Matt Lowne’s entire channel has been copyright claimed

[Lisias]

21 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

The irony here is on a whole another level,

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

That's not an irony. It's the core of my argument. People enough decide not to agree to yet a new change in the ToS, they flee. And once they flee, any revenue they would get goes with them.

As with any broadcast company, It's not a good idea to push the audience away. But yet, they need the money of the advertisers, so it's not a good idea to push them neither. Some kind of compromise must be reached.

On this very subject, I think this compromise must be attempted by revising the Laws - at least on UK, as the last two strokes I'm aware hit British youtubers.[ No. A youtuber on USA, friend of mine, just got hit too].

Edited November 25, 2019 by Lisias
Post edit in italics

[Mars-Bound Hokie]

5 hours ago, Gargamel said:

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

Beat me by five hours, @Gargamel. Thank you very much.

 

COME ON, everyone. I told Matt that we had his back when I shared this thread link, so let's all be helpful here. Are we going to just be a bunch of angry hotheads doing nothing but fuming all day, or are we going to actually use our brains and come up with action plans?

• I vote action plan.

 

 

3 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

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

On an unrelated note, if any of you nerds feel like venting, you could always try this site (Adobe Flash Player required).

• Just remember that you don't need to apply 1500 kN of force when eating potato chips.

[razark]

38 minutes ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

I told Matt that we had his back...

I must have missed the election.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

That's not an irony. It's the core of my argument. People enough decide not to agree to yet a new change in the ToS, they flee. And once they flee, any revenue they would get goes with them.

As with any broadcast company, It's not a good idea to push the audience away. But yet, they need the money of the advertisers, so it's not a good idea to push them neither. Some kind of compromise must be reached.

On this very subject, I think this compromise must be attempted by revising the Laws - at least on UK, as the last two strokes I'm aware hit British youtubers.

You were blaming the platform for enforcing its ToS and saying it's violating legislation, then saying YouTube is unfeasible, but whatever floats your boat. Whatever happens to a creator can't be blamed on the platform, because the creator has agreed to it.

The whole "abandon YouTube" thing has been going on for years, yet the ToS haven't gone through any significant changes. The reason for that is because the compromise you mentioned *has* been reached. To think that for some odd reason Google is only now going to suddenly alter how the platform works is simply unrealistic.

Laws won't be changed because YouTube isn't hiring the creators, it's letting them get a piece of the advertising revenue made by the company. Like I said, Google could very well disable the monetization program and take all of the revenue for itself, legally. After all, it's not unreasonable considering it's a free service, and the creator has agreed to it.

2 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

Beat me by five hours, @Gargamel. Thank you very much.

 

COME ON, everyone. I told Matt that we had his back when I shared this thread link, so let's all be helpful here. Are we going to just be a bunch of angry hotheads doing nothing but fuming all day, or are we going to actually use our brains and come up with action plans?

• I vote action plan.

 

 

On an unrelated note, if any of you nerds feel like venting, you could always try this site (Adobe Flash Player required).

• Just remember that you don't need to apply 1500 kN of force when eating potato chips.

bro you just posted cringe you are going to loose subscriber

Edited November 25, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

Well, as for action plans, if creators you like move to another platform (there are a few forming), I'd say support them there.

Because it's getting to be the same-old same-old at YouTube.

 

 

[Lisias]

13 hours ago, razark said:

I must have missed the election.

Or perhaps no one forwarded you the memo. People can be mean to people that annoys them.

 

13 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

COME ON, everyone. I told Matt that we had his back when I shared this thread link, so let's all be helpful here. Are we going to just be a bunch of angry hotheads doing nothing but fuming all day, or are we going to actually use our brains and come up with action plans?

As weird as it appears, this flame-fest was useful. Lots and lots of relevant information above - including about people and thoughs about other people. 

I agree that all that information could be spread less painfully, however.

 

13 hours ago, Mars-Bound Hokie said:

• Just remember that you don't need to apply 1500 kN of force when eating potato chips.

When you have is a 1500kN press instead of teeth, and all you know is to push buttons, it can be the only option available.

 

8 hours ago, Jacke said:

Well, as for action plans, if creators you like move to another platform (there are a few forming), I'd say support them there.

I think it's time to resurrect blogs and feeds aggregators.

There was a time in which we didn't have to submit ourselves to a demi-god in order to get the information we wanted. We knew how to seek the info by ourselves, and some nice guys cooked a way to make things easier - the RSS feeds.

