4 ms·

I've worked in digital rights management for YouTube media, and (dare I say) it is far from being pretty good. Claimers can basically deny revenue to uploaded v

by jadbox 3y ago

I've worked in digital rights management for YouTube media, and (dare I say) it is far from being pretty good. Claimers can basically deny revenue to uploaded videos for months at a time while the dispute process is occuring. This period is a killzone as many content creators often rely on both the timing and month-to-month revenue to pay bills (content creation doesn't pay well to begin with). The end effect is that claimers bully the industry far beyond what the legal rights that they hold.

xrd 3y ago
This is a powerful indictment and should not be missed. I recently read an article about how video games shops don't need to worry about any kind of copying. The reason is that most video games make the lion share of their money in the first few months, and then it tapers off significantly. So, you can copy ideas, styles, and whatever, but it won't dampen opportunities for the original work to make money, so don't worry about it. This is good for the industry and for the creative world and for commons. If a claimer can halt revenue for the first few months on any creative work, they can kill any opportunities to be made off public domain works. This a second order effect of the public domain laws. There should be an amendment where a claimer should have to pay damages to the creators if they abuse this. I would love for Disney to pay when they file a claim in bad faith.
- barnabee 3y ago
  100% this
- jsnell 3y ago
  > If a claimer can halt revenue for the first few months on any creative work, they can kill any opportunities to be made off public domain works. This a second order effect of the public domain laws. Your premise is incorrect, which makes the conclusions invalid. The revenue is not lost during a monetization dispute, it's held in escrow. I.e. even if it were true that the vast majority of revenue of a YT video is generated in the first few months of it existing, the revenue generated by a video that gets a content id match is the same as one that doesn't.
  - xrd 3y ago
    That's a really good clarification, thank you. I didn't know this!
    - xrd 3y ago
      But, isn't it a fact that the monetization would be limited because the viewing is limited? I can't believe that YouTube would leave the video accessible after a claimant tried to take it down.
trogdor 3y ago
Your observation that the process can be excessively drawn-out is accurate. I think should be changed. I disagree, however, with your conclusion that the drawn-out process is a financial “killzone” for creators. I talk regularly with other successful YouTubers, and I don’t know anyone for whom the majority of their revenue comes from sporadically-released new content. Yes, it sucks if revenue from a new release is held up in Content ID escrow, but for me and for the other YouTubers I know well, that wouldn’t wreck our overall earnings during the escrow period. If someone is reliant on month-to-month revenue from single-release videos to pay their bills, that sounds more like a personal financial planning issue than a problem caused by Content ID. Would you talk a bit more about “claimers bully the industry far beyond the scope of legally binding terms”? I don’t know what you are referring to, and I’d like to hear more.

by jadbox 3y ago

xrd 3y ago

This is a powerful indictment and should not be missed. I recently read an article about how video games shops don't need to worry about any kind of copying. The reason is that most video games make the lion share of their money in the first few months, and then it tapers off significantly. So, you can copy ideas, styles, and whatever, but it won't dampen opportunities for the original work to make money, so don't worry about it. This is good for the industry and for the creative world and for commons. If a claimer can halt revenue for the first few months on any creative work, they can kill any opportunities to be made off public domain works. This a second order effect of the public domain laws. There should be an amendment where a claimer should have to pay damages to the creators if they abuse this. I would love for Disney to pay when they file a claim in bad faith.

barnabee 3y ago
100% this
jsnell 3y ago
> If a claimer can halt revenue for the first few months on any creative work, they can kill any opportunities to be made off public domain works. This a second order effect of the public domain laws. Your premise is incorrect, which makes the conclusions invalid. The revenue is not lost during a monetization dispute, it's held in escrow. I.e. even if it were true that the vast majority of revenue of a YT video is generated in the first few months of it existing, the revenue generated by a video that gets a content id match is the same as one that doesn't.
- xrd 3y ago
  That's a really good clarification, thank you. I didn't know this!
  - xrd 3y ago
    But, isn't it a fact that the monetization would be limited because the viewing is limited? I can't believe that YouTube would leave the video accessible after a claimant tried to take it down.

trogdor 3y ago

Your observation that the process can be excessively drawn-out is accurate. I think should be changed. I disagree, however, with your conclusion that the drawn-out process is a financial “killzone” for creators. I talk regularly with other successful YouTubers, and I don’t know anyone for whom the majority of their revenue comes from sporadically-released new content. Yes, it sucks if revenue from a new release is held up in Content ID escrow, but for me and for the other YouTubers I know well, that wouldn’t wreck our overall earnings during the escrow period. If someone is reliant on month-to-month revenue from single-release videos to pay their bills, that sounds more like a personal financial planning issue than a problem caused by Content ID. Would you talk a bit more about “claimers bully the industry far beyond the scope of legally binding terms”? I don’t know what you are referring to, and I’d like to hear more.