Sections

UPDATE: indies hit by Content ID on their own trailers, Twitter rage ensues

Wednesday, 18th December 2013 08:48 GMT By Dave Cook

YouTubers across the world are reporting a torrent of YouTube Content ID warnings landing in their inboxes in what is the start of a crackdown on monetised video game content. Get up-to-date reports on the matter here.

UPDATE 6: A host of indie developers have found Content ID claims in their inboxes now, from companies Indmusic and Tunecore, based on songs that they themselves have created.

Thomas Was Alone developer Mike Bithell was first to hit out at Indmusic on Twitter:

Vlambeer’s Rami Ismail tweeted out a fair warning to his fellow indies:

VVVVVV developer Terry Cavanagh was also stung by Content ID claims on his own trailers:

The simple answer seems to stop working with Indmusic and Tunecore from now on, but the whole issue appears to be far from simple right now. Both companies have failed to comment on the matter, and we’re still waiting for Idol to get back to us on the initial run of content strikes. That’s been a week now.

Via CVG.

UPDATE 5: YouTuber GnomeWrecker has tweeted that despite the Content ID match issued removing his revenue streams, his contract with media company Maker/Polaris is now locked. The legally-binding contract suggests that even though Gnome’s revenue from YouTube has been hit, he still has to create content under his contract.

Despite being contract bound, Gnome added that Maker/Polaris didn’t have much to do with the creation of his content:

Regarding the issue The Escapist’s Jim Sterling confirmed Gnome’s predicament:

We’ve asked Gnome to further clarify his position at present. Via Splatteredhouse.

UPDATE 4: Oddworld Inhabitants and Just Add Water have posted a blog update on the YouTube Content ID issue. It reads, “We at Oddworld Inhabitants, Inc. would like to reassure YouTubers that we continue to give our explicit permission to anyone on the service to broadcast using Oddworld games, including Abe’s Oddysee, Abe’s Exoddus, Munch’s Oddysee, Stranger’s Wrath, and the upcoming New ‘n’ Tasty (and any updated, HD versions).This includes Let’s Plays, commercial trailers, and screen shots.

“In fact, nothing makes us happier than to see you guys enjoying our games, and it’s something we encourage wholeheartedly. So as we’ll continue to push our content through our own YouTube channel, we have no plans to issue copyright claims to others.If you are on the end of one of these new ContentID copyright flags as a result of showing Oddworld game footage, please contact us.

UPDATE 3: Valve has just stepped forward to give gamers its blessing, and to actively encourage YouTubers to make videos using its games.

It comes in a post published by the company, which reads, “We encourage our users to make videos using Valve game content, such as playthrough or instruction videos or SFM movies. We are fine with publishing these videos to your website or YouTube or similar video sharing services. We’re not fine with taking assets from our games (e.g. voice, music, items) and distributing those separately.

“Use of our content in videos must be non-commercial. By that we mean you can’t charge users to view or access your videos. You also can’t sell or license your videos to others for a payment of any kind.

“You are free to monetize your videos via the YouTube partner program and similar programs on other video sharing sites. Please don’t ask us to write YouTube and tell them its fine with us to post a particular video using Valve content. It’s not possible to respond to each such request. Point them to this page.

“Of course this policy applies only to Valve content. If you include someone else’s content in your video, such as music, you will have to get permission from the owner.”

UPDATE 2: YouTuber DPJ has published a video guide explaining possible ways to skirt around Content ID strikes. Watch it below:

UPDATE:

YouTuber Angry Joe has revealed that 62 of his videos have been flagged by the video service’s Content ID system. On the video he calls out those making the claims over music used in videos, footage and original content like his Tomb Raider interview. He also cites the Fair Use clauses found in US law and accuses YouTube of waiting until channels generated millions of views before using Content ID strikes to take money away from creators.

He argues that seeking permission for game review videos will see negative reviews rejected by publishers, and that the approval process will damage content creators, not to mention take away what is essentially free advertising for the game creators and publishers.

Joe adds that he cannot get in touch with YouTube and any channels he’s tried have resulted in no response. An official YouTube statement in the Content ID format reads, “We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs. This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid.”

So this means that yes, this is now an official policy at YouTube. It begs the question why Content ID match claims are coming from companies with no visible links from game publishers

ORIGINAL STORY:

The breaking news and reports are being compiled into a NeoGAF thread, which suggests many companies are now approaching content creators with Content ID claims.

Force Strategy Gaming has posted a discussion explaining what is going on among the video creation community.

They explain that there’s a YouTube monetisation review process going on in about a month, and that over the past week, many video creators have started receiving a vast amount of Content IDMatch claims on their footage, mostly from a company called ‘IDOL,’ a prominent music distribution firm.

Force Strategy feels that videos containing cut-scenes, trailers and game music are among the most common claims. He stresses that 10-seconds of a trailer is considered fair use, and that anything over that will increase the chances of a person receiving a claim. One way around claims is to become affiliated with an approved channel like Machinima.

However, VG247′s source – who runs a managed channel and serves over 6.7 million views a month – stresses that publishers are now coming forward to say that it isn’t them making the claims. Claims are, instead, coming from IDOL and are largely linked to music used in clips.

Our source told us, “YouTube flipped a switch 2 days ago and it seemingly matches any copyrighted footage (seems to be game audio) with their music library and then gives out content ID claims. IDOL is a company that distributes many individual music companies, which is why they’re linked to many of the claims.”

