general Youtube; Where's the Fair Use?

[Buck Testa 5,505]

@@Floris,@@SomeRetroGeek, @@Celtore, @@TominatorXX2, @@ARagY,  @,@@BlinkZ,@@Nightmare Muffin,

 

 

 

This guy, MundaneMatt, has set up a Thunderclap, he explains it towards the end of the video. I and 1500 people have already singed up. This will send a message to youtube asking #WTFU , where is the fair use. Join in as well! Everyone from Markiplier To Jacksepticeye, to MadMunchkin to Doctor wolf is being affected by this. This will help our voices be heard, all at once

https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/37912-where-s-the-fair-use-wtfu?locale=en

[Midnight Chimes 69]

The YouTube situation is really very depressing. The problem is as I've said in an article I'm currently writing on the subject, Google know they can get away with it because they have no competition on the video sharing website market. It doesn't how much users complain because ultimately they're not going to go anyway, since there is no where else to go. Anyway, I thought I'd add Mad Munchkin's contribution.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng4gA9Kg7Kw

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,478]

When Markiplier is commenting about this, you KNOW this is getting serious. 

This is where I am actually against a YouTuber. Someone like Markiplaier, while also being arrogant enough to call his channel 'one of your favorites' but also, is Mark saying that HIS channel falls under fair use? The thing is, it doesn't. Doug doesn't even mention Let's Players at all in his video, because Let's Players are NOT content creators. They take the work of other's, that being games in this case, play them and boom, apparently that is 'content creation', to me, that is not in terms for Fair Use at all. Don't get me wrong, I am not against Let's Players (I despise Mark though to be honest) but I will say it over and over that their 'content' doesn't get some free pass. 

 

Movie reviewers? Yes. Game reviewers? Yes. People that...just play the game? No. The big LPers are not doing satire, parody or real criticism and they don't deserve to make money off of what they do. Which is just taking the work of others and just 'experiencing it'. If people can't record themselves watching a movie in full, then I seriously don't get why people can record themselves playing a game in full AND make boatloads of cash from doing so.

[Buck Testa 5,505]

This is where I am actually against a YouTuber. Someone like Markiplaier, while also being arrogant enough to call his channel 'one of your favorites' but also, is Mark saying that HIS channel falls under fair use? The thing is, it doesn't. Doug doesn't even mention Let's Players at all in his video, because Let's Players are NOT content creators. They take the work of other's, that being games in this case, play them and boom, apparently that is 'content creation', to me, that is not in terms for Fair Use at all. Don't get me wrong, I am not against Let's Players (I despise Mark though to be honest) but I will say it over and over that their 'content' doesn't get some free pass. 

 

Movie reviewers? Yes. Game reviewers? Yes. People that...just play the game? No. The big LPers are not doing satire, parody or real criticism and they don't deserve to make money off of what they do. Which is just taking the work of others and just 'experiencing it'. If people can't record themselves watching a movie in full, then I seriously don't get why people can record themselves playing a game in full AND make boatloads of cash from doing so.

The legitimacy of letsplayers isn't really the topic of discussion. I would like to point out that people "just playing games" are a multi billion dollar industry 

 

Its called "sports"

And with video games they even have e-sports, which have sometimes millions of dollars at stake

 

Some of the most popular letsplayers out there, the ones who ARE transformative, work off the game as part of an ad libbed comedy routine and are adding something to the content that wouldn't be there otherwise. They have sponsors, backing from the game developers themselves, and a host of other things that would never come their way if they were not a legitimate business. If it was just a silent playthrough with nothing added you'd have a point, but many of them ARE popular for what they bring to the table and not necessarily the game itself. Whether you like Mark or not has no bearing on the legitimacy of his buisness or the money he makes, and its not really prudent to bring such gripes in a topic specifically about protecting content creators from abusive misrepresentation of their content.  

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,478]

The legitimacy of letsplayers isn't really the topic of discussion. I would like to point out that people "just playing games" are a multi billion dollar industry 

 

Its called "sports"

And with video games they even have e-sports, which have sometimes millions of dollars at stake

 

Some of the most popular letsplayers out there, the ones who ARE transformative, work off the game as part of an ad libbed comedy routine and are adding something to the content that wouldn't be there otherwise. They have sponsors, backing from the game developers themselves, and a host of other things that would never come their way if they were not a legitimate business. If it was just a silent playthrough with nothing added you'd have a point, but many of them ARE popular for what they bring to the table and not necessarily the game itself. Whether you like Mark or not has no bearing on the legitimacy of his buisness or the money he makes, and its not really prudent to bring such gripes in a topic specifically about protecting content creators from abusive misrepresentation of their content.  

 

E-Sports and Let's Plays are two different things. One is a competition between two teams, the other is nothing of the sort. 