You sign up on the RSS feeds you like (a "channel"), and then you gets informed about the new content, no matter where they are published - that nice guys working with RSS made the grunt work for you.

 

— — — POST EDIT — — — 

A youtuber friend on mine, on USA, just got hit too.

Weirdly enough, this is "good news". The wider the problem, the faster the response. This mess is going to be sorted out relatively quickly.

This guy just told me about a new feature from Youtube that removes the music from the audio stream, leaving the voices.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Lisias
Brute force post merge.

[richfiles]

On 11/25/2019 at 9:43 AM, Lisias said:

This guy just told me about a new feature from Youtube that removes the music from the audio stream, leaving the voices.

I really hope this is a legit thing, and I hope it's something that can be bulk processed. I doubt we will ever see YouTube stand up to these big companies over these copyright issues, so at least having the option would be nice.

I'd double down, and say that if they have a tool to remove music, they should also have a tool to mix in new music, and retain the musicless original data as well, so if any copyright claims happen, again, it can be as simple as a button click, and boom, added music also gone.

[Lisias]

4 minutes ago, richfiles said:

I really hope this is a legit thing, and I hope it's something that can be bulk processed. I doubt we will ever see YouTube stand up to these big companies over these copyright issues, so at least having the option would be nice.

The real problem is not the companies, but the laws. Companies have to follow the Law too, and that trolls are - essentially - exploiting bad Laws to earn some coins, disregarding the destruction being made (what would render everybody without coins later).

We need to tackle the cause of the problem - bad legislators. Who made this law? Who approved it? Why we are not persecuting these idiots?

 

7 minutes ago, richfiles said:

I'd double down, and say that if they have a tool to remove music, they should also have a tool to mix in new music, and retain the musicless original data as well, so if any copyright claims happen, again, it can be as simple as a button click, and boom, added music also gone.

As a follow up of your idea - multiple audio streams for the Video would be marvelous. Deleting or replacing the music channel is way easier than brute forcing your way on a single stream of audio (what always leaves artifacts, and I didn't touched the problem of decompressing the signal, processing it and then recompressing it - we are talking about lossy compression here).

[EchoLima]

13 hours ago, Lisias said:

Why we are not persecuting these idiots?

On what grounds? It's the job of the legislatures to pass legislation.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, EchoLima said:

On what grounds? It's the job of the legislatures to pass legislation.

On the grounds they are causing prejudice to the Society. You know, we vote on these idiots.

I think Ukrania has something to teach to the rest of the World.

[Superfluous J]

39 minutes ago, Lisias said:

You know, we vote on these idiots.

I doubt the YouTube Should Be, Like, FREE, Man party will get a large enough portion of the votes.

[Lisias]

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I doubt the YouTube Should Be, Like, FREE, Man party will get a large enough portion of the votes.

Me too. The problem is about copyright abuse.

Sooner or later some stand-up guy will claim a copyright on the Pentatonic Scale. The small phrase from the music used by Matt is not too far from it (and, look, the music was not stroke by a claim). You can check by yourself, this is the music that they say their IP was infringed.

Source: 

 

This is not only about YouTube revenue. It's about the plain right of making your own music and distributing it the way you want.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Lisias
A bit less entertaining grammars. :D

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Me too. The problem is about copyright abuse.

Sooner or later some stand-up guy will claim a copyright on the Pentatonic Scale. The small phrase from the music used by Matt is not too far from it (and, look, the music did not was stroke by a claim). You can check by yourself, this is the music that they say their IP was infringed.

Source: 

 

This is not only about YouTube revenue. It's about the plain right of making your own music and distributing it the way you want.

 

3 hours ago, Lisias said:

On the grounds they are causing prejudice to the Society. You know, we vote on these idiots.

I think Ukrania has something to teach to the rest of the World.

All right. First things first, there isn't really such a thing as "the right to distribute your music the way you want". I can't exactly go inside your house at night and start putting my disks inside your CD players, unless we had some form of agreement. The same happens with YouTube, you can only upload your content after agreeing that, among other clauses, your content can be taken down in the event YouTube receives a DMCA *complaint* - if the complaint's wrong, it's up to you to appeal it. *The creator has agreed to this*.

Regarding the "sue politicians" thing, that's not exactly how it works. You're not going to be able (feel free to try) to sue the general concept of politicians for passing laws that protect intellectual work. 

