Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

248 Comments

The YouTube Snake Is Eating Itself

How VVVVVV's copyright notices underscore the complicated competing interests and contradictions of the popular video service.

Terry Cavanagh is the designer of VVVVVV. He published a gameplay video of VVVVVV on his YouTube channel, and it was flagged with a copyright claim. Magnus Pålsson is the composer of VVVVVV’s music. He also started getting copyright notices about his own music on YouTube.

By the way, if you haven't played VVVVVV, change that.
By the way, if you haven't played VVVVVV, change that.

This is the height of absurdity, and underlines the crossroads YouTube faces when it comes to finding the line on a website built on monetizing user generated content and protecting copyright holders. Right now, it’s very clear which side YouTube is favoring.

The basic question facing YouTube right now is fair use. Fair use is what allows an individual or group to use copyrighted material in their own work. According to the US Copyright Office, that includes “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.” With games, we’re often talking about people playing games, recording themselves playing them, and putting those videos up on YouTube. Sometimes with commentary, sometimes without. But at its very base level, it’s the recording of playing a game.

On YouTube, these creators are on the defensive.

YouTube faces a dilemma. When Viacom sued YouTube back in 2007 for more than a billion dollars, it prompted the company to start down a road it has continued on ever since. Copyright holders hold immense power on YouTube, and YouTube bends to their will. If a copyright holder makes a claim, that claim is assumed true until it’s proven otherwise by the YouTube user. If a user is unable to prove it has a valid use of copyright, they earn a strike. Three strikes? Your account is gone. That means starting a new channel over from scratch.

Content ID, the system that’s caused recent headaches, is a system created by YouTube in which YouTube videos are matched against files submitted by copyright holders. If a match is found, the policy of the copyright holder is applied. There are three options: monetize (the holder can turn on ads), block (video may no longer be viewable or audio may be muted), and track (nothing changes, but stats are monitored).

The most recent changes to Content ID differentiate between “managed” and “affiliate” channels on YouTube. Managed channels have a deal with YouTube. Machinima is a good example. Most of Machinima is not impacted by these changes, and does not have to worry about Content ID. An affiliate channel is Ryan “Northernlion” Letourneau, who is now responding to individual copyright requests depriving him of revenue.

When a video is being disputed over copyright, it is no longer able to be monetized by the video creator. Every day counts. Why do you think game publications try to hit embargo times for game reviews? You're trying to capitalize on mass interest. It's traffic, and traffic is money. Missing even a day or two can be catastrophic.

Content ID’s an extension of this power for copyright holders, but it’s come with unintended consequences. One includes Let’s Play and other videos being flagged because those games, uh, have music. Soundtrack distribution and artist representation is often handled by companies other than the game publisher.

A closer look at the VVVVVV situation will illuminate what I mean by this.

Pålsson posts on Twitter about how he’s getting copyright noticed about his own material. How?

TuneCore is a service that helps artists sell their music on a variety of online shops, including iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, and most recently, YouTube. According to TuneCore’s website, TuneCore partners with INDMUSIC, an independent music network on YouTube.

“You're owed money every time people use your music in their YouTube videos,” reads TuneCore’s website. “We'll help you collect the most money from YouTube when you use TuneCore for publishing and distribution.”

In this deal, artists keep 90% of royalties from their compositions, 80% of royalties from music used in other people’s YouTube videos, and 100% of royalties from the artist's own YouTube channel.

That leads us to this response from TuneCore on Twitter.

In this humorous exchange, TuneCore is informing Pålsson that TuneCore is actually providing a service for him. TuneCore is serving these copyright notices to folks using his music, which also includes videos of VVVVVV that feature his music. It’s easy to see how this begins to spiral in a million different directions.

Unfortunately for TuneCore, Pålsson doesn’t see this as a service.

And this is where TuneCore becomes very, very confused.

TuneCore can’t imagine a world where Pålsson would want others to use his music freely, including making money off it, without his explicit permission every single time someone makes this decision. Yet for many, this is part of what makes YouTube powerful, a platform for people to share, create, and mix and match content. For America’s archaic copyright system, one that favors copyright holders, it leads to competing interests.

