I was going to check my subscriptions last night and I came across this video in my feed. It explains the changes that Google has implemented into their copyright policies.
To give you a basic summary of it, Google has now enabled the creators of copywritten material to claim ownership of videos with their content (which they have no rights to own), place ads on it and gain money from it; the content producers have no say in the matter whatsoever. Their only choice is to delete the video. In other words, Google has now permitted theft on YouTube.
This isn't anything new. My first "Content ID" offense was in 2007 when I was playing a cover of The Story So Far by New Found Glory on my guitar. I think you could barely hear the original music I had turned almost all the way down playing in the background. What happened was within a few days, Universal Music Group hit my video and put their advertisements on it and made it so the video wasn't even available in some countries.
This isn't anything new. My first "Content ID" offense was in 2007 when I was playing a cover of The Story So Far by New Found Glory on my guitar. I think you could barely hear the original music I had turned almost all the way down playing in the background. What happened was within a few days, Universal Music Group hit my video and put their advertisements on it and made it so the video wasn't even available in some countries.
Well, if they were able to place adverts on your video for using copywritten music, I could understand that. But the thing is, with this new system, not only can they advertise on your video, they're actually given ownership of it without you having any say so. Google is just giving other people's hard-work to others so that they benefit from it.
Well, if they were able to place adverts on your video for using copywritten music, I could understand that. But the thing is, with this new system, not only can they advertise on your video, they're actually given ownership of it without you having any say so. Google is just giving other people's hard-work to others so that they benefit from it.
Stealing content (and in the case of people with contracts, money) from people, giving it to others and allowing them to benefit from it. That sounds better than the video being taken down?
Stealing content (and in the case of people with contracts, money) from people, giving it to others and allowing them to benefit from it. That sounds better than the video being taken down?
It's not stealing if you don't have the right to use whatever you used in your video. Whoever owns the right are just taking what's theirs.
And you're not making any money for a video that's been taken down.
It's not stealing if you don't have the right to use whatever you used in your video. Whoever owns the right are just taking what's theirs.
The video isn't theirs. They have the ability to tell people whether or not their content can be put on YouTube. However, at the end of the day, the video wasn't made by them, and therefore, they have no rights to own it. With this system, if you posted a video tutorial on how to fix a hole in a car tire, the person who made that specific brand of car can claim that it's a promotional video showing off their product, claim ownership of that video and place advertisements on it, despite the fact that it isn't the focus of the video. Does that sound right to you?
The video isn't theirs. They have the ability to tell people whether or not their content can be put on YouTube. However, at the end of the day, the video wasn't made by them, and therefore, they have no rights to own it. With this system, if you posted a video tutorial on how to fix a hole in a car tire, the person who made that specific brand of car can claim that it's a promotional video showing off their product, claim ownership of that video and place advertisements on it, despite the fact that it isn't the focus of the video. Does that sound right to you?
I don't care about who "owns" the video as long as I can watch it. Still better than just taking it down.
It might not be fair but at least the users get to watch said video.
And your example was awful. The only thing that companies are looking for is music, movies and potentially some videos games.
I don't care about who "owns" the video as long as I can watch it.
It might not be fair but at least the users get to watch said video.
This is why we don't agree. I, myself, care about the content producers that I'm subscribed to. Many of them have contracts with YouTube or other companies that allow them to use their videos as a primary source of income. That allows them to keep producing their videos, because they have the time and desire to do so. If these types of policies continue to get published, they will lose out on a lot of money, which in turns requires that they find another means of getting money. In the end, the content producers, you and I will no longer benefit, because there won't be content producers on YouTube any longer. They won't have the time, or at least they'll have so little time to produce videos that they won't be able to make ... probably even half of the amount that they do now. Everyone suffers from this, including you.
The only thing that companies are looking for is music, movies and potentially some videos games.
If you watch the whole video, you'll see that they're penalizing people just for having in-game atmospheric sounds playing. They could change this, of course. However, looking at the way Google has run YouTube so far, I really doubt they'd care to do so.
This is why we don't agree. I, myself, care about the content producers that I'm subscribed to. Many of them have contracts with YouTube or other companies that allow them to use their videos as a primary source of income. That allows them to keep producing their videos, because they have the time and desire to do so. If these types of policies continue to get published, they will lose out on a lot of money, which in turns requires that they find another means of getting money. In the end, the content producers, you and I will no longer benefit, because there won't be content producers on YouTube any longer. They won't have the time, or at least they'll have so little time to produce videos that they won't be able to make ... probably even half of the amount that they do now. Everyone suffers from this, including you.
If you watch the whole video, you'll see that they're penalizing people just for having in-game atmospheric sounds playing. They could change this, of course. However, looking at the way Google has run YouTube so far, I really doubt they'd care to do so.
