New Youtube policy forces A LOT of game play related videos to go away

VinLieger · 12-12-2013 03:48PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who pays for the servers that host the videos? Who pays for the building that those servers are stored in? Who pays for the massive bandwidth costs when people upload and watch those videos? Who pays for the power to run those servers? Who pays for the Staff to maintain those servers? Who Pays for the staff to administer those adverts?

I could go on and on but surely you get the picture, he gets all of that for free.

Should he get paid for his work? Absolutely. I have zero problem with him making money from his hard work and he is free to do so.

Should he abide by the rules set by Youtube when he is using their resources? Absolutely. Why do you think he shouldn't?

fF he doesn't agree with the rules they set then he is free to go and host his own videos, source his own advertising stream and keep 100% of the revenue. But he won't do that because of all the stuff listed above and much more he gets for free, plus he gets access to the traffic that he could not generate on his own.

I use You Tube, I use it within their rules and have never had 1 single video taken down. How have I done that? I went to the copyright holders and got permission to use the content. For anything not YouTube friendly I spent a shed load of money on building a platform to host and publish my own content.

Every major publisher has granted permission. The only one I have problems with are THQ because well there is no one to ask.

This is an option open to anyone, so I don't think he is right at all.

Who attracts the ad revenue that gives youtube the money to pay for all that? Content creators, so no he doesnt get that for free he is bringing in ad revenue that gives him a salary but also that gives youtube the money to pay for all the overheads required to run the site

Myrddin · 12-12-2013 03:49PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who pays for the servers that host the videos? Who pays for the building that those servers are stored in? Who pays for the massive bandwidth costs when people upload and watch those videos? Who pays for the power to run those servers? Who pays for the Staff to maintain those servers? Who Pays for the staff to administer those adverts?

I could go on and on but surely you get the picture, he gets all of that for free.

Em, where do you think the money comes from to pay for it all?

ShadowHearth · 12-12-2013 03:52PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who pays for the servers that host the videos? Who pays for the building that those servers are stored in? Who pays for the massive bandwidth costs when people upload and watch those videos? Who pays for the power to run those servers? Who pays for the Staff to maintain those servers? Who Pays for the staff to administer those adverts?

I could go on and on but surely you get the picture, he gets all of that for free.

Should he get paid for his work? Absolutely. I have zero problem with him making money from his hard work and he is free to do so.

Should he abide by the rules set by Youtube when he is using their resources? Absolutely. Why do you think he shouldn't?

fF he doesn't agree with the rules they set then he is free to go and host his own videos, source his own advertising stream and keep 100% of the revenue. But he won't do that because of all the stuff listed above and much more he gets for free, plus he gets access to the traffic that he could not generate on his own.

I use You Tube, I use it within their rules and have never had 1 single video taken down. How have I done that? I went to the copyright holders and got permission to use the content. For anything not YouTube friendly I spent a shed load of money on building a platform to host and publish my own content.

Every major publisher has granted permission. The only one I have problems with are THQ because well there is no one to ask.

This is an option open to anyone, so I don't think he is right at all.

A bit of bull**** argument, because Joe ( or any youtuber ) can say: who pays for camera, who pays for mic, who pays for editing, who pays for trips to events, who pays for time spent working on content, who pays for effects used, who pays for actual game that they review or play?

Youtube is wrong here as it does not protect their content providers and just go hands up and say " its not our fault, dont drag us in, its between you on IP owner", but at the same time makes an automated system, which does not use common sense and use an blind AXE technique. Only one big publisher who is for the new system - Nintendo. They still think youtube content is bad. All other Publishers helping youtubers already! Youtube loves Money content providers make, but they dont protect their people, who make money. On top of that they decided to do **** on owners of actual IP.
Now all this is even outside of bull**** accusations and take down of videos by companies, who have no connection to content. Damn Joe got an interview taken down, which had no content on it, how fecking mad it is?!

Cuddlesworth · 12-12-2013 03:56PM

Spear wrote: »

Any of the big few CDNs, Akamai, Level3, Limelight, can easily do that, and do do so on a daily business. It's why Netflix and Twitch use them.

