Support NeoGAF

[Eusis]

Good, they have no reason to back down and they shouldn't have to.

We're getting multiple false positives on content people own fully themselves. At a minimum it's not a bad idea to pull it down then retool it, but it's rare Google gives a shit if some change they implement pisses people off.

Lawsuits?

Actually a smaller site could probably better evaluate the content or at least by having a specific focus can make a system that better regulates it, Youtube's seemingly using something meant more for the music industry on EVERYTHING and it's just fucking things up in general, and honestly with how big they are they may not have much choice without the law being overhauled entirely.

 

[Draft]

What is stopping people from making their own websites and hosting their own videos, besides effort and money?

I imagine it's complicated and expensive.

 

[Van Owen]

Good on Youtube.

 

[Arde5643]

Class Action lawsuit incoming against Google/Youtube?

 

[djplaeskool]

Well, what are we going to do?
Use not-Youtube?

 

[Nymphae]

The default is you cannot show public performances of copyright UNLESS you have explicit written permission from the owner. DMCA gives sites like youtube the benefit of the doubt if their users upload stuff as long as they take it down. If you upload it directly to your own site, you could get sued .

Ok got it, thanks!

I imagine it's complicated and expensive.

That is what I'm guessing. As another poster said in another thread on this subject, you get what you pay for with Youtube's free hosting I guess. If you want to make money, you have to work for it.

 

[Uno Venova]

I haven't been following it closely..... So this is affecting everyone? Or can some people close to partners like Machinima, or huge like Pewdiepie still monetize videos?

 

[VariantX]

I don't blame Youtube.

They have to do this or they'll get sued off the internet.

Don't complain to them about it - complain to the US Copyright Office - they're the ones who regulate the fair use limitations.

Threatening Youtube is stupid and ignorant. They're not the target.

I do. People who own their content 100% are getting flagged and are having to deal with this nonsense. They should know better than to put a system in that doesn't even question the validity of some these claims made against content.

 

[Odrion]

Class Action lawsuit incoming against Google/Youtube?

On what legal grounds?

 

[Mesoian]

We need a new gaming-focused site. Get developers, publishers, and the community all on board together. Have clear, concise rules for what companies do and do not support in terms of video footage. If the rules are clear and the companies themselves are involved in the process, there should be no gotcha takedowns or misunderstandings.

That needs SOOOO much manpower though.

 

[ChiliManiac]

This YouTube thing is getting exhausting




What does a flag do? Does it block the video and remove monetization? Does it just do one of those thing? Does it do neither? Sorry, I am still ignorant as to what these auto-flags do.

In my case, I had an AMV hit over 4,000 views. Not much, but they asked me if I wanted to monetize it and I declined since the footage and song were not of my own. However UMG sent me a flag that blocked the audio from being played in Germany because the song was Fuel by Metallica. Simply put, it didn't affect me personally. Though it affected my viewers enjoyment of the video. Secondly if you did have a monitization of wholly original content, and your video was using a 17 second soundbite from another source. Which falls under fair use you could be blocked in multiple countries and loose a ton of views. That's the problem with the new system, fair use is out the window.

 

[Senor Kami]

So since that won't budge, where can we share game capture videos/commentaries? I mean, they've gotten so much hate over this, and if they don't budge now, they never will.

Where should one go? Don't even care about monetizing.

If you don't care about monetizing, just stick with YouTube. The only thing that's changed for you would be that they now will send you a message pointing out what song that was playing the background.

 

[Camp Lo]

So since that won't budge, where can we share game capture videos/commentaries? I mean, they've gotten so much hate over this, and if they don't budge now, they never will.

Where should one go? Don't even care about monetizing.

No one's going anywhere bruh. Either people adapt or they quit.

 

[TheD]

Content ID is not required by law to work like this.

youtube chose to make it funnel money automatically to who ever the content ID system thinks owns the content, with no refund of the money if the claim proves to be invalid!
youtube chose to remove the false claim option in the depute system, showing just how much they are arrogant fuckwits that can not deal with the fact that content ID is not close to perfect!

Good on Youtube.

NO!
Youtube is fucking over lots of people that are not infringing copyright!

 

[zma1013]

then stay on youtube? pretty sure the videos getting flagged are the ones getting monetized.

