NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[Dexter]

I don't rightfully know, I'm not a lawyer.

If I had to take a guess though, I'd wager ISPs would be forced to block the site under law, and the US would probably throw its weight around a bit to force trade partners to follow suit.
Best case scenario, you can access these sources normally via proxy/VPN.

A lot of the stuff that is being “Content ID matched” would fall under Fair Use, especially things like gameplay, commentaries, bits and pieces from specific music pieces or TV shows/movies that is being used to make a point and so on. The main culprit of these “problems” is the Content ID system that Google has developed and implemented and how it works: http://youtube.com/t/contentid


They aren’t even claiming that someone broke someone else’s Copyright, they couldn’t possibly legally verify something like that, but they will blanket match stuff to their database, people will even be given a chance to dispute it:

What it boils down to is that YouTube doesn’t want any trouble with the "content owners" and the law and doesn't really care if your Fair Use rights or similar are being violated by the removal of a video or its demonetization, since they have sovereignty and make the rules for their service they can block or demonetize whatever videos they like and if you have a problem with that you can either try to dispute it or have to arrange terms or go to court with the party that lays these claims against you (e.g. the Copyright holder).

Not to say that to the US government at the moment the concept of “Fair Use” is a thorn in their side and they are trying to eliminate it with upcoming trade agreements like the TPP: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...bout-limiting-fair-use-not-expanding-it.shtml
Although there might be some good news, since a lot of countries after the failure of SOPA/PIPA and then ACTA apparently woke up somewhat and won’t be allowed to be trampled on quite as hard as before: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...not-an-agreement-among-like-minded-countries/
This image alone should pretty much explain it:

Does youtube even make a profit yet?

They were running at a huge loss for Google back in 2009.

Yes, a lot: http://allthingsd.com/20120621/youtubes-gigantic-year-is-already-here-citi-says/

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Strictly speaking, if your service isn't based in the US, surely you aren't required to comply with the DMCA?

It's stupid anyway. If you get a content id claim, you can dispute it, and then dispute it again if the content owner doesn't back off, and in the end what you're essentially allowed to do is absolve youtube of all legal responsibility and let the claimant sue you, if they so desire. Why can't you simply enable that option for your whole account and be done with it?

If you want your service available in the US, you have to follow US laws. There is limited recourse that can be used on foreign websites, but they will be breaking the law.

But copyright infringement isn't a criminal offense (yet), not even in the US, so at most you can be sued. And if you have no legal presence whatsoever in the US, no court will accept a suit against you, that's how Pirate Bay gets away with what it does.

Of course, under the DMCA, ISPs can be forced to block access to the "infringing" website, but that's about the limit of what the copyright holders can do openly.

It would really be awesome if for-pay let's players launched class action law suits against these companies for denying them their fair use rights.

Statutory damages could be insane.

I don't think it works like that. What happens on youtube is regulated by youtube's TOS, which (as usual) states that they can do whatever the fuck they please. Now, if someone decided to threaten, say, Angry Joe's own website with litigation on count of copyright infringement, that would be a different thing. But as far as the law is concerned, it's youtube's responsibility to police the content they distribute.

 

[DalekFlay]

If people like Angry Joe were smart they would do the youtube thing as a hobby, not an income, and build their name and content to the point where they can then get hired for actual companies doing actual quasi-journalism with an actual paycheck. There is absolutely no security what-so-ever in being tied to youtube, period. Anyone with common sense would never see that as a fucking career.

That said copyright laws are out of control and blah blah blah.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Quite honestly, as long as this frees us from most of those youtube "celebrities", I don't mind one bit.

 

[tuluse]

But copyright infringement isn't a criminal offense (yet), not even in the US, so at most you can be sued. And if you have no legal presence whatsoever in the US, no court will accept a suit against you, that's how Pirate Bay gets away with what it does.

Of course, under the DMCA, ISPs can be forced to block access to the "infringing" website, but that's about the limit of what the copyright holders can do openly.

I basically said as much. You have to follow the laws of any country you provide a service to, but the countries can't do anything about it. So there is a difference between what a person is "required" to do and what can happen to them for not doing it. It's like speeding on a country road. The speed limit still exists, but no one can make you follow it.

I don't think it works like that. What happens on youtube is regulated by youtube's TOS, which (as usual) states that they can do whatever the fuck they please. Now, if someone decided to threaten, say, Angry Joe's own website with litigation on count of copyright infringement, that would be a different thing. But as far as the law is concerned, it's youtube's responsibility to police the content they distribute.

Issuing a bogus DCMA claim in on fair use is harming that person's ability to make money. Youtube is not responsible, but the publishers issuing the claims are.

 

[CSM]

Oh no, Angwy Joe is vewy vewy angwwy!

