Angry Joe - Youtube Copyright Disaster! Angry Rant

[MaxOfS2D]

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;43168687]While true, we are talking about an automated process here.
An automated system cannot prove or disprove that a video is basing its entire thing off of content they have no rights to, it can only say "this is owned by someone else flag this"

So why the hell should an automated process instantly give everything to a third party who doesnt actually trigger it at first

Again, using the polaris podcast as an example
It was literally 1 minute of a 3 hour podcast, maybe 3-10 minutes after that clip was a discussion about the game without any actual footage from it, so why should nintendo gain the entire monetization?

[editline]13th December 2013[/editline]

Give the copyright owners some rights to the videos sure, but dont say "they should get everything" without proving it[/QUOTE]

Well, you're right, as much as it would not be a good metric, it would still be more fair than right now

[Jimesu_Evil]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAi81_uvztM#t=483[/media]

[Jookia]

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;43156362]There's talk going around that the new system was put in place to mesh with the stricter rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership[/url][/QUOTE]

That'd make sense considering that's basically 'international copyright law'.

[MaxOfS2D]

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;43168749][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAi81_uvztM#t=483[/media][/QUOTE]

This is a much better video than the one where he screams

[tr00per7]

Well I would be glad if every video game related video was removed from youtube and every lets player and reviewer fucked off.

[Jimesu_Evil]

Some people would be glad if Hitler came back to life too.

[artdeco]

I would be glad if everyone attempting to restrict the flow of unbiased opinions on games fucked off

[DudesonFan]

Yep. Google is now definitely on par with (if not past) Activision, EA and Microsoft in being downright evil.
Seriously, Youtube has just gone further and further down the shithole ever since Google bought them.

At this point, i won't even be surprised if one day i won't be able to make a google search without signing in to Google- and get bombarded with fucking copyright claims for typing a copyrighted name in the search bar.

[SassPD22]

Sorry to bring some shit but here's some shit:
[video=youtube;WEoZhnA0V8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoZhnA0V8U[/video]

[B]Edit:[/B] How do i make the video appear

[S31-Syntax]

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168925]This is a much better video than the one where he screams[/QUOTE]

"Man, when Angry Joe is angry he really sucks."

[lazyguy]

[QUOTE=stealth_camo;43157747]i have to use a browser addon so the video auto defaults to hd

seriously youtube i have 100mb/s download the best option is not 360p[/QUOTE]

Don't forget that it refuses to download the whole video if you don't watch a certain point, so if you do have a slow connection - or know you're going to be offline for a while - you're screwed.

[Crest]

[QUOTE=SassPD22;43170235]Sorry to bring some shit but here's some shit:
[video=youtube;WEoZhnA0V8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoZhnA0V8U[/video]

[B]Edit:[/B] How do i make the video appear[/QUOTE]

Is this guy's schtick missing like 200% of the point?

He sounds like a worse person version of tunderf00t

[Mio Akiyama]

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43168925]This is a much better video than the one where he screams[/QUOTE]

it's as if Angry isn't part of his name.

[Compent]

So apparently TheArchFiend made a video on Angry Joe's rant

[video=youtube;qFJAsWmgfxo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFJAsWmgfxo[/video]

[del]I kinda agree with ArchFiend.[/del]

[Crest]

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;43170469]it's as if Angry isn't part of his name.[/QUOTE]

I defend Joe a lot, but people need to stop saying he's allowed to be angry and incorrect because it's in his handle.

[CapsAdmin]

[QUOTE=Compent;43170479]So apparently TheArchFiend made a video on Angry Joe's rant

[video=youtube;qFJAsWmgfxo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFJAsWmgfxo[/video]

I kinda agree with ArchFiend.[/QUOTE]

What do you agree with him on?

I just watched the Joe part but I'm not getting much other than "I told you so" and "making YouTube videos is not a real job"

I'm sure you would be upset too if you lost your dream job. I don't see what's wrong with complaining/trying to keep it.

[MaxOfS2D]

[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;43170741]What do you agree with him on?

I just watched the Joe part but I'm not getting much other than "I told you so" and "making YouTube videos is not a real job"

I'm sure you would be upset too if you lost your dream job. I don't see what's wrong with being upset about that.[/QUOTE]

To be fair YouTube has always said that to be able to monetize something you need 100% of the rights to it, no exceptions allowed

[Silly Sil]

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43170756]To be fair YouTube has always said that to be able to monetize something you need 100% of the rights to it, no exceptions allowed[/QUOTE]
So you don't own a review you've made of something?
Or an interview with someone?

Don't bring lets plays into it, I'm not talking about that at all.

[Jimesu_Evil]

[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;43170741]I just watched the Joe part but I'm not getting much other than "I told you so" and "making YouTube videos is not a real job"[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much the whole video. "I don't have a problem because I'm so smart and you're all fucking morons for your life choices etc."

[Crest]

I hate saying this but as time goes on I'm agreeing with max more.

And I hate max.

