|
I don't feel inclined to believe those are the actual copyright holders.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
For me at least, they were picked up by YouTube's algorithm or whatever, which I assume automatically attributes the music to the appropriate companies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Speaking of which, Jamesman, don't worry, you got full credit for the idea I stole from you!   Unreal, simply unreal. It's not even the actual song. There's nothing to claim. My Immortal is serious fuckin business I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
 By the way, in order to appeal a rejected dispute you have to give them your full contact information now  in addition to writing a god drat essay that Surely Will Definitely Be Read By a 100% Not Automated Real Human
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:By the way, in order to appeal a rejected dispute you have to give them your full contact information now This was always the case. To YouTube, "appealing a rejected dispute" means "agreeing to sort this out yourselves, with lawyers if necessary"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
I haven't bothered to appeal a rejected dispute in a long while but I swear I do not recall having to give them my street address. I thought it was two appeals and then on the third you had to give them that stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Also your ssn, credit card number and blood type
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
According to Jim Sterling Google just flat out, automatically cause that is how the system works, gave Digital Homicide all of Jim's personal info so they could sue him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Speaking of Jim Sterling, if you're going to be using copyrighted material in any form, perhaps the Copyright Deadlock could work for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Speaking of Jim Sterling, if you're going to be using copyrighted material in any form, perhaps the Copyright Deadlock could work for you. That's all the excuse I need to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N93DAiCs3Z4
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Leal posted:According to Jim Sterling Google just flat out, automatically cause that is how the system works, gave Digital Homicide all of Jim's personal info so they could sue him. that is how the law works, yes. google's system simply follows the law. the dmca is bad etc, this is not news but google's system is working as intended as per the law. i feel like a broken record saying this because this is the same deal as the last time this came up (the midi thing)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
If they had a legitimate claim I'd agree with you, but since I literally wasn't playing the song the strike claims I am, I don't. A midi version of The Final Countdown is not The Final Countdown, the licensed song. It's as if I got copyright stricken for singing the song. edit: Youtube has a specific case for copyright claims of cover versions of songs- if the claim is on a cover version, you have the option of appealing it with that reason, and the copyright holder will either release the strike or go with a unique option of splitting the revenue with you. This is not that, and it's a real rare case in the first place. The system is telling me that it is the actual song, and it's not, I can hear it with my ears. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:A midi version of The Final Countdown is not The Final Countdown, the licensed song.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Bonfire Lit posted:Not using Europe's recording doesn't mean the composition itself isn't covered by copyright. Just as taking the latest Harry Potter novel and (manually) typing it into Word doesn't mean you can print and distribute it. If you just typed the same words then they'd be the same words and it'd be the exact same book except it was typed by you. That's not the case here because the song had to be recreated from scratch with different instruments in a different format.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:If you just typed the same words then they'd be the same words and it'd be the exact same book except it was typed by you. That's not the case here because the song had to be recreated from scratch with different instruments in a different format. IF you translated Harry Potter into another language it'd still apply, then. Or if you made an animated Harry Potter series, or if you did your own Harry Potter play. It isn't the specific version of a creative work that copyright applies to, it's the fundamental concepts. And the original artist of a song still holds the right to make any remixes or recreations of that song, or to license others to do it. A MIDI version of an existing song is a derivative work; recreating the essence of a work in another format doesn't make copyright go away. Also, you would be violating copyright if you sang the song in a public forum to an audience. That's why cover bands need to get mechanical licenses for any songs they perform. Idran fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Seriously, music copyright laws are strict, as well as VERY open to interpretation in certain instances. Just because it's a MIDI tune, doesn't mean it's not still covered under copyright. Hell, Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr. over the Ghostbuster's theme sounding "Huey Lewis-esque" (Sounded close to "I Want a New Drug"). http://www.rollingstone.com/music/l...s-1984-20160608 Just the MELODY being the same, or very similar, is enough to violate copyright law. Doesn't matter if it was recreated by some nerd sitting at his computer playing with Fruity Loops or whatever program is used to make MIDI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Well gently caress does this mean I can't use Mario Paint composer to bypass the system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:For me at least, they were picked up by YouTube's algorithm or whatever, which I assume automatically attributes the music to the appropriate companies. Well poo poo, I just started rewatching your old Chulip LP. Where are you streaming these days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Leal posted:Well gently caress does this mean I can't use Mario Paint composer to bypass the system? You can, provided they don't sound close enough to the originals to be picked up by the system. The idea here is to just prevent dealing with YouTube's automated bullshit, not to pull a fast one on people who actually hold legitimate claims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
As a law expert in all kinds of the law, I just wanna say the copyright law works the following way: do you have cash? You win. edit: i just saw i can't type good Dias fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:If they had a legitimate claim I'd agree with you, but since I literally wasn't playing the song the strike claims I am, I don't. A midi version of The Final Countdown is not The Final Countdown, the licensed song. It's as if I got copyright stricken for singing the song. so yes, for the third time, it is the same thing under the law. you were given strikes lawfully and appropriately, and your appeals were denied lawfully and appropriately. whether or not it's right (it isn't) is another thing entirely, but they have a case, you do not, please accept that. your real beef is with the law, and if you'd like to channel that effectively i recommend talking to the electronic frontier foundation to figure out how you're able to help. Coolguye fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Very relevant to this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MUhQTpyyZ4 (The rest of RegularCarReviews' videos are really awesome and I love his car reviews despite not caring one bit about cars. Give them a shot if you don't know this channel.