Youtube Recent Copyright Strikes Controversy

[Danoff]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Huh? Filed the copyright claim? What with the patent office? You do not need to "file" a copyright claim to hold copyright. I don't know what google's terms are service are for uploading content to their website. Perhaps you turn over all copyright claims to them when you do. Assuming that they allow you to keep your copyright on the material you created while hosting it for you, if FOX comes along and rips you off, that's them ripping you off. If they then request that Google take down your work and Google does so, that's Google making an oversight. None of that has anything to do with copyright law. That's a company ripping you off and another company being stupid. The copyright owner can still sue Fox (presuming Google's terms of service didn't require you to give up copyright the moment you put it on youtube... which seems doubtful considering many companies put copyrighted works on youtube).

Perhaps what you meant is that the cease and desist was sent by a computer bot. Perhaps what you mean when you say "copyright claim" is "cease and desist". That's what the letter is called that requests that the infringer or host (or both) stop violating the copyright owner's copyright. So perhaps you are saying that "cease and desist" letters should stop being sent by bots. But of course that would be ignoring the massive copyright violations that go on in an automated sense, necessitating bots.

The fact that Fox required the takedown, and the Google complied, is not that big of a deal. The copyright holder can simply point to the dates, and if google is a reasonable company they should restore it. That's not really a broken system (the system in this case belonging to a private company) considering that it works and is necessary 99% of the time. The problem is that Fox ripped off copyright, which can be remedied in the courts under current copyright law.

 

[FoRiZon]

Youtube is now not monetizing any videos who had a "harmful content" such as politics, current events, talks about preventing bullying and suicide, etc.

What that means is that Youtubers now have to exclusively submit purely entertainment because thats how the world works according to Google: Be happy all the time.

 

[TVR27]

YouTube has been region blocking a lot of videos this year. I think region blocking is wrong and I simply don't understand the need for it.

 

[FoRiZon]

YouTube has been region blocking a lot of videos this year. I think region blocking is wrong and I simply don't understand the need for it.

Depends what video. If its from channel owned by some company, than its understandable.

I agree though that copyright sometimes sucks.

 

[chengman]

Youtube is now not monetizing any videos who had a "harmful content" such as politics, current events, talks about preventing bullying and suicide, etc.

What that means is that Youtubers now have to exclusively submit purely entertainment because thats how the world works according to Google: Be happy all the time.

So YouTube basically wants everything to be a happy place where negativity isn't allowed. Tl;Dr North Korea

 

[TVR27]

YouTube’s new service will compete with companies like Spotify and Amazon by charging users to download videos. according to : http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/dont-like-youtubes-new-rules-say-goodbye-to-your-videos/

A few problems with this Youtube can't compete with Spotify and Amazon because it can't be either of them and youtube isn't worth paying for. I can download anything I want from youtube for free and I use adblocker.

 

[FoRiZon]

YouTube’s new service will compete with companies like Spotify and Amazon by charging users to download videos. according to : http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/dont-like-youtubes-new-rules-say-goodbye-to-your-videos/

A few problems with this Youtube can't compete with Spotify and Amazon because it can't be either of them and youtube isn't worth paying for. I can download anything I want from youtube for free and I use adblocker.

Its already exists called Youtube Red?

 

[TVR27]

Its already exists called Youtube Red?

Yes I know that but article is old.

Maybe advertiser should go back to TV where they "belong". I'm not giving up my adblock. Hopefully Youtube Red fails if it does what will they do next?

 

[JohnBM01]

Based on the impressions I'm getting from others in this thread, YouTube not only has gone to Hell, but also are burning in Hell. I surely have spent time offering positive content as well as advice on life issues. I usually am under the belief that people do look to YouTube for advice to things- even life issues. I don't care that my life issue material doesn't generate loads of views. While "JohnMarineTube" (my YouTube channel) is nowhere near powerhouse or heavyweight, this would feel like YouTube contradicting itself from their "Broadcast Yourself" slogan of theirs.

