4 ms·
It is still available alright, but someone, not the content creator, is making money off the video due to the ads being placed on the video. That is unfair to t
by X-Istence 14y ago
It is still available alright, but someone, not the content creator, is making money off the video due to the ads being placed on the video. That is unfair to the content creator.
How long will it take YouTube to review the video? What possible actions are there? I understand that YouTube provides video hosting free of charge (and makes money from advertisements) and that this stuff can happen, but it seems entirely unfair... how can I get my content added to their content ID system so that people don't re-upload my stuff?
- sophacles 14y agoAhh, I think I see the confusion you have. In America, the term "content creator" does not in fact refer to people who create entertaining or informative things (aka content), but to legal entities which have enough money to buy laws, bribe law enforcement to do their bidding, and extort large and small companies into absurd revenue share schemes. It has nothing to do with people actually doing work. The quaint notion of "artist" and "copyright protection" are just abstracte technical terms with clever misnomers, that exist to excite and confuse the masses into supporting this arrangement.
- adventureful 14y agoIn America? First of all, I'm impressed that you're able to speak on such a grand scale as to paint a very large, very diverse nation with such a simplistic and sarcastic brush. Second, what exactly was the value in posting that? As a means of making a point, it's obnoxious at best, and useless at worst. Surely there's a better way to contribute to the conversation.
- tensor 14y agoThere are many problems with the north american intellectual property systems. The post certainly could have communicated in a far clearer manner though. I will try in the orignal posters place. 1) Copyright law. It is indefinitely extended. Is this right? It is certainly true that the term "content creator" extends past the point where the actual content creator lived. Ok, so the law says that corporations are people. They own the content! But since they do not die, is copyright truly indefinite? 2) Lobbying in the US. Corporations can "donate" to politicians and essentially buy their positions on copyright and enforcement matters. This is a problem. The government should not be able to be bought. 3) Extortion. A combination of copyright and patent laws, that are perhaps overly broad, allow those with established positions and a lot of money to force innovative newcomers into the systems the incumbents put in place which exists only to funnel money into the incumbents pockets. Small companies do not have the funds to be able to adequately defend copyright or patent infringement cases, regardless of the merit of the claims. None of these are easy problems, but they are none the less problems.
- rmc 14y ago2) Lobbying in the US. Corporations can "donate" to politicians and essentially buy their positions on copyright and enforcement matters. I often hear people in the US complain about this, and sometimes make reference to US Supreme Court rulings that allowed companies to donate as much as they want, and these activists want this laws repealed. You note that political corruption is not unique to the USA right? You know bribery and donations can take many forms even if you remove 'corporate personhood'? Lots of countries have a problem with corrupt politicians.
- Yver 14y agoAnd your point is?
- rmc 14y agoMy point is that its not totally the law's fault. Changing the law without changing the culture will not totally solve the problem.
- koide 14y agoAnd how corruption being worldwide makes it less of a problem?
- rmc 14y agoIt doesn't make it less of a problem. But it shows how the specific laws in the USA are not the root cause of the problem. Change the culture, don't just overturn Citizens United.
- cygx 14y ago> In America? First of all, I'm impressed that you're able to speak on such a grand scale as to paint a very large, very diverse nation with such a simplistic and sarcastic brush. He's commenting on federal law, which indeed applies to the United States as a whole, or do you claim otherwise?
- apk17 14y ago'diverse nation'? Last time I checked, America consisted of twentysomething nations, one of wich in the habit of speaking for all of them.
- antidoh 14y agoAmerica is the widely used casual name for the United States of America. Context matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America "America usually refers to either: "The Americas, a landmass comprising North America and South America "The United States of America, a country in North America"
- pm90 14y agoThis actually is reasonable since US is the only country with `america' in its name. Other countries have fancier names that can be used to easily recognize them.
- slapshot 14y ago> how can I get my content added to their content ID system so that people don't re-upload my stuff? There's a signup form here: http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup
- stephengillie 14y agoIs there any penalty for adding content you don't actually own to the content ID system?
- andypants 14y agoI don't know, but it has happened. News companies post videos that they actually find on youtube because it is part of a story, then the original video gets a copyright claim made against it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]