YouTube Issued Copyright Claims Against Miracle of Sound

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Antigonius:
You can't. Justify. Laziness. At all. Everyone who's doing that should be ashamed of themselfs

As in, "Let the big corporations do whatever they want and fuck over people, that seems easier."?

You might be in a position where you're financially secure enough not to care when you're just randomly not paid for your work, but most people can't afford that.

Antigonius:
The most funniest thing - Even if every lets player and guys who are getting flagged about copyright would be banned from Google, they all STILL would whine about it, like a bunch of spoiled children.

If you don't like it - move from there/don't use it. There's you're "ultimate" solution. Kinda getting tired from this *waaa, mean evil YouTube steals mah money, waaaaa*

Don't like new YouTube? Then don't use it, Jesus Crist - there are tons of other services all over the world.

P.S And if someone decides to comment on *There's no monetising on other services, bla-bla-bla*: You can't. Justify. Laziness. At all. Everyone who's doing that should be ashamed of themselfs

That was painful to read. My god. Ouch.

Youtube was quite happy to allow these lets players to earn them billions of dollars in revenue and attract millions of viewers to their site. Everyone partnered with Youtube (me included though I'm a musician not a let's player so I'm alright in this situation now) paid Youtube a large percentage of our ad revenue while building them an audience and making them filthy rich - now they're happy to let these same lets players/reviewers/commentators get shafted by copyright claims which are more often than not, not even legitimate and not wanted by the game publishers.

Tie your fingers together in future until you've researched the topic. It'll stop you spouting nonsense.

MiracleOfSound:

That was painful to read. My god. Ouch.

It's posts like the ones that Antigonius made that seems to be every-so prevalent now, and really makes me sad that I'm an LPer that doesn't monetize, but will still be labeled a "spoiler child" or other things. It's rather sad how people who don't create content think it's as easy as snapping their fingers and then they can make a bunch of money. Never mind the large amount of time and work that people have to put into their channels to build a following. >.>
I find that ReviewTechUSA pretty much nailed it on the head with his video.

O maestre:
You must be a troll

No - If I was a troll - I would be a hell lot more carefull (like write from a name of some music corp, etc - that would be more funnier to read).

I'm just sick of people who are just yelling about it over and over. We get that the copyright system is ridiculous - I agree with that. MOS situation on this article is mind-crushingly stupid (and also lazy - they could've made a list of official channels, BEFORE luanching the bot) and I agree (read - AGREE) with that.

But guess what ladies and gentlemen. Google. Doesn't. Care. Not sure if "at all", but pretty much don't. The new "GOOGLE+ or no commenting" situation showed it quite well. This new system is going to stay - like it or not. It may have some tweak here and there but it won't go. And there's nothing - I repeat - nothing, a simple user can do. Hell, I doubt that even major freedom fighters can - Google can buy Polaris, Angry Joe and rest 3 times and turn them into a fast food restaurant network by now. + again without a database of official channels that was fairly predictable that every indie or small one will be caught in a crossfire. It will work fine in a half-year or so - you'll see

I repeat (don't know why - tl;dr rule still stands) that I understand why are people angry (and understand why people are trying to have my mouth shut). But I still gonna say - "Don't like the new policy? Move on another service and don't be a crybaby, or wait for the tweaks".

O maestre:
I feel sorry for MOM because of this ridiculous situation. I really hope that the internet community can stop being apathetic to this and punish Google through mass migration. But to be honest it seems like a crapshoot, at this point they seem as unavoidable as Microsoft, both in terms of software services and ad services.

My point, but....

MiracleOfSound:
Youtube was quite happy to allow these lets players to earn them billions of dollars in revenue and attract millions of viewers to their site. Everyone partnered with Youtube (me included though I'm a musician not a let's player so I'm alright in this situation now) paid Youtube a large percentage of our ad revenue while building them an audience and making them filthy rich.

+ we all know no one is going to migrate. Most of the people don't have that much balls

Oh and yea - just because I have a different opinion then the rest of you have, doesn't automatically make me a troll.

Antigonius:
Google can buy Polaris, Angry Joe and rest 3 times and turn them into a fast food restaurant network by now.

I'd eat at Angry Joe's©™ :P

OT:

It seems the solution is to use/create another video hosting site. Youtube is the monopoly we created. But I also think we can't escape it because it's in our nature.

