News on Russian dubbed copies of my videos

Well, apparently people from stopgame that actually DID the voiceover using their own player without any ads afaik, and they wage war against those people who simply try to get money from actual content creators, by placing claims on EVERYTHING they can, running the channel that placed a claim on you. In basic words - people behind voiceover didnt do that, neither the site that they work with.

Serves them right, and dont be upset, please.

And i'd guess 70/30 splits are fine, you getting more, ofc. But i doubt that it will ever happen.

UPD: Looked up into everything and talked to people to clarify things.

 
Not very nice of them indeed! I can certainly understand why you're upset, Ross. I wish you wouldn't have to deal with all this sh**.

If you're down, just keep in mind that you bring joy to a lot of people
icon_e_smile.gif.bcbebef1ac5bf3046463bb802e22bbcc.gif


 
I don't blame you at all! It's obviously just a scam people pull when they realize your videos might not be protected.You did the right thing by countering them. If this ever happens again, and you think you might need legal or even financial help, don't hesitate to reach out to the community. You've done more than enough for all of us, we've got your back.

 
Welp, **it happens. Was little shamed for those people, since I'm Russian.

But I don't think nationality and language means a lot in internets. Just someone's do some thing, someone's don't.

So the decision is right and clear and there are not much to comment. And hope those things will not happen again, too.

(Can help with subtitle translations, but I think there are already someone doing this and this "someone" is better than me)

 
Well if Ross was motivated to make more episodes beyond episode 1, this whole copyright stink has probably killed it.

I'm sorry this happened to you man, this is the bullshit we expect from crappy indie-devs and corporations, not some Russian redub channel.

 
I get hit with the concept of people stealing ad money from Ross, and my mind starts chewing on itself.

I really, really hate advertising. It's like a subscription model where you pay in annoyance and, for many people, viruses. About a third of the people who come to my workplace for computer problems have been tricked by fake virus ads. Advertisers are the biggest threat to online privacy in most countries. Advertisers are the biggest threat to getting valid product information and honest reviews.

On the other hand, it's unquestionable that money being taken from Ross's work is money being taken from Ross. Even if one changes the voice work, there's the writing, the enormous amount of video editing, and the brand. Ironically I do respect the value of branding. Go figure.

This is the reason I'm glad there are good online donation methods now.

 
I get hit with the concept of people stealing ad money from Ross, and my mind starts chewing on itself.
I really, really hate advertising. It's like a subscription model where you pay in annoyance and, for many people, viruses. About a third of the people who come to my workplace for computer problems have been tricked by fake virus ads. Advertisers are the biggest threat to online privacy in most countries. Advertisers are the biggest threat to getting valid product information and honest reviews.

On the other hand, it's unquestionable that money being taken from Ross's work is money being taken from Ross. Even if one changes the voice work, there's the writing, the enormous amount of video editing, and the brand. Ironically I do respect the value of branding. Go figure.

This is the reason I'm glad there are good online donation methods now.
Click to expand...
I hear you, all I can say is I'd be happy for one of those "robot jobs" solutions so that advertising was a less necessary thing.
 
To be honest, I find the matter to be Ross' fault entirely, because if one wishes to get revenue for his work in other languages, he should care about it in the first place, for example by making an arrangement with translators and having them post their stuff on the main channel (Accursed farms in this case)

Control! Control! Control!

Stopgame.ru have been translating Freeman's mind around after Episode 4 was released. They were okay with me reposting their stuff a day or two after they make a release (which I didn't if anyone's concerned), to avoid viewjacking but whatever.

Point is - if you want to have your work to remain yours - be responsible and have it translated and released under your control.

As content creators, we have the ability to become "evil", like infamous Warner Brothers and alike are, ripping and tearing through content thieves. Question is - what does it take to use this power and claim what's lawfully yours?

Let's take Vsauce, Mike and Kevin AFAIK, are not concerned about not receiving part of revenue from their translated/stolen videos. Here's a quick look at one video of theirs


- Original - 4,348,471 views

- Russian dub - 169,968 views

- Another russian dub - 15,038 views
Which makes for 4% lost views to a russian, not english speaking audience. Is it significant? Depends on statistics? How much does a Freeman's mind 01 generate over a month? $400? If so, do 4% ($16) matter?