“I want to say that TuneCore isn't a villain,” said Pålsson during an email exchange last night. “I've used them for a long time and their service has been pretty dang good thus far. This problem is systematic and symptomatic of outdated copyright and licensing laws that have not adapted to today's interconnected internet lifestyle that you and I have grown accustomed to.”

This is what it looks like when a video gets a copyright flag.
This is what it looks like when a video gets a copyright flag.

Pålsson has since talked to TuneCore on the phone to express his problems. He was unaware TuneCore and INDMUSIC had rolled out an automatic identifier (this is the Content ID system) on his behalf, a notice representing Pålsson without Pålsson knowing it was happening. He had assumed this was an error, something he needed to be asked to opt in to, but that’s not the case, as it was part a publishing deal he already signed, albeit prior to TuneCore/INDMUSIC rolling into YouTube.

INDMUSIC CEO and co-founder Brandon Martinez pointed to a communication issue.

“With YouTube's new claims system, tons of channels that weren't previously subject to Content ID claims are now being hit with claims, both valid and invalid,” said Martinez. “INDMUSIC also recently partnered with TuneCore to manage their artists' rights on YouTube. Many of these artists are video game composers who have previously licensed or sold their music without communicating this to their Publisher, TuneCore. When TuneCore's content was uploaded to YouTube, no one was aware that so many channels would be affected because none of this information had been communicated.”

The solutions presented to Pålsson each have a number of drawbacks that don't sit well with him. He can create a whitelist for his content, a set of YouTube users who are allowed to monetize his compositions.

“This alternative will be quite troublesome for the guys doing letsplay videos and reviews etc,” he said. “It would also punish the developer who might not get their game reviewed because of the hassle involved with getting on whitelists.”

The next option is to opt out of the publishing part of his publishing agreement, but since there is no way to easily opt out of just YouTube, that means losing additional revenue streams.

“The publishing part is tied to more services such as Spotify and iTunes under the TuneCore umbrella,” he said. “The money lost there will end up in the hands of those distributors instead. Granted, the artist still retains most of it, but it's a significant deal to lose out a chunk of money on each sale on a bunch of distribution places when there's already middle-men around.”

Pålsson continually pointed out that he believes the problem isn’t necessarily with TuneCore, but given the current framework, it’s unclear how to develop a system that benefits everyone.

“I don't know exactly how it would work technically without generating tons of administrative work” he said. “All I know is that I would like the lets-players, reviewers and game devs use as much music they need to do their work without having a lot of red tape to go through, as it's in the musicians' best interest as well.”

What’s happening on YouTube is important because this content is valuable. YouTube users aren’t just “personalities” to be swept under the rug. Many of them are doing work as legitimate as what myself and my other "traditional" press colleagues do every day. It’s just easier to regulate what’s happening on YouTube because it’s not considered press, and there are tools to manipulate what’s happening. That's not right.

"This problem is systematic and symptomatic of outdated copyright and licensing laws that have not adapted to today's interconnected internet lifestyle that you and I have grown accustomed to."

But right now, INDMUSIC doesn’t have a problem with the way it’s currently being handled.

“Videos should be disputed so content can be allowed to properly monetize,” said Martinez. “Creators should provide as much information about why they are disputing the claim as possible. The current problem is more around a massive massive batch of files being subject to ContentID all at once. It sucks that it is hurting the gaming community so heavily at the moment, but it was a messy situation that needed to be resolved. For every legitimate video this is hurting, there are three or more videos using rights without permission and profiting from such uses.”

And as it stands, YouTube isn't changing any of its policies. A letter sent out to YouTube channel holders, obtained by Kotaku, said as much.

"Whether gaming, music or comedy is your passion, know that we love what you do," said the company. "We've worked hard to design Content ID and other tools to give everyone--from individual creators to media companies--the opportunity to make great videos and earn money. As YouTube grows, we want to make sure we're providing the right product features to ensure that everyone continues to thrive."

More clashes are inevitable, but now, nobody seems happy, not even the copyright holders this is supposed to "help."

