8 ms·

Game Critic Uses Workaround for YouTube's Copyright System (2016)

224 points by CraneWorm 7y ago

hoptank 7y ago
Interesting but note the article is from 2016.
scohesc 7y ago
This kind of "gaming" (ha!) the system has been around for a while now - another channel (Internet Comment Ettiquette) had a video called the "Copyright Claim Olympics" which featured a whole bunch of different types of content from many different copyright holders (olympic footage, movie footage, music videos, distorted audio/video, etc. etc. even mixed and dubbed over each other in order to make it even more difficult for content ID) to the tune of "if I can't have my ad revenue for my other videos that were clearly fair use/parody, nobody can have any ad revenue, fuck you Youtube content ID claim abusers!" Unfortunately it was taken down (probably 20+ copyright holders complaining about a single video forced Youtube to do something about it) but can still be found on Vimeo with a simple Google search.
- forgotmypwd123 7y ago
  Yes, that's the exact same trick as Jim Sterling's "Copyright Deadlock".
- SebastianKra 7y ago
  It actually wasn't taken down. He unlisted it himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ9bK_mkmu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ9bK_mkmu8
fortyseven 7y ago
Saw the headline and knew it'd be Jim. But yeah, this is ancient. Last I'd heard, the old tricks were starting to fall.
Plasmoid2000ad 7y ago
Great for making your video ad-free. But things have moved on since then, you can now guarantee 50% of the ad revenue. https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w
- deckar01 7y ago
  The point is to prevent ads. If you can set the monetization preference to "not allowed" on your own song, then the new trick might work. It seems rather bazaar for 50% ads + no ads = no ads rather than just being taken down. I wouldn't be surprised if this edge case was fixed already and the system just leaned towards take downs. When people used to add copyrighted music to videos at one of my previous companies (2016), YouTube would immediately take the video down. Rarely did they allow it to stay up with monetization.
throwawayffffas 7y ago
IANAL, But doesn't monetizing the video and giving the proceeds to the claimant of the original copyright (nintendo) consitute infringement against the derivatives work author(Jim), assuming that the derivative work falls under fair use? Shouldn't Jim be able to sue both nintendo and youtube?
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > Shouldn't Jim be able to sue both nintendo and youtube? Sure. And if he had infinite time and money, he might even win.
- pjc50 7y ago
  This falls apart as soon as it encounters the Terms of Service. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms > the Content you submit must not include third-party intellectual property (such as copyrighted material) unless you have permission from that party or are otherwise legally entitled to do so. You are legally responsible for the Content you submit to the Service > By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable licence to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display and perform it) for the purpose of operating, promoting, and improving the Service. > You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display, and perform it) only as enabled by a feature of the Service. Once you upload something of yours to Youtube, your only recourse is to take it down again.
  - delfinom 7y ago
    A company claiming copyright over fair use would be a violation of the derivatives legal rights and could easily be a lawsuit, YouTube would not be a party to it and it requires the content owner to have the money for a multi-year court case.
    - throwawayffffas 7y ago
jldugger 7y ago
So if I understand correctly: 1. Youtube makes money from ads. 2. Jimquisition is funded from Patreon, and despises ads on his content. 3. To resolve this paradox, Jim has found a way to (allegedly) infringe on multiple parties' copyright 4. Youtube's technology doesn't allow multiple monetizers, and therefore in this situation allows none. If Jim disagrees with the funding stategy of YouTube, why bother with YouTube at all? Is free riding on youtube video distribution that valuable?
- dtech 7y ago
  Incorrect. Youtube allows his videos to be on the platform without ads, which he does. The problem is other parties claiming copyright on his videos, placing ads, and getting the payment from those ads.
  - mrunkel 7y ago
    Read the post you are replying to again, you're not disagreeing with each other.
    - ergothus 7y ago
      And yet the original post in this subthread says simple "YouTube makes money from ads" and says that Stirling "disagrees" with Youtube's monetization, which is inaccurate. YouTube has a flawed system for allowing third parties to claim infringement, and Stirling is trying to work around the consequences of that system. The original post is misleading, and the post you are replying to points that out.
    - dtech 7y ago
      The parent was insinuating that Youtube required all videos to have ads through 1 and "free riding on Youtube", and Sterling was somehow cheating Youtube by having ad-free videos. This is incorrect, since Youtube allows ad-free videos. Sterling's problem is with 3rd parties placing ads on his videos through copyright claims, not Youtube themselves placing ads. I'm sure he'd react differently if it was Youtube themselves mandating the ads.
iamaelephant 7y ago
I can't get past this guy's Nazi aesthetic. I know gamers love Nazis but damn at least be subtle about it.
- kemonocode 7y ago
  Jim Sterling is as far from a Nazi as you can get, though.
- cableshaft 7y ago
  It's played up in jest. He's acting like he's some great authority that everyone worships but in reality he isn't (and he knows it, that's the joke). Jim Sterling is big on showmanship, so much so that he eventually got into being a wrestler on the side despite having terrible back problems. It's like Jack Black's band Tenacious D claiming to be the greatest band that ever lived, knowing full well that they aren't, but pretending they are is part of their shtick.
  - fyrabanks 7y ago
    Just to play devil's advocate, Tenacious D doesn't use imagery that, say, evokes ISIS.
- honkycat 7y ago
  Naw, Jim is a good guy. Uses inclusive language, I've never heard him say anything racist. The circles he runs in are all EXTREMELY progressive. In fact he actively advocates for gay and trans rights.