Poor losers who made money from the footage belonging to other companies can't freeload from them anymore. The pity.

How's that Electronic Arts cock in your mouth feel?

 

[DraQ]

Oh no, Angwy Joe is vewy vewy angwwy!

Poor losers who made money from the footage belonging to other companies can't freeload from them anymore. The pity.

How's that Electronic Arts cock in your mouth feel?

Multi-hEAded dicks hitting ass and mouth oh god its hEAvan.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Boogie is now crying for his gaming vlogger "buddies"

God that guy is one obnoxious man, it's almost inhuman how unbearable he is

 

[Humanity has risen!]

http://storify.com/SeeBeeWhitman/depression-quest-harassment-campaign

Depression Quest Harassment Campaign
Zoë Quinn made a game called Depression Quest. She published this game to Valve Corporation's Greenlight service, where users of their Steam online store vet possible new store additions. Simply the idea that the game *could* be sold on the store was enough to trigger a storm of online harassment.

1. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   To attempt to induce Zoë to remove her game from the service, or simply to "punish" her for the perceived offence of being a woman on the internet, she was subjected to significant harassment on multiple fronts, culminating in repeated sexually harassing phone calls.
   
   Her experience is not uncommon for women publishing visible work on the internet, especially in the field of game development, where many men still believe women do not belong at all. For many women, these "raids," or organized campaigns of harassment, form a significant barrier to work equality in the industry.
   
   In Canada, indecent communications and harassing communications would both become criminal offences under bill C-13.
2. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   some days I can laugh at this shit privately and ignore it, other days I have to let some of the MAD out.
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:41:37
3. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Pinterest
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   
   The fact that I can't do something simple like put a game on greenlight without shit like this (1/2) pic.twitter.com/8nd8JGM7xB
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   ·
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:44:13
4. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Pinterest
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   
   (2/2) happening while people say "oh it's not REALLY sexist here..." makes me sick with rage. pic.twitter.com/tl28TB2utz
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   ·
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:44:50
5. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   I wasn't even going to say anything about the raid because I wanted to laugh and wait for it to be over.
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:45:54
6. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   But just go fuck yourself if you think that games is a meritocracy.
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:46:10
7. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   @8vius those dudes got my phone number and jerked off into my phone. That's hardly harmless or "just douchey".
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:47:44
8. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   The fucked up thing? This was an accepted risk of putting Depression Quest on greenlight. The same thing happened last time, too.
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:50:28
9. • Add to story or collection
   • Share on Google+
   • Share on Linkedin
   • Share by email
   
   Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
   This is predictable. Unless we call this shit out & fight it when we can, this will continue to be the cost for me to stay in games.
   Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:52:01
10. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    Also: if you're a in games and are ever dealing with harassment and bullshit, my door is always open to you.
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:54:00​
11. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    I'm not alone in dealing with this shit, and neither should anyone else be.
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:54:16​
12. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    "Don't talk about this you're feeding the trolls". NO. Fuck staying silent on this. People need to know *exactly* how bad this problem is.
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:55:21​
13. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    one of the reasons that Depression Quest is back on greenlight is that I'm *DONE* living on the terms of pantsshitting babies
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 12:56:26​
14. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    "Don't feed the trolls" How about don't harass people or tolerate harassment as though it's accepted/inevitable & yr weird for speaking out
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 13:00:41​
15. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    "It's just the internet" the internet is LITERALLY WHERE I DO BUSINESS
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 13:01:00​
16. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    I'm not going anywhere, assholes. I hope my games about love & empathy & vulnerability piss you off.
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 13:01:46​
17. • Add to story or collection
    • Share on Google+
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
    
    Zoë “Buttnik” Quinn@ZoeQuinnzel
    *mic drop*
    Thu, Dec 12 2013 13:02:00
    ReplyRetweetFavorite​

 

[Lord Haw Haw]

Well, looks like basing your entire income on a video website can be risky.

Who knew

Truth be told, many of them should've known. The fact is television and more recently cable tv are on the way out. Everything is slowly migrating to the internet and sites like YT are thinking of the future. Hell, they said as much in an article years ago how their main goal was to be a subscriber based service with all in-house developed content and personalities; with the goal of slowly weaning themselves off of peon produced product. My question to the YT "personalities" that are whining that they can't make money off of essentially copy-pasting (at least the ones who had promise) is this: You knew this was coming so why weren't you hedging your bets? Why weren't you trying to cross over to making 100% original content? Why weren't you trying to make yourself more marketable to a wider audience (outlets)? Because niche fanboyism, no matter how charismatic, isn't enough sustain you long term even if there wasn't all this copyright riggamoroll. You could still be making content and getting money for it by making other (kosher) content instead of just making wank videos for console basement dwellers. Cause I'm damn sure Jenna Marbles ain't sweatin' over this shit and some of you guys are way more taltented than cunts like her and Ray W. Johnson.