Patrick Klepek on Google+

248 Comments

Avatar image for eggshellskull
eggshellskull

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@grantheaslip: Sorry gang but I need to plug in my two cents here. As a law student who just spent a term analyzing this exact question, its a really baffling situation that the video creators are in when it comes to YouTube's policies on copyright claims. For starters, fair use is not a basic human right, it's a legislative right that differs on a state-to-state basis, which is part of the problem we have going on here. However the larger issue is that it's what's called an "Affirmative Defense". This means that you essential have to admit you are in fact guilty of using someone else's copyrighted material, however it's ok because your use is transformative of the original work, or is for critical reasons, some sort of justification like that. This is why you don't have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these claims, you have to admit to being guilty to raise a fair use defense. It's hilarious from a practical standpoint but what can you do, right?

Avatar image for joshwent
joshwent

2897

Forum Posts

2987

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By joshwent

@spraynardtatum said:

And in the case of Content ID, a copyright dispute is negating an individuals right to the presumption of innocence. The damage is done immediately by removing monetization and the defendant must then explain their case for the penalty to be revoked. It has everything to do with Human Rights because it involves human beings with real jobs that are no longer able to make a living even though they've done nothing wrong.

Okay, this is a shitty situation. I watch tons of games content on YouTube, people make wonderful things, and I really feel for every creator that's having to go through this hassle. But comparing it to any Human Rights violation is just demeaning all of the crucial aspects of life that that stands for.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, there is absolutely no right to have your video on YouTube.

Avatar image for sergio
Sergio

3663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

I agree, Fair Use isn't what makes someone innocent until proven guilty. Because it's a basic human right. Fair Use isn't a catch-all that makes someone innocent until proven guilty because Fair Use doesn't need to do that. The presumption of innocence is an essential part of democracy and has been around longer than any copyright law and I believe shouldn't be thrown away just because of copyright "issues".

Video games are an interactive medium. You are not playing a videogame if you watch someone else do it . The mere fact that viewers are watching instead of playing the game transforms it into something else. It is a completely different experience. I believe that anyone who says that they've played The Last of Us because they watched a lets play of it is incorrect. It's not the same in the slightest. You may have seen the plot and know the characters (which you could also find by looking on forums or wikipedia) but you did not play the game. It would be like saying you've been on the Top Thrill Dragster because you watched this video:

Or have gone to the Louvre because you watched this virtual tour of it:

All of these videos can be entertaining and provide a good representation of the experience but they are in no way similar to actually participating in the experience. The fact that a lets play is a video and not a video game has transformed it into an entirely different medium.

No. You are wrong here.

One could also argue that watching a movie is a different experience than reading a book. However, a movie based on a book is a derivative piece, not transformative. I can't read a book and decide to make a game based on that book and claim because you are interacting with the story now, my game is transformative and protected under fair use.

It doesn't matter how you experience the story, it's the story that is protected by copyright, not the medium that contains the story.

Avatar image for amafi
amafi

1502

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By amafi

@spraynardtatum: That's one of the more disgusting things I've read on the internet.

Talk about being all the way out of touch with reality. I bet you love to yell about first right amendments on privately owned forums and such as well. Douchenozzle.

Avatar image for sergio
Sergio

3663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

@rasrimra said:

I suppose on a surface level there is a difference but I look at the why not the what.

Copyright is like patenting a way to control a revenue stream and preferably in the direction of the USA. They both serve to make life more difficult for creative people and to threaten small competitors, turn the public into villains who have something to hide etc. etc.

You may not believe that we are doing illegal things all the time but let me give you a good example of how stupid the system really is. Singing Happy Birthday in public, is illegal.

From Wiki (potentially illegally quoted):

"In 1988, Warner/Chappell Music purchased the company owning the copyright for $25 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million.[6][7] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to Warner. In one specific instance in February 2010, these royalties were said to amount to $700.[8] In the European Union, the copyright of the song will expire no later than December 31, 2016.[9]"

I wouldn't call anyone who disagrees with me an asshole, but I do highly dislike figures that represent or protect current copyright laws and I would love to see them publicly humiliated. Suppose the best way to do that is to let them speak, but I still think they're assholes.

Yes and no. You can sing Happy Birthday to your kid in a public park without being sued. Your local T.G.I.Fridays can't publicly perform the song for your aunt on her birthday. A TV show cannot use the song in an episode unless they have licensed its use, so singing it in public on the set while filming is a no-no. It all comes down to fair use.