- ajuc 7y ago
  It`s parody.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Note: story is from 2016. It's been three years, so it's unclear how relevant this story is to the current status of ContentID, copyright identification, and monetization on YouTube.
- Slippery_John 7y ago
  I regularly follow the relevant creator, he definitely still does this and still occasionally talks about it. From the handful of YouTube creators I follow it seems like the problem has only become worse in intervening years.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  If you email the mods using the footer Contact link, they’ll append (2016) to it.
- mcguire 7y ago
  I'm surprised YouTube hasn't killed his account. That would seem to be the obvious next step.
tomashubelbauer 7y ago
This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well. In the end stuff like this goes to show that Youtube's systems are a complete and utter joke, but since Youtube has zero competition, it won't change. 1: The creator used CD Baby, if you're going to do this, I recommend DistroKid, it is about a zillion times better than CD Baby. Even the CD Baby creator endorses DistroKid.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  This is a neat trick. I had already heard about the article's technique, but I like this one better because it at least lets you monetize.
- mavhc 7y ago
  Could you make 99 original songs, and make 99 Content ID claims, and share 99/1 with the abuser?
  - tomashubelbauer 7y ago
    There is a part 2 video where he addresses this: theoretically, yes, practically, you would have to compose 99 original (original/unique enough for ContentID to match them) tracks and include a 20 seconds snippet of each for it to work. He stuck with a single one, because he started using it for his outro. Theoretically he could compose another for the intro and make it 66:33, but after that, I have a feeling the viewers would start dropping off rather quickly.
    - mavhc 7y ago
      Or have a really long version of the outro where you get 33 mins to pick which other video to watch
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ikeboy 7y ago
Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is extremely unlikely to happen for frivolous cases. Any article that claims that this can't be easily disputed, or that the burden of proof is on the YouTuber who uploaded the video (outside of the exception discussed below) is wrong, full stop. [0] there is an exception for a small number of content owners. See https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#contractual-obligations https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-contractual-obligations-users-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-cont.... As far as I can tell, the only company known to be part of this is UMG.
- winkeltripel 7y ago
  There are 2 different ways Copyright-Owners can interact with Content Creators via Youtube: 1. manually file copyright strikes. If a Content creator has 3 of these at once, their entire channel gets taken offline. The dispute resolution mechanism leaves the video in whatever state the copyright owner chose (for possibly 2 months), and they get to keep the revenue from the dispute period, even if they lose (its possible that youtube has changed this). 2. ContentID. Copyright-Owners just give Youtube a copy of your copyrighted works, and tell it if you'd like videos containing your content to be left alone, monetized for your adsense account, or have the video taken down until the offending content is removed. This can be manual, or automatic. Contesting these is basically impossible (its possible that youtube has changed this).
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    It's possible it worked that way in the past, but it's certainly not the case now. If disputed within five days, all revenue is escrowed until resolution. And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn. See my post at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/how_youtube_copyright_claims_work_from_beginning https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... which goes into extensive detail on the process with sources. See also the eff links in my above comment which has the same information.
greatscott404 7y ago
I'd like to hear if anyone has a better solution than ContentID considering the scale, laws, and stakeholders involved. Everybody likes shitting on it but it's the best solution to the problem.
abbadadda 7y ago
What a garbage website. Please autoplay video advertisements for me. That is so helpful. Oh wait, who owns it? p.s. Jim Spanfeller is an herb: Slate Web results The Media-Sensational Rise and Fall of “Jim Spanfeller Is a Herb”: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-is-a-herb-rise-fall-blog-post-deadspin.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-i...
tomc1985 7y ago
Content ID is such bullshit. Here we are years later and it still doesn't permit fair-use like critique; one of the shown matches is barely 21 seconds in length. How is that a substantial copyright infringement?
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  The DMCA is the issue, not Content ID. There’s no presumption of innocence if accused of a copyright infringement and it costs nothing to make an accusation. On the other hand, a service provider has to accept the accusation or they can leave the content untouched but then open themselves up to secondary liability. All the while the accused has to certify under penalty of perjury that their content is not infringing (there’s no equivalent for the accuser). Content ID is a bandaid on the tumor of IP law. Yell at your government not Google for this.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    I don't agree that companies should be absolved of blame simply because they're acting in fear of a lawsuit. You are right, the DMCA is the culprit here but equally disgraceful is the sheer cowardice on Google's part. They can afford to fight for their users and techno-utopian ideals but it's far cheaper to employ half-baked technological solutions instead.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fullstopslash 7y ago
I particularly love hacks like this. Use the system against itself. Open source exemplifies this, but this is yet another example of the technique.