We’ve asked IDOL to comment.

Claims are coming thick and fast without warning. Just look at TheRadBrad’s email inbox:

Other video creators have taken to Twitter and voiced their displeasure:

Videos can be approved by submitting them to YouTube’s confirmation process early next year, clearing them for monetisation. However the review process can take between a few hours to days. The issue is that approved content will be late and therefore will not make its creator as much money. Some of those in pre-approved relationships are still getting claims, but nowhere near the same volume.

There now seems to be a misunderstandaing and confusion over the rules for YouTubers deemed ‘Affiliate’ and ‘Managed.’ Are they exempt? Will they have their content culled? What are the rules? The impending changes were outlined in this press release, but confusion lingers.

On the Content ID changes coming for Affiliates and Managed users in January, our source added, “Starting Janaury, ‘affiliate’ partners = videos will be put into monetization review as opposed to the instant monetization we’ve all had for years, which is basically bad news for gaming channels as it takes YouTube days to review and there’s still no guarantee they’ll approve the claim unless you have permission from the company to monetize their IP.

“Managed” partners = exempt from all content ID claims and protected by both Google and its network. Instant monetization remains, etc. YouTube has told networks make your partners managed or affiliate. If the partner is affiliate, they can get copyright strikes and content ID claims, etc., and the network won’t be affected and won’t be responsible.

“If the network’s “managed” partners receive a single copyright strike throughout their entire “managed” partners whether that be 50 or 100, they get fined, penalized. 3 total copyright strikes is bad news for the network so they’ll only make MASSIVE and very valuable partners “managed” as they now share the responsibility of a copyright strike with a “managed” partner.

“If you’re managed, you’re fine and can monetize anything you want. If you’re affiliate, your’re royally fucked and you might as well just quit YouTube.

“Summary: 99% of YouTube gaming channels will die soon.”

For those doing this as a full time job, it surely comes as a huge blow. Publishers seemed to be using home-grown videos as an increasing avenue for coverage, and while games like Battlefield 4 have received plenty of videos from people like jackfrags that are – essentially – free advertising – you’d expect them to be encouraged, not nuked in this fashion.

Publishers aligned against new wave of copyright claims

Deep Silver‘s Maurice Tan said on Twitter that the publisher is not issuing any Content ID claims, later reinforcing this stance with a longer statement placing the blame on Idol and Shock Entertainment, encouraging users to dispute the claims, and confirming it has raised the issue with YouTube.

“Deep Silver has no intention of preventing players, who like to create gaming content on YouTube using our games, from doing so. Nor do we seek to block any videos of the kind. This includes Let’s Play, Walkthrough, Review, or other edited or commentated videos that are monetized by a player. Whether your opinion of our games is positive or negative in your YouTube video, it is not our right as a games publisher to infringe on your basic right to voice your opinion freely using a public platform,” the company said.

“We will be monitoring the changes on YouTube and any other online medium that lets our fans share their common passion for games, and react and adapt to facilitate our communities wherever they are. You will not be alone in this, whatever changes may come. Within the games industry, including at our competitors, there are many who share this vision. Adapting to change may sometimes take time, so we hope that the gaming community will be patient with not just us, but others as well, as we collectively strive to resolve any issues that arise.”

Ubisoft also issued a statement urging anyone who receives a claim from Idol to step forward and ask to have them removed.

Bossa Studios of Surgeon Simulator fame, issued a statement saying it wants to reassure YouTubers that it gives its “express permission to anyone who wishes to create Let’s Play or gaming commentary videos using our games.”

“We love to see people playing our games, and will continue to be actively involved with our fans and YouTube community,” said the firm in a statement to VG247. “YouTubers’ passion for what they do not only inspires other fans to play, but also the Bossa team to make our games better. We’re always excited to see what fans can do with our games.”

Here are similar responses from Capcom, Naughty Dog and Codemasters.

YouTube’s response

Meanwhile, YouTube has issued a statement on the matter to Game Informer, stating anyone who is issued an infringement notice can file a dispute.

“Nothing illustrates the incredible growth and evolution of YouTube better than the enterprise class of businesses being built on the platform today,” a YouTube spokesperson stated. “As these networks grow, we’re making product and policy updates that will help them operate at scale. We are also rolling out tools that will provide more transparency for creators and networks alike. This is part of our commitment to ensure that all enterprise partners can continue to thrive and be successful on YouTube.

“We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of MCNs. This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid.”

Do you run a YouTube channel? Have you received strikes? If so, what’s your take on the matter?

Latest

82 Comments

  1. Kieran

    Its weird why they would ban free advertising

    #1 8 months ago
  2. GrimRita

    @1 because they are stupid. Most publishers and Marketing tits don’t understand just how vital ‘Lets Play’ and other such videos are.

    But I guess its all about greed and poor Youtube are caught up in a lawsuit over copyright and have to act.

    All publishers seem to care about is the short life span of their game, the limited DLC and how much they can get back before they make another generic game

    Sad day for the gamer
    Consumers 1-1 Retarded Publishers

    #2 8 months ago
  3. MFBB

    #1 they dont want you to earn money with it, which is kinda understandable.

    Someone uses your product (music/video/game/IP etc) and makes money without asking you or offering you some of those profits.

