7 ms·

The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has la

The question to me when these stories come up at least once a month is: Why would YouTube want to fix this? YouTube as a platform for generating revenue has largely become the domain of large media companies and top personalities. Those entities have a vested interest in keeping the copyright claim system exactly as it is, and YouTube has a vested interest in keeping those entities happy. I think we've long since passed the point where anyone can say with a straight face that YouTube is first and foremost a platform for individuals to post whatever videos they want to.

sirn 7y ago
FWIW, the author of the tweet, Mumbo Jumbo is a high-profile Minecraft videos content creator on YouTube (3M subscribers) and he's doing this as his full-time job. By your description, I would say he's in the top personalities group. What's happening here is basically Warner Chappell is claiming a revenue sharing of his video with no recourse. Edit: he posted a new video elaborating more about this issue.[1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4
- drtillberg 7y ago
  He has a contract with the musician whose songs he incorporated in the video. Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process and maybe indemnity built into that contract, tell the musician to call off the dogs and reimburse him for diverted profits and his time/expenses. This doesn't sound like an example of YouTube badness, but rather an example of the hazards of working with unreliable business partners. And pay attention to your contracts!
  - caymanjim 7y ago
    It's quite possible that the musician doesn't actually own the rights and was never allowed to license the music in the first place. They may have negotiated some deal (handshake or formal), but musicians normally don't own the publishing rights to their own music; the label does.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      I've just listened to the music and it sounds like it's sample-based - in which case there may be a problem if ProleteR didn't clear the samples. This isn't MumboJumbo's fault in any way. But if there are samples and they're not cleared, there's a legal issue. That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can.
      - tobias2014 7y ago
        With his recent tweets it looks like this exactly what has happened!
      - imtringued 7y ago
        >That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can. This is completely wrong. Youtube can do whatever it wants unless MumboJumbo specifically signed a contract with Youtube to receive guaranteed compensation. The only law Youtube has to follow is the copyright law and it's doing it to the fullest extent possible in this instance.
  - simion314 7y ago
    >Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process For each 1800 videos? The youtuber claims that you have to do it for each video and it takes 1 to 2 minutes each. Though this case looks more reasonable then the idiotic case where white-noise gets a copyright strike.
- inlined 7y ago
  MatPat of Game Theory & Film Theory says that his YouTube rep explained the company has a categorization internally for video game accounts, which means they can never be part of the VIP category.
  - solarkraft 7y ago
    What a weird system.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    In English, please?
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      A person who uses YouTube heavily, who's content many people here will recognise, has a contact inside Google. This Google representative has reportedly said that the group who are recognised as "VIPs" (Very Important Person) by the company specifically excludes people working in a particular field of content production, namely gaming.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Thanks, I didn't parse "MatPat" as a personal name.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    I don't understand why popularity, not the type of content, isn't what makes you VIP?
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      Any VIP program works on the (perceived) social standing that comes from (perceived) exclusivity. YouTube doesn’t want to alienate the traditional celebrities with ties to big media companies; part of that means stocking the VIP pool with only people that those celebrities consider to be their peers.
- zaroth 7y ago
  The recourse is to sue, and if the facts of the case are as they appear to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were punative damages attached.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Yes but he doesn't work for the large media companies that effectively wrote the copyright law. He's merely running a "one man" operation + some support. Destroying these "one man" competitors who can become dangerous to the entrenched business models is part of the strategy.
RubberbandSoul 7y ago
I think you answered your own question. YouTube is running the risk of turning into a sterile, corporate mall. Soon enough an edgier, more tolerant alternative will pop up and start attracting eyeballs.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.
  - IAmGraydon 7y ago
    On what grounds? I disagree with Youtube’s actions here, but no one is forcing them to publish on YT.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      The competition to youtube is virtually nonexistent. If you're a medium or small content creator (which most youtube creators are), then instead of deciding to go to vimeo you might as well just file for unemployment benefits. And the network effects of youtube will ensure that this continues to be the case. Content creators aren't organised, so a mass exodus won't happen.
      - fock 7y ago
        So maybe the concept of a medium or small content creator isn't profitable in our current pop-capitalistic system; I guess you are suggesting changing this system, because at the moment this process repeats, what has happened to 1000s of businesses (most recently small farms) in the real world too. Still people elect the ones being paid for by the profiteers very reliably year after year
    - gbear605 7y ago
      Youtube has a monopoly on the online video market. There are other ways to publish but not other ways to get viewers.
tssva 7y ago
YouTube doesn't have a lot of flexibility here. The DMCA spells out specific requirements YouTube must follow when they receive a copyright claim and even with the current DMCA submission system and content id system which creators claim is too large media company friendly Google is constantly being threatened with law suits by the large media companies claiming they are in violation of safe harbor requirements for not making it even easier for them to make mass DMCA take down claims.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  The youtube process where others can claim ad money from videos has nothing to do with the DMCA.
- SkyPuncher 7y ago
  YouTube content strikes aren't DCMA, though. Copyright holders could file a DCMA request, but YouTube's process makes it easier while achieving the same result. This allows YouTube to satisfy large content holders by avoiding the penalties for false DCMA claims. DCMA is intented for forcing a comapny to remove content. YouTube simply removes things without actually involving DCMA.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  In some cases, YouTube is now explicitly rejecting DMCA "safe harbor" protection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtHpC6nc_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtHpC6nc_E From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en (emphasis mine) > Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations > YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions. > In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes [aka the DMCA takedown/counter-notification process] on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.
snarf21 7y ago
It is less reach but people need to explore other options. Maybe Twitch streams and Patreon would allow him to monetize in a different (better?) way. I agree that YT only cares about corporate interests.