At serious cost though. Netflix's carrier have huge problems, their bandwidth usage is horrifying. Its hard to justify a simple connection agreement when the bit rate is 99% from you. Youtube is a close second in that race. Because youtube=google they have some power there which other people would not have. Netflix has pretty good revenue but does everything it can to alleviate bandwidth(we considered dropping caching servers into the network). That's the reason why DNS geo forwarders work well on their current system.

Even at that, the investment needed to match youtubes performance in retrieving millions of videos is mind boggling.

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 03:56PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't particularly like Joe but I can't disagree with a word he said in that video.

I'm amazed at some of the posts here judging who clearly don't know how much work goes into producing quality work. It's not like Joe is some random lets player who just shows raw footage and screams over it. It's clear he puts time, love and effort into it and yes, both youtube and the game makers profit from the exposure they get from him (some videos in the millions).

You can say he is an artist or a workhorse but the fact of the matter is the world will be poorer for people like him not being able to receive some financial reward for their work. That's the upshot of this. Who will we trust when there's no independent voices left? Because no one is going to do this stuff for free. Unless you're rich, no one can.

Yes as well, youtube was built on the backs of people like this.

This is not about the amount of work that he puts in, whether he puts in 5 mins or 5 days working on a video is irrelevant if that video breaks the rules that private company set in place then that's it.

All that needs to happen is that he gets the permission to use the content from the holders and it not hard, you just send a few lines in an email.

You will find that most publishers allow their content on youtube and the ones that don't everyone should simply not use. This will hit them where it hurts.

There was a very big FPS that was very famous with streamers a few years back. They got it into their heads that this was lost revenue and demanded a cut. The streamers just stopped playing that game and moved to a company that supported them. The publisher of the FPS now pays people to play the game online and stream it!

If Angry Joe or Francis or TB can't get their rights then they shouldn't cover those games. Or review them without content and highlight that they do not have the rights.

You will find a change will happen very quickly.

Magill · 12-12-2013 03:57PM

Can't believe his interviews and **** were flagged !

Surely that alone is enough to prove this system is complete sh1t. Don't see how anybody can be on the side of these policies... unless they're just jealous of people making money in general.

Doctor DooM · 12-12-2013 04:02PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

This is not about the amount of work that he puts in, whether he puts in 5 mins or 5 days working on a video is irrelevant if that video breaks the rules that private company set in place then that's it.

For the love of god, I've said this 5 times now.

Legally, DMCA covers ALL of this. Youtube didn't need to do a single thing, which is why people are upset.

If you look at it as a private company, of course they can do what they want, but they're making youtube a much less enjoyable experience for everyone. If you enjoy youtube videos at all, this is going to effect you.

Also, it is not irrelevant how much work you put in, under fair use it makes it a transformed work.

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 04:19PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

For the love of god, I've said this 5 times now.

Legally, DMCA covers ALL of this. Youtube didn't need to do a single thing, which is why people are upset.

If you look at it as a private company, of course they can do what they want, but they're making youtube a much less enjoyable experience for everyone. If you enjoy youtube videos at all, this is going to effect you.

Also, it is not irrelevant how much work you put in, under fair use it makes it a transformed work.

I don't get how DMCA covers it (not being funny I actually don't)

But it goes far beyond just the law, Youtube only makes money from it's adverts so it has to protect itself as a legitimate site. If it is perceived as a site that is associated with a lot of copyrighted material it will impact its revenue. As someone said in the video posted earlier, you don't see legit companies advertising on Pirate bay it is always just weird dodgy stuff.

YouTube makes money from running adverts, if it is common place that they make money from adverts ran over copyrighted material they will be lined up with lawsuts and regardless of the law just getting a letter in the door costs them a lot.

Doctor DooM · 12-12-2013 04:39PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

I don't get how DMCA covers it (not being funny I actually don't)

But it goes far beyond just the law, Youtube only makes money from it's adverts so it has to protect itself as a legitimate site. If it is perceived as a site that is associated with a lot of copyrighted material it will impact its revenue. As someone said in the video posted earlier, you don't see legit companies advertising on Pirate bay it is always just weird dodgy stuff.

YouTube makes money from running adverts, if it is common place that they make money from adverts ran over copyrighted material they will be lined up with lawsuts and regardless of the law just getting a letter in the door costs them a lot.

How can you say you don't understand DMCA then make declarative statements about the situation?

