Originally posted by Badaboom 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.
This is essentially what the movie and music industries asked for. Then they got it setup and enforced all legal like.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
Don't take things at face value! - it's likely that corporations are using the law for ulterior motives.
I work in PR and my guess is that corporations want to control information.
No employer = no financial security. Kudos for doing what you love, but if you do not have direct sponsors, you are trusting your monetary stability to total strangers who care nothing about you. I have no sympathy.
SWTOR Referral Bonus! Referral link 7 day subscriber level access Returning players get 1 free server transfer
Originally posted by Tygranir No employer = no financial security. Kudos for doing what you love, but if you do not have direct sponsors, you are trusting your monetary stability to total strangers who care nothing about you. I have no sympathy.
Another person who has not read my most recent post. This is not what we are discussing. Please read up and join in on the topic of the conversation.
Originally posted by Tygranir No employer = no financial security. Kudos for doing what you love, but if you do not have direct sponsors, you are trusting your monetary stability to total strangers who care nothing about you. I have no sympathy.
From personal experience, having an employer doesnt mean financial security either. My last company fired people on a whim. Couldnt come in every weekend to do unpaid overtime, fired, couldnt complete work when on the CEO's schedual, even if it was completely impractical, fired. be unhappy about where you worked, fired. 68% turnover rate, and these were Scientist/engineer level positions too, not just labor.
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.
You are forgetting the fact that Google/YouTube is under no obligation to let his content exist on their site ever, for any reason. If you or others do not agree with YouTube's policies, then move your operation elsewhere.
Also, if this isn't a conversation about money, then what difference does it make where he hosts his content? It's not like YouTube is the only game in town though it is probably the most lucrative.
Fact of the matter is Google is a big fish and has made a lot of enemies. Other companies (like Apple) are suing them for millions and billions of dollars for *gasp* copyright infringement. Even if Joe and others are doing nothing ILLEGAL, the simple reality is that even one major copyright infringement lawsuit can bring down the entire house of cards.
Originally posted by Tygranir No employer = no financial security. Kudos for doing what you love, but if you do not have direct sponsors, you are trusting your monetary stability to total strangers who care nothing about you. I have no sympathy.
From personal experience, having an employer doesnt mean financial security either. My last company fired people on a whim. Couldnt come in every weekend to do unpaid overtime, fired, couldnt complete work when on the CEO's schedual, even if it was completely impractical, fired. be unhappy about where you worked, fired. 68% turnover rate, and these were Scientist/engineer level positions too, not just labor.
I was able to get out before they got me =D
This is why we have contracts and labor laws. Not to mention employers have to pay unemployment wages upon firing employees (Situation depending). All this would be covered in the job offer that you accept. You current situation is always a culmination of the choices you have made.
SWTOR Referral Bonus! Referral link 7 day subscriber level access Returning players get 1 free server transfer
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.
You are forgetting the fact that Google/YouTube is under no obligation to let his content exist on their site ever, for any reason. If you or others do not agree with YouTube's policies, then move your operation elsewhere.
Also, if this isn't a conversation about money, then what difference does it make where he hosts his content? It's not like YouTube is the only game in town though it is probably the most lucrative.
Fact of the matter is Google is a big fish and has made a lot of enemies. Other companies (like Apple) are suing them for millions and billions of dollars for *gasp* copyright infringement. Even if Joe and others are doing nothing ILLEGAL, the simple reality is that even one major copyright infringement lawsuit can bring down the entire house of cards.
Well the thing is youtube was nothing before all the content creators. Youtube provided the platform, but it was the content creators who brought in the viewers that made youtube what it is today. Then once this behemoth juggernaut is built up, google essentially turns their back on the guys whose shoulders youtube stood on.
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.
You are forgetting the fact that Google/YouTube is under no obligation to let his content exist on their site ever, for any reason. If you or others do not agree with YouTube's policies, then move your operation elsewhere.
Also, if this isn't a conversation about money, then what difference does it make where he hosts his content? It's not like YouTube is the only game in town though it is probably the most lucrative.
Fact of the matter is Google is a big fish and has made a lot of enemies. Other companies (like Apple) are suing them for millions and billions of dollars for *gasp* copyright infringement. Even if Joe and others are doing nothing ILLEGAL, the simple reality is that even one major copyright infringement lawsuit can bring down the entire house of cards.
Well the thing is youtube was nothing before all the content creators. Youtube provided the platform, but it was the content creators who brought in the viewers that made youtube what it is today. Then once this behemoth juggernaut is built up, google essentially turns their back on the guys whose shoulders youtube stood on.
Welcome to business. If you are not generating a profit, you are sucking up valuable space.
SWTOR Referral Bonus! Referral link 7 day subscriber level access Returning players get 1 free server transfer
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
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.