[Jacke]

I don't know how anyone still sticks with creating content on YouTube except out of habit.  Just watching a video by Jim Sterling from November 25.  On the weekend he had a sub-channel terminated for "multiple community violations" but no details given.  He appealed it and that was rejected.

It's amazing how much I've watched on YouTube in the past few years.  But the way it's going, within a year or two it could lose all good will and seriously decline from the crappy and inconsistent management.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jacke said:

I don't know how anyone still sticks with creating content on YouTube except out of habit.  Just watching a video by Jim Sterling from November 25.  On the weekend he had a sub-channel terminated for "multiple community violations" but no details given.  He appealed it and that was rejected.

It's amazing how much I've watched on YouTube in the past few years.  But the way it's going, within a year or two it could lose all good will and seriously decline from the crappy and inconsistent management.

From previous experiences, if you actually haven't broken any community guidelines the appeals do tend to get accepted. Perhaps there's something he's not telling his audience?

Edited November 28, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

From previous experiences, if you actually haven't broken any community guidelines the appeals do tend to get accepted. Perhaps there's something he's not telling his audience?

It's a secondary channel that he used to host podcasts.  I believe what Jim Sterling says: YouTube just says "violated community standards" without giving any details in either the ban or the refusal response to the appeal.

I'll believe Jim Sterling over YouTube.  With what YouTube/Google has already done, they've already eroded all the good will I had in them.  They are just being stupid, using algorithms to avoid paying for staff and having to set policies except by some vague programming no one but their programmers ever see.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Jacke

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

Idk, I swear you guys work at youtube

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jacke said:

It's a secondary channel that he used to host podcasts.  I believe what Jim Sterling says: YouTube just says "violated community standards" without giving any details in either the ban or the refusal response to the appeal.

I'll believe Jim Sterling over YouTube.  With what YouTube/Google has already done, they've already eroded all the good will I had in them.  They are just being stupid, using algorithms to avoid paying for staff and having to set policies except by some vague programming no one but their programmers ever see.

YouTube doesn't exactly ban channels out of the blue; it has the three-strikes thing for a reason. Like you said, it has somehow violated community standards - publishing content on a second channel if the first one has any active restrictions (read: strike), for instance, is considered ban evasion by YouTube, leading to deletion. Remember, the creator agreed to this policy.

Truth be told, I find blaming the company for using automation one ridiculously narrow view of the scale of the service. Youtube gets 500 hours of video uploaded to it by *minute*^[1]. That's 30000 hours of content per hour: how do you find it not only possible but feasible to use humans for reviewing if the content meets the guidelines, doesn't violate copyright nonstop, with zero delay? Do you realize the first moment someone delays a review (which would be guaranteed to happen), content-wise or channel-wise, that delay will create an enormous snowball effect, even if you could somehow contract enough people to do it by hand?

Google is such a huger company than what you portray it to be that, really, the "good will" you had in them wasn't "eroded" by their own actions, but rather by your feelings. They're most certainly not the ones being stupid in this scenario.

[1]

10 minutes ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

Idk, I swear you guys work at youtube

no, just common sense and statistics

Edited November 28, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

4 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

YouTube doesn't exactly ban channels out of the blue....

I'm hearing too many stories about YouTube doing stuff screwing around channels out of the blue with no explanation.  From radically different content creators.  This is real.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jacke said:

I'm hearing too many stories about YouTube doing stuff screwing around channels out of the blue with no explanation.  From radically different content creators.  This is real.

And what about the much bigger amount of channels that don't get false complaints, and the ones that do get false complaints but successfully appeal them because they're false and rightfully get them removed? Copyright complaints, for example, are typically removed in a matter of day(s) when correctly appealed (such as fair use content, when it's actually fair use). Unless, of course, if you believe Youtube just has this big red button that says "ban random channel" and that you're not cherry picking specific occurrences where a creator may or may not have told the entire story, weighing them much more heavily than the bigger mass that has successfully appealed any complaints done against them without even having to message the complainer.

[Guest]

Take Lowne's channel, for instance. The story told is that Youtube baselessly went ahead and gave copyright strikes for abusive reasons, that there's no infringement in the channel.

Well, go to his channel and a trailer video automatically plays. Surprise surprise, the video's soundtrack is a direct ripoff of the Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer 1 (timestamped for your convenience) - no alterations at all, to the point where Lowne even had to "camouflage" the track's name in the video's description. Is Youtube really the one who's wrong in this story?