[Compent]

[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;43170741]
I'm sure you would be upset too if you lost your dream job. I don't see what's wrong with complaining/trying to keep it.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, Totally; But it was still Joe's fault for not being prepared in case a situation like this happened.

[Silly Sil]

[QUOTE=Compent;43170917]Oh yeah, Totally; But it was still Joe's fault for not being prepared in case a situation like this happened.[/QUOTE]
In case of youtube's crackdown on reviewers that had millions of subs for years and never had a problem with it?

[[Seed Eater]]

I remember when TH89 got banned over the Jessi Slaughter thing I made one of those at-the-time-popular Hitler parodies, and they canned it without ability to appeal. So I made a parody about their disregard of fair use and they canned that too.

And recently my friend had one of his gameplay/commentary videos a la early Birgirpal refused for monetization because they requested he proved he owned the rights to the content. Which was BS.

Youtube can go eat a sink.

If you're a low-end or small-time content creator, then the system is broken. I know many instances where friends have had their legal shit canned and even though they disputed it Youtube simply took the side of the copyright holder, and no one can challenge it.

Max is being a tool. Max, I respect you but you've been wrong in this thread- you are wrong because Fair Use covers commentary and criticism in full, and all content can be applied for that use or education use as an asset and enhancement to other content, which any given LP with commentary fits, especially GG whose primary allure is their commentary. If there is an attempt, regardless of media, to block that, it is an infringement of rights. If Youtube does not act to defend it, then it is an infringement of rights. If you do not have clout, then Youtube does not give a fuck.

Let me explain this situation: Someone breaks into your house many times, grabbing he paintings off your walls and taking them with them, asking that you need to give evidence that you own the paintings, that you aren't invading the copyright or IP of the painter. This is an obvious system of "guilty before proven innocent" because Youtube sides with the money guys. This is obviously, [I]obviously[/I] illegal and a repeated infringement of rights, and as the Supreme Court of the US has said before, you do not require evidence to uninfringedly use your rights. In any other situation this would be a big legal deal. The companies [I]must[/I] go through more rigorous means to prove that [I]they[/I] have a right to the content in the situation used, not the other way around.

[Crest]

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43171069']And recently my friend had one of his gameplay/commentary videos a la early Birgirpal refused for monetization because they requested he proved he owned the rights to the content. Which was BS.

Youtube can go eat a sink.[/QUOTE]

Birgirpal got away with so much it was insane.

[Windy]

[QUOTE=Compent;43170479]

I kinda agree with ArchFiend.[/QUOTE]

I'm getting the same kind of opinion from him that i see from people on 4chan's /v/ board.

However, he does have a point about certain people going all in with Youtube, Some people are passionate, brave and ballsy...

Hell if i know, honestly. Something about the guy just bugs the hell of out me.

[MaxOfS2D]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43170824]So you don't own a review you've made of something?
Or an interview with someone?

Don't bring lets plays into it, I'm not talking about that at all.[/QUOTE]

This isn't about ownership, it's about monetization rights.

[Keychain]

So someone can't make money off their video because they used a 10 second clip of someone else's content and put it into their 5 minute video, content of something that you're reviewing. While the people who made that 10 seconds get ALL of the video's revenue when it is infact, for the majority, not theirs? Do you expect reviewers to never make any form of money whilst being forced to use no music or footage?

At least with Angry Joe's suggestion this sort of system makes sense, a percentage of the money goes to the content owners while the rest goes to the people who went through the effort of making the video.

[Killuah]

[QUOTE=Keychain;43171462]So someone can't make money off their video because they used a 10 second clip of someone else's content and put it into their 5 minute video, content of something that you're reviewing. While the people who made that 10 seconds get ALL of the video's revenue when it is infact, for the majority, not theirs? Do you expect reviewers to never make any form of money whilst being forced to use no music or footage?

At least with Angry Joe's suggestion this sort of system makes sense, a percentage of the money goes to the content owners while the rest goes to the people who went through the effort of making the video.[/QUOTE]

Where are these random yet very case-specialised numbers coming from?

You are basing your work, be it a revie, a LP or whatever on the LICENSED work of others, of course they don't have the right to your stuff but they have a right on how you use THEIR stuff.

[Super Muffin]

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43171392]This isn't about ownership, it's about monetization rights.[/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you even arguing at this point?
Whenever someone makes a post saying why this is more of an issue than you're making it out to be you completely ignore that part of the post and comment on something else instead.

If you have permission to film an interview with a developer about their product, you have ownership over your own footage and you have the right to monetize your video. These aren't separate conflicts.
If you do a review, that's a transformative work allowing fair use of the game footage. You're not monetizing a third parties' footage alone, you're monetizing your review which is entirely legally different.
They have [I]no right [/I]to pull your video as it's a transformative work. No rightsholder would ever win in a court of public opinion, which is why this system is awful by requiring the proof be the burden of the video creator.

[Jimesu_Evil]

[QUOTE=Highwind017;43171186]Hell if i know, honestly. Something about the guy just bugs the hell of out me.[/QUOTE]

Is it the fact that he's a complete douchebag?