rain elbows
Member
I would draw a line between someone showing a few mins of footage with commentary and people uploading vids of entire single player games. The latter I would agree with devs/pubs on trying to block monetization.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Angry Joe's Rant on the Youtube Monetization Issue
- Thread starter TheAbsolution
- Start date
lol at people saying to create a youtube competitor as if that's the easiest thing in the world. There is a reason why dailymotion, veoh, vimeo, etc have not gotten any headway in stealing youtube's users and site visitors. So much naivety that it's embarrassing.
1) If gamers start going to another site won't publishers just go after the new site?
2) Is there any other website that has a monetization system like youtube? Just because youtube decided to monetize to attract more uploaders doesn't mean that any other video uploading website has to do that.
3) Youtube is popular not just because of gaming viewers if they leave and go to another website, the casual gaming audience will stay on youtube while the more hardcore will go to the new website. The new website will never be able to match the audience that youtube has period.
It's ok to rant on youtube or publishers but have some perspective of the realities.
1) If gamers start going to another site won't publishers just go after the new site?
2) Is there any other website that has a monetization system like youtube? Just because youtube decided to monetize to attract more uploaders doesn't mean that any other video uploading website has to do that.
3) Youtube is popular not just because of gaming viewers if they leave and go to another website, the casual gaming audience will stay on youtube while the more hardcore will go to the new website. The new website will never be able to match the audience that youtube has period.
It's ok to rant on youtube or publishers but have some perspective of the realities.
If they all pull together it can happen, these guys have been monitizing from YT and other sites for 3 to 5 years, didnt someone say Angry Joe is also gets Blip money to?, pretty sure all these guys got lots of money in the Bank to, you dont quit real life job life for 5 years if you aint caking good by other ways pretty good, saving tons in the bank.
Joe showing 7 bucks in his wallet while awhole $2,000+ TV and gamlng consoles setup sits behind him makes no sense, these guys have money come on, put it now to use and start a revolution which could lead to other wealthy people joining and furthering the cause, many out there also hate google for other reasons.
All I am saying is YT/Google aint going to change this, this had been in the plans for years, they were just waiting for this ID match stuff to be finished, you can cry all you want the ride its over, realize this now they are here trying to take control of the monitization system they started, thats all it is.
You massively underestimate the time, money and expertise it would take to set up a rival to YouTube.
Even if they were able to set it up it would almost certainly fail because YouTube have the market cornered.
razoftblend
Member
Technically, you can keep the revenues from ads to yourself. You don't need to share it with anyone. That's just an incentive to get more people to upload more stuff and stay there.
This is why leaving your job and doing videos on youtube was never a smart move. If google decides to block ads, they would lose money. However, they could simply say, "F**k it, we'll get all the ad revenues", and they would be in their right to do so unless there's a law that prevents this. Youtube is a product of an entity, and google is that entity. These people can get a share of ad revenue through google, but they don't have a direct contract with the companies who pay for the ads nor do theu work for google. These people are basically numbers up there.
Shouta
Member
Don't use that argument. Just because someone has something fancy now does not mean they have it going on now. You don't know if he bought it full price either.
Additionally, as I pointed out before, creating a start-up and banking your livelihood on it is very risky. If it fails, where does it leave them? No money, no way to earn a living, etc. It's a foolish attempt without some serious backing.
interesting counterpoint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2gswdiH3VE
this guy lays (a lot of) the blame at the feet of the MCNs.
he basically states that the MCNs knew this was coming and rather than warn their partners, they doubled down on locking them into contracts, only to give them "affiliate" leper status when it all went through. now they should either step up and give everyone on their networks "managed" status as that is essentially what was offered in all of their contracts, or let them go.
it's why people like totalbiscuit were quiet about this, as they knew they were going to be granted managed status by his bro husky's gamestation network, while the maker network (a division of gamestation for those less privileged partners) kicked everyone down to affiliate but continued to take a cut.
this guy lays (a lot of) the blame at the feet of the MCNs.
he basically states that the MCNs knew this was coming and rather than warn their partners, they doubled down on locking them into contracts, only to give them "affiliate" leper status when it all went through. now they should either step up and give everyone on their networks "managed" status as that is essentially what was offered in all of their contracts, or let them go.
it's why people like totalbiscuit were quiet about this, as they knew they were going to be granted managed status by his bro husky's gamestation network, while the maker network (a division of gamestation for those less privileged partners) kicked everyone down to affiliate but continued to take a cut.
