Do yourself a favor, actually watch the video before you decide to talk about something you have no idea about. It's embarassing for yourself. And if you don't want to watch the video, what are you doing in this thread to begin with?
I watched some of the video but frankly I can't watch the whole thing or take him seriously because all he does is cuss the whole time like a child. This is not the way to gain support for your cause.
Also, I still haven't seen figures backing up what you claim are facts. How much has he made Google and how much has he potentially cost them? Why would Google be doing this if they weren't dealing with legal issues because of it? Why are there legal issues if he is truly helping developers make so much money?
There is always a cause that leads to an effect like this. Have you tried contacting Google to ask them about their new policy? What prompted it and how can "we" as providers of a value-service help them better avoid whatever it is that is forcing this policy?
I agree with you that his own IP should not be blocked, but I imagine that problem will be sorted out sooner than later. No sense getting totally bent out of shape about something that just started. Everything can change, right?
Agreed, the cursing is a bit excessive, but I cut the guy some slack because this is something that has been building up for 6 months, then out of left field his ability to earn an income has been cut by more than 75%. And it's just not him, but many others.
How much has he made Google and how much has he potentially cost them?
Exact figures on how much he has made Youtube is unknown to us, but between him and the countless of others It is safe to assume (since Youtube takes WAY more than half of the revenue from the advertisement) it is a substantial amount.
Why would Google be doing this if they weren't dealing with legal issues because of it?
The whole point of their affiliate system in place is so that the parent network would bare the burden of legality. Google is free at this point and has been since the system came into play. They take their large cut from ads and look the other way. The network that parents all the affiliates registered to it handle the IP issues.
Why are there legal issues if he is truly helping developers make so much money?
It started because some YouTube users upload WHOLE soundtracks, TV episodes and movies. Now these "pirates" are NOT affiliated with any parent network, therefore are unregulated and must be caught by the YouTube basic content matching system. Since there are so many of them now, it has become painstakingly difficult for Youtube. As a biproduct of this new system, legitimate content creators, such as Angry Joe, are the ones hurt the most. These same pirates will continue to make fake YouTube accounts and continue to upload pirated content.
Yes, it is truly helping devs. Watch the video I posted on this thread from the Adam Sessler Google hangout chat where the publisher and PR person from games like Hotline Miami wholeheartedly agree that if it wasn't for people like Total Biscuit and Angry Joe, their small indie games would've never reached the spotlight that they have. They admit it has been profitable for them and an important source of marketing, and they aren't the only ones to admit this. They even go as far as to say they have HELPED these guys over the years build up their network of industry contacts in order to continue doing what they do because it is SO helpful to the indie community.
Have you tried contacting Google to ask them about their new policy? What prompted it and how can "we" as providers of a value-service help them better avoid whatever it is that is forcing this policy?
They have been trying to contact YouTube, no one answers. There is no one to talk to, they are avoiding ALL contact regarding the issue. The latest public statement by Youtube was simply this:
“We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs. This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid.”
Now here is where it gets very sketchy and why so many people are angry. In an attempt to attack pirating on YouTube, legitimate content creators got hurt. When companies such as Nintendo figured out they can game the system to continuously hurt these video game reviewers, they jumped on the opportunity. When blanket claims were sent out by the automated system, Nintendo did nothing to aid the reviewers or critics that at some point they felt were harmful to Nintendo because of their honest game reviews.
Other companies helped, such as Ubisoft, who made it public that they in NO WAY SENT OUT CLAIMS eventhough MANY YouTube users had claims from Ubisoft in their homepage on YouTube. You are basically guilty until proven innocent by this new system. And your accuser is a program, it's not even the ACTUAL IP company or a person. In an age where an IP can be passed down and held by numerous parent companies this can get real messy real fast. THQ is an example of this. For some reason THQ has an onslaught of claims out on YouTube users this week, yet that company NO LONGER EXISTS. Here is where it even gets worse, while you wait to dispute the claim, the company who put the claim now gets YOUR revenue from that video until you prove fair use. You see why so many companies are trying to get their hand in the money pocket now?
No sense getting totally bent out of shape about something that just started. Everything can change, right?