This reminds me of the time(s) when people complain about the decline of certain industries in first world countries, and all the jobs being lost, but aren't willing to spend money on "Home Grown" products.

The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

wulf3n:
The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

Thank God at least someone understand my PoV (or maybe not...who knows).

wulf3n:

The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

The problem with that is Google has a monopoly over pretty much the entire internet. Ads that display on other sites, they are hosted and run through Google; most search engines are integrated with Google as well. It's pretty much impossible to not use Google in any way shape or form because Google in this day and age pretty much is the internet.

Antigonius:

wulf3n:
The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

Thank God at least someone understand my PoV (or maybe not...who knows).

Give it time. A few subscribers I follow on YT are looking into, or falling back on, Blip or other sites for their content now.

It's not a question about balls and having them, it's survival. If YT won't do it for them they will find another method.

If Google doesn't amend this in some passable way then people will move on, sooner or later.

Neronium:

wulf3n:

The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

The problem with that is Google has a monopoly over pretty much the entire internet. Ads that display on other sites, they are hosted and run through Google; most search engines are integrated with Google as well. It's pretty much impossible to not use Google in any way shape or form because Google in this day and age pretty much is the internet.

I'm not saying it would be easy [or doable for that matter] but the alternative of hoping Google change their practices because we complain enough is a lot less likely IMO.

Antigonius:

Oh and yea - just because I have a different opinion then the rest of you have, doesn't automatically make me a troll.

Your opinion boiled down to "stop crying over loosing money on your work" Doesn't that seem like dickish thing to say,hence why I thought you were trolling. It is not fair that people should get ripped off for their work. How would you feel if your wages were withheld?

You call people lazy, but there is genuinely not a viable alternative for adrevenue as vast as google, they are too big to avoid, Adsense and Adwords along with their analytics(which even invades social media) for monitoring.

Want to hear something mind-numbingly stupid?

Gavin's own videos were taken down. The video I shot of his performance at this year's Expo? Not even touched. Granted, the audio isn't of the best quality, but it seems that YouTube's system is a world away from perfect.

Like with all companies, they bend over backwards to support the people to use their system because at that time, they needed us. But once they have succeeded and own a large portion of market share they begin to get greedy. They then see the people as needing them instead of the other way round.

Antigonius:
Zoiks

Your point of view belittles those who would suffer legit financial problems for no fault of their own or any except that of the big dumb corp in charge who - like a few our fellow Escapists could mention - fails to see the real big picture or the true effect of what they THINK is a good idea when it really isn't. Because your opinion glosses over the suffering and injustice of others, the clear hypocrisy, and certainly the terrible mishandling at the source, that opinion is wrong. Because you think this is about lazy fucktards and not people just doing what they like for a living, you are wrong. Any case where a person ignores how a thing is painful to another without consideration or at least a little real sympathy is wrong.

Oh, and obviously I will not sell a torch or pitchfork to you either.

Well, I missed this one. This is just more proof that having automated systems dealing with people's livelihoods and fiddling around with the ad revenue income while its being resolved is broken beyond fucking belief.

MiracleOfSound:
People just love throwing that line around, don't they.

Tunecore changed the terms & conditions of the arrangement in 12/12/13 without telling any of the artists.

They amended the terms & conditions without the knowledge of us, their customers. So please, spare us all your 'read your contract' line.

If they are allowed to unilaterally change conditions with only notification and no consent then you still signed a bloody bad contract. If not and you disagree with the new terms why not send them notice that they were wrong to do so and if they don't come to a reasonable new agreement with you you will seek legal aid?

As of the article all I'm hearing is that you are trying to get them remove individual copyright claims, not that you are trying to resolve your fundamental disputes with them which caused this mess.

And when Youtube allows third parties to claim any video they like, without having to prove they have the rights? You bet your ass they messed up.

You can send bogus DMCA takedown notices too ... this isn't really much of a problem. The moment this causes monetary damages/gains it becomes grounds for a lawsuit, so it's unlikely to be abused.

If you truly believe they have no legal right to claim the rights then you should send a letter to Youtube to that extent too ... if you have exclusive rights in that regard you might have enough content to register it on contentid yourself.

This video does a really good job of talking about copyright law and YT's bot system.

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1PphqQFLw7k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen][/iframe]

(link if embedding doesn't work http://youtu.be/1PphqQFLw7k )

OT: What crappy news to get before the holidays. I hope MOS hears something better soon.