    You know someone like PewDiePie at the top of Youtube, is earning around 4-5 million dollars 2013 using music/games content from companies etc.

    They want some of that profit for sure.

    #3 8 months ago
  4. Eregol

    Guess this is why videogamer.com isn’t putting their stuff on Youtube at the moment.

    #4 8 months ago
  5. Dave Cook

    @2 It’s not publishers issuing the strikes.

    #5 8 months ago
  6. SplatteredHouse

    https://twitter.com/TiLMEN/status/410722530597408768 also, The Jimquisition covered this topic yesterday: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8565-Copyright-War

    #6 8 months ago
  7. jon_

    Well, Capcom striked one of the videos on my website Youtube channel because I used like 5 seconds of Dead Rising 3 Launch Trailer, I tried to get the claim removed and got a message saying “Capcom declined to remove the report so the video cannot be monetized in any way and also it could be removed from your channel”.
    Great.

    #7 8 months ago
  8. Dave Cook

    @7 That goes completely against their claim that hey’re not making strikes. Thanks for exposing that one Jon.

    @6 Yep, but we just got a whole ton of quotes and new info on the matter. I’ll check out Jim’s piece after lunch.

    #8 8 months ago
  9. SplatteredHouse

    @5 Absolutely it isn’t. The publishers are stepping in to fend off the claims by authorising usage, once they are made aware of the incidents. Youtube/content producers not having to take on faceless multimedia license holder themselves is bound to be a relief to many.

    @Dave I haven’t been able to view the vid myself, yet, but Jim’s new Escapist position, (that site’s high video output, along with his own YT activity) would suggest to me he might have something worth hearing on this.

    #9 8 months ago
  10. hives

    It’s silly. People will just go to their own websites, like RedLetterMedia.

    Shame what YouTube has become. I mean, striking down video, not even LP, but news video, because there was 12 seconds of boss battle music in background…?

    And the new monetization review system will kill all news channells. Waiting 2 days for aproval? Yeah, sure…

    I just hope all good YouTubers will be fine after taking their videos elsewhere.

    #10 8 months ago
  11. TheBlackHole

    What. A. Joke.

    Love TheRadBrad’s channel.

    #11 8 months ago
  12. Joe Musashi

    “I hate so much that companies are now making money off of my voice and my work.”

    Somebody needs to get a sense of perspective.

    I greatly enjoy Lets Play videos and the like, but this action only serves to reinforce how deluded people are when it comes to content ownership and rights – and the right to profit from material owned by others.

    JM

    #12 8 months ago
  13. CyberMarco

    It’s like FIAT asking me to pay them royalties for using my (bought) car for taxi fares!

    #13 8 months ago
  14. xxxGamesMasterxxx

    There’s a new war coming “The Copyright War”, Prepare for mayhem.

    #14 8 months ago
  15. SplatteredHouse

    This Tetraninja? reached out to larger channels after he’s found himself with 400 vids and climbing that have been claimed against https://twitter.com/TetraNinja/status/410451595235561472
    Shows how much of these channels I watch. There’s just very little time I want to spend watching other people play a game, unless the focus is on “critiquing” of the subject matter, in which I’m already sufficiently interested in hearing about.
    (inb4, buttherearereviewsforthatlol)

    That aside, I hope they get a new stake put in the ground soon. Permitting claiming against anything existing seems bizarre, if not also opportunistic in the extreme. Youtube, what is it doing?

    #15 8 months ago
  16. Cobra951

    @13: Interesting analogy. But the legitimate claims would be more like you’re using technology stolen from your car on a new product that you are marketing successfully. How many of them are legitimate? I have no idea. But I do know that copyright must be protected by the owner, or it is lost. It’s a legal requirement. It could be these are just greedy, corporate bad guys. But I’m not ready to conclude that just yet. I need to read more about the whole mess.

    #16 8 months ago
  17. SplatteredHouse

    https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/410779054502326272 @16 Claims of that nature can only be illegitimate. More: “The videos they’re flagging are all explicitly parody ones using trailer footage. It’s so dumb.”

    #17 8 months ago
  18. The_Red

    Guys… guys!? What happened to YouTube?
    First they did the horrible overhaul of comment system a few weeks ago and now this, which is a million times worse than anything SEGA or Nintendo have doing to the videos with their games.

    #18 8 months ago
  19. Cobra951

    Interesting. Seems like the perfect opportunity for some upstart to grab a piece of Youtube’s market. Creativity needs a less monolithic outlet than Google.

    #19 8 months ago
  20. CyberMarco

    @Cobra951

    Another one, music corporations asking royalties for playing the music they published in my pub.

    #20 8 months ago
  21. SplatteredHouse

    Apparently, Machinima, one of the largest game content MCN (Multi-channel-network) had no clue what was going on, until people informed them about it, after the claims began in earnest. They claim all networks are being similarly battered.

    @20 I just noticed one of the composers/artist of music on twitter saying that he was not informed when his own content used in other people’s vids was subject to copyright claims. So, it seems to go both ways. If they’re believed to be “ripping off” his work, then why isn’t that person informed, as he is the most wronged party.
    @18 The Youtube comment system is godawful. They should keep Google out of YT, beyond the point that one owns the other. It’s like whoever presided over crushing what-was GameStation decided to go for a Round 2!

    #21 8 months ago
  22. OwningXylophone

    @ Cyber

    Assuming the pub in question has a PPL license (which they would legally need to play the music in the first place), then they already are.

