This kind of "gaming" (ha!) the system has been around for a while now - another channel (Internet Comment Ettiquette) had a video called the "Copyright Claim Olympics" which featured a whole bunch of different types of content from many different copyright holders (olympic footage, movie footage, music videos, distorted audio/video, etc. etc. even mixed and dubbed over each other in order to make it even more diffic…
Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
61–70 of 84 posts
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
YouTube and these other companies should follow the law.
And I support strategies, such as this one, that forces these companies to follow the law.
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#63This 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…
I’m planning on launching next month and I’m just trying to gauge the market
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#64Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#65Note: story is from 2016. It's been three years, so it's unclear how relevant this story is to the current status of ContentID, copyright identification, and monetization on YouTube.
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that copyright holders aren't typically filing DMCA complaints against YouTube. They're using YouTube's internal resolution mechanisms which lack the DMCA's disincentives for abuse.
This is correct. Additionally (possibly off-topic) people often misunderstand what sort of abuse the DMCA penalizes. The DMCA prohibits claiming you own the copyright on some work that you don't. It does NOT prohibit claiming that anything infringes that copyright. For example, pretend I'm Nintendo. I own the copyright on Mario. Someone posts a video of Mario. I claim that they infringe my copyright on Mario. Valid c…
It is prohibited in some parts of Continental Europe, but not in USA.
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 unopposed strikes and you're shutdown. >Also, the strikes remain until the disputes are resolved entirely, so even if you dispute everything, you can still be taken offline. Note that per https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en >If your channel is in the YouTube Partner Program, you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy period after 3 copyright strikes before your channel is disabled. During this period…
Once again, I would point out that most of these creator friendly policies and programs are quite new. Angry Joe has a video that covers when they were put in place, and most of those occurred in the last year, after a decade of creator-hostile policies. > you are eligible for a 7 day courtesy Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disa…
Anyway, if people are linking articles from 2016 I'm going to point out the current state of the policies.
>Seven whole days until your channel is closed forever. How generous. See: Vacation, holidays, natural disasters (or PG&E disasters)
It's not forever, you can always file a counternotice after it's been taken down. But yes, you should be prepared to defend your business. You want passive income, you can be prepared to check your email at least once a week.
> >Also, why doesn't the copyright claimants also only have a maximum of 7 days to respond? We're talking about Content ID claims here, as a reminder, not DMCA.
That's a fair criticism. Presumably Youtube feels that they need a longer time to satisfy claimants and avoid DMCA filings. Remember, content ID claims do not harm the channel at all, so there's no real rush to get them removed except for getting the ad revenue out of escrow.
>So, your channel is in hiatus for more 30 days.
On my reading you can keep uploading while the counternotice process continues.
>Which was not the case in either of the situations I posted. The actions only involved YouTube.
Looks like Alex Mauer was involved in legal action https://leonardjfrench.com/2017/06/30/imagos-softworks-v-ale.... Not familiar with the other case but looks like it's not obviously fair use to share leaked content, could be wrong.
>Jim Sterling from the article has many a horror story of spending between 6 months and 2 years fighting copyright claims and associated from corporations and CEO's. So does sidalpha and Angry Joe. Can we really claim in good faith that they're lying by pointing at Google FAQs?
What are they claiming? Have they claimed to have submitted a counternotice that was rejected? Can you link me to someone going through a timeline, with dates on what was disputed when, showing that Google FAQs are wrong? Because I've not seen that. I have seen someone posting about getting a counternotice rejected mistakenly and getting it overturned by tweeting at Youtube. And then there's the UMG exception as my first comment noted.
But most horror stories I've seen are people who get a bunch of claims and don't even seem to consider filing a counterclaim, or think it's too risky based in bad info. Or, very very rarely, people who actually get sued.
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#68This 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…
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#69This 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…
Could you make 99 original songs, and make 99 Content ID claims, and share 99/1 with the abuser?
Re: Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)
#70This 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…
I’m currently working on a new platform in the long form video space, it offers a new take on video other than just what YouTube and Vimeo do. My question is, how willing are people to try something new in this space? Are you? I’m planning on launching next month and I’m just trying to gauge the market