Support NeoGAF

[Not Spaceghost]

What if YT just disables monitization will that make these guys happy?, they do realize YT didnt intially have this, Stop the crying its googles money system.

I promise you if Youtube did this they'd end up losing way more than other people. Do you know why monetization was introduced? Because youtube makes SO MUCH more off a video you watch than the person who has it monetized does, now think about it. If you have a dude like pewdiepie making videos that are getting 10 million views, that takes time for them. They've got to do other things with their life but each time they put up a video youtube makes a truck ton of dollars, so they came up with monetization to incentivize and allow popular youtube channels to make money off their big videos so they keep making more videos. What happens when these guys make enough money of their videos to live off them? They get to making them more frequently and youtube makes more money faster off ad revenue.

So stop thinking that this was all just a "favor" to these people. Don't act like their whining is baseless, don't act like they're all lazy scumbags, because proper video editing takes time and effort.

Monetization has always been a way for youtube to make money faster, sure they have to give up a slice, but say youtube makes 10 cents per view from ads on a 15minute video, and I think the video author makes 1000 dollars per 1 million views? On a 1 million view video Youtube earns 100,000 dollars and from that slice they give the guy 1000 bucks, a pat on the back and tell him to do that trick again. They keep 99,000.

 

[rain elbows]

The Content ID system flagging reviews and interviews is bullshit. But are people really trying to justify entire single player campaign playthroughs of entire games as fair use? That's really the part where I agree devs/pubs on the monetization issue.

I draw a line between the Boogies, Angry Joes, Ashens, etc., and people that put up vids of entire single player games. I don't buy the free advertising argument for entire game vids

 

[Meier]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

The Content ID system flagging reviews and interviews is bullshit. But are people really trying to justify entire single player campaign playthroughs of entire games as fair use? That's really the part where I agree devs/pubs on the monetization issue.

I draw a line between the Boogies, Angry Joes, Ashens, etc., and people that put up vids of entire single player games. I don't buy the free advertising argument for entire game vids

people that have review shows should be able to make money on it. Lets plays are clearly against Fair use since its way more then e a clip.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

Depends on what you mean by "these videos."

Let's Play videos shouldn't be monetized, or they should be split with the copyright holder. I agree there. Video reviews that splice in some footage should be protected under fair use, however.

 

[NeoGIF]

LOL. You gotta love Joe. But after putting in four hard years of such dedication, I would be rather pissed too.

 

[atomsk]

they didnt pay Millions in CASH to buy YT.

they paid millions in cash?

Google paid millions in cash

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/

"Google, the Internet's leading search engine, announced Monday that it is buying popular online video site YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock."

Please stop saying "in cash" like anyone really does a billion dollar deal with paper money.

 

[LiK]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

It's an established system by YT themselves. YT gets the money and they give a little to the content creator. That's how it works if you get a lot of views.

 

[OminoMichelin]

I see. I am assuming creators of Youtube spent millions of money when creating it, right?

How about a simple website?

(Thanks for taking your time answering this. Forgive my ignorance as well).

The thing is, there are tons of such websites around, and none of them allow monetization as far as I know. It's a can of worms legally speaking, since you have these big corporations with a feather-light trigger on lawsuits.
I would definitely want to see a youtube like website in places where copyright legislation is not quite as anti-consumer, like germany or some backwater third world country.

 

[-PXG-]

I promise you if Youtube did this they'd end up losing way more than other people. Do you know why monetization was introduced? Because youtube makes SO MUCH more off a video you watch than the person who has it monetized does, now think about it. If you have a dude like pewdiepie making videos that are getting 10 million views, that takes time for them. They've got to do other things with their life but each time they put up a video youtube makes a truck ton of dollars, so they came up with monetization to incentivize and allow popular youtube channels to make money off their big videos so they keep making more videos. What happens when these guys make enough money of their videos to live off them? They get to making them more frequently and youtube makes more money faster off ad revenue.

So stop thinking that this was all just a "favor" to these people. Don't act like their whining is baseless, don't act like they're all lazy scumbags, because proper video editing takes time and effort.

Monetization has always been a way for youtube to make money faster, sure they have to give up a slice, but say youtube makes 10 cents per view from ads on a 15minute video, and I think the video author makes 1000 dollars per 1 million views? On a 1 million view video Youtube earns 100,000 dollars and from that slice they give the guy 1000 bucks, a pat on the back and tell him to do that trick again. They keep 99,000.