The whole point of the DMCA is no, you can't simply file a lawsuit against a company for copyrighted material unless you give them a week or so to act on it (which Youtube has done as long as I've been there). It's called safe harbour, and it's the only way Youtube has survived this far.

I'm a gaming youtuber and I consider it my responsibility to understand this stuff, as does Joe, clearly.

ScumLord · 12-12-2013 04:56PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

Who pays for the servers that host the videos? Who pays for the building that those servers are stored in? Who pays for the massive bandwidth costs when people upload and watch those videos? Who pays for the power to run those servers? Who pays for the Staff to maintain those servers? Who Pays for the staff to administer those adverts?

It's basically the companies that advertise on youtube. Youtube is a business that sells advertising space. I'd say it must be difficult trying to get the wants of youtube users to match up with the needs of the advertisers. One won't work without the other but both have conflicting needs.

Nody · 12-12-2013 05:49PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

All that needs to happen is that he gets the permission to use the content from the holders and it not hard, you just send a few lines in an email.

This is the part you have failed to grasp; not only did Angry Joe interview PEOPLE who created certain games but now because someone CLAIMS (note claim, don't actually own it) to own the music (in this case the company is called Tombraider claiming they own the music to the game series Tombraider which is BS) and the fake company TOMBRAIDER is now getting 100% of ALL REVENUE FROM THE VIDEO.

Do you get it now? Angry Joe CREATED the video, uploaded it, got it approved which would hold in any court and now a BS company gets 100% of the profit by claiming they own the music WITH OUT NEEDING TO PROVE IT TO ANYONE.

That's the bloody problem; automatic system with out any checks or controls in place pulling user created content and giving the revenue to bogus companies who simply need to upload a sample song and say that's ours. Another user who has over 800 videos all starting with the same 30s song had 84 of them flagged yet all 800+ have the exact same song at the start? That only shows how buggy the so called "content flagger" is...

returnNull · 12-12-2013 05:49PM

getting real sick of your sh1t google....

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 05:54PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

How can you say you don't understand DMCA then make declarative statements about the situation?

The whole point of the DMCA is no, you can't simply file a lawsuit against a company for copyrighted material unless you give them a week or so to act on it (which Youtube has done as long as I've been there). It's called safe harbour, and it's the only way Youtube has survived this far.

I'm a gaming youtuber and I consider it my responsibility to understand this stuff, as does Joe, clearly.

I was confused due to your response as I thought my understanding was somehow wrong. But my statement was never about the law it was the right for Youtube to set rules for using its service and the responsibility of the user to stay within those rules.

What you are saying is Youtube is protected by the law, that they can't be reasonably expected to monitor every user submitted video but if a copyright holder requests something is taken down then they have to act. Am I missing anything here?

What I am saying is Youtube then set a rule for the user that says "hey don't upload copyrighted material, because if you do and the copyright owner asks us to take it down. Then we will take it down". (Now this is more likely a business decision and not a legal one, as in a lot of the copyright holders may also be their main advertisers, would they rather piss off Joe who earns them $10,000 a year or a media giant that might spend a few million)

So when a user uploads a video, the copyright holder asks for it to be taken down (or does not want it monetized) Then surely according to the DMCA law Youtube have to act.

I really don't see a problem here at all.

A different arguement is around false claims from companies that don't own the rights. I have lost count of the amount of IGN claims I have had against my videos.

Myrddin · 12-12-2013 06:03PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

What I am saying is Youtube then set a rule for the user that says "hey don't upload copyrighted material, because if you do and the copyright owner asks us to take it down. Then we will take it down". (Now this is more likely a business decision and not a legal one, as in a lot of the copyright holders may also be their main advertisers, would they rather piss off Joe who earns them $10,000 a year or a media giant that might spend a few million)

I still don't think you're understanding of it is correct. What you say above is how Youtube used to work, it's not like that as things stand anymore.

So when a user uploads a video, the copyright holder asks for it to be taken down (or does not want it monetized) Then surely according to the DMCA law Youtube have to act.

I really don't see a problem here at all.

Again, this isn't really how it is. In this case, a lot of the copyright holders are not requesting the content be removed. It is being removed because of the new Content ID system, so even if you have the permission of the copyright holder to post the video, YT will act on it & remove it because it shows up as a match to copyright owner material. So essentially, they've thrown the bathwater out with the baby.

