You tube's new questionable policy on video game videos .

[The Despondent Mind]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...ent-producers/


http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013...y-offers-help/


It seems YT decided that shoot itself , honestly I just don't get this .


I also never understood some companies that were full of copyright BS before this . I mean how can you loose money on video game videos , you know like the whole point is that you are PLAYING video games not viewing , even if that person is making money of the videos it's still not based purely on the video content .

[Henry X]

To answer your last question, I'm going to make a snarky remark about video games are all about the graphics bro!

[The Despondent Mind]

Video critic Angry Joe says that because of the 17 seconds of a song in his video , the Company that owns the song rights is getting the WHOLE revenue of the video .

[John I Tzimisces]

Evidently what's happening is an automated system is noticing clips of music flagged as copyrighted (either by the person who made it, or whats apparently rather common people who have nothing to do with the copyright) and putting up the flags.

The latter case is apparently why folks like capcom have been saying they aren't responsible for most of the recent copyright claims.

edit: I was listening to anderzel talk about it a bit in a recent video. Apparently someone has been claiming a clip of music he uses that he was granted permission to use (by some swedish band), and youtube rejected his dispute despite the fact he and the band are trying to tell them everything's above board. He also clarified these aren't content strikes which can get your channel shut down, these are just copyright claims that these individuals or organizations (fraudulent and legitimate) are using to claim ad revenue.

So what seems to be happening from my perspective is that youtube is taking extra precautions to avoid copyright lawsuits against itself by using this new system, but in being so cautious regarding copyright claims they're letting a ton of illegitimate claims through.

[The Despondent Mind]

This reminds me on Skynet or Ultron solving the problem with an overkill .

[UselessPoster]

Is there an alternative to youtube because im getting bored of youtubes copyright nonsense!.

[The Useless Member]

Is there an alternative to youtube because im getting bored of youtubes copyright nonsense!.

I think there was a kickstarter for another website like it, but I think it failed.

As if the youtube community wasn't pissed enough about the new comment system (and rightfully so imo)

[Spajjder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfHd...direct=1#t=985

http://kotaku.com/game-critic-says-y...his-1482117783

In the video 'Angry' Joe Vargas from the Angry Joe show who i think is a member of this forum and has reviewed shogun 2 and Rome 2 tells about the new content ID rules which will prevent him doing what he is doing. about 60 of his uploaded videos have been claimed by youtube to break copyright regulations. The claims range from showing game content to having music in the background. Even interviews done with producers have been claimed since the new content ID system was implemented.

For Vargas, who make his income from the ads connected to the videos this threatens to end his career as a video game reviewer. If he wants the claims removed he has to contact the publishers of the game which content has been claimed by youtube on their behalf. The copyright holders however have 30 days to respond to an appeal, and if a copyright holder insists the use is unauthorized and YouTube sides with them, it can result in a copyright violation strike against the channel owner. After three strikes the channel gets shut down. The result being that Vargas and others in his situation have to spend all their time to get appeals and meanwhile losing the income from their videos. Vargas, who quit his job 4 years ago to go full time '80 hours a week' doing his till this point occupation says he now cannot upload a video without worrying about it getting claimed. He further notes he cannot make a review that shows his points efficiently without showing of any content, and that this in the end will hurt youtube who disregards their content creators, as well as the copyright holders who misses out of lots of free promotion.

In the Kotaku article there is another video showing that this critique is misdirected at youtube and that it instead has to do something with google rules... was too lazy to listen to it all.

I do not know the implications of this to the full but if it means all commercialized lets plays, reviews, top ten lists, gets banned it will remove alot of good content. What is to say that it will stop there? If this continues wont all lets plays, top tens and the like, multiplayer matches, discussions about games etc get banned or flagged?
Angry joe show is one of the few reviewers I saw which gave a review I could agree on regarding rome 2, he obviously puts a lot of work into his reviews which plenty of his own content and dress ups etc, I find it hard to in any way call him a leach of others work. In that case that goes for pretty much all jobs in the world. It is 2013 for gods sake. If only big news cooperations can work full time reviewing games then we in the end only have metacritic to go on. And most of us are not, even if sometimes we like to think so, reviewers at a professional level.

