101–110 of 320 posts
It would seem if you make money on YouTube you should also be formally copyrighting your work, so you can easily go after people who perform these monetization attacks and maximize compensation.
How is this not a form of pirating? Pirating is the reason we have the stupid DMCA to begin with and now we have this happening!
Rather than continue to feed this completely one-sided relationship, these creators could shift to a competitor that will provide an equitable relationship between platform, creator, and consumer. A company that will treat both creators and users as important customers. This could be a gateway to a producing other kinds of content, like professionally produced movies and series for first-time filmmakers. Sort of like Netflix, but for lower-budget content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?
How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization. Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference. Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to fin…
The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The burn led to hospitalization. 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body with lesser burns over 16% of her body. (Her labia were fused together.) And required extensive skin grafts to treat. While in the hospital she lost 20% of her body weight and was left partially disabled for 2 years following the incident and retain not-insignificant scarring. >They had the coffee machine set higher than standard McDonald's temper…
What happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, but it was no one's fault more than her own. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. As of 2019, the NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a p…
Depends on the tea. Most of the recommendations I see are below boiling:
> white and green teas are best at 70°c. For black and oolong teas use water around 85°c. For herbal infusions use 100°c water, and 90°c for Chamomile.
https://www.rareteacompany.com/perfect-cup/how-to-make-the-p...
> Once your kettle is boiled with fresh water you need to leave it for a few minutes to cool down.
https://www.twinings.co.uk/about-twinings/latest-news-and-ar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, the author of the tweet, Mumbo Jumbo is a high-profile Minecraft videos content creator on YouTube (3M subscribers) and he's doing this as his full-time job. By your description, I would say he's in the top personalities group. What's happening here is basically Warner Chappell is claiming a revenue sharing of his video with no recourse. Edit: he posted a new video elaborating more about this issue.[1] [1]: htt…
MatPat of Game Theory & Film Theory says that his YouTube rep explained the company has a categorization internally for video game accounts, which means they can never be part of the VIP category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization. Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference. Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to fin…
That doesn't make sense for the unambiguous cases of copyright violation. The copyright holder never agreed for the content to be monetized by Google and under their terms. Google can't just make up some revenue sharing policy and act like that's the law. The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you’re looking for is called punitive damages, and already exists in the legal system (this is why McDonalds paid millions of dollars for a hot coffee). The goal is to actually open lawsuits including punitive damages for fraudulent or negligent DMCA requests.
Millions of dollars for giving someone third degree burns. Hot coffee is not a crime.
Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?
17 USC 102(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
This post itself is copyrighted under the terms of US law, as well as similar language under common international 'Berne Convention" laws. As is yours. At the moment of creation, with no further action or registration required. For a duration of 95 years, as an anonymous work (17 USC 32(c)) -- or to 70 years after my death, if not anonymous.
A fact which I personally find to be grotesque and insane, but which is indisputably law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the alternative? YouTube footing the bill for copyright lawsuits?
How about this: your copyright claim accuracy becomes a multiplier for monetization payouts. E.g. if 100% of claims are correct, you keep all monetization. If 10% of claims are correct, you only get 10% of monetization. Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference. Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to fin…