It flags them regardless of if they are being monetized or not. A video I put up earlier in the year was flagged immediately before I even had a chance to sign up for monetization, before it even had 1 view, but it still let me put it up. There's just an ad on it now with the song that I used in the video.

 

[UnrealEck]

I have sympathy for good content creators with good contributions like CGR.
I don't have sympathy for people who were making money from videos of a playthrough of a game with them blabbering over it on a mic and expecting and now fighting to get paid for it.

 

[Camp Lo]

It's good that youtube is false flagging everything?!

Let's streeeeeeeeeeeetch it a little bit more. C'mon.

 

[michaeltraps]

I watch Game Grumps on a daily basis and have yet to hear anything from them regarding this new trend and it seems like they're probably one of the bigger LP channels on YouTube. Wonder where they would go if the pressure is on.

 

[Ivieto]

Content ID is not required by law to work like this.

youtube chose to make it funnel money automatically to who ever the content ID system thinks owns the content, with no refund of the money if the claim proves to be invalid!
youtube chose to remove the false claim option in the depute system, showing just how much they are arrogant fuckwits that can not deal with the fact that content ID is not close to perfect!

It's good that youtube is false flagging everything?!

YT gives the people inside Content ID the right to choose what happes when there is a match to their material. But yeah, it is clearly not working.

The best part? We already knew it did not work, everyone else has gone through this, and either solved it or given up. Games were on a bubble until last week, and now that roughly the same rules apply to games as everything else, people here are starting to see how fucked up it all is.

 

[rvy]

Good, I'm tired of YT at this point, might as well watch Google burn it to the ground while everybody moves somewhere else.

 

[Morokh]

No one's going anywhere bruh. Either people adapt or they quit.

It'll be quite hard to adapt when even if the publisher / dev authorizes Let's plays and such you still can get flagged for instance for the game's ambient music because the OST has also been published.

That's how backwards their new algorithm is among many MANY other things.

 

[Village]

So what about hose people who are getting copyrighted for things they have made

 

[alstein]

Well, what are we going to do?
Use not-Youtube?

Nico perhaps?

 

[Ivieto]

It'll be quite hard to adapt when even if the publisher / dev authorizes Let's plays and such you still can get flagged for instance for the game's ambient music because the OST has also been published.

That's how backwards their new algorithm is among many MANY other things.

Who has the rights to the music? If I license a song to a videogame, and the devs decide to allow Lets plays on the section with my music, do I lose the right to avoid public performances of my content by other for money?

 

[nintendoman58]

"Youtube not backing down."

Not convinced. They'll see the need to change it back somehow.

I mean, Microsoft said the exact same thing with Xbox One DRM.

We just need to find some other competitor to go up on a stage and announce that they're going to do everything opposite of what Youtube is doing and more, and then Youtube may get rid of this thing.

Spoiler

I want to believe.

 

[TemplaerDude]

So this is it then, right? We're all collectively going to agree that we've had enough of Google's shit, that we're not gonna take their "what else are you gonna use" attitude and move on somewhere else, right?

 

[hayguyz]

Who has the rights to the music? If I license a song to a videogame, and the devs decide to allow Lets plays on the section with my music, do I lose the right to avoid public performances of my content by other for money?

depends on what was in the license

 

[razoftblend]

So since that won't budge, where can we share game capture videos/commentaries? I mean, they've gotten so much hate over this, and if they don't budge now, they never will.

Where should one go? Don't even care about monetizing.

You can stay on youtube. This contentID thing is not taking down videos. They simply don't allow you to monetize on them if you have claims.

Unless things have changed to the worst.

 

[zma1013]

Who has the rights to the music? If I license a song to a videogame, and the devs decide to allow Lets plays on the section with my music, do I lose the right to avoid public performances of my content by other for money?

I think publishers would also get advertisement right to the music you license, if you give them that right. Otherwise, how do they put a commercial up on television with your music blaring? Official Let's Play could be argued as advertisement right?

 

[Osiris]

Who has the rights to the music? If I license a song to a videogame, and the devs decide to allow Lets plays on the section with my music, do I lose the right to avoid public performances of my content by other for money?

Depends on the terms on the license, I've seen licenses that assign full, exclusive rights to the publisher, and licenses that assign minimal, single-use-case only licenses.

The terms of the license define what may be done with the material, in some cases musicians have assigned rights that makes their own, future use of the licensed material difficult.

