Actually, if it's a review, it is covered by fair use. The monetization isn't relevant. That doesn't mean it can't be challenged with a take down notice and it doesn't mean that Google must allow the video to be displayed.
Actually, none of it is covered under fair use laws. There's no section of the law that states you can post videos of a game (or movie or TV show or anything) and claim fair use simply because you add commentary. With fair use, you can do screenshots (to a certain degree) and you can do things like show the cover art and stuff, but you can't just upload any significant portion and have it automatically considered legal.
By and large, most companies haven't really cared too much about this particular situation (other then the let's play stuff) because a good review can generate publicity, and they're happy with that. It's free advertising. There have been reports of companies issuing take-down notices in the past for reviews that were particularly bad which, although they have the legal right to, is kind of a scummy way of gaming the system.
So unless you can point out either specific sections of fair use laws that allow this, complete with at least precedent set by a US court, then please stop spreading false information.
*note*
The PDF you linked has nothing to do with media streamed over video, and isn't even a legal document.
**
The Content ID system seems rather complicated. It also seems very granular. We're assuming that people like Angry Joe are being flagged because of the video game footage, when it could just be something random in the green screened background or some music playing in the background. For all we know it could be a picture on the wall of his office that makes it into the HD video.
**
You know, Yatzhee over at Zero Punctuation has been doing game reviews for years, and not once (that I'm aware of) used any game footage.
Actually in the most recent video I just posted, Angry Joe goes into detail on why some of the videos were flagged. Also at around the 10:00 minute mark he provides a good counter argument to some of what has been said in this thread.
I don't think it should be automated if it's catching this many legit content uploaders in the crossfire, disabling their income for up to 3 months on a given upload. I think the burden should be on the content owners. It's way to easily abused as is. Flag system should work as "Hey these people might be using your copyright material illegally. Want to take action?" It doesn't do anything until take action is click. Consequences for abusing "Take Action" and obviously for the "uploader" if the claim is legit.
System's to easily abused currently and it seems to have been designed that way on purpose. Sucks what that movie reviewer said he has had to go through, apparently for sometime now. Not going to dive into if it's Google trying to min/max profits by automating as much as they can or groups like the MPAA/RIAA pushing for the system to be this way.
Will be interesting to see how it unfolds and what happens.
Originally posted by asmkm22 lizard, your whole argument makes no sense because what these people are doing is nothing like what professional game reviewers are doing. They, for the most part, just playing a game and giving commentary as they go. Compare that to video review from, say, gamespot or something, where the videos are more like montages of short clips that might highlight what's being said, but just as often is pretty random. The meat of the review is still in the dialogue. In short, they aren't showing off a ton of gameplay, aside from small clips.Trying to compare guys like angryjoe to actual game reviewers simply doesn't cut it. They aren't reviewing the games. They're just giving a personal opinion. And that's not even going into the whole "let's play" stuff, which is just incredibly shady.But like I've said before, if they don't like how YouTube handles the take-down notices, then they should be hosting their stuff somewhere else, rather than ranting like a spoiled child who lost a toy.
It really seems like what you are calling into question is what constitutes a game review. There is no set formula for what constitutes a 'real' game review. A review answers the question, "Is this thing good or not?" The question covers subjective territory so consisting of opinions doesn't disqualify a video from being a review. Pulling heavily from the reviewed material does not disqualify something from being a review either. A poorly constructed review is still a review.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with where people are going to do business. Basing your life and livelihood on the shifting sands of Youtube seems to be a questionable decision at best.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree I hate YouTube's DMCA Laws, I will never Agree with CopyRight Infringement such as those hard working developers in virtual worlds like Second Life that have had their items illegally Stolen with hacking clients and given away for FREE to every user in the game pretty much, a lot of people I know have quit the game because of this.
But in in reply to the YouTube thing, I have only had one False DMCA filed on me about a review of a product from the virtual world of Second Life the guy claimed I was stealing his copyright/code just because it displayed a image of the product in the video I counter DMCA it successfully.
