I agree with him on a lot of the points and I love Sky. But I do have to disagree with his police analogy.
In that analogy, Youtube aren't just the police, but they're also the judge. They determine what copyright claims are and are not valid. And yes, if someone wrongly accused me of murder and I was arrested for it, it would be the accuser's fault, not the cop's. But, if someone wrongly accused me of murder and a judge convicted me of it with no evidence, that's as much the judge's fault as it is the accuser's fault.
Youtube has said over and over again they don't want to be the arbitrators of fair use but that's just not even remotely possible. They conceived of this system, they implemented this system, and every day they make the conscious decision to continue using this system, that makes it their responsibility. They have to man up and take control of the system that THEY created, or get rid of the system.
This is the weirdest intro ever. I am bad at talking and not smart, now let me show how much better I understand it better than you.
His entire reasoning is flawed though. The cops in his analogy are actually sheriffs and Youtube is the one that supplies them with the badge of authority and lets sheriffs go loose. You can't be surprised that the sheriff becomes an oppressive ruler when he has all the means and no system to keep him in check. Well, you can raise your voice and then find yourself with a bullet between the eyes without due process.
I dislike this guy so much. He is the epitome of quasi-intellectualism that feeds off drama.
Then he says the DMCA forces a company to make a system that makes taking down a video as easy as possible, but that isn't true. This is the most favourable thing for Youtube and the least favourable thing for content creators that get fucked by it.
In Sky's mind when the senate passes a law that was lobbied for by companies, the companies are at fault, not the senate members that voted for it, they are just doing their job and trying to live an easy life.
I always keep my head down by injecting myself into a lot of drama and making sure that I get as much attention as possible, but using as many excuses and sucking up to as many popular Youtubers as possible so that no one hates me.
/rant off
[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;49822546]This is the weirdest intro ever. I am bad at talking and not smart, now let me show how much better I understand it better than you.
His entire reasoning is flawed though. The cops in his analogy are actually sheriffs and Youtube is the one that supplies them with the badge of authority and lets sheriffs go loose. You can't be surprised that the sheriff becomes an oppressive ruler when he has all the means and no system to keep him in check. Well, you can raise your voice and then find yourself with a bullet between the eyes without due process.
I dislike this guy so much. He is the epitome of quasi-intellectualism that feeds off drama.
Then he says the DMCA forces a company to make a system that makes taking down a video as easy as possible, but that isn't true. This is the most favourable thing for Youtube and the least favourable thing for content creators that get fucked by it.
In Sky's mind when the senate passes a law that was lobbied for by companies, the companies are at fault, not the senate members that voted for it, they are just doing their job and trying to live an easy life.
I always keep my head down by injecting myself into a lot of drama and making sure that I get as much attention as possible, but using as many excuses and sucking up to as many popular Youtubers as possible so that no one hates me.
/rant off[/QUOTE]
Idk what you're on about with the "feeding off drama" statements. He's a Youtube content creator, he has the right to give his 2 cents on the matter like every other creator.
If anything, even if a lot of his points are flawed, he's only helping the movement by trying to get people to focus not just on Youtube which is what the majority are doing.
The problem with Sky is that he's fucking awful at articulating his points that make perfect sense in his head. The same thing happened when he posted that video calling out girls that show their tits on Twitch, he had a debate after it with Destiny, Kaceytron, and Totalbiscuit and just got fucking destroyed live on air because he's just not capable of explaining what he's thinking.
He should have ran this script by Totalbiscuit before posting this video. TB has a law degree, and has spent more time than any other Youtuber dealing with the content ID system, and is good friends with, and really REALLY good at debating with Sky. He needs someone to poke holes in his arguments before he makes them, and if he can't find a way to fill those holes, he should throw out the argument. The problem here is he has a lot of fair points (like a lot of the people using this hashtag really, really don't deserve to be because they're guilty) but those points are drowned out by the easily refutable ones and it ruins the whole video.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49822655]The problem with Sky is that he's fucking awful at articulating his points that make perfect sense in his head. The same thing happened when he posted that video calling out girls that show their tits on Twitch, he had a debate after it with Destiny, Kaceytron, and Totalbiscuit and just got fucking destroyed live on air because he's just not capable of explaining what he's thinking.
