Where Youtube is going

[Walsingham]

I hope I can say this without sounding too crawly. I do enjoy it when Enoch and Nep weigh in on this stuff. It helps to have trained opinions.

[LadyCrimson]

I'm very much an advocate for creator's rights over their content, whether they want to hold it close to their vest or let everyone have it for free. That said, copyright laws are outdated/haven't kept up with the technological changes to modern lifestyle and need some changes.
 
The notion that reviewers on YouTube, for example, can't even use bits of a game that contain the game music or show the ending (after a game's been released, at least) or whatever, during their review, is a bit ridiculous. Although my impression is much of the time it's less that such use is not ever allowed and more that YouTube's auto-flagging software is over-zealous and can't differentiate between such uses and actual "pirating" use (by the copyright holder definitions that YT has to enforce). Which causes reviewers/Let's Players etc. grief in form of delays and processing hassle.
 
I haven't liked the direction YouTube has been going in for years, personally, way before any of this stuff. Much of it user-privacy and option related. But a lot of those aspects isn't specific to YouTube, really. It's the whole internet.

Also, I agree with Enoch. Especially the part I bolded.
 

The pertinent exception is "Fair Use," which I'm no expert on, but which covers stuff like Orogun's point above about playing an album when people who didn't buy it are present. It almost certainly doesn't cover uploading something wholesale and profiting on the clicks it draws. The statute is a bit amorphous, and that ambiguity works against Youtube. They don't have the time to consider each upload on its merits, so they rely on the (often overly broad) assertions of rights holders.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

The bottom line is that the law is pretty strongly in favor of the rights holders.  And that isn't especially likely to change much.  Intellectual properties are an area where the U.S. has a huge economic competitive advantage.  Copyrighted products are a big American export, so of course the U.S. government throws its weight around to ensure that these products will continue to enrich their rights-holders.  If Saudi Arabia could stop you from buying an electric car, they'd do it in a heartbeat. 

Yeah I disagree, I think it's likely to change.

 

You reckon?  Here's the wikipedia summary of the leaked Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property provisions, an agreement that is currently wending its way via totally secret negotiations towards inevitable utterly undemocratic ratification, and it's an Orwellian melange of every vile stricture and limitation designed deliberately and explicitly to further entrench the current trend to patenting and licensing everything in perpetuity- which would, of course, enshrine such luminously competent patent awards as Basmati Rice and Yellow Beans being unique US inventions (let alone asterisking rounded corners on electronic devices being a unique invention, ffs). On the copyright front it would enshrine a ban on parallel imports and make everyone adopt the Mickey Mouse copyright extensions, criminalise tools that can be used for circumventing copy protection and a host of other garbage that makes the DMCA look like an enlightened and balanced piece of legislation.

 

Yeah, copyright and IP in general should be getting reformed as it's been perverted from a way to ensure that inventors get reward for invention to guaranteeing corporates cash and actively stifling invention; but that reform ain't going to happen. They'll just ratchet down the restrictions as much as they can get away with.

[alanschu]

It used to be a daily ritual for me, checking my inbox and looking at all the new comments people have left on my videos. Alas...YouTube's internal user inbox largely no longer exists

I get emails when people comment on my videos.

 

 

Trent Reznor is a Grammy, Oscar winning badass mofo. I remember when he went independent and gave out his album for free, doesn't seem to have hurt him.

But that's the different of the artist and the publisher one wants to make art the other one wants to make money.

Didn't artists like Trent and Radiohead basically recant on this position (music freely available)

[Woldan]

Didn't artists like Trent and Radiohead basically recant on this position (music freely available)

Not that I know of, the first album of his wife (How to destroy angels) was available for free if I remember correctly. Or was it the second?

[alanschu]

This is something I haven't given too much thought on. I personally don't monetize my youtube account/videos so the most I have seen on my videos has been "This uses an audio track. Do you wish to acknowledge this license?" (For the DXHR soundtrack - I have always said yes).


It's interesting that TB points out that content creators ARE a part of the problem, in that people create lets plays of brand new AAA games specifically because people want to see it and it WILL make them money. The problem being that many of these lets plays are poorly done and reflect poorly inaccurately on the game which could be a bad thing for a game (in an unfair/unjustified way).  One thing TB points out is that it's not the game that matters, but rather the person.  Although I'm not 100% sure if this is fair, in that people may turn into HIS channel regardless (still, 80k less views, roughly 30% less, doesn't sound trivial to me), would people have noticed Total Biscuit if he started by doing lets plays of small indie games that had limited fan following?

 

That said, I don't really consider Lets Plays harmful.  I'd be a hypocrite if I did, since I have started doing Lets Play videos myself.  Although I suppose I am different than who this targets, since I haven't monetized anything I have done on youtube.

 

 

 

 

Not that I know of, the first album of his wife (How to destroy angels) was available for free if I remember correctly. Or was it the second?

 

I don't know.  I thought I remembered seeing that ultimately they were less successful for the artists.  I may be mistaken, however.

 

EDIT: I think it's just that Trent returned to using a major record label.

