[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;43159353]Well here's a car analogy for monetizing gameplay videos
Car manufacturers dont sue or claim taxi companies to get rid of all their vehicles, even though the taxi company are using their cars for monetary gain.
When doing letsplays, you are making money by using something someone has made but with games it is apparently unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
And do boardgame manufacturers do it to people who play boardgames? Pretty much the same thing no? Someone posting a video of people playing warhammer, dnd, fucking monopoly, etc is the same thing.
[editline]13th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43165813]Yeah, Angry Joe has gotten shit on tremendously, while Total Biscuit has escaped completely unharmed last I saw.[/QUOTE]
TB is a managed channel thus doesn't get hit. Why he's managed and someone WHO ONLY DOES LEGIT REVIEWS isn't managed boggles my mind.
[QUOTE=Jackald;43158952]Then they should be covered under fair use (critiquing and/or parodying the content)[/QUOTE]
And yet they aren't. This system skullfucks the sorts of people that make a living out of video game reviews and news on Youtube. Like, say, Angry Joe. Or Game Grumps.
[QUOTE=Crimor;43166091]And do boardgame manufacturers do it to people who play boardgames? Pretty much the same thing no? Someone posting a video of people playing warhammer, dnd, fucking monopoly, etc is the same thing.
[editline]13th December 2013[/editline]
TB is a managed channel thus doesn't get hit. Why he's managed and someone WHO ONLY DOES LEGIT REVIEWS isn't managed boggles my mind.[/QUOTE]
TB being managed is not a surprise in the least. He's a major anchor of the network.
Angry Joe is a major channel, so it does surprise me.
Regardless, I really hope a good solution is found, watching as hundreds of channel owners effectively lose their jobs in a violent and helpless way is kinda depressing.
The problem with this is that the system is purely automatic, and actually quite shit as well. Most of my videos have a notification on them saying "Matched Third Party Content" for content that doesn't even exist. Seriously. I'm not sure if that is really the same thing, but I'm sure the method for detection is the same as what this newly implemented system is using.
[quote]What about game reviewers who do it as a job, and get flagged anyway? Or people who have worked hard to become famous enough to sustain themselves off their video revenue? Should they just return to a "proper" job and scratch all the youtube nonsense? [/quote]
I'd pay extra to see pewd flipping burgers. Youtube wasn't designed to be an employment as much as blogging.
Woah its almost like Rusty made it. The true pioneer in copyright free lets play
[QUOTE=pentium;43167466]I'd pay extra to see pewd flipping burgers. Youtube wasn't designed to be an employment as much as blogging.[/QUOTE]
It has been since youtube made it that way. Content creators make youtube money, and youtube shares a percentage of that money with the creators to attract [i]more[/i] creators, thus earning them more money. Content creators effectively work for youtube. It is a job, whether you agree or not.
[QUOTE=pentium;43167466]I'd pay extra to see pewd flipping burgers. Youtube wasn't designed to be an employment as much as blogging.[/QUOTE]
The theatre wasn't designed to be an employment as much as an art.
[QUOTE=pentium;43167466]I'd pay extra to see pewd flipping burgers. Youtube wasn't designed to be an employment as much as blogging.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what it's original design was, what counts is how it's structured now, and it's structured to allow for more consistent, more high quality content by paying popular channels enough to concentrate on making good content.
Good content, in turn, attracts more people to YouTube and everyone's happy. That's the profitable idea and there's no reason to reject it and arbitrarily lower quality standards because you don't like entertainers being paid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
