|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Dec 13, 2013 7:53:28 GMT -5
Wait, so the YouTube flagging system, which has been notorious for being a sweltering piece of crap that can be abused like the stereotypical red-headed stepchild... is being abused like the aforementioned stepchild? You're shitting me. EDIT: AngryJoe is not very pleased (this is me being polite about it) about the mess that this is causing, and I don't blame him at all. Complains and goes off on Youtube. Posts it on Youtube. Well it IS the most likely place for YouTube staff to find it and for them to actually become concerned. After all, if he posted it somewhere else, they'd have no reason to care about someone who doesn't use their service complaining about it. Classic Game Room has left youtube because of it For now at least Mark has now moved to his own site Seriously, if Classic Game Room of all things is getting flagged, it shows just how broken this system is. Also, since most of these flaggings (is that word?) aren't done by the actual copyright owners (WHY DID THEY EVER THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE?!!), it makes me wonder WHO does it. Are there seriously some trolls THAT dedicated to being useless? One thing: how are Let's Play videos not fair use? They serve an educational purpose in instructing people in how to beat the game. Because the video itself is 100% copyrighted content. "100% copyrighted content"?! That's just plain factually wrong. Last I checked, the commentary, recording, editing (and yes, many LPers do edit their videos) and even playing isn't owned by the developers. It's the player's work and the majority of the content of those videos was not made by the developers. So again, if the developers want to ask for image/broadcast rights, it's only natural but there is no justification for outlawing the entire thing and there is no justification for them trying to be the only ones profiting from videos that are mostly someone else's work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 8:01:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 8:05:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 9:52:45 GMT -5
as always, Archfiend's take is rather rough
|
|
|
Post by Ganon83 on Dec 13, 2013 10:40:27 GMT -5
Also, since most of these flaggings (is that word?) aren't done by the actual copyright owners (WHY DID THEY EVER THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE?!!), it makes me wonder WHO does it. Are there seriously some trolls THAT dedicated to being useless? NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER doubt the internet when it comes to that. Somebody will always do it because they can.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Dec 13, 2013 10:53:58 GMT -5
Also, since most of these flaggings (is that word?) aren't done by the actual copyright owners (WHY DID THEY EVER THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE?!!), it makes me wonder WHO does it. Are there seriously some trolls THAT dedicated to being useless? NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER doubt the internet when it comes to that. Somebody will always do it because they can. Apparently it's even dumber than that: it's actually an automated thing that automatically flags the video and gives ALL the money from the videos to the companies whose copyrights were allegedly infringed, most of which actually do not approve of this system and do not request the uploaders to give them money. YouTube doesn't check if the infringement is real, there is no waiting period to see if the company should actually be receiving the money, YouTube just put up a shitty algorithm and just trusts that it'll do a perfect job of seeing which videos infringe copyrights and which don't, because what could possibly go wrong with trusting machines with copyright laws? And of course, these companies are now making money on the entirety of the video, including the bits they had nothing to do with (in the case of reviews, that's pretty much the entire thing) and of course, YouTube rewards itself a hefty percentage off this money. They are taking someone else's work and making full profit from it. That is outright theft. Oh and according to Angry Joe, the system can specify what parts of the video supposedly infringe on a copyright (and surprise surprise, most of these SHOULD fall under fair use laws) and how many companies' rights are supposedly being infringed on, so they could easily put up a system where the profit is divided fairly depending on the amount of copyrighted content present, but they don't bother because hey, the uploaders don't have the money to sue and they're not even on the stock-exchange market! Who gives a f*** about THEIR rights?
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,352
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 13, 2013 11:56:18 GMT -5
as always, Archfiend's take is rather rough I actually agree with this guy.
