Where's the Fair Use Awareness Topic

[unoriginalSNiP]

I must admit that I've only made my account just for Ross's birthday soundtrack topic, but this is something that everyone needs to know about.

 

Not too long ago, Doug Walker, A.K.A the Nostalgia Critic, made a video concerning the abuse of YouTube's copyright system and complete ignorance of Fair Use.

zVqFAMOtwaI

 

Here's what is happening-

 

Numerous people on YouTube have been met with hostility by claimants at one point, because of anything that comes close to copyrighted material. This has been happening for years now, all because of the DMCA system YouTube set in place. But they may as well say that it is made to be abused, since it has threatened every content creator on that platform. IHE (I Hate Everything) had a video false-flagged by a hypocritical man who was the director of a bad film IHE reviewed. YMS (YourMovieSucks) has endless amounts of copyright claims that he can't even get rid of because of a strike. IHE had his whole channel deleted soon after for 17 hours without YouTube never explaining anything other than "spam." Now, that removal may not have been connected to copyright, but that's what could happen to YOU at any possible moment. Having the copyright system managed completely by bots and no humans especially makes the content creators on YouTube helpless and weak.

 

Another example of this, which led Doug Walker to make the video, had Hollywood deleting his videos on YouTube, making multiple claims, all without Fair Use in mind. Actually no, all while giving the middle finger to Fair Use. This is what made a huge decline in Doug's videos, eventually making reviews made completely out of extremely poorly-done reenactments instead of using movie clips.

 

Brad Jones, made a review of a movie he watched using raw footage of him and his buddies, in a car, discussing the movie. No clips whatsoever, no copyrighted audio. But, lo and behold, he still got a copyright claim... that means the people who make these claims actually watch these videos, they don't give a shit about anyone and they're willing to make sure they'll make monetization off these videos. Oh, did I mention that anyone on the other side of the copyright debacle can take away your monetization of your videos and always get away with it?

 

All this while the claimants get no penalty whatsoever. They can go scot-free doing whatever the hell they're doing with the copyright right now without being punished.

 

More information will be given by watching the video above, but this is something that needs to be stopped. Entire livelihoods are at stake while the dated copyright system is still being used. That includes you, IHE, the Accursed Farms YouTube channel, Nostalgia Critic, independent animators/musicians, everyone who is still making videos at all. People are taking notice of this and are spreading this video, and subject matter, around. People including Markiplier, Jacksepticeye, RubberNinja, AlphaOmegaSin, PeanutButterGamer, Boogie2988, etc.

 

It can take an eternity for YouTube to actually do something about this, but something will happen eventually if you, everyone, and everyone you know make a big noise about it. Because the abuse of the copyright system threatens the idea of freedom of speech on YouTube, and maybe even the internet. If you didn't want the Fine Bros trademarking a basic human function, "React", then you do not want corporations taking away your monetization on YouTube or even your channels.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

Well, the truth of the matter is that the "monetization" is not yours. It's Google's and it's up to them to decide whether they want to pay you money for attracting viewers to their advertisers or not. And whatever they decide - you either take it or leave. And that has nothing to do with the concept of copyright or DMCA itself.

 

But, sure, the flawed US laws are being used as a weapon on the internet... And will always be used until the laws themselves are changed... But they won't be, so...

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

By that logic, it's a TV network's monetization if they fhoose not to pay show creators for bringing viewers to their advertisements.

[Vapymid]

Well, yes, they do it all the time. Heard of "cancelled shows"? And if you want to bring your show on TV without a substantial investment and mostly at your own risk - forget about it...

 

YouTube is different in that the barrier for entry is low... but the reward is low too.

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

If you can't see how shutting something down entirely is different from continuing to air and monetize it and just not paying the creator, you should vacate the conversation immediately. And every other conversation while you're at it.

 

This is a breach of contract. End of story.

[Vapymid]

This is a breach of contract.

 

LOL

 

Playing sea-lawyer again?

 

If you're so sure - go and sue them...

 

Or, better - go read their T&C...

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

This is a breach of contract.

 

LOL

 

Playing sea-lawyer again?

 

If you're so sure - go and sue them...

 

Or, better - go read their T&C...

 

Regards

 

This is why you are insufferable. An ad hominem attack, two blatant fallacies and then acting like never making a point for the opponent to debunk somehow makes you the winner instead of the complete non-contributor it actually makes you.

 

The moment you become involved the entire conversation becomes a complete waste of time.

[Vapymid]

You are funny... You first tell me to fuck off because you don't understand the issue, then you say something very stupid but with the look on your face as if you know something about it, then you complain that I laughed at you for saying something stupid... And somehow I am to blame for all that...

