Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

kotaku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

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

#11

Post by dtech »

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…

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.

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

#12

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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…

> Is free riding on youtube video distribution that valuable?

I'd think so. The only reason I ran into him at all was due to YouTube, and I can't help but think that's for the majority of people (minus those who came to him via The Escapist). I don't know how else I would have discovered him, unless we want to rely on convoluted word of mouth.

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

#14

Post by mrunkel »

dtech wrote: post #11
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…

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.

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

#15

Post by delfinom »

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.

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

#16

Post by delfinom »

pjc50 wrote: post #9
throwawayffffas wrote: post #7

IANAL, But doesn't monetizing the video and giving the proceeds to the claimant of the original copyright (nintendo) consitute infringement against the derivatives work author(Jim), assuming that the derivative work falls under fair use? Shouldn't Jim be able to sue both nintendo and youtube?

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.

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

#19

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#20

Post by blackearl »

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…

Why should a company doing copyright trolling on youtube get money from a fair use video? Who's really free riding here?
Post reply on HN