Now this new automated system is complete Bull if you ask me Like really all this new system does is hurt new Uploaders of RPG games and things with any music playing from the game, or a person logging into World OF Warcraft for example to play the game do a review, what about the millions of guilsd out there who record raids and dungeons and their video gets flagged because of this.
If a person wanted to commit piracy, there are many ways to do piracy its called Torrents, proxies, vpn's, and VPS servers knowing how to properly use these helps evade things like Bans, anything highly illegal can still be tracked.
How about services like Sync Tube, when are people going to get into trouble for streaming movies on sync tube which are not on TV yet but one person rents a DVD and shares it via stream with 1000 other people?
. What about banning All Camera's and searching everyone who enters a movie theater these days because you have what is known as a Cam-Rip basically a person who records a movie via a cellphone in the movies and uploads it to the internet usually low quality but still Copy Right issues.
I agree that piracy does hurt the developers, music artists, and many content owners, But I have to say I disagree with the Route YouTube and such are taking with this, because you might as well just Jail everyone who is in the listening area to a CD that they don't own the content themselves if you get what I am saying that loosing our freedoms just because of fair use act, or fair rights is a bit too much.
The reason they don't do such you know why?
Because doing such actions in the U.S would cause Anarchy Taking away the freedom, searching a persons home just because a kid downloaded a few songs illegally over the internet, and even trying to enforce no cell-phone policy in movie theaters does more harm than good think of it like this.
. We have seen what a group of Internet hacktivists will do to a big company who steps on peoples foots the wrong way, imagine for a moment what would happen if they tried to enforce such harsh laws more people would join in, and things could get very ugly.
. You want to know what I honestly Think?
. I am tired of Movie Services, Monthly Payments, I am Tired of Cable Television, I am also tired of Phone Services and their monthly payments, so what next.
Its the digital age, why not get rid of all these TV Broadcasting towers which are rumored to give people Cancer anyways, and fix it so that a person to watch TV can do it similar to Netflix just login to a website, click the movie or show they want to see and they watch it from there, in fact I can't talk other family members out of Cable TV for example, but we have Netflix and other ways to watch movies without paying the higher tier movie fees for HBO, Cinemax,Starz, and all these other movie services which require you to watch the movie when they broadcast their movie which I think is stupid these days as this is the digital age let me pause the movie and start it when I like. There would still be a monthly fee of course, but it would work like this, I really hate that I have to pay an additional $14-$15 a month just for AD free content too.
All these Copy-Right laws do nothing but hurt consumers, my point is theft hurts the developers of such, but it can't be enforced to the point where peoples Freedoms are lost because of it.
. The Problem with CopyRight, and Cable TV, It is all about Greed why do you think Starz as a company didn't stay partner left NetFlix because they were not making enough profit out of it.
For the most part, I think Copy Right laws need to be removed for the most part, except for things that directly hurt the creators, and developers of Movies, Games, Software, Music, such as allowing illegal downloading/uploading of such.
Not things like what YouTube/Google are doing because it hurts free speech, and censors the internet which is not good.
I don't think it should be automated if it's catching this many legit content uploaders in the crossfire, disabling their income for up to 3 months on a given upload. I think the burden should be on the content owners. It's way to easily abused as is. Flag system should work as "Hey these people might be using your copyright material illegally. Want to take action?" It doesn't do anything until take action is click. Consequences for abusing "Take Action" and obviously for the "uploader" if the claim is legit.
System's to easily abused currently and it seems to have been designed that way on purpose. Sucks what that movie reviewer said he has had to go through, apparently for sometime now. Not going to dive into if it's Google trying to min/max profits by automating as much as they can or groups like the MPAA/RIAA pushing for the system to be this way.
Will be interesting to see how it unfolds and what happens.
Not only that but the disputed video that may have contained 10 seconds of a song or video game clip but the video was 10 minutes long, all of the monetization goes to the claimer. As Angry Joe said, at the very least only a percentage of the portion containing the claimed content should be claimable.
It's easy to say "oh this happened to just a game reviewer", but just wait. This is only the beginning. Use of the automated system is a new way of censoring the internet. If you post something on youtube they are now able to flag it whether there is any merit to the flag or not and therefore censor the points of view on any topic that youtube does not agree with.
