YouTubers are PO'ed and had enough. #WTFU

[HereticBD]

Nobody decided 10 years ago they were going to be a full time youtuber. These people only decided to devote their lives to youtube once they realized they can make more money doing that than whatever else it was they were doing before. Boo Hoo.

Is there a point in there, somewhere?

 

[Banchan]

Be that as it may, it's not for them to decide. Whether or not the person is a shithead doesn't change fair use.

Dude Google does this all the time with content uploaded to blogger google plus or google search . If someone complains of copyright it gets taken down . Since google owns youtube ...

 

[Matt4786]

Dude Google does this all the time with content uploaded to blogger google plus or google search . If someone complains of copyright it gets taken down . Since google owns youtube ...

k

 

[fbgn]

man, all that sounds like a clusterfuck but typical of big companies. you could make the argument they're benefiting from large works but that'd be sorta like going back and penalizing every movie critic ever or taking down sites like rotten tomatoes

i know @ShadowSneak likes nostalgic critic, i only watched his vid but seemed to make a good point

rest of the guys in the vids look like child molesters

 

[BisexualMMA]

Because the content owners want to be associated with siskel and ebert because they know how that content will be handled and represented . Either a good review or bad but either way people trust siskel and ebert to have a fair opinion . This isn't the case with individuals on youtube where that content can be used by people you don't want associated with your brand . Let's say there is a satanic guy on youtube that has a relatively high viewer audience and does movie reviews or uses a screen shot in one of his videos . Would a movie clip on that channel be the same as the clip on siskel and ebert ? I would think they kinda don't want their property to have anything to do with random people like a satanist that does movie reviews and I believe that is the source of their crackdowns . If it were reputable people doing fair things with their content maybe but they don't want random people that aren't reputable associated with their brand .

Nobody wanted a shitty review from Siskel and Ebert.

The purpose of Fair Use is to allow discussion, opinion and critique. Just like a politician can't only allow puff pieces to be written about him.

If a Satanic guy gives a good review of Gigli, that doesn't mean people are going to think Ben Affleck is a Satanist. It's just an idiot reviewing a film. If he used the film to promote Satanism, then that wouldn't be fair use.

 

[Horse Style]

Be that as it may, it's not for them to decide. Whether or not the person is a shithead doesn't change fair use.

You what also doesn't change? The power these companies have and their ability to copyright strike without YouTube intervening. You think YouTube don't know about the complaints of these big YTers? lol c'mon now

The money YT makes off of even Pewdiepie probably pales in comparison they make with the big entities that are having their product criticized.

 

[Banchan]

Nobody wanted a shitty review from Siskel and Ebert, and even if they did, it's not up to them.

The purpose of Fair Use is to allow discussion, opinion and critique. Just like a politician can't only allow puff pieces to be written about him.

If a Satanic guy gives a good review of Gigli, that doesn't mean people are going to think Ben Affleck is a Satanist. It's just an idiot reviewing a film. If he used the film to promote Satanism, then that wouldn't be fair use.

All anyone has to do to knock something off of a google product is file a copyright complaint and it takes like 2 seconds . Google is not a free speech platform . Even if the law says fair use is okay , google takes anything down if they get a copyright complaint . So you can use the fair use argument anywhere else on the web but if the content creator complains , google sides with the copyright holder . Ultimately you have to play by the service rules and their decisions .

 

[Matt4786]

You what also doesn't change? The power these companies have and their ability to copyright strike without YouTube intervening. You think YouTube don't know about the complaints of these big YTers? lol c'mon now

The money YT makes off of even Pewdiepie probably pales in comparison they make with the big entities that are having their product criticized.

Yes. I understand the motivation and it's certainly pragmatic, but that's irrelevant. I don't even know why you brought that up right now.

 

[BisexualMMA]

All anyone has to do to knock something off of a google product is file a copyright complaint and it takes like 2 seconds . Google is not a free speech platform . Even if the law says fair use is okay , google takes anything down if they get a copyright complaint . So you can use the fair use argument anywhere else on the web but if the content creator complains , google sides with the copyright holder .

And that's why the YouTube content creators are now banding together to be heard collectively.

 

[Horse Style]

Yes. I understand the motivation and it's certainly pragmatic, but that's irrelevant. I don't even know why you brought that up right now.

Because it's the reality of the situation that doesn't seem to be getting across to people.

With any business, if they are doing things you don't agree with, stop using their service. If enough people stop using their service, then YouTuber will be forced to change or suffer the consequences. Hell, if several big YouTubers stop making content for YouTube, that would impact the average YT viewer more than making a video of complaints.

 

[Banchan]

And that's why the YouTube content creators are now banding together to be heard collectively.

yeah that's nice but how long do you think you will not make videos ( money ) rather than eliminate a couple seconds of copyrighted clip ? What else are these people going to do ? Go back to working at Urban Outtfitters ? Blogger content creators tried that too and Google did not cave .

 

[Matt4786]

Because it's the reality of the situation that doesn't seem to be getting across to people.

With any business, if they are doing things you don't agree with, stop using their service. If enough people stop using their service, then YouTuber will be forced to change or suffer the consequences. Hell, if several big YouTubers stop making content for YouTube, that would impact the average YT viewer more than making a video of complaints.

