. Nobody gets any money, including Jim. The catch here is that Jim is willing to give ad revenue up for a better viewing experience.
Will it ever though?
How many people upload non monetized videos and can also sneak in footage that will surely be claimed?
Are we not talking about the content of the video at all? Like how this is a pervasive issue with Nintendo's design philosophy now? I mean it's awesome he did the copyright stuff. But that's only a small fraction of the video. Or should I wait for the actual video thread?
Has anyone tried to sue Nintendo for this? I don't see how showing footage for review or commentary purposes would not fall under Fair Use.
Are we not talking about the content of the video at all? Like how this is a pervasive issue with Nintendo's design philosophy now? I mean it's awesome he did the copyright stuff. But that's only a small fraction of the video. Or should I wait for the actual video thread?
Well, it's not a flawless system. Nobody gets any money, including Jim. The catch here is that Jim is willing to give ad revenue up for a better viewing experience.
We already had a thread for this week for thsi jimquisition.
I'm a confused about what's happening. He claims Nintendo would want to monetize the video, but the reason he's able to use the Erasure music is because Nintendo(And Take Two) flagged the video as not to be monetized?
It's a great move but the cynic in me just says they'll fix Content ID and make it worse.
Probably if they are allied with the other corporations and wanting to please them. But otherwise, changing it, the work required doesnt really benefit Youtube. And it's not like the companies can force them to change it, they really would have to go to courts to fight one another.
I'm a confused about what's happening. He claims Nintendo would want to monetize the video, but the reason he's able to use the Erasure music is because Nintendo(And Take Two) flagged the video as not to be monetized?