Angry Joe - Youtube Copyright Disaster! Angry Rant - General

[QUOTE=pentium;43167636]Max may be max but he has damn good points. If he was completely illogical he wouldn't be a mod. You guys are just being children because you don't want to put effort into content. You just want to rely on someone else.[/QUOTE]You keep posting this shit and still haven't got a goddamned clue what you are talking about. These people actually do put quite a lot of effort in to their content, whether you like it or want to admit it or not. You're not right, flat out. And Max is a mod because of his job, not because he's a bastion of reason.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;43167697]ok lets say that about all forms of reviews/media based around other media alright so first up, no reviews for movies at all no reviews for games no reviews for software no reviews for hardware you have to go on your gut before you buy anything, you have to put the money where your mouth is by your logic while you may disagree with lets players (thats a whole other bag than stuff like angryjoe) you have no right to say that reviewers don't deserve to make money off of reviewing i'm sorry but you are objectively wrong on this issue reivews are a service, just because they are made to also be entertaining does not diminish that fact[/QUOTE] Youtube still lets you put this shit up. Just don't be an asshole and ask to be paid in the process if it's copyrightable material. Is it hard? No. Why is this so hard for you to understand? From your perspective apparently you can see the end of Youtube and freedom. From my vantage point I just see Youtube closing a moneymaking loophole and everyone getting buttmad because suddenly they're forced to use food stamps again. I can still see and know channels which fall under all the catagories for flaggable content under the update but have not seen a single video get removed. I'm included in that. Did we all fall through the cracks? I highly doubt it. Man the fuck up.

They're using real "highly trained" monkeys I see!

[QUOTE=pentium;43167743]Youtube still lets you put this shit up. Just don't be an asshole and ask to be paid in the process if it's copyrightable material. Is it hard? No. Why is this so hard for you to understand? From your perspective apparently you can see the end of Youtube and freedom. From my vantage point I just see Youtube closing a moneymaking loophole and everyone getting buttmad because suddenly they're forced to use food stamps again. I can still see and know channels which fall under all the catagories for flaggable content under the update but have not seen a single video get removed. I'm included in that. Did we all fall through the cracks? I highly doubt it. Man the fuck up.[/QUOTE] Oh, sure, I'll thank Youtube for being so KIND as to make me use Google+, being forced to use external scripts to even efficiently use youtube. Yup, I should be THANKING youtube for letting me upload content! The only reason I upload to youtube is to reach a larger search base, I am perfectly capable of hosting my own content (And everything actually is) elsewhere, that I pay for.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;43157912]so yeah, max is being stupid again EDIT: oh and then he disabled replies to his comment[/QUOTE] To be fair, you guys seem to have made a habit out of following him wherever he goes and attacking him on whatever he says. It doesn't surprise me he disabled responses, knowing how you guys react to him, and how volatile this particular subject happens to be.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;43167770]But NOW, when people are doing jobs they enjoy completely and living off of them, its somehow bad to think that they are in the right when it comes to other peoples copyrights that are legally being used under fair use. You need to look into who is continuing off of these automated claims, you need to research more into what these people do, you need to understand that it's an industry and not just a way to get money from a "loophole" you nutter [/QUOTE] When I'm 40 and digging through trash cans for food at least it won't be because I chose to put my eggs in the basket of an online media company who showed me to the door because I could not comply with their T&C. You want to do it for a living? Find a proper media agency and whore yourself out to like everybody else.

[QUOTE=Leintharien;43167924]To be fair, you guys seem to have made a habit out of following him wherever he goes and attacking him on whatever he says. It doesn't surprise me he disabled responses, knowing how you guys react to him, and how volatile this particular subject happens to be.[/QUOTE] IMO he should be open to criticism, blocking routes to critique show a disinterest in having a fair conversation.