    #22 8 months ago
  23. POOhead

    Good, all these lets play vids are fucking cringie, most of them release one day so they get money off advertisement anyways, both greedy cunts if you ask me

    #23 8 months ago
  24. SplatteredHouse

    @22 In that case, you’re taking a previously licensed media (eg a song) but you’re using it for instance, you put on the radio with its free carousel stream of appealing content to make the REST of your business/premises more appealing/homely to customers.
    You’re using someone else’s content to further your own, unrelated business. I’m not surprised if creators kicked off about that. Not for Public Broadcast doesn’t leave much to question.

    #24 8 months ago
  25. CyberMarco

    @OwningXylophone

    Does it matter? Playing music from a radio station then, or even from youtube.

    #25 8 months ago
  26. SplatteredHouse

    Yeah, but Marco, your pub is being enhanced and enriched, on a recurring basis by their content – for which you paid the one-time price of the cost of audio equipment. That’s why you can do that, provided you have the license, so you are paying a little to use their talent.

    #26 8 months ago
  27. darkkai3

    @21 I should probably quickly mention that what was TGS (The GameStation) was rebranded to Polaris.

    #27 8 months ago
  28. SplatteredHouse

    @27 No, no. I was talking about the retail chain, before it got homogenised. And now. ironically enough, under the name of GAME, has all the impression, presence and use of an electronics boutique! xD

    #28 8 months ago
  29. CyberMarco

    Still they didn’t see any of the money that I spent on the audio equipment.

    Also, what license do you mean? License to be able to operate a bar, or to be able to play music?

    #29 8 months ago
  30. SplatteredHouse

    Xylophone’s PPL that he/she mentioned. Whether it applies in your country or not, maybe it doesn’t, but it’s the public presentation part that requires the license. We are getting v far off-topic, though! :o

    #30 8 months ago
  31. Meatball

    What really annoys me about YT’s system is that it’s arse-backwards. Last time I checked, it was still “innocent until proven guilty”, but on YT it’s currently “guilty until proven innocent, and good luck proving that!”.

    #31 8 months ago
  32. Dirk

    Interesting to see Silent Hill 3 on there as it’s a 10 year old game. I wonder how far back they’re willing to go, will be seeing Spectrum and C64 game videos being removed?

    @31
    That’s always the case when money is involved.

    #32 8 months ago
  33. OwningXylophone

    @Cyber

    To be legally able to play music (via radio, youtube, jukebox, any other means) in a public place (that includes pubs, warehouses, anywhere where joe public could hear it) a PPL license is required. The money charged is then distributed to artists. As splattered says, basically you are using their work to further your own business.

    *EDIT* Good point, this may not exist in your country (as I have no idea where you are from), but I’d be amazed if it didn’t in one form or another… The record industry love collecting cash. And for the off topic remarks, this is no different to what is happening here, with the games industry trying to prevent people profiting from their work without any reimbursement.

    #33 8 months ago
  34. SplatteredHouse

    @33…Not quite. In the case of one, it is a usage, unaltered of an existing work. In the other, time and effort may have been spent to release what could be argued as a created derivative (after the channel owner’s input – and how much were THEY responsible for those views, and then potentially accumulated income…) That’s the difference – how do you quantify (and qualify) the extent to which the presenter’s input added to the content, in each case!

    If you were to say, well, why don’t they insist that NO monetization can occur – if all income goes to the game license holder – what does that do? Games publishers have an investment in keeping their games looking good, and being looked at. They’ve been issuing to reviewers regulations as to what can and can’t be seen; because of that. So perhaps, it’s better that channels take the time to produce quality content, when using those IPs and that footage. Can they do that. Can they afford to do that, if they’re going to see nothing from it?

    #34 8 months ago
  35. CyberMarco

    I see. I haven’t heard anything about it, at least for Greece and Italy. I’ll search around a bit to get a clue.

    *Edit.

    Found this. http://www.aepi.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=66&Itemid=112&lang=en

    I think you need a license after all…

    #35 8 months ago
  36. SplatteredHouse

    I think Youtube is central to the rise of these program/contents. A collecting point for all of the video content, which serves advertising. I think it unlikely to believe that the quality producers started off in it for the money; but wouldn’t they be as irked at seeing license holders banking on THEIR talent and input, just as much…They don’t shout as loud, and singularly, though.

    #36 8 months ago
  37. thiz

    This was announced to youtube partners months ago. Old news is old. There is nothing special about it. Content ID hits dont mean anything. Strikes are what people need to be concerned about.

    #37 8 months ago
  38. SplatteredHouse

    Yes, and spam (comments that add nothing of value to the discussion) is still pointless. Dismiss all you want, but these “hits” clearly mean a lot to the content producer in the video. As well as the others in his position we’ve mentioned in this thread and seen speak out, recently. He states that he can’t do what he is doing today, in the event that he cannot monetise his work.

    #38 8 months ago
  39. thiz

    @38: Deadly argument aka “I reply to you and tell you that your comment is spam, so I win” – are you 12? Seriously. People never understand what Content-ID actually mean. They are just to stupid to differentiate it from other stuff. Which is what makes all of these comments worthless.

    A Content-ID hit is just means that there is a signature found on your video that indicates that you might have used some stuff that doesnt belong to you but it doesnt effect monetizing in any shape or form. Please get a clue before commenting on topics like this.