Angry joe needs to do this in a way that you tube will understans. He needs to sue you tube.
I think he has a lot of merit to his legal arguement. If there are any lawyers out there that could help him out probono it would be great.
Not only that, but we need to make clear that we will not spend money onthe game forums for companies who are flagging other peoples review videos and trying to obtain the revenue from them. If those companies did not flag those videos then they'd better figure out who did while using their company name and do it quickly.
I don't think it should be automated if it's catching this many legit content uploaders in the crossfire, disabling their income for up to 3 months on a given upload. I think the burden should be on the content owners. It's way to easily abused as is. Flag system should work as "Hey these people might be using your copyright material illegally. Want to take action?" It doesn't do anything until take action is click. Consequences for abusing "Take Action" and obviously for the "uploader" if the claim is legit.
System's to easily abused currently and it seems to have been designed that way on purpose. Sucks what that movie reviewer said he has had to go through, apparently for sometime now. Not going to dive into if it's Google trying to min/max profits by automating as much as they can or groups like the MPAA/RIAA pushing for the system to be this way.
Will be interesting to see how it unfolds and what happens.
Not only that but the disputed video that may have contained 10 seconds of a song or video game clip but the video was 10 minutes long, all of the monetization goes to the claimer. As Angry Joe said, at the very least only a percentage of the portion containing the claimed content should be claimable.
I just saw that. After writing that post. I saw you saying he made an update video. The Video Copiliot thing he talks about, Wow. Don't know what to say but the current system is definitely fubared it seems.
Edit: I don't know. I don't even think the percentage is good either. Will be easily abused. Everyone and their mother will start jumping out of the wood-work for every single video about random shit. From stuff in the background to whatever. Companies who abuse the system and false claims should definitely have stern penalties applied to them.
Originally posted by neurojame It's easy to say "oh this happened to just a game reviewer", but just wait. This is only the beginning. Use of the automated system is a new way of censoring the internet. If you post something on youtube they are now able to flag it whether there is any merit to the flag or not and therefore censor the points of view on any topic that youtube does not agree with.Angry joe needs to do this in a way that you tube will understans. He needs to sue you tube.I think he has a lot of merit to his legal arguement. If there are any lawyers out there that could help him out probono it would be great.Not only that, but we need to make clear that we will not spend money onthe game forums for companies who are flagging other peoples review videos and trying to obtain the revenue from them. If those companies did not flag those videos then they'd better figure out who did while using their company name and do it quickly.
All the reviewers could start doing "Stick Figure Reviews" where all of the animation is poorly drawn stick figures, and all the audio is just people making sounds in the background. Explain that the poorly drawn stick figures and sounds generated by people is because of Google's Content ID. Let people know to contact their favorite developers or publishers with concerns that what Google is doing is going to impact their spending habits. Developers will get involved if it looks like what Google is doing is going to make them look bad and impact the free publicity that their games were getting.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
At least Blizzard warned YT uploaders of WoW stuff to contest issues so that they can approve what they uploaded. Some developers may not be aware of this new change that everyone is railing about, if they are unaware then they must be pretty small.
I thought I read on Reddit or even on here, that a game company had their own uploads being flagged by someone else claiming it was theirs, when in fact it was the game companies uploaded stuff. I think that is what people are railing on about, that some random can claim it is their stuff when it's not and still get money for it.
Still, there hasn't ever been any kind of regulation on the internet, will probably never get it either, butt here needs to be something in place that protects the reviewers, and the game companies uploads. I don't think a reviewer for a game needs the permission of the game company to review their game, so why YT is doing this assinine procedure in the first place tells me they are caving in to something, and just not caring at all about the content creators.
All this is doing to YT is pushing the serious uploaders to go somewhere else to do what they do. I don't understand why or how people can make money off reviewing a game. I guess that is something I just don't understand.
All this is doing to YT is pushing the serious uploaders to go somewhere else to do what they do. I don't understand why or how people can make money off reviewing a game. I guess that is something I just don't understand.
I don't know if anyone fully understands googles ad revenue stream, but in 2013 google is set to make approx. 5 billion dollars from ad revenue.