Well when you mess with someone's work that they have put their blood, sweat, and tears into for over 4 years AND their money, I can see why they would get bent out of shape. I've met Angry Joe, he is a REAL cool guy. He is FAR from rich. Yes, he makes a living doing what he loves, but he also works 80+ hours a week, and gets paid VERY little in the end. In the beginning he sacrificed a lot to get his channel up & running, and he spent a substantial amount of his own money.
Will the problem be sorted out later? Who knows, that's the problem. As of right now, the legitimate content creators under the affiliate programs have just had their revenue stream cut and these companies with their false claims get the revenue from these videos.
It's a final stab at the small indie scene, honest video game reviewers, and the foundation that was suppose to help save the video game industry from the 30 million dollar budget games that suck. I implore you to go watch videos from Adam Sessler, Total Biscuit, or any other person in the industry for a more concise picture of what's going on.
Your also missing filmakers who are attempting to get into the buisness via youtube. Given how things currently are Indie films make little over the amount it costs to make the bloody movie, and hollywood doesnt take you seriously until you do several profitable films. Now if you cant make a profitable film in the indie section (baring extreme examples) how do you move up in the filmaking industry. Youtube, Vimeo, etc.
Youtube is great for getting noticed, while making a return on your video. Without it in the modern day market we would lose our film industry over afew generations. With it we can garentee that new blood enters the industry.
Your not breaching copyright so that sounds fine.. just remember that google doesn't care about your venture and does't have to because you sole purpose is to generate traffic for adds.
Also just so you know, your Definition of a real job is laughable. I work in film making and we work 3 to 4 times as hard as any of your people with "Real Jobs"
I'm not explicitly saying he needs a real job,(although i think hes running a big risk under his current job) i'm just defining. At your job, do you have contracts in place that define whats expected of you, what your entitled to, and what happens in-case of your termination? youtube fails on on those fronts.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Originally posted by C1d0s How is it any different than the news anchors, who're literally shills that read off a pre-written prompter about topics which they've no actual involvement? The majority of the entertainment industry is people talking about / reviewing crap. This is no different, aside from the fact it's primarily internet-based.
They have legal teams and contracts that are in place to fight who ever disagrees with what they are doing.
Youtubers are employees of google. if they went out on their own and established legal teams, marketing teams and contracts, they too could do what ever the fuck they wanted within the bounds of the law.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Thought id come back and share a post of someone woes and worries!
Happy Holidays...do watch the rev3games video! www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw it's very enlightening on the situation if you're just coming into the thread.
Your also missing filmakers who are attempting to get into the buisness via youtube. Given how things currently are Indie films make little over the amount it costs to make the bloody movie, and hollywood doesnt take you seriously until you do several profitable films. Now if you cant make a profitable film in the indie section (baring extreme examples) how do you move up in the filmaking industry. Youtube, Vimeo, etc.
Youtube is great for getting noticed, while making a return on your video. Without it in the modern day market we would lose our film industry over afew generations. With it we can garentee that new blood enters the industry.
Your not breaching copyright so that sounds fine.. just remember that google doesn't care about your venture and does't have to because you sole purpose is to generate traffic for adds.
Also just so you know, your Definition of a real job is laughable. I work in film making and we work 3 to 4 times as hard as any of your people with "Real Jobs"
I'm not explicitly saying he needs a real job,(although i think hes running a big risk under his current job) i'm just defining. At your job, do you have contracts in place that define whats expected of you, what your entitled to, and what happens in-case of your termination? youtube fails on on those fronts.
Depends on your postion. if you fuck up on a set you get terminated, most Laws require X amount of days before termination. Most films land within those days for actually shooting. Thus you end up SOL.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
I'm not sure on why some people just don't get it? Maybe they are jealous that someone can be earning a living doing something that they love?
Whats important though is if the content providers cannot provide the content, then it will be the viewers who suffer because their will be fewer things to see.
It's probably more likely just people who understand the risky nature of using such means to support your lively hood. It was a risk, and he admits to as much in the first video posted, he took a huge risk with this venture. It paid off for him for a while "obviously" considering the money he was putting into equipment.
The problem with taking such a risk, and becoming comfortable in your environment as he obviously did, is that the plug can be pulled at any time, as the saying goes all good things must come to an end. Once millions of dollars are on the table from someones pockets, the likely hood of something going wrong for the little guy escalates 10 fold.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I sincerely appreciate your response as you actually brought some valid points and relevant examples to back up what you say. I want to be clear I am certainly not on Google's side with regards to this issue. It'd be more accurate to say that I am on the side of legality.