    I am a content producer myself, and its a fact, that this new wave of Content-ID hits dont matter. People just want to get mad about something and go for drama, because that is what simpleminded human beings are best at.

    And to add something more to this, @32:

    SEGA bans accounts instantly, if you post something about Shining Force 2, thats how far they go back ;)

    #39 8 months ago
  40. SplatteredHouse

    @39. Your fist comment amounted to “I’m not interested in the subject of this thread”. That’s spam. It didn’t need saying. But still, there are lots of other ones.
    Also, it’s been repeated today, that this process is leaving people’s videos in a state to where they can earn nothing from making them. I don’t know what the cause was (and there’s no point me knowing, so I’m not interested to) but if people are out money, like that, then that is clearly not nothing.

    I don’t care about Content ID. Another patchwork solution to an ingrained problem, ignored too long. I’m interested in quality content being produced and alternative entertainment niches being catered to, after the decline/failure of traditional sources to serve audiences sufficiently. If those content producers are not able to make the content, then that could be a big deal.

    @39 An especially cretinous move, on SEGA’s part. that debacle. Not even apologised directly for their actions, yet, either.

    #40 8 months ago
  41. salarta

    I’m looking forward to a new company coming up to replace YouTube as the dominant video sharing platform out of this idiocy. YouTube sucks. It’s also fast approaching a point where it’s MySpace levels of outdated in its approach to things.

    Edit: Also, I have one lone video on YouTube from years back that’s essentially a “fan music video” for FF4 using a song by Angela Aki. I haven’t received any notices.

    #41 8 months ago
  42. Ireland Michael

    Won’t happen.

    Video hosting is expensive. Users on YouTube have such large audiences that moving to a new platform for most existing channels would be financial suicide. It is the dominan platform by a huge, huge margin, and these people are not going to sacrifice their personal welfare for your petty internet brand grudge.

    And even if a new site did somehow sprout up and replace it, it would still be bound by the exact same copyright laws as YouTube anyway.

    The problem here isn’t entirely with YouTube. It’s with this music organisation abusing the system. The fair use rules (a trailer freely provided by someone else shouldn’t be subject to these kinds of copyright issues, for instance) are what need to be looked into here. Google could definitely do with improving the whole process, I won’t deny that.

    Let’s Plays are the creatively barren wasteland of the internet though, and I’d be more than happy to see them die – if people want to earn money out of someone else’s content, they should at least be obligated to put some damn effort into it.

    #42 8 months ago
  43. SplatteredHouse

    http://t.co/2Sr7UaNYkL < Address the Sess will feature this Youtube business. Lots of clued in people (indeed, affected/involved people) are likely to be amongst the guests at 4PST/7EST.

    Also, Youtube released an official statement: http://www.tubefilter.com/2013/12/11/youtube-official-statement-contentid-claims/
    Basically, they're saying it's: a)not their problem. b) business as usual.

    #43 8 months ago
  44. absolutezero

    Its only also going to affect the people that do this as a job, which usually results in the laziest possible videos.

    The best LP’s come out of SA just like they always have and always will, things that have had so much time and effort put into them that in some places to puts the actual game to shame.

    Like this :

    http://lparchive.org/Silent-Hill-Homecoming/

    At some stage in the past it became freely acceptable to upload videos of a brand new game all the way through to the end the day before they even officially release. Its perfectly understandable that the producers would get a little pissed at all of their work being up for show from start to finish.

    On the other hand the board game scene has shown that theres a massive market for play throughs, it does not dim the desire to play or indeed purchase the board game in question. It fires community.

    #44 8 months ago
  45. SplatteredHouse

    “Its only also going to affect the people that do this as a job, which usually results in the laziest possible videos.”

    Are you actually stating, that people who find they can afford the time to put the effort in, to actually craft their coverage and content, and present it at an appreciable standard – who are as interested and passionate about the subject they’re covering, as well as the presentation – are the ones usually uploading any ol’ shit?! That just flies completely in the face of what I am seeing.

    #45 8 months ago
  46. absolutezero

    pewdiepie.

    Now compare any of those, or RadBrad orrrr any of the huge prolific popular channels, Game Grumps, Yogscast etc.

    Compare those to anything from the lparchive.

    #46 8 months ago
  47. SplatteredHouse

    exception != norm. I couldn’t stand to watch his segment in the VGX show, I also had to mute the stream for that segment he featured in, in it -it sounded so awful D:

    Even so, let’s take as given, that the lparchive is a gleaming font, the executive suite,a palatial bounteous eden of gaming related content and discussion. Give it the benefit of the doubt.

    So, how much of that pristine nature is due to its reserved, niche position comparitively, compared to YT?
    How more stringent is the individual moderation and vetting at that scale, for instance. Would that be viable to maintain, if lparchive were to inherit disenfranchised Youtube refugees? The advertisers get sold space on there, and then, what if the same eyes that focus today on Youtube, move with the flood towards lparchive – would it be the same?

    #47 8 months ago
  48. absolutezero

    lparchive is actually just a library of LP’s taken from the Let’s Play sub-forum of Something Awful. Its more or less the place that came up with the original archetypal set-up for most of what we consider LPs today.

    Its also home to Retspurae the channel thats dedicated more or less to mocking horrible LP’s.

