1. One Punch Doug Crashin

    One Punch Doug Crashin I AM INVINSIBLE!

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    382
    So there's been a lot of discussion about how broken YouTube's Content ID is. Recently, Doug Walker of the Nostalgia Critic posted a video Here:
    [YOUTUBE]zVqFAMOtwaI[/YOUTUBE]
    In the video he talks about how his channel had copywrite strikes on a Disneycenber video which he as the Nostalgia Critic reviewed My Neighbor Totoro. Fair Use is in case you don't know is a doctrine within the Digital Milenium Copywrite Act in which critics like Doug can take a clip and use it in an educational way. I would like your opinions on weather something like what Doug does is in fact fair use. Or, if you have a channel yourself if you had a claim and what you did. This is an issue far beyond the nostalgia critic.
     
    #1
  2. M

    M ☆*:.。. o(≧▽≦)o .。.:*☆

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    270
    It is fair use. The argument for fair use will usually win in any case that isn't a direct copy.

    Search up Cr1tikal's video on this "state of YouTube" for a reasoning behind why this sort of stuff is allowed to happen. Criticism is allowed under fair use, but youtubes robots aren't going to differentiate between proper cases and stuff like the nostalgia critic, so companies (and their own robots) just go around flagging stuff because that's what the current system allows them to do. It's guilty until proven innocent and as A Dose Of Buckley has said multiple times the amount of hoops you have to jump through in order for your videos to go back up after a Sonybot recognises a music clip is beyond ridiculous, especially since there's no human contact involved. In the best case scenario, you get a twitter post as a defense for your video to be considered fair use, along with a drop down category selection, all of which has yet to be proven to be humanly handled.

    This can't exactly be stopped, really, since almost every major parent company of every copyright holder has some form of agreement with YouTube. Basically what that boils down to is a simple fact that YouTube can barely sustain itself as it is and most definitely won't be able to sustain itself if it loses the backing of the corporations behind this madness.
     
    #2
  3. ABMorales787

    ABMorales787 Lord And Master
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    2,812
    It knocked down Team Four Stars page for a day and this is something that's becoming an issue on Facebook. My page got flagged for having a video tha5 had raw WWE footage but much like the Nostalgia Critic, it was strictly for critical purposes.

    Its a teal bitch, because it was most likely flagges by some ass looking to make trouble.
     
    #3
  4. SHAGAMANIA 3:16

    SHAGAMANIA 3:16 Occasional Pre-Show

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2015
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    27
    It's time to boycott Youtube they are just another douche bag corporation.
    They have allowed big corporations to take over.

    As soon as you open up Youtube you get recommend to watch clips of big corporations TV shows,they have now gone a step further and have started placing them in fucking ads. I was watching Wrestling with Wregret and there was a ad that was a full fucking Jimmy Kimmel video.

    Remember when Youtube belonged to actual Youtubers that weren't fucking game commentators?
     
    #4
    enviousdominous likes this.
  5. Alex

    Alex King Of The Wasteland

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    755
    It is fair use. Corporations seem really paranoid about piracy and the like but seem intent on taking it out on people who do stuff for artistic or educational purposes.

    I'd done two videos for uni years ago. And recently they got flagged. One was a video for an Alice In Chains song that didn't have a video. The other was using the Robin Thicke Blurred Lines video with Date Rape by Sublime.

    They were done for artistic reason. The Alice In Chains video was essentially was done as something similar to what I see in my head when I see the video and The Robin Thicke video was done because of the similarities between the two songs subject matter.

    Yeah some people may not like it but that doesn't give them the right to censor someone's artistic (or educational right). I mean heck the irony about flagging people like the Nostalgia Critic and the like is they're essentially getting rid of free advertising. I watched a review of Equilibrium by Film Brain and decided to check it out. I watched it (on Netflix to be fair) and enjoyed it. If I hadn't seen the review I probably wouldn't have watched it.

    And as Doug Walker said in the video it's often done automatically. They don't have someone watch video to see if it falls within copyright guidelines.
     
    #5
  6. enviousdominous

    enviousdominous Behold my diction

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    737
    I think that companies are trying to avoid another Napster incident at all costs.

    I'm all for a company being able to control how their intellectual property is distributed, but they don't have to freeze out anyone who just wants to appeal to their content in an artistic or journalistic way.

    The dumbest thing about all this is -- as others have mentioned already -- that bots are going around flagging content that matches up in any vague way to copy-written material. There could at least be a review process in which the bot refers content to a human being, but big companies are much happier just forcing YouTube to arbitrarily remove content.

    It's no longer about keeping what's theirs, it's about fucking with anyone who looks at them the wrong way.
     
    #6
  7. Alex

    Alex King Of The Wasteland

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    755
    Even though it was technically stealing Napster was on the ball. If record companies had taken that idea and set up an online store for their artist library they (maybe) wouldn't be in the mess they're in now.


    I agree a review process would work wonders. Have a description of what the video is (critique, artistic licence, satire etc) and if someone complains have a person check the video to see if the complaint is justified or not. Although I guess that costs money and they probably don't want to spend anymore.

    Which is hilarious in this day and age because it makes you look extremely petty. Sure you can take down a review saying how much your movie sucks but if the creator of that video kicks up enough of a stink that will make you look extremely bad for not liking what they said and probably cause even less people to check it out.
     
    #7
    enviousdominous likes this.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"