I have no concrete and comprehensive opinion about this deal. All I can say is that I hope that YouTube does something that will ultimately lead to their downfall. I'm not moving to Vimeo or DailyMotion or (Heaven forbid) Vine.

 

[Dan]

I have no concrete and comprehensive opinion about this deal. All I can say is that I hope that YouTube does something that will ultimately lead to their downfall. I'm not moving to Vimeo or DailyMotion or (Heaven forbid) Vine.

Spoiler: NSFW

I saw people joking that Pornhub should create a non-porn video hosting site where users don't have to worry about copyright takedowns.

 

[DK]

Spoiler: NSFW

I saw people joking that Pornhub should create a non-porn video hosting site where users don't have to worry about copyright takedowns.

I remember Cr1tikal posting a "How Budweiser is made" video there because apparently peeing - without any real genitalia being shown - is too hot for YouTube. Best porno ever.

 

[Dan]

I remember Cr1tikal posting a "How Budweiser is made" video there because apparently peeing - without any real genitalia being shown - is too hot for YouTube. Best porno ever.

Even pouring lemon Gatorade off-screen is bad?

 

[FoRiZon]

Based on the impressions I'm getting from others in this thread, YouTube not only has gone to Hell, but also are burning in Hell. I surely have spent time offering positive content as well as advice on life issues. I usually am under the belief that people do look to YouTube for advice to things- even life issues. I don't care that my life issue material doesn't generate loads of views. While "JohnMarineTube" (my YouTube channel) is nowhere near powerhouse or heavyweight, this would feel like YouTube contradicting itself from their "Broadcast Yourself" slogan of theirs.

I have no concrete and comprehensive opinion about this deal. All I can say is that I hope that YouTube does something that will ultimately lead to their downfall. I'm not moving to Vimeo or DailyMotion or (Heaven forbid) Vine.

Youtube has gone corporate. They will attract those who got the most money and they will make YT consists of TV shows and lets plays because its safer for them, typically generated daily, and made the most viewers aka money.

 

[JohnBM01]

On top of all this, I hardly have had anything of copyright. I had one video with a Charlotte Church song in it and another with a song from Enthusia Professional Racing. I usually make my own content just to be safe. Like if you see my GTR2 video from August 2016, I made the two brief songs in the video myself with the free instruments with LMMS (Linux MultiMedia Studio). It is not likely I'll do anything along the lines of (for example) "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" or some other kind of fan work. So I am careful often times in what I make material based on. And so therefore, I don't have too much in the way of copyright issues.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Youtube is now not monetizing any videos who had a "harmful content" such as politics, current events, talks about preventing bullying and suicide, etc.

What that means is that Youtubers now have to exclusively submit purely entertainment because thats how the world works according to Google: Be happy all the time.

I'm not sure I see the issue here.

As far as I understand it Youtube can monetize videos and pass some of the profits onto creators thanks to advertising. There will be some types of content advertisers will want ads on, and other types they won't, and presumably Youtube's monetization policy does (and has to) reflect that.

I mean, should advertisers be forced to sponsor content they don't want to? Is that the suggestion?

I certainly don't buy the claims of censorship - "I'm allowed to upload this, but just don't get paid for it" is not a definition of censorship I've seen widely used anyway.

I get it's a difficult situation for content creators who have come to depend on that revenue, but I don't think that alone should mean Youtube/advertisers should be expected to hand out that revenue, no matter the situation.

 

[Tornado]

From what I've seen most YouTube people who do YouTube as a job don't rely terribly much on the actual video monetization anyway.

 

[Lain]

I'm not sure I see the issue here.

As far as I understand it Youtube can monetize videos and pass some of the profits onto creators thanks to advertising. There will be some types of content advertisers will want ads on, and other types they won't, and presumably Youtube's monetization policy does (and has to) reflect that.

I mean, should advertisers be forced to sponsor content they don't want to? Is that the suggestion?

I certainly don't buy the claims of censorship - "I'm allowed to upload this, but just don't get paid for it" is not a definition of censorship I've seen widely used anyway.

