Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#21

Post by ergothus » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

mrunkel wrote: post #14

dtech wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Youtube allows his videos to be on the platform without ads, which he does. The problem is other parties claiming copyright on his videos, placing ads, and getting the payment from those ads.

Read the post you are replying to again, you're not disagreeing with each other.

And yet the original post in this subthread says simple "YouTube makes money from ads" and says that Stirling "disagrees" with Youtube's monetization, which is inaccurate. YouTube has a flawed system for allowing third parties to claim infringement, and Stirling is trying to work around the consequences of that system. The original post is misleading, and the post you are replying to points that out.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#22

Post by cableshaft » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

iamaelephant wrote: post #13

I can't get past this guy's Nazi aesthetic. I know gamers love Nazis but damn at least be subtle about it.

It's played up in jest. He's acting like he's some great authority that everyone worships but in reality he isn't (and he knows it, that's the joke). Jim Sterling is big on showmanship, so much so that he eventually got into being a wrestler on the side despite having terrible back problems.

It's like Jack Black's band Tenacious D claiming to be the greatest band that ever lived, knowing full well that they aren't, but pretending they are is part of their shtick.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#23

Post by tomashubelbauer » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well. In the end stuff like this goes to show that Youtube's systems are a complete and utter joke, but since Youtube has zero competition, it won't change.

1: The creator used CD Baby, if you're going to do this, I recommend DistroKid, it is about a zillion times better than CD Baby. Even the CD Baby creator endorses DistroKid.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#24

Post by throwawayffffas » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #16

pjc50 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This falls apart as soon as it encounters the Terms of Service. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms > the Content you submit must not include third-party intellectual property (such as copyrighted material) unless you have permission from that party or are otherwise legally entitled to do so. You are legally responsible for the Content you submit to the Service > By providing Content to the Service, y…

A company claiming copyright over fair use would be a violation of the derivatives legal rights and could easily be a lawsuit, YouTube would not be a party to it and it requires the content owner to have the money for a multi-year court case.

Given the terms pcj50 quotes, I wouldn't think you have any grounds to sue anyone. To me it reads you give them a license to do whatever they please with the uploaded content, that would include monetizing the content and giving the proceeds to someone else.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#25

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#26

Post by honkycat » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

iamaelephant wrote: post #13

I can't get past this guy's Nazi aesthetic. I know gamers love Nazis but damn at least be subtle about it.

Naw, Jim is a good guy. Uses inclusive language, I've never heard him say anything racist.

The circles he runs in are all EXTREMELY progressive.

In fact he actively advocates for gay and trans rights.

Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

#27

Post by ikeboy » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed.

Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is extremely unlikely to happen for frivolous cases. Any article that claims that this can't be easily disputed, or that the burden of proof is on the YouTuber who uploaded the video (outside of the exception discussed below) is wrong, full stop.

[0] there is an exception for a small number of content owners. See https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-cont.... As far as I can tell, the only company known to be part of this is UMG.

#28

Post by greatscott404 » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

I'd like to hear if anyone has a better solution than ContentID considering the scale, laws, and stakeholders involved.

Everybody likes shitting on it but it's the best solution to the problem.

#29

Post by zamalek » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

throwawayffffas wrote: post #24

delfinom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company claiming copyright over fair use would be a violation of the derivatives legal rights and could easily be a lawsuit, YouTube would not be a party to it and it requires the content owner to have the money for a multi-year court case.

Given the terms pcj50 quotes, I wouldn't think you have any grounds to sue anyone. To me it reads you give them a license to do whatever they please with the uploaded content, that would include monetizing the content and giving the proceeds to someone else.

You wouldn't be able to sue YouTube (but you can sue abusers). Abusing DMCA takedowns allows for civil liability (Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated). The problem is that nobody has bothered suing YouTube DMCA plunderers, because it could get expensive. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a class, so it's surprising that it hasn't happened yet.

#30

Post by jldugger » Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #15

jldugger wrote: post #10

So if I understand correctly: 1. Youtube makes money from ads. 2. Jimquisition is funded from Patreon, and despises ads on his content. 3. To resolve this paradox, Jim has found a way to (allegedly) infringe on multiple parties' copyright 4. Youtube's technology doesn't allow multiple monetizers, and therefore in this situation allows none. If Jim disagrees with the funding stategy of YouTube, why bother with YouTube…

His use of others copyrighted content falls under fair use since he's doing reviews. It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. Fair use does not mandate the original copyright owner be paid in anyway.

> It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws.

But it's precisely because YouTube is a megacorp attached to another megacorp that Jim can even upload videos without paying for distribution.