5 Billion with a capital B.
Youtube content creators are able to monetize with their videos on this ad revenue stream.
Seriously though, to base your livelihood on this system makes sense, but since there isn't any sort of regulation or law in place to protect people like Angry Joe we get this sort of situation. I guess YT is making policy up out of their asses and hoping it gets picked up and put into law.
I'm now firmly planted in thinking that it's Google and YT trying to snake money from every single user that uploads relevant content to any form of media. Now, I understand that is targeting the idiots that are putting up full episodes of TV shows, full movies, full music albums. They didn't need to do a blanket thing like this in order to do it, however the cost of trying to maintain a staff, who's sole purpose would be to be on YT for an entire shift to sift through the trillions of uploads to find these types of uploads I just mentioned. That would cost them way more than they are making in ad revenue.
There doesn't seem to be any sort of clear answer, but I certainly do not agree with this blanket policy they are going with. All it does is punish everyone, with a small few that will get away with snaking the revenue from the honest people doing what they love to do.
EDIT: Lots of bad grammar and misspellings, very tired.
Stopped watching right after he started talking about the "assholes" upload movies, tv shows and music, but left out game footage. A trip to his channel and the first thing you see, under the recent uploads, is a whole series of 1+ hour long let's play videos. So, sorry Mr. Alpha and the thousands of others like you, but I could honestly care less that you guys are having difficulty making money by playing video games.
Doesn't look like a "whole" series of let's play video to me, mister "blowing things out of proportions" he's mostly doing critique and reviews with very little game footage most of the time, and very very few and sparse "let's play" when people asks him.
On hundreds of his videos he may have, like, what, less than 5 to 6% of "let's play".
Edit : well realisitcally it's more like 2 to 3% let's play, being very "large" even being very generous with that number when you start to scroll down on his videos.
Originally posted by neurojame It's easy to say "oh this happened to just a game reviewer", but just wait. This is only the beginning. Use of the automated system is a new way of censoring the internet. If you post something on youtube they are now able to flag it whether there is any merit to the flag or not and therefore censor the points of view on any topic that youtube does not agree with.
Angry joe needs to do this in a way that you tube will understans. He needs to sue you tube.
I think he has a lot of merit to his legal arguement. If there are any lawyers out there that could help him out probono it would be great.
Not only that, but we need to make clear that we will not spend money onthe game forums for companies who are flagging other peoples review videos and trying to obtain the revenue from them. If those companies did not flag those videos then they'd better figure out who did while using their company name and do it quickly.
All the reviewers could start doing "Stick Figure Reviews" where all of the animation is poorly drawn stick figures, and all the audio is just people making sounds in the background. Explain that the poorly drawn stick figures and sounds generated by people is because of Google's Content ID. Let people know to contact their favorite developers or publishers with concerns that what Google is doing is going to impact their spending habits. Developers will get involved if it looks like what Google is doing is going to make them look bad and impact the free publicity that their games were getting.
This is a great idea! I cannot tell you how many times I've decided to purchase media because of something I saw on a Youtube channel. Hell, Angry Joe is one of the few reviewers I feel I get a completely honest review from. Guys like AngryJoe, TotalBiscuit, VintageBeef, etc make the down times/break times at work bearable too.
The few people being paid via YouTube aren't making money because of any one game, it's because of effort they have placed into their channels. AJ is a reviewer (for the most part), so he reviews products. He isn't making money because of the product, but rather because of his review.
At some point, fair use needs to apply to these guys. If I ran a company and had YouTubers posting a ton of Let's Plays for my game and weren't offering illegal copies, I'd be happy as hell. Tons of free advertising.
Originally posted by Tygranir Originally posted by morbuskabisWhats funny is that google/you tube is protecting the copy right for big comp while they sell our personal data like candy....
It's even funnier that you are the one providing them with personal data and clicking I Agree on their terms of use....
Originally posted by Derros I dont know if its been posted, but according to an ars article, people who have the content owner's permission are being flagged by third parties, who dont even own the content. Example: someone who had Deepsilver's permission to post Metro last light videos was flagged by a third party "4GamerMovie" as having violated copyright, when they dont own any of it.