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
spraynardtatum

4384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

@amafi said:

@spraynardtatum: That's one of the more disgusting things I've read on the internet.

Talk about being all the way out of touch with reality. I bet you love to yell about first right amendments on privately owned forums and such as well. Douchenozzle.

Sorry man.

Avatar image for lionheart051
lionheart051

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By lionheart051

Maybe it's time we gamers start a video sharing website of our own. The clowns at YouTube seem to think they are to big to fail.

Avatar image for joshwent
joshwent

2897

Forum Posts

2987

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Maybe it's time we gamers start a video sharing website of our own. The clowns at YouTube seem to think they are to big to fail.

The clowns at YouTube are trying to let anyone be able to upload what they want, whilst dealing with the onslaught of copyright claims. Obviously not in the best way, but they have the money and knowledge to try and make everyone happy.

What do you propose we gamers do with our rad new site when the lawyers come knocking?

Avatar image for circlenine
circlenine

429

Forum Posts

553

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

WE GAMERS

Avatar image for deactivated-64b8656eaf424
deactivated-64b8656eaf424

1450

Forum Posts

12205

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@sixpin said:

@patrickklepek said:

@mnzy said:

@hellbound said:

@parsnip said:

I don't know how I feel about Patrick continually writing Palsson (without å), considering he could just do a search and replace for the entire last name after he was done writing the story.

Seems lazy.

Yea, a huge research article means nothing. He was just a big lazy asshole and should be fired immediately by Giantbomb. You, in turn, should also get hired to be the official proofreader of all things foreign.

How are comments like this not considered spam? It completely lacks any and all conversation/discussion purposes.

It's a matter of respect. It takes less than a minute to write his name correctly, why not do it?

Or it was just an editing mistake. I dunno. Who knows, though?

I find it amusing (read: sad) that the guy demanding respect be shown, in turn shows none himself by calling people names.

I am glad you can find it amusing in some way. It just infuriates the hell out of me and makes me frustrated even when it has nothing to do with me!

I guess I just hate seeing good people get put down all the time.

Relax buddy. It's almost like you might have overreacted a little there.

Avatar image for deactivated-64b8656eaf424
deactivated-64b8656eaf424

1450

Forum Posts

12205

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@mnzy said:

@hellbound said:

@parsnip said:

I don't know how I feel about Patrick continually writing Palsson (without å), considering he could just do a search and replace for the entire last name after he was done writing the story.

Seems lazy.

Yea, a huge research article means nothing. He was just a big lazy asshole and should be fired immediately by Giantbomb. You, in turn, should also get hired to be the official proofreader of all things foreign.

How are comments like this not considered spam? It completely lacks any and all conversation/discussion purposes.

It's a matter of respect. It takes less than a minute to write his name correctly, why not do it?

Or it was just an editing mistake. I dunno. Who knows, though?

As a nordic guy myself, it just bugs me when that happens. I totally get that when writing an article with US keyboard, writing those crazy alphabets is a pain in the ass. Which is why I said search and replace it at the end would have been easy, and thus it seemed lazy. But hey, mistakes do indeed happen.

Avatar image for eggshellskull
eggshellskull

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@grantheaslip: Not at you mate, at the conversation. Yea US copyright laws are a bit insane. But cheers on being Canadian! My wife and I are visiting Montreal right now!

Avatar image for markdarkness
markdarkness

56

Forum Posts

297

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Thanks for the great read, Patrick.

Avatar image for kosayn
kosayn

545

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By kosayn

Youtube is part of a big societal shift towards all people potentially having access to most of the information and culture there is, soon after it is produced.

I know people do care about drawing lines in the sand about specific rights and specific freedoms online right now. But I think most people have a very settled desire and expectation to be able to use copyrighted material in their online communication with no repercussions.

I disagree with the commercialization of this activity, personally, because I think we've had good entertainment online since the mid 90s with or without it. But I know some people want to fight for their right to serve ads on youtube rather than having a day job.