Fairness is an entirely separate issue here and I certainly do not believe what is happening is very fair. Joe might be a great guy and I'm sure he has worked very hard to build his following and thus his business, but he built his house on an unstable foundation. I certainly don't want to see the guy become homeless/jobless and I think it's extremely elitist for people to tell him to go "get a real job". The problem thus is that even if he is right and it's not fair what is happening and he isn't doing anything illegal, Google still has no actual contractual obligation to allow his content to exist on their site.
He comes off sounding like a little bitch who's angry about having to get a real job again. Yes, I think the underlying content flagging system is a little messed up, but he's basically been able to make a living doing nothing but playing games talking about them. If he wants to keep doing that, then he should build a website and host it all himself.
Ranting about it like a spoiled child for all the world to see isn't really a great move.
Do nothing but play games talking about them? Are you fucking serious? Do you really not understand how much work is put into the videos he uploads? It's not as simple as fucking talking in front of a camera and playing a video game. He has to put more hours in a week into making his videos than he would if he just had a regular 9-5 job. It requires MORE WORK for him to do these videos than if he were to get "a real job".
Why does he do this? Because its what he wants to do with his life. To have a job that you hate doing just cause you think its a "real job" is whats stupid. Why do something if you hate doing it?
Defining: "Get a real job" - a job which has job security, worker rights and employers accountable by law.
You do realize that by your definition people who works for most major corporations in this current day and age barely have "real jobs" to say nothing of anyone who is self-employed?
Real job - Something (hopefully legal) that you do and get money for. End.
Totalbiscuit's video about this issue is very good. He really presents both sides well and there are two sides.
Originally posted by Kratier it is ILLEGAL to make money off copyrighted material you do not own
what don't you people understand?
Well... You see...
We don't quite understand how to forget and ignore fair use laws...
You know... those laws that make it legal for for example reviewers to use all the copyrighted material they want as long as it's relevant to review purposes?
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Originally posted by Kratier it is ILLEGAL to make money off copyrighted material you do not own
what don't you people understand?
Well... You see...
We don't quite understand how to forget and ignore fair use laws...
You know... those laws that make it legal for for example reviewers to use all the copyrighted material they want as long as it's relevant to review purposes?
Fair Use is pretty much thrown out the window when money is being made.
Originally posted by Kratier it is ILLEGAL to make money off copyrighted material you do not own
what don't you people understand?
Well... You see...
We don't quite understand how to forget and ignore fair use laws...
You know... those laws that make it legal for for example reviewers to use all the copyrighted material they want as long as it's relevant to review purposes?
Fair Use is pretty much thrown out the window when money is being made.
That's not how it works.
It's perfectly fine to make a profit from purposes covered under fair use.
You don't honestly believe that all those parody films and series, even including the likes of South Park, are all non-profit do you? That, just like reviewing, is fair use too.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Originally posted by Kratier it is ILLEGAL to make money off copyrighted material you do not own
That's not how it works.
It's perfectly fine to make a profit from purposes covered under fair use.
You don't honestly believe that all those parody films and series, even including the likes of South Park, are all non-profit do you? That, just like reviewing, is fair use too.
It's tough to say that all those let's plays and half baked "reviews" on Youtube really meet the standard of the fair use doctrine. Some people are definitely just exploiting the system to make money off other peoples' IP without providing much in the way of transformative work (technical term for what is required by fair use). Some of it is fair use but not most of it I don't think.
The other issue though is that the game companies are getting free marketing for their games. I always will look at a let's play or review of a game before deciding if it is worth buying. Without that I'd probably pass on a lot of the games I've bought. So the companies would be shooting themselves in the foot to go after these people even though they might have the legal right to do so. (We won't know for sure until a better precedent case happens). But it's probably in the best interests of everyone not to get it all embroiled in the courts especially with US copyright law so murky and generally F'ed up
The danger here is "fair use" of material. It used to be that a reviewer could use snippets from a copyrighted work in order to show the people they are reviewing for what they are talking about. This move by Google is very dangerous and another blow to our freedom here in the United States. I will be moving away from all Google products in the future. I don't trust them anymore.