PLUS, have a read of Nody's post above re Tombraider...it's an incredibly ridiculous system.

Yes they can't be expected to monitor every single video, but then again, they really don't have to. DCMA provides Youtube with the perfect system to protect themselves so it really isn't a concern.I know you said there is brand-reputation at stake by being associated with piracy, but when you're one of the biggest websites on the planet, I don't think punishing the entire userbase is really an ideal way to protect your brand image...look at the universal slating they're getting now as an example. You mention you don't see legit ads in Pirate Bay, but I'll say this, if Pirate Bay was one of the biggest websites on the planet, I reckon you would...

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 07:02PM

Myrddin wrote: »

I still don't think you're understanding of it is correct. What you say above is how Youtube used to work, it's not like that as things stand anymore.

Again, this isn't really how it is. In this case, a lot of the copyright holders are not requesting the content be removed. It is being removed because of the new Content ID system, so even if you have the permission of the copyright holder to post the video, YT will act on it & remove it because it shows up as a match to copyright owner material. So essentially, they've thrown the bathwater out with the baby.

PLUS, have a read of Nody's post above re Tombraider...it's an incredibly ridiculous system.

Yes they can't be expected to monitor every single video, but then again, they really don't have to. DCMA provides Youtube with the perfect system to protect themselves so it really isn't a concern.I know you said there is brand-reputation at stake by being associated with piracy, but when you're one of the biggest websites on the planet, I don't think punishing the entire userbase is really an ideal way to protect your brand image...look at the universal slating they're getting now as an example. You mention you don't see legit ads in Pirate Bay, but I'll say this, if Pirate Bay was one of the biggest websites on the planet, I reckon you would...

But Content ID is not new, I have been putting up with it for a long time. What is new is that these protected Networks that these guys are on are just getting hit the same as the rest of us because of constant copyright infringements that the networks are meant to police. The managed account like TB are not getting hit.

The issue with false claims are totally different. I have no issue with that being addressed. I have had IGN claim they have rights to a Ubisoft Video I uploaded! But they did not get the revenue from that video, the ads just stopped running while it was sorted. That will lose revenue for the person but it doesn't give it to IGN.

My whole point is Youtube uses this system, everyone knows and everyone agrees to use it, so you can't start crying when they enforce it. If they don't like it they are free to use a different service. No one is forcing them to use it, it is a private commercial company and the user has no legal right that is protected under any law that allows them to do what you want on their service.

It is the same for boards, they make the rules and if you break them they remove the post.

Doctor DooM · 12-12-2013 07:07PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

What I am saying is Youtube then set a rule for the user that says "hey don't upload copyrighted material, because if you do and the copyright owner asks us to take it down. Then we will take it down". (Now this is more likely a business decision and not a legal one, as in a lot of the copyright holders may also be their main advertisers, would they rather piss off Joe who earns them $10,000 a year or a media giant that might spend a few million)

So when a user uploads a video, the copyright holder asks for it to be taken down (or does not want it monetized) Then surely according to the DMCA law Youtube have to act.

I really don't see a problem here at all.

A different arguement is around false claims from companies that don't own the rights. I have lost count of the amount of IGN claims I have had against my videos.

Sorry, you're really just very wrong. You don't know how youtube works at all.

No one has to check every video on youtube. Computers do, and have done for a long time.

The difference between now and last week is that for some reason Youtube is aggressively forcing copyright take downs, where a) the copyright holders don't want them and b) the copyright holders aren't the ones making the claims.

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 07:24PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Sorry, you're really just very wrong. You don't know how youtube works at all.

No one has to check every video on youtube. Computers do, and have done for a long time.

The difference between now and last week is that for some reason Youtube is aggressively forcing copyright take downs, where a) the copyright holders don't want them and b) the copyright holders aren't the ones making the claims.

I understand perfectly how it works, I know no one checks every video and it is an automated system that is what I have been saying since the start. This is why mistakes are made.

For what ever reason youtube are now implementing the rule that has always been there. That is their choice.

jaykhunter · 12-12-2013 07:34PM

It's difficult keeping up with this.
1) How does the DMCA apply to youtube copyright?
2) Is it just YouTubers under Multi-Channel Networks now getting flagged or everyone?
3) What about non-monetised videos?
4) Is anyone going after the copyright holders (eg some music company rather than games companies whose game features their music?)