Anyway, it ain't fair use if you're making cash from it. It sucks (because some of that shit is entertaining) but that's the "lawr" as my zionist attorney cousin puts it.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I always block all Internet ads and everyone should start doing this. Let's destroy this unhealthy, unsustainable, and race to the bottom business model.

 

[Bilgefar]

God that guy is one obnoxious man, it's almost inhuman how unbearable he is

Now you know what's it's like for the rest of us to read your posts.

 

[Whiner]

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=h...h?v=RpnRhiInopA&start2=&authorName=snoopsagan
I can't watch my bros So much sleepless nights with nightmares.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Issuing a bogus DCMA claim in on fair use is harming that person's ability to make money. Youtube is not responsible, but the publishers issuing the claims are.

Thing is, I don't think Youtube's Content ID matches are DMCA claims; they're more like a part of YT's own internal arbitration system. As a matter of fact, the system is flagging content from parties who explicitly permit monetization of it, like Blizzard or Riot, so if they do count as DMCA claims, then someone fucked up real bad, and if it was indeed YT, then Blizzard can sue them for issuing bogus claims in their name.

But I doubt that's the case. My understanding is that DMCA forces Youtube to comply with copyright holder notices, which they do by implementing this shitty system. I suppose the problem of who is legally responsible for the actions of the Content ID robot is pretty interesting, but there's no grounds for a class action here. Youtube may as well just delete every gaming channel overnight and they'd be within the rights granted to them by their TOS.

 

[Dexter]

Issuing a bogus DCMA claim in on fair use is harming that person's ability to make money. Youtube is not responsible, but the publishers issuing the claims are.

Thing is, I don't think Youtube's Content ID matches are DMCA claims; they're more like a part of YT's own internal arbitration system. As a matter of fact, the system is flagging content from parties who explicitly permit monetization of it, like Blizzard or Riot, so if they do count as DMCA claims, then someone fucked up real bad, and if it was indeed YT, then Blizzard can sue them for issuing bogus claims in their name.

But I doubt that's the case. My understanding is that DMCA forces Youtube to comply with copyright holder notices, which they do by implementing this shitty system. I suppose the problem of who is legally responsible for the actions of the Content ID robot is pretty interesting, but there's no grounds for a class action here. Youtube may as well just delete every gaming channel overnight and they'd be within the rights granted to them by their TOS.

The issue is entirely unrelated to DMCA takedown requests (if you get 3 of those, they usually lock your account forever). Most of what these people are pissed about is that YouTube's Content ID system removes the monetization from matched videos.

See: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals
http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

 

[tuluse]

Thing is, I don't think Youtube's Content ID matches are DMCA claims; they're more like a part of YT's own internal arbitration system. As a matter of fact, the system is flagging content from parties who explicitly permit monetization of it, like Blizzard or Riot, so if they do count as DMCA claims, then someone fucked up real bad, and if it was indeed YT, then Blizzard can sue them for issuing bogus claims in their name.

But I doubt that's the case. My understanding is that DMCA forces Youtube to comply with copyright holder notices, which they do by implementing this shitty system. I suppose the problem of who is legally responsible for the actions of the Content ID robot is pretty interesting, but there's no grounds for a class action here. Youtube may as well just delete every gaming channel overnight and they'd be within the rights granted to them by their TOS.

I was under the impression that the system worked like this.

ContentID tags a video with found content. Youtube informs the right holder. The right holder then decides what to do. Most of them just have an automated take down response, but that's really irrelevant. Once the takedown is issued, Youtube has to take down the content. The uploader of the content can then appeal to the right holder and ask them to withdraw their take down request. However, there is no system in place for how these are handled.

So if ContentID gets a false positive or the video should fall under fair use, it's the responsibility of the right holder to issue a false take down request.

If I'm wrong about how the system works, then my argument has no merit. If I'm right the rights holders should be sueable.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Joe said the companies denied knowing about his videos getting flagged and claimed (like one capcom game where there was music from Dead Rising or something playing in the background). Apparently the IDbot claims things for others on his own?

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Issuing a bogus DCMA claim in on fair use is harming that person's ability to make money. Youtube is not responsible, but the publishers issuing the claims are.

Thing is, I don't think Youtube's Content ID matches are DMCA claims; they're more like a part of YT's own internal arbitration system. As a matter of fact, the system is flagging content from parties who explicitly permit monetization of it, like Blizzard or Riot, so if they do count as DMCA claims, then someone fucked up real bad, and if it was indeed YT, then Blizzard can sue them for issuing bogus claims in their name.