[QUOTE=pentium;43167743]Youtube still lets you put this shit up. Just don't be an asshole and ask to be paid in the process if it's copyrightable material. Is it hard? No. Why is this so hard for you to understand? From your perspective apparently you can see the end of Youtube and freedom. From my vantage point I just see Youtube closing a moneymaking loophole and everyone getting buttmad because suddenly they're forced to use food stamps again. I can still see and know channels which fall under all the catagories for flaggable content under the update but have not seen a single video get removed. I'm included in that. Did we all fall through the cracks? I highly doubt it. Man the fuck up.[/QUOTE] The people that actually earn enough money off of Let's Plays and reviews put so much time and money into this activity they can't continue doing it at a reasonable quality and/or consistency without revenue. This isn't Steve getting pissed he's not seeing his 1c earned after 6 months of coughing into a mic. Not only is this system completely exploitable as LuaChobo hints at, the way YouTube receives feedback also means the big channels can get false strikes removed swiftly while for small ones the process might take so long they can't sustain their service anymore or have to slow down in pace, crippling upstarts. And it's all a big legislative mess as well because we have no official ruling on interactive entertainment and if the necessarily player input warrants enough creative cooperation to warrant monetization of Let's Plays etc. We have an absence of laws that's filled by corporations, never a good thing. These corporations are afraid that people watching Let's Plays will not buy their game because they can get the experience for free, but it's a very different case from uploading a movie or song because gameplay cannot be transmitted in video format, and is the core component of interactive experiences. Chances are if someone's not interested in actually playing your game, they wouldn't have considered buying it at all. There's also the perspective that a lot of popular Let's Play channels don't sustain themselves because of the big names, but because of the actual personalities playing there. To paraphrase TotalBiscuit whose view counts for obscure games and big hits is fairly similar, the game is the stage upon which actors create their entertainment, and people like PewDiePie can play pretty much anything and his viewers will follow because they're primarily interested in HIM and not the game. And as he also said, this whole thing isn't going to go away. People apparently like watching other people play video games, and livestream integration into NextGen consoles and the popularity of twitch only support this claim. In the foreseeable time there'll be a lot, a LOT of trouble for small/medium channels and then after that everyone will just not bother with ambiguity and stick with a whitelist of publishers like Blizzard or Valve that have taken public stance and think of Let's Plays as an effective word-of-mouth method to get their titles known out there. So this whole mess isn't likely to achieve a whole lot, it's full of exploits, full of pain for many upstarts, and ruins YouTube's reputation just that much more. I even doubt those that seek to "profit" from this will see a spike of revenue now that only low-quality inconsistent free displays of their games are up for show - in addition to the big usual review sites of course, but those are losing reputation by the minute and there's a couple reason why a lot of people prefer basing their opinion on Let's Play material rather than edited reviews.

[QUOTE=pentium;43167959]When I'm 40 and digging through trash cans for food at least it won't be because I chose to put my eggs in the basket of an online media company who showed me to the door because I could not comply with their T&C. You want to do it for a living? Find a proper media agency and whore yourself out to like everybody else.[/QUOTE] You sound like one of those people who just hates others for being more successful than you because you think they didn't earn their success. By that I mean you sound like an idiot.

[QUOTE=bisousbisous;43157757]Nice comment on the video MaxOfSTD, it's almost as if you aren't someone who makes their living off of videos and when you get all your money making videos flagged, which stops you from monetizing off of them, you lose your fucking livelihood[/QUOTE] You're wrong — I've been a YouTube partner since december 2008 [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=LuaChobo;43157912]EDIT: oh and then he disabled replies to his comment[/QUOTE] Haven't done anything to the comment, my best guess is this is Google+ being stupid again

