Matt Lowne’s entire channel has been copyright claimed

[Lisias]

8 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

YouTube: literally a free service

Offering free services doesn't exempt you from legal responsibilities. Open cast TV stations also offer free services, and they also had to follow pertinent legislation.

Giving stuff for free is not a free ride to do whatever you want

 

8 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

Also YouTube: actually lets you make money out of it: profit from a free service

With them taking its share of the booty. So, see, it's not free, it's a commercial relationship - it only happens that I'm not eligible to receiving money yet.

 

8 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

People: want to demand stuff from YouTube, as if it owed something to them

It's simple. Give me what I want, or I will seek it somewhere else. If people enough do that, they loose revenue and close business. It's simple like that.

The Youtube business model is like the open cast TV stations - they need people to watch their content. THEY NEED PEOPLE to watch their content, and I want to make this absolutely clear. They fail to keep people happy, and they will search for it somewhere else.

Twitch, Vimeo, et all are trying to capitalize on this.

 

8 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

The whole "complaining about YouTube" thing is just a glorified r/choosingbeggars post (I don't have reddit). If you don't like the platform there are plenty alternatives, unless you're a fan of preaching the "we need a new platform" spiel while never having used the alternatives

I agree. But, then, we must first convince the content makers to switch too - you see, I don't watch "YouTube", I watch videos I like make by people, people like you and me most of the times. To use another video streamer, the content I like must be there first.

One way to accomplish that is doing what we are doing: publicly complaining and bashing YouTube by the mess they did - so the content makers take the hint and do it.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Lisias
tyop! Surprised?

[ProtoJeb21]

If there’s any good news, Matt apparently has regained access to his channel (he just posted a new KSP video), and he mentioned on his Discord that the copyright stuff is being worked on. 

[kerbiloid]

 

1 hour ago, ProtoJeb21 said:

If there’s any good news, Matt apparently has regained access to his channel (he just posted a new KSP video), and he mentioned on his Discord that the copyright stuff is being worked on. 

U C? They fear of this guy:

On 11/19/2019 at 11:16 PM, Dartguy said:

Sony is dead to me.  I'll never give them another penny.

Edited November 23, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

On 11/23/2019 at 7:42 AM, Lisias said:

[snip]

Really, I fail to see how Youtube giving you the option to profit from your content but then changing its mind because it has been reported to infringe copyright is comparable to giving out toothpaste-filled oreos to people on the street.

Google very well could play ads on a creator's videos and not give them anything at all, in fact. Youtube is a service, and by creating an account and uploading content you have agreed to their terms and conditions. When a creator accepts the option to monetize his content, they must meet the conditions set by Youtube in order to earn currency from it. If the content doesn't meet the requirements: no payment. Life goes on as usual. If the creator doesn't agree with the conditions, he may simply not accept the option.

So there isn't really a commercial relation between Youtube and a content creator. You're not selling your content to Google. You're uploading it to their platform, under terms you have agreed to. If monetization is an option, you must agree to the rules regarding payment set by Google. Youtube must break their own terms in order for a creator to have legal grounds against them.

I enjoy in particular how you say you don't watch Youtube but instead "watch videos you like made by people". This situation is very similar to when someone gets pulled over, sitting in the driver's seat, and says "I'm not driving, I'm traveling" to an officer. I'm fairly certain you know what I'm talking about.

Since Youtube isn't exactly interested in "giving you what you want", given the amount of demonetization complaints uploaded on a timely basis, by all means, please do seek it somewhere else.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Guest

[Lisias]

[snip]

All your argument falls into pieces by a simple fact: YouTube is far from being a feasible content creator. It's their weakness, and this is not going to change. Right now, YouTube is a source of cheap content used to lure people to other services - I'm talking Curiosity Channel here. Even NetFlix is now a stronger content maker than YouTube.

My son has a NetFlix subscription. I have a Curiosity Channel one. None of us is willing to spend a dime on YouTube subscriptions. In time, had you watched Scot Manley casts on Twitch? Perhaps Louis Rossman on Vimeo?