Edit: And I hope this is the right forum... I thought it is current events, not politics but business

[Condottiere 40K]

Piratetube.

[DiabolikTW]

You do know that some developers get bonuses when they hit metacritic ratings? And I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_20727_5-reasons-video-game-industry-about-to-crash.html

You're going to get it instantly.

They don't want people to give honest unbiased critics.

They don't want people to know how much their games suck.

Those they can't buy or discredit, they want to silence. Plain and simple.

It's about controlling the information and it's following the exact same trend of all the other sectors. They want the internet to become like TV, radio and newspapers.

All about propaganda, their biased vision of reality and money making, the hell with everything else.

[IZob]

It's their website. They can do what ever they want with it, so long as its within law.

The reason Youtube are doing this, is to insure copyright claims are being respected. A lot of videos do not have the authority to post the content they have (eg: movie clips, music, etc). It is illegal redistribution because the owner is not getting any return value (royalties).


The problem is the system is automatic, thus it will sometimes flag content, even if it is allowed. For someone with a few videos it isn't a huge problem, they could get it sorted out quickly. But someone like AG with 60+ videos all with copyright protected content, he has a lot of people to get into contact with.

There are other problems (that I am not 100% sure about):
- Companies/Organisations have not been able to tell Youtubes system, that videos showing their content is ok. Thus there is a lot of micromanagement required to settle the claims over many videos.
- Some videos are flagged by companies that do not exist (or have closed down).

Finally some companies just do not want their content on Youtube. The reasons vary, but its in their right to refuse public access to their content. In the case of video games, the publisher/developers may not want the video on Youtube because of negative criticism (more of less the same reason). But its a two way street. If people cannot review your content in a accepted, standard manor, then people are not going to trust the product.

In the end, you can still type about the product or talk about it. You are just not allowed to display it visually or use any of its sound - far as I know.


A lot of game companies have said posting its content is ok, including: Ubisoft, Paradox... blah blah blah

[Spajjder]

It's their website. They can do what ever they want with it, so long as its within law.

The reason Youtube are doing this, is to insure copyright claims are being respected. A lot of videos do not have the authority to post the content they have (eg: movie clips, music, etc). It is illegal redistribution because the owner is not getting any return value (royalties).


The problem is the system is automatic, thus it will sometimes flag content, even if it is allowed. For someone with a few videos it isn't a huge problem, they could get it sorted out quickly. But someone like AG with 60+ videos all with copyright protected content, he has a lot of people to get into contact with.

There are other problems (that I am not 100% sure about):
- Companies/Organisations have not been able to tell Youtubes system, that videos showing their content is ok. Thus there is a lot of micromanagement required to settle the claims over many videos.
- Some videos are flagged by companies that do not exist (or have closed down).

Finally some companies just do not want their content on Youtube. The reasons vary, but its in their right to refuse public access to their content. In the case of video games, the publisher/developers may not want the video on Youtube because of negative criticism (more of less the same reason). But its a two way street. If people cannot review your content in a accepted, standard manor, then people are not going to trust the product.

In the end, you can still type about the product or talk about it. You are just not allowed to display it visually or use any of its sound - far as I know.


A lot of game companies have said posting its content is ok, including: Ubisoft, Paradox... blah blah blah

Thanks for explaining that !

Isn't Machinima etc corporations that can go the same way as youtube then? and dont they demand a charge for being part of their network?

[sleepyx732]

Oh boy, more people telling you what you can or can't do with publicly sold material. All for the sake of money.

How demoralizing.

[Simon Cashmere]

People like FrankieonPCin1080 and JackFrags are invited by DICE to review their games, like BF4. It's idiotic to therefore flag their videos and shut them down. People like TotalBiscuit and others do the same thing. Nobody is going to class action Youtube, it just wont happen, they were protected from all the State Department BS, unlike poor old KimDotcom who got slammed. It pays to have friends in the right places.