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;43157912]so yeah, max is being stupid again EDIT: oh and then he disabled replies to his comment[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3797350/hosting/2013-12/2013-12-13_09-55-14.png[/img] Replies aren't disabled [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bisousbisous;43157976]He talks like this is the same Content ID system that has been in place for years, when it is CLEARLY not.[/QUOTE] Content ID has been a part of YouTube since 2010... [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeos;43159533]Why is he so excessively rude to everyone?[/QUOTE] How was I even rude? [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Durrsly;43158251]It's funny because without PsiSyndicate, Rust wouldn't be raking in money from kids wanting keys.[/QUOTE] A game is the intellectual property of someone else and unless they explicitly say that you can do whatever you want with video recordings of the game (most independent developers do), they're fully within their rights to claim footage of it (except where covered by fair use law — which primarily covers you in [I]non[/I]-profit cases) Am I saying big studios etc. should crack down on YouTubers? Definitely not. Because it's a really dumb move and completely ignores the benefits that Let's Plays have. But are they in their right to do so? Yes.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168098][img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3797350/hosting/2013-12/2013-12-13_09-55-14.png[/img] How was I even rude?[/QUOTE] The point is, the new changes added to the system (Or the complete rehaul, whatever the hell you want to call it) majorly sucks in every possible way. [b](No reason for me to explain, just watch the thread's video)[/b] For anyone to defend or consider it as a normal/good thing should be considered a horrible human being that would probably do the same thing if they had the power and opportunity to do so. How about we don't have an endless amount of replies of, "how was I rude" and just cut it here, aye? It'll save a lot of peoples time.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168098]Am I saying big studios etc. should crack down on YouTubers? Definitely not. Because it's a really dumb move and completely ignores the benefits that Let's Plays have. But are they in their right to do so? Yes.[/QUOTE] They have the right, yes. But there is a problem with the system when people who [i]don't[/i] have the right can just claim revenue from somebody for something they don't even own, disrupting that person's income for up to 30 days (and if the claimant wants to be a real dick, another 30 days after that). Content ID matching needs to be there, I'll agree with that. But in its current form it is completely fucked up and needs to be less "Guilty until proven innocent."

[QUOTE=Live2becool;43168133]The point is, the new changes added to the system (Or the complete rehaul, whatever the hell you want to call it) majorly sucks in every possible way. For anyone to defend or consider it as a normal/good thing should be considered a horrible human being that would probably do the same thing if they had the power and opportunity to do so.[/QUOTE] I completely agree that the situation sucks for creators, and that copyright law could use a major reuse, and that YouTube sucks... but legally speaking what's happening is entirely justified and no amount of screaming loudly on camera will change that. Fair use will apply if you're a reviewer, journalist, or critic; I don't think your average Let's Play (thinking Game Grumps style here) falls under that. The balance for fair use also heavily swings towards "doesn't apply" when you're trying to profit off of your video; fair use exists to protect non-profit cases. [QUOTE=Live2becool;43168133]How about we don't have an endless amount of replies of, "how was I rude" and just cut it here, aye? It'll save a lot of peoples time.[/QUOTE] I dunno man, I find it funny that people say that I was rude (which I wasn't), and then they go and say things like that [QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;43160214]Because he's kind of an asshole.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tha Baroni;43160515]Max is and always will be a little bitch.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bisousbisous;43157976]Dumb fuck should go back to making that DayZ clone.[/QUOTE] I apologize for defending myself? [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;43168163]They have the right, yes. But there is a problem with the system when people who [i]don't[/i] have the right can just claim revenue from somebody for something they don't even own, disrupting that person's income for up to 30 days (and if the claimant wants to be a real dick, another 30 days after that). Content ID matching needs to be there, I'll agree with that. But in its current form it is completely fucked up and needs to be less "Guilty until proven innocent."[/QUOTE] I agree that cases where Content ID fingerprint providers abuse their rights needs to be taken care of. To a certain extent, YouTube should do what it does to users: the more you don't run into issues like mis-claims, failed disputes etc, the more the site should trust you. And what's happening is clearly proving that some fingerprint providers can not be trusted and should have their privileges revoked.

you're not defending yourself when you tell someone who legitimately uses footage under fair use in his review videos that he should not feel bad about having his job taken away from him by third party companies that have next to nothing to do with the content being flagged for no reason other than monetization trolling (as far as anyone can reason). companies left and right are saying that they didn't send out the content id matches so there goes that, and how do you explain joe's interview videos being matched and flagged? interviews with nothing but him and the developers, talking. the situation is literally crazy and you're sitting there under no threat of losing your money and livelihood telling some guy under that threat "hey you shoulda seen it coming" or maybe you just don't understand the law? maybe you're preaching something that you have no grasp of. i'll take the word of total biscuit of mother fucking polaris who deals with legal shit every day over you, "max of s2d of rust and big tit gas mask women".