Edited December 13, 2013 by alanschu

[Bartimaeus]

 

It used to be a daily ritual for me, checking my inbox and looking at all the new comments people have left on my videos. Alas...YouTube's internal user inbox largely no longer exists

I get emails when people comment on my videos.

 

I'd rather not have my email spammed...the inbox worked perfectly fine. I'm also stubborn and largely refuse to compromise with YouTube, particularly since I've given up on them.

[alanschu]

 

 

I'd rather not have my email spammed...the inbox worked perfectly fine. I'm also stubborn and largely refuse to compromise with YouTube, particularly since I've given up on them.

 

Well, Gmail automatically set up the "Social" tab for their inbox, so it already wasn't particularly invasive for me.  If it was though I could set up labels and whatnot to filter it easily.

[Bartimaeus]

 

I'd rather not have my email spammed...the inbox worked perfectly fine. I'm also stubborn and largely refuse to compromise with YouTube, particularly since I've given up on them.

 

Well, Gmail automatically set up the "Social" tab for their inbox, so it already wasn't particularly invasive for me.  If it was though I could set up labels and whatnot to filter it easily.

 

 

I suppose I could do that...I disabled the tabs/categories as soon as they introduced them...

Edited December 13, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[alanschu]

LOL well now I'll just wonder what you are going to say!

 

In any case, I also "don't know any better" because aside from the odd inbox message (which I think I still got emails for lest I probably would've never saw them XD) based in direct PMs (as opposed to comments), I am not familiar with anything else and thusly, can't be upset that I am missing certain features.

[Bartimaeus]

LOL well now I'll just wonder what you are going to say!

 

In any case, I also "don't know any better" because aside from the odd inbox message (which I think I still got emails for lest I probably would've never saw them XD) based in direct PMs (as opposed to comments), I am not familiar with anything else and thusly, can't be upset that I am missing certain features.

 

I actually just reposted the message I did earlier - I left the tab open for a little after originally posting, looked back and saw that I still hadn't had it posted...but in reality had just hit back when I had posted it. Then I deleted the message, then edited it to reply to yours.

[alanschu]

Did you opt to monetize your channel at all?  (mostly just curious)

[Bartimaeus]

Did you opt to monetize your channel at all?  (mostly just curious)

 

Of course not. What I was doing was already legally dubious...not to mention morally. Today, if I were presented with the option of instantly doing what I've been doing over the past few years, I probably wouldn't do any of it at all. Monetizing would've been super crossing the line for me...even then, and especially now. When I finally decided to quit, it was actually kind of a relief.

[alanschu]

LOL. Well then >.>

[Bartimaeus]

LOL. Well then >.>

 

I don't get your reaction.

[JFSOCC]

Ultimately, this little discussion is beside the point.  There is no "you're managing your property stupidly therefore I get to break the law" exception.  Rights holders get to decide the format, method, price point, etc., by which they want to share, license, sell, broadcast, etc., their IPs.  If they do something dumb and alienate consumers via strict enforcement, well, that's their loss.  Consumers can always buy something else instead. 

 

The pertinent exception is "Fair Use," which I'm no expert on, but which covers stuff like Orogun's point above about playing an album when people who didn't buy it are present.  It almost certainly doesn't cover uploading something wholesale and profiting on the clicks it draws.  The statute is a bit amorphous, and that ambiguity works against Youtube.  They don't have the time to consider each upload on its merits, so they rely on the (often overly broad) assertions of rights holders. 

Yeah the problem with that argument is that it doesn't reflect reality. 80% of people pirate. That's everyone with a computer who isn't a grandma. Any industry which is dying can be seen litigating. It's a panic move because those who hold(held) power in the industry are holding on to obsolete business methods and ethics.

 

You can rail all you want about how unfair it is that people pirate your stuff, but that's not going to change the fact that over 80% of people pirate.

It is much wiser, as many artists are doing now, to offer cheap alternatives and use the promotional quality of (illegal) sharing. Not because it's right or wrong, but because it's better business.

 

That big producers and publishers see their profits dwindle doesn't bother me, because they've been holding monopoly positions for too long, controlling what you and I heard. Now we have the great equalizer in the Internet, and smaller artists get to make a buck too.

 

What you're seeing now is not some high and mighty crusade for copyright holders, it's a an industry of monopolists trying desperately to hold on to their power. For that I have no sympathy. They have a way out, which is adapting their business models to deal with the new reality. Instead of kicking down their smaller competition, or worse yet, their promoters.

[JFSOCC]

 

Yeah, copyright and IP in general should be getting reformed as it's been perverted from a way to ensure that inventors get reward for invention to guaranteeing corporates cash and actively stifling invention; but that reform ain't going to happen. They'll just ratchet down the restrictions as much as they can get away with.

 

the problem with these (and I was aware of this) new regulations is that they are going to become increasingly unenforceable. You simply cannot imprison or sue entire populations. It's why prohibition tactics have always failed for anything which is easy to produce and share, like certain drugs, alcohol, and now digital content.