Originally posted by Kratier it is ILLEGAL to make money off copyrighted material you do not own what don't you people understand?
Well... You see...We don't quite understand how to forget and ignore fair use laws...You know... those laws that make it legal for for example reviewers to use all the copyrighted material they want as long as it's relevant to review purposes?
Fair Use is pretty much thrown out the window when money is being made.
That's not how it works.It's perfectly fine to make a profit from purposes covered under fair use.You don't honestly believe that all those parody films and series, even including the likes of South Park, are all non-profit do you? That, just like reviewing, is fair use too.
I seriously doubt that posting gameplay videos with some commentary (or none at all) and expecting to get paid for it is covered by fair use. That's exactly what many of these youtubers do. When 90% of the content in your video was not created by you, then you have absolutely no right to make money off of it. Instead of raging or freaking out, these people should be happy they were allowed to do it for as long as they were.
I love being able to go check out videos of a game and make an informed decision before I buy it. But, they shouldn't be trying to monetize their uploads. I don't care how you look at it they are trying to make money off of other people's work.
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.
**
The "Let's Play" videos are definitely a grey area though. It's something that would have to go to court. However, given that publishers rarely if ever serve take down notices for "Let's Play" videos, they would probably be considered fair use now since content owners have given implicit permission. After the Content ID debacle, assuming the people making the videos go through the system and challenge the take downs, they will have given permission in writing.
**
Just in case anyone wants to come back with a, "Nuh uh!" on making money off of "Fair Use" material, here's a report on the economic impact of industries taking advantage of Fair Use materials.
What I've been saying for the past few years - youtube's days are numbered, some new player is going to take over and primarily because of 'tubes horrible attitude towards its content producers.
The days of "gosh golly i can upload something for the world to see!" are long gone - nowadays the producers consider video streaming services as serious business and youtube is simply not cutting it - from arcane, opaque and frankly, exploitative monetization schemes to insane copyright claim policies - not to mention the utter and total disrespect they exhibit to their prime product, video itself which is dreadfully processed without giving any options at all to the uploaders) They've been demonstrating again and again that their thinking hasn't moved from the "good old days" where it was enough to show a grainy clip of a cat and everyone would fall on their ass, awed at the new technological marvel.
This might be the event to start finally pushing it over the cliff, just like what happened to Paypal in India when they arbitrarily suspended payments for the whole country, just like that. Just imagine how many peoples' and families' livelihoods in India depend on internet economy... I've also grown fed up with PPs dinosaur-like practices and switched to an alternative online payment solution, one that is clear, fair and built for the actual users rather than a dinosaur like creation trailing concepts and technologies from 19th century (yes, paypal uses "wire" transfers - yes "wire" - just like her Majesty's government "wired" money over to South Africa to pay for the Boer War... though to be fair, i heard they've recently begun experiments with this new "wireless" thing everyone is talking about)
Youtube was stopping the 4hrs live stream on Star Citizen anniversary Party, because working colleague where singing happy birthday to a co-worker. This happend just after Youtube was promoted to be a official partner to CIG.
This is the biggest bitch slap I've ever seen. Since then all live streams and vids are on twitch.tv
It's plainly obvious to me that YT simply doesn't care about anyone, regular people or even companies that upload their game trailers. They simply do not care what-so-ever.
I see everyone that uploads going to Twitch.Tv, and I wouldn't put it past Twitch to open up a new avenue for other video uploading to the site to take advantage of all the people jumping ship from YT. Twitch has always been about games and game videos; live streaming. I could see Twitch expanding, but not sure if they would expand to include other types of video other than gaming. From my understanding, Twitch is a gaming site, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of this. At least Angry Joe and others have Twitch to go to, they can do live stream shows and post their videos. All it's going to do is give Twitch an even bigger following than it already has.
Twitch's system, from what I've heard, isn't the greatest in the world, but it's far better than what YT has, and now with this debacle of a decision they've made, I can see many people jumping to Twitch; at least the gaming people.
Its funny to see the jealous and hate off of some of you guys. Yeah Joe made some money on Youtube while you didn't. Yeah Joe gets to have fun playing and talking about video games while you get to drudge off to your day job.