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168098]Content ID has been a part of YouTube since 2010...[/QUOTE] [I]It was changed. That's why people are angry, because the changes are fucking up [B]a lot[/B] of people.[/I]

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;43168257][I]It was changed. That's why people are angry, because the changes are fucking up [B]a lot[/B] of people.[/I][/QUOTE] The contentID system wasn't. Just now a shit ton of people are now part of the group which is scanned. Loads of people on MCN's simply weren't scanned.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;43168265]The contentID system wasn't. Just now a shit ton of people are now part of the group which is scanned. Loads of people on MCN's simply weren't scanned.[/QUOTE] actually they changed the algorithm as well. from what i understand it was a change that was set to take place in january of next year, but came early.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;43168224]ou're not defending yourself when you tell someone who legitimately uses footage under fair use in his review videos that he should not feel bad about having his job taken away companies left and right are saying that they didn't send out the content id matches so there goes that, and how do you explain joe's interview videos being matched and flagged? interviews with nothing but him and the developers, talking.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that he shouldn't be feeling bad. Don't caricature as some evil heartless soulless monster, please. If he "legitimately" uses footage then he can dispute the claims and they will go away — especially if the companies said that the claims were an error. [QUOTE=TheJoey;43168224]the situation is literally crazy and you're sitting there under no threat of losing your money and livelihood telling some guy under that thread "hey you shoulda seen it coming"[/QUOTE] Come on. Where did I say "you shoulda seen it coming"? You're making baseless claims about my financial situation. The money I get from YouTube every month helps me and my relatives a lot more than you seem to assume. Despite that, if Content ID claims were to take parts of my ad revenue away (which they have in the past, several times, because I've often used copyrighted songs), I would understand because there's a thing such as intellectual property. I'm happy to hear that Content ID claims from publishers are, from what you're saying, a mistake, but if they hadn't been, and if the videos didn't fall under fair use, then they would be within their rights to claim. But should they? No, because you should never crack down on fans who are more than happy to give you free advertising. [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheJoey;43168274]actually they changed the algorithm as well. from what i understand it was a change that was set to take place in january of next year, but came early.[/QUOTE] It's a MCN management change. When you were partnered as a MCN before, the monetization process was actually a claim. You were claiming your own video, and you had priority over it, so no further scans would occur. YouTube changed this due to abuse of the system, and now MCNs have to compete on added value instead of who will allow you to bypass YouTube's rules the fastest. Some MCNs, I'll give Fullscreen as an example since it's where I am, give you access to licensed sound & music databases, a better backend with lots of advanced stat tracking, opportunities with sponsored videos etc. Now it's up to you to decide whether staying with a MCN for their added value is worth a cut of your ad revenue.

I'v seen so many of these rants on youtube, but nothing changes. If they are really that discontent over these changes, why don't they move to something else, an alternative site. If popular guys like these group up and pull thier followers away from youtube, then there will be no more problem right? Or am I thinking too simple now?

[QUOTE=Tosti;43168313]I'v seen so many of these rants on youtube, but nothing changes. If they are really that discontent over these changes, why don't they move to something else, an alternative site. If popular guys like these group up and pull thier followers away from youtube, then there will be no more problem right? Or am I thinking too simple now?[/QUOTE] It's easy to say "go on another site", but it's not possible because websites suffer from a status quo effect. People didn't switch over to Google+ because all their friends were already on Facebook, for example. Likewise, people aren't going to go away from YouTube because it's where everything is right now. (it is the number one site of the world after all) People will only switch away from YouTube if a site that offers nothing short of a huge revolution regarding online video content appears.

you literally commented on the guy's video telling him the process to dispute is "easy", and that "its easy to blame youtube" and that his anger is "not justified." you may be crazy. i'm not entirely sure. because those things are both not correct. companies can instantly remove their claims, or they could take a week, or they could take a month. the month part is more likely especially because of claims from companies such as "tomb raider" which isn't even a real company name? which either means its an old system still activating (and thus manually inactive, with nobody at the controls to respond) or a monetization troll. that is a week, or a month, or any indeterminate amount of time, without your main source of income. nah hey chill out dont yell its okay. i'm just here to tell you that you're not justified for being angry and its real easy to fix everything, because that'll help. also you said what he was doing was childish in the other thread about this issue. i'm not calling you evil dude. i'm calling you stupid, with a severe lack of good judgement.