According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm - 77.9% of internet speaks (in declining order) English 26.3%, Chinese 20.8%, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Japanese, Malay, Russian 2.9%, French, German

So by covering all of those, except for English one may get control over additional 51% of population, tripling view count sole English provides.

Is it economically viable to get involved in all those shenanigans ? Translating, or getting one's content translated ? Only Ross can know.

Some people are fans and want to spread the joy on their own terms, working for free, others, like stopgame.ru wish to parasite on Ross' genius and with little effort increase traffic to their own projects, even with partially good intent (like promoting machinimas over russian speaking internet), money come into the equation. They sure think it's viable. Hiring translators and having them work. This is how I picture their internal conversation - "This is a piece of attraction, with $50 we can make it work for us, which will drive 50 000 users to our site. Is it good enough? Let's see! If 1 user * ads = $0.003, then 50 000 users * ads = $150. Solid investment! Should we share the revenue with Ross Scott? Who is Ross Scott? We don't care! Fuck Americans anyway."

I'm sorry if this comes controversial. I mean no offense against this community.

In short: Is this matter worth be concerned about? If yes - Is the copyright owner going to make a counter attack and claim his rights? If yes - what will that accomplish?

 
To be honest, I find the matter to be Ross' fault entirely, because if one wishes to get revenue for his work in other languages, he should care about it in the first place, for example by making an arrangement with translators and having them post their stuff on the main channel (Accursed farms in this case)
Control! Control! Control!

Stopgame.ru have been translating Freeman's mind around after Episode 4 was released. They were okay with me reposting their stuff a day or two after they make a release (which I didn't if anyone's concerned), to avoid viewjacking but whatever.

Point is - if you want to have your work to remain yours - be responsible and have it translated and released under your control.

As content creators, we have the ability to become "evil", like infamous Warner Brothers and alike are, ripping and tearing through content thieves. Question is - what does it take to use this power and claim what's lawfully yours?

Let's take Vsauce, Mike and Kevin AFAIK, are not concerned about not receiving part of revenue from their translated/stolen videos. Here's a quick look at one video of theirs


- Original - 4,348,471 views

- Russian dub - 169,968 views

- Another russian dub - 15,038 views
Which makes for 4% lost views to a russian, not english speaking audience. Is it significant? Depends on statistics? How much does a Freeman's mind 01 generate over a month? $400? If so, do 4% ($16) matter?

According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm - 77.9% of internet speaks (in declining order) English 26.3%, Chinese 20.8%, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Japanese, Malay, Russian 2.9%, French, German

So by covering all of those, except for English one may get control over additional 51% of population, tripling view count sole English provides.

Is it economically viable to get involved in all those shenanigans ? Translating, or getting one's content translated ? Only Ross can know.

Some people are fans and want to spread the joy on their own terms, working for free, others, like stopgame.ru wish to parasite on Ross' genius and with little effort increase traffic to their own projects, even with partially good intent (like promoting machinimas over russian speaking internet), money come into the equation. They sure think it's viable. Hiring translators and having them work. This is how I picture their internal conversation - "This is a piece of attraction, with $50 we can make it work for us, which will drive 50 000 users to our site. Is it good enough? Let's see! If 1 user * ads = $0.003, then 50 000 users * ads = $150. Solid investment! Should we share the revenue with Ross Scott? Who is Ross Scott? We don't care! Fuck Americans anyway."

I'm sorry if this comes controversial. I mean no offense against this community.

In short: Is this matter worth be concerned about? If yes - Is the copyright owner going to make a counter attack and claim his rights? If yes - what will that accomplish?


I think you have some good insights which should be considered. I also think you're saying the shame of the wrongdoing rests upon the victim. This is a mild example of course, but it's a pretty terrible attitude.
Click to expand...
 
To be honest, I find the matter to be Ross' fault entirely, because if one wishes to get revenue for his work in other languages, he should care about it in the first place, for example by making an arrangement with translators and having them post their stuff on the main channel (Accursed farms in this case)
Control! Control! Control!

Stopgame.ru have been translating Freeman's mind around after Episode 4 was released. They were okay with me reposting their stuff a day or two after they make a release (which I didn't if anyone's concerned), to avoid viewjacking but whatever.

