Where Youtube is going

[JFSOCC]

[Blarghagh]

So apparently it's no longer allowed to post song covers or something?

[Blarghagh]

Dammit, past the edit point:

 

A Let's Player I watch got a copyright strike because he sang two lines of Breakfast at Tiffany's during a boring stretch to fill the time. That's, uh, pretty ridiculous.

[Hurlshort]

Dammit, past the edit point:

 

A Let's Player I watch got a copyright strike because he sang two lines of Breakfast at Tiffany's during a boring stretch to fill the time. That's, uh, pretty ridiculous.

 

That also means some loser reported him for that.  Those should be the people targeted.  

[AGX-17]

I'm only really bothered by the Google+ garbage and the way they've mangled commenting. I can't even reply to comments people make on my own videos anymore, so **** it, comment deleted.

Edited December 16, 2013 by AGX-17

[Blarghagh]

 

Dammit, past the edit point:

 

A Let's Player I watch got a copyright strike because he sang two lines of Breakfast at Tiffany's during a boring stretch to fill the time. That's, uh, pretty ridiculous.

 

That also means some loser reported him for that.  Those should be the people targeted.  

 

 

I doubt that - I assume it's the ridiculous copyright bots. They pick up things really fast.

[Enoch]

Apologies in advance for the tangent, but I feel like I have to say at some point how bemused I am by the success of all this watching-other-people-play-games business. 

 

I get how somebody would want to watch a review or a selection of representative gameplay excerpts from a game to see if it's something they'd want to buy.  I can understand watching some high-level play to pick up tips for strategy-type games.  And short-ish novelty-type videos, like clever machinima or that insane Morrowind speed-run, can be entertaining from time to time.  But watching a narrated feed of somebody just playing through a game?  My patience runs out in under 5 minutes.  It's tough for me to grasp how all this has gotten so popular.

 

I submit that, apart from just being Old and Out of Touch, I may have used up my lifetime tolerance for watching other people play games in my next-door neighbor's basement when I was 12.  He had a Nintendo, and I did not.  If we wanted to make progress in difficult games, it made sense to have the stronger player (him) at the controls more often than not.  So, most of the time, I was the spectator (and, often, the puzzle-solver). 

[Blarghagh]

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but the games I tend to watch are games that create a certain kind of response. People being terrified in Amnesia: The Dark Descent, people screaming in rage at Dark Souls or people doing creative things I didn't even know possible in MineCraft. It also helps that a lot of the Let's Players I watched are funny people.

[TrashMan]

This is where YouTube is going:

 

[TrashMan]

Dammit, past the edit point:

 

A Let's Player I watch got a copyright strike because he sang two lines of Breakfast at Tiffany's during a boring stretch to fill the time. That's, uh, pretty ridiculous.

 

That is hillarious...and depressing.

 

A "should I cry or laugh" scenario.

[LadyCrimson]

I get how somebody would want to watch a review or a selection of representative gameplay excerpts from a game to see if it's something they'd want to buy.  I can understand watching some high-level play to pick up tips for strategy-type games.  And short-ish novelty-type videos, like clever machinima or that insane Morrowind speed-run, can be entertaining from time to time.  But watching a narrated feed of somebody just playing through a game?  My patience runs out in under 5 minutes.  It's tough for me to grasp how all this has gotten so popular.

My impression is a lot of the most popular, constant-uploaders "Let's Player's" are really comedians/entertainers. Or at least outlandish in their commentary (think MST2K). The few I've watched and liked were in that vein, like ... TobyGames I think it was? I remember some of his FO:NV videos had me crying tears of laughter.

 

Most of the time I'm in your camp, however. I'll pick a video and skip around in it really fast to get an idea of gameplay mechanics or something and then turn it off. Or I'm looking for something really specific from a game, certain scene, quest, info. There's a reason why there's zillions of Let's Play videos but not really that many "big name" ones with all the views. Most of us aren't very entertaining talkers.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, you hit the nail right on the head.

[JFSOCC]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1t7f7r/hello_im_a_full_time_gaming_youtube_creator_lets/

[JFSOCC]

Several Youtubers have moved their videos and are now considered in violation of their terms.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1teg0v/over_400_polaris_partners_transferred_to_rpm/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1teg0v/over_400_polaris_partners_transferred_to_rpm/ce74x8q

[Walsingham]

Read your last JFSOCC.

 

Being hard-nosed about it, all I see is a lot of angry gamer nerds, being angry. I don't see any who are likely to redact their cash value to Google/Youtube.

[Enoch]

Read your last JFSOCC.

 

Being hard-nosed about it, all I see is a lot of angry gamer nerds, being angry. I don't see any who are likely to redact their cash value to Google/Youtube.

 

The thing is, even if they did go elsewhere and take a reasonable portion of their viewership with them (dubious), wherever they end up is only going to stay in business so long as it takes for one of the more aggressive IP holders to bring the new host into court.  The content bots on Youtube have now established that aggressive policing is possible-- they give the host specific knowledge of potentially infringing content, which Youtube successfully alleged had not been possible during the period covered by the Viacom suit.  That technical facility makes it much harder to fit hosting this stuff into the DMCA safe harbor provision, particularly if considered in the light of prominent uploaders moving to the new site specifically to avoid IP rights enforcement.  (Indeed, the best evidence that this is the case is that Youtube itself has done so.  They would have no reason to do this if they weren't quite convinced that not doing so would lead to huge legal liabilities.)