Roland1979
Junior Member
There are many sites like YouTube, some are HUGE. There are just not popular in the West, where YouTube is the nr 1. So there is no need to kick starter one and you have no guarantee of that one ever getting popular. It would be better to look at existing ones, their popularity, their policy and how well the are received by a Western audience and at least also start uploading their, hoping for a shift from the viewers to that platform.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
TBF they should have kept the money as a temporary thing and either invested, or at least did some serious savings. Either way this whle set up was very shaky and always had the very large potential to turn out this way.
Its not going to happen overnight of course but to begin a Revolutionary alternative its the only option they got left, maybe Zuckerberg wants to start his own YT like site start the foundation with him, YT pretty much has zero potentially good competition, give them some.
If these guys entire "army" of fans follow them and never go to YT ever again YT will feel it,
If they want to stay here crying about YT taking away their money making ways while using YT that isnt going to help them at all. Google its out to control what they implemented on the site they bought cash money.
jim2point0
Banned
The reason people are so upset at Youtube is that the content ID system itself has a some flaws in that it's flagging perfectly legitimate content. And the process to fight those claims takes a looooong time.
There are publishers out there who are perfectly fine with videos being monetized that use their content. But for some reason, their stuff is still being caught by the scattershot system that is Content ID. So yeah, I don't think the problem here are the publishers. Not entirely...
robertsan21
Member
Censorship is not accepted!
I fucking hope all the hackers start crashing YT and make it the worst site to visit ever so people find other site to start uploading videos to.
I fucking hope all the hackers start crashing YT and make it the worst site to visit ever so people find other site to start uploading videos to.
crazyrabbits
Banned
It's not just that. There's a huge potential for misuse with this system. It doesn't just effect LP'ers.
Any individual who monetizes their content, regardless of the industry represented, is liable of being flagged for content that is in a huge grey area. Anyone who does a review show, people doing interviews (as Joe's video indicates), people who use a piece of content for demonstrative purposes, music being talked over... there are going to be tens of thousands of users being affected by this. We're all looking at this through a telescope.
The nature of who owns what copyright, and at what point licenses/copyrights renew, is so vague and hard to monitor that the system is already showing signs of breaking under the pressure. Farfromsubtle's video pointed out a piece of Frank Sinatra music that was being claimed by 10 different rights holders. Likewise, the system has no way of differentiating between a straight-up LP with no commentary and a review that uses 35 seconds of a clip as context and colour to illustrate.
This is just YT passing the buck and treating its users as criminals. Harsh, but true.
Liberty4all
Banned
I don't understand how youtube videos reviewing/showing gameplay in a show format and making money, is any different from old school gaming magazines that would show multiple games with walk throughs and make money.
How is the monetization concept any different?
How is the monetization concept any different?
It's harder to blacklist Youtube contributors, since they often don't require any additional access to the devs or pubs to get their message out there.
You can imagine there are a lot out there that don't like this lack of control.
eot
Banned
Interesting, sounds fairly plausible
A long time ago I remember wanting to see this supposedly funny video about Spongebob and marijuana. Every link I wanted to see it on went to Youtube. This was around 2007 or so. People had funny ha-ha video web pages and started hosting their content at Youtube because it was easier and cheaper to have someone else host the content. But every time I wanted to see the video it was delisted from Youtube.
Then it because about trying to find the video, not for the content... just to find the damned thing. I thought to myself then, what if Youtube hosted all the video content on the Internet and things would be filtered to their whim either by their own restrictions, or tastes, or by direction from another company?
Well, here we are.
Then it because about trying to find the video, not for the content... just to find the damned thing. I thought to myself then, what if Youtube hosted all the video content on the Internet and things would be filtered to their whim either by their own restrictions, or tastes, or by direction from another company?
Well, here we are.
Mattlikewhoa
Member
I'll have to check this video out later...