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Dec 13, 2013 13:18:50 GMT -5
as always, Archfiend's take is rather rough Is Archfiend seriously telling someone else to get off their soapbox or accusing them of being a whiner? What a prick.
|
|
|
Post by Sparvid on Dec 13, 2013 13:33:55 GMT -5
Again, movies are the same every single time. Whereas the very act of playing a video game is transforming it into something unique. You and I might play the same game, and the playthroughs might be completely different from each other. That reminds me of a thing a couple of years ago. Some wrestling torrent site got a cease and desist letter from WWE, which they posted online. And among the many things WWE listed as was being illegaly spread was footage of their games. Not the games themselves, but game footage. Which made me wonder if there's ever been anyone who's said "Well, I was going to buy this wrestling game to play, but then I found videos of other people playing, and I decided to just watch those instead."
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Dec 13, 2013 13:44:22 GMT -5
Again, movies are the same every single time. Whereas the very act of playing a video game is transforming it into something unique. You and I might play the same game, and the playthroughs might be completely different from each other. That reminds me of a thing a couple of years ago. Some wrestling torrent site got a cease and desist letter from WWE, which they posted online. And among the many things WWE listed as was being illegaly spread was footage of their games. Not the games themselves, but game footage. Which made me wonder if there's ever been anyone who's said "Well, I was going to buy this wrestling game to play, but then I found videos of other people playing, and I decided to just watch those instead." I watched WWE 13 videos instead of playing the game, because I wasn't sure if I wanted to buy it.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Dec 13, 2013 14:48:04 GMT -5
as always, Archfiend's take is rather rough So his point is essentially that YouTube should be allowed to screw its users and violate laws because they're a private entity? Pretty sure that's not how it works, or else the countless sites that do illegally provide film or music downloads wouldn't be taken down. Angry Joe and countless others have had their livelihood stolen from him (remember, he never actually violated any copyright law and now companies are making money of the videos HE created) for no reason other than to kiss the ass of big name companies. I don't see how it's them acting too good to get another job to complain about having their work and their money taken away from them. What, does this guy also think that the people who get fired by their company so its stocks can go higher are whiny? And then he goes one about how AJ and other content providers should be thankful for the money he got from YouTube. So according to this guy, if someone pays you, that means they own you and are allowed to steal your intellectual property and your money. Again, pretty sure that's not how things work. Last I checked if you work somewhere, you don't become your employer's slave and they're not allowed to sell your stuff to other people without your consent. And of course, the main reason YouTube can afford to pay people in their partnership program in the first place is because of the large amount of money they made off popular shows, and then by helping themselves to a hefty 45% of the profit generated from the videos. As for the argument that YouTube is protecting themselves from potential future legal problems, he's basically saying that other companies are trying to screw YouTube over and so it's legitimate for YouTube to in turn screw their users and partners. And I've got to laugh at his "where are you gonna go?" question. Dailymotion, Blip, GameTrailers? Just the ones I can name off the top of my head, there's quite a lot of choice, really. I mean, it's amazing, this guy must be into scat to love being shit on so much. The entirety of his argument can basically be summed up to "hey, companies that are already filthy rich like to make even more money, even off things they didn't produce themselves so if they want to f*** people in the ass we should just bend over, spread our buttcheeks and say thanks because nothing is more important than these companies making money, even it's done by exploiting others". Well no, that is NOT right, that is not LEGAL, and these companies' money is not that important. And yes, YouTube MUST be fair, because there are LAWS forcing it to and there is not a god damn reason why we should pimp out Fair Use and freedom of expression to Google & their gang just because they want even more money, and there is no reason they should be allowed to steal their users' creations and give the profits to someone else because five seconds of a song played in the background. Maybe this guy likes to be slapped in the face by a CEO's dick but the rest of the world doesn't. People are not here to be farmed, for f***'s sake.
