Youtube Recent Copyright Strikes Controversy

[chengman]

Depends. Some are good. But most are just literally people watching videos for entirety on-screen regardless of their emotion which is actually violates the copyright.

Yet those channels get no slack at all, also Vitaly's movie trailer stealing a scene from Jack Vale or someone.

 

[FoRiZon]

Finally, Justice has arrived!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...able-to-make-money-during-content-id-disputes

 

[Stephan]

What I dislike about this system is that why the low to medium class reaction channels (e.g BlastphamousHD, RashadTheReactor, etc.) and Watchmojo aren't taken down yet by Youtube.

 

[Dan]

I really hope all of WatchMojo's crap gets instantly struck down by copyright holders and permanently erases their channel from YouTube.

 

[Stephan]

But just like any big time Youtube channels, Watchmojo has a lot of subs and they make a lot of money.

*I seriously hope Watchmojo gets shutdown by copyright. IHE is right.

 

[FoRiZon]

But just like any big time Youtube channels, Watchmojo has a lot of subs and they make a lot of money.

*I seriously hope Watchmojo gets shutdown by copyright. IHE is right.

"Its a shame that in order to win these bland and boring competition, you need to be bland and boring..... Boring........ Boring....... BOOOORRI.... "

*Not exact quote.

Wheres the red arrow and circle and also unnecessary sexy girls in the Thumbnail?

 

[Com Fox]

But just like any big time Youtube channels, Watchmojo has a lot of subs and they make a lot of money.

*I seriously hope Watchmojo gets shutdown by copyright. IHE is right.

Why? While I don't like Watchmojo myself, they aren't doing anything to break copyright laws like other Top 10 makers. Defending others while asking Watchmojo to shut down for doing the same thing is a bit selective.

 

[TVR27]

YouTube has been terrible ever since Google bought them. I have seen many channels disappear some did really brake copy right by uploading full movies and TV shows and other who just used parts of movies for music videos.

 

[TenEightyOne]

YouTube has been terrible ever since Google bought them. I have seen many channels disappear some did really brake copy right by uploading full movies and TV shows and other who just used parts of movies for music videos.

So it's bad that channels who stole content disappeared?

 

[Stephan]

Why? While I don't like Watchmojo myself, they aren't doing anything to break copyright laws like other Top 10 makers. Defending others while asking Watchmojo to shut down for doing the same thing is a bit selective.

I didn't say that I'm defending other YT channels. All I'm saying is that every channel must be treated equally and with this recent copyright issue and Watchmojo not getting any copyright infringement, they should be punished including the reaction channels (Look up what type of reaction channels I'm talking about). Yes there are other Top 10 channels there but they're not as big as Watchmojo.

Wheres the red arrow and circle and also unnecessary sexy girls in the Thumbnail?

You mean Vine videos? The ones with clickbaiting thumbnails?

 

[TVR27]

So it's bad that channels who stole content disappeared?

No but if they only use part of it for a video or a music video then they shouldn't disappear.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No but if they only use part of it for a video or a music video then they shouldn't disappear.

How much should they be allowed to steal before it's properly recognised as theft? 10s? 30s? 2min?

 

[TVR27]

How much should they be allowed to steal before it's properly recognised as theft? 10s? 30s? 2min?

As long as you don't make money from the video that you have taken content or music from .

 

[TenEightyOne]

As long as you don't make money from the video that you have taken content or music from .

So that means all of it? If you made a video it would be okay for me to completely repost it on my own channel?

 

[TVR27]

So that means all of it? If you made a video it would be okay for me to completely repost it on my own channel?

Maybe they should ask if they can use the video on your channel and if allowed the original owner of the video can get half of the money it makes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Maybe they should ask if they can use the video on your channel and if allowed the original owner of the video can get half of the money it makes.

That's different though, that's permitted content-sharing.

 

[TVR27]

That's different though, that's permitted content-sharing.

Well its better than stealing.

 

[Com Fox]

I didn't say that I'm defending other YT channels. All I'm saying is that every channel must be treated equally and with this recent copyright issue and Watchmojo not getting any copyright infringement, they should be punished including the reaction channels (Look up what type of reaction channels I'm talking about). Yes there are other Top 10 channels there but they're not as big as Watchmojo.