Point is - if you want to have your work to remain yours - be responsible and have it translated and released under your control.

As content creators, we have the ability to become "evil", like infamous Warner Brothers and alike are, ripping and tearing through content thieves. Question is - what does it take to use this power and claim what's lawfully yours?

Let's take Vsauce, Mike and Kevin AFAIK, are not concerned about not receiving part of revenue from their translated/stolen videos. Here's a quick look at one video of theirs


- Original - 4,348,471 views

- Russian dub - 169,968 views

- Another russian dub - 15,038 views
Which makes for 4% lost views to a russian, not english speaking audience. Is it significant? Depends on statistics? How much does a Freeman's mind 01 generate over a month? $400? If so, do 4% ($16) matter?

According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm - 77.9% of internet speaks (in declining order) English 26.3%, Chinese 20.8%, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Japanese, Malay, Russian 2.9%, French, German

So by covering all of those, except for English one may get control over additional 51% of population, tripling view count sole English provides.

Is it economically viable to get involved in all those shenanigans ? Translating, or getting one's content translated ? Only Ross can know.

Some people are fans and want to spread the joy on their own terms, working for free, others, like stopgame.ru wish to parasite on Ross' genius and with little effort increase traffic to their own projects, even with partially good intent (like promoting machinimas over russian speaking internet), money come into the equation. They sure think it's viable. Hiring translators and having them work. This is how I picture their internal conversation - "This is a piece of attraction, with $50 we can make it work for us, which will drive 50 000 users to our site. Is it good enough? Let's see! If 1 user * ads = $0.003, then 50 000 users * ads = $150. Solid investment! Should we share the revenue with Ross Scott? Who is Ross Scott? We don't care! Fuck Americans anyway."

I'm sorry if this comes controversial. I mean no offense against this community.

In short: Is this matter worth be concerned about? If yes - Is the copyright owner going to make a counter attack and claim his rights? If yes - what will that accomplish?


I think you have some good insights which should be considered. I also think you're saying the shame of the wrongdoing rests upon the victim. This is a mild example of course, but it's a pretty terrible attitude.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If a person lets a system run out of control, due to lack of experience or negligence, should we be extra compassionate? There was a way to avoid it, it could be noticed as soon as FM got big!

Best thing I've noticed, regarding widening audience question - the inclusion of Diego's subtitles (would've helped adding also multiple foreign languages subtitles). Worst is Machinima.com brain-f*ck. We're all learning. Doing wrong is fine.

Yes, yes, yes. We all remember how tight Ross' schedule is, and was, and will be, so there is a reason why it is the way we have it today. I'm not in position to say "Oh he should've just done this and that." Such a simple task has many hidden dangers, like collaborating with some nobody who just ruins the YT channel intentionally or by mistake

There is a difference between saying "What he did is wrong! That was his mistake" and "He screwed this up, he is a moron!". Nobody should ever judge a person based on his actions or words.

p.s. I'm this salty mainly, because this situation is upsetting personally, and due to work I do, which is related to those issues. Right now we're considering pros and cons of legitimately stealing big chunk of work and reselling it under a different name. That is ethically wrong. That can bring profit for a fraction of work needed initially. That is capitalism. Like the Rockefeller said "I can tell you how I made my millions, except for the first one". That, and I'm trying to provoke an intensive discussion, with some bold actions afterwards.

 
If a person lets a system run out of control, due to lack of experience or negligence, should we be extra compassionate? There was a way to avoid it, it could be noticed as soon as FM got big!

Best thing I've noticed, regarding widening audience question - the inclusion of Diego's subtitles (would've helped adding also multiple foreign languages subtitles). Worst is Machinima.com brain-f*ck. We're all learning. Doing wrong is fine.