VinLieger · 12-12-2013 08:11PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

I understand perfectly how it works, I know no one checks every video and it is an automated system that is what I have been saying since the start. This is why mistakes are made.

For what ever reason youtube are now implementing the rule that has always been there. That is their choice.

But they aren't thats the problem, the vast majority of companies who actually own the rights to this content are disagreeing with these videos being taken down and never asked for them to be in the first place. In a lot of cases its bogus claims that are causing these takedown or revenue diverting requests which youtube is basically saying "its not our fault you infringed copyright" yet it is their ****ty system that doesnt check the claimants ownership of said copyrighted material and just automatically and apparently randomly acts

Have you even read any of the previous posts to not grasp what is happening?

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 08:32PM

VinLieger wrote: »

But they aren't thats the problem, the vast majority of companies who actually own the rights to this content are disagreeing with these videos being taken down and never asked for them to be in the first place. In a lot of cases its bogus claims that are causing these takedown or revenue diverting requests which youtube is basically saying "its not our fault you infringed copyright" yet it is their ****ty system that doesnt check the claimants ownership of said copyrighted material and just automatically and apparently randomly acts

Have you even read any of the previous posts to not grasp what is happening?

That is a completely different topic that I have agreed with over and over. This needs to be addressed, it has happened to me before. But that is part and parcel of the business, the system scans millions if not billions of videos. If it gets it wrong even 1% of the time then it is still pretty effective. Never mind if it gets it wrong 0.0001% of the time.

ShadowHearth · 12-12-2013 08:39PM

I think you are just arguing just for the sake of arguing.

returnNull · 12-12-2013 08:45PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

If it gets it wrong even 1% of the time then it is still pretty effective. Never mind if it gets it wrong 0.0001% of the time.

the system is broke.Its been said to you umpteen times at this stage.The videos are being flagged for copyright even when the owners of the copyright havent made any claim.

Magill · 12-12-2013 09:24PM

****ing grumpypants... lol. Jesus.

returnNull · 12-12-2013 09:28PM

Magill wrote: »

****ing grumpypants... lol. Jesus.

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 09:51PM

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think you are just arguing just for the sake of arguing.

No I just understand the scale of the request that these guys are making.

Youtube has to monitor a number of videos and deal with so many different requests that they are simply unable to do it without using an automated system.

Yes sometimes that system will make mistakes, but for one person with 100 videos if he gets 20 incorrect copyright flags it seems a lot but out of the hundreds of millions of videos on youtube it is nothing.

Please do tell me what better system would you use to successfully monitor and act on copyright claims that would be as cost effective.

returnNull · 12-12-2013 10:17PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

Please do tell me what better system would you use to successfully monitor and act on copyright claims that would be as cost effective.

for the last time the system is called DCMA!!
Christ this is fukking painful.

Grumpypants · 12-12-2013 10:24PM

returnNull wrote: »

for the last time the system is called DCMA!!
Christ this is fukking painful.

The point you keep painfully missing is that dmca works up to the point when someone makes a claim. After that it needs to be acted on.

Now don't just keep repeating dmca over and over and actually think about what you are saying and how they can administer their obligations to remove copyrighted material after a claim has been made inline with dmca with a 100% faultless automated system?

Which is what you are saying they should have.

returnNull · 12-12-2013 10:33PM

Grumpypants wrote: »

The point you keep painfully missing is that dmca works up to the point when someone makes a claim. After that it needs to be acted on.

Go away,you havent got a clue.......

Doge · 12-12-2013 10:49PM

Myrddin wrote: »

As I understand it, the content isn't pulled, it's that it gets 'claimed' & can't be monetized...or maybe I have it wrong?

I thought video game footage was never eligible for monetization on youtube anyway?

At least this is what it said in the criteria the last time I checked.

degrassinoel · 12-12-2013 10:54PM

it was for a long time, that's how the likes of TB pewdiepie and everyone that ever did a LP made out like bandits with monetisation, also why they're all up in arms over it.

New Youtube policy forces A LOT of game play related videos to go away

Comments