You are forgetting the fact that Google/YouTube is under no obligation to let his content exist on their site ever, for any reason. If you or others do not agree with YouTube's policies, then move your operation elsewhere.
Also, if this isn't a conversation about money, then what difference does it make where he hosts his content? It's not like YouTube is the only game in town though it is probably the most lucrative.
Fact of the matter is Google is a big fish and has made a lot of enemies. Other companies (like Apple) are suing them for millions and billions of dollars for *gasp* copyright infringement. Even if Joe and others are doing nothing ILLEGAL, the simple reality is that even one major copyright infringement lawsuit can bring down the entire house of cards.
Well the thing is youtube was nothing before all the content creators. Youtube provided the platform, but it was the content creators who brought in the viewers that made youtube what it is today. Then once this behemoth juggernaut is built up, google essentially turns their back on the guys whose shoulders youtube stood on.
Welcome to business. If you are not generating a profit, you are sucking up valuable space.
Yes, but again we are getting off topic. People owning the content are getting their videos removed because of an automated content id system. A system that puts the onus on the creator, not the entity submitting the claim. This potentially could ruin youtube as people start to flock to other platforms.
Yes, but again we are getting off topic. People owning the content are getting their videos removed because of an automated content id system. A system that puts the onus on the creator, not the entity submitting the claim. This potentially could ruin youtube as people start to flock to other platforms.
Yes, but again we are getting off topic. People owning the content are getting their videos removed because of an automated content id system. A system that puts the onus on the creator, not the entity submitting the claim. This potentially could ruin youtube as people start to flock to other platforms.
They cover fair use, copyright infringement, and even have policies in place to protect users from false claims.
Thanks. I read it and matches up pretty well with my understanding. Really it is the automated content id system stopping the video the content creators monetization for potentially up to 90 days that is the big problem.
This isn't a Youtube issue, its a GOOGLE issue. They own Youtube and they have betrayed EVERYONE all while pretending they are for net-neutrality and anti-copyright control. They did this all while creating a system to try to force everyone to reveal their true identity and make it so companies can fully track people online while removing any chance for people to share anything that may seem like it has a copyright. This is the reason why people are leaving sites like Facebook and anything Google+ related. They lost their way and forgot WHY they became so popular. I have already abandoned my Gmail account for a new one and moved from Facebook and Youtube to Snapchat and Tumblr.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Originally posted by avalon1000 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.
Like others have mentioned, showing "snippets" and doing the "let's play" stuff where you basically upload a playthrough of the entire (or large parts) of the game are very different things.
Originally posted by TsaboHavoc he wasnt making money from the games but from his opinions and productions. this makes me wish go cyperpunk and screw all these stupid companies.
Yeah!! What he said!
SWTOR Referral Bonus! Referral link 7 day subscriber level access Returning players get 1 free server transfer
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.
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 think YouTube care about people, just not nearly as much as they care about shielding those people from lawsuits by not complying with take down notices. Host the videos on your own site, and hire lawyers to deal with the take down notices you get. Come back and tell me how willing you'd be to do that for thousands of other people.
Probably the only thing to do is to move away from using youtube, after watching AngryJoe, and then afterwards, Total Biscuit, i came to the conclusion that this is just the beginning of a very slippery slope for Google, starting with Youtube, which is why, i am closing/deleting my gmail accounts. Something else will come around to replace them, where there is a demand, something will always fill the gap.
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.
A game review is covered under fair use. The document is a listing and description of industries in the U.S. that depend on and generate income from fair use. Generating income from a game review does not disqualify it under fair use. If reviews were not allowed under fair use and generating income from fair use activities were not allowed, there would be no book, television or game reviews at all. Many product reviews would be impossible as well. What you are bringing into question is what constitutes a "game review".
"Let's Play" videos are not explicitly covered under fair use. Developers and publishers do not seem all that keen on stopping "Let's Play" videos though, since they generate interest for their products with no cost to the developer.
Fair use isn't even the problem. Even assuming Angry Joe has a legal right to post game reviews to any site that will let him post them, content owners, and apparently third parties, have a legal right to challenge individual videos as being copyright violations resulting in those videos being taken down. Content ID attempts to automate this process, catching content violations before the content owners have a chance to see them.
In theory this is a good idea, since reducing legal costs and showing an ability to protect copyrighted content means more content can be posted. In reality it seems to catch a lot of people in the crossfire, including the content owners themselves because the automated system isn't as intelligent as it needs to be. Maybe the content owners themselves are responsible by blindly flagging as much of their own content as possible for the Content ID system, so it catches more stuff than it should.
**
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.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
Comments
This is essentially what the movie and music industries asked for. Then they got it setup and enforced all legal like.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I haven't seen Angry Joe's video, but I can imagine the content.