TheMadJack:
Hey internet! We're still waiting for the next-gen YouTube! Get to it!

It exists. there are plenty of videosites, ranging from older than youtubes popularity blip.tv and lets plays specific gameanyone to stuff like twitch that specializes in this stuff. There are plenty of sites like dailymotion, vimeo, ect for nongaming stuff. The problem is to make your viewers who only turn youtube once a week to see the video to move to another site, because if they are unaware/toostupid to see youtubes fault, they wont understand the move.

josemlopes:
I dont really see the problem though, isnt he payed by The Escapist? The videos are still up, right? He just doesnt get money out of them, isnt that what it was like at the start except now he is working for The Escapist therefore getting paid by The Escapist?

EDIT: At least my understanding of how The Escapist used Youtube was to gather more viewers/fans for their own site (and get the money out of the ads on the site), not exactly to make money directly from Youtube

Escapist gets ad revenue for their videos on youtube.

RicoADF:
He needs to sue google and the publisher for lost revenue, if they didn't have his permission then their liable for this huge fuck up

When you agree to youtube monetization you wave that right and thanks to how US treats EULAs as worth more than toilet paper - he cant.
Who he could sue is that CORE entity though.

Vzzdak:
Well, there really need to be significant financial penalties for corporations, so that incompetent activities are discouraged. Otherwise, stupid decisions are simply shrugged off.
[snip]

This right here is a huge problem. The system has turned from innocnt untill proven guilty to guilty untill proven innocent and wrong claimant never gets punished, so corporations like Nintendo can use infinite claim loop to stop everyone they want without any actual proof or reason. And they DO that. If we were to punish wrong claimants (like same 3 strikes rule that users have) then the corporate trolls would quickly be removed and we have a nicer enviroment.

Living_Brain:
Goodbye YouTube, and hello Vimeo!

Sadly Vimeo does not accept game related videos.

Big_Willie_Styles:
It seems like Google is just trying to kill YouTube at this point. They're trying to piss off their biggest moneymakers enough to leave. Makes no God damn sense.

To be honest it seems like google is trying to kill everything it has at this point.

loa:
This ain't fun and games, this is peoples livelihood youtube is messing up here.
What they're doing is fraud and slander on a massive scale and they should be hit with a class action lawsuit.

I wonder to whom the ad revenues of all those fake claims go.
Wouldn't it be ironic if it was google?

If you read the article, it said that those revenue go to claimant, who then takes 20% of it for administration and should send the rest to the content owner, however as of last post here Gavin so far has recieved nothing.

schrodinger:
Jesus fucking christ, this youtube content ID program is an abomination. Gavin has become another victim to this endless automated clusterfuck of a program, which Google seems to give zero shits about.
Original content creators like the developer of VVVVVV and Johnathan Blow are being affected and it's their own content!

Its funny how Google is doing this for 4 years now but shit hits the fan only when people that get ad revenue get hit. You create your content for free - noone cares that you get illegally blocked.

lacktheknack:
OT: What WOULD it take to get copywrite rewritten for a modern context?

United effort of people without majority just sitting at home and "Waiting till its over". In other words - impossible. What you basically would ahve to do is either
A) a revolution
B) create official candidates who cannot be bribed (a feat in and of itself), elect them, and make sure they rewrite copyright laws and dont destroy the country in the process.

Antigonius:
The most funniest thing - Even if every lets player and guys who are getting flagged about copyright would be banned from Google, they all STILL would whine about it, like a bunch of spoiled children.

If you don't like it - move from there/don't use it. There's you're "ultimate" solution. Kinda getting tired from this *waaa, mean evil YouTube steals mah money, waaaaa*

Don't like new YouTube? Then don't use it, Jesus Crist - there are tons of other services all over the world.

P.S And if someone decides to comment on *There's no monetising on other services, bla-bla-bla*: You can't. Justify. Laziness. At all. Everyone who's doing that should be ashamed of themselfs

Can you rephrase your point here because other than "dont like it leave it" it does not make sense. Also, dont like capitalism - leave it. Oh, wait, you cant, there is no place on earth that doesnt have it.

No, what we should do instead is dont like it - make it better.