[snip]

Edited November 24, 2019 by Vanamonde
Typos Galore!

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

Really, I fail to see how Youtube giving you the option to profit from your content but then changing its mind....

The problem with YouTube is it *keeps* changing its mind.  Sometimes it's justified.  But often it's rather radical and abrupt and destructive.  Sure, people started making careers on YouTube and perhaps they shouldn't have entered into a commercial relationship with a company that now reflects Google: obtuse, hard to get good info on, hard to contact a person, excessively corportate, etc.  And the Adpocalyse was definitely the handwriting on the wall that YouTube will radically change the rules, whether from its own judgement or from outside changes.

But like @Lisias said, YouTube just broadcasts content made by others.  And it is really looking more and more that no one at YouTube cares about what all these abrupt changes are doing to YouTube's content creators.  And that position will come back to bite YouTube.

[Guest]

[snip]

If Youtube was an unfeasible platform, you wouldn't even be complaining about it in the first place, since content creators wouldn't use it. I'm not interested in what you spend your money into, because since you're not the only person that uses the platform, the continued practice of their business model only goes to show that it does indeed work. Congratulations on the gatekeeping, though.

[snip]

Another "if-statement" that I'd like to bring up is that if being certain that Youtube is avoiding legal responsibilities (first line of your prev. reply) by enforcing its terms and conditions means a decent understanding of commercial relationships to you, then, please, don't ever let yourself represent someone else in court.

 

[snip]

Edited November 24, 2019 by Guest
i'm not driving, i'm travelling in the left seat by myself

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Jacke said:

The problem with YouTube is it *keeps* changing its mind.  Sometimes it's justified.  But often it's rather radical and abrupt and destructive.  Sure, people started making careers on YouTube and perhaps they shouldn't have entered into a commercial relationship with a company that now reflects Google: obtuse, hard to get good info on, hard to contact a person, excessively corportate, etc.  And the Adpocalyse was definitely the handwriting on the wall that YouTube will radically change the rules, whether from its own judgement or from outside changes.

But like @Lisias said, YouTube just broadcasts content made by others.  And it is really looking more and more that no one at YouTube cares about what all these abrupt changes are doing to YouTube's content creators.  And that position will come back to bite YouTube.

The stock market varies a lot as well, and you see people investing in it 24/7. A wrong investment (demonetizable content) means you'll lose money, and going all-in into a single stock (a creator abandoning secure means of income to rely solely on the monetization program, knowing and agreeing to the fact they're not getting their income guaranteed by Google) can mean bankruptcy in case something adverse (copyright infringement, guidelines violation) happens (loss of monetization and uploaded content).

Why is there no outrage against stock markets? Isn't an investor who knowingly invested in a risky endeavor the one responsible for his consequences when no laws are violated? Then why should it be different with the Youtube scenario, if they sound so similar to each other?

Edited November 24, 2019 by Guest

[Lisias]

22 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

The stock market varies a lot as well, and you see people investing in it 24/7. A wrong investment (demonetizable content) 

Google is not a Stock Market.

[snip]

Google is not a Stock Market, offering free services ARE commercial relationships, and commercial relationships are subject to legislation.

[snip]

Edited November 24, 2019 by Vanamonde

[razark]

A company is an entity that exists for the sole purpose of making money.

A company lets you post stuff online.

A company can make money if people look at what you post.

A company can lose money if they let you post illegal content.

A company offers (but is not obligated) to let you have a share of the money they make.

 

Why is anybody surprised that a company takes the actions that lead to them making the most money at the least risk?

And where is the option to monetize my forum posts?

[Jacke]

2 hours ago, razark said:

A company is an entity that exists for the sole purpose of making money.

That may be so in the crazed history of American law.  But look at it from the point of view of a society.  The company has to do things that provides more.  Create goods and services.  Provide employment.  Engage in research and development and use or publish that.  Even just find different ways of organizing things, including investments from other members of society.

If all a corporation does is grab a bigger chunk of the pie and only benefits the few, it becomes a burden.  It may be protected by legislative and regulator inertia, but if it's not doing something to benefit society, what good is it?