sirn 7y ago

FWIW, the author of the tweet, Mumbo Jumbo is a high-profile Minecraft videos content creator on YouTube (3M subscribers) and he's doing this as his full-time job. By your description, I would say he's in the top personalities group. What's happening here is basically Warner Chappell is claiming a revenue sharing of his video with no recourse. Edit: he posted a new video elaborating more about this issue.[1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZplh8rd-I4

drtillberg 7y ago
He has a contract with the musician whose songs he incorporated in the video. Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process and maybe indemnity built into that contract, tell the musician to call off the dogs and reimburse him for diverted profits and his time/expenses. This doesn't sound like an example of YouTube badness, but rather an example of the hazards of working with unreliable business partners. And pay attention to your contracts!
- caymanjim 7y ago
  It's quite possible that the musician doesn't actually own the rights and was never allowed to license the music in the first place. They may have negotiated some deal (handshake or formal), but musicians normally don't own the publishing rights to their own music; the label does.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    I've just listened to the music and it sounds like it's sample-based - in which case there may be a problem if ProleteR didn't clear the samples. This isn't MumboJumbo's fault in any way. But if there are samples and they're not cleared, there's a legal issue. That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can.
    - tobias2014 7y ago
      With his recent tweets it looks like this exactly what has happened!
    - imtringued 7y ago
      >That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can. This is completely wrong. Youtube can do whatever it wants unless MumboJumbo specifically signed a contract with Youtube to receive guaranteed compensation. The only law Youtube has to follow is the copyright law and it's doing it to the fullest extent possible in this instance.
- simion314 7y ago
  >Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process For each 1800 videos? The youtuber claims that you have to do it for each video and it takes 1 to 2 minutes each. Though this case looks more reasonable then the idiotic case where white-noise gets a copyright strike.
inlined 7y ago
MatPat of Game Theory & Film Theory says that his YouTube rep explained the company has a categorization internally for video game accounts, which means they can never be part of the VIP category.
- solarkraft 7y ago
  What a weird system.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  In English, please?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    A person who uses YouTube heavily, who's content many people here will recognise, has a contact inside Google. This Google representative has reportedly said that the group who are recognised as "VIPs" (Very Important Person) by the company specifically excludes people working in a particular field of content production, namely gaming.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Thanks, I didn't parse "MatPat" as a personal name.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  I don't understand why popularity, not the type of content, isn't what makes you VIP?
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    Any VIP program works on the (perceived) social standing that comes from (perceived) exclusivity. YouTube doesn’t want to alienate the traditional celebrities with ties to big media companies; part of that means stocking the VIP pool with only people that those celebrities consider to be their peers.
zaroth 7y ago
The recourse is to sue, and if the facts of the case are as they appear to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were punative damages attached.
imtringued 7y ago
Yes but he doesn't work for the large media companies that effectively wrote the copyright law. He's merely running a "one man" operation + some support. Destroying these "one man" competitors who can become dangerous to the entrenched business models is part of the strategy.

RubberbandSoul 7y ago

I think you answered your own question. YouTube is running the risk of turning into a sterile, corporate mall. Soon enough an edgier, more tolerant alternative will pop up and start attracting eyeballs.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.
- IAmGraydon 7y ago
  On what grounds? I disagree with Youtube’s actions here, but no one is forcing them to publish on YT.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    The competition to youtube is virtually nonexistent. If you're a medium or small content creator (which most youtube creators are), then instead of deciding to go to vimeo you might as well just file for unemployment benefits. And the network effects of youtube will ensure that this continues to be the case. Content creators aren't organised, so a mass exodus won't happen.
    - fock 7y ago
      So maybe the concept of a medium or small content creator isn't profitable in our current pop-capitalistic system; I guess you are suggesting changing this system, because at the moment this process repeats, what has happened to 1000s of businesses (most recently small farms) in the real world too. Still people elect the ones being paid for by the profiteers very reliably year after year
  - gbear605 7y ago
    Youtube has a monopoly on the online video market. There are other ways to publish but not other ways to get viewers.

tssva 7y ago

YouTube doesn't have a lot of flexibility here. The DMCA spells out specific requirements YouTube must follow when they receive a copyright claim and even with the current DMCA submission system and content id system which creators claim is too large media company friendly Google is constantly being threatened with law suits by the large media companies claiming they are in violation of safe harbor requirements for not making it even easier for them to make mass DMCA take down claims.

throwaway2048 7y ago
The youtube process where others can claim ad money from videos has nothing to do with the DMCA.
SkyPuncher 7y ago
YouTube content strikes aren't DCMA, though. Copyright holders could file a DCMA request, but YouTube's process makes it easier while achieving the same result. This allows YouTube to satisfy large content holders by avoiding the penalties for false DCMA claims. DCMA is intented for forcing a comapny to remove content. YouTube simply removes things without actually involving DCMA.
pdkl95 7y ago
In some cases, YouTube is now explicitly rejecting DMCA "safe harbor" protection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtHpC6nc_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHtHpC6nc_E From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545?hl=en (emphasis mine) > Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube's contractual obligations > YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions. > In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes [aka the DMCA takedown/counter-notification process] on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

snarf21 7y ago

It is less reach but people need to explore other options. Maybe Twitch streams and Patreon would allow him to monetize in a different (better?) way. I agree that YT only cares about corporate interests.