4 ms·

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 pa

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.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> Is free riding on youtube video distribution that valuable? I'd think so. The only reason I ran into him at all was due to YouTube, and I can't help but think that's for the majority of people (minus those who came to him via The Escapist). I don't know how else I would have discovered him, unless we want to rely on convoluted word of mouth.
delfinom 7y ago
His use of others copyrighted content falls under fair use since he's doing reviews. It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. Fair use does not mandate the original copyright owner be paid in anyway.
- jldugger 7y ago
  > It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. But it's precisely because YouTube is a megacorp attached to another megacorp that Jim can even upload videos without paying for distribution.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Sure, and Time Warner is currently the only (practical) reason I can access the internet, though I can imagine a better way.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Is this relevant? The bastards are constantly changing the terms of our interactions with them, while banking billions and destroying the fabric of human life. They can't also complain that we're not "honoring the spirit" of those terms.
    - MichaelEstes 7y ago
      Video hosting is expensive, like really expensive. I started a site (scrim.tv) to try and disrupt YouTube for the reasons that are often expressed in posts like these and I'm pretty convinced at this point that YouTube basically breaks even in terms of profit.
      - derivagral 7y ago
        Youtube isn't broken out from Google in their quarterlies/annuals, so outsiders can't easily know. I think the common belief is that YouTube the video service operates at some amount of a loss, supported by other parts of Google. This is justified (by Google the business) on the basis of market share, free video test data, ads, etc. This does make it particularly difficult to compete with in isolation, of course...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blackearl 7y ago
Why should a company doing copyright trolling on youtube get money from a fair use video? Who's really free riding here?
Mirioron 7y ago
The problem isn't YouTube per se. The problem is third parties abusing the copyright claiming system to claim what is not theirs. YouTube is only involved because it's their system that allows such abuse.

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.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

> Is free riding on youtube video distribution that valuable? I'd think so. The only reason I ran into him at all was due to YouTube, and I can't help but think that's for the majority of people (minus those who came to him via The Escapist). I don't know how else I would have discovered him, unless we want to rely on convoluted word of mouth.

delfinom 7y ago

His use of others copyrighted content falls under fair use since he's doing reviews. It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. Fair use does not mandate the original copyright owner be paid in anyway.

jldugger 7y ago
> It's YouTube and mega corporations fucking over and taking country the laws. But it's precisely because YouTube is a megacorp attached to another megacorp that Jim can even upload videos without paying for distribution.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Sure, and Time Warner is currently the only (practical) reason I can access the internet, though I can imagine a better way.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Is this relevant? The bastards are constantly changing the terms of our interactions with them, while banking billions and destroying the fabric of human life. They can't also complain that we're not "honoring the spirit" of those terms.
  - MichaelEstes 7y ago
    Video hosting is expensive, like really expensive. I started a site (scrim.tv) to try and disrupt YouTube for the reasons that are often expressed in posts like these and I'm pretty convinced at this point that YouTube basically breaks even in terms of profit.
    - derivagral 7y ago
      Youtube isn't broken out from Google in their quarterlies/annuals, so outsiders can't easily know. I think the common belief is that YouTube the video service operates at some amount of a loss, supported by other parts of Google. This is justified (by Google the business) on the basis of market share, free video test data, ads, etc. This does make it particularly difficult to compete with in isolation, of course...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

blackearl 7y ago

Why should a company doing copyright trolling on youtube get money from a fair use video? Who's really free riding here?

Mirioron 7y ago

The problem isn't YouTube per se. The problem is third parties abusing the copyright claiming system to claim what is not theirs. YouTube is only involved because it's their system that allows such abuse.