I get it's a difficult situation for content creators who have come to depend on that revenue, but I don't think that alone should mean Youtube/advertisers should be expected to hand out that revenue, no matter the situation.

The problem is that they're seemingly painting videos with the "non-advertiser friendly" brush with far too broad of strokes.

To me, it kinda comes off as if Youtube is trying to cheat their way out of having to pay ad revenue. Yeah it's their site, they make the rules... but when tons of videos are somehow getting flagged as NSFA then later being determined "no actually that's fine" after the video creator files an appeal, it's not like they're getting reimbursed for any ad revenue they may have missed out on. And a video generates most of its revenue in the first 48 or so hours, so that could wind up being a pretty raw deal for the content creator.

Youtube should be giving power to advertisers to decide whether they wish to restrict what kind of content their ads appear on, rather than stripping content creators of the capability to enable ads on their content because it was somehow deemed not to be ad-friendly (possibly erroneously).

 

[FoRiZon]

I'm not sure I see the issue here.

As far as I understand it Youtube can monetize videos and pass some of the profits onto creators thanks to advertising. There will be some types of content advertisers will want ads on, and other types they won't, and presumably Youtube's monetization policy does (and has to) reflect that.

I mean, should advertisers be forced to sponsor content they don't want to? Is that the suggestion?

I certainly don't buy the claims of censorship - "I'm allowed to upload this, but just don't get paid for it" is not a definition of censorship I've seen widely used anyway.

I get it's a difficult situation for content creators who have come to depend on that revenue, but I don't think that alone should mean Youtube/advertisers should be expected to hand out that revenue, no matter the situation.

The problem :

1. The updated terms are vague in broad terms and never communicated well with the Youtubers.
2. If some advertisers dont want to sponsor certain content, the problem relies on them, not Youtube as a whole.
3. Try to police the internet into a safe, PG13 place. I dare you.
4. The vagueness are shown, in effect, and cause lots of trouble. To think that, say, topic like suicide prevention or documentary is not welcomed to Youtube is really wrong in my perception.
5. Its done via automated system. I heard its done really well and fair with dealing copyright stuff......

 

[Lain]

Police it into a safe PG13 place? You're joking, right?

The advertiser-friendly guidelines are so 🤬 loose that even some G-rated content could be construed to be in violation.

No violence? Shoot, get out of here with all that Mild Cartoon Violence, Mario!

No inappropriate language? I'd get in trouble for saying "crap" as a kid, does such a tame utterance make a video not advertiser-friendly? And if it doesn't, well then where exactly do you draw the line? And who decides? The word "hell" and "damn" are perfectly inoffensive words to most, but could be no-no words for some. In the bible belt, "damn" might fly on the radio but "goddamn" gets censored. Ass and bitch get by the language filter just fine here on GTP in spite of its strict AUP. Will those fly in videos intended to be monetized? Better stop running trailers before those dreaded PG13 films with their awful 1 F-bomb allowance!

 

[Pupik]

Youtube is now not monetizing any videos who had a "harmful content" such as politics, current events, talks about preventing bullying and suicide, etc.

What that means is that Youtubers now have to exclusively submit purely entertainment because thats how the world works according to Google: Be happy all the time.

Put it this way...if it was your money, would you want to spend it on things you don't agree with?

Let's say you went online to Amazon and bought a "mystery box" for $50 each month. Because it's a mystery box, it will come with 5-10 random items. It could be old games, fruit, clothing, books; or it can be chicken bones, broken rubber bands, magazine subscription insert cards, old phone books, spent batteries, and used bar coasters.

The advertisers are doing just that - they're buying random ad times on YouTube - and like most users, they enjoy their little slice of the web, and probably think the rest is junk. And if Sturgeon's Law is anything to go by: 90% of it is crap.

So, do you still want to buy that monthly mystery box? Does not wanting that surprise make you a bad consumer? Are you restricting Amazon's ability to sell products because you don't want to buy a container that might be 50-90% refuse?