He should have ran this script by Totalbiscuit before posting this video. TB has a law degree, and has spent more time than any other Youtuber dealing with the content ID system, and is good friends with, and really REALLY good at debating with Sky. He needs someone to poke holes in his arguments before he makes them, and if he can't find a way to fill those holes, he should throw out the argument. The problem here is he has a lot of fair points (like a lot of the people using this hashtag really, really don't deserve to be because they're guilty) but those points are drowned out by the easily refutable ones and it ruins the whole video.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't awful at articulating imply that his premise is sound? As we both have mentioned, his built his premise on a very flaky foundation. I am curious if he is genuine or just the black Perez Hilton of gaming/internet culture sensationalism.
The big thing that bothers me is that he placates everyone that he has something to gain from, his fans, other Youtubers' fans, Youtube and to an extent even himself. He is trying to make himself out to be the underdog, when is very much the opposite of one. You lose that claim when your video gets over 120000 views in one day.
He purposely puts himself in the position, no matter the outcome, he will come out as the winner.
Edit: Holy fucking shit that trigger warning gives me brain inflammation.
[i]TRIGGER WARNING
TRIGGER WARNING.
I was going to compare this kind of crime to Rape, but I replaced Rape With Murder, and thats the analogy I used. OBVIOUSLY RAPE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS AND IM NOT TRYING TO TRIVIALIZE IT, I WAS JUST MAKING THE ETHICAL COMPARISON. Being a Rape Victim myself I'm no stranger to false claims with little to no actual evidence leading to some pretty serious repercussions. The 'Murder' Analogy doesn't fit as well- But in order to not offend my audience I refrained. My comparisons can use work- im sure.•[/i]
He didn't put it in the video, so why the fuck does he even bring it. Why does he bring up that he got raped. And in what world is rape worse than murder, yes getting PTSD sucks and all the misery that comes with it must be awful. But when you get murdered there is no options to feel depressed, well, you will be LITERALLY DEPRESSED INTO THE DIRT AND EATEN BY WORMS AND MAGGOTS.
I like this style of video
Someone should edit out the jump cuts so this video is actually watchable.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/U1Hx2UH.png[/img]
Jesus, people actually take this guy seriously? You don't have to make these shitty metaphors to get your point across, it should be simple enough to understand in itself.
Tbh I really dislike when youtubers or I guess people in general present hypothetical questions to themselves like they're coming from angry ranting commenters. I feel like Sky does this a lot but its just such a lazy way to reinforce your point. Also towards the end he suggests that the viewers opinion might be different just because its a reflection of "your favorite youtubers." A lot of his videos like this are more than a bit condescending imo.
This is really just a long winded argument saying Youtube's weakly not accountable. When the risk to their business is high, not acting is acceptable, but when the risk is low props to them for fixing the problem. Uhh? As a service provider it's insane to say that they're not accountable when they're laying down the punishments. This is people's livelihood's we're talking about, and people have been getting turned away because their current system is based on negligence. Kinda bullshit apologist nonsense.
He totally ignores that big groups are able to push around the small guys pretty easily. When someone gets a claim against them there might be a settlement reached, but it's not always a fair one. I somewhat get his empathy for Youtube but he really takes it too far. Companies fuck up, and forming a lynch mob isn't the right answer. But the thing is the community didn't do that.
From the vast majority of the tweets I've read, most people were respectful while making their collective voices heard. GradeA spoke very well about this and I'm sure it's appreciated on the company's end, especially because most movements online don't go over so nicely. We don't need to feel sorry for them. They know they've fucked up and a dialogue is starting. It wasn't a lynch mob, it was someone realizing that if a huge number of people came together and directly addressed the head of a company, they'd have to respond. What more immediate way could this have been accomplished? He tries to say that this route could be negative because "lynch mob" but that isn't supported by anything other than his emotion and insistence that they don't need to take accountability "because the law is wrong/bad/broken". This video is so unnecessary. It doesn't bring anything to the table for moving forward. All he did was jump in on the discussion to criticize. Why bother man?
[QUOTE=markg06;49824600]Someone should edit out the jump cuts so this video is actually watchable.[/QUOTE]
Edit out jump cuts so you can have... Different jump cuts?