True. This is an important point I thought Total Biscuit missed the ball on and many others simply haven't picked up on yet. Like Joe for example being flagged by multiple companies hidden behind other companies for using music HE BOUGHT RIGHTS TO USE. They are all not on the same page. In many cases development studios have no idea that their publisher is making such claims on game play footage. Worse yet sometimes its a third party under the same corporate umbrella doing it on behalf of the bean counters without communicating with other branches of the business. Then you have individuals setting up money making schemes to flag or claim ownership of other parties work. It's a mess and reminds me of how companies in the past have tried to copyright common words or the production of standardized screws for your toilet seat or desk drawer. The money interests are going to win this and we are going to hurt for it as fair use laws mean nothing when the company you use to reach the people get bought off and join them.
Whats funny is that google/you tube is protecting the copy right for big comp while they sell our personal data like candy....
It's even funnier that you are the one providing them with personal data and clicking I Agree on their terms of use....
Kind of like the murderer who hangs out in the alleyway and the woman who decides to walk home in the alleyway and gets murdered. But it's her fault because she should have known not to walk down the alleyway at night right?
Whats funny is that google/you tube is protecting the copy right for big comp while they sell our personal data like candy....
It's even funnier that you are the one providing them with personal data and clicking I Agree on their terms of use....
Kind of like the murderer who hangs out in the alleyway and the woman who decides to walk home in the alleyway and gets murdered. But it's her fault because she should have known not to walk down the alleyway at night right?
IF by that you mean she signed an agreement to let the person murder her, yeah.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Is it messed up what happened to this guy? Yes it is, but life is not fair and now it is time to move on. I will explain why below! When you sign up as a content creator they always make you agree to their terms. it is their Terms, if you don't read it then you are out of luck sadly. is it fair that society works this way? No not fair at all, but small stipulations in contracts are put in anyways. Just to go into an example of another unfair thing that could happen read below.
Right now a lot of people blog on "blogger"! Let's say hypothetically Google decides to shut down blogger. Would it be fair? heck no, but you don't own any rights to your blog on "blogger". it is google's so if they shut it down you lose years worth of work down the drain for nothing. Same thing with this content creator guy, Google probably changed the terms of their website. They own it, and have full control to do whatever they like. Instead of that guy in the video arguing he should move on, and find other ways to make a living. At one point you will find cross blocks in life, but you have to find a way to get around them and move on. Creating a video like this, isn't going to do anything Google will not change its stance.
I would give you a guest pass to SWOTR, but then I wouldn't be able to find a way to live with myself afterwards....
The one and only Hearthstone video I have up did get stopped from monetization yesterday. Does not affect me the least since I am just uploading now and then and do not live off it. I think YouTube really need to fix this bothersome piece of crap they are into at the moment.
I really feel sorry for all pro game reviewers that been affected by this.
And you are so wrong on so many accounts in your post. First of YouTube have implemented some crazy bot flagging all content that have any game music, video, cutscenes and more that I have no clue about. And that is not mentioned in any agreement I have agreed with when I signed up for a YouTube account. By the way that was way back in 2006, sure there have been changes to the user agreement and so on over the years. But as far as I know there is not a single line that mention automated bots flagging your content for containing copyrighted material even though it is not containing ANY copyrighted material at all. All the videos I have on my YouTube is legal and goes under the fair use terms. So it is for the majority that have had several of the videos they have on there channels. And is in effect losing the money that they need to live.
Comments
Actually in the most recent video I just posted, Angry Joe goes into detail on why some of the videos were flagged. Also at around the 10:00 minute mark he provides a good counter argument to some of what has been said in this thread.
I don't think it should be automated if it's catching this many legit content uploaders in the crossfire, disabling their income for up to 3 months on a given upload. I think the burden should be on the content owners. It's way to easily abused as is. Flag system should work as "Hey these people might be using your copyright material illegally. Want to take action?" It doesn't do anything until take action is click. Consequences for abusing "Take Action" and obviously for the "uploader" if the claim is legit.