Edited November 24, 2019 by Jacke

[kerbiloid]

personal greed vs corporative violence, that's what any society is based on.

In wide sense.

Edited November 24, 2019 by kerbiloid

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

Let’s be honest, this thread has basically turned into a legal stuff and YouTube monetisation thread.

Also, I’ll break it, I live in China and since my pc that had my vpn broke, meaning that it’s memory is lost, I’m left stranded in the cave that is China.

  

Spoiler

The data for the nord vpn app was lost, and I can’t redownload it as you need a vpn to access the nord vpn website where you get the nordvpn app from *sigh* get me out of here

anyone know any possibly not blocked places where I can get nordvpn for windows?

yes that also means that I get to miss out on the whole Matt Lowne and Sony thing

help

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by έķ νίĻĻάίή

[Guest]

[snip]

Youtube's not a toothpaste-filled Oreo either. What I did is an analogy, same as what you did in your first reply.

Google's enforcing its own terms and conditions, their own "legislation". If those terms and conditions broke real-world legislation, you can be sure lawyers would've flocked to the company with lawsuits in hand. Of course, if you think otherwise and still believe the company is violating the law, go on and try to sue them - aren't you such a firm believer that that's the case?

[snip]

Edited November 25, 2019 by Guest
...seriously?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

That may be so in the crazed history of American law.  But look at it from the point of view of a society.  The company has to do things that provides more.  Create goods and services.

I'm sure pretty you're purposely ignoring: Youtube, Gmail, Drive, Android, Maps, Translate, Chrome, Play Store, Home, Scholar, and many more

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

Provide employment.

I'm pretty sure you're purposely ignoring: Not only Google's Job Search service, but also Google's own employment service.

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

Engage in research and development and use or publish that.

I'm pretty sure you're purposely ignoring: Google's large developments in AI, Quantum Computing, Security, Network Infrastructure, and many more

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

Even just find different ways of organizing things, including investments from other members of society.

I'm pretty sure you're purposely ignoring: Google's pride in having a high diversity workplace, and actually putting out free WiFi hotspots around the globe

 

7 hours ago, Jacke said:

If all a corporation does is grab a bigger chunk of the pie and only benefits the few, it becomes a burden.  It may be protected by legislative and regulator inertia, but if it's not doing something to benefit society, what good is it?

Is it really doing nothing to benefit society?

[Lisias]

10 hours ago, razark said:

A company can make money if people look at what you post.

A company can lose money if they let you post illegal content.

A company offers (but is not obligated) to let you have a share of the money they make.

The company will not make money if people don't watch their content.

A company may invest money to lobby for law changes.

A company that doesn't let content makers to have a share of the money will lose content, and without content there's nothing to be watched, and so people will not watch, and so the company doesn't makes money.

It's not that hard.

 

10 hours ago, razark said:

Why is anybody surprised that a company takes the actions that lead to them making the most money at the least risk?

Because they created the problem at first place, allowing an apparently infringing music to be used from YouTube official channels, where curators should had prevented that.

And now this Company is screwing people that made everything right, taking the side off copyright trollers without any visible movement to try the help the guys that made everything right from the beginning.

And you are surprised we are bashing YouTube? 

 

10 hours ago, razark said:

Andwhere is the option to monetize my forum posts?

Http://www.patreon.com

Good luck.

[razark]

8 minutes ago, Lisias said:

A company that doesn't let content makers to have a share of the money will lose content, and without content there's nothing to be watched, and so people will not watch, and so the company doesn't makes money.

So... how much do reddit poster make for their posts? I must have missed the "pay me for my pictures" button on imgur.

 

9 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Http://www.patreon.com

So, it's a case of having to involve a completely different site, and ask people for money, not a case of getting paid for content on the actual site.

If only youtube posters could use patreon to make money, then everything would be fine.

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, razark said:

So... how much do reddit poster make for their posts? I must have missed the "pay me for my pictures" button on imgur.