License / Music Industry lawyers are worth their weight in gold when you use them.

(Don't get me started on recording contracts from the big names, some of those are fantastically evil, and yet still get signed by dumb kids with a "dream")

 

[Morokh]

Who has the rights to the music? If I license a song to a videogame, and the devs decide to allow Lets plays on the section with my music, do I lose the right to avoid public performances of my content by other for money?

First of all you're not using the music itself, it's part of a whole, the game itself.
Then, the devs licensed it for the game, them, and only them know on what terms, if it were to pose any problems, then they shouldn't allow people to make videos from it and then taking action would make sense if someone did, not really the way it works now.

 

[Shard]

As a matter of perspective, this is how big Youtube is.
http://www.businessinsider.com/glob...re-is-20-times-its-nearest-competitor-2011-12

 

[zma1013]

You can stay on youtube. This contentID thing is not taking down videos. They simply don't allow you to monetize on them if you have claims.

Unless things have changed to the worst.

Content ID from the very beginning allows the people who own the content you've been flagged for to block the video if they wish. They don't have to do it, but it's an option for them.

 

[Ivieto]

Depends on the terms on the license, I've seen licenses that assign full, exclusive rights to the publisher, and licenses that assign minimal, single-use-case only licenses.

The terms of the license define what may be done with the material, in some cases musicians have assigned rights that makes their own, future use of the licensed material difficult.

License / Music Industry lawyers are worth their weight in gold when you use them.

(Don't get me started on recording contracts from the big names, some of those are fantastically evil, and yet still get signed by dumb kids with a "dream")

Yeah that's roughly what I thought. Has there been a ruling as what let's play count in terms of licensing? They are clearly not ads and are not media for press reviews, etc. I think this is a lot of people saying what they think should be, bu this specific use has no legal backing behind it?

First of all you're not using the music itself, it's part of a whole, the game itself.
Then, the devs licensed it for the game, them, and only them know on what terms, if it were to pose any problems, then they shouldn't allow people to make videos from it and then taking action would make sense if someone did, not really the way it works now.

I disagree, they way it works now is that you sumbit your song to ContentID through a third-party which you give complete control on how to treat your song. You could sing a contract giving you explicit permission to upload the song on Youtube, and when you try to upload it you will get flagged down until you open a counter claim.

My point is, using robots is fantastically messed up becasue the time-frame for the claim is milliseconds, the time-frame for the counter-claim is weeks and require a shit ton of work on your behalf to prove you can do it.

 

[Senor Kami]

So what about hose people who are getting copyrighted for things they have made

It's new tech. It's a rough start but eventually Content ID will open up to more people and registering with that will be as regular thing for media professionals as along with filing copyrights or registering a song with a PRO like Ascap, BMI, etc.

In the meantime, contact them through the appropriate channel and they'll correct it.

 

[Kintaro]

As a matter of perspective, this is how big Youtube is.
http://www.businessinsider.com/glob...re-is-20-times-its-nearest-competitor-2011-12

Goodness. Good luck to those who leave. You'll need it.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

When they get sued to hell and back by flagging people who own their own shit, then they will think otherwise.

 

[Leb]

Ofcourse they aren't backing down.

Instantly relatable. Hehe! And then the little guy just looks so sad...

 

[razoftblend]

Content ID from the very beginning allows the people who own the content you've been flagged for to block the video if they wish. They don't have to do it, but it's an option for them.

But this is in place in just about any video sharing site, including improper material (porn, crimes, etc on those videos). Sure, youtube makes it easier to do such a thing, but at this point, no other video hosting site has worldwide penetration like youtube does. So it's feel it or leave it at this point.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

You mean except when the monitization is perfectly legal? Like in the case of Angry Joe?

Their website, their rules.

YT has fought and lost the TV, Music and movie industry. I can see why they don't want to spend time and money down the road fighting this, not worth it in any way.

 

[Clockwork5]

NO!
Youtube is fucking over lots of people that are not infringing copyright!

YT is fucking over no one. They provide a free video hosting website, with rules which are subject to change, no more... no less. They are being a bit overzealous in the PROTECTION of copyrighted property. Good for them.

If you wanna use copyrighted material, Idk, how about you start your own site...

 

[TheD]

It's new tech. It's a rough start but eventually Content ID will open up to more people and registering with that will be as regular thing for media professionals as along with filing copyrights or registering a song with a PRO like Ascap, BMI, etc.