Fact is, he is not breaking any laws. You are allowed to use video/music as a part of the review. A company is not entitled to money made off of a review by somebody else. I am pretty sure Game Informer magazine does not have to pay EA is order to do a review of Dragon Age 2. In fact I think its likely EA who has to pay them in order to get the right kind of review. Now, that is a joke, but if game companies own rights to reviews then there can be absolutely zero fair reviews.
In a world of ourscourcing and big business screwing over the little guy we here in the U.S. have an old saying that seems to apply in this little situation.
"Don't quit your day job."
Most youtubers haven't quit their day jobs,most DO NOT make enough money from youtube or Twitch to support themselves by that income source alone.Only a very few have gotten big enough to do so.It's another misconception that most of these youtubers are rolling in cash.
The problem is using youtube to make money, it's not exactly stable. Nor is there any real power in the hands of those using it for income, quitting your day job to rely solely on this as your "lively hood" isn't exactly a smart move, as this cluster#### is showing. I'm not sure why some of these guys don't just get together and form their own site. At least that way they're not under google's or Youtube's control.
The reason they don't is because they don't have the money or clout to deal with the lawsuits. They are taking advantage of other people's intellectual property in order to make money. If they want to continue using IP that isn't theirs, they should probably follow the law and pay the creator for the rights.
Just another example of people thinking they are entitled to something that they aren't.
If this is the case then every gaming site in existence should be sued out of existence. Of course there are fair use laws for reviews and the like, which is what this has historically fallen under. I'm just not sure what has changed.
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.
Some people seem to be confused about this discussions main talking points. Let me summarize:
1) People who created the content by interviewing developers are having their videos disputed by an automated content id system. This stops the monetization of the video. In some extreme cases this can take three months to sort out. This is not a discussion about people making a living making videos. Save that discussion for your own thread.
2) Other cases in which a game creators/developers release a trailer of their own game are having their work automatically taken down.
3) The onus of proof lies with the content creator who made the video, not the individual or company submitted the infringed copyright claim.
Some people seem to be confused about this discussions main talking points. Let me summarize:
1) People who created the content by interviewing developers are having their videos disputed by an automated content id system. This stops the monetization of the video. In some extreme cases this can take three months to sort out. This is not a discussion about people making a living making videos. Save that discussion for your own thread.
2) Other cases in which a game creators/developers release a trailer of their own game are having their work automatically taken down.
3) The onus of proof lies with the content creator who made the video, not the individual or company submitted the infringed copyright claim.
Sounds like a perfect thriving ground for trolls and malicious competition.. Which is basically what the opponents of all the so-called copyfright laws have been saying all along. Don't like what the competition's doing? Easy, just flag all their videos and the ones they appear in for infringement.
You don't like that one guy in his bedroom has 20x more views than your games magazine behemoth who invested hundreds of k to switch into video reviews? Easy, flag him. You don't like that Joe's pizzeria next door has youtube promo videos? Easy, flag them. You don't like someone's moustache? Easy, flag him....
What youtube and media industry morons behind them are doing is trying to dismantle hundreds of years of legal practices and principles. It's just plain ridiculous what they're trying to achieve without any thought for long-term consequences. If I put something on youtube which someone thinks damaging or a case of theft, then it's a matter for the courts and the police - between me and the offended party, and NOT something a private company providing a very basic service should police or be responsible for. I think this is pretty much self evident. You can't hold a telephone company responsible for a drug deal that was made over their lines... I mean you could, but this would have such far-reaching consequences for the society as a whole that it would stop being able to function... unless it became some kind of total surveillance dystopian nightmare. Oh wait...
Comments
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
Agreed, the cursing is a bit excessive, but I cut the guy some slack because this is something that has been building up for 6 months, then out of left field his ability to earn an income has been cut by more than 75%. And it's just not him, but many others.
How much has he made Google and how much has he potentially cost them?
Exact figures on how much he has made Youtube is unknown to us, but between him and the countless of others It is safe to assume (since Youtube takes WAY more than half of the revenue from the advertisement) it is a substantial amount.
Why would Google be doing this if they weren't dealing with legal issues because of it?
The whole point of their affiliate system in place is so that the parent network would bare the burden of legality. Google is free at this point and has been since the system came into play. They take their large cut from ads and look the other way. The network that parents all the affiliates registered to it handle the IP issues.
Why are there legal issues if he is truly helping developers make so much money?