I haven't been following this YT monetization issue, as of late, but I think it's time I jump in.
I haven't been following this YT monetization issue, as of late, but I think it's time I jump in.
Yeah because doing this certainly help...no one.
UnrealEck
Member
I've always dreamt of playing a game with a Youtube celeb.
Liberty4all
Banned
Yes I can imagine as I was in the enthusiast press for 5 years handling the site's PR contacts. I had to deal with many angry phone calls from publisher PR reps and often smooth ruffled feathers.
Still it doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't a show covering games be considered fair use, since the user
1. Owns a copy of the game
2. Is reviewing or giving opinions of the product they own
I don't understand what's going on with youtube to be honest, but it feels like a heavy handed attempt to censor free speech. If people want to pay that user for their opinions I don't see why the publisher should get a cut. The publisher has already been paid when the game was purchased.
The users create the content. It is no different than the parrallel with youtube. Piracy is an entirely different animal.
I'm finding issue with suspending my disbelief that you find in no way that this is the direction this type of action will head.
Smelly5ocks
Member
This is a very interesting perspective. I'm glad he did this video.
To add to your summary the video suggests that the YouTube managed/affiliate policy change came as a result of the MCNs (Multiple Channel Networks) not properly policing their partnered channels. Apparently signing with a MCN "used" to offer protection from the flood of Content ID disputes that users are now seeing. The video author believes that the MCNs began to irresponsibly sign more and more channels without fulfilling their obligations to vet the content. Once YouTube caught on, they instituted a policy change in the hopes to deter that kind of behavior.
I'd like to see more people talk about this side of the issue.
Good video and giving a better view and by the looks of it what really is happening.
FunkyLounge
Member
If twitch got into video sharing like youtube, that would be huge!
Yeah, that was an interesting watch.
I agree with this. Jump ship, fuck Youtube now. Hopefully Twitch doesn't end up doing the same thing.
jakonovski
Member
Contract lawsuits are common, and in this case false positives do real damage to the victims. Also, Youtube isn't exactly the only party involved here. Fraudulent ownership claims are just that.
I wish people would stop baselessly assuming that nothing can be done.
razoftblend
Member
1. Just because you bought something, like a game or movie, it does not mean you can redistribute the content freely. You have to ask yourself if the purpose for which you're using it falls under fair use.
2. It depends. More often than not, you need approval, but you can show small clips of the product in question and review it. Top 10/20 etc are fair use. However, if you start showing 10 minutes of each game, then you're showing way more than what its intended purpose was. Also, if your review shows, let's say, all cutscenes or even the ending, then it has the potential to prevent people from getting the game since they already know what happens. You need approval, preferably a written/recorded approval, or you could get sued since it damages sales for the copyright holder.
It's impossible for any company to review all videos that are uploaded to youtube daily. ContentID does not check for fair use. I think this system is meant to filter what is essentially not allow even if it falls under fair use, and then people can counter those claims. That would be the easiest way for google to manage such a large number of videos. There are still flaws in the system, but ultimately, this is the "best" way to deal with things unless you want them to check each video, which could take months and even years for a single video.
Flagging legitimate content, especially in the name of THQ, or a publisher like Blizzard or Valve that is completely fine with monetising content is not ok at all.
ContentID even matches crap like birds songs to licensed songs. If that is the "best" way to deal with things YT has a serious problem. Because the reason they are paying out ad money in the first place is because these people generate the content people come on Youtube to watch. And for YT it's kind of good they are there. Pissing of content producers will bite them sooner or later. Not in a month, or maybe even a year but at some point competition that treats content producers better will be felt YT.
Liberty4all
Banned
For #1. In a game's case most video's online aren't redistributing the content. They are reviewing or commenting on the content. There is a big difference (IMHO).
For #2. I would argue that games are experiential in nature and can't truly be experienced except by actually playing them. Watching a playthrough (not the whole game but at least a level or so) just gives me an idea if it's a game I want to buy or not. A playthrough with commentary is even more helpful so I can see based on the gamers comments if it's a title that interests me based on their comments.