 

"all because of the DMCA system YouTube set in place."

 

YouTube didn't set up "the DMCA system". DMCA is a law that has been passed by your country's legislature and which is a bad law and is being abused. Google must act according to that law in order to protect their arse from lawsuits by someone who has more money for lawyers than some puny average YouTuber. The OP has confused the cause and the effect in his post. I corrected him.

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

Bullshit in every sentence. But then, that's normal for you, Vapid.

 

You are funny... You first tell me to fuck off because you don't understand the issue, then you say something very stupid but with the look on your face as if you know something about it, then you complain that I laughed at you for saying something stupid... And somehow I am to blame for all that...

 

Ignoring the obvious run-on here, this is juicy. You assume I don't understand the issue, (which you prove is projection right below here), you say some unspecific thing I said was stupid, but neither point to the thing in question nor give reasons because if you were more specific I could actually respond to it and you KNOW your bullshit won't hold up to scrutiny... Then you do it again.

 

And yeah, you are to blame. For being so confident that you're right on the subject that you fail to even find out what the subject FUCKING IS.

 

"all because of the DMCA system YouTube set in place."

 

YouTube didn't set up "the DMCA system". DMCA is a law that has been passed by your country's legislature and which is a bad law and is being abused. Google must act according to that law in order to protect their arse from lawsuits by someone who has more money for lawyers than some puny average YouTuber. The OP has confused the cause and the effect in his post. I corrected him.

 

The issue isn't the DMCA law, you vapid, vacuous, insufferable waste of air, and you'd know that if you WATCHED THE VIDEO. It's the automated enforcement and appeals system, which is NOT A PART OF THE LAW. It's a bullshit system Google drafted to enforce said law without taking any liability, and it's a poorly designed mess. It's entirely automated, claims are enforced immediately, zealously and without question, there's no penalty for false claims and no accounting for fair use, which IS A PART OF THE LAW. Parody, reviews, criticism and anything that in any way transforms the work is covered under fair use.

 

That means a machinima made in Half-Life, for example, is EXEMPT from copyright claims by Valve, as it is very definitely covered under fair use. But if Valve came along and made an ILLEGAL copyright claim, Google's system would knock Ross off YouTube immediately, on the spot, without a human being ever being a part of the process.

 

Similarly, a review is also exempt to claims, no matter HOW much footage they use from the original media. Even if footage is rolling in the background of the ENTIRE video. But a lot of people get reviews, even positive ones, knocked off of YouTube because of this shitty policy. That's what this video is actually about, as all the people in question were reviewers.

 

But this isn't the only issue. Youtube has an appeals process. Allegedly. It only kinda works. It's actually not automated, which is fine, but it can often take weeks for it to be processed, sometimes much longer if it ever happens at all, because Google's using its trademark teams of highly trained monkeys to do all the legal work involved in looking at it, going "Oh, it's a review/parody/whatever, and therefore covered under fair use." and removing the claim. More bafflingly, it has a limited number of appeals, and in some cases you don't get any at all because of a false claim you can't dispute.

 

And in the mean time, if you were monetizing it, all the money you were making is outright stolen by the claimant, giving them incentive to file as many false claims as possible. And the money is NOT returned when the claim is proved false. There's not even a grace period, and once again NO penalty for false claims. Several companies only exist to file copyright claims for IP owners, and get a cut of each claim, and they abuse the system to its fullest.

 

It's not even a hard system to fix. Removing the limit on appeals, adding a grace period before action is taken and installing a penalty for false claims would be the simplest way to fix it, but YouTube won't do it because it legitimately does not care about its users one bit, in a very Electronic Artsy kind of way. It's more expensive and less convenient to actually enforce the law, so it's just making this token effort to do so and ignoring all the issues in a system that takes them zero effort to use, no matter how much it screws over their users.

 

THAT is the problem. And you would have KNOWN THAT if you had taken TWENTY MINUTES to WATCH THE VIDEO before REPLYING. In other words, if you weren't an insufferably vapid shill.

 

Regards

 

Remember how I didn't *actually* tell you to fuck off before? That was then. This is now.

[Jeb_CC]

Dammit, why is that everytime you guys have a disagreement, you choose to behead the other person whilst you're at it?? There's a difference between a civil debate and childish fighting. Insults aren't going to get you anywhere, so QUIT IT. Geez! Can I please have ONE serious discussion thread without nails being pried off of people's fingers and eyes gouged out with spoons? Thank you.

