Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[deoloth]

IGN Story with details from publishers here

Pretty much the developers listed in the article are advising people to contact them, so that they can contact YouTube, and have the flag removed shortly. Ubisoft say that the new YouTube content controller might be flagging videos on matching game audio.

[Mech#4]

That's similar to what I read. It appears that the claims are being linked to music within the video.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I had at least one subscription that essentially had to switch to a partnership because of this, when he was previously not monetizing anything.

[Bdthemag]

I had at least one subscription that essentially had to switch to a partnership because of this, when he was previously not monetizing anything.

Although I originally didn't know that most publishers were confirming these were false flags, how so? From what I've read each claim was far from being a typical copyright infringement flag, and simply blocked ad revenue on said video (Although I could be wrong, never saw an official source and have just been going off of what I've been listening to in youtube videos/see on the internet.) why would they have to switch partnerships?

[Max White]

Again, I'm not a strong supporter of copyright laws, but this is essentially people who were comfortable gaining a decent income from ad revenue getting pissed off that's been taken away from them. They're making money off of content they had no direct involvement in creating and expecting that the companies who owned said intellectual property to not catch on and stop it.

...
Yes. There are people who were making income with ad revenue. And now they are annoyed because their income, the thing they live off, their basic means to survive, is being taken away from them.

And yes, they did have a lot of involvement in making this content. There is time and effort putting into the creation of these series and reviews. I'm sorry but people who go to the effort of reviewing something deserve some damn credit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I had at least one subscription that essentially had to switch to a partnership because of this, when he was previously not monetizing anything.

Although I originally didn't know that most publishers were confirming these were false flags, how so? From what I've read each claim was far from being a typical copyright infringement flag, and simply blocked ad revenue on said video (Although I could be wrong, never saw an official source and have just been going off of what I've been listening to in youtube videos/see on the internet.) why would they have to switch partnerships?

Two things happened: First, somebody else copied all of his videos onto their channel and he couldn't get it taken care of (Youtube's world famous customer support strikes again). That wasn't a problem in and of itself, but he became even more frustrated when this person monetized all the copied videos. Then, with this recent event, a couple hundred of his actual non-monetized videos got strikes and began displaying ads and feeding revenue to whomever ordered the strikes. Unable to receive any actual assistance from Youtube on this matter, and very frustrated that his many hours of recording and editing were giving money to who-the-hell-knows, he joined a partnership network to make Youtube get off their ass and do something. Of course, part of the deal is that most of his videos from this point onwards are going to have to be and remain monetized to profit the network he joined.

[Bdthemag]

Again, I'm not a strong supporter of copyright laws, but this is essentially people who were comfortable gaining a decent income from ad revenue getting pissed off that's been taken away from them. They're making money off of content they had no direct involvement in creating and expecting that the companies who owned said intellectual property to not catch on and stop it.

...
Yes. There are people who were making income with ad revenue. And now they are annoyed because their income, the thing they live off, their basic means to survive, is being taken away from them.

And yes, they did have a lot of involvement in making this content. There is time and effort putting into the creation of these series and reviews. I'm sorry but people who go to the effort of reviewing something deserve some damn credit.

Their videos rely entirely on content that they had no involvement in, content which was made by a group of people who put considerably more effort and money into it then they did on their videos (I'm not trying to defend publishers or developers, since I rarely have high opinions about them in the first place.) If someone is in the business of monetizing LP's, they have to understand that regardless of whether or not it's okay (which is debatable), they're making their money off of work that has been copyrighted and is owned by a separate group that may or may not want them to make money off of their intellectual property. It doesn't matter how many hours of "work" they put into it, at the end of the day them making commentary about a videogame they're playing just simply isn't a significant enough addition. But keep in mind I'm not necessarily talking about people who purely review videogames on their channel. There's probably a hell of a lot of people who fall outside of the typical Videogame LP'er who monetizes their videos.

This may be an issue of whether or not you think LP'ing is an actual job that deserves money (Which I admit I'm biased about in the first place, since I definitely don't think it is), but I digress since at this point I'm just ranting about why I'm critical towards people who monetize LP videos.

Two things happened: First, somebody else copied all of his videos onto their channel and he couldn't get it taken care of (Youtube's world famous customer support strikes again). That wasn't a problem in and of itself, but he became even more frustrated when this person monetized all the copied videos. Then, with this recent event, a couple hundred of his actual non-monetized videos got strikes and began displaying ads and feeding revenue to whomever ordered the strikes. Unable to receive any actual assistance from Youtube on this matter, and very frustrated that his many hours of recording and editing were giving money to who-the-hell-knows, he joined a partnership network to make Youtube get off their ass and do something. Of course, part of the deal is that most of his videos from this point onwards are going to have to be and remain monetized to profit the network he joined.