 

The thing is, I am saying that Let's Players AREN'T content creators. If someone recording themselves watching a movie in full and 'commentating over it' doesn't qualify for content creation under fair use, then the same should be said for Let's Players. 

 

And to be clear, one of my favorite people on YouTube, Storpey, is a Let's Player, but do I think what he does is worthy of him making a friggin' living off of that? No. He is not reviewing the game, he is not creating satire or parody, he is simple playing the game and talking while he does it. Should these people be allowed to upload their videos? Sure, but making MONEY from it? I don't think so. To me, that isn't limiting 'content creation', but rather limiting people from making tons of money off of other people's content and doing absolutely nothing with their content, other than 'experiencing it'. 

[Buck Testa 5,505]

E-Sports and Let's Plays are two different things. One is a competition between two teams, the other is nothing of the sort. 

 

The thing is, I am saying that Let's Players AREN'T content creators. If someone recording themselves watching a movie in full and 'commentating over it' doesn't qualify for content creation under fair use, then the same should be said for Let's Players. 

 

And to be clear, one of my favorite people on YouTube, Storpey, is a Let's Player, but do I think what he does is worthy of him making a friggin' living off of that? No. He is not reviewing the game, he is not creating satire or parody, he is simple playing the game and talking while he does it. Should these people be allowed to upload their videos? Sure, but making MONEY from it? I don't think so. To me, that isn't limiting 'content creation', but rather limiting people from making tons of money off of other people's content and doing absolutely nothing with their content, other than 'experiencing it'. 

Again, and this is the last time I'm saying this, this isn't the topic for this. /thread this if you feel it needs to be talked about. 

 

You may have personal gripes with it, but there are many MANY people and businesses, INCLUDING MYSELF, whom strongly disagree with you for reasons I've already stated. This topic is about #WTFU , and Letsplayers fall under that whether you have personal beef with that or not. If you wish to continue on about that, make a topic about it.  

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,478]

Again, and this is the last time I'm saying this, this isn't the topic for this. /thread this if you feel it needs to be talked about. 

 

You may have personal gripes with it, but there are many MANY people and businesses, INCLUDING MYSELF, whom strongly disagree with you for reasons I've already stated. This topic is about #WTFU , and Letsplayers fall under that whether you have personal beef with that or not. If you wish to continue on about that, make a topic about it.  

That is weird considering you posted an image of a Let's Players going on about how Fair Use affects him and how he falls under Fair Use, I was simply stating why that is false. It is perfectly on topic, but I actually think making a thread of my own about this particular subject would be more fulfilling, so I will do that instead. 

 

And for people like Doug and YMS, I hope this system either gets fixed or eradicated all together. 

[Buck Testa 5,505]

 

 

And for people like Doug and YMS, I hope this system either gets fixed or eradicated all together.

 

With that, I totally agree with you.  

[Sunny Fox 5,950]

Granted, this is merely one person's perspective on Let's Plays, but I'll put it down here anyway as material for the debate: https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/

[Buck Testa 5,505]

 

Brony youtubers are coming out one after another on this, its pretty amazing. 

https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/37912-where-s-the-fair-use-wtfu?locale=en

 

The ThunderClap campaign for #WTFU is going to be reaching almost a million people and its not even a full day since it was made. 

[Limeblossom 482]

What the f*ck Google. Still not learning anything from your mistakes? Still boot licking those copyright zealots and DMCA freaks? More and more channels are getting flagged for the most stupid reasons and you treat them even worse than real criminals. It's bullshit.

 

But I should've expected something like that since your "Google Ideas" council is inhabited by people who openly hate the Internet and most of the mods are government workers.

 

The whole bullshit is enough evidence that Google needs serious competition.

 

P.S. I know there's Dailymotion and Vimeo, and unfortunately they're not really active in being competitors.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Limeblossom

[The Cynical Lone Wolf 615]

I wanted to be a Youtuber and make videos,but when 30 second or less videoes are being taken down or flagged its just not worth it to me. I see it, as individual, a losing fight. Look at what happen to JanAnimations  

[Buck Testa 5,505]

 

 

P.S. I know there's Dailymotion and Vimeo, and unfortunately they're not really active in being competitors.

 

The only thing I can think of to get a youtube competitor is take it to Crowd funding and make the site appealing for Content creators to come and join. No company is really going to challenge youtube on this, its going to have to be the content creators who band together to pave their own way just like how movie makers made Hollywood.  

[Buck Testa 5,505]

 

Lily Peet giving her two cents on This whole situation. 