The reality of the situation is not lost on most people and I don't see why you would think that. Ultimately, it's a policy formed from a stick & carrot approach on the backend. The situation is easy to grasp, it's simply unethical.

 

[BisexualMMA]

yeah thst's nice but how long do you think you will not make videos ( money ) rather than eliminate a couple seconds of copyrighted clip ? What else are these people going to do ? Go back to working at Urban Outtfitters ? Blogger content creators tried that too and Google did not cave .

Time will tell. I can't say for sure how this will pan out.

I think it's quite possible that these content creators will win this battle, but it's also quite possible that they won't. If I were to guess, I think they will achieve at least some of what they are going for here. I would even predict they will achieve most of what they are going for.

I have yet to see them make any unreasonable demands. Everything they are asking for, that I have seen, is pretty measured and restrained.

 

[Banchan]

Time will tell. I can't say for sure how this will pan out.

I think it's quite possible that these content creators will win this battle, but it's also quite possible that they won't. If I were to guess, I think they will achieve at least some of what they are going for here.

So if Google says ...

All of these content creators that made millions off a free Google service will take their business elsewhere ? Where ? Maybe if there were a viable conpetitor to Youtube they might flinch but there is not . A lot of blogger content creators moved to wordpress and still google did not budge on the copyright issue . So what you're saying is rather than modifying their videos , they will give up making videos at all , which essentially means going from hundreds , thousands , hundreds of thousands and millions making videos to a regular job ?

I think YT is not losing any sleep over this . People have a hard time moving down the lifestyle ladder no matter how set on making a point they are . These content creators are probably losing sleep over delaying 1 video let alone considering a long strike against YT .

 

[BisexualMMA]

So if Google says ...

All of these content creators that made millions off a free Google service will take their business elsewhere ? Where ? Maybe if there were a viable conpetitor to Youtube they might flinch but there is not . A lot of blogger content creators moved to wordpress and still google did not budge on the copyright issue . So what you're saying is rather than modifying their videos , they will give up making videos at all , which essentially means going from hundreds , thousands , hundreds of thousands and millions making videos to a regular job ?

I think YT is not losing any sleep over this . People have a hard time moving down the lifestyle ladder no matter how set on making a point they are . These content creatirs are probably losing sleep over felaying 1 video let alone considering a long strike against YT .

I don't know how serious YouTube views this, and what portion of their revenue comes from fair use-related videos.

But between movie reviewers, and video game players (video game action footage is another area) and all related things combined, I think it's pretty substantial.

I'm guessing YouTube is sitting back and watching how much steam this whole thing gathers and that will be part of their decision.

A couple of the requests being made by these content providers are so reasonable, however, that they are common sense. How can YouTube publicly justify taking money from these people for false copyright claims? It's just a bad look.

Does YouTube have more power than the content creators? Sure, but that doesn't mean the content creators have NO leverage. Every union that ever formed was under similar circumstances. "What are they going to do, not eat at all rather than show up for their shitty wage?"

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I have no thoughts about this.

 

[Okajima]

Is there a point in there, somewhere?

Yeah, these people are only doing "what they love" because they got some attention and some money. They didn't have a goal as a child to grow up and be on youtube. Maybe they were into some other sort of media before youtube came along, who knows. But they were most likely into something, and quit. Dealing with big business like youtube is risky when it comes to copyright issues or whatever else. I doubt anyone here is jealous of them. If they can make it work for them they deserve their share. If not, they can go back to what they were doing before, or something else.

 

[Clippys Mom]

Harsh...

This deserves a copyright strike, and a site ban on the terrorist group known as Isa, and its deplorable leader Kitty Meh.

 

[Banchan]

I don't know how serious YouTube views this, and what portion of their revenue comes from fair use-related videos.

I just gave you examples . If they didn't cave for their other platforms , what makes you think they will for Youtube ? The expense in responding to cease and desist and preparation for and possibly going to trial outweighs revenue sharing with content creators and that's why Google doesn't fight copyright complaints anymore . They just take them down as they come in and it's on the content creators to fight the allegations (which they wont because $ ) and have the content reinstated . Google will reinstate content if you have a legal judgement . Basically content creators want Google to fight this for them . The same deal happened on blogger and Google lost and since then they stay out of copyright disputes and take down content so they are not implicated in legal matters .

 

[Loiosh]

I believe subscriptions is where the money is.

I honestly don't know how anyone can support this. Seems like a lot of jealousy going on in here. "Get a real job"? Seriously? Don't be mad because other folks have managed to entertain people and do something they love for a living, while you have to dig ditches. Yay for big corporations though, because fuck people who have it better than me.

Why Youtube is allowing it, is beyond me. If this continues, the traffic on Youtube is gonna get a lot less busy, and open the door for competitors.

I think they're allowing it because they have such a stranglehold on the market. If anyone ever seriously challenges them and popular artists have options to post elsewhere, maybe they'll change things up a bit.

I don't really understand why it's so heavily in the favor of the copyright holders right now, though. Maybe because YouTube is hosting the videos they're worried they're on the hook for infringement.