Conversation
Notices
-
so Jim Stirling (thank God for him)
found a way around the youtube copyright claim bullkiwi
basically all you have to do is infringe the copyrights of MULTIPLE companies at the same time
That way they deadlock themselves and no-one gets the money
Full vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM
Thursday, 28-Apr-16 21:44:21 UTC from web-
@zennx That's, um...
If you go out and blatantly infringe someone else's copyright, they have every right to make a claim on you. That's on you. Not them. Infringing MULTIPLE companies' copyrights isn't going to somehow make you the good guy in that scenario, it just gives you that many more chances to get your video taken down by a lawyer representing one of the companies. -
@mrmattimation you are confusing a copyright claim with a takedown
copyright claim only forces you to surrender the profit you get from ads to the copyright owner -
@zennx Please do not explain terms to me. I have to manage this Fluffle Puff regularly, I know what each one is. If you have twenty copyright claims from twenty different copyright holders, one of those claims is going to result in a takedown sooner or later..
-
@zennx I only thank Loki the trickster God ( Yes I brought the Trickster-DLC )
-
@mrmattimation *raises eyebrow* With all respect, you do not know what you are talking about do you ?
-
@mrmattimation yes, but this is not about the takedown, this is about making sure none of the fat mutts get the stake they do not deserve
-
@mrmattimation @zennx *wressles with uncooperative RDN for a while*. I'm sorry but I just HAVE to react to this. Pretty sure Matt does not realize just who "Jim cherrying Sterling" is, what he is doing, and how he has at least one "YouTube insured & protected" video. In case you do not realize what this means, Jim is in an unique position. In the best case this means that YouTube has to shill out money to protect Jim and his channel ( by mobilizing whatever counter-force is required, like, you know, lawyers ). And it might even end up in Konami and Nintendo going at eachothers throat in the ensuring crossfire. And in the worst case scenario ( for jim ) then we see him go down with the ship ( all except for 1 protected video ).
I do not think Jim is that stupid, so he probably knows his stuff, and if not ? Well lets just say I always enjoyed a good ship-burning.
Regardless, if big Fluffle Puff goes down ( looks like it ) big changes are ensured to follow. -
@zennx So, rather than just, say, NOT use copy-written content in your own videos, therefore allowing you to legally monetize your own videos (I cannot stress enough that if you're using other people's ideas, music, video, etc. you are not legally in the position to complain if they take your revenue) like a reasonable person would do, you would rather INCREASE the amount of content that is not yours, creating a high risk for an eventual takedown (I also cannot stress that fact enough), simply so that the publishers or copyright holders of the works which you are using illegally don't make money off of the video which you are not legally allowed to make money off of?
-
@mrmattimation @zennx And in that last 'rant' I saw absolutely nothing that is not ( together with that last thing I said ) proving to either be great for "fair use" or terribly bad for either Jim or Youtube.
-
@mrmattimation damn it that's not the point
The laws are crap and are being exploited THOUSANDS OF TIMES EVERY DAY.
People are being flagged for their original content
Like Jim said in the vid. Miracle of Sound got a copyright claim on his OWN ORIGINAL SONG
It's not about making money
It's not about using other people's content for your profit
It's about making SOMEONE DO SOMETHING TO FIX THE SYSTEM
Because guess here's an example of the absolute papaya-basket that is youtube:
I could go and create a new account
go to one of your videos
place a copyright claim
and for the next 15 days I would take ALL ad revenue on that video
I would not pursue any legal action (kuz d-doy I have no legal claim) and after the 15 days all money you make from there on would be yours
but not the money of the first 15 days, that's mine, and you can't touch it
not unless you sue back, but I hardly think that would be in your economic interestCloud Kicker likes this. -
@critialcloudkicker Jim is also on a VERY privileged position where none of his videos are ad-funded, he makes all his money from Patreon
Copyright claims can only take money from ad-revenue
Meaning he has NOTHING to lose. -
@zennx Clearly, you have no clue how the "system" works. If you make a claim on me I can immediately dispute it and until that issue gets settled, all of the money earned by the video in that time period would be placed in a holding account, and once YouTube determines who the money rightfully belongs to (me) I will get the money that was earned in the time it takes the claim to be dismissed.
-
@mrmattimation Gee, for someone who actually does this, you sure do know how it works.
-
@zennx Well, that Patreon thingie is actually icing on the cake. ( I touched it when I said "unique position", although I just realized that Thunderf00t also has Patreon in a simmilar if not same manner, and then there are others ). But yes, you are right... Well he has something to lose, and that is being booted off of YouTube completely because of his shenanigans. But do you honestly think YouTube ( as a company who'se primary motivation seems money ) is to start setting fire to Jim's proverbial ship with the possibility of the whole harbour catching fire ? ... Yeah... I love to see this play out
-
@mrmattimation "all of the money earned by the video in that time period would be placed in a holding account"
That is the problem, it would be fine if it worked that way. But it does not.
-