[JFSOCC]

You guys keep ignoring that the majority of takedowns are not legitimate. and that there is still no way to challenge the takedowns.

 

How much evidence do you need of people facing takedown notices for games *THEY THEMSELVES CREATED*?

 

I'm just a little surprised at the general attitude in this thread, but I guess that's why we have these discussions.

[LadyCrimson]

I had a music-use flag once that wasn't legit and I challenged it and won. Have they changed something? I mean, I know challenging doesn't always work if YT/copy holders don't agree with your challenge, and it sometimes takes a long time for them to get around to it and likely won't go your way in a lot of cases...but is there something where in these gaming instances, one can't challenge at all now?

[Elerond]

I had a music-use flag once that wasn't legit and I challenged it and won. Have they changed something? I mean, I know challenging doesn't always work if YT/copy holders don't agree with your challenge, and it sometimes takes a long time for them to get around to it and likely won't go your way in a lot of cases...but is there something where in these gaming instances, one can't challenge at all now?

 

I think that most people are angry that challenges get about month or so to be handled and revenue from videos goes to flagger whole that time, which people feel to be very unfair when we speak about false flags.

[Enoch]

You guys keep ignoring that the majority of takedowns are not legitimate. and that there is still no way to challenge the takedowns.

 

How much evidence do you need of people facing takedown notices for games *THEY THEMSELVES CREATED*?

 

I'm just a little surprised at the general attitude in this thread, but I guess that's why we have these discussions.

 

I can't speak to the process for challenging takedowns (or, really, how the mechanics of monetization work at all on the site), but I'm not so certain that the majority of stuff taken down in this recent round aren't legitimate copyright infringements.  Many of the folks who have complained the loudest have a good argument for their content being within the confines of Fair Use, but there is a huge amount of plainly infringing stuff up there on the youtubes. 

 

And, frankly, that is an enormous part of the popular appeal of the site-- I'm very thankful for whoever is uploading old Roland Kirk albums to help me decide which one I want to buy next, but I'm pretty sure that each of those uploads is a pretty blatant act of infringement. 

 

As to people having their own content flagged, I don't know how that is a sign of much other than that matching algorithms lack judgment.  People often license their content through publishers or distributors, who employ IP-protection technologies.  (Indeed, these creators/authors/whatever might not even have the right to post that content online, depending on the details of their contracts with their publisher.)  If the algorithm wasn't made explicitly aware of who does and doesn't have the right to upload something, well, it's just one of the mistakes that sometimes happen with new technology. 

 

Bottom-line, I just don't think that copyright law is likely to change, or that the content identification algorithm bell can be un-rung.  The future for uploading content that incorporates the IPs of others is probably one of negotiating explicit licensing rights.  Some publishers might want to keep everything on their official channel.  Some might blanket-license anyone to use their stuff.  (I think Paradox has already done this for its games.)  Others might license only particular 3rd parties or networks that they trust, and/or require a percentage of the revenue that those videos generate.  I expect that Google will do what it can to make acquiring these rights as smooth as possible, but the content owners can always say no.

 

It gets tricky where an uploader has no license but has a reasonable argument that their videos are within Fair Use.  (E.g., reviews that show a little more of the game than the publisher would like.)  The algorithms flag it, the uploader protests, and Youtube is put in the place of deciding whether the video can stay.  That is not a position where Youtube wants to be.  And their only logical way out of it (i.e., way that avoids the possibility of billion-dollar lawsuits) is to cave to the IP holders where there is any doubt.  It sucks, but absent a change in the law, I doubt that they or any other video hosting site could do otherwise and stay in business for long. 

Edited December 23, 2013 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

You guys keep ignoring that the majority of takedowns are not legitimate. and that there is still no way to challenge the takedowns.

 

How much evidence do you need of people facing takedown notices for games *THEY THEMSELVES CREATED*?

 

I'm just a little surprised at the general attitude in this thread, but I guess that's why we have these discussions.

 

There's a general problem I find with big organisations and appeals against policy of any kind. Private corporations seem to feel your ability to go elsewhere _IS_ the court of final appeal. "Like it or leave" It creates wholly unnecessary anger and bad press.

 

However, try to think about from their perspective. On the one hand they have an unquantified measure of wrong and angry. On the other they have a fairly predictable cost of setting up and running a trained and well-resourced appeal process, that still won't make everyone happy. For something the size of Youtube I'd be amazed if you could run a proper appeal checking system for less than a medium sized company, involving a few thousand employees. I just don't think it'd be worth it for them.

 

EDIT: If you think you can compose and deliver an effective way to review copyright infringement, that addresses these points, then I strongly and sincerely recommend you write it into a bid and pitch it to Google. You might have an effective business!

Edited December 24, 2013 by Walsingham

[JFSOCC]

EDIT: If you think you can compose and deliver an effective way to review copyright infringement, that addresses these points, then I strongly and sincerely recommend you write it into a bid and pitch it to Google. You might have an effective business!

Lol and where would I do that? On their support forums? No-one from Google but their appointed (and unpaid) moderators show up there.

[Walsingham]

 

EDIT: If you think you can compose and deliver an effective way to review copyright infringement, that addresses these points, then I strongly and sincerely recommend you write it into a bid and pitch it to Google. You might have an effective business!

Lol and where would I do that? On their support forums? No-one from Google but their appointed (and unpaid) moderators show up there.

 

 

Alright. You plan it and cost and I'll pitch it. For a 20% agents' fee.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Walsingham