This

 

[smileyforall220]

If this guy is pissed off so much then go ahead and sue. By law google is required to respond to the copyright claim in 30 days, after that you have a case, as long as you have an airtight case on fair use. Full songs being used are not okay.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/dancing-tot-prevails-over-umg-in-youtube-fair-use-case/


He seems way of base in attacking youtube over all this, instead on the copyright holders. Youtube wouldnt exist if their system wasn't set up this way, they'd be drowing in multi-billion dollar lawsuits. Thats what alot of people don't understand, as long as your video sharing website is set up in america, you're gonna face the same laws.

And frankly, if he quit his job to start reviews full time, then thats the risk he took. If he wants to evolve he should start a subscription service, a.k.a. giantbomb.

 

[Zaph]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/

"Google, the Internet's leading search engine, announced Monday that it is buying popular online video site YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock."

Please stop saying "in cash" like anyone really does a billion dollar deal with paper money.

Cash doesn't just mean paper money. It could be a bank transfer or cashiers check etc. Facebook's Instagram buyout included $300m in cash.

 

[paolo11]

The thing is, there are tons of such websites around, and none of them allow monetization as far as I know. It's a can of worms legally speaking, since you have these big corporations with a feather-light trigger on lawsuits.
I would definitely want to see a youtube like website in places where copyright legislation is not quite as anti-consumer, like germany or some backwater third world country.

Hmm... Intriguing..

Let me ask this. If I say make a video website in the Philippines, can I be safe with those legislation BS?

 

[TheAbsolution]

Hmm... Intriguing..

Let me ask this. If I say make a video website in the Philippines, can I be safe with those legislation BS?

Wouldn't you have to keep your servers in the Phillipines too? That would mean that the server location would be inconvenient for the majority of people in the US. You'd also need seed funding from someone for all the money spent on servers. And how would you distribute the monetization money to people?

 

[eot]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

You're posting in an angry joe thread, so I assume you mean his videos. Why shouldn't they be monetized?

 

[Mononoke]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

Why does Joe not have the right to make money off the interviews he conducts? The reviews he makes?

 

[Loakum]

craping on the little guy, in order to give even more money to the rich is the American way to do business. This latest stunt by Youtube, is just one of a ever growing trend.

 

[Sneds]

craping on the little guy, in order to give even more money to the rich is the American way to do business. This latest stunt by Youtube, is just one of a ever growing trend.

It was ever thus.

 

[atomsk]

Cash doesn't just mean paper money. It could be a bank transfer or cashiers check etc. Facebook's Instagram buyout included $300m in cash.

I know that, I was trying to make a point. The google/youtube deal was a stock-for-stock transaction.

 

[FStop7]

So this has morphed from using copyright to shut down monetized LPs to shutting down original content such as interviews and reviews? Yeah, that's way across the line.

YouTube's system is broken and their refusal to do anything about it sucks. And the behavior of the pubs is just scummy.

 

[paolo11]

Wouldn't you have to keep your servers in the Phillipines too? That would mean that the server location would be inconvenient for the majority of people in the US. You'd also need seed funding from someone for all the money spent on servers. And how would you distribute the monetization money to people?

I'm thinking of doing a simple video website first. And how does monetization work to pay these guys anyway?

I know it is a complicated process but after knowing how monetizaitpn works, I am quite intrigued.

 

[Nokterian]

I feel his message could get out there a little bit better were he to remain more calm. I didnt create a 'francis video' about this topic for this exact reason. Dignity and controlled reason will get us much further on this one. The whole Google+ thing was a joke. This is destroying people's livelyhoods.

But then again what do I know. That video will viral out and more people will be aware so maybe I'm full of shit.

Hey boogie welcome to gaf! Love your video's!

I agree with Joe feel so sad for him but it's joe and he has a right to be angry and this is hurting him not only him but others this is so sad that people who life there live's from this are getting hit for no reason and google needs to fix this shit. Horrible just horrible he put so mutch work in this for all these years and this hurts so mutch goddamn he didn't earn this at all like others.

 

[OminoMichelin]

Hmm... Intriguing..

Let me ask this. If I say make a video website in the Philippines, can I be safe with those legislation BS?

Well, yes but then again no, see what happened to megaupload.com.
I think I'll start looking into this myself.

 

[Revven]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

You didn't watch the video, did you?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

The Content ID system flagging reviews and interviews is bullshit. But are people really trying to justify entire single player campaign playthroughs of entire games as fair use? That's really the part where I agree devs/pubs on the monetization issue.

I draw a line between the Boogies, Angry Joes, Ashens, etc., and people that put up vids of entire single player games. I don't buy the free advertising argument for entire game vids

What about gameplay videos with commentary? What about gameplay videos with video commentary (your face on webcam in the corner)?