But I doubt that's the case. My understanding is that DMCA forces Youtube to comply with copyright holder notices, which they do by implementing this shitty system. I suppose the problem of who is legally responsible for the actions of the Content ID robot is pretty interesting, but there's no grounds for a class action here. Youtube may as well just delete every gaming channel overnight and they'd be within the rights granted to them by their TOS.

The issue is entirely unrelated to DMCA takedown requests (if you get 3 of those, they usually lock your account forever). Most of what these people are pissed about is that YouTube's Content ID system removes the monetization from matched videos.

See: https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals
http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Yeah, that was basically what I thought was happening.

Amusingly enough, if you do get a takedown notice, you can choose to challenge it, at which point Youtube washes its hands and the copyright holder is free to sue you personally, which is actually a much better situation than having monetization taken away for up to two months if your content is legit.

Thing is, I don't think Youtube's Content ID matches are DMCA claims; they're more like a part of YT's own internal arbitration system. As a matter of fact, the system is flagging content from parties who explicitly permit monetization of it, like Blizzard or Riot, so if they do count as DMCA claims, then someone fucked up real bad, and if it was indeed YT, then Blizzard can sue them for issuing bogus claims in their name.

But I doubt that's the case. My understanding is that DMCA forces Youtube to comply with copyright holder notices, which they do by implementing this shitty system. I suppose the problem of who is legally responsible for the actions of the Content ID robot is pretty interesting, but there's no grounds for a class action here. Youtube may as well just delete every gaming channel overnight and they'd be within the rights granted to them by their TOS.

I was under the impression that the system worked like this.

ContentID tags a video with found content. Youtube informs the right holder. The right holder then decides what to do. Most of them just have an automated take down response, but that's really irrelevant. Once the takedown is issued, Youtube has to take down the content. The uploader of the content can then appeal to the right holder and ask them to withdraw their take down request. However, there is no system in place for how these are handled.

So if ContentID gets a false positive or the video should fall under fair use, it's the responsibility of the right holder to issue a false take down request.

If I'm wrong about how the system works, then my argument has no merit. If I'm right the rights holders should be sueable.

See Dexter's post above. The issue is that ContentID automatically makes proceeds from ads on a video it flags go to the copyright owner; this doesn't result in any actual legal action (such as a DMCA notice). Videos stay online, but their authors can't make any money off them.

This, in itself, is not such a bad idea, but the way the ContentID matcher works, and the arbitration procedure hugely slanted in favor of copyright holders, make it a nightmare to resolve all this shit, even if your videos clearly fall under fair use.

 

[AlexOfSpades]

Oh no, Angwy Joe is vewy vewy angwwy!

Poor losers who made money from the footage belonging to other companies can't freeload from them anymore. The pity.

Are you retarded? He wasnt freeloading you dumbass, he- oh wait

Oh. Nevermind.

 

[Average Manatee]

So my understanding is that if I, say, made a video saying why Rome 2 TW sucks, Sega gets paid $$$ for the ads shown next to it? If so that's sad/hilarious/evil/ironic.

 

[Fat Dragon]

These youtubers like Angry Joe should just do what Mark Bussler from Classic Game Room is now doing: set up their own website and then use their youtube account to help advertise it and bring all their subscribers over to it. Has worked out for him quite nicely. No need for all these dramatic embarrassing meltdown videos, just give youtube the finger and go on about your business doing what you do.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, I can't blame him for going into meltdown mode. I'd be pissed too if some software suddenly decided if my work doesn't belong to me anymore and all the involved were pointing fingers at each other.

 

[Fat Dragon]

Well, I can't blame him for going into meltdown mode. I'd be pissed too if some software suddenly decided if my work doesn't belong to me anymore and all the involved were pointing fingers at each other.

That's the thing though, he doesn't have to put up with this bullshit. Why not just make his own site and host his content there on his own terms? His best buddy Spoony Experiment does, Classic Game Room does and they still make enough to do it for a living. I also believe Angry Joe was quite popular before going to youtube when he was on the guy with the glasses site. He has a large fanbase, they'll follow him wherever, they don't care if it's hosted on youtube or not. Same would happen with that Francis guy or whatever his name is.

Of course, that would require some actual effort and more work than just crying on a webcam.

 

[Angthoron]

Well, I can't blame him for going into meltdown mode. I'd be pissed too if some software suddenly decided if my work doesn't belong to me anymore and all the involved were pointing fingers at each other.

Joe is just angry that his "colleagues" from TGWTG can stuff in up to five ads into one video review, or have Blip force a 90-second pause before the video launches should it detect an adblock, while he can't even monetize with a pop-up ad anymore.

 

[felipepepe]

Youtube is definitely where a guy can could make more money, you can't compare google ads with any other streaming service ads.