It started because some YouTube users upload WHOLE soundtracks, TV episodes and movies. Now these "pirates" are NOT affiliated with any parent network, therefore are unregulated and must be caught by the YouTube basic content matching system. Since there are so many of them now, it has become painstakingly difficult for Youtube. As a biproduct of this new system, legitimate content creators, such as Angry Joe, are the ones hurt the most. These same pirates will continue to make fake YouTube accounts and continue to upload pirated content.
Yes, it is truly helping devs. Watch the video I posted on this thread from the Adam Sessler Google hangout chat where the publisher and PR person from games like Hotline Miami wholeheartedly agree that if it wasn't for people like Total Biscuit and Angry Joe, their small indie games would've never reached the spotlight that they have. They admit it has been profitable for them and an important source of marketing, and they aren't the only ones to admit this. They even go as far as to say they have HELPED these guys over the years build up their network of industry contacts in order to continue doing what they do because it is SO helpful to the indie community.
Have you tried contacting Google to ask them about their new policy? What prompted it and how can "we" as providers of a value-service help them better avoid whatever it is that is forcing this policy?
They have been trying to contact YouTube, no one answers. There is no one to talk to, they are avoiding ALL contact regarding the issue. The latest public statement by Youtube was simply this:
“We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs. This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid.”
Now here is where it gets very sketchy and why so many people are angry. In an attempt to attack pirating on YouTube, legitimate content creators got hurt. When companies such as Nintendo figured out they can game the system to continuously hurt these video game reviewers, they jumped on the opportunity. When blanket claims were sent out by the automated system, Nintendo did nothing to aid the reviewers or critics that at some point they felt were harmful to Nintendo because of their honest game reviews.
Other companies helped, such as Ubisoft, who made it public that they in NO WAY SENT OUT CLAIMS eventhough MANY YouTube users had claims from Ubisoft in their homepage on YouTube. You are basically guilty until proven innocent by this new system. And your accuser is a program, it's not even the ACTUAL IP company or a person. In an age where an IP can be passed down and held by numerous parent companies this can get real messy real fast. THQ is an example of this. For some reason THQ has an onslaught of claims out on YouTube users this week, yet that company NO LONGER EXISTS. Here is where it even gets worse, while you wait to dispute the claim, the company who put the claim now gets YOUR revenue from that video until you prove fair use. You see why so many companies are trying to get their hand in the money pocket now?
No sense getting totally bent out of shape about something that just started. Everything can change, right?
Well when you mess with someone's work that they have put their blood, sweat, and tears into for over 4 years AND their money, I can see why they would get bent out of shape. I've met Angry Joe, he is a REAL cool guy. He is FAR from rich. Yes, he makes a living doing what he loves, but he also works 80+ hours a week, and gets paid VERY little in the end. In the beginning he sacrificed a lot to get his channel up & running, and he spent a substantial amount of his own money.
Will the problem be sorted out later? Who knows, that's the problem. As of right now, the legitimate content creators under the affiliate programs have just had their revenue stream cut and these companies with their false claims get the revenue from these videos.
It's a final stab at the small indie scene, honest video game reviewers, and the foundation that was suppose to help save the video game industry from the 30 million dollar budget games that suck. I implore you to go watch videos from Adam Sessler, Total Biscuit, or any other person in the industry for a more concise picture of what's going on.
TLDR: Pirates > Ninjas, and i love pie.
Your not breaching copyright so that sounds fine.. just remember that google doesn't care about your venture and does't have to because you sole purpose is to generate traffic for adds.
I'm not explicitly saying he needs a real job,(although i think hes running a big risk under his current job) i'm just defining. At your job, do you have contracts in place that define whats expected of you, what your entitled to, and what happens in-case of your termination? youtube fails on on those fronts.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
They have legal teams and contracts that are in place to fight who ever disagrees with what they are doing.
Youtubers are employees of google. if they went out on their own and established legal teams, marketing teams and contracts, they too could do what ever the fuck they wanted within the bounds of the law.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Thought id come back and share a post of someone woes and worries!
Happy Holidays...do watch the rev3games video! www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw it's very enlightening on the situation if you're just coming into the thread.
Depends on your postion. if you fuck up on a set you get terminated, most Laws require X amount of days before termination. Most films land within those days for actually shooting. Thus you end up SOL.