Anyway, this shift in our culture is way too big to fail. Look at people's activity on your twitter or twitch and facebook as well. So much copyrighted material in discussion, and being modified for jokes, and being streamed, and being used as raw materials for wonderful new things. People want to do it, and they will. The growing pains are based on the expectation that only young hobbyists are sharing this material to avoid paying for it. Youtube infantilizes them compared to more traditional rights holders. In fact, lots of different kinds of people use copyrighted material online for many purposes. Some want to be online entertainers collecting ad revenue for a career now, I guess. Fine by me... Adblock works for those of us that see the net as a sharing and collaborating tool rather than TV 2.0.

Also, VVVVVV is pretty good.

Avatar image for darji
Darji

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Darji

LOL YouTube not only is flagging original created content no they even reject of remove these flaggings XD

My name is Brent ‘Brentonator’ McAhren and I'm part of the No More room in Hell team. I've come here in what has become a dead end struggle to get our 100% original content monetized on YouTube.

As it stands right now, we have been completely denied monetization on the majority of our popular videos with no method for appeals. Google reserves the final decision on all monetization requests.

We've tried multiple methods of refuting the baseless claims YouTube has made requiring "explicit permission to use the rights holder’s content commercially".

David ‘Dman’ Meade's attempts have been to thoroughly satisfy their requirements by posting contracts from team members who have produced content for us, including Garrett ‘ThoughT’ Lindquist’s soundtracks, etc. David’s detailed and thorough process resulted in our Steam launch trailer being denied monetization outright.

My attempt was to go another route and try to clarify that WE ARE the original rights holders based on our internal contracts which are NDA sensitive and can't be shared with you [google]. This resulted in Google requesting written permission from the original rights holders but, as our contracts state, and I just told them, we are original rights holders with the work being completed under contract.

We have even attempted to blend in by acting like a Let's Play YouTuber using the standard No More Room in Hell video policy and that did not work.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1t9sxi/youtube_rejected_no_more_room_in_hell_monetization/

Seriously?.... It is time for some new service to be born....

Avatar image for bgdiner
bgdiner

315

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

Edited By bgdiner

Great read overall Patrick.

Only thing I found a bit odd was that you said content creators are unhappy with this situation while only referencing Palsson and VVVVVV. I'm sure a lot of guys are upset, but I feel as though a few more perspectives, particularly from the content creator/game industry side could have sharpened this post a bit. But great read nonetheless.

Avatar image for meauntienora
MeAuntieNora

1312

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

It's funny how ubiquitous and trivialized theft has become on Youtube. It's not even restricted to just copyrighted material. When someone's shamelessly aping the bit and persona of a more successful and creative person, there's not likely to ever be a cease and desist. He'll tell his subscribers that, actually HE was the first one to put on that costume and do that bit. That's canon to them now.

My brain is an utter void creatively. I wish I had know I could have had an exciting career promoting myself excessively enough to be homogenized and presenting sub-daytime talk show drivel to a lowest common denominator transient clickbait demographic. Until the cheap hits stop coming in, I'll post the "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" thumbnail at least once a week.

Avatar image for deactivated-57d3a53d23027
deactivated-57d3a53d23027

1460

Forum Posts

121

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

I do not believe that if someone is part of the 'press' that they should be granted asylum from copyright claims.

I've uploaded a video once with music licensed under the creative commons license that got flagged. The track had been identified correctly, but it also had been incorrectly attributed to a random music company. All I had to do to remedy this was file a claim, linked to where the music was available under the creative commons license, noted that is was a cc license, and all was good.

YouTube only cares if you are infringing on someone's legitimate copyright (because YouTube could get sued). It's a minor shame that the problems brought up in this article have happened. No person or company mentioned in the article are attempting to do the wrong thing by anyone else. Unfortunately the system arranged by the music licensing company is a little to aggressive on their musician's customers. Perhaps an opt-in social media protection plan for those that want it should be offered for a fee by the distribution/licensing companies? (Yes, even though YouTube does the work of matching the tracks).

Avatar image for corvak
Corvak

2048

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

YouTube is unfortunately just the stage for all of this to play out. TuneCore and INDMUSIC are supposedly fighting for the rights of their artists - but they do so using rules and systems designed for a time when publishing music required more than a quick upload.