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Dias posted:As a law expert in all kinds of the law, I just wanna say the copyright law works the following way: do you have cash? You win. That basically sums it up, everything else is just obfuscation on top of that. Not that copyright is conceptually an idea that doesn't have merits or some degree of validity, but in practice it's whoever has the most money wins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Speaking of money, Youtube secretly forced me back into making it and I am pretty annoyed about it. I turned monetization on my channel off nearly two years ago now because I have a Patreon and I don't want my viewers to have to watch ads, because I only made like a hundred dollars a year in ad money and that's very much not worth forcing ads on my viewers. Today I got an email saying I have payment ready from Google Adsense, which is the only reason I found out they've done this. At some point it got turned back on, possibly at the same time as several of my older videos got demonetized so that only YT gets money from ads on them. Does anyone know if the toggle to disable monetization still exists? It used to be in the same menu as this button on your Channel tab but it's gone as far as I can tell. Going into the 'view monetization settings' menu gives me this:  but none of those options shut it off. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Speaking of money, Youtube secretly forced me back into making it and I am pretty annoyed about it. As long as you are a partner your account is ENABLED for monetization meaning you can, if you wish, monetize your videos. If you don't actively monetize your videos they will not be monetized. You can change the defaults somewhere but for me it's off (this is likely what you did two years ago too). The thing is monetization is a per video thing. To see if a video is monetized check your video manager. A grey dollar sign means it's not monetized. A white one in a green circle means it is monetized by you. A stricken through one means you can't monetize that video (due to copyright, mostly) but it's likely monetized by someone else. You can also change your monetization settings for videos in bulk if you're really worried that some of your videos are monetized. Monetization will stay enabled i.e. you will keep having the option to monetize your videos until you give youtube a reason to take that away (for instance copyright strikes or illegitime copyright repeals are grounds for that but this will put your account in bad standing in general). No one forces you to monetize your videos, here, really. IGgy IGsen fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
I know all that, the reason I ask is because there are 700 videos on my youtube channel and a lot of them were monetized with ads before I turned it off, and now they are again because it turned itself back on. That's why I was hoping for an all encompassing toggle, because I don't wanna go through four years of videos and select on the monetized ones to turn them off. edit: And it's starting to look like I'm gonna have to do that, which is very frustrating. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
It blows, but most people use adblock don't they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:I know all that, the reason I ask is because there are 700 videos on my youtube channel and a lot of them were monetized with ads before I turned it off, and now they are again because it turned itself back on. That's why I was hoping for an all encompassing toggle, because I don't wanna go through four years of videos and select on the monetized ones to turn them off. Okay, this is really weird. It shouldn't change existing settings (and mine certainly didn't get changed, I just checked to be sure). But you should be able to change monetization settings in bulk. In the video manager select all vidoes (it will first select all videos on the page, then a small textbox will pop up on top of the page allowing you to select all videos period, then under action select "Monetize" and make the desired changes. (E: Sorry, got it wrong. Select "More Actions" instead of "Monetize" then after more actions pop up select "Monetization") Additionally, you can go to the creator studio -> Channel -> Upload defaults to change the default monetization settings (and others, if you wish) for all future uploaded videos. IGgy IGsen fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Phew, when I went to the 'select all of your videos' option in the Creator Studio menu, the monetize button changed into a radio button to lets you turn it on or off on everything selected. Thank god for that and thank you for the suggestion. Funny how it isn't a radio button and the option to demonetize is hidden by default. edit:  Dear diary, today I learned that I have over 100 videos that are banned from monetization or have copyright claims on them CJacobs fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:It blows, but most people use adblock don't they? The Adblock I was using has become woefully inadequate for Youtube, so I finally went for the Redtube free trial thingy. I'll probably go ahead and pay for it when the trial's up, since it's undoubtedly a more reliable way to get the money to the people who made the videos than even sitting through 2.5 minute ads before a 30-second video would be. But does anyone know whether the non-ad friendly videos also get Red money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Nidoking posted:But does anyone know whether the non-ad friendly videos also get Red money? Yeah, because YT Red is not reliant on ads. It's reliant on people paying for YT Red. Also: YT Red seems to be a better way to support lower tier accounts such as mine.  .I'm getting filthy rich off this poo poo! Note: I also get barely anything off ads because I don't run video ads, but I'm guessing it would not be much more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Nidoking posted:the Redtube free trial thingy. I feel like that might not be something you wanna share with people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
ChaosArgate posted:I feel like that might not be something you wanna share with people. Seriously though, who the gently caress greenlit the name "YouTube Red"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Geocities Homepage King posted:Seriously though, who the gently caress greenlit the name "YouTube Red"? A chain of fools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
ChaosArgate posted:I feel like that might not be something you wanna share with people. I call it that because the company that runs the world's most trusted search engine clearly doesn't know how to use it. It's actually the kickoff point for a comedy routine making fun of all sorts of business names, ending with Best Buy - the company that doesn't want anyone to notice that their business model revolves around selling expensive warranties for crappy electronics, but still feels the need to remind their customers of the existence of expiration dates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Gimbal lock posted:Very relevant to this thread Mr. Regular knows how it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
BDubs and his wife Nicole were having a third kid, but...  https://youtu.be/o_s4Pmpb6Vo
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Geocities Homepage King posted:Seriously though, who the gently caress greenlit the name "YouTube Red"? POOL IS CLOSED posted:A chain of fools. It's a chain of people who didn't want to admit they know what redtube is at work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
My father attended a corporate meeting where they were discussing a merger wherein they might get a third company involved. The guy from the other company suggested they refer to it as a three-way, and couldn't understand why my dad and his boss thought that wasn't the best idea. edit: I guess the point of this post is that some corporate execs really are that clueless. LogicalFallacy fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 07:08
|
|