 

I urge you, please sign up for this thunderclap made by Mundane Matt, It is set to reach almost 3,000,000 people now as well as Google itself. If you care about any one of the content creators that have been posted here

Doctor Wolf

Nowacking

Josh Scorcher

Golden Fox

Lightning Dust

AlphaOmegaSin

MundaneMatt

Nostalgia Critic

and Many Many others whom are all crying out for a change, Sign this thing and spread this around 

https://www.thunderclap.it/en/projects/37912-where-s-the-fair-use-wtfu

[ScarfaceOne 263]

Where's the Fair Use indeed. We've lost a lot of YTPers over the past few years. The ones I am most upset about are Kobradova, 64Marjo64, and the person who created those Dr.Pingay videos. And if you ask me, YTP should also constitute under Fair Use. Even Pewdiepie would violate some copyright laws since he's essentially a rehash. I Mean, really, YTP's are original, so are MLG Montage parodies, they actually spruce up some of the original material I loved as a child. Especially Pingu. How I love that show, a lot.

 

If this is solved, I wish 64Marjo64 and Kobradova would return to Youtube.

Edited February 20, 2016 by ScarfaceOne

[Limeblossom 482]

The only thing I can think of to get a youtube competitor is take it to Crowd funding and make the site appealing for Content creators to come and join. No company is really going to challenge youtube on this, its going to have to be the content creators who band together to pave their own way just like how movie makers made Hollywood.  

I wish luck to those who will bring a competitor on the market. But make sure you have a plan and budget.

 

 

 

Lily Peet giving her two cents on This whole situation. 

 

I urge you, please sign up for this thunderclap made by Mundane Matt, It is set to reach almost 3,000,000 people now as well as Google itself. If you care about any one of the content creators that have been posted here

Doctor Wolf

Nowacking

Josh Scorcher

Golden Fox

Lightning Dust

AlphaOmegaSin

MundaneMatt

Nostalgia Critic

and Many Many others whom are all crying out for a change, Sign this thing and spread this around 

https://www.thunderclap.it/en/projects/37912-where-s-the-fair-use-wtfu

Google knew from the beginning that the Content ID system was broken and would attract outrage, but they used it only to stop some nagging MPAA lawyers. And it didn't help since they keep nagging anyway. The only way to get rid of them is by ignoring them, mocking them or confronting them over their bullshit.

It's a good thing to see so many people and famous Youtubers sharing their concern.

 

 

Where's the Fair Use indeed. We've lost a lot of YTPers over the past few years. The ones I am most upset about are Kobradova, 64Marjo64, and the person who created those Dr.Pingay videos. And if you ask me, YTP should also constitute under Fair Use. Even Pewdiepie would violate some copyright laws since he's essentially a rehash. I Mean, really, YTP's are original, so are MLG Montage parodies, they actually spruce up some of the original material I loved as a child. Especially Pingu. How I love that show, a lot.

 

If this is solved, I wish 64Marjo64 and Kobradova would return to Youtube.

YTP is a fair use tradition and what Google did was destroying a part of the Internet culture that contributed entertainment to Youtube.

[Buck Testa 5,505]

Team 4 Star has been taken down, I repeat, Team 4 star has been taken down.

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/TeamFourStar

 

#WTFU

[StormBlaze 992]

i really hope this WTFU movement does make a difference. 

I do cover songs on my YT channel and a few have been claimed. Some understandable because I used the karaoke track from a film, mostly Disney, but one came up and I won, was on a song cover by Theory Of a Dead man that me and a friend did, but it was an acoustic female vocals cover. like I said, luckily I won that one. 

 

But im a little worried to get strikes on my channel as I can't write my own songs, I'm just a vocalist. It's a way for me to get my voice out there and collab with musicians. 

[Limeblossom 482]

Team 4 Star has been taken down, I repeat, Team 4 star has been taken down.

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/TeamFourStar

 

#WTFU

The channel is back now, but for how long....

 

Google's still not learning it's f*cking lesson.

[ThePoniMan 164]

I saw that a few of CaptainSparklez's old parodies had to be completely changed because of strikes. Those were classics and were part of many childhoods. What has this world come to? 

[Simon 4,557]

Unpopular opinion time...

 

First of all, let's quash the notion that YouTube has any obligation to care about fair use, and instead understand why they even have a dispute process.

 

Here's the reality even though people might not see it: YouTube wants to keep your videos up. That's how they make their money... without content they don't have viewers, without viewers they have no ad revenue. YouTube is under absolutely no obligation to keep anybody's videos up there... it's not a government agency, it's a private organization. What they do have an obligation to do is comply with any valid take down requests they receive from copyright holders. The problem comes into play when there's a dispute over whether the take down request is valid or not.

 

You see, an organization like Hasbro is never actually going to sue YouTube content creators... a copyright lawsuit can cost a company hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor and legal fees, and the reality is that nobody putting copyright infringing videos up on YouTube has enough income for them to ever recoup their expenses. If they were ever going to sue anybody, it would be YouTube for failing to take down the content after they submitted a DMCA notice.  That means that in order for YouTube to leave up a video that they receive a DMCA takedown notice for, they have to be so confident about the validity of the copyright appeal, that they are willing to wager possibly facing an extremely expensive lawsuit over it.