    The level of qualitty control and moderation on that forum is through the roof, its what leads to so much effort being put into what they do, its for the passion of gaming and discussing and sharing, its never really been about money. Thas not going to change, whats going to happen is that the people that do this for cash now have to find something else to do. They have an unwritten rule on that forum that a game must be released for over 3 months before an LP can be started. The videos usually follow some sort of ordered sequence instead of videos going up constantly everyday in order to grab views and thus make money. Its lets them work on things longer, it lets them get better at the games they play.

    So to answer the question, the lparchive will not change because Something Awful is not going to change.

    Seeing that pewdiepie is an exception is fair enough but he has the most subscribed channel on the youtube, I think its 16 million plus right now. He pumps out the low quality content imaginable, its just his face in the corner of the screen screaming about being raped and such shit. Its painful. He makes millions from that. Its cynical, exploitative and depressing.

    There are plenty of non-LP gaming channels that I seriously doubt will be going anywhere, videogamer.tv, totalbiscuit etc etc.

    #48 8 months ago
  49. SplatteredHouse

    Oh, right! I think I have seen that place referenced before, in past discussions. A sort of LP purist collective.
    “They have an unwritten rule on that forum that a game must be released for over 3 months before an LP can be started.”

    Which introduces another consideration from the Youtube side: Relevance. How long a piece of content is going to draw the numbers of viewers. For instance, news coverage/opinion. That might be of relevance to the day, or a short period of time after it’s published. If those content producers get their content demonetised until (examples have been put forward of on average thirty days to contest a claim – some associates/third parties drawing things out to the maximum time before acting to settle the matter) but if much later, much later, then is that a sustainable model.

    “Its lets them work on things longer, it lets them get better at the games they play.”

    Another thing, there. In that case, you are as much perhaps, watching for the presenter, as/than the game. The game serving largely as an arena for the presenter to perform within. That strikes me as significantly different to content produced (a derivative work) from the basis of a game and/or its content.

    On your last sentence, I see where you would believe that, but it’s the reason they’re not going anywhere that’s key. TB’s channel is within the Polaris group. He would probably be a Managed channel of Polaris, under YT’s definition. He has not been impacted in any way, by these actions. It’s the Affiliate channels that have now been made open to restrictions that previously applied only to Unaffiliated channels/producers, that have been getting hammered.

    #49 8 months ago
  50. modshroom128

    good, this is the best day of my life.

    now faggots like pewdiepie and dsp will be out of jobs. thank you god.

    #50 8 months ago
  51. bartveenz

    My Uncle Jonathan got an almost new white Chevrolet Camaro Coupe just by some parttime working online from home. straight from the source http://goo.gl/5dwKOi (Home more)

    #51 8 months ago
  52. mariaroze

    my friend’s mom makes $63 an hour on the computer. She has been out of work for seven months but last month her payment was $18465 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.cash29.com/

    #52 8 months ago
  53. SplatteredHouse

    Watch that Address the Sess from last night for more informed talk on this. The man behind @ForkParker was a superb guest, especially. And, although they did not have representatives of the antagonists, often times, he in particular, offered some important considerations to challenge the rest of the panel. As for Youtube – from their own statement -they don’t give a crap, so long as they’re not liable. Even still. they’ve thrown their content producers to the wolves.

    #53 8 months ago
  54. Dark

    oh man , i feel sorry for joe :(

    #54 8 months ago
  55. xxxGamesMasterxxx

    Love AngryJoe. Disgusting the way YouTube is right now. They should all jump to Twitch.

    #55 8 months ago
  56. GrimRita

    Yup.Youtube need to do a better job of how it deals with such claims. This could really destroy the foundation of which youtube was built on.

    And if you piss off AngryJoe, you may as well just end it lol

    #56 8 months ago
  57. unacomn

    I’ve been using Youtube for video content hosting for a few years now. Not being affiliated with a network, I have always been the target of Content ID claims. I’ve even received copyright strikes on content like the B-Roll of WoW Cataclysm, that Blizzard made available to the press, which I used for a video preview of the game. I was unable to properly use my account for a long time because of that strike. And that was even before monetization was available in my country. I just posted it because that’s where my site hosted videos.

    I have to deal with things like these on a day to day basis. I’m getting claims from dead companies like THQ for using bits of trailers, I’m getting rejected disputes from Nintendo for a 10 minute news show that ends with 15 seconds of a Zelda trailer.

    I’ve resorted to humming video game music in certain situations, just to avoid a content strike. I’ve mimed gameplay. I’ve re-enacted cut-scenes with myself as multiple characters. And I’ve been doing this for years, all because self hosting HD content costs me more than I will ever make in this profession, and every other video distribution system either lacks many features and most of all, they lack an audience.

    The Content ID system is a sham, and every publisher that has used it, EVERY publisher that has used it to enforce its content is responsible. They signed up for that, they chose that!
    They gave a loaded gun to a derange monkey and that monkey shot me, and keeps shooting me, again and again and again.

    The only thing that has changed is that the people that supported this damned protection mafia monopoly got burned. They now know what every other youtuber has to go through every single day.

    #57 8 months ago
  58. 4G

    Another video on the issue, from Rev3Games, also featuring TotalBiscuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw

    I think this is absolutely disgusting, YouTube are taking away people’s livelihoods, just to fill their own pockets. I Say fuck YouTube, it’s time for an alternative.