You mean Vine videos? The ones with clickbaiting thumbnails?

So channels that aren't big shouldn't be treated to copyright laws?

Also Top 10 videos "idealy" should fall into fair use as it comes into the review category. Especially when they don't show the entirely thing.

How about we don't exploit the broken system on bigger channels and instead help smaller channels by fixing the broken system

 

[LeMansAid]

http://time.com/4349864/ethan-klein-h3h3productions-fair-use-protection-account-fupa/

I find myself constantly fighting against slipping into value judgements about videos, and not disregarding the subjective merit (or lack thereof) of the content in question - but disregarding it is precisely what needs to happen to maintain fair judgement about fair use.

The couple blamed the affair on what they called YouTube’s broken copyright system, saying the site’s need to legally protect itself puts its users at risk. “YouTube’s stance is to be neutral. In that neutrality, it’s always the creators who get hurt,” Klein said

It's some pretty messed up human centipede-like fare, with supposed victims bemoaning being "unfairly-dealt-with creators" having arguably stolen content from other creators. We could have say..... original song>song with dubious sample of song in song>video dubiously using song with dubious sample of song in song>video dubiously using sample of video dubiously using song with dubious sample of song in song, etcentipedera. It seems that intellectual property suddenly matters to people once it's seen that someone is feeding off of them - hence the (cough)..... butt hurt.

The catalyst for the shenanigans...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Someone made a somewhat fair point. YouTubers are today's entertainers (my main channel is starting to gain some traction, which I will use as an example), what is to stop them from taking a logical step and partnering with the Screen Actors Guild or form some other similar union and protecting themselves financially?

For years, voice acting jobs were non-union because any union represented actor knew that union protections were not there. It was only within the last 20 or so years that the Screen Actors Guild really stepped up in providing protections for voice acting jobs. It all came to a head when Keifer Sutherland provided the voice of Big Boss in MGS 5.

Back to my channel. I currently have 8 subscribers to my channel, small for a growing channel, but growing none the less. I currently don't enjoy any pull that a Jim Sterling or a PewDiePie might enjoy with Google, nor would I expect to (given their garbage customer service), but what I do know is that I serve a very niche corner of YouTube, a corner that I will happily fulfill for as long as I am able. However, all of that stops when Koei, the sole publisher of games that I play on my channel, decides to stop being nice to YouTube and gives me a copyright strike on my channel. And given that I have no possible recourse, my activity on YouTube, besides being a viewer, ends. Obviously, a need for some protection for the content creator is needed, especially in my case as I am a growing channel that needs views and subscribers.

 

[Danoff]

Someone made a somewhat fair point. YouTubers are today's entertainers (my main channel is starting to gain some traction, which I will use as an example), what is to stop them from taking a logical step and partnering with the Screen Actors Guild or form some other similar union and protecting themselves financially?

For years, voice acting jobs were non-union because any union represented actor knew that union protections were not there. It was only within the last 20 or so years that the Screen Actors Guild really stepped up in providing protections for voice acting jobs. It all came to a head when Keifer Sutherland provided the voice of Big Boss in MGS 5.

Back to my channel. I currently have 8 subscribers to my channel, small for a growing channel, but growing none the less. I currently don't enjoy any pull that a Jim Sterling or a PewDiePie might enjoy with Google, nor would I expect to (given their garbage customer service), but what I do know is that I serve a very niche corner of YouTube, a corner that I will happily fulfill for as long as I am able. However, all of that stops when Koei, the sole publisher of games that I play on my channel, decides to stop being nice to YouTube and gives me a copyright strike on my channel. And given that I have no possible recourse, my activity on YouTube, besides being a viewer, ends. Obviously, a need for some protection for the content creator is needed, especially in my case as I am a growing channel that needs views and subscribers.

You'll need to explain to me how SAG provides "protection" for anyone. My understanding of this entire thread and discussion right up until your post is that it's about copyright, which is a federal law enforced by the FBI under penalty of fines and imprisonment - which is a wild amount of protection.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You'll need to explain to me how SAG provides "protection" for anyone. My understanding of this entire thread and discussion right up until your post is that it's about copyright, which is a federal law enforced by the FBI under penalty of fines and imprisonment - which is a wild amount of protection.

I think that the it is more of a principle of YouTubers unionizing, which is my point.