 

Let's look at that from an individual's perspective... if a complete stranger walked up to you on the street and asked you to do something that you weren't positive was legal with little benefit to yourself, would you do it? Of course not. And I don't think it's fair to expect that from YouTube either.

 

And I know what people are going to say... But it's fair use! That obviously makes it legal so YouTube isn't taking a risk, they know that!  To that, I simply say... you're wrong.

 

Fair use is one of the single most misunderstood laws in existence. To understand just how hard it is to figure out what is and isn't fair use, let's look at what the fair use law actually states.  Fair use comes out of 17 U.S. Code § 107.  Here's the text of the law in its entirety:

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

 

The problem with fair use is the four 'factors' that it says courts should consider. This is what's called a balancing test in the law... it means that every time a court considers a fair use claim, it has to weigh all four of these factors and make a largely subjective determination of whether it falls into fair use. Unlike some laws which are very blatant and clear about what is covered by the law, fair use is intentionally vague to allow courts to make a case by case determination. The result of this is that outside of a few blatant examples of fair use, nobody knows whether a court will find something is fair use or not until they receive the determination.

 

That makes fair use claims an extraordinarily risky business for a company like YouTube.

 

At the end of the day, what YouTube gets left with is this:

 

If they take a video down that was under fair use, the only loss to YouTube is the ad revenue which would have come from that video which is generally going to be a few dollars at most since most videos have relatively few views. If they leave a video up after a DMCA takedown that was violating the company's copyright, they may be facing an extremely expensive lawsuit.

 

So really, from YouTube's perspective, it's a complete no-brainer to comply with DMCA takedowns that have absolutely any degree of validity to them.

 

The truth is like YouTube or not, these copyright complaints are just misplaced. Complain about over-zealous copyright holders making too many DMCA takedowns, or complain about the vagueness and outdated status of U.S. copyright law, but blaming YouTube for not taking on the financial risk for your video is just sort of a silly complaint. Yes, it's annoying and frustrating, but it's the system, not YouTube itself, that are resulting in the amount of takedowns.

[Guest]

Copyright does not need to be abolished, it needs to be re-written to take into account that we live in a digital age, otherwise people will be able to blatantly rip off content if there are NO laws in place. The ones we have are trash, but the solution is not totally removing the laws like some people seem to suggest.

[Megas 27,628]

Thought this would be a good place to post this 

 

 

But seriously, both youtube's and general copyright rules needs some serious reforming. And YT needs to get rid of it's automatic content ID system

Edited February 29, 2016 by Megas

[QuirkyUsername 1,576]

Thought this would be a good place to post this 

 

 

But seriously, both youtube's and general copyright rules needs some serious reforming. And YT needs to get rid of it's automatic content ID system

Conversation over. This pic sums up perfectly how broken the system is. What more needs to be said? XD

[DJW 142]

*Things*

 

Indeed.

 

Also, another issue that YT has is it's success; The number of videos uploaded makes it impossible to manually check each video (even just those that get flagged by the Content ID system or are issued with a complaint) without bankrupting the company or forcing them to charge ad fees that everyone would laugh at.

 

YT is also not a public space. It's not Speaker's Corner, or protected under any right to protest law or equivalent. By joining it you agree to a legally binding contract. And even without one, you have no right to insist your video(s) be immune from being refused monetisation, removed or your channel deleted. Their existence is entirely at the whim of YT, who don't need to give a reason for altering your content/channel AT ALL.

 

Am I defending YT?

Well.. Yes.. but also No.

Situations like this frequently bring about a cry of 'Power to the People!'; by which most of those crying out mean a certain section of people rather than all people. Right to protect your works is something everyone has equally, regardless of moral standpoint.

YT currently has no need to change. The number of videos affected simply don't  cause them enough worry at the moment to warrant any shifts in policy. Again this has a lot to do with their success; Economies of scale mean their software, UI, data costs make other hosting sites a poor second.

The real issue then (as it is so often with any social issue and/or system) is about Balance of Power.

Viewers and content makers do not have a viable alternative (especially for monetisation) so there is little reason for YT to change it's behaviour in direction of their favour.

 

Does that mean the current system isn't completely arse-backwards? Of course not. Claimants do not need proof of violation, the ID system is dumber than a sack of cracked hammers and the restriction on the number of disputes a channel can run makes no sense.

 

What we need less of is moral outcry over perceived rights and more letting YT know that changing is in their interest.

 

I'll leave you with the delectable mouth noises of Suede (whom I totally did not just completely rip-off paraphrase).

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by DJW