Neronium:
It's posts like the ones that Antigonius made that seems to be every-so prevalent now, and really makes me sad that I'm an LPer that doesn't monetize, but will still be labeled a "spoiler child" or other things. It's rather sad how people who don't create content think it's as easy as snapping their fingers and then they can make a bunch of money. Never mind the large amount of time and work that people have to put into their channels to build a following. >.>

They should try lets playing. No, really. I watched some lets plays and thought it would be fun to try making some myself (i never intended to monetize). so i just picked a mic, a game i never played and went with it. The result was so bad i deleted it before anyone else saw this.

wulf3n:
The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

No. The solution is to make what google is doing - illegal. If we just move to another website the story will just repeat itself.

The Rogue Wolf:
Want to hear something mind-numbingly stupid?

Gavin's own videos were taken down. The video I shot of his performance at this year's Expo? Not even touched. Granted, the audio isn't of the best quality, but it seems that YouTube's system is a world away from perfect.

Thats an old trick people use to trick the google bot. Alter the audio slightly and it will miss it.

Pinky's Brain:

You can send bogus DMCA takedown notices too ... this isn't really much of a problem. The moment this causes monetary damages/gains it becomes grounds for a lawsuit, so it's unlikely to be abused.

Except that it is abused, daily, hundreds of times. and im not talking google only. DMCA takedown notices that shoft the burden of proof to the defendant are PURE EVIL.

The truly screwed up thing about this is that is makes a system meant to be method to prevent theft and piracy of copyrighted material is effectively a mechanism for theft of people's just earnings!

If Google were going to implement this, they should've implemented an earnings escrow system to prevent any loss of income on the part of those unjustly flagged so that people wouldn't lose income before their counterclaim could be filed and processed.

Strazdas:

wulf3n:
The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

No. The solution is to make what google is doing - illegal. If we just move to another website the story will just repeat itself.

Most of what's happened probably is to some extent, I know it's illegal to have a monopoly. While Google aren't technically a monopoly they are for all intents and purposes. But that still hasn't affected them.

The idea wasn't for everyone to move to a single site, but for the majority of people to move to many sites, so that no one site has all the content.

wulf3n:

Strazdas:

wulf3n:
The solution to the problem has to start with us not Google.

No. The solution is to make what google is doing - illegal. If we just move to another website the story will just repeat itself.

Most of what's happened probably is to some extent, I know it's illegal to have a monopoly. While Google aren't technically a monopoly they are for all intents and purposes. But that still hasn't affected them.

The idea wasn't for everyone to move to a single site, but for the majority of people to move to many sites, so that no one site has all the content.

Wont work either way. Google is not technically a monopoly (just look at Bings usage stats and you will see that google isnt the internet really). And few smaller sites wont help any. As technology progresses it will be easier and easier to put bots like these in, and our current laws not only allows, they ENCOURAGE this behaviuor. There were sites that didnt do this, for example megaupload. Im sure i dont need to tell you how that ended up.

There is a tiny problem with this whole "ContentID is evil" thing.

The rights holders for content that is submitted into ContentID database have a choice of response to a match. Including a simple notification for actual manual review. They don't have to claim monetization or remove matched content. They just choose the option.

GladiatorUA:
There is a tiny problem with this whole "ContentID is evil" thing.

The rights holders for content that is submitted into ContentID database have a choice of response to a match. Including a simple notification for actual manual review. They don't have to claim monetization or remove matched content. They just choose the option.

Any snake that bites its own tail doesn't know what the hell it's doing. When your system is both harming folks AND dumb enough to pull this on the actual owners of said content, it's a'broken so clearly that it's not even funny.

Mabster:

Dr.Awkward:
I don't think Google realizes yet that, even though it might be expensive, actual people would have better judgement and common sense in situations like this regardless how complex a content scanner can be coded.

According to Google's statistics "100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute" and "Content ID scans over 400 years of video every day."

Content ID needs to be an automated system and Google needs to protect itself from another Viacom situation, but the current state of things is obviously unfair and hostile to the content creators. Let's hope that something positive comes our of this whole mess.

That's why most people want a system that mixes an automated system and a human one. Content ID may scan that much in a day, but the amount that actually gets flagged is presumably a significantly smaller percentage. (although obviously not small enough) And given Google's resources, I think they can pay a thousand people to watch Youtube videos all day long and brief them on basic fair use policy. They don't exactly need to be lawyers, just intelligent enough to recognize that 15 seconds of parody in a 30 minute video doesn't warrant giving all the revenue of the video to the song owner. Just to weed out the more idiotic claims and the claims by companies that don't actually own the content.