Edited November 28, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

Doing some more preliminary investigation into this story, in the "updates about copyright infringement" video Lowne's complaining about the situation and that Sony has claimed more content. He shows a screenshot of his e-mail inbox, which have the infringing videos' titles.

So I typed in one of the video's titles to see what music was used. Keep in mind I didn't even have to go hunting for them, it was literally what he chose to show when saying "sony has decided to go ahead and claim even more of my videos".

This screenshot speaks for itself.

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

Matt Lowe's case isn't the only one.

Take for example the comment by the creator of this video which I just watched.

Spoiler

 

Quote

Hello Guys! I had to re-upload the video because it was marked as 'demonetized' by YouTube. I spent about 100 hours researching, writing, drawing, animation for this video. And I liked it very much. I am quite satisfied with the final product. But it seems that sometimes, even if I create educational content without "forbidden words" and only with good faith and transparency, my hard work becomes worthless. Looks like this video is demonized again. I don't want to ask for anything from anyone. All I want is to be allowed to do my work without being told by an algorithm that I don't deserve to be monetized. And because of this, the video is not suggested, is not viewed and dies slowly. 100 hours, maybe, for nothing. I am not trying to play the victim here, but if YOU really love what I am doing, and if you can of course, please consider to support my long hours on my patreon [snip]

This is a common occurrence since the Adpocalypse a few years ago.  Any video on serious subjects, involving history or weapons especially, gets demonetized.  And the trend with what is expected to happen soon is that no smaller creator will get any revenue from YouTube.  Eventually all that will be left there will be large corporations, people doing it because they've built up their exterior support, or those who do it for free.  YouTube will not be the same place it was.

Was this likely to happen whatever YouTube's policies?  Probably, in some way.  But @Aperture Science, there are a lot of cases of people getting screwed around by a YouTube that just reflects the casual carelessness of Google; sure you can find fault with some, but *all* of them ?!?  All those small creators help establish YouTube.  YouTube doesn't care about them.

The way things are and with the attitudes displayed by YouTube, most of those creators who's content I like now will be gone in not too long.  I think that's sad.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Matt Lowe's case isn't the only one.

Take for example the comment by the creator of this video which I just watched.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This is a common occurrence since the Adpocalypse a few years ago.  Any video on serious subjects, involving history or weapons especially, gets demonetized.  And the trend with what is expected to happen soon is that no smaller creator will get any revenue from YouTube.  Eventually all that will be left there will be large corporations, people doing it because they've built up their exterior support, or those who do it for free.  YouTube will not be the same place it was.

Was this likely to happen whatever YouTube's policies?  Probably, in some way.  But @Aperture Science, there are a lot of cases of people getting screwed around by a YouTube that just reflects the casual carelessness of Google; sure you can find fault with some, but *all* of them ?!?  All those small creators help establish YouTube.  YouTube doesn't care about them.

The way things are and with the attitudes displayed by YouTube, most of those creators who's content I like now will be gone in not too long.  I think that's sad.

So, what do you want Google to do, force the advertisers to pay for adverts on content they don't want to advertise on? The problem isn't coming from the platform, it's coming from creators not abiding to the terms they've agreed to then blaming Youtube for not giving them the offered privileges even though it's a consequence of the creators' own actions.

Nobody is being screwed around because besides the "creator has agreed to this" argument, Youtube didn't employ the creator and grant him a secure income, at all. The creator has chosen by himself to upload content, getting money from it is merely a bonus. Google could very well advertise on the content and not share any income with its creator if they wanted to, and legally. Treating this as if the creator has been ordered to make content, made it and didn't get paid for it full "dine-and-dash" style simply doesn't apply.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Guest

[Jacke]

1 minute ago, Aperture Science said:

So, what do you want Google to do, force the advertisers to pay for adverts on content they don't want to advertise on?

You're right, the fundamental problem with advertisement as it started on YouTube was unsustainable.  Something had to change.

But that doesn't excuse the way change happened.  The excessive amounts of screwing around that happened and is happening to small creators.  And the lack of explanations and communication coming from YouTube.

YouTube doesn't want to explain things.  Partly I think because it keeps changing them.  And all this is effectively throwing small creators under a bus.  That's not the way people and organizations should treat each other, even corporations.