The only thing I ever listen on youtube is music from companies that doesn't care about copyrights. Not going to affect me much.
The only thing I ever listen on youtube is music from companies that doesn't care about copyrights. Not going to affect me much.
That's fine. But there are many people who will be affect, and I made this topic for those people to see. Not everyone goes onto YouTube to watch random videos or listen to miscellaneous songs.
The only thing I ever listen on youtube is music from companies that doesn't care about copyrights. Not going to affect me much.
But that still affects you because their system tags the videos you watch automatically. Companies like Blizzard and Bethesda have confirmed that they are not tagging videos but the system does. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I was going to watch a review only to find out it was blocked because they used the music and showed a part of the game WTF? So instead of showing the game and showing people how the game looks now you gotta sit in front of a webcam and just freaking talk about it without showing images, videos, or music from the game. This is ridiculous.
But that still affects you because their system tags the videos you watch automatically. Companies like Blizzard and Bethesda have confirmed that they are not tagging videos but the system does. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I was going to watch a review only to find out it was blocked because they used the music and showed a part of the game WTF? So instead of showing the game and showing people how the game looks now you gotta sit in front of a webcam and just freaking talk about it without showing images, videos, or music from the game. This is ridiculous.
What I've been told is that some companies such as Activsion (whom I personally hate) have decided that they dont' want any video game commentators or otherwise making money off their games. That's why they would enjoy claiming ownership of videos that show off their products. But what they don't realize is that, in doing this, it removes the advertisement of their products on YouTube, since the content producers will lose their ability to post as much or as often. It's basically either lose money or lose advertisement, which in turn makes you lose money. Of course, I doubt large corporations really bother to think of it that way.
If you think about, let's say for example you post a video on a pac-man game, namco has full rights to the game, and I understand some revenue going to them, but all of it? That's just taking it far. Too far. The uploader should AT LEAST gain 25% of all revenue generated from that video.
I don't think the people complaining here quite understand how copyright works; you do not 'own' anything you film on a computer when it contains the visual content of someone else's work. I believe fair use allows you to use their visual commentary for the purpose of criticism etc for non-commercial use, but just because you film yourself in a game doesn't make the content 'yours'. I'd imagine that EULA nobody bothers to read and just accepts blindly would probably quite clearly outline they reserve full right of their visual content.
Blaming Google for this is ridiculous, it's the copyright holders' constant pressure on them that is the problem. They'd make much more money if it weren't for this so stop acting like it's their fault.
To quote Google themselves:
Whether you can use video game content for monetization depends on the commercial use rights granted to you by licenses of video game publishers. Some video game publishers may allow you to use all video game content for commercial use and state that in their license agreements. Certain video game publishers may require you to credit them in a specific manner for your gameplay to be monetized. Videos simply showing game play for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetization.
So its all down to the video game publisher, as it is 100% within their right as the creators of games to say who makes money off their product and who doesn't. It's not stealing at all, it's stealing to use their copyrighted material for your own game without their permission. Like it or not, unfortunately that's the law.
Well then they should learn to man up and deal with pressure. After the anger over the Google+ you would think they would be able to cope with this.
You can't 'man up' to multi billion dollar lawsuits. It's the law, no matter how much they 'man up'. You can't ignore copyright law just because you want to and Google is no exception. You saw what happened to Limewire and Megaupload. Limewire was sued for damages of trillions of dollars- naturally they couldn't afford to pay that, but legally they were liable to pay every cent they had. No sane business goes up against copyright law like that any more.
While Google eventually managed to hold off Viacom's lawsuit, they're still required to take down every video that Viacon wants them to, and other media giants are constantly filing lawsuit after lawsuit themselves. They are required to comply by copyright law which means doing everything possible to prevent illegal material from being posted online.
I don't like it one bit myself, but like I said, it's not Google's fault. They've been fighting it off as hard as they can. Blaming them is ridiculous.
I won't even try explaining why gaming channels deserve more respect than they get. You don't have to believe or agree with me, but it takes a lot of skill.
Sitting down and staring at the computer screen while pressing buttons and then uploading it to YouTube under the guise of "original content" is skillful? Well I suppose if you use it as a platform for what's effectively a video blog, but why then have the video game there at all?
You are relying on imagery that wasn't yours to begin with, or a story you never wrote. Did you purchase the rights to this professionally generated content? No.
I was going to check my subscriptions last night and I came across this video in my feed. It explains the changes that Google has implemented into their copyright policies.
To give you a basic summary of it, Google has now enabled the creators of copywritten material to claim ownership of videos with their content (which they have no rights to own), place ads on it and gain money from it; the content producers have no say in the matter whatsoever. Their only choice is to delete the video. In other words, Google has now permitted theft on YouTube.