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Dec 13, 2013 14:58:10 GMT -5
as always, Archfiend's take is rather rough So his point is essentially that YouTube should be allowed to screw its users and violate laws because they're a private entity? Pretty sure that's not how it works, or else the countless sites that do illegally provide film or music downloads wouldn't be taken down. Angry Joe and countless others have had their livelihood stolen from him (remember, he never actually violated any copyright law and now companies are making money of the videos HE created) for no reason other than to kiss the ass of big name companies. I don't see how it's them acting too good to get another job to complain about having their work and their money taken away from them. What, does this guy also think that the people who get fired by their company so its stocks can go higher are whiny? And then he goes one about how AJ and other content providers should be thankful for the money he got from YouTube. So according to this guy, if someone pays you, that means they own you and are allowed to steal your intellectual property and your money. Again, pretty sure that's not how things work. Last I checked if you work somewhere, you don't become your employer's slave and they're not allowed to sell your stuff to other people without your consent. And of course, the main reason YouTube can afford to pay people in their partnership program in the first place is because of the large amount of money they made off popular shows, and then by helping themselves to a hefty 45% of the profit generated from the videos. As for the argument that YouTube is protecting themselves from potential future legal problems, he's basically saying that other companies are trying to screw YouTube over and so it's legitimate for YouTube to in turn screw their users and partners. And I've got to laugh at his "where are you gonna go?" question. Dailymotion, Blip, GameTrailers? Just the ones I can name off the top of my head, there's quite a lot of choice, really. I mean, it's amazing, this guy must be into scat to love being shit on so much. The entirety of his argument can basically be summed up to "hey, companies that are already filthy rich like to make even more money, even off things they didn't produce themselves so if they want to f*** people in the ass we should just bend over, spread our buttcheeks and say thanks because nothing is more important than these companies making money, even it's done by exploiting others". Well no, that is NOT right, that is not LEGAL, and these companies' money is not that important. And yes, YouTube MUST be fair, because there are LAWS forcing it to and there is not a god damn reason why we should pimp out Fair Use and freedom of expression to Google & their gang just because they want even more money, and there is no reason they should be allowed to steal their users' creations and give the profits to someone else because five seconds of a song played in the background. Maybe this guy likes to be slapped in the face by a CEO's dick but the rest of the world doesn't. People are not here to be farmed, for f***'s sake. Archfiend is a douche. His entire schtick is "sticking it to the man" of YouTube (i.e. bitching about anyone with more viewers than him)
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Dec 13, 2013 16:52:10 GMT -5
Heres a video of Fraser explaining alot of the background stuff and the copyright claim. He will add another video later going deeper. A big plus is he does not yell like Angry Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Dec 13, 2013 18:11:44 GMT -5
Angry Joe shoes us how this affects him and suggests some solutions to the problem.
Calmly.
|
|
The Sam
El Dandy
The Brainiest Sam of all
Posts: 8,423
|
Post by The Sam on Dec 13, 2013 20:54:51 GMT -5
Chris "Oney" O'Neill just posted this on his Facebook page;
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Dec 13, 2013 21:09:23 GMT -5
And for f***s sake, if you're let's playing so that you can make money then you shouldn't even be doing it. It should be for the love of the game, not because of how many people you can get to watch it. Agreed. If there was any good to come out of this change it was that it made very evident who was doing it for the money and who was doing it because they genuinely enjoy making videos and entertaining people. My sub box has gotten considerably smaller the past few days. The sad part is, those that are doing it for the money and complaining the loudest won't achieve anything. They'll just continue what they are doing, making a few changes so they don't get flagged and then get all pissy in a few months when shock of all shocks, YouTube f***s up for the 23rd time.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,047
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Dec 13, 2013 21:59:22 GMT -5
MaskedGamer on the role of Multi Channel Networks in the new policies:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2013 21:24:58 GMT -5
Craig Skistimas @stutteringcraig The irony of the YT copyright thing is that people are saying "what happened to you YouTube?" like YT has been this little indie site...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 13:50:47 GMT -5
Apparently even if you're the creator of the game, you aren't safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 21:28:14 GMT -5
as always, Archfiend's take is rather rough I used to like Archfiend but he took the AVGN movie/cheetahmen 2 thing way too serious and personal.
|
|