    #58 8 months ago
  59. Bomba Luigi

    That “Working for Google” Spam fits in so perfect here.

    #59 8 months ago
  60. Onyx

    I run a small record label selling CDs and MP3s in a niche genre. I can speak with some experience as to what is going on here, the automated system is only a part of the problem.

    The other aspect of this is somewhat deeper and more convoluted, and it is do with with the process of how music is delivered to the large digital stores like iTunes, Amazon, Zune and so on.

    Here is a brief run down of the process:

    1) Mr Musician Creates Music
    2) Mr Musician signs up with a digital distributor, like CD Baby, IODA etc.
    3) Mr Musician uploads his music to digital distributor.
    4) Digital Distributor feeds this content into the stores like iTunes etc.
    5) Digital Distributor creates a digital finger-print that is sent to YouTube.

    What this means is that if someone now uploads a video to YouTube using Mr Musician’s music a number of things will happen:

    1) The video will get flagged for matched third part content.
    2) The video may get a “Buy Mr Musician’s music from iTunes” link.
    3) Ad revenue earned on the video will be paid to the Digital Distributor.
    4) Mr Musician will receive his cut.

    But here is the problem; if Mr Musician isn’t a musician but is instead a ‘content creator’ – by that I mean he makes MP3′s licensing existing music strange things will happen.

    Here is something that happened to me:

    1) I took a piece of music from the public domain. This was 100% free, and 100% allowable to be used anywhere in the world for any purpose, including commercial and monitization.
    2) I created a CD and MP3 using this public domain track.
    3) I uploaded this track to my digital distributor.
    4) Digital distributor sent this to iTunes etc.
    5) Digital distirbutor created a digital fingerprint of the track and sent it to YouTube.
    6) A while later, Mrs Jones created a video on YouTube using the public domain track. Her video is content flagged for using “my” music. The ownership is claimed by my digital distributor (even though they don’t own the rights to it either – they merely distribute it and have no legal rights to it at all).
    7) Both my Digital Distributor and myself now get a cut of Mrs Jones ad revenue, and she gets nothing. I have no ability to release this music to her.

    Crazy situation is that I could also upload a video to YouTube using my own track and it will also get content flagged.

    The situation is actually larger than just YouTube and Google. They are using a system that has been built up over the past few years by companies like Apple, and their distribution partners such as CD Baby, IODA (now The Orchard), IRIS, TuneCore and many, many others.

    It is a big snowball that has been rolled up to the top of a huge fucking mountain, gathering up all content in its path.

    When Ubisoft create a Soundtrack album for their game, if they use a digital distributor to send that album off to iTunes, such as IDOL – then IDOL will be the ones that flag your YouTube video and Ubisoft will never even hear about it.

    So the big snowball has gathered up everything it possibly can and now it has caused an avalanche.

    Problem is, this is bigger than YouTube, Google and iTunes. This whole system is what the entire online digital music industry has been built upon. Not many people are aware of this yet, as it has been going on quietly in the background. YouTube merely plugged the affiliates right into this same system, which has served to highlight how messed up it is.

    These digital distributors such as IDOL have been making millions and millions from this process. Think about it, all they do is take the ablum, upload it to iTunes and then they get around a 20% cut of all sales made! And they have largely done this with an invisiable hand that is being enforced by YouTube’s content matching system.

    It is allowed to continue because it serves the interests of the music industry. It is all managed for them by third parties without them having to get involved.

    But it seems the likes of Deep Silver, Ubisoft and Capcom didn’t realise the net effect of what they have signed up to. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

    #60 8 months ago
  61. Cobra951

    @61: Good God . . . The powerful keep mopping up all ways for the little guy to earn some money. The trickle-down faucet has been shut and sealed.

    Thank you for the informative read. I had no idea how nefarious the whole thing had become. I should not be surprised by now at the greed of the big boys. But this one did; shocked the hell out of me.

    #61 8 months ago
  62. docLEXfisti

    Why is there no mention of the company that started this? Why is there no mention of SONY asking this of it’s reviewers. Are you a Sony blog, or are you critical journalists?

    Wow I am really baffled …

    #62 8 months ago
  63. Pytox

    Valve FTW!

    #63 8 months ago
  64. Beta

    http://www.oddworld.com/2013/12/oddworlds-position-on-youtubes-new-content-id-system/

    Oddworld is also encouraging users to make videos and contact them if they have any trouble :)

    #64 8 months ago
  65. SplatteredHouse

    The creator of Retro City Rampage has spoken on twitter about his amazement at finding his companies video flagged because of their inclusion of original music THEY (RCR makers) own… o.o

    #65 8 months ago
  66. G1GAHURTZ

    People just need to ditch YouTube if they want to keep getting paid.

    Simple as.

    #66 8 months ago
  67. Dave Cook

    @66 the system is fucked isn’t it? What a mess.

    #67 8 months ago
  68. BlazeHedgehog

    I got about 5000 subscribers, creeping up on 6000. I only just became part of the monetization game with Fullscreen Entertainment, but that was after more than a year of trying to fight with Youtube directly to get ads on my videos. They are a remarkably stingy company, fully dedicated to covering their own asses and not causing too much of a ruckus with big-media partners that have deep pockets – even if that means going against the letter of the law.

