2019-12-03 Content ID Drama - Every fucking day off

[Prince Lotor]

Test

Susantube changed its copyright rules and it is no longer 3 strikes your out.

That was for Community Guideline Strikes, like if you say 'nigger' or 'faggot' or 'kill all niggers & faggots' too much, not for Copyright Strikes. It's still all your associated accounts get nuked if you accrue 3 Copyright Strikes within 90 days of the most recent one, before they expire.

 

[Kheapathic]

Woke up to about 7 of my Revengeance videos being hit by these guys. Gonna type up a letter asking kindly to see if they'd remove the strikes when I get home.

Edit: By strikes I mean claims, they're different.

 

[tzgnilki]

now is probably the perfect time to file false claims, dsp is too lazy to read and check anything

 

[That Hedonist Nerd]

Even if you put effort into it, youtube's AI is so fucking stupid and broken you cant help but get fucked somehow. Dave is a trashbag of a human being running the biggest begging con of the century but youtube will somehow find a way to piss people off more.

Content ID matches don't use an AI. Content ID works via Acoustic Fingerprinting. There's no thinking by the system. Fingerprints are uploaded, and matches are handled however the IP owner wants - block, revenue share, or nothing. If you ever wondered why people like Snort Burnell releases all their videos with the screen flipped and the audio pitch changed it's an attempt to combat content ID matches. They don't realize that what they're doing doesn't actually work to evade a content ID match, the fingerprint is the same no matter what pitch you change it to.

My issue with content ID matches is they don't take into account Fair Use. It just immediately applies whatever the IP owner wishes. I can't entirely blame them, YouTube was sued for a billion dollars by Viacom a decade ago, but I really wish they'd tag it and then do the proper thing - having a panel of judges that review the video in question and apply the 4 factors of fair use to it:

• the purpose and character of your use.
• the nature of the copyrighted work.
• the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and.
• the effect of the use upon the potential market.

 

[Dragoonism]

Didn't listen to the entire rant about him getting copyright strikes, but he loves pointing out how IT are criminals and it would be so easy to bring them to court...
Is it his new thing? To call things that dont go his way illegal?
He has pointed finger at us for some time and call uploading TIHYDP and similare videos a crime and now YT are criminals!

 

[James Smith]

Content ID claims that publishers allow with revenue redirection doesn't mean the entire video is now their money, just a percentage of it which is a simplistic "Video Length"/"Claimed Content Length".

I believe you're incorrect. In my experience with Content ID I made $0.001 per play of my songs. It never varied more than a minimal amount. Regardless of how the copyright holder is compensated the uploader gets exactly nothing for a video with a Content ID claim, I don't care if it's for a 10 second clip on a multiple hour video.

 

[Very Honest Content]

Because you honestly think Phil would go through the minimal effort of creating a new LLC? He can’t even move the furniture around in his “office” to make it more appropriate, normal and comfortable.

If it was worth it enough for him to cover his tax payment installment penalties if he lost the current account to get funds out of, or at least dent the payment amounts owed? Yes.

Is it likely overall? lol no

Gustavo Canine Games is the channel a 3.3k sub channel and he is in panic mode.View attachment 1036372
Taking a page right out of the DSP handbook.

If this wasn't amusing me, I'd almost feel bad for the guy caught in a salt mine not of his own making, but then again there is a certain irony in trying to monetize your useless video game videos that add nothing of value to the planet in the long run being your own undoing thanks to what amounts to greed at the end of the day. So I can't admit to feeling that bad for him over this either.

 

[That Hedonist Nerd]

I believe you're incorrect. In my experience with Content ID I made $0.001 per play of my songs. It never varied more than a minimal amount. Regardless of how the copyright holder is compensated the uploader gets exactly nothing for a video with a Content ID claim, I don't care if it's for a 10 second clip on a multiple hour video.

I've only experienced a whole video being blocked or 100% of the revenue going to the original IP, mainly because I was uploading music videos that were included on a lot of punk CDs in the 90s and while the videos were rare, I didn't own the copyright.

I'm sure you're right, that they never actually share with the uploader, but on their support site under the "How Content ID Works" they state this:

The Fair Use doctrine doesn't mention anything about splitting ownership rights, so the revenue sharing bit isn't really anything besides logic.

All detractor videos are completely legal under the parody clause of Fair Use. Under common law, the fair use doctrine, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, use of copyrighted material in parody is necessary, acceptable, and legal.

I wish I could provoke him into taking a detractor down - there's plenty of lawyers who would love that case against him and Google.

 

[harbinger]

That’s on his second account which he isn’t suppose to have. He linked a second Adsense account to DSPGaming after his partner dropped him, but something was wrong with that account so that’s why he bitched.

had something to do with with his YouTube and Google+ account being joined and his dumbass spamming of 50+ videos a day was being rightfully classified as spam so he had a freeze put on that Adsense account. Had Google known he was already banned once on a different account, he would have been banned again and fucked.

Just to make a small correction here. Philip’s second Adsense account was linked to KOGaming. His third Adsense account, he tried to link up to DSPGaming. He created two new accounts after the Laveria fiasco, in violation of Google Adsense ToS, and still got away with it.

 

[James Smith]

I'm sure you're right, that they never actually share with the uploader, but on their support site under the "How Content ID Works" they state this:

Ah that's only for cover songs.

If you sing a cover song and the composition (the sheet music as opposed to the audio recording) is detected in your video you can request the rightsholder allow you to make some of the money from the video's monetization.

 

[Kheapathic]

The situation where they copyright claimed several videos of mine disappeared while I was away. By the time I got home, the claims were cleared up. When I watched Null's stream, it turns out they were working to fix the issue where the system was tagging everyone. So while Phil had to go full meltdown mode, the situation seemed to resolve itself (for the most part anyway).