I believe there's two parts to the solution of this problem:

First, get rid of this asinine "guilty until proven innocent" system. Currently all revenue the video makes as soon as the claim is made and during the entire appeals process is awarded to the party making the claim with no questions asked. This obviously leads to false parties making claims, as well as proper content owners making claims for content protected under fair use, all to make a quick buck, even if the appeal goes through and gives all the rights back to the video owner. This process can be drawn out for over two months without risk and during which time 100% of the money goes away from the guy who made the video, and I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the first 2 months constitutes a vast majority of the views a video will receive. The clear solution here is to store the money the video makes until the claim is confirmed or appealed, providing the money to the winner of the dispute after it's completed.

Secondly, and this may be more related to copyright law itself more than YouTube policy, how is it right to give 100% of the money a video makes to the owner of content that consists of only 1% of the video. Using Angry Joe's example, and assuming that the song clip was not protected under fair use, lets examine this. He posted a review on Skyrim that was 30min long, and at one point parodies a song for 15 seconds. This song parody comprises less than 1% of the video, yet this policy suggests that the owner of this song deserves 100% of the video's revenue. Now, like I said this parody would be protected under fair use, but lets ignore that for now. For all intents and purposes, this video may as well have been uploaded by the owner of the song, after all, they're the ones making 100% of the money from it. But if we view it from that perspective, then aren't they making money from a property that is 99% not their work, and is the work of another person that is getting 0% of the credit. A far bigger crime in at least my book. Had the song company uploaded the video instead, it would be tagged for Joe and he would be given all the money from it. This is clearly paradoxical reasoning. The solution however is not so simple to see. The simplest thing to do would be to take down the video, requesting him to re-upload it without the infringing material, or to fine him for the rights to use the song. Another might be to simply give the song company, and thus any other claim holder, only a percentage of the profits equal to the percentage of the video that uses the claimer's material. It's unfair to me that just because a person used another's work, that the second person now gets credit for the 1st person's work; this is only punishing the crime by allowing another to commit it.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm a lawyer or that I completely understand the situation, but these solutions need to at least be directly addressed by YouTube & Google. Perhaps the first solution lends to the second. If all the money is stored until an agreement is reached, then a simple option would be to allow the parties to come to an agreement between the video owner and the claimer in terms of the what percentage is given to the claimer, if applicable. If an agreement can't be reached, then maybe just actually take it to court?

FalloutJack:
Any snake that bites its own tail doesn't know what the hell it's doing. When your system is both harming folks AND dumb enough to pull this on the actual owners of said content, it's a'broken so clearly that it's not even funny.

But youtube wasn't the one who claimed those videos. Indmusic claimed them. They have added them into the database and chose what to do with matches.

It's ironic that the response of masses to any issue is almost identical to ContentID's. The difference is, the ContentID is a robot, and is expected to be so dumb.

There are ways to deal with current problems without these stupid temper tantrums, but any rational ideas are being drowned in this retarded public crusade against "evil".

The simplest way to fix most of current problems in monetization is for youtube to hold ad revenue in escrow until all of the claims and disputes over a piece of content are resolved. A simple solution and no one gets hurt.

Some kind of third party arbitrage would also be good.

But no. We have to burn the evil contentid and everything it stands for.

GladiatorUA:
Poit

Well no, that's where you're wrong. These robots are expected to work right, because the people programming them aren't suppose to be asshanded morons. What is stands for is "We don't know what the hell we're doing.", and that's just not gonna cut it. Burn it? Hell, the effigy's been on standby for much longer than this. This is the breaking of the camel's back, my friend. It's not retarded and it's not stupid. It's a bunch of people tired of it and they just won't have it anymore, and I don't blame them. You're not gonna get anywhere calling names, nor is your reason for doing so justified.

FalloutJack:
Well no, that's where you're wrong. These robots are expected to work right, because the people programming them aren't suppose to be asshanded morons. What is stands for is "We don't know what the hell we're doing.", and that's just not gonna cut it. Burn it? Hell, the effigy's been on standby for much longer than this. This is the breaking of the camel's back, my friend. It's not retarded and it's not stupid. It's a bunch of people tired of it and they just won't have it anymore, and I don't blame them. You're not gonna get anywhere calling names, nor is your reason for doing so justified.