Reminds me of the old saying: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
YouTube needs far more competition - we need to start using alternatives as well.
Don't take things at face value! - it's likely that corporations are using the law for ulterior motives.
I work in PR and my guess is that corporations want to control information.
Information is money and power.
People like Angry Joe affect the market.
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
Another person who has not read my most recent post. This is not what we are discussing. Please read up and join in on the topic of the conversation.
From personal experience, having an employer doesnt mean financial security either. My last company fired people on a whim. Couldnt come in every weekend to do unpaid overtime, fired, couldnt complete work when on the CEO's schedual, even if it was completely impractical, fired. be unhappy about where you worked, fired. 68% turnover rate, and these were Scientist/engineer level positions too, not just labor.
I was able to get out before they got me =D
You are forgetting the fact that Google/YouTube is under no obligation to let his content exist on their site ever, for any reason. If you or others do not agree with YouTube's policies, then move your operation elsewhere.
Also, if this isn't a conversation about money, then what difference does it make where he hosts his content? It's not like YouTube is the only game in town though it is probably the most lucrative.
Fact of the matter is Google is a big fish and has made a lot of enemies. Other companies (like Apple) are suing them for millions and billions of dollars for *gasp* copyright infringement. Even if Joe and others are doing nothing ILLEGAL, the simple reality is that even one major copyright infringement lawsuit can bring down the entire house of cards.
This is why we have contracts and labor laws. Not to mention employers have to pay unemployment wages upon firing employees (Situation depending). All this would be covered in the job offer that you accept. You current situation is always a culmination of the choices you have made.
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
Well the thing is youtube was nothing before all the content creators. Youtube provided the platform, but it was the content creators who brought in the viewers that made youtube what it is today. Then once this behemoth juggernaut is built up, google essentially turns their back on the guys whose shoulders youtube stood on.
Welcome to business. If you are not generating a profit, you are sucking up valuable space.
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
Deleted. Question asked and answered
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Yes, but again we are getting off topic. People owning the content are getting their videos removed because of an automated content id system. A system that puts the onus on the creator, not the entity submitting the claim. This potentially could ruin youtube as people start to flock to other platforms.
I suggest taking the time to actually read through the material found here: https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/what-is-copyright.html
They cover fair use, copyright infringement, and even have policies in place to protect users from false claims.
Thanks. I read it and matches up pretty well with my understanding. Really it is the automated content id system stopping the video the content creators monetization for potentially up to 90 days that is the big problem.
I am disappointed in Joe...
This isn't a Youtube issue, its a GOOGLE issue. They own Youtube and they have betrayed EVERYONE all while pretending they are for net-neutrality and anti-copyright control. They did this all while creating a system to try to force everyone to reveal their true identity and make it so companies can fully track people online while removing any chance for people to share anything that may seem like it has a copyright. This is the reason why people are leaving sites like Facebook and anything Google+ related. They lost their way and forgot WHY they became so popular. I have already abandoned my Gmail account for a new one and moved from Facebook and Youtube to Snapchat and Tumblr.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Like others have mentioned, showing "snippets" and doing the "let's play" stuff where you basically upload a playthrough of the entire (or large parts) of the game are very different things.
You make me like charity
Yeah!! What he said!
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
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.
You make me like charity
I think YouTube care about people, just not nearly as much as they care about shielding those people from lawsuits by not complying with take down notices. Host the videos on your own site, and hire lawyers to deal with the take down notices you get. Come back and tell me how willing you'd be to do that for thousands of other people.
You make me like charity
A game review is covered under fair use. The document is a listing and description of industries in the U.S. that depend on and generate income from fair use. Generating income from a game review does not disqualify it under fair use. If reviews were not allowed under fair use and generating income from fair use activities were not allowed, there would be no book, television or game reviews at all. Many product reviews would be impossible as well. What you are bringing into question is what constitutes a "game review".
"Let's Play" videos are not explicitly covered under fair use. Developers and publishers do not seem all that keen on stopping "Let's Play" videos though, since they generate interest for their products with no cost to the developer.
Fair use isn't even the problem. Even assuming Angry Joe has a legal right to post game reviews to any site that will let him post them, content owners, and apparently third parties, have a legal right to challenge individual videos as being copyright violations resulting in those videos being taken down. Content ID attempts to automate this process, catching content violations before the content owners have a chance to see them.
In theory this is a good idea, since reducing legal costs and showing an ability to protect copyrighted content means more content can be posted. In reality it seems to catch a lot of people in the crossfire, including the content owners themselves because the automated system isn't as intelligent as it needs to be. Maybe the content owners themselves are responsible by blindly flagging as much of their own content as possible for the Content ID system, so it catches more stuff than it should.
**
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.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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.
You make me like charity
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