• Copyright Deadlock (The Jimquisition)
    27 replies, posted
[video=youtube;cK8i6aMG9VM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM[/video]
Him talking on camera ends at 1:02 but there's no real skit so it's fine to watch it.
How do people really get that offended over one minute of a video being a skit. Jesus.
[QUOTE=Zeos;50220760]How do people really get that offended over one minute of a video being a skit. Jesus.[/QUOTE] If the skits are historically disliked, then we don't want to sit through a minute of something we will likely dislike. It's quite simple; nobody wants to waste their time, even if its just a minute. -snip, passive aggressive rudeness- Edit: Let me rephrase, Jim has every right to do skits - I could care less - but people have the right to not enjoy them and skip them, that's all I meant.
A brilliant way to fool the copyright system into not monetizing the videos. Just put all kinds of companies' copyrighted material in the video, so that the system can't monetize the video out of legal fear of who should get the split profits. Genius.
[QUOTE=exhale77;50221020]If the skits are historically disliked, then we don't want to sit through a minute of something we will likely dislike. It's quite simple; nobody wants to waste their time, even if its just a minute. [editline]28th April 2016[/editline] Jesus.[/QUOTE] How was what he did even a skit at the beginning? He's just talking to the camera about what caused him to make a fucking video??????
[QUOTE=Zeos;50221042]How was what he did even a skit at the beginning? He's just talking to the camera about what caused him to make a fucking video??????[/QUOTE] He's not talking about this video. Calm down holy shit.
[QUOTE=Zeos;50221042]How was what he did even a skit at the beginning? He's just talking to the camera about what caused him to make a fucking video??????[/QUOTE] Well I meant in general, I apologize if that wasn't clear. [editline]28th April 2016[/editline] You okay man?
[QUOTE=Zeos;50220760]How do people really get that offended over one minute of a video being a skit. Jesus.[/QUOTE] It's not that people get offended, it's just that the skits are usually boring and dumb garbage. It's why it's customary anymore that within the first few posters in a Jimquisition thread, one of them posts how long to skip to so people don't have to watch it if they don't want to. This video was fine because he didn't actually do a skit.
Hahaha, what a genius middle finger to copyright policy. And if most Facepunchers can't fully appreciate our Lord and savior Jim Sterling, maybe they don't deserve to bask in his light. No reason to post his videos here any more huh?
Thank Satan for Jim Sterling.
[QUOTE=exhale77;50221020]If the skits are historically disliked, then we don't want to sit through a minute of something we will likely dislike. It's quite simple; nobody wants to waste their time, even if its just a minute. -snip, passive aggressive rudeness-[/QUOTE] They're not disliked enough for people to stop funding him on Patreon and that's how he makes money so it really doesn't matter what the people not giving him money think. Thank god for jim sterling
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50221519]It's not that people get offended, it's just that the skits are usually boring and dumb garbage. It's why it's customary anymore that within the first few posters in a Jimquisition thread, one of them posts how long to skip to so people don't have to watch it if they don't want to. This video was fine because he didn't actually do a skit.[/QUOTE] It's not customary. It's obnoxious.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;50222127]Hahaha, what a genius middle finger to copyright policy. And if most Facepunchers can't fully appreciate our Lord and savior Jim Sterling, maybe they don't deserve to bask in his light. No reason to post his videos here any more huh?[/QUOTE] I'd personally prefer if they continue to be posted here. I'm a lazy fuck who uses Facepunch as their hub for all information. If Jim's videos don't get posted here, I'll never know he released new ones. :v:
Youtube's Copyright system is so broken that you can troll it so it prevents [I]any[/I] company from getting ad money.
Bloody brilliant. I love all the companies tripping over each other for that pitiful ad revenue. Kinda hoping every one of Jim's videos are like this now. Just to fuck with some heads.
[url]http://youtubecreator.blogspot.nl/2016/04/improving-content-id-for-creators.html[/url] Sort of relevant, I guess.
Relevant: [url]https://youtu.be/mhBpI13dxkI?t=93[/url]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;50222179]They're not disliked enough for people to stop funding him on Patreon and that's how he makes money so it really doesn't matter what the people not giving him money think. Thank god for jim sterling[/QUOTE] Rephrased original post in edit.
[QUOTE=V12US;50226954][url]http://youtubecreator.blogspot.nl/2016/04/improving-content-id-for-creators.html[/url] Sort of relevant, I guess.[/QUOTE] [quote]Today, we’re announcing a major step to help fix that frustrating experience. We’re developing a new solution that will allow videos to earn revenue while a Content ID claim is being disputed. Here’s how it will work: when both a creator and someone making a claim choose to monetize a video, we will continue to run ads on that video and hold the resulting revenue separately. Once the Content ID claim or dispute is resolved, we’ll pay out that revenue to the appropriate party.[/quote] This is exactly the thing they needed to do as it's pretty much the #1 problem with the system right now. This alone removes any benefit from making bogus claims and holding them as long as possible. It's just a shame it took them this long to bother doing it.
[QUOTE=megafat;50224187]Youtube's Copyright system is so broken that you can troll it so it prevents [I]any[/I] company from getting ad money.[/QUOTE] someone should make a video about that
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50229687]someone should make a video about that[/QUOTE] Don't worry, I'll make a video called The Megafat-quisition about it.
I don't think this protects videos from takedown though.
[QUOTE=Lolkork;50230147]It will still be time consuming to get rid of the claims, so I hope that they improve content id for creators.[/QUOTE] Yeah but at least they'll still get their income in the end instead of giving it to some random company who has absolutely no right to it.
[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;50230246]Yeah but at least they'll still get their income in the end instead of giving it to some random company who has absolutely no right to it.[/QUOTE] not to diminish the progress but going from unbelievably shit to believably shit isn't really something youtube should be proud about just yet.
[QUOTE=cheesylard;50227040]Relevant: [url]https://youtu.be/mhBpI13dxkI?t=93[/url][/QUOTE] It's interesting when he mentions the part about the internet being initially driven by pornography as well as him describing the idea of crowdfunding and how that has literally become kickstarter and patreon. I find it fascinating the parallels that are drawn when you consider that some of the most successful and lucrative patreon creators are the ones making pornographic content. Interestingly enough, I think that since porn has been tied to the internet for so long, it is one of the only forms of media that isn't, or rather, cannot be protected by copyright.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;50230923]It's interesting when he mentions the part about the internet being initially driven by pornography as well as him describing the idea of crowdfunding and how that has literally become kickstarter and patreon. I find it fascinating the parallels that are drawn when you consider that some of the most successful and lucrative patreon creators are the ones making pornographic content. Interestingly enough, I think that since porn has been tied to the internet for so long, it is one of the only forms of media that isn't, or rather, cannot be protected by copyright.[/QUOTE] Wait, what? I don't remember him talking about porn at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.