System's to easily abused currently and it seems to have been designed that way on purpose. Sucks what that movie reviewer said he has had to go through, apparently for sometime now. Not going to dive into if it's Google trying to min/max profits by automating as much as they can or groups like the MPAA/RIAA pushing for the system to be this way.
Will be interesting to see how it unfolds and what happens.
It really seems like what you are calling into question is what constitutes a game review. There is no set formula for what constitutes a 'real' game review. A review answers the question, "Is this thing good or not?" The question covers subjective territory so consisting of opinions doesn't disqualify a video from being a review. Pulling heavily from the reviewed material does not disqualify something from being a review either. A poorly constructed review is still a review.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with where people are going to do business. Basing your life and livelihood on the shifting sands of Youtube seems to be a questionable decision at best.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree I hate YouTube's DMCA Laws, I will never Agree with CopyRight Infringement such as those hard working developers in virtual worlds like Second Life that have had their items illegally Stolen with hacking clients and given away for FREE to every user in the game pretty much, a lot of people I know have quit the game because of this.
But in in reply to the YouTube thing, I have only had one False DMCA filed on me about a review of a product from the virtual world of Second Life the guy claimed I was stealing his copyright/code just because it displayed a image of the product in the video I counter DMCA it successfully.
Now this new automated system is complete Bull if you ask me Like really all this new system does is hurt new Uploaders of RPG games and things with any music playing from the game, or a person logging into World OF Warcraft for example to play the game do a review, what about the millions of guilsd out there who record raids and dungeons and their video gets flagged because of this.
If a person wanted to commit piracy, there are many ways to do piracy its called Torrents, proxies, vpn's, and VPS servers knowing how to properly use these helps evade things like Bans, anything highly illegal can still be tracked.
How about services like Sync Tube, when are people going to get into trouble for streaming movies on sync tube which are not on TV yet but one person rents a DVD and shares it via stream with 1000 other people?
. What about banning All Camera's and searching everyone who enters a movie theater these days because you have what is known as a Cam-Rip basically a person who records a movie via a cellphone in the movies and uploads it to the internet usually low quality but still Copy Right issues.
I agree that piracy does hurt the developers, music artists, and many content owners, But I have to say I disagree with the Route YouTube and such are taking with this, because you might as well just Jail everyone who is in the listening area to a CD that they don't own the content themselves if you get what I am saying that loosing our freedoms just because of fair use act, or fair rights is a bit too much.
The reason they don't do such you know why?
Because doing such actions in the U.S would cause Anarchy Taking away the freedom, searching a persons home just because a kid downloaded a few songs illegally over the internet, and even trying to enforce no cell-phone policy in movie theaters does more harm than good think of it like this.
. We have seen what a group of Internet hacktivists will do to a big company who steps on peoples foots the wrong way, imagine for a moment what would happen if they tried to enforce such harsh laws more people would join in, and things could get very ugly.
. You want to know what I honestly Think?
. I am tired of Movie Services, Monthly Payments, I am Tired of Cable Television, I am also tired of Phone Services and their monthly payments, so what next.
Its the digital age, why not get rid of all these TV Broadcasting towers which are rumored to give people Cancer anyways, and fix it so that a person to watch TV can do it similar to Netflix just login to a website, click the movie or show they want to see and they watch it from there, in fact I can't talk other family members out of Cable TV for example, but we have Netflix and other ways to watch movies without paying the higher tier movie fees for HBO, Cinemax,Starz, and all these other movie services which require you to watch the movie when they broadcast their movie which I think is stupid these days as this is the digital age let me pause the movie and start it when I like. There would still be a monthly fee of course, but it would work like this, I really hate that I have to pay an additional $14-$15 a month just for AD free content too.
All these Copy-Right laws do nothing but hurt consumers, my point is theft hurts the developers of such, but it can't be enforced to the point where peoples Freedoms are lost because of it.
. The Problem with CopyRight, and Cable TV, It is all about Greed why do you think Starz as a company didn't stay partner left NetFlix because they were not making enough profit out of it.