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
It's probably more likely just people who understand the risky nature of using such means to support your lively hood. It was a risk, and he admits to as much in the first video posted, he took a huge risk with this venture. It paid off for him for a while "obviously" considering the money he was putting into equipment.
The problem with taking such a risk, and becoming comfortable in your environment as he obviously did, is that the plug can be pulled at any time, as the saying goes all good things must come to an end. Once millions of dollars are on the table from someones pockets, the likely hood of something going wrong for the little guy escalates 10 fold.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I sincerely appreciate your response as you actually brought some valid points and relevant examples to back up what you say. I want to be clear I am certainly not on Google's side with regards to this issue. It'd be more accurate to say that I am on the side of legality.
Fairness is an entirely separate issue here and I certainly do not believe what is happening is very fair. Joe might be a great guy and I'm sure he has worked very hard to build his following and thus his business, but he built his house on an unstable foundation. I certainly don't want to see the guy become homeless/jobless and I think it's extremely elitist for people to tell him to go "get a real job". The problem thus is that even if he is right and it's not fair what is happening and he isn't doing anything illegal, Google still has no actual contractual obligation to allow his content to exist on their site.
Also.. I too love pie.
Do nothing but play games talking about them? Are you fucking serious? Do you really not understand how much work is put into the videos he uploads? It's not as simple as fucking talking in front of a camera and playing a video game. He has to put more hours in a week into making his videos than he would if he just had a regular 9-5 job. It requires MORE WORK for him to do these videos than if he were to get "a real job".
Why does he do this? Because its what he wants to do with his life. To have a job that you hate doing just cause you think its a "real job" is whats stupid. Why do something if you hate doing it?
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
You do realize that by your definition people who works for most major corporations in this current day and age barely have "real jobs" to say nothing of anyone who is self-employed?
Real job - Something (hopefully legal) that you do and get money for. End.
Totalbiscuit's video about this issue is very good. He really presents both sides well and there are two sides.
what don't you people understand?
Well... You see...
We don't quite understand how to forget and ignore fair use laws...
You know... those laws that make it legal for for example reviewers to use all the copyrighted material they want as long as it's relevant to review purposes?
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Fair Use is pretty much thrown out the window when money is being made.
You make me like charity
That's not how it works.
It's perfectly fine to make a profit from purposes covered under fair use.
You don't honestly believe that all those parody films and series, even including the likes of South Park, are all non-profit do you? That, just like reviewing, is fair use too.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
It's tough to say that all those let's plays and half baked "reviews" on Youtube really meet the standard of the fair use doctrine. Some people are definitely just exploiting the system to make money off other peoples' IP without providing much in the way of transformative work (technical term for what is required by fair use). Some of it is fair use but not most of it I don't think.
The other issue though is that the game companies are getting free marketing for their games. I always will look at a let's play or review of a game before deciding if it is worth buying. Without that I'd probably pass on a lot of the games I've bought. So the companies would be shooting themselves in the foot to go after these people even though they might have the legal right to do so. (We won't know for sure until a better precedent case happens). But it's probably in the best interests of everyone not to get it all embroiled in the courts especially with US copyright law so murky and generally F'ed up
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.
**
The "Let's Play" videos are definitely a grey area though. It's something that would have to go to court. However, given that publishers rarely if ever serve take down notices for "Let's Play" videos, they would probably be considered fair use now since content owners have given implicit permission. After the Content ID debacle, assuming the people making the videos go through the system and challenge the take downs, they will have given permission in writing.
**
Just in case anyone wants to come back with a, "Nuh uh!" on making money off of "Fair Use" material, here's a report on the economic impact of industries taking advantage of Fair Use materials.
Fair Use In The US Economy
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What I've been saying for the past few years - youtube's days are numbered, some new player is going to take over and primarily because of 'tubes horrible attitude towards its content producers.
The days of "gosh golly i can upload something for the world to see!" are long gone - nowadays the producers consider video streaming services as serious business and youtube is simply not cutting it - from arcane, opaque and frankly, exploitative monetization schemes to insane copyright claim policies - not to mention the utter and total disrespect they exhibit to their prime product, video itself which is dreadfully processed without giving any options at all to the uploaders) They've been demonstrating again and again that their thinking hasn't moved from the "good old days" where it was enough to show a grainy clip of a cat and everyone would fall on their ass, awed at the new technological marvel.