Well, if they were able to place adverts on your video for using copywritten music, I could understand that. But the thing is, with this new system, not only can they advertise on your video, they're actually given ownership of it without you having any say so. Google is just giving other people's hard-work to others so that they benefit from it.
Isn't it better than just deleting it though?
Stealing content (and in the case of people with contracts, money) from people, giving it to others and allowing them to benefit from it. That sounds better than the video being taken down?
It's not stealing if you don't have the right to use whatever you used in your video. Whoever owns the right are just taking what's theirs.
And you're not making any money for a video that's been taken down.
The video isn't theirs. They have the ability to tell people whether or not their content can be put on YouTube. However, at the end of the day, the video wasn't made by them, and therefore, they have no rights to own it. With this system, if you posted a video tutorial on how to fix a hole in a car tire, the person who made that specific brand of car can claim that it's a promotional video showing off their product, claim ownership of that video and place advertisements on it, despite the fact that it isn't the focus of the video. Does that sound right to you?
I don't care about who "owns" the video as long as I can watch it. Still better than just taking it down.
It might not be fair but at least the users get to watch said video.
And your example was awful. The only thing that companies are looking for is music, movies and potentially some videos games.
This is why we don't agree. I, myself, care about the content producers that I'm subscribed to. Many of them have contracts with YouTube or other companies that allow them to use their videos as a primary source of income. That allows them to keep producing their videos, because they have the time and desire to do so. If these types of policies continue to get published, they will lose out on a lot of money, which in turns requires that they find another means of getting money. In the end, the content producers, you and I will no longer benefit, because there won't be content producers on YouTube any longer. They won't have the time, or at least they'll have so little time to produce videos that they won't be able to make ... probably even half of the amount that they do now. Everyone suffers from this, including you.
If you watch the whole video, you'll see that they're penalizing people just for having in-game atmospheric sounds playing. They could change this, of course. However, looking at the way Google has run YouTube so far, I really doubt they'd care to do so.
The only thing I ever listen on youtube is music from companies that doesn't care about copyrights. Not going to affect me much.
That's fine. But there are many people who will be affect, and I made this topic for those people to see. Not everyone goes onto YouTube to watch random videos or listen to miscellaneous songs.
But that still affects you because their system tags the videos you watch automatically. Companies like Blizzard and Bethesda have confirmed that they are not tagging videos but the system does. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I was going to watch a review only to find out it was blocked because they used the music and showed a part of the game WTF? So instead of showing the game and showing people how the game looks now you gotta sit in front of a webcam and just freaking talk about it without showing images, videos, or music from the game. This is ridiculous.
What I've been told is that some companies such as Activsion (whom I personally hate) have decided that they dont' want any video game commentators or otherwise making money off their games. That's why they would enjoy claiming ownership of videos that show off their products. But what they don't realize is that, in doing this, it removes the advertisement of their products on YouTube, since the content producers will lose their ability to post as much or as often. It's basically either lose money or lose advertisement, which in turn makes you lose money. Of course, I doubt large corporations really bother to think of it that way.
"END OF THE WORLD!"
My DeviantArt, so sexy
Blaming Google for this is ridiculous, it's the copyright holders' constant pressure on them that is the problem. They'd make much more money if it weren't for this so stop acting like it's their fault.
To quote Google themselves:
So its all down to the video game publisher, as it is 100% within their right as the creators of games to say who makes money off their product and who doesn't. It's not stealing at all, it's stealing to use their copyrighted material for your own game without their permission. Like it or not, unfortunately that's the law.
You can't 'man up' to multi billion dollar lawsuits. It's the law, no matter how much they 'man up'. You can't ignore copyright law just because you want to and Google is no exception. You saw what happened to Limewire and Megaupload. Limewire was sued for damages of trillions of dollars- naturally they couldn't afford to pay that, but legally they were liable to pay every cent they had. No sane business goes up against copyright law like that any more.
While Google eventually managed to hold off Viacom's lawsuit, they're still required to take down every video that Viacon wants them to, and other media giants are constantly filing lawsuit after lawsuit themselves. They are required to comply by copyright law which means doing everything possible to prevent illegal material from being posted online.
I don't like it one bit myself, but like I said, it's not Google's fault. They've been fighting it off as hard as they can. Blaming them is ridiculous.
Sitting down and staring at the computer screen while pressing buttons and then uploading it to YouTube under the guise of "original content" is skillful? Well I suppose if you use it as a platform for what's effectively a video blog, but why then have the video game there at all?
You are relying on imagery that wasn't yours to begin with, or a story you never wrote. Did you purchase the rights to this professionally generated content? No.
My DeviantArt, so sexy