[Kroney]

The problem is, and always has been, that the law is trying to force people back to a pre-digital, pre-broadband, pre-anonymous internet era. It's never going to work. Adapt or die.

 

RIP HMV

[alanschu]

Yeah the problem with that argument is that it doesn't reflect reality. 80% of people pirate. That's everyone with a computer who isn't a grandma. Any industry which is dying can be seen litigating. It's a panic move because those who hold(held) power in the industry are holding on to obsolete business methods and ethics.

if I'm understanding Total Biscuit's video, the issue is not with "piracy" of the content and that there's no issue with people that are sharing the game footage. The issue is coming from the monetization of the content. So for the Lets Players that don't just share the content, but actively seek to make money off of it.

 

If we're going to use your piracy analogy, this would be akin to not going after those that actively distribute for the sake of distribution, but rather going after those that seek to profit off the distribution of the content (although in general I would say that the piracy analogy doesn't work all that well).

 

 

You can rail all you want about how unfair it is that people pirate your stuff, but that's not going to change the fact that over 80% of people pirate.

It is much wiser, as many artists are doing now, to offer cheap alternatives and use the promotional quality of (illegal) sharing. Not because it's right or wrong, but because it's better business.

Again, the issue isn't with "illegal sharing."

 

 

That big producers and publishers see their profits dwindle doesn't bother me, because they've been holding monopoly positions for too long, controlling what you and I heard. Now we have the great equalizer in the Internet, and smaller artists get to make a buck too.

What's interesting, however, is that according to Total Biscuit, a lot of developers/publishers are just as surprised by this. The real question is who's impetus is behind this?

 

 

What you're seeing now is not some high and mighty crusade for copyright holders, it's a an industry of monopolists trying desperately to hold on to their power. For that I have no sympathy. They have a way out, which is adapting their business models to deal with the new reality. Instead of kicking down their smaller competition, or worse yet, their promoters.

To be fair, neither Angry Joe nor Total Biscuit are doing this so that you, the viewer, have access to the videos and so forth. Both have their livelihoods attached to this, and despite Total Biscuit underselling it somewhat, I do think he'd feel a decline in viewership if he just moved on to only showing smaller games and not the bigger titles (that is, assuming the big publishers of those titles actively block him, which it sounds like they are trying NOT to do).

[Blarghagh]

The pertinent exception is "Fair Use," which I'm no expert on, but which covers stuff like Orogun's point above about playing an album when people who didn't buy it are present.  It almost certainly doesn't cover uploading something wholesale and profiting on the clicks it draws.  The statute is a bit amorphous, and that ambiguity works against Youtube.  They don't have the time to consider each upload on its merits, so they rely on the (often overly broad) assertions of rights holders. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I was told (so it's likely to be wrong) the arguement is that LP's generally fall under Commentary, Satire and Review, which would be fair use.

 

EDIT: It's a ridiculously bad idea to mess with Let's Plays anyway, since 90% of my game purchases are based on "I saw an LP of a game that looked fun" and I'm not the only one (for example, the only reason Amnesia was remotely successful is because there were a lot of videos of people getting their pants scared off on YouTube).

Edited December 13, 2013 by TrueNeutral

[Malcador]

I just hope I can keep playing COD's SP on Youtube.

[Hurlshort]

It could be as simple as getting the IP holder's permission before posting a Let's Play of their game.  That's what most people have to do to use content in the entertainment industry.

[Blarghagh]

That's already required for monetizing a Let's Play.

[Amentep]

 

The pertinent exception is "Fair Use," which I'm no expert on, but which covers stuff like Orogun's point above about playing an album when people who didn't buy it are present.  It almost certainly doesn't cover uploading something wholesale and profiting on the clicks it draws.  The statute is a bit amorphous, and that ambiguity works against Youtube.  They don't have the time to consider each upload on its merits, so they rely on the (often overly broad) assertions of rights holders. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I was told (so it's likely to be wrong) the arguement is that LP's generally fall under Commentary, Satire and Review, which would be fair use.

 

EDIT: It's a ridiculously bad idea to mess with Let's Plays anyway, since 90% of my game purchases are based on "I saw an LP of a game that looked fun" and I'm not the only one (for example, the only reason Amnesia was remotely successful is because there were a lot of videos of people getting their pants scared off on YouTube).

 

 

Technically, fair use covers excerpting certain elements of a work in order to comment about it.

 

The late Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel could use clips of movies in their review show to give context to their review, but they couldn't show you the movie on tv commenting on it the whole time without having arranged to broadcast the movie.

 

Similarly shows that did provide commentary (MST3K, for example) did so on public domain movies or else with the rights holder permissions to broadcast the copyright work.

 

I'm a bit curious if people who made "Let's play" videos would be okay with someone capturing them all off YouTube and putting them on their own website?  Would it matter if the creator was credited?  Would it matter if the "someone" was making money off people going to their website (off the videos others made)?

[Walsingham]

Interesting proposal, Amentep. Let's say the content creators who have been winning via Youtube succeed in turning people off it. Some other site automatedly gloms the creator's videos and puts them on their own site, and gives nothing to the creator besides saying it is for "educational purposes".