5 ms·
Most of the people I watch have complained about copyright strikes and having their channels completely deleted without explanation (extractions and ire is an e
by swiley 7y ago
Most of the people I watch have complained about copyright strikes and having their channels completely deleted without explanation (extractions and ire is an example of that.) More than their fear of demonization (I’ve only seen one complain about that.)
Most professional youtubers don’t seem to trust YouTube’s revenue sharing so why bother with it?
- vkou 7y agoAny YouTube competitor will immediately be filled with stolen content, porn, and original content that violates some copyright or other. Unless that competitor adopts an extremely pro-content-owner stance (which would put them diametrically opposed to their content creators, and render this entire experiment moot), they are going to get sued out of existence. Why do you think YouTube's copyright systems work the way they do? YouTube's incentives are aligned with content creators - or, they would be, if that pesky lawsuit thing wasn't a constant threat.
- swiley 7y agoAt least in the US you're only required to investigate DMCA takedown requests which (I think) have legal ramifications for frivilous use. That's reasonable. What youtube does is significantly more aggressive and automated. I think one of the most ridiculuous examples was a performance of 4'33 that had it's audio removed because their bot decided it violated copyright law.