SubJeff on 12/12/2013 at 18:03
Quote Posted by WingedKagouti
So you're basically saying that you do not follow ANY regularily updated youtube channel at all?
Yep, that's what I'm saying.
icemann on 12/12/2013 at 18:10
Quote Posted by Muzman
It's a nice little taster for our future of semi automated law enforcement.
Even though it goes against the actual laws in place of what can and cannot be in a video legally, and more just doing its own thing.
If youtube in the long term sticks with this (which would be just plain stupid imo), then my hope is that this leads to some actual proper (proper in that they have a large user base) competition to youtube seeing some movement over to. I know there's vimeo and all that, but for now atleast youtube is THE place to go still.
[edit]
For me this will make a big impact for me I had to add also, since over the past few years I've started to watch + subscribe to more youtube video game related shows which show extensive coverage of old and new video games, and that is the focus of them. If the money is taken away from these shows then they wont be able to exist :(.
Muzman on 12/12/2013 at 18:32
That was always the beauty of the DMCA and subsequent. It spreads the guilt/responsibility around enough so that the law effectively becomes guilty until proven innocent. That is why the tube shoots first and asks questions later. Part of them not being buried in shit by copyright advocates is them making this automated system in the first place. It's all part of maintaining that plausible deniability and proof of effort that's exactly the sort of thing Kim Dotcom didn't have (although he was an idiot for other reasons).
There's a lot of that talk that they'd be crazy to really damage games on youtube, but really it's probably not a lot of skin from their perspective. Games themselves (and indie games in particular) would likely suffer more.
Vimeo, last time I looked anyway, had a hard 'no game videos' policy. Blip just contracted in a really big way, shutting down stuff left and right. Twitch doesn't seem up to the job yet, from what people say. It will be interesting to see if something else steps in.
Queue on 12/12/2013 at 18:37
Okay, I have a really dumb question: Since I didn't even realize that posters of videos actually got paid for posting (yeah...I know...under a rock), do those who repost someone else's video get money too?
WingedKagouti on 12/12/2013 at 20:20
Quote Posted by Queue
Okay, I have a really dumb question: Since I didn't even realize that posters of videos actually got paid for posting (yeah...I know...under a rock), do those who repost someone else's video get money too?
You need to partner with Youtube (or someone they have partnered with) to get money, there's apparently some sort of review process.
Queue on 12/12/2013 at 20:52
Ah...okay.
But reposts would still suck for the original poster who is getting paid, no? It seems that a reposted video would take away hits--unless there is a system set up that would link the reposted video's hits to the original post.
Muzman on 13/12/2013 at 01:35
TB is quite thorough on the history and the new change
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JqjDhuPFaQ)
(a bit different from some things I've heard. I guess that can be chalked up to error)
Yakoob on 13/12/2013 at 04:27
To play the devil's advocate, I can see why YouTube is doing this. I mean, think just how much pirated content is there, from music to full on movies or tv shows. I'd say easily 90% of the stuff that gets blocked is blocked for valid copyright infrighement.
So while it does suck for the honest guys, from a
practical standpoint it does make sense - it's much easier to block everyone and sort out the 10% legit ones, than not to block anyone and try to sort out the other 90% instead.
Honestly, I don't really see any good middle-ground solution between the two extremes :/ (other than just leaving piracy unchecked, which opens YouTube to a lot of issues/lawsuits for allowing that)
Quote Posted by Muzman
That was always the beauty of the DMCA and subsequent. It spreads the guilt/responsibility around enough so that the law effectively becomes guilty until proven innocent. That is why the tube shoots first and asks questions later. Part of them not being buried in shit by copyright advocates is them making this automated system in the first place. It's all part of maintaining that plausible deniability and proof of effort that's exactly the sort of thing Kim Dotcom didn't have (although he was an idiot for other reasons).
Basically, this. YouTube really is between a rock and a hard place here, either from its user or major media companies. Eitherway they'll get shit.
Quote Posted by Briareos H
It's so easy to record a game and talk over it. But that's a subjective opinion, of course.
True, I had a (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142151) similar realization a while back - much like podcasts or radio, 99% of it is just a random dude talking about random topic, why should I care.
However, while merely talking is easy, it's not easy to actually be interesting doing so, or put the effort/skill into marketing yourself enough to get noticed. So if they can do that and get people to pay / watch ads, power to them I guess. Not like anyone's forcing me to watch it :p
Quote Posted by Queue
But reposts would still suck for the original poster who is getting paid, no? It seems that a reposted video would take away hits--unless there is a system set up that would link the reposted video's hits to the original post.
AFAIK, if you repost, the video still shows ads, and the revenue goes to the videos' author.
icemann on 13/12/2013 at 10:57
A more detailed video on the situation by Angry Joe, minus all the yelling and swearing with examples shown of whats being flagged: (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAi81_uvztM) here