In the meantime, contact them through the appropriate channel and they'll correct it.

Content ID is not new and it is getting worse!

YT is fucking over no one. They provide a free video hosting website, with rules which are subject to change, no more... no less. They are being a bit overzealous in the PROTECTION of copyrighted property. Good for them.

They are fucking over people!
They are falsely flagging people's content (from content they are allowed to use by the copyright holder, to content that has been mis IDed and content that has been uploaded to the content ID system by someone that does not own the copyright!) and sending the ad money to the wrong people!

If you wanna use copyrighted material, Idk, how about get permission and start your own site...

What part of "Youtube is fucking over lots of people that are not infringing copyright!" do you not understand?!

Don't respond to me if you are going to flat out ignore the facts!

 

[Camp Lo]

It'll be quite hard to adapt when even if the publisher / dev authorizes Let's plays and such you still can get flagged for instance for the game's ambient music because the OST has also been published.

That's how backwards their new algorithm is among many MANY other things.

Getting flagged isn't the issue because there's an option to simply flag and track only. There's a video floating around that debunks most of the 'YT is evil' jargon.

 

[Osiris]

Yeah that's roughly what I thought. Has there been a ruling as what let's play count in terms of licensing? They are clearly not ads and are not media for press reviews, etc. I think this is a lot of people saying what they think should be, bu this specific use has no legal backing behind it?

It doesn't matter what the material is used for, unlicensed use is unlicensed use, the "fair use" defense is a grey area and generally thought to be very narrow, it's certainly much narrower than most Internet inhabitants seem to realize.

The other problem with using "fair use" as a defense is that that is exactly what it is, something you can try to use as a defense once matters reach court, it's not a safe barrier you can hide behind and hope your unlicensed use will fall under, it's a paper thin barrier that most music industry lawyers can sneeze their way through. (See: Weird Al Yankovic, who failed to apply the fair use defense to his parodies, despite parodies being one area that does have stronger fair use arguments than most other uses. - Weird Al actually now licenses and shares his revenue with the artists he is parodying to avoid further licensing/copyright issues.)

 

[Clockwork5]

It doesn't matter what the material is used for, unlicensed use is unlicensed use, the "fair use" defense is a grey area and generally thought to be very narrow, it's certainly much narrower than most Internet inhabitants seem to realize.

The other problem with using "fair use" as a defense is that that is exactly what it is, something you can try to use as a defense once matters reach court, it's not a safe barrier you can hide behind and hope your unlicensed use will fall under, it's a paper thin barrier that most music industry lawyers can sneeze their way through. (See: Weird Al Yankovic, who failed to apply the fair use defense to his parodies, despite parodies being one area that does have stronger fair use arguments than most other uses. - Weird Al actually now licenses and shares his revenue with the artists he is parodying to avoid further licensing/copyright issues.)

Thank goodness for this voice of reason.

 

[radios shipping overview]

YouTube prefers not to be sued out of existence by music industry. Film at 11.

There's obviously a rush on YT by content owners in progress. It's not too different from patent trolling. But it's not a good look for people to blame YouTube for it and cry like their candy's been taken away. What people should do is to scrub their own videos for music that's obviously copyrighted and likely to get targeted and to use the dispute system when claims are misplaced or overbroad.

For cases where a claim is made on a video because of licensed music actually in the game, well... it's a sticky matter and I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Camp Lo]

YT is fucking over no one. They provide a free video hosting website, with rules which are subject to change, no more... no less. They are being a bit overzealous in the PROTECTION of copyrighted property. Good for them.

If you wanna use copyrighted material, Idk, how about get permission and start your own site...

In many cases, they don't need to.

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

If more companies stopped being lazy and fixed how they flag videos, more than 75% of this shit would go away. The other portion seems like YT's blanketing everything.

 

[Zombie James]

this really does seem like a great chance for someone to step in and create a gaming-focused "youtube"

No need to create something new when Twitch already exists. They just need to get a huge injection of cash so they can expand beyond streaming.

 

[BPoole]

Now would be a great time for someone to launch a decent competitor to YouTube

 

[ChiliManiac]

No need to create something new when Twitch already exists. They just need to get a huge injection of cash so they can expand beyond streaming.

Isn't twitch being backed Microsoft?