Don't they fall under derivative works?

 

[Sneds]

I'm thinking of doing a simple video website first. And how does monetization work to pay these guys anyway?

I know it is a complicated process but after knowing how monetizaitpn works, I am quite intrigued.

Companies pay YouTube to advertise on the site. YouTube gives people who make videos a small cut of that money. The amount of money that the video creator gets depends on how many viewers each video has.

This is a good system for YouTube because it encourages popular creators to make more videos, which drives up hits. The more hits YouTube gets, the more revenue they can get from advertisers.

It's a classic example of a corporation benefitting off the back of somebody else's creativity because, ultimately, YouTube own the 'means of production', which in this case is the website, servers and infrastructure. The people who actually create the content that people want to watch, like Joe, only get a small piece of the pie. They're working for commission basically.

 

[Phades]

The thing is, there are tons of such websites around, and none of them allow monetization as far as I know. It's a can of worms legally speaking, since you have these big corporations with a feather-light trigger on lawsuits.

The website you are on now has ads, which monetize the content which folks post here enabling the site to continue to exist. Of which folks post content about and from games within it. The entire situation just feels like one huge slippery slope where one bad court ruling could have a lot of collateral damage.

The funny thing about stuff like youtube is that the consumer is the product. So, having the site have anti-consumer practices seems about as backwards as it can get.

 

[Shouta]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

You really should know what the is going on in this thread before posting.

 

[OminoMichelin]

The website you are on now has ads, which monetize the content which folks post here enabling the site to continue to exist. Of which folks post content about and from games within it. The entire situation just feels like one huge slippery slope where one bad court ruling could have a lot of collateral damage.

The funny thing about stuff like youtube is that the consumer is the product. So, having the site have anti-consumer practices seems about as backwards as it can get.

This site doesn't create content though, and it's users don't get money. Admins also take precautions to avoid dangerous content (scans, pirate sites).
And yet even neogaf would have been threatened if SOPA or PIPA were enacted.

 

[Rodney McKay]

If this guy is pissed off so much then go ahead and sue. By law google is required to respond to the copyright claim in 30 days, after that you have a case, as long as you have an airtight case on fair use. Full songs being used are not okay.

I was under the impression that lawyers tend to be rather expensive for individuals.

I'm sure large corporations would never drag things out until he ran out of money and was forced to give up.

 

[Orochinagis]

This is so wrong, people making a living from making videos for YT then YT cut the money flow and they get mad at it instead of used that money for saving and search for a real job so they got comfortable and do nothing than making more videos?

Do I get the central point of this rant?

Youtube did the same thing some years ago with some game videos and no one complained because they weren affected, Now Joe rants this situation because he was finally affected.

 

[fluffydelusions]

You should not be able to monetize these videos. That it went on for so long was mindblowing to me.

Did you watch the video? He has videos flagged for interviews with developers and all kinds of things. Not "let's play" videos

 

[Zornack]

Did you watch the video? He has videos flagged for interviews with developers and all kinds of things. Not "let's play" videos

He has an interview flagged which has a trailer in it.

It's still dumb that it's flagged but there's an obvious reason that it's flagged.

 

[Enco]

I have yet to see a good reason for why this is a good decision or how it helps anyone.

 

[TheAbsolution]

This is so wrong, people making a living from making videos for YT then YT cut the money flow and they get mad at it instead of used that money for saving and search for a real job so they got comfortable and do nothing than making more videos?

Do I get the central point of this rant?

Youtube did the same thing some years ago with some game videos and no one complained because they weren affected, Now Joe rants this situation because he was finally affected.

Well, Joe is a reviewer. So in theory he likes making reviews. He also likes to make a living. So when he makes those videos, he needs equipment and more importantly a lot of time to do them. Since people see his videos and there are ads that play on them, He in turns gets money which he then uses to buy equipment and have enough time to do them. YT is now claiming these videos and he can't make any money to do the reviews. Wouldn't you say that is bullshit?

 

[Joeki11a]

You're right. No-one ever gets rich using a system they didn't implement or pay for.

Oh, actually, wait a minute... that's how 99.9% of rich people became rich.

Well the rich most important goal is to stay wealthy and having others profiting off their system isnt going to help that.

These guys have options

1.kickstar a YT like site start a revolution
2.continue on not worrying about money, do reviews playthroughs for the love of gaming
3.leave the YT, the more you stay the
More they profit.