Think of how Google treats copyright as how a surgeon uses a table saw to make a 2cm incision. There is virtually no oversight over their handling of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which does say that any company that wishes to make such a claim has to do so under the penalty of perjury if the claim is vindictive, for lack of a better term. Google doesn't require such a penalty when making a DMCA claim, so if, for example, say Konami saw something that they didn't like (like a fantastic piece of journalism addressing the current state of the company), and wanted to shut them up, they can do so without legal ramifications. Now in the cited case, Google did step up to the plate and restored the video, but it took them NINE hours from start to resolution, and even then, the door is still open for Konami to take the video down due to the reason that they gave for the video's restoration to YouTube (not enough information).

Video's being flagged by way of Content ID is even worse. Content ID is often handled by bots, and every time a claim is disputed (which according to Google's stats, are around 2% of the time), it is the copyright holders that are the final arbiters of the claim, not Google. A dispute resolved in the wrong way results in a copyright strike against your channel, and as anyone knows, three strikes and your out. If a company is notorious for Content ID, the only way to combat that, especially if you monetize your videos or go ad free, is to infringe on more copyright. Because, paraphrasing Jim Sterling here, "If I can't make any money on it, I will be **** sure no other ****** can either."

That is why both protection for content creators needs to happen and copyright law in the US needs to be reformed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Obviously, a need for some protection for the content creator is needed, especially in my case as I am a growing channel that needs views and subscribers.

Are referring to yourself as the content creator rather than the creators of the content you're republishing?

 

[Danoff]

I think that the it is more of a principle of YouTubers unionizing, which is my point.

Think of how Google treats copyright as how a surgeon uses a table saw to make a 2cm incision. There is virtually no oversight over their handling of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which does say that any company that wishes to make such a claim has to do so under the penalty of perjury if the claim is vindictive, for lack of a better term. Google doesn't require such a penalty when making a DMCA claim, so if, for example, say Konami saw something that they didn't like (like a fantastic piece of journalism addressing the current state of the company), and wanted to shut them up, they can do so without legal ramifications. Now in the cited case, Google did step up to the plate and restored the video, but it took them NINE hours from start to resolution, and even then, the door is still open for Konami to take the video down due to the reason that they gave for the video's restoration to YouTube (not enough information).

Video's being flagged by way of Content ID is even worse. Content ID is often handled by bots, and every time a claim is disputed (which according to Google's stats, are around 2% of the time), it is the copyright holders that are the final arbiters of the claim, not Google. A dispute resolved in the wrong way results in a copyright strike against your channel, and as anyone knows, three strikes and your out. If a company is notorious for Content ID, the only way to combat that, especially if you monetize your videos or go ad free, is to infringe on more copyright. Because, paraphrasing Jim Sterling here, "If I can't make any money on it, I will be **** sure no other ****** can either."

That is why both protection for content creators needs to happen and copyright law in the US needs to be reformed.

Interesting. You mention unionizing, but I have no idea how that solves any of the problems you list. Then you mention copyright law reform, but I have no idea how that solves any of the problems you list either, as all of the complaints are levied against company policy rather than US law. If you don't like the way a company is managing their website (such as youtube), feel free not to use their website. It's up to their discretion what they'll do with their website. I'm sure the terms for what they're allowed to do are covered in whatever contract or term sheet is included with the use of their website.

 

[dylansan]

I think the idea is that Youtube's policies are what they are because it protects them from litigation from copyright holders, not because it's just how they want to do things in general. Presumably if the law changed in a way that meant it wasn't Youtube's responsibility to block copyrighted content immediately, they would be more willing to allow the users of their site to defend themselves before making a decision.

That's just one way it could go and probably not the most likely one. But the point is, Youtube's practices are designed to avoid lawsuits. So a change in the law could theoretically allow them to change their policy.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Are referring to yourself as the content creator rather than the creators of the content you're republishing?

That is a real difficult question to answer. In the US, creating derivative works is indeed fair use. However, there is no case law that I can cite that can state one way or another that recording video games for the purposes of uploading to YouTube violates the public performance rights of a copyright.

