3 ms·

Won't be available to anyone terminated for copyright stuff. Woooow what a huge dick move. That's the one massively imbalanced power dynamic that I hear peopl

Won't be available to anyone terminated for copyright stuff. Woooow what a huge dick move. That's the one massively imbalanced power dynamic that I hear people really fear losing their livelihood to for no good reason, and they're leaving it there to terrorize and ruin livelihoods for future generations. I put up a video of a funeral service for my grandma and like 5 minutes later I was getting threatening legalese mail about my channel by cancelled forever because some record label has a recording of a thousand year old hymn and they don't give a shit about threatening people with no legal basis at all

JKCalhoun 1y ago
The whole thing is a weird mea culpa. YouTube: We fucked up. A little. And I love how they're framing it as a "Second Chance". Like, you fucked up but we're going to be big and compassionate just this once. The cynical me suspects that this instead is a more sweeping plan to cover for their coming re-listing of all the hate-filled, extremist channels that they had delisted in the past.
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  > The cynical me suspects that this instead is a more sweeping plan to cover for their coming re-listing of all the hate-filled, extremist channels that they had delisted in the past. That's exactly what this is. And they're probably going to be pushed to delist LGBT content under some vague upcoming project 2025 indecency regulation by the FCC.
tjpnz 1y ago
Trusting your livelihood to platforms like YouTube already puts you in an incredibly precarious position, even if you are playing by the rules. The Adocalypse comes to mind, as do random algorithm changes and flawed automation leading to videos getting demonetized. It's no wonder most of the creators I follow are hedging their bets on paid promotions and crowd funding platforms (which all have the same problems). I couldn't imagine the stress in relying on all that to pay off a mortgage.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
xg15 1y ago
Given how vague their "eligibility criteria" are and how they consider on- and off-platform behavior, I'm not sure that's such a great loss. The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement.
- Onavo 1y ago
  > The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement. The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else they might find themselves subject to political prosecution.
  - deaux 1y ago
    They didn't force anything, they gave them a choice, and Google consciously and actively chose to make this decision. AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others. It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
    - hugey010 1y ago
      Your second example of a choice is a consequence of a choice. Those companies chose not to comply with new reporting rules which resulted in having their Pentagon access revoked. This is an important distinction when given "choices" that aren't really choices but mandates. As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Unfortunately they have a virtual monopoly on ugc video streaming. Without competitive pressure highly centralized services become the playfield of government forces.
BoredPositron 1y ago
That's hilarious it's so strange to see copyright arguments in 2025 when every tech company that mingles in AI just doesn't give a fuck? Why should I care?
- grugagag 1y ago
  There’s a word for that, hypocrisy.
- bonoboTP 1y ago
  > Why should I care? AI training is fair use. For pirating books, they probably calculate that the fine will be lower than their profits. Assuming you're putting videos on YouTube, you should care because they have leverage over you and can ban you. You seem to imply some kind of moral terms or reasons based on principles but that's not how corporations work. And either way they will get a pass because their stuff is extremely valuable for intelligence agencies and the military.
  - nofunsir 1y ago
    >AI training is fair use. You say that so confidently as if it's not the subject of a heated controversial debate this very moment.
    - bonoboTP 1y ago
      There was a ruling. But I'm generally disinterested in the US style of these debates where it's all about twisting words and creatively interpreting old laws. In functioning countries they just adopt new and clear laws.
  - angoragoats 1y ago
    > AI training is fair use Piracy is fair use.
7bit 1y ago
Last heard on Gamers Nexus. A multi-million subscriber channel that got hit with a copyright strike by (I think it was) Bloomberg and falsely claimed. They had no legal ground and YouTube cracked down on them. Ef YouTube and ef their blog post.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

The whole thing is a weird mea culpa. YouTube: We fucked up. A little. And I love how they're framing it as a "Second Chance". Like, you fucked up but we're going to be big and compassionate just this once. The cynical me suspects that this instead is a more sweeping plan to cover for their coming re-listing of all the hate-filled, extremist channels that they had delisted in the past.

candiddevmike 1y ago
> The cynical me suspects that this instead is a more sweeping plan to cover for their coming re-listing of all the hate-filled, extremist channels that they had delisted in the past. That's exactly what this is. And they're probably going to be pushed to delist LGBT content under some vague upcoming project 2025 indecency regulation by the FCC.

tjpnz 1y ago

Trusting your livelihood to platforms like YouTube already puts you in an incredibly precarious position, even if you are playing by the rules. The Adocalypse comes to mind, as do random algorithm changes and flawed automation leading to videos getting demonetized. It's no wonder most of the creators I follow are hedging their bets on paid promotions and crowd funding platforms (which all have the same problems). I couldn't imagine the stress in relying on all that to pay off a mortgage.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

xg15 1y ago

Given how vague their "eligibility criteria" are and how they consider on- and off-platform behavior, I'm not sure that's such a great loss. The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement.

Onavo 1y ago
> The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement. The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else they might find themselves subject to political prosecution.
- deaux 1y ago
  They didn't force anything, they gave them a choice, and Google consciously and actively chose to make this decision. AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others. It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
  - hugey010 1y ago
    Your second example of a choice is a consequence of a choice. Those companies chose not to comply with new reporting rules which resulted in having their Pentagon access revoked. This is an important distinction when given "choices" that aren't really choices but mandates. As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.
throwaway48476 1y ago
Unfortunately they have a virtual monopoly on ugc video streaming. Without competitive pressure highly centralized services become the playfield of government forces.

BoredPositron 1y ago

That's hilarious it's so strange to see copyright arguments in 2025 when every tech company that mingles in AI just doesn't give a fuck? Why should I care?

grugagag 1y ago
There’s a word for that, hypocrisy.
bonoboTP 1y ago
> Why should I care? AI training is fair use. For pirating books, they probably calculate that the fine will be lower than their profits. Assuming you're putting videos on YouTube, you should care because they have leverage over you and can ban you. You seem to imply some kind of moral terms or reasons based on principles but that's not how corporations work. And either way they will get a pass because their stuff is extremely valuable for intelligence agencies and the military.
- nofunsir 1y ago
  >AI training is fair use. You say that so confidently as if it's not the subject of a heated controversial debate this very moment.
  - bonoboTP 1y ago
    There was a ruling. But I'm generally disinterested in the US style of these debates where it's all about twisting words and creatively interpreting old laws. In functioning countries they just adopt new and clear laws.
- angoragoats 1y ago
  > AI training is fair use Piracy is fair use.

7bit 1y ago

Last heard on Gamers Nexus. A multi-million subscriber channel that got hit with a copyright strike by (I think it was) Bloomberg and falsely claimed. They had no legal ground and YouTube cracked down on them. Ef YouTube and ef their blog post.