I think YouTube is in the right frame of mind - both to protect itself and to allow people to monetize content they own, it should be allowing claims to proceed. But the companies like TuneCore and INDMUSIC should be better serving their artists, by allowing them to give far-reaching permission to YouTube uploaders - or to provide the proper legal permissions to allow content that broadcast as part of the video game it was licensed to, separating it from videos that are using music unfairly.

I think TuneCore and not YouTube, is the company digging its own grave here. Going forward, if you were composing game music - would you work with a company that has a history of targeting YouTube accounts without talking to you about it first? And as a game developer, would you license from these companies, if this is something that may happen to your customers?

Avatar image for rasrimra
Rasrimra

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rasrimra

@sergio said:

@rasrimra said:

I suppose on a surface level there is a difference but I look at the why not the what.

Copyright is like patenting a way to control a revenue stream and preferably in the direction of the USA. They both serve to make life more difficult for creative people and to threaten small competitors, turn the public into villains who have something to hide etc. etc.

You may not believe that we are doing illegal things all the time but let me give you a good example of how stupid the system really is. Singing Happy Birthday in public, is illegal.

From Wiki (potentially illegally quoted):

"In 1988, Warner/Chappell Music purchased the company owning the copyright for $25 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million.[6][7] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to Warner. In one specific instance in February 2010, these royalties were said to amount to $700.[8] In the European Union, the copyright of the song will expire no later than December 31, 2016.[9]"

I wouldn't call anyone who disagrees with me an asshole, but I do highly dislike figures that represent or protect current copyright laws and I would love to see them publicly humiliated. Suppose the best way to do that is to let them speak, but I still think they're assholes.

Yes and no. You can sing Happy Birthday to your kid in a public park without being sued. Your local T.G.I.Fridays can't publicly perform the song for your aunt on her birthday. A TV show cannot use the song in an episode unless they have licensed its use, so singing it in public on the set while filming is a no-no. It all comes down to fair use.

I don't think you could claim fair use if you sing it in a pub or a park or whatever just because it's someone's birthday. It's not exactly educative, or critique or a parody and you are performing a song without permission. Even having your radio play a song too loud can get you into court. Examples are PRS suing Kwik Fits for copyright infringement because their staff radio played the songs too loud and they didn't have the rights to those songs. Karaoke nights lead to cases, reading books aloud where other people can hear it is illegal, etc.
We commit copyright infringements left and right because the system is completely broken.

Avatar image for sergio
Sergio

3663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Edited By Sergio

@rasrimra said:

@sergio said:

@rasrimra said:

I suppose on a surface level there is a difference but I look at the why not the what.

Copyright is like patenting a way to control a revenue stream and preferably in the direction of the USA. They both serve to make life more difficult for creative people and to threaten small competitors, turn the public into villains who have something to hide etc. etc.

You may not believe that we are doing illegal things all the time but let me give you a good example of how stupid the system really is. Singing Happy Birthday in public, is illegal.

From Wiki (potentially illegally quoted):

"In 1988, Warner/Chappell Music purchased the company owning the copyright for $25 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million.[6][7] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to Warner. In one specific instance in February 2010, these royalties were said to amount to $700.[8] In the European Union, the copyright of the song will expire no later than December 31, 2016.[9]"

I wouldn't call anyone who disagrees with me an asshole, but I do highly dislike figures that represent or protect current copyright laws and I would love to see them publicly humiliated. Suppose the best way to do that is to let them speak, but I still think they're assholes.

Yes and no. You can sing Happy Birthday to your kid in a public park without being sued. Your local T.G.I.Fridays can't publicly perform the song for your aunt on her birthday. A TV show cannot use the song in an episode unless they have licensed its use, so singing it in public on the set while filming is a no-no. It all comes down to fair use.

I don't think you could claim fair use if you sing it in a pub or a park or whatever just because it's someone's birthday. It's not exactly educative, or critique or a parody and you are performing a song without permission. Even having your radio play a song too loud can get you into court. Examples are PRS suing Kwik Fits for copyright infringement because their staff radio played the songs too loud and they didn't have the rights to those songs. Karaoke nights lead to cases, reading books aloud where other people can hear it is illegal, etc.