To top it off, YouTube is a free service for uploaders. The popular stuff makes money (albeit an infinitesimal sum for most) for no upload charges. It's far from censorship...that just reeks of entitlement. Make unique stuff that doesn't drop F-bombs among every other word and don't lift others' work, that's a start.

 

[Lain]

Put it this way...if it was your money, would you want to spend it on things you don't agree with?

Let's say you went online to Amazon and bought a "mystery box" for $50 each month. Because it's a mystery box, it will come with 5-10 random items. It could be old games, fruit, clothing, books; or it can be chicken bones, broken rubber bands, magazine subscription insert cards, old phone books, spent batteries, and used bar coasters.

The advertisers are doing just that - they're buying random ad times on YouTube - and like most users, they enjoy their little slice of the web, and probably think the rest is junk. And if Sturgeon's Law is anything to go by: 90% of it is crap.

So, do you still want to buy that monthly mystery box? Does not wanting that surprise make you a bad consumer? Are you restricting Amazon's ability to sell products because you don't want to buy a container that might be 50-90% refuse?

To top it off, YouTube is a free service for uploaders. The popular stuff makes money (albeit an infinitesimal sum for most) for no upload charges. It's far from censorship...that just reeks of entitlement.

I've already proposed a solution here. Under your analogy, it would basically boil down to "offer an alternative to the mystery box". Let advertisers buy the mystery box if they don't care, or let them pick and choose where exactly they want their ads to run. But Youtube deciding on behalf of any and all advertisers that a particular video is absolutely incompatible with any ads whatsoever is a bit daft.

Youtube is well within their rights to do it. It's their site, after all. They're also fully within their rights to disable uploading, delete everyone's videos and decide they want to be Netflix. Doesn't mean people are acting "entitled" by getting upset at such a decision.

Make unique stuff that doesn't drop F-bombs among every other word and don't lift others' work, that's a start.

The problem is that there's stuff getting flagged that doesn't even remotely fall into either of these categories, and barely fall into the other categories outlined in the advertiser-friendly guidelines.

For instance... Kurzgesagt, an excellent channel, did a series of videos on the pros and cons of Nuclear energy. Their video illustrating the cons got flagged:



The icing on the cake is that the video was sponsored by a fairly notable company, indicating that it most certainly is advertiser-friendly.

 

[Pupik]

I just wish I could retract a "view" from terrible videos, especially if I bailed less than 1/4 through it.

Can't have it all, right?

 

[FoRiZon]

Mind that all of this is based on automated system?

Most of the time even an innocent videos got flagged.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I was thinking about this and so I looked through my channels and looked and see how many copyright claims my videos across my two channels have obtained during their life cycle, and here are the results:

Channel Sanji Himura:
Videos up on YouTube: 16
Number of videos flagged by ContentID: 4 (a 25% flagging rate)
Total number of claims: 10
Most egregious offender: WMG (6 claims on one video)

Channel Romance of the Three Kingdoms Video Game Society Official:
Videos on YouTube: 17
Number of videos flagged by ContentID: 0 (a 0% flagging rate)
Total number of claims: 0
Most egregious offender: None

 

[FoRiZon]

 

[CodeRedR51]

I think YouTube needs to spend more time and effort on weeding out all the copycat channels that steal videos and post spammy stuff in general than locking down more rules on those that are using the service correctly.

 

[Neddo]

So basically, YouTube wants to be entertainment channel. Dailymotion is way more open even if it's dated. Now I wonder will those conspiracy marathon movies that last for hours be removed.

 

[Dan]

I think YouTube needs to spend more time and effort on weeding out all the copycat channels that steal videos and post spammy stuff in general than locking down more rules on those that are using the service correctly.

Don't forget the creepy skit channels for kids that use bots to get a hundred million views per video.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Don't forget the creepy skit channels for kids that use bots to get a hundred million views per video.

Haven't seen any of those yet.

 

[FoRiZon]

Haven't seen any of those yet.

Here let me link to you:

https://m.youtube.com/user/seadoco?