224 points by CraneWorm 7y ago

Interesting but note the article is from 2016.

This kind of "gaming" (ha!) the system has been around for a while now - another channel (Internet Comment Ettiquette) had a video called the "Copyright Claim Olympics" which featured a whole bunch of different types of content from many different copyright holders (olympic footage, movie footage, music videos, distorted audio/video, etc. etc. even mixed and dubbed over each other in order to make it even more difficult for content ID) to the tune of "if I can't have my ad revenue for my other videos that were clearly fair use/parody, nobody can have any ad revenue, fuck you Youtube content ID claim abusers!" Unfortunately it was taken down (probably 20+ copyright holders complaining about a single video forced Youtube to do something about it) but can still be found on Vimeo with a simple Google search.

forgotmypwd123 7y ago
Yes, that's the exact same trick as Jim Sterling's "Copyright Deadlock".
SebastianKra 7y ago
It actually wasn't taken down. He unlisted it himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ9bK_mkmu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ9bK_mkmu8

fortyseven 7y ago

Saw the headline and knew it'd be Jim. But yeah, this is ancient. Last I'd heard, the old tricks were starting to fall.

Plasmoid2000ad 7y ago

Great for making your video ad-free. But things have moved on since then, you can now guarantee 50% of the ad revenue. https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w

deckar01 7y ago
The point is to prevent ads. If you can set the monetization preference to "not allowed" on your own song, then the new trick might work. It seems rather bazaar for 50% ads + no ads = no ads rather than just being taken down. I wouldn't be surprised if this edge case was fixed already and the system just leaned towards take downs. When people used to add copyrighted music to videos at one of my previous companies (2016), YouTube would immediately take the video down. Rarely did they allow it to stay up with monetization.

throwawayffffas 7y ago

IANAL, But doesn't monetizing the video and giving the proceeds to the claimant of the original copyright (nintendo) consitute infringement against the derivatives work author(Jim), assuming that the derivative work falls under fair use? Shouldn't Jim be able to sue both nintendo and youtube?