For the most part, I think Copy Right laws need to be removed for the most part, except for things that directly hurt the creators, and developers of Movies, Games, Software, Music, such as allowing illegal downloading/uploading of such.
Not things like what YouTube/Google are doing because it hurts free speech, and censors the internet which is not good.
You Sir, won the most sensible post of the day award.
/HatsOff
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
Not only that but the disputed video that may have contained 10 seconds of a song or video game clip but the video was 10 minutes long, all of the monetization goes to the claimer. As Angry Joe said, at the very least only a percentage of the portion containing the claimed content should be claimable.
It's easy to say "oh this happened to just a game reviewer", but just wait. This is only the beginning. Use of the automated system is a new way of censoring the internet. If you post something on youtube they are now able to flag it whether there is any merit to the flag or not and therefore censor the points of view on any topic that youtube does not agree with.
Angry joe needs to do this in a way that you tube will understans. He needs to sue you tube.
I think he has a lot of merit to his legal arguement. If there are any lawyers out there that could help him out probono it would be great.
Not only that, but we need to make clear that we will not spend money onthe game forums for companies who are flagging other peoples review videos and trying to obtain the revenue from them. If those companies did not flag those videos then they'd better figure out who did while using their company name and do it quickly.
I just saw that. After writing that post. I saw you saying he made an update video. The Video Copiliot thing he talks about, Wow. Don't know what to say but the current system is definitely fubared it seems.
Edit: I don't know. I don't even think the percentage is good either. Will be easily abused. Everyone and their mother will start jumping out of the wood-work for every single video about random shit. From stuff in the background to whatever. Companies who abuse the system and false claims should definitely have stern penalties applied to them.
All the reviewers could start doing "Stick Figure Reviews" where all of the animation is poorly drawn stick figures, and all the audio is just people making sounds in the background. Explain that the poorly drawn stick figures and sounds generated by people is because of Google's Content ID. Let people know to contact their favorite developers or publishers with concerns that what Google is doing is going to impact their spending habits. Developers will get involved if it looks like what Google is doing is going to make them look bad and impact the free publicity that their games were getting.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Blizzard had tweeted yesterday: "@WarcraftIf you're a YouTuber and are receiving content matches with the new changes, please be sure to contest them so we can quickly approve them."
At least Blizzard warned YT uploaders of WoW stuff to contest issues so that they can approve what they uploaded. Some developers may not be aware of this new change that everyone is railing about, if they are unaware then they must be pretty small.
I thought I read on Reddit or even on here, that a game company had their own uploads being flagged by someone else claiming it was theirs, when in fact it was the game companies uploaded stuff. I think that is what people are railing on about, that some random can claim it is their stuff when it's not and still get money for it.
Still, there hasn't ever been any kind of regulation on the internet, will probably never get it either, butt here needs to be something in place that protects the reviewers, and the game companies uploads. I don't think a reviewer for a game needs the permission of the game company to review their game, so why YT is doing this assinine procedure in the first place tells me they are caving in to something, and just not caring at all about the content creators.
All this is doing to YT is pushing the serious uploaders to go somewhere else to do what they do. I don't understand why or how people can make money off reviewing a game. I guess that is something I just don't understand.
I don't know if anyone fully understands googles ad revenue stream, but in 2013 google is set to make approx. 5 billion dollars from ad revenue.
5 Billion with a capital B.
Youtube content creators are able to monetize with their videos on this ad revenue stream.
I get it now.
Seriously though, to base your livelihood on this system makes sense, but since there isn't any sort of regulation or law in place to protect people like Angry Joe we get this sort of situation. I guess YT is making policy up out of their asses and hoping it gets picked up and put into law.
I'm now firmly planted in thinking that it's Google and YT trying to snake money from every single user that uploads relevant content to any form of media. Now, I understand that is targeting the idiots that are putting up full episodes of TV shows, full movies, full music albums. They didn't need to do a blanket thing like this in order to do it, however the cost of trying to maintain a staff, who's sole purpose would be to be on YT for an entire shift to sift through the trillions of uploads to find these types of uploads I just mentioned. That would cost them way more than they are making in ad revenue.