 

[Zaph]

People should watch the Sessler podcast/hangout, learn a little bit more about the state of copyright law and drop the faux outrage.

This isn't a completely new problem, it's just a new interpretation of a very real issue lawyers have been dealing with for decades. When Sessler was at G4, with corporate backing and real legal support, even then their lawyers were uneasy using game footage in content without explicit written permission.

Copyright law is murky, 'fair use' isn't some magical word and catch-all solution, this is a problem that won't go away and Google can't make it go away. Any competitor that gets large enough will still have to deal with this.

 

[Armaros]

Well the rich most important goal is to stay wealthy and having others profiting off their system isnt going to help that.

These guys have options

1.kickstar a YT like site start a revolution
2.continue on not worrying about money, do reviews playthroughs for the love of gaming
3.leave the YT, the more you stay the
More they profit.

So, how are they going to set up their YT-like server infrastructure? With just kickstarter money?

Just forget about the money? So Angry Joe should spend weeks making videos that make no money but the same time he is going to get another job to still pays for his bills but leaves him enough time to make videos.

I heard that if you have to spend less time on a video, the quality of it diminishes.

 

[Mononoke]

People should watch the Sessler podcast/hangout, learn a little bit more about the state of copyright law and drop the faux outrage.

This isn't a completely new problem, it's just a new interpretation of a very real issue lawyers have been dealing with for decades. When Sessler was at G4, with corporate backing and real legal support, even then their lawyers were uneasy using game footage in content without explicit written permission.

Copyright law is murky, 'fair use' isn't some magical word and catch-all solution, this is a problem that won't go away and Google can't make it go away. Any competitor that gets large enough will still have to deal with this.

Faux rage? Lol the dude is having his interviews + reviews being flagged. While I get this is a reaction to a problem that is much larger, it's absolutely insane that he can't make money off of reviews and interviews.

 

[Shouta]

This is so wrong, people making a living from making videos for YT then YT cut the money flow and they get mad at it instead of used that money for saving and search for a real job so they got comfortable and do nothing than making more videos?

Do I get the central point of this rant?

Youtube did the same thing some years ago with some game videos and no one complained because they weren affected, Now Joe rants this situation because he was finally affected.

Nonsense, Utter nonsense.

Reviewers like Joe do as much, if not more work, than people with a "real job." This is his livelihood, The type of work he puts in and the production values are not some kind of hobbyist thing.

Straight uploads of games is a wholly different thing than screwing with reviews, interviews, and arguably, Let's Play/voice walkthroughs. Joe and everyone else has every right to be pissed off.

Well the rich most important goal is to stay wealthy and having others profiting off their system isnt going to help that.

These guys have options

1.kickstar a YT like site start a revolution
2.continue on not worrying about money, do reviews playthroughs for the love of gaming
3.leave the YT, the more you stay the
More they profit.

I don't think you understand how monumental it is to create a working, popular website that can sustain itself. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, ebay, etc all took a while to get going to where they are now and only because people jumped on. There are many other places that didn't get as far as they did. There's no way folks like Joe or boogie or whoever could try making a new video site, turn it successful, and still be able to feed themselves in the 5-6 years that it'd take to reach critical mass.

 

[Enco]

Well the rich most important goal is to stay wealthy and having others profiting off their system isnt going to help that.

These guys have options

1.kickstar a YT like site start a revolution
2.continue on not worrying about money, do reviews playthroughs for the love of gaming
3.leave the YT, the more you stay the
More they profit.

1. Because making a Google competitor is so easy. It just takes a simple kickstarter to overrule the most popular video site on the internet

2. Because no one relies on YT as their sole source of income and finding a job is as easy as snapping your fingers

3. See point 2

 

[Sneds]

Well the rich most important goal is to stay wealthy and having others profiting off their system isnt going to help that.

These guys have options

1.kickstar a YT like site start a revolution
2.continue on not worrying about money, do reviews playthroughs for the love of gaming
3.leave the YT, the more you stay the
More they profit.

But YouTube profited massively from the system. They only shared a fraction of that revenue with the video creators. I think many people, myself included, would argue that game devs and publishers benefitted too from free advertising from let's plays and reviews. I've scoped out games on let's plays and then bought the game because it looked fun.

You're right about options, except you missed one which is to put pressure on YouTube and publishers to reverse their stance. If thy get concerned enough about their pr that could actually work.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Faux rage? Lol the dude is having his interviews + reviews being flagged. While I get this is a reaction to a problem that is much larger, it's absolutely insane that he can't make money off of reviews and interviews.

Don't use the trailer or clip in the interview and he can, no problem.