[Seattleite]

If Vapid would actually read (or in this case, watch) before he posted, I'm pretty sure this would happen less. It sure would make it easier to have a civil conversation with him if he bothered to know what the subject was first, like a reasonable person. But he's not a reasonable person, he's not interested in knowing what the topic actually is, he's a complete jerk to people who actually bothered to find out what we were talking about, and that makes it really hard not to slap him, at least verbally.

 

I know I'm not fixing anything insulting him. And I'm sorry it negatively affected your day, that wasn't my intent. My intent was to get him to LEAVE, and let people willing to at least WATCH the video in the OP and find out what the TOPIC IS take over, so we can have an actual discussion on the topic the OP started, rather than whatever Vapid assumed the topic was when he skimmed the title and cut straight to giving his irrelevant opinion, which WOULD actually be reasonable, even if I still don't agree with it 100%, if we were actually TALKING ABOUT THE DMCA.

[Vapymid]

But if Valve came along and made an ILLEGAL copyright claim, Google's system would knock Ross off YouTube immediately, on the spot, without a human being ever being a part of the process.

 

Whether something is illegal or not is for the Court to decide - not for Google. GoodlyGoogle will not expose itself to that and you wouldn't if you were in their place. This is your and the OP's problem - you are barking up the wrong tree...

 

Regards

Edited February 20, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Seattleite]

See what I mean?

[Jeb_CC]

Well you can make a start by stop calling him "Vapid". Choose "Vap" or something. Not Vapid. XD Vapid's a very negative term. >.> Also, you can't get someone to leave by replying to them. XP You just ignore the person and they'll stop talking on their own. It's like, that one kid from highschool that would always try to talk to you. Just like, turn yourself around, and face your back to him. X3 Problem solved. If you start talking to the dude, he's going to start talking back, and it will give him more reason to NOT leave.

I would add my share to the OT discussion but I don't know what it's about so anything I say will be completely pointless. X3 And because of that, no, I don't see what you mean. I'm just here to stop the snappy snapping.

[Seattleite]

Vapid, adj.

1. Bereft of strength, sharpness, flavour, etc; flat.

2. Boring or dull, lifeless.

3. Synonym to insipid.

 

Not an overly clever example of an insulting nickname, but I don't intend on using it again, and they can't all be winners.

 

Ignoring him doesn't make him go away, and it's never worked before. He sticks around and continues replying to people's posts anyway, and eventually somebody will take the bait and derail the thread with him. (Also, a lot of people actually get more determined to get your attention if you ignore them. So that analogy doesn't work.) I was trying something new. And no, it didn't work either.

 

This thread is strictly about YouTube's horrible automatic copyright enforcement system. He thinks it's about the DMCA itself, and he continues to interpret everything through that lens after being corrected. As a result, none of my arguments make sense to him, and he continues to be off-topic and carry the thread with him through sheer wilful ignorance.

 

The thread is derailed completely. And all because he wasn't willing to find out what the original topic actually was, and I didn't realize it right away.

[Heliocentrical]

Come get our finest quality salt at Seattlite's salt refinery. Get it while it's pungent. . Seriously though can go through one day without regurgitating an insult at someone? Every single one of posts that I've run across from you either reeks of this pointless, half-baked passive aggressiveness or is directly aggressive. It might help you get your points across if you don't call someone a dipshit every fifth post.

[Seattleite]

I'm not the bad guy here, I never was, and you aren't nearly active enough to have a clue what you're talking about.

[Jeb_CC]

Don't even reply to that, please. XD I would like to keep this place on-topic now, thank yooouuu...

EDIT: Aaand one minute too late. Dammit Seattleite. X3

On topic from... NOW. XD Please, thank you.

[Seattleite]

Sorry, mom.

 

I've said my piece on-topic. I think it's a terrible system, and it reveals that Google's priority is minimum effort rather than protecting their users. That makes business sense, but I disagree with it from an ethical perspective, and I definitely prioritize ethics, so that bothers me. The system could be easily fixed, but YouTube never will because the system works just fine for their purpose, which amounts to "Don't get sued and don't put any effort into not getting sued.", and they don't care how harmful it is to their users.

 

That's all I have to add that the OP didn't. The video is pretty complete and detailed in the information it provides.

[BTGBullseye]

My take on their system is that they do it the way they do because of the way the DMCA is worded... The DMCA give a massive advantage to those serving the notices, and a massive disadvantage to everyone else. Since that is the case, Google has erred on the side of caution to reduce the likelihood of litigation, which is extremely costly for the defendant, and very cheap for the prosecution.

 

I don't like the current takedown policies, but I do understand why they're the way they are, (the DMCA and other copyright laws) and don't blame Google/YouTube in the slightest for doing it the way they do.