There doesn't seem to be any sort of clear answer, but I certainly do not agree with this blanket policy they are going with. All it does is punish everyone, with a small few that will get away with snaking the revenue from the honest people doing what they love to do.
EDIT: Lots of bad grammar and misspellings, very tired.
Like it or hate it.
This was a great interview on this topic with a bunch of Youtube Personalities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw
https://www.youtube.com/user/AlphaOmegaSin/videos
Doesn't look like a "whole" series of let's play video to me, mister "blowing things out of proportions" he's mostly doing critique and reviews with very little game footage most of the time, and very very few and sparse "let's play" when people asks him.
On hundreds of his videos he may have, like, what, less than 5 to 6% of "let's play".
Edit : well realisitcally it's more like 2 to 3% let's play, being very "large" even being very generous with that number when you start to scroll down on his videos.
This is a great idea! I cannot tell you how many times I've decided to purchase media because of something I saw on a Youtube channel. Hell, Angry Joe is one of the few reviewers I feel I get a completely honest review from. Guys like AngryJoe, TotalBiscuit, VintageBeef, etc make the down times/break times at work bearable too.
The few people being paid via YouTube aren't making money because of any one game, it's because of effort they have placed into their channels. AJ is a reviewer (for the most part), so he reviews products. He isn't making money because of the product, but rather because of his review.
At some point, fair use needs to apply to these guys. If I ran a company and had YouTubers posting a ton of Let's Plays for my game and weren't offering illegal copies, I'd be happy as hell. Tons of free advertising.
Whats funny is that google/you tube is protecting the copy right for big comp while they sell our personal data like candy....
It's even funnier that you are the one providing them with personal data and clicking I Agree on their terms of use....
SWTOR Referral Bonus!
Referral link
7 day subscriber level access
Returning players get 1 free server transfer
Leveling assistance items given to new player!
See all perks Here
Then you must know more about me then I do.
True. This is an important point I thought Total Biscuit missed the ball on and many others simply haven't picked up on yet. Like Joe for example being flagged by multiple companies hidden behind other companies for using music HE BOUGHT RIGHTS TO USE. They are all not on the same page. In many cases development studios have no idea that their publisher is making such claims on game play footage. Worse yet sometimes its a third party under the same corporate umbrella doing it on behalf of the bean counters without communicating with other branches of the business. Then you have individuals setting up money making schemes to flag or claim ownership of other parties work. It's a mess and reminds me of how companies in the past have tried to copyright common words or the production of standardized screws for your toilet seat or desk drawer. The money interests are going to win this and we are going to hurt for it as fair use laws mean nothing when the company you use to reach the people get bought off and join them.
Kind of like the murderer who hangs out in the alleyway and the woman who decides to walk home in the alleyway and gets murdered. But it's her fault because she should have known not to walk down the alleyway at night right?
IF by that you mean she signed an agreement to let the person murder her, yeah.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Is it messed up what happened to this guy? Yes it is, but life is not fair and now it is time to move on. I will explain why below! When you sign up as a content creator they always make you agree to their terms. it is their Terms, if you don't read it then you are out of luck sadly. is it fair that society works this way? No not fair at all, but small stipulations in contracts are put in anyways. Just to go into an example of another unfair thing that could happen read below.
Right now a lot of people blog on "blogger"! Let's say hypothetically Google decides to shut down blogger. Would it be fair? heck no, but you don't own any rights to your blog on "blogger". it is google's so if they shut it down you lose years worth of work down the drain for nothing. Same thing with this content creator guy, Google probably changed the terms of their website. They own it, and have full control to do whatever they like. Instead of that guy in the video arguing he should move on, and find other ways to make a living. At one point you will find cross blocks in life, but you have to find a way to get around them and move on. Creating a video like this, isn't going to do anything Google will not change its stance.
I would give you a guest pass to SWOTR, but then I wouldn't be able to find a way to live with myself afterwards....
The one and only Hearthstone video I have up did get stopped from monetization yesterday. Does not affect me the least since I am just uploading now and then and do not live off it. I think YouTube really need to fix this bothersome piece of crap they are into at the moment.
I really feel sorry for all pro game reviewers that been affected by this.