If you don't make use of fair use at all you have no worries. The footage isn't exactly critical to an interview.

Sure, it's not a good solution to the issues of fair use and automatic tagging, but then he won't have to worry about the tagging and it will legitimately be entirely his own work to monetize.

 

[LiK]

Nonsense, Utter nonsense.

Reviewers like Joe do as much, if not more work, than people with a "real job." This is his livelihood, The type of work he puts in and the production values are not some kind of hobbyist thing.

Straight uploads of games is a wholly different thing than screwing with reviews, interviews, and arguably, Let's Play/voice walkthroughs. Joe and everyone else has every right to be pissed off.

Well said

 

[Roland1979]

YouTube is old and somewhat outdated anyways. Can't wait for some Asian version(s) to step in and take over. And of course reviews are fair use. Uploading a complete game is not, but when streaming live it might be acceptable (not sure on that one).

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

That ending got to me, 4 years of work and he has to look for another job. Seriously we need another youtube like site, this is horseshit.

 

[Zaph]

Faux rage? Lol the dude is having his interviews + reviews being flagged. While I get this is a reaction to a problem that is much larger, it's absolutely insane that he can't make money off of reviews and interviews.

The one that contained a trailer?

Guess what? Major networks and online broadcasters have been dealing with that for years. It's even worse in the movie industry. Then didn't cry about it, they simply stopped posting trailers on public CDN's.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

This is so wrong, people making a living from making videos for YT then YT cut the money flow and they get mad at it instead of used that money for saving and search for a real job so they got comfortable and do nothing than making more videos?

Do I get the central point of this rant?

Youtube did the same thing some years ago with some game videos and no one complained because they weren affected, Now Joe rants this situation because he was finally affected.

This guy in question already had a real job. He quit his job in order to do YT because he saw more money potential in it. He was right.

Joe's videos are different than these other ones that got affected. As others have stated, this is not just some hobby for him. This is not just some dude talking over himself playing a video game. He goes to great lengths to do these review videos and they aren't just crapped out in 15 minutes. He also travels all over the country, on his own dime, to do these developer interviews, which are getting tagged too.

 

[imfinnegan]

Why does Joe not have the right to make money off the interviews he conducts? The reviews he makes?

Because what you're seeing he doesn't own. That's the big problem with this situation. I'm firmly on the side of letting YouTubers monetize the content they make, but many of the YouTuber making LPs and game reviews, news, and commentary, are using assets that they don't own, and aren't licensed to use. And that's not legit, fair use or what have you.

People don't seem to understand that the fair use clause is a limitation, an exception to a rule, it isn't a law in and of itself. Game publishers are well within their rights to claim and monetize every single one of these YouTubers' content if said content uses their assets. It's unfortunate, but it's the law. The problem isn't that publishers are doing this, after all they are businesses and it's their job to make money, and it's unsettling to them that there are independent people out there who are making money off the content they created. In some cases, lots of money is being made. That PewDiePie kid makes upwards of $300,000 a month. Granted not every YouTuber is making that much, it does add up when you're talking about hundreds or thousands of these kids making that content and monetizing it.

The main problem is that technology and the internet is evolving at a rate that the law can't keep up with, resulting in the grey areas that we're in right now.

 

[googleplex]

Youtube has a genuine problem here. And I don't see any easy way to solve it.

If I want to make a video about a game (e.g. 'Lets Play' or a video review) and I get permission from the publisher (or my network gets permission from a publisher), that not might be good enough. What about all the licensed works within that game (e.g. music) - the publisher might not have the right to sub-license it and Youtube needs to provide a solution/process for them.

Fair-use should cover this, right? Well who decides if something is fair use? The way things were, with TV and magazines, the content would have giant teams and networks behind it - including a legal department to ensure compliance and handle issues. Now anyone with a computer and a webcam can do the same, who's getting paid to do that work for them? Sorry Mr. Bedroom Gamer, you can't keep all your ad profits, businesses in the real world have costs.

Someone, a human, needs to be paid to check fair use and copyright compliance. Youtube can't handle this for everyone and the automated system is being abused.

I easily imagine Youtube one day saying that if anyone wants to upload third-party content (under fair use), they must be part of a network (e.g. Machinima) with a verified legal department Google can pass complaints on to, as well as the legal responsibility.

It's easy to blame Google here, but they're the ones who have to comply with the law (DMCA etc) and they're the ones spending a fortune each year lobbying (in part) to make these things possible. They've been fighting for Youtube's right to exist for a long time, you can't blame them for trying to stay one step ahead of the courts.

.