Jump to content

Something is Rotten in the State of Gamemark


Harsin
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's no indication anywhere that anyone is going to need to take anyone to court to sort this out, it's a case of YouTube taking their account management stick and hitting people who could jeapordise their viewing figures and thus ad revenue. Who in this case are the people misusing ContentID.

Sorry, must not be explaining clearly! For me, from youtube's point of view, the legal threat becomes possible if they issue fewer takedowns and accidentally fail to take something down when requested - as long as ad revenue remains high it makes more sense to set up your system so it catches all possible offending material (even if a bunch of other stuff gets caught erroneously) than it does to try and avoid any erroneous takedowns but thereby invite a risk that some offending material isn't actually taken down despite a request having been made.

If VM's right and people do stop using youtube as a result then of course they will need to reassess whether or not they're comfortable with that risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! Fair enough.

I think YouTube's really underestimated the consequences of certain systems and processes they put in place, and there needs to be a concerted effort to rationalise and redesign how content management works. It's a tricky one with no perfect solution, because you're going to have a system which veers to far towards protected rights holders and damaging video creators or vice versa.

I almost feel a voluntary content-confirmation system might work better by allowing video owners to flag material they don't have ownership of and losing a manageable percentage of their advertising revenue in exchange for being given certain additional protections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TuneCore explains music-based YouTube claims

Following music-related copyright claims on Terry Cavanagh's trailer for his own game, VVVVVV, as well as composer Magnus Pålsson's discovery that he was getting copyright claims on his own music, music distributor TuneCore has released an explanation for its role in the situation.

Both Cavanagh and Pålsson stated that the claims were made by YouTube music network INDMUSIC, which Tune Core has partnered with to license music involved in its publishing deals. TuneCore's post explains that when artists sign a publishing deal with TuneCore, they are granted "the right to collect the royalties [their] compositions earn when they're downloaded, streamed, and used around the world." This includes usage on services like Spotify and YouTube.

The same post offers a step-by-step walkthrough for artists that wish to have their channel whitelisted so that it's not monetized by TuneCore and INDMUSIC. However, TuneCore notes that even if artists whitelist their personal accounts, "TuneCore and INDMUSIC will still monetize other people's videos on YouTube that use your music, and you'll collect that money.

Unfortunately, it sounds like Pålsson's desire to allow Let's Plays and reviewers to use his music without collecting revenue isn't compatible with TuneCore's publishing deal, even if he whitelists his own channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't even need to grasp why, just don't go at someone else's music when they are told. I don't know if it costs much, but can an artist send some sort of C&D to them forbidding them from having anything to do with their music, whatever channel it happens to be found on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that Pålsson has a distribution deal with them - he just didn't realise that they also operated this royalty collection policy, which goes against what he wants from use of his material. I imagine he still wants to keep the distribution deal in place though, just not have them beating down peoples doors on his behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

As this news seems to jive particularly well with the title of this thread, I thought this would be the best place to post the latest stink. It's being widely reported that MS have been caught offering members of the Machinima Youtube network of 'personalities' an extra $3 per 1000 views of any video in which they talk about the Xbox One for at least ten minutes. The terms are that you cannot talk disparagingly about either Xbox One or Machinima, but must reference the Xbox One in either a positive or neutral light.

Now you could argue that this is dubious behaviour in itself, but perhaps not that shady considering how saturated Youtube is with adverts anyway. What really twists this into something bigger, and could possibly bring up legal problems for both MS and Machinima, is that part of the terms and conditions for accepting this offer, is that you do not disclose anything about the agreement.

As other commentators have pointed out, this could well go against FTC law, which states that people must "clearly and conspicuously" disclose that they are being paid by an advertiser for their services.

Lots more at: Ars Technica and of course NeoGaf is already calling for MS to voluntary liquidate themselves in shame. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the reaction on GAF was pretty amazing, they seem to have been under the impression that YT personalities were somehow more respectable than major gaming websites, despite basically being entertainers and marketers with not even the pretence of journalistic ethics, based on what? Them making some angry videos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the caveat there is 'major' personalities, same as 'major' websites. Power corrupts, being established means attracting more lobbyists, etc etc.

This much we already know, that's why youtube reviewers became popular in the first place, they arent mainstream so are outside the notice of such corrupting influences. So they become popular. Then they are the mainstream and are worth being subverted. Same as any other media through history.

No doubt the smaller, indy, or otherwise niche youtubers dont have to worry about this kind of shit. And there's always more indies rising up to fill the void left by sellouts, because there's demand for it. As long as that happens the audience base is ok, it just needs to use a bit of sense when it comes to assessing the reliability of its sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.