Finally I feel that once I own a product it's MINE. If I want to show it to other people that's my prerogative to do with my property as I wish. Now if I was burning copies of the game and selling it to other people that's different. In most gaming youtube video's case though I see it as people monetizing their creative work in using property they own to make a living.
I watch good Youtube gaming videos in part to find out about interesting new games but also in part because a good channel will have creative content that goes way beyond whatever clips/playtime I see of a game ... a good channel will have the creative content (comments, vibe, etc) that makes me want to subscribe.
NaughtyCalibur
Member
Everybody keeps saying this, but does Twitch even allow edited videos, reviews, etc? The LPers aren't the only ones affected by this. Somebody like Angry Joe wouldn't be able to migrate to Twitch.
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
I am still laughing at how a video with the guy talking to an actual person who actually works at the company that made Tomb Raider was flagged because "tomb raider" filed a complaint. Holy shit.
I've never seen a review or edited video on Twitch. I've only ever seen direct streams.
razoftblend
Member
You don't seem to get this, do you? I did say that there were flaws in the system, but ultimately, this is the most effective way to deal with so many videos unless you want to wait a long time for a video to be approved. Their contentID system matches whatever they have on their file servers that companies provide them with. The problem? Companies like THQ don't exist anymore, but their matching files are still there. Deep Silver is ok with LP videos, but as long as that ID match is there, users can't do anything about, and it is not google's responsibility to remove it since there legal terms behind them. There are also stuff like copyright transfers, which happens a lot with music. The new owner can claim song even if the older owner gave you approval.
Also, no other site is going to come out and become the new youtube. For one, youtube is about the only place like it that allows you to monetize on your videos. Also, other sites have a similar ID check because of local laws. Also, even if there are legitimate users, a lot of people misuse youtube just like how people misused Megaupload. What happened to MU? It was closed down by federal authorities. I wouldn't be surprise if google was under this kind of pressure. This will probably earn them less money, but it would be worse to have the FBI knocking down their doors. There's also a pretty shady business going on behind the scenes like networks within youtube and its users, so it wouldn't surprise me if the FBI started going after these people and reviewing them the same way they do with torrent sites and illegal use of products. New laws could accommodate this.
I don't see how moving to twitch would suddenly stop copyright holders from knocking on Twitch's door and enforcing regulation if they so choose. Same applies to these mythical YouTube competitors.
Tombraiderception!
FunkyMunkey
Banned
It's crazy and absurd. It's just two people talking.
It'd be like a post on a forum talking about tomb raider getting flagged.
Mr. Enigma
Member
As stated earlier, Twitch already has the appropriate deals in place to appease the copyright holders.
dreamer3kx
Member
Good rant from Joe, like Joe, passionate about his stuff.
razoftblend
Member
1. You can comment on a game and review it. However, it has to fall under fair use, and fair use does not give you the authority or immunity. It simply grants you the right to use copyrighted material for your creation under a set of rules.
2. Many companies approve of LPs and walkthroughs, but those go beyond of just comment since you're showing large portions of a game, if not the whole thing, just to tell someone if a game is good or bad. That's why reviews, comments, and critique are allowed by fair use.
It doesn't matter what you feel, what matters is the law, and the law gives you right of property to use a product. For a movie, it is against the law to make a public display of it without permission from the content holder. For stuff like games, it's a case by case. The content holder, like Ubisoft, gives you permission to make those videos and monetize them as long as there are no racial comments or it doesn't damage the company itself. By damaging, I don't mean critique since that's allowed. It's more like saying a game supports something like racism, discrimination, etc when that's not the purpose of it.
uomoartificiale
Member
well, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8kIrsw8-io
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8kIrsw8-io
Man Mark can be positive about literally anything.
theSlacker
Member
Just wanted to quote this again since it really does make a good counterpoint. Or at least another point of view.
Because it's all about the automated content ID.
The video game community on youtube hasn't had to deal with that bullshit for the most part like the film reviewing community has had to since...forever.
Adam from YourMovieSucks explains what is happening to everyone now is what has been happening to him for the last 3 years non-stop and how to deal with it. I recommend everyone who has no idea what's happening watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTHhtCyzLg
Damn, CGR too . . .