How much they are asking? See the Reddit ToS - if you agree, use it. If you don't, don't.

 

2 hours ago, razark said:

So, it's a case of having to involve a completely different site, and ask people for money, not a case of getting paid for content on the actual site.

So don't use it. Close your account and go posting somewhere else if the Forum's ToS is not good for you.

You are the one asking for money. Go find someone willing to give it to you.

 

2 hours ago, razark said:

If only youtube posters could use patreon to make money, then everything would be fine.

Except that YouTube wants to be the "patreon" themselves. It's their core business, dude!

Edited November 24, 2019 by Lisias
Emphasis

[razark]

34 minutes ago, Lisias said:

See the Reddit Youtube ToS - if you agree, use it. If you don't, don't.

 

35 minutes ago, Lisias said:

So don't use it. Close your account and go posting somewhere else if the Forum's Youtube's ToS is not good for you.

 

35 minutes ago, Lisias said:

It's their core business, dude!

Their core business is allowing users to post stuff, which draws viewers, which generates ad revenue.  They are doing more than they have to by sharing some of that money.

If a poster does something that's going to lose the company money, it's in their interest to make it stop.  Youtube is not obligated to allow anyone or any content on their site, nor is it their concern if a user is making a living off of what is posted.

[Guest]

The irony here is on a whole another level,

"See the Youtube ToS - if you agree, use it. If you don't, don't."

Edited November 24, 2019 by Guest

[Lisias]

49 minutes ago, razark said:

Their core business is allowing users to post stuff, which draws viewers, which generates ad revenue.  They are doing more than they have to by sharing some of that money.

No sir. Their core business is to sell advertisements. The audience is not the paying customers, we are the "cattle" that provide them with the resources they sell to their paying customers. We are a natural and renewable but somewhat scarce resource being explored. It only happens that we are a very tricky kind of cattle - we can choose to who we are going to provide the milk, I mean, the resource.

The money is not being shared. They are paying for a service. It happens that some of that "cattle" can give them some cheese, and not only the milk, and since they sell "cheese", is advantageous to save money on cheese factories and buying already made cheese from some of the "cattle".

 

49 minutes ago, razark said:

If a poster does something that's going to lose the company money, it's in their interest to make it stop.  Youtube is not obligated to allow anyone or any content on their site, nor is it their concern if a user is making a living off of what is posted.

Yes. if the poster does something that make them lose money, they will act. However, if by acting they end up losing yet more money than they would by doing nothing, they will not. It's simple like that (assuming, of course, that there're someone on Google willing to make YouTube a cash cow. I can be wrong on this last assumption, as it appears).

They need people watching their content in order to sell advertisement. If people enough gets liquided off and leave to other platform, this will have a significant impact on their incoming.

So, yeah, it's their concerning that people are making a living off their platform.  Because they can choose to make that living in another platform, taking their audience with them.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Lisias
Tyops as usulla…

[Gargamel]

Right guys.    This thread is getting a bit testy.   Let's just remember to attack the argument, not the person.   And, the thread is about Matt Lowne's channel and his Copyright infringements in particular.  Let's not let this devolve into an argument about the general evils of internet marketing. 

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

 And, the thread is about Matt Lowne's channel and his Copyright infringements in particular.  

That's the catch. It was someone else copyright infringement. Assuming Lowne (and a lot of more people more) is telling the true, the Copyright Infringement was committed by YouTube itself, by endorsing the use of the infringement as it was good to use.

Of course, YouTube themselves are not exactly "guilty", as they accepted in good faith the claim of a thirty party about the material. However, there's a thing called Vicarious Liability - by accepting the claim end endorsing it, they are co-responsible by any damage caused by the false claim.

On the other hand, on an alternative point of view, all this Copyright Infringement claim from Sony ATV is clearly abusive. I wonder how they would handle a class suit about Fair Use if all the alleged infringers were living on USA.

[Vanamonde]

Some comments have been removed. Back off the tempers and personal animosity, please. 

[Guest]

Reading the recent posts:

Edited November 25, 2019 by Guest