Or would you prefer a Star Wars wipe while he's talking?
[QUOTE=markg06;49824600]Someone should edit out the jump cuts so this video is actually watchable.[/QUOTE]
I think you should re-think what you're saying here because if you had actually done that properly you'd realize that makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.
I do certainly agree that it's the US government's fault for having bad copyright and intellectual property laws not YouTube's fault for trying to abide by those laws and company's fault for trying to profit off those laws. Think of these companies (YouTube included) as soulless money making machines: they're just trying to profit, they're not a person with ethical and moral understanding. What we really need is reforms in laws (and not just copyright and intellectual property) that take into account the existence of the internet. Unfortunately we're kind of going in the wrong direction with stuff like this, with governments trying to implement laws that actually act against the internet and its userbase (that userbase being basically the entire 1st world).
I suppose he's never had a copyright strike come his way, has he?
[QUOTE=markg06;49824600]Someone should edit out the jump cuts so this video is actually watchable.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean re-edit it so the jump cuts aren't so annoying.
[QUOTE=Brobattington;49824973]I suppose he's never had a copyright strike come his way, has he?[/QUOTE]
The general gist I'm getting from all this stuff though is that most YouTubers who are big enough to monetize have had strikes that they've had to appeal against.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49824930]I do certainly agree that it's the US government's fault for having bad copyright and intellectual property laws not YouTube's fault for trying to abide by those laws and company's fault for trying to profit off those laws. Think of these companies (YouTube included) as soulless money making machines: they're just trying to profit, they're not a person with ethical and moral understanding. What we really need is reforms in laws (and not just copyright and intellectual property) that take into account the existence of the internet. Unfortunately we're kind of going in the wrong direction with stuff like this, with governments trying to implement laws that actually act against the internet and its userbase (that userbase being basically the entire 1st world).[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, more than one person can be responsible, the government is responsible for allowing the system to be abused, the copyright holders are responsible for abusing the system, and Google are responsible for creating this system to make it even easier to abuse copyright law.
Unfortunately, the reality is that getting copyright holders to stop abusing the system is impossible, and getting the current government to reform copyright law is even more impossible. The most possible solution to these problems is getting Google to understand that the people who pay their paycheck need their help, and maybe they'll decide that supporting Youtubers is in their best interest and fix the system.
The DMCA does a lot wrong, but it also does a lot right. There are three main ways the DMCA is better than Youtube's system.
1. The DMCA establishes that you're innocent until proven guilty. A company has to send you a DMCA takedown request when they feel you're violating their copyright, if you ignore that request, the obligation is on THEM to sue YOU. That's why I hate Sky's argument of "We should set up a Kickstarter and sue them!" No, that's the exact opposite of how it's supposed to work, the copyright holder is obligated to defend their copyright, end of story. But Youtube's system immediately assumes the copyright is violated and requires the Youtuber to prove their innocence.
2. If you file a DMCA takedown request against someone who is covered under fair use, and they ignore you, and you sue them, the court can find you guilty of perjury. There are strict penalties for abusing the copyright system. Needless to say, there are no penalties on Youtube.
3. DMCA takedown requests have to be filed manually. You can't just hit a "DMCA takedown" button and have an automated system take care of it. This is good because it means that the content creator has a face to talk to when they're issued a takedown request, and some recourse to try to work the situation out and come to a deal. On Youtube, when someone issues a copyright strike, you can say yes or no, nothing else, you have no way to get in contact with the claimant, nothing.
Yes, the most comprehensive solution is to just have the government fix the loopholes that Youtube is using to create this system, but that'll only happen in a country that doesn't allow companies to bribe politicians legally, AKA not the US. The most realistic solution is to reason with Google, because Youtubers pay their paychecks, which gives them incentive to listen. If Youtubers can reason with them to fix those three problems, the system would start to work.
After five minutes of that, I really want that guy to stop yelling at me.
I like Sky's videos but like someone said
unless he has a script or something properly well thought out, he shouldn't say a word
Youtube does NOT care about it's content creators. And if I'm wrong and it actually does, it's doing such a shitty job that it doesn't deserve any credit for caring anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