pavel_lishin 7y ago
> Shouldn't Jim be able to sue both nintendo and youtube? Sure. And if he had infinite time and money, he might even win.
pjc50 7y ago
This falls apart as soon as it encounters the Terms of Service. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms > the Content you submit must not include third-party intellectual property (such as copyrighted material) unless you have permission from that party or are otherwise legally entitled to do so. You are legally responsible for the Content you submit to the Service > By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable licence to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display and perform it) for the purpose of operating, promoting, and improving the Service. > You also grant each other user of the Service a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, modify, display, and perform it) only as enabled by a feature of the Service. Once you upload something of yours to Youtube, your only recourse is to take it down again.
- delfinom 7y ago
  A company claiming copyright over fair use would be a violation of the derivatives legal rights and could easily be a lawsuit, YouTube would not be a party to it and it requires the content owner to have the money for a multi-year court case.
  - throwawayffffas 7y ago

jldugger 7y ago

So if I understand correctly: 1. Youtube makes money from ads. 2. Jimquisition is funded from Patreon, and despises ads on his content. 3. To resolve this paradox, Jim has found a way to (allegedly) infringe on multiple parties' copyright 4. Youtube's technology doesn't allow multiple monetizers, and therefore in this situation allows none. If Jim disagrees with the funding stategy of YouTube, why bother with YouTube at all? Is free riding on youtube video distribution that valuable?

dtech 7y ago
Incorrect. Youtube allows his videos to be on the platform without ads, which he does. The problem is other parties claiming copyright on his videos, placing ads, and getting the payment from those ads.
- mrunkel 7y ago
  Read the post you are replying to again, you're not disagreeing with each other.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    And yet the original post in this subthread says simple "YouTube makes money from ads" and says that Stirling "disagrees" with Youtube's monetization, which is inaccurate. YouTube has a flawed system for allowing third parties to claim infringement, and Stirling is trying to work around the consequences of that system. The original post is misleading, and the post you are replying to points that out.
  - dtech 7y ago
    The parent was insinuating that Youtube required all videos to have ads through 1 and "free riding on Youtube", and Sterling was somehow cheating Youtube by having ad-free videos. This is incorrect, since Youtube allows ad-free videos. Sterling's problem is with 3rd parties placing ads on his videos through copyright claims, not Youtube themselves placing ads. I'm sure he'd react differently if it was Youtube themselves mandating the ads.

iamaelephant 7y ago

I can't get past this guy's Nazi aesthetic. I know gamers love Nazis but damn at least be subtle about it.

kemonocode 7y ago
Jim Sterling is as far from a Nazi as you can get, though.
cableshaft 7y ago
It's played up in jest. He's acting like he's some great authority that everyone worships but in reality he isn't (and he knows it, that's the joke). Jim Sterling is big on showmanship, so much so that he eventually got into being a wrestler on the side despite having terrible back problems. It's like Jack Black's band Tenacious D claiming to be the greatest band that ever lived, knowing full well that they aren't, but pretending they are is part of their shtick.
- fyrabanks 7y ago
  Just to play devil's advocate, Tenacious D doesn't use imagery that, say, evokes ISIS.
honkycat 7y ago
Naw, Jim is a good guy. Uses inclusive language, I've never heard him say anything racist. The circles he runs in are all EXTREMELY progressive. In fact he actively advocates for gay and trans rights.
ajuc 7y ago
It`s parody.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Note: story is from 2016. It's been three years, so it's unclear how relevant this story is to the current status of ContentID, copyright identification, and monetization on YouTube.