We commit copyright infringements left and right because the system is completely broken.

It's not because of someone's birthday. Yes, you are using someone else's copyrighted work in a non-transformative way without permission. You have to judge each case by the four factors that determine whether or not it's fair use.

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

You can make an argument for whether or not something is fair use based on this, then a court will decide if your argument has any merit.

Avatar image for wiredfolf
WiredFolf

105

Forum Posts

130

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 1

I always get nervous with big systems like this being put into place. I guess I'm just too cynical. I'm giving Youtube the benefit of a doubt that it's doing its best to stay neutral (which is should) while trying to make nice with both independent video producers and major companies. I still can't help but feel unease though, especially with the recent issues that have come up from this ID system.

I guess it boils down to the big companies. I don't actively hate them but I don't fully trust them either. With this Content ID system I just see too much room for abuse. Abuse namely from the execs in charge who want a total strangle-hold on what they do legally own. The whole SOPA ordeal just happened (and hasn't really ended but anyway...) and I just can't help but see some parallel with what Google is doing with Youtube now.

I'm not siding with the Let's Players, if they're serious about their videos they'll find other means to keep doing it. I'm just worried about the new comers. How can we know if this ID system will ruin attempts by people who want to discuss or review TV, movies, games, etc, by using clips from said media? Will these attempts be flagged and taken down because, say, Microsoft didn't like someone using 10 seconds of the Halo theme during a video?

That's what really makes me nervous about stuff like this. We, the average joe's, are expected to trust that these rich and powerful companies won't abuse systems like this. Especially when they'll suffer little to no blow back if they do end up abusing them.

Avatar image for doctor_kaz
doctor_kaz

104

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 92

User Lists: 0

I wish that people would stop blaming copyright law. Copyright law isn't the problem. Youtube is the problem. They refuse to defend the fair use rights of their content generators and users. It's hard to think of another corporation nowadays that shows more contempt and disregard for the satisfaction of its customers. They are the modern equivalent of a shitty cable company that can treat you any way that they want because they have a monopoly.

Avatar image for yukoasho
yukoasho

2247

Forum Posts

6076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 7

I wish that people would stop blaming copyright law. Copyright law isn't the problem. Youtube is the problem. They refuse to defend the fair use rights of their content generators and users. It's hard to think of another corporation nowadays that shows more contempt and disregard for the satisfaction of its customers. They are the modern equivalent of a shitty cable company that can treat you any way that they want because they have a monopoly.

The problem is that they technically don't, as there are TONS of other video streaming sites. Eventually YouTube's going to get what it apparently desires - a mass exodus of gaming content from their site as it becomes impossible not to get flagged there.

Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@yukoasho said:

@doctor_kaz said:

I wish that people would stop blaming copyright law. Copyright law isn't the problem. Youtube is the problem. They refuse to defend the fair use rights of their content generators and users. It's hard to think of another corporation nowadays that shows more contempt and disregard for the satisfaction of its customers. They are the modern equivalent of a shitty cable company that can treat you any way that they want because they have a monopoly.

The problem is that they technically don't, as there are TONS of other video streaming sites. Eventually YouTube's going to get what it apparently desires - a mass exodus of gaming content from their site as it becomes impossible not to get flagged there.

People say that sarcastically but what if that is exactly what they want? What if they've seen the legal writing on the wall, crunched the numbers and decided that the best plan is to just push all this stuff out?

Wanna make it even juicier? How about push them all out, see where they all go, and then buy that!

Avatar image for yukoasho
yukoasho

2247

Forum Posts

6076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 7

@yukoasho said:

@doctor_kaz said:

I wish that people would stop blaming copyright law. Copyright law isn't the problem. Youtube is the problem. They refuse to defend the fair use rights of their content generators and users. It's hard to think of another corporation nowadays that shows more contempt and disregard for the satisfaction of its customers. They are the modern equivalent of a shitty cable company that can treat you any way that they want because they have a monopoly.

The problem is that they technically don't, as there are TONS of other video streaming sites. Eventually YouTube's going to get what it apparently desires - a mass exodus of gaming content from their site as it becomes impossible not to get flagged there.

