Off Topic

[Shrooblord]

No, you're right; I should have PM'ed you. I've never used PMs to settle matters - I just use them for quick and friendly chat - it never came to my mind. I'll think of it if there ever is a next time.

To publicly humiliate you was not what I set out to do. I only wanted to ask that we, as a community, don't bother Gazel with things that don't concern him. That is all.

And no, I only have to right feet here!

[technology4617]

Ah, cool, glad we settled this, and sorry for jumping to conclusions too quickly. Thanks for being a cool dude with a soft anus.

[OCG]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/amazon ... 0-6421910/
Thank god it was not Google

[beebo44]

Eh, I feel like this is a similar situation to when Facebook bought Oculus. Everyone will make a big deal out of it now, and pretty soon it will all blow over. I doubt Google would've done anything horrible with Twitch aside from maybe some poor UI choices and copyright claims on VOD's.

[OCG]

Copyright Claims that people get by Google's Content ID are complete trash and fake most of the times so thats why everyone wanted Google not to purchase Twitch.

[Fifo]

Rayman Junior/Rayman Brain Games has ridiculous loading times.

[Haruka]

That copyright thing is such a flop. When YouTube wasn't owned by Google people had more freedom to post what they wanted and there was no problem about that. Now it is enough for a 5 seconds copyrighted music to be present in a documentary for example in order to be censored by Google.

[saerleiya]

That copyright thing is such a flop. When YouTube wasn't owned by Google people had more freedom to post what they wanted and there was no problem about that. Now it is enough for a 5 seconds copyrighted music to be present in a documentary for example in order to be censored by Google.

^ this...
you can't even use a music you bought for a non-profit video most of the time. The only videos from my channel which are available on YouTube are there thanks to some great artists who allow you to share them as long as you are quoting them in the credits (I mean, that's not hard to do so...).

First time I posted a video, it was 2 minutes long. Not blocked. Second one? 40 seconds, blocked. Why? Because the company owning the song doesn't care if you have 5 subscribers and 20 views...they block it anyway.

OCG knows a lot about this (go watch his video about copyright doom or something...).

EDIT: typos...seems I think 'about' is written 'abotu' all the time. I'm simply trying to type too fast.

[OCG]

That reminds me, I should make next tutorial in my planned series how to get rid of copyright on videos. Next one is if disputing the video failed what to do. Remember, in the end, you can always win if you know what to do but process can be long as hell and annoying. Google is terrible.

[saerleiya]

That should be interesting. I guess you have a lot of experience about disputing blocking.

[Adsolution]

That copyright thing is such a flop. When YouTube wasn't owned by Google people had more freedom to post what they wanted and there was no problem about that. Now it is enough for a 5 seconds copyrighted music to be present in a documentary for example in order to be censored by Google.

Copyright strikes aren't YouTube/Google's problem, that's left up to the content owners. What YouTube/Google's problem is are the punishments handed out as a result. I just got two copyright strikes in the same night for some old Muse instrumentals I uploaded back in 2011, and now I can't upload videos longer than fifteen minutes nor can I use the Unlisted feature for an entire year. What the fuck does copyright infringement have to do with either of those punishments? I understand that they're scaring people into not doing it again, but their system is retarded and abhorrent.

[OCG]

If you want to, I can help you get you rid of those 2 strikes in 15 days instead of 6 months waiting for each. Your account is now at huge risk.
If you already are familiar with it, you should file a counter-notification for both videos. You can't lose there and in 15 days they will return videos unless company wants to sue you in real life and sends YT a proof which is highly unlikely.

[Shrooblord]

And you could take the videos down if you want.

But it all depends on who's the one filing copyright charges. I had my old Spore music video on Hoobastank's Without a Fight blocked a few years ago, but then, two weeks after, they'd reviewed it and went "aw, that's actually pretty cute" and said "you can keep it if we can advertise our music on your video page" and of course I agreed. Some companies are nice. Others just want to hoard the rights to their IP a bit too intensively.

[OCG]

Taking videos down does not resolve copyright strikes you have.

[rolesfamily]

You guys really are walking a fine line with video game footage & music etc. I'm not entirely sure what the arrangement is for gaming channels, because they make decent cash from that. I'm not entirely sure how it works for them. I seriously avoid any copyright like the plague.

[Shrooblord]

Okay so here's the agreement:
If you make videos with copyrighted material for the sake of parody, comedic effect, entertainment or commentary, review or discussion, you can use that material as described under the Fair Use agreement. However, Google bots can't tell the difference between fair use and non-fair use, so they flag and take down everything they deem infringement. Then you, the creator, have to go and deal with that.

Also big gaming channels like JoshJepson and The Yogscast deal with this issue sometimes, yes, even them, and they have to fight the Google system because at its basis it is flawed.

What needs to change is how and when videos are taken down. The bots should only flag the video. Then, an actual person should review the claim and see whether or not the video is in the category of non-fair use. If so, then take it down. Don't first take it down and then wait for the creator to fight you on whether or not that was justified.

[rolesfamily]

But should these people be able to earn money from other people's content? I'm not so sure.

[Haruka]

That copyright thing is such a flop. When YouTube wasn't owned by Google people had more freedom to post what they wanted and there was no problem about that. Now it is enough for a 5 seconds copyrighted music to be present in a documentary for example in order to be censored by Google.

Copyright strikes aren't YouTube/Google's problem, that's left up to the content owners. What YouTube/Google's problem is are the punishments handed out as a result. I just got two copyright strikes in the same night for some old Muse instrumentals I uploaded back in 2011, and now I can't upload videos longer than fifteen minutes nor can I use the Unlisted feature for an entire year. What the fuck does copyright infringement have to do with either of those punishments? I understand that they're scaring people into not doing it again, but their system is retarded and abhorrent.

Then it is those companies that are thirsty for money. You have the double of the punishment I had because of that 11 seconds 3D render of the Rayman Legends trailer that wasn't even anything special. And yet a person can barely defend itself, since the punishments are all made in a way to benefit the accuser. Unfair.

[rolesfamily]

I don't really think it's fair that these gaming channels make money from other people's content. Surely they're in the frame to be sued for thousands

[OCG]

They can't be sued since they are covered by fair use.
Also, Google likes money too.
PewDiePie for example made a lot of money by his gaming videos and Google would never take his channel down since they earn percentage from his videos too.