[QUOTE=Tosti;43168313]I'v seen so many of these rants on youtube, but nothing changes. If they are really that discontent over these changes, why don't they move to something else, an alternative site. If popular guys like these group up and pull thier followers away from youtube, then there will be no more problem right? Or am I thinking too simple now?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I think you're being a little too optimistic here. Youtube is a huge site with a huge user base who don't want to go anywhere else for videos. I'm sure content creators would have left long ago to better sites but they know very few of their fan base would transition with them.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;43168333]you literally commented on the guy's video telling him the process to dispute is "easy", and that "its easy to blame youtube" and that his anger is "not justified."[/QUOTE] I was referring to the whole "I bet MPAA and RIAA are behind this" part of the video. And yes, the process to dispute is actually really easy? If you want to claim fair use over a video you can literally copypaste a template paragraph into the dispute form, change a few words, and you're done. [QUOTE=TheJoey;43168333]also you said what he was doing was childish in the other thread about this issue.[/QUOTE] I find his character childish, but that's a different thing altogether.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168356]And yes, the process to dispute is actually really easy? If you want to claim fair use over a video you can literally copypaste a template paragraph into the dispute form, change a few words, and you're done. [/QUOTE] And the part about being locked out from doing anything for months if the people behind the claim so chose? [QUOTE=LuaChobo;43158222][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTHhtCyzLg[/media] [/QUOTE] Just because you can copypaste a generic this is fair use statement doesn't make the system less of a guilty until proven innocent quagmire.

[QUOTE=mooman1080;43168390]And the part about being locked out from doing anything for months if the people behind the claim so chose?[/QUOTE] Just so we're clear — which part are you talking about? [QUOTE=mooman1080;43168390]Just because you can copypaste a generic this is fair use statement doesn't make the system less of a guilty until proven innocent quagmire.[/QUOTE] I think "guilty proven innocent" is a really loaded term here. That said I would very much welcome one simple change: while there is a dispute between both parties, monetization should still be ongoing for the original uploader instead of taking it away outright.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168408]Just so we're clear — which part are you talking about? [/QUOTE] The part where the people behind the claim need to respond to the dispute within 30 days or it's disputed automatically, or within that time they can resubmit the claim and require you to dispute it again but providing personal info to them which unless I'm mistaken is another 30 days. Best case scenario they respond quickly and you get the revenue back, worst case they just wait 29 days then just resubmit the claim.

[QUOTE=mooman1080;43168434]The part where the people behind the claim need to respond to the dispute within 30 days or it's disputed automatically, or within that time they can resubmit the claim and require you to dispute it again but providing personal info to them which unless I'm mistaken is another 30 days. Best case scenario they respond quickly and you get the revenue back, worst case they just wait 29 days then just resubmit the claim.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's definitely bullshit and biased towards like people submitting the claim -- way too open to abuse.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168441]Yeah, that's definitely bullshit and biased towards like people submitting the claim -- way too open to abuse.[/QUOTE] Also, if they continue to persist after the third dispute they can out right issue a take down notice, which youtube complies with automatically, and after that happens there's another appeal process which involves a legal movement of a sort. Also also, once that happens you get a copyright strike which stops you from filing those lesser disputes because your account will no longer be in good standing, and if you are doing 3 second time around disputes and they all result in take downs at the same time, that's 3 automatic strikes which means your account is immediately removed by youtube. To be fair it's unlikely that they would go that far, but it's still of major concern as again for the entirety of this process the creator is not getting paid add revenue on their work.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;43168657]Better idea, since the system already notes when the content starts, why can't it note when the content ends? Like if 1 minute of a 3 hour video is say, a trailer for pokemon Then have that minute flagged to the copyright owner, and then when the video is monetized, instead of giving the entire videos earnings to the owners of that 1 minute video, give them a percentage of the videos earnings based on how much of the video contains their content. So say its the 1 minute from 3 hours. they have rights to 0.5556 percent of the entire video, so give them that much from the earnings.[/QUOTE] A time-based metric is not a good value of how much the video relies on the content that is claimed