I'm not arguing that the Youtube copyright system is good, or their customer support. But that's something not entirely related to what I'm trying to argue. I however wasn't aware that videos were suddenly being kept monetized and the money going to unknown sources, have there been more widespread reports of this or is this just an isolated incident?

Anyways, I just think it's good to keep in mind that the main motivation behind all of this outrage is a monetary one, so (at least from my point of view) you have to question the certain arguments the people who monetize their videos use. Also keep in mind that it's not like most game developers are absolutely against people making cash off of what is essentially free publicity, since I doubt any sane developer would turn down a popular Youtube channel owner who wanted to get official permission and drum up some free publicity at the cost of making a little bit of cash on the side.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I however wasn't aware that videos were suddenly being kept monetized and the money going to unknown sources, have there been more widespread reports of this or is this just an isolated incident?

No idea.

Anyways, I just think it's good to keep in mind that the main motivation behind all of this outrage is a monetary one, so (at least from my point of view) you have to question the certain arguments the people who monetize their videos use.

I realize, but this person has been against monetizing for years and plenty big enough to have tripped the threshold of having people asking you to join their partnership network for just as long. This incident just put things into the intolerable. It's one thing to not make any money on Youtube, it's quite another to be essentially doing free labor for somebody(es) else on Youtube. It's less skepticism and more conspiratorial paranoia to assume this was just an attempt at justifying monetization.

[Bdthemag]

I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy to justify monetizing videos, I just think it's a few big youtuber's trying very hard to sway the general public over to their side. However since this is apparently just an issue not being pushed by developers, but is probably just youtube fucking up it's not really that big of a deal anymore.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In this entire conversation I've been talking about a singular incident, and you've been talking about this thing as a whole. Not really worth continuing.

[Bdthemag]

A singular incident which is based entirely on what one Youtube LP'er is saying, and seems to be only somewhat related to the incident brought up in this thread. I wasn't aware the issue brought up by the OP was that people were having their videos monetized, with all of the revenue going to some shady source. I just thought it was Youtube LP'ers getting pissed that some of their videos weren't receiving ad revenue. Excuse me if I'm making some gigantic error in judgement here, I don't exactly make the most sense when I'm running on a few hours of sleep.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm pretty sure both things are/were happening.

[Mech#4]

Isn't that a common issue with automating things? It's like flagging websites for inappropriate material, it catches a series of words or the like and get's blacklisted.

I had an assignment that was checked for plagiarism automatically, came back with things like "he" out of "the" as being unquoted.

[Sonlirain]

I just love how hilarious this is.

A guy like Angry Joe spends a week (and paying out of his ass) getting costumes and setting up scenery/cgi writing a script for a 20 minute video review of some game and WHOOPS sorry mate you used over 10 seconds of video footage, music, cutscenes, WHATEVER from a game that belongs to xxx.

Guess where all the money from that video will go now?

You guessed it. It goes to the owner of the rewieved game who didn't do jack to make the said show/review other than prividing the game.
And Angry Joe/Other active youtubers?
Oh don't mind him he's just a hired clown not knowing he won't even get paid in peanuts.

Hell i agree that people shouldn't get paid for setting up channels with entire movies and music albums they grabbed on TPB AND get paid for it but penalizing people who actually put effort into what they do?
Seriously?

[MorleyDev]

In terms of fair use, one can argue playing a game and editing the footage etc is (unlike just talking over a movie) is a significantly more transformative work done for parody and/or review purposes, and thus falls under fair use.

The purpose of Fair Use isn't to deny people from profiting off another's work, it's to prevent people from denying someone rightful profit of their work. LPing does not detract from the original work but often helps people decide whether or not to buy the game. Nowadays I think you a fool if you don't find in-game footage before buying a game, it's the best way to make an informed decision.

And using footage for a short parody video or review is definitely fair use.

Admittedly I don't follow many LPers, and I've found the ones I watch are almost always indie games which is something indie developers tend to love because it gets them exposure. Odd exceptions, I do follow Jesse Cox and he does a couple of mainstream games. I also do occasionally watch VideoGamesAwesome.

Problem is, I also follow reviewers and people who talk about game news and software news and such. People like TotalBiscuit, who does very intelligent first impression videos. Now, he's big enough for Polaris to probably have him under the "trusted" tag that means he doesn't suffer the automated stuff. But there are smaller channels delivering that same kind of content that won't have that advantage.