Yes, yes, yes. We all remember how tight Ross' schedule is, and was, and will be, so there is a reason why it is the way we have it today. I'm not in position to say "Oh he should've just done this and that." Such a simple task has many hidden dangers, like collaborating with some nobody who just ruins the YT channel intentionally or by mistake

There is a difference between saying "What he did is wrong! That was his mistake" and "He screwed this up, he is a moron!". Nobody should ever judge a person based on his actions or words.

p.s. I'm this salty mainly, because this situation is upsetting personally, and due to work I do, which is related to those issues. Right now we're considering pros and cons of legitimately stealing big chunk of work and reselling it under a different name. That is ethically wrong. That can bring profit for a fraction of work needed initially. That is capitalism. Like the Rockefeller said "I can tell you how I made my millions, except for the first one". That, and I'm trying to provoke an intensive discussion, with some bold actions afterwards.
Click to expand...
I once had a customer forget a wallet with about seven hundred dollars in it at my counter. About three weeks worth of pay for me at the time. She was following a common bit of advice to only bring enough money to buy her planned purchase to avoid being upsold. It's pretty stupid advice, for exactly this reason. She wasn't an especially pleasant person. Anyway, I told a manager and he (probably) got the money back to her. I never got a word of gratitude from anyone. Still, what if I'd kept it?

The good/evil axis of this kind of thing can be nebulous, but for example I could've given half the money to charity and kept half. The correct charity would probably have saved about 20 lives and I'd still have gotten a new game system. I can say with confidence I could've stolen the cash and not felt I was being a terrible person. Perhaps giving the money back was in fact the morally wrong choice. Regardless, the act of sticking my fingers in the wallet would still have been my act, not hers. To the extent there was fault, it would have been mine entirely. For me to feel otherwise would put me in the category of people who say "She deserved it for walking down that alley."

As sort of a tangential example, imagine your stereotypical starving man stealing bread. Does his act somehow change in any ethical sense if the bread is guarded by a hundred soldiers? Does more shame somehow manifest because the bread owner took a high level of precaution? I'd say it doesn't. I know it's not quite the same thing, but I still think it works to show 'proper care' is NOT a good reason to adjust our ethical perspectives on any particular deed. That's all I have to say on the matter.

 
Right now we're considering pros and cons of legitimately stealing big chunk of work and reselling it under a different name. That is ethically wrong. That can bring profit for a fraction of work needed initially. That is capitalism. Like the Rockefeller said "I can tell you how I made my millions, except for the first one". That, and I'm trying to provoke an intensive discussion, with some bold actions afterwards.
Click to expand...
That is ethically wrong.
Click to expand...
No, you moron, that's illegal.

You're genuinely considering engaging in a criminal act in order to profit your business and you want to provoke a discussion? You don't deserve the time of day.

 
Right now we're considering pros and cons of legitimately stealing big chunk of work and reselling it under a different name. That is ethically wrong. That can bring profit for a fraction of work needed initially. That is capitalism. Like the Rockefeller said "I can tell you how I made my millions, except for the first one". That, and I'm trying to provoke an intensive discussion, with some bold actions afterwards.
Click to expand...
That is ethically wrong.
Click to expand...
No, you moron, that's illegal.

You're genuinely considering engaging in a criminal act in order to profit your business and you want to provoke a discussion? You don't deserve the time of day.
Click to expand...
You sound funny, or naive tbh. As if you're living in a world where nobody breaks laws or rules. Oh well, some people just love their rules and laws, as it makes them feel secure and comfortable. No wonder they aggressively attack anyone who dares to undermine this comfort

You're implying doing illegal stuff is inherently bad. I disagree. Stuff is called illegal because it's not wise to allow crowd to be in possession of it. Once a guy found a bug, that allowed him to top-up his cellphone with money without actually paying. If that guy were you, would you use it and not pay for your cellphone, or would you get it fixed for no revenue, or would you remain neutral and lay it aside? Which action makes you as you say a Moron?

In any case, not caught - not punished - nobody cares.

(as story continues, that guy was stupid and generous, so he told his friends about it, and they were foolish enough to indulge themselves with hundreds of dollars worth of calling and talking, which caused the attention from the carrier and forced the bug to get fixed in matter of days.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a person lets a system run out of control, due to lack of experience or negligence, should we be extra compassionate? There was a way to avoid it, it could be noticed as soon as FM got big!

Best thing I've noticed, regarding widening audience question - the inclusion of Diego's subtitles (would've helped adding also multiple foreign languages subtitles). Worst is Machinima.com brain-f*ck. We're all learning. Doing wrong is fine.

