Support NeoGAF

[Zambayoshi]

Very smart idea. Well done to you, Jim.

I just hope that you won't get an RIAA situation where all the content ID 'owners' band together and appoint one organisation to control the claims.

 

[Shaneus]

Getting the system to fight itself? This is the first thing I thought of:

 

[Crayolan]

Damn, that's clever. Good job working the system, Jim.

 

[Busaiku]

It works for Jim, but unfortunately this wouldn't work for people who make their money through Youtube.
Jim not trying to make money and actively trying to prevent ads.

 

[mreddie]

 

[brainchild]

Jim Sterling: The Copyright Scrambler

 

[kennyamr]

I saw that when he posted that video, I thought... Such a great idea.

Glad to see it worked lol.

Good for him.

Now we wait for their response o.o

 

[poodaddy]

Jim, you goddamn beautiful bastard you.

 

[Snaggle]

This is incredible! 10/10

 

[Fractology]

Why doesn't this guy just do a podcast instead and save himself a whole lot of trouble? He apparently has the following at this point. It'd also benefit on the user experience side of things. You can't exactly watch youtube clips in transit without chewing up data.

 

[Bluth54]

Why doesn't this guy just do a podcast instead and save himself a whole lot of trouble? He apparently has the following at this point. It'd also benefit on the user experience side of things. You can't exactly watch youtube clips in transit without chewing up data.

He does do a podcast:
http://www.thejimquisition.com/category/podquisition/

 

[Machina]

He certainly doesn't mind being in the spotlight, that Big Jim. He's fighting the good fight and who can't respect him for that.

If his channel gets pulled, the internet riots. The Corporates know that.

 

[Blues1990]

Why do I have a bad feeling that this is going to backfire on him? Horribly, at that?

He certainly doesn't mind being in the spotlight, that Big Jim. He's fighting the good fight and who can't respect him for that.

If his channel gets pulled, the internet riots. The Corporates know that.

So, basically something like this, right?

 

[Chû Totoro]

Ah ah, he's good

But it won't last

So why doesn't he let them do and receive 40% of the revenue?
I'm ok with having a commercial if the biggest part of the money goes to him. He'll still be able to say whatever he wants and if he doesn't want a company to have money thanks to his videos then he just need not to include some of their content (then he'll have 100%).

This said I'm not sure I really understand the mechanism and the different actors issues here.

For me:
- use of copyrighted material but no revenue > should be ok for any use
- use of copyrighted material and getting some money out of it > should be a shared revenue (and not an abusive use of copyrighted material).

Does it work completely different ?

 

[Maximo]

Why doesn't this guy just do a podcast instead and save himself a whole lot of trouble? He apparently has the following at this point. It'd also benefit on the user experience side of things. You can't exactly watch youtube clips in transit without chewing up data.

He does do a Podcast I assume you mean why doesn't he just convert his youtube episodes into MP3's for people to listen? No idea feel free to suggest that to him if you actually want something like that.

 

[Rephil]

kill'em all Jim, kill'em all!

edit: FUCKonami

 

[plenilune]

Isn't the solution (for YouTube) as simple as sharing the profits based on runtime?

 

[Elandyll]

I laughed so hard at the last part that my wife gave me a "Wtf is wrong with you?" Look hehe.

Well done Jim, well done...

Going to have to donate to Patreon now.

 

[Nestunt]

Thank Jim for god

wait..

 

[Dennis]

I applaud Jim on this brilliant piece of corporate fuckery.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Ah ah, he's good

But it won't last

So why doesn't he let them do and receive 40% of the revenue?
I'm ok with having a commercial if the biggest part of the money goes to him. He'll still be able to say whatever he wants and if he doesn't want a company to have money thanks to his videos then he just need not to include some of their content (then he'll have 100%).

This said I'm not sure I really understand the mechanism and the different actors issues here.

For me:
- use of copyrighted material but no revenue > should be ok for any use
- use of copyrighted material and getting some money out of it > should be a shared revenue (and not an abusive use of copyrighted material).

Does it work completely different ?

he doesn't monetize Jimquisition because it's part of his patreon and that is his main source of income.

 

[Chû Totoro]

he doesn't monetize Jimquisition because it's part of his patreon and that is his main source of income.

Yeah I know that, that's why I don't understand the need for Nintendo or any company to claim something. There's no f*cking advertising revenue in his videos !
That's also why I was telling that maybe I'm missing something here. But maybe the only thing I missed it's that some things can be really broken and the Youtube Content Id mechanic seems to be one of the best example

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Yeah I know that, that's why I don't understand the need for Nintendo or any company to claim something. There's no f*cking advertising revenue in his videos !
That's also why I was telling that maybe I'm missing something here. But maybe the only thing I missed it's that some things can be really broken and the Youtube Content Id mechanic seems to be one of the best example

don't they put ads on his vids, which is annoying when it makes it look like he's monetizing them contrary to his patreon promise?

 

[Dryk]

 

[hamchan]

Wow, that's a pretty brilliant idea from Jim.

 

[The Artisan]

the name sounds familiar, i feel like i should know who he is...

 

[Chû Totoro]

don't they put ads on his vids, which is annoying when it makes it look like he's monetizing them contrary to his patreon promise?