Now I am no media person, nor do I claim to be one, but my strategy in dealing with Koei is not thinking the saying "better ask forgiveness than permission" is correct, especially when there is a 30th anniversary installment of a franchise that I follow on my channel that is releasing in my region a little more than a month away. I have emailed their PR department asking for permission to play said game on my channel two weeks ago, but again, as I stressed in my first post, I am small fries compared to a TotalBiscuit, so I doubt that I will get anywhere.

Interesting. You mention unionizing, but I have no idea how that solves any of the problems you list. Then you mention copyright law reform, but I have no idea how that solves any of the problems you list either, as all of the complaints are levied against company policy rather than US law. If you don't like the way a company is managing their website (such as youtube), feel free not to use their website. It's up to their discretion what they'll do with their website. I'm sure the terms for what they're allowed to do are covered in whatever contract or term sheet is included with the use of their website.

I could, however, you do realize the reason why Google bought YouTube in the first place, right? It got big, and the RIAA and the other alphabet soup of copyright wanted to shut them down. Any competition that desires to grow as big as YouTube has to jump through the same hoops. Twitch is starting to do the same thing.

I think the idea is that Youtube's policies are what they are because it protects them from litigation from copyright holders, not because it's just how they want to do things in general. Presumably if the law changed in a way that meant it wasn't Youtube's responsibility to block copyrighted content immediately, they would be more willing to allow the users of their site to defend themselves before making a decision.

That's just one way it could go and probably not the most likely one. But the point is, Youtube's practices are designed to avoid lawsuits. So a change in the law could theoretically allow them to change their policy.

I think that everyone's big problem is that a large part of their copyright enforcement is enforced by bots. As recent as this month, FOX ripped a youtube video for an episode of Family Guy, and then DMCA'ed the source video...

Spoiler

...From 2009.

If that isn't a broken system, then I don't know what is.

 

[Danoff]

Youtube's practices are designed to avoid lawsuits.

LOTS of companies have practices that are designed (poorly) to avoid lawsuits. It leads companies to put ridiculous warning stickers on things and make absurd hiring/firing decisions. Often it has little bearing on what the law actually requires and is implemented by over zealous attorneys who are looking to CYA rather than help the company achieve its goals.

In the US, creating derivative works is indeed fair use.

Depends on the degree.

I could, however, you do realize the reason why Google bought YouTube in the first place, right?

Yup.

I think that everyone's big problem is that a large part of their copyright enforcement is enforced by bots. As recent as this month, FOX ripped a youtube video for an episode of Family Guy, and then DMCA'ed the source video...

Spoiler

...From 2009.

If that isn't a broken system, then I don't know what is.

Is that the system? Can fox not be sued? If you're suggesting that because FOX violated copyright law that copyright law is broken, you're misunderstanding how law works. It cannot prevent infringement. If it could, we wouldn't need law in the first place.

 

[Sanji Himura]

If you're suggesting that because FOX violated copyright law that copyright law is broken, you're misunderstanding how law works. It cannot prevent infringement. If it could, we wouldn't need law in the first place.

That wasn't my point. There is such a thing in the constitution as no de facto law. A law that would be legal and constitutional otherwise can't really be applied to an infraction that happened before the law was passed. In this case, an infringement can not retroactively occur on a source material. In other words, if someone recites a passage from Hamlet, for example, in a movie, said person can not legally own the copyright on Hamlet itself because of the recited passage.

The Double Dribble clip that was used in Family Guy would have been left alone if it were an actual human that filed the copyright claim, and not a computer bot.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That wasn't my point. There is such a thing in the constitution as no de facto law. A law that would be legal and constitutional otherwise can't really be applied to an infraction that happened before the law was passed. In this case, an infringement can not retroactively occur on a source material. In other words, if someone recites a passage from Hamlet, for example, in a movie, said person can not legally own the copyright on Hamlet itself because of the recited passage.

That's a poor example; the work has long been out of copyright. Note that filmed or audio recordings of the performance can still be the initial property of the performer.

The Double Dribble clip that was used in Family Guy would have been left alone if it were an actual human that filed the copyright claim, and not a computer bot.

Yes, so what? It was human oversight that recognised the mistake and restored the relevant "originals". What's the problem with that?

 

[Sanji Himura]

That's a poor example; the work has long been out of copyright. Note that filmed or audio recordings of the performance can still be the initial property of the performer.

It was the first thing that came to mind that had any relevance. The overall point still remains though.