Slippery_John 7y ago
I regularly follow the relevant creator, he definitely still does this and still occasionally talks about it. From the handful of YouTube creators I follow it seems like the problem has only become worse in intervening years.
floatingatoll 7y ago
If you email the mods using the footer Contact link, they’ll append (2016) to it.
mcguire 7y ago
I'm surprised YouTube hasn't killed his account. That would seem to be the obvious next step.

tomashubelbauer 7y ago

This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well. In the end stuff like this goes to show that Youtube's systems are a complete and utter joke, but since Youtube has zero competition, it won't change. 1: The creator used CD Baby, if you're going to do this, I recommend DistroKid, it is about a zillion times better than CD Baby. Even the CD Baby creator endorses DistroKid.

ggggtez 7y ago
This is a neat trick. I had already heard about the article's technique, but I like this one better because it at least lets you monetize.
mavhc 7y ago
Could you make 99 original songs, and make 99 Content ID claims, and share 99/1 with the abuser?
- tomashubelbauer 7y ago
  There is a part 2 video where he addresses this: theoretically, yes, practically, you would have to compose 99 original (original/unique enough for ContentID to match them) tracks and include a 20 seconds snippet of each for it to work. He stuck with a single one, because he started using it for his outro. Theoretically he could compose another for the intro and make it 66:33, but after that, I have a feeling the viewers would start dropping off rather quickly.
  - mavhc 7y ago
    Or have a really long version of the outro where you get 33 mins to pick which other video to watch
- 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ikeboy 7y ago

Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed. Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is extremely unlikely to happen for frivolous cases. Any article that claims that this can't be easily disputed, or that the burden of proof is on the YouTuber who uploaded the video (outside of the exception discussed below) is wrong, full stop. [0] there is an exception for a small number of content owners. See https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#contractual-obligations https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo... and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-contractual-obligations-users-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-cont.... As far as I can tell, the only company known to be part of this is UMG.

winkeltripel 7y ago
There are 2 different ways Copyright-Owners can interact with Content Creators via Youtube: 1. manually file copyright strikes. If a Content creator has 3 of these at once, their entire channel gets taken offline. The dispute resolution mechanism leaves the video in whatever state the copyright owner chose (for possibly 2 months), and they get to keep the revenue from the dispute period, even if they lose (its possible that youtube has changed this). 2. ContentID. Copyright-Owners just give Youtube a copy of your copyrighted works, and tell it if you'd like videos containing your content to be left alone, monetized for your adsense account, or have the video taken down until the offending content is removed. This can be manual, or automatic. Contesting these is basically impossible (its possible that youtube has changed this).
- ikeboy 7y ago
  It's possible it worked that way in the past, but it's certainly not the case now. If disputed within five days, all revenue is escrowed until resolution. And content ID claims can be easily disputed and must be turned into a DMCA claim if not withdrawn. See my post at https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/how_youtube_copyright_claims_work_from_beginning https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeCompendium/comments/aga8yl/h... which goes into extensive detail on the process with sources. See also the eff links in my above comment which has the same information.

greatscott404 7y ago

I'd like to hear if anyone has a better solution than ContentID considering the scale, laws, and stakeholders involved. Everybody likes shitting on it but it's the best solution to the problem.

abbadadda 7y ago

What a garbage website. Please autoplay video advertisements for me. That is so helpful. Oh wait, who owns it? p.s. Jim Spanfeller is an herb: Slate Web results The Media-Sensational Rise and Fall of “Jim Spanfeller Is a Herb”: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-is-a-herb-rise-fall-blog-post-deadspin.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-i...

tomc1985 7y ago

Content ID is such bullshit. Here we are years later and it still doesn't permit fair-use like critique; one of the shown matches is barely 21 seconds in length. How is that a substantial copyright infringement?

unlinked_dll 7y ago
The DMCA is the issue, not Content ID. There’s no presumption of innocence if accused of a copyright infringement and it costs nothing to make an accusation. On the other hand, a service provider has to accept the accusation or they can leave the content untouched but then open themselves up to secondary liability. All the while the accused has to certify under penalty of perjury that their content is not infringing (there’s no equivalent for the accuser). Content ID is a bandaid on the tumor of IP law. Yell at your government not Google for this.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  I don't agree that companies should be absolved of blame simply because they're acting in fear of a lawsuit. You are right, the DMCA is the culprit here but equally disgraceful is the sheer cowardice on Google's part. They can afford to fight for their users and techno-utopian ideals but it's far cheaper to employ half-baked technological solutions instead.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fullstopslash 7y ago

I particularly love hacks like this. Use the system against itself. Open source exemplifies this, but this is yet another example of the technique.