Yes, yes, yes. We all remember how tight Ross' schedule is, and was, and will be, so there is a reason why it is the way we have it today. I'm not in position to say "Oh he should've just done this and that." Such a simple task has many hidden dangers, like collaborating with some nobody who just ruins the YT channel intentionally or by mistake

There is a difference between saying "What he did is wrong! That was his mistake" and "He screwed this up, he is a moron!". Nobody should ever judge a person based on his actions or words.

p.s. I'm this salty mainly, because this situation is upsetting personally, and due to work I do, which is related to those issues. Right now we're considering pros and cons of legitimately stealing big chunk of work and reselling it under a different name. That is ethically wrong. That can bring profit for a fraction of work needed initially. That is capitalism. Like the Rockefeller said "I can tell you how I made my millions, except for the first one". That, and I'm trying to provoke an intensive discussion, with some bold actions afterwards.
Click to expand...
I once had a customer forget a wallet with about seven hundred dollars in it at my counter. About three weeks worth of pay for me at the time. She was following a common bit of advice to only bring enough money to buy her planned purchase to avoid being upsold. It's pretty stupid advice, for exactly this reason. She wasn't an especially pleasant person. Anyway, I told a manager and he (probably) got the money back to her. I never got a word of gratitude from anyone. Still, what if I'd kept it?

The good/evil axis of this kind of thing can be nebulous, but for example I could've given half the money to charity and kept half. The correct charity would probably have saved about 20 lives and I'd still have gotten a new game system. I can say with confidence I could've stolen the cash and not felt I was being a terrible person. Perhaps giving the money back was in fact the morally wrong choice. Regardless, the act of sticking my fingers in the wallet would still have been my act, not hers. To the extent there was fault, it would have been mine entirely. For me to feel otherwise would put me in the category of people who say "She deserved it for walking down that alley."

As sort of a tangential example, imagine your stereotypical starving man stealing bread. Does his act somehow change in any ethical sense if the bread is guarded by a hundred soldiers? Does more shame somehow manifest because the bread owner took a high level of precaution? I'd say it doesn't. I know it's not quite the same thing, but I still think it works to show 'proper care' is NOT a good reason to adjust our ethical perspectives on any particular deed. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
You know, there are two kinds of ethics, the common one, and the one you choose for yourself. Different people base their own ethics differently compared to the common, some take it as it is, some take only 80% and modify the rest as they see fit. The goal here is to build your ethic the way you can live with yourself. If you say "I'm comfortable with stealing $xxx", then well, you won't have problems with your moral compass. Although there is a twist.

Compare stealing, while knowing you're going to remain unpunished $10, $700, $10k and $100k. Does your moral discomfort keep building up, or does is crash after maybe $50k and upwards?

I say Ross has an exceptionally strong individuality and does not require any pity whatsoever, he can take a blunt and honest opinion without being harmed and defend himself in a sophisticated manner.

There is no need to make a fuss about somebody saying something provocative or ill suggestive, as long as it doesn't violate forums rules, like "Do not call people names because you feel like it", or any other case when a Banhammer is applicable.

The best I can think of doing is - Showing our compassion, how we feel about the matter, sometimes using cash instead of words.

 
Wow, that's either quite a bit of audacity or a poorly configured bot.

For some cultural perspective, the concept of copyright is bizarre to many people in Russia.

There was no concept of selling copies of digital stuff in the USSR, and then almost no valid way to buy anything much smaller than Windows licensed up until things like Steam came along.

Pre-internet, software, movies, games, music, etc all was sold per CD, per DVD. It takes quite a bit of thinking and context to figure out WTF should one buy an $200 DVD of software when the cost of DVD of stuff is $3 (or $15 for Mac).

As a consequence, stuff like unexpected translations happens.

I had at one point had to negotiate peace between a group of fans of a certain webcomic that were posting translated versions of it on their site and the author of the said comic, who was quite angry about it.

The fans just loved the comic, and had no idea they were doing something wrong - it's online, therefore it's free to use what-how-ever as long as you mention the author.

So, unexpected translations are perfectly normal and monetizing such a translation is kind of not ok, but not exactly surprising.

How the heck did someone think filing claims against the author was a good idea, however, i have no clue.

Either a bot, or someone as stupid as a bot.

 
It makes me wonder, how can a later uploaded video make claims on a previously uploaded video? Can I just download a video, reupload it and make claims I got ripped?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top