Well he claims that he doesn't so I don't think he'd lie (also I'm blocking every ad on Youtube so can't tell).

 

[Calm waterfall]

Ah ah, he's good

But it won't last

So why doesn't he let them do and receive 40% of the revenue?
I'm ok with having a commercial if the biggest part of the money goes to him. He'll still be able to say whatever he wants and if he doesn't want a company to have money thanks to his videos then he just need not to include some of their content (then he'll have 100%).

This said I'm not sure I really understand the mechanism and the different actors issues here.

For me:
- use of copyrighted material but no revenue > should be ok for any use
- use of copyrighted material and getting some money out of it > should be a shared revenue (and not an abusive use of copyrighted material).

Does it work completely different ?

Because they are not entitled of the damn money. Besides Nintendo will give you money like a damn allowance, not to mention that they have to approve your videos. Their backwards thinking is garbage. Excellent Tactic Jim.

 

[Parsnip]

One weird trick to bypass ContentID on your videos, companies hate it.

 

[TheChaos0]

the name sounds familiar, i feel like i should know who he is...

You should check out his videos. There's a thread every week!

 

[BlueEyedBeast]

My overall impression of this is that it's a lose-lose. Sure, you hoodwinked an automated ID system, but the reaction I foresee is to make the policies stricter and increase YouTube's interaction with copyright holders.

 

[kswiston]

I dont really watch things on youtube outside of movie trailers and the odd video linked in a thread.

Why is it that fair use doesnt apply on Youtube?

 

[Walpurgis]

Clever. The system has always been stupid, stupid in favour of the big corporations. Good on Jim for finding a way to use its stupidity against itself.

 

[Footos22]

the name sounds familiar, i feel like i should know who he is...

Hes Jim fucking Sterling son.

 

[Nightbird]

My overall impression of this is that it's a lose-lose. Sure, you hoodwinked an automated ID system, but the reaction I foresee is to make the policies stricter and increase YouTube's interaction with copyright holders.

It's not that many people are going to use it anyway. This trick makes that nobody gets any money and that no ads will be displayed.

Most Youtubers want to make money with their videos, so this is a counter-productive method for them.

 

[ObiDin]

My overall impression of this is that it's a lose-lose. Sure, you hoodwinked an automated ID system, but the reaction I foresee is to make the policies stricter and increase YouTube's interaction with copyright holders.

Yeah, I wonder if by admitting to intentionally screwing with the system that he might have violated his terms of service with Youtube?

 

[DedValve]

don't they put ads on his vids, which is annoying when it makes it look like he's monetizing them contrary to his patreon promise?

Yup. Konami forced an ad on him once and he had to put an annotation saying that he did not intended the video to have an ad and it did not have one originally.

I want him to do more nintendo videos now. Hell I want a Nintendo segment or maybe a "lets try to take down jims video" segment at the end of each video where its literally just clips of videos that would be taken down of different games. All just to highlight how broken youtube is.

 

[Luq]

gained even more respect from me.

 

[CrispyBoar]

Awesome sauce!

 

[Hasney]

Why is it that fair use doesnt apply on Youtube?

Because it would cost resource and not an automatic system to apply it. It's why they're so hard to dispute, because there isn't enough of a team to actually respond.

The other way to do it and not cost a fortune is to not have a system, but that invites lawsuits. The system will never be fixed.

 

[LiK]

I'm laughing at how clever this is.

 

[The Flash]

One weird trick to bypass ContentID on your videos, companies hate it.

HAS JIM STERLING GONE TOO FAR?

 

[Juxo]

So what you're saying is, Jim is indestructible?

God, no! Even a slight breeze could...

 

[mantidor]

I'm also confused, maybe OP should explain better .

This is what I'm getting:

* You create a video with copyright content but don't monetize: Youtube will throw in ads.

* You create a video with copyright content and monetize: depends on the company. Nintendo will split your earnings, others might just take your video down. YouTube doesn't thrown in ads.

To avoid ads in the first, you throw in so much copyright content that companies don't know what to do and YouTube simply doesn't throw in ads.

Is this right?

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Can't wait for him to talk on Nintendo's latest bullshit. I know he doesn't like to do the same topic two weeks in a row, but good lord, the amount of dumb coming from Kyoto cannot go unpunished.

 

[Majukun]

well it's useful only for that few youtubersa who don't monetize their videos and work only through patreon..otherwise all you get is that nobody can monetize it,either you or other corporations

 

[oneils]

I think this is what happened to the sad affeck guy. Warner bros, the makers of batman vs superman didn't like that the rights owners for sounds of silence monetized the video. That's my interpretation anyway. Don't know if that guy posted an update.

 

[Trey]

Boss move.

 

[BodiesWithoutOrgans]

I could watch him dance all day

 

[oneils]

I'm also confused, maybe OP should explain better .

This is what I'm getting:

* You create a video with copyright content but don't monetize: Youtube will throw in ads.

* You create a video with copyright content and monetize: depends on the company. Nintendo will split your earnings, others might just take your video down. YouTube doesn't thrown in ads.

To avoid ads in the first, you throw in so much copyright content that companies don't know what to do and YouTube simply doesn't throw in ads.

Is this right?

I think so. The only thing I'm not sure of is that if a copyright holder monetizes your video and inserts ads... Do you actually get a piece of the revenue? I don't think you do.