It is very annoying when people are so vocal about issues they know almost nothing about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgldWAsB0M - here is a view on the situation from a person who does know what's going on. It would be nice if people did some research before picking up pitchforks.

The robot works withing the parameters given to it. And those parameters are directly influenced by content rights holders.

Vocal "people" who don't do their research are useless and harmful.

8bitmaster:

TheMadJack:
Hey internet! We're still waiting for the next-gen YouTube! Get to it!

You're part of the internet, you can always begin the work! Let's start with a name.... I got it! UsTube!

How about NewTube? I'm a developer with access to some hosting space to get us started? Who fancies a bash at it?

GladiatorUA:
Zoop

Well, let's see... Aside from making a bad assumption about people, you've completely ignored the relevent points I've been making AND insulted just about everyone. Probably not the best way to try and prove a point. They're not being stupid and ignorant. They DO know. They just don't agree with your opinion.

This is weird because I take legit music from huge artists, basically lay them on a slab and cut into them like Doctor Stienman, and then post them. I haven't received any claims.

Someone needs to sue YouTube/Google for copyright infringement.

At the end of the day, that's what this is. YouTube is infringing on the copyrights of people like Gavin with their stupid automated system that doesn't care about who actually owns the content or the context in which the content is being used (for example, is that gameplay footage a let's play which is legally iffy or a review which is firmly covered under fair use and not a copyright infringement?). It just flags the video and immediately rips ownership away from the creator and hands it off to some big corporation for them to do with it as they please. And then there's nothing stopping these companies from saying "nope, fuck you, it's ours now" when you file an appeal even if your appeal is legit.

YouTube did this garbage because people were uploading copyrighted stuff and the copyright holders were going to YouTube and saying "Hey, it's your site, you let them upload this and that makes you responsible." and YouTube didn't want to get sued by those copyright holders. But their response to being indirectly involved with copyright infringement is to become more directly involved with copyright infringement by taking video and ad rights away from the content creators? No. Fuck that. Content creators need to do exactly what YouTube was hoping to avoid with this utterly broken content ID system and sue YouTube for copyright infringement. It's the only way YouTube is going to wake up and realize that their Content ID system is flawed to the point of being broken. Right now they are sitting on their asses saying "nope it works as intended, all the matches are legit" because they think they can get away with ignoring all the problems now that the big corporations are off their backs. They need to be threatened, this time by the content creators they are screwing over, to see that they need to go back to the drawing board and try again.

Also I would just to send out a special "fuck you" to all the MCNs like Full Screen that didn't do their job properly and begged YouTube to help them out. If you were doing your job as the MCN properly, which is making sure the channels you bring in weren't violating copyrights, you wouldn't have had to ask YouTube to do the job you existed to do and we wouldn't have this problem right now.

GladiatorUA:

FalloutJack:
Well no, that's where you're wrong. These robots are expected to work right, because the people programming them aren't suppose to be asshanded morons. What is stands for is "We don't know what the hell we're doing.", and that's just not gonna cut it. Burn it? Hell, the effigy's been on standby for much longer than this. This is the breaking of the camel's back, my friend. It's not retarded and it's not stupid. It's a bunch of people tired of it and they just won't have it anymore, and I don't blame them. You're not gonna get anywhere calling names, nor is your reason for doing so justified.

It is very annoying when people are so vocal about issues they know almost nothing about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgldWAsB0M - here is a view on the situation from a person who does know what's going on. It would be nice if people did some research before picking up pitchforks.

The robot works withing the parameters given to it. And those parameters are directly influenced by content rights holders.

Vocal "people" who don't do their research are useless and harmful.

The irony of you claiming that the parameters are directly influenced by content right holders in the comment section of an article about a content right holder who had his content marked as stolen from himself is astounding. I'm sure Gavin totally told YouTube's broken Content ID robot to make sure he doesn't steal videos from himself, because as you said, the parameters are directly influenced by content right holders.

I also find it odd that you say vocal people who don't do their research are useless and harmful, and yet you keep talking BS on the comments section of an article you clearly didn't read anyway.

Either Youtube needs a major over hall. Or a replacement video service needs to start pushing for its spot. Cause at this rate Youtube is just gonna crush itself and many of those involved with it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here