People say that sarcastically but what if that is exactly what they want? What if they've seen the legal writing on the wall, crunched the numbers and decided that the best plan is to just push all this stuff out?

Wanna make it even juicier? How about push them all out, see where they all go, and then buy that!

Considering every games developer/publisher other than Nintendo has washed their hands of this fiasco, and even gone so far as to offer help, I wonder if it really is legal ramifications or just Youtube being unwilling to fix the flaws in their automated system.

Avatar image for robo
Robo

988

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The problem is part confusion over the concept of fair use and how it applies to these videos, part due to an already broken and easily abused copyright system, and partially the current media overlords' complete and utter inability to understand the concept of creators willingly allowing people to use/share their work without trying to get a cut of everything.

I mean, look at TuneCore's tweet:

"...don't know them, how could you give them permission to use your music? It's claimed for you, since you wrote it."

What is this, 1980? No, he doesn't know them.

There's this little place called the internet. Turns out it's a very powerful tool for getting your work out there to more people. You don't even have to lift a finger or spend a cent going through some shitty ad agency looking for their cut of your profit. All you have to do is sit back, let people freely promote you or feature your work on their highly popular broadcasts/videos, and reap the benefits of your new-found notoriety.

Free advertisement, free fame, no shady ass companies looking for their cut in between for promoting you or "protecting your work."

Avatar image for schrodngrsfalco
SchrodngrsFalco

4618

Forum Posts

454

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Everyone please, take your constructive criticisms that you post into comments on here, and e-mail them in a formatted manner to your representitives of your state. They listen to their constituents and will form general opinions of manners such as this in the future when it comes up based on the popular decision from their constituents. Help be the difference instead of just commenting to no avail!

Avatar image for jasondesante
jasondesante

615

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

watching all this unnecessary work being forced on people to deal with on a case by case basis because this automated system messed it all up, when ironically the automated system was supposed to make things easier. It just made things a lot worse.

This shows how much they don't get it!

Giant Bomb should use the awesome wiki and have a youtube copyright section in the games, like a credits section or something, that will list the things that get flagged on youtube videos. It will be an awesome resource, and lots of people will check that information! Seriously! :D The GB wiki is the best, such a useful tool that needs to have more light shined on its value. I feel we take that thing for granted and it has a lot of unused potential, like the possibility of using the wiki to inform all youtubers and fans of what games are getting flagged by what and who.

If the GB wiki was used as a place for people to collect that information, it will no doubt add value to the wiki, and get a lot of people looking at it and adding information with proof since its an important thing to a lot of people that it gets sorted out, and it seems to me that the GB wiki is one of the only places that can help sort this out.

I have also had youtube videos of music I made get copyright notices.

I think the best way to solve this is to write for example on the BioShock wiki page on GB, that it has a song by Django Reinhardt that will get flagged by youtube....and so on and so on.

Thanks Patrick once again for another great article continuing to prove how great you are as a writer! :D Well well beyond the regular grammar and spelling errors of Kotaku, this is actual journalism, making a point, narrowing in on a specific thing when shining light on the bigger picture.

Thank you. You are no doubt inspiring a new generation of writers with your quality.

Avatar image for devil240z
Devil240Z

5704

Forum Posts

247

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

so is this all about music or would a gameplay video not featuring music be flagged too? Like if someone were to just turn the BGM off in a game and record the game with only SFX and no music?

Avatar image for gaspower
GaspoweR

4904

Forum Posts

272

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

I just realized something from the title.

@patrickklepek IS TOTALLY TALKING ABOUT THE YOUTUBUROBOROS!!!! THE END IS NIGH, @mattbodega!!!! THE END IS NIIIIIGH!!!!

Avatar image for generic_username
generic_username

943

Forum Posts

1494

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 7

Everyone please, take your constructive criticisms that you post into comments on here, and e-mail them in a formatted manner to your representitives of your state. They listen to their constituents and will form general opinions of manners such as this in the future when it comes up based on the popular decision from their constituents. Help be the difference instead of just commenting to no avail!

Avatar image for ultraviolet
ultraviolet

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ultraviolet

After all thats going on with youtube im giving daily motion a go, a smaller site, but, seems great so far.

Plus classic game room has moved there