This might be the event to start finally pushing it over the cliff, just like what happened to Paypal in India when they arbitrarily suspended payments for the whole country, just like that. Just imagine how many peoples' and families' livelihoods in India depend on internet economy... I've also grown fed up with PPs dinosaur-like practices and switched to an alternative online payment solution, one that is clear, fair and built for the actual users rather than a dinosaur like creation trailing concepts and technologies from 19th century (yes, paypal uses "wire" transfers - yes "wire" - just like her Majesty's government "wired" money over to South Africa to pay for the Boer War... though to be fair, i heard they've recently begun experiments with this new "wireless" thing everyone is talking about)
Youtube was stopping the 4hrs live stream on Star Citizen anniversary Party, because working colleague where singing happy birthday to a co-worker. This happend just after Youtube was promoted to be a official partner to CIG.
This is the biggest bitch slap I've ever seen. Since then all live streams and vids are on twitch.tv
You Tube will be gone pretty soon...
It's plainly obvious to me that YT simply doesn't care about anyone, regular people or even companies that upload their game trailers. They simply do not care what-so-ever.
I see everyone that uploads going to Twitch.Tv, and I wouldn't put it past Twitch to open up a new avenue for other video uploading to the site to take advantage of all the people jumping ship from YT. Twitch has always been about games and game videos; live streaming. I could see Twitch expanding, but not sure if they would expand to include other types of video other than gaming. From my understanding, Twitch is a gaming site, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of this. At least Angry Joe and others have Twitch to go to, they can do live stream shows and post their videos. All it's going to do is give Twitch an even bigger following than it already has.
Twitch's system, from what I've heard, isn't the greatest in the world, but it's far better than what YT has, and now with this debacle of a decision they've made, I can see many people jumping to Twitch; at least the gaming people.
Its funny to see the jealous and hate off of some of you guys. Yeah Joe made some money on Youtube while you didn't. Yeah Joe gets to have fun playing and talking about video games while you get to drudge off to your day job.
Fact is, he is not breaking any laws. You are allowed to use video/music as a part of the review. A company is not entitled to money made off of a review by somebody else. I am pretty sure Game Informer magazine does not have to pay EA is order to do a review of Dragon Age 2. In fact I think its likely EA who has to pay them in order to get the right kind of review. Now, that is a joke, but if game companies own rights to reviews then there can be absolutely zero fair reviews.
If this is the case then every gaming site in existence should be sued out of existence. Of course there are fair use laws for reviews and the like, which is what this has historically fallen under. I'm just not sure what has changed.
Some people seem to be confused about this discussions main talking points. Let me summarize:
1) People who created the content by interviewing developers are having their videos disputed by an automated content id system. This stops the monetization of the video. In some extreme cases this can take three months to sort out. This is not a discussion about people making a living making videos. Save that discussion for your own thread.
2) Other cases in which a game creators/developers release a trailer of their own game are having their work automatically taken down.
3) The onus of proof lies with the content creator who made the video, not the individual or company submitted the infringed copyright claim.
Sounds like a perfect thriving ground for trolls and malicious competition.. Which is basically what the opponents of all the so-called copyfright laws have been saying all along. Don't like what the competition's doing? Easy, just flag all their videos and the ones they appear in for infringement.
You don't like that one guy in his bedroom has 20x more views than your games magazine behemoth who invested hundreds of k to switch into video reviews? Easy, flag him. You don't like that Joe's pizzeria next door has youtube promo videos? Easy, flag them. You don't like someone's moustache? Easy, flag him....
What youtube and media industry morons behind them are doing is trying to dismantle hundreds of years of legal practices and principles. It's just plain ridiculous what they're trying to achieve without any thought for long-term consequences. If I put something on youtube which someone thinks damaging or a case of theft, then it's a matter for the courts and the police - between me and the offended party, and NOT something a private company providing a very basic service should police or be responsible for. I think this is pretty much self evident. You can't hold a telephone company responsible for a drug deal that was made over their lines... I mean you could, but this would have such far-reaching consequences for the society as a whole that it would stop being able to function... unless it became some kind of total surveillance dystopian nightmare. Oh wait...