[War lord]

The only people who are gonna get burned long term is youtube. Content providers can just change website. We're already seeing the formation of large networks like Machinima, Polaris, Channel Awesome and so on, who can protect Content providers from suppressive takedown attempts. Youtube isn't going to kill off content, the content will move, and youtube will die.

[Aanker]

Movie review sites have to ask to display material in the movie (unless it is part of stuff like trailers, I believe), and this really isn't all that different. If you're making money off of someone else's product, and the producer of that product is getting nothing in return, something is off.

[Pielstick]

Movie review sites have to ask to display material in the movie (unless it is part of stuff like trailers, I believe), and this really isn't all that different. If you're making money off of someone else's product, and the producer of that product is getting nothing in return, something is off.

Generally speaking I'd agree with what you've written. However, if this is to be used as a way of ensuring only positive or approved reviews get published then it is indeed a very cynical thing to happen. I'd say that the rise of the small, independent Youtube reviewers is a direct result of dissatisfaction with the mainstream gaming media whom it's increasingly apparent are in the big publishers' pockets.

[Aanker]

Generally speaking I'd agree with what you've written. However, if this is to be used as a way of ensuring only positive or approved reviews get published then it is indeed a very cynical thing to happen. I'd say that the rise of the small, independent Youtube reviewers is a direct result of dissatisfaction with the mainstream gaming media whom it's increasingly apparent are in the big publishers' pockets.

True to a certain extent. We'll simply have to wait and see what happens. The "fair opinion of a product" argument is also used for piracy and that's why I'm rather sceptical of it.

I think we'll eventually reach a balance of sorts. The publishers are surely getting a lot of free marketing from all the Let's Players and Reviewers, and without them they would have to rely on gamers relying on them to deliver a solid product (ignore your own individual opinion of the games that now follow). That kind of trust maybe exists for games like Call of Duty and Battlefield, which are well-known brands that attract players with every release, but for less well-known publishers and games series you will have to allow some of that small-scale "crowd" marketing to occur.

Large publishing sites might receive a lot of funding from the major publishers, but, conversely, they also receive that funding because they are ideal marketing spots. So the relationship between reviewer and publisher is probably more complex than the conspiracy theory often presented by haters of a particular game that receives favorable reviews. That's not to say the phenomenon does not exist.

[IZob]

Generally speaking I'd agree with what you've written. However, if this is to be used as a way of ensuring only positive or approved reviews get published then it is indeed a very cynical thing to happen. I'd say that the rise of the small, independent Youtube reviewers is a direct result of dissatisfaction with the mainstream gaming media whom it's increasingly apparent are in the big publishers' pockets.

How this will be used will depend on the company policy. Some will be pro free-speech, others will not. In the end, I think it will do more harm then good to their reputation, if a company refuses open criticism. YouTube hasn't stopped its members from giving their opinion or experiences about a product in videos. Your just not allowed to show/play that product, if the publisher doesn't allow it.

While this could make the videos less entertaining, that is yet to be determined. The message in the video will still be relevant.

For instance, play-throughs are valuable demonstrations of how a game plays out. Players often consider them as another form of a review. But if a company denys this sort of video demonstration, then the audience will suspect the game content. For the better or worse. The author of the video can still give their opinion on the matter.

And if you suspect the Author or Critic to be bias, then that is easy to detect imo. Simply look at their experience at previous titles and what ratings they have given. If your experience contradicts their views then that perhaps, is a sign to not trust the Critic.

[Knight_Of_Ne]

One of the issues with this systems is that Youtube doesn't help mediate disputes, the youtuber has to take up the dispute with the claiming party themselves. This is compounded when there are companies/people claiming ownership of content that isn't theirs or multiple companies claiming the same content because they hold the rights to it in their respective countries.