    That being said, I have my fingers crossed that this is just growing pains. A lot of the flagging going on out there seems to be Youtube plugging in a music database that covers a very vast number of songs. Gameplay often contains background music, so that background music is matching to this song database and triggering copyright in favor of the music distributor (which is usually a completely different entity from the game developers and publishers).

    But as we’re seeing, developers are jumping to try and straighten things out; with the volume of requests coming in, one would hope that new policies would be put in place to deal with this kind of stuff – obviously not at Youtube, but through the developers, publishers, and music distributors. I imagine that a large number of developers who publish soundtracks on iTunes through Phonofile, Merlin, IDOL, etc. are going to specify certain usage clauses right out of the gate to avoid this kind of stuff in the future.

    The real frustrating part is undoubtedly Youtube’s logic; they get a kickback on ad money, so obviously they want to attribute a license to everything. While they can hide behind the guise of “We’re paying content creators what they’re owed”, what that really means is that regardless of who they’re attributing ownership to, Youtube gets a percentage. This is a move that, more than anyone else, will make Youtube themselves millions of dollars. Nobody explicitly requested ads be placed on these videos? Doesn’t matter, Youtube’s going to cut them a check and bank some of those ad dollars for themselves.

    The issue then becomes whether or not these companies refuse this free money forever. You look at the proliferation of season pass DLC, of F2P systems in retail games, the vilification of used games, and it’s pretty clear that at some point, some of these companies are going to get REAL desperate for any income source they can get.

    But I’m still hoping everything will work out in the end.

    #68 8 months ago
  69. polygem

    “capitalism is indeed organised crime and we’re all the victims”

    refused

    #69 8 months ago
  70. absolutezero

    So it seems that with most things is life its directly the music industry being utter bastards.

    #70 8 months ago
  71. DarkElfa

    @70, you make me giddy inside sometimes.

    #71 8 months ago
  72. SplatteredHouse

    https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/411368364099899392

    These Videocopilot (media provider intermediaries – almost a digital warehouse of media asset rights?) people were named in one of AngryJoe’a videos as being ones responsible for some of the claims on his videos…Apparently not. It’s quite clear that they have their own legal teams trying to sort out this dredged up mess, brought down at Google’s insistence!

    Joe contacted VCP directly, and the response: “@AngryJoeShow It’s insane. Our attorney’s tried all sorts to stop the other company and contact youtube, nothing worked!”

    They’re as much thrown off by this as the license holding content creators.

    #72 8 months ago
  73. Dragon

    Now, after this latest update, there can be no doubt that something is horrendously wrong with the current policies. The onus is on Google to correct it asap and not be evil

    #73 8 months ago
  74. Darkfield

    I can’t even.make a joke about it, it is already a very bitter, sad and tasteless joke on its own. Whoever came up with this idea should be burnt alive in public.

    #74 8 months ago
  75. Luciferous

    @74 – this is a company who just bought a company that designs military robots… This is just phase one of their plan for world domination.

    #75 8 months ago
  76. Darkfield

    ^Skynet inc!!!

    #76 8 months ago
  77. absolutezero

    They need to leave.

    If Dailymotion bothered to update its site and server back end it could bring across a hell of alot of viewers who are angry at Youtube.

    Its not going to do anything and the entire music industry digital distribution system is not going to change.

    Sure its terrible but I assume youtube may start to notice a slight difference in revenue if pewdiepie decided to move somewhere else.

    #77 8 months ago
  78. abdooltk

    FUCK FUCK FUCK to copy rights ,I bought a game and I have all rights copy to use so fuck them and i can’t Wait this game it’s amazing….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4gKeH8VlGI

    #78 8 months ago
  79. The_Red

    This is just shameful. Seriously, copy right is NOT a bad thing in and out of itself but the way YouTube / Google are enforcing it is just… shameful.

    #79 8 months ago
  80. salarta

    Why is it that the industry that falls the furthest in the background of multimedia is the one filled with people and corporations that act like colossal douches?

    The more they pull stuff like this, where EVEN THE ACTUAL COPYRIGHT HOLDERS have their own stuff reported because some music entity they worked through put in a claim, the less likely I am to believe there are any “victims” other than some asshole exec’s paint job on his million dollar yacht. Incidents like this really make an excellent case for copyright not even existing, if it’s going to be abused without even a single thought or care for how to implement it properly.

    #80 8 months ago
  81. Cobra951

    After reading Update 6, I think there has to be a class-action suit brewing here. Has to be. That is clearly wrongdoing, no matter how pro-establishment your stance may be.

    #81 8 months ago
  82. SplatteredHouse

    What a bunch of crap this is! https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2770411?hl=en&ref_topic=2778545

    It says here, that if you get a content ID claim, then you can appeal…To the CLAIMANT (?!? wtaf) who then determines whether or not to fire a legal notice at you or retract the ID claim. I read on MCV the full content of the letter Google sent out to Youtubers, and one of the tips links to that. And then, AT THE TIME the legal notice is sent the “uploader” receives copyright strike.

    Considering, if you were to challenge, and they upheld – well, that doesn’t matter, because unless you want to take it to a courtroom, enjoy your strike, because you’re in the wrong… o.o It’s mind-boggling to read, that people let this slide.

    Fuck all of that. What a load of nonsense. There needs to be an alternative, because I don’t know how any consumer/audience driven entity would sign up to such absurd, kangaroo court arbitration. I find it outrageous.

    #82 8 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.