Dan Bull Takes On YouTube's ContentID Changes, Stolen Revenue, With A Diss Track
from the dear-youtube dept
YouTube's ContentID is receiving an awful lot of well-deserved criticism lately, and the company -- true to unfortunate form -- still doesn't seem to realize that it should (a) fix its broken program and (b) actually respond to the criticism. YouTube seems to think that the issue will blow over, but every time there's another bogus takedown/copyright claim, things seem to get worse. The fact that it's allowing major labels to claim the revenue of independent artists is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.In the meantime, many of the people who have built careers off of YouTube are now speaking out against ContentID as well. Dan Bull, who we've written about many times before, has put up his latest video, entitled, simply FUCK CONTENT ID, and it calls out the company for taking money from independent creators and handing it over to whoever claims the copyright with no legitimate basis (amusingly, Dan also mocks YouTube's "copyright free audio library" which he uses as the base of his song).
Filed Under: contentid, dan bull, diss track, youtube
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do they care?
I'm not saying the creators don't have a right to be pissed, they're obviously being screwed over, I'm just saying I still haven't even seen any actual numbers that they matter financially to Google.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
Seems the only people they bend over backwards for is the MAFIAA they could not care less about the actual users of the site.. Unless your pewdiepie or some other popular hot shot even then they don't give a fuck.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
Then we should be ashamed of ourselves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
No, not really. That was my first "instinct" as well, but in my (and apparently a LOT of other people's as well) opinion he has done more than enough to earn it.
And you know who's the only person who could fix it? OOTB. IF he were to begin a string of posting even somewhat reasonable comments without condescension, ad-hom attacks, and general lunacy then I, for one, would back off the reporting. And I'm sure that I'm far from the only one.
Until that day comes (and I'm not holding my breath) I'll be damned if I feel any shame for reporting a shithead whose only purpose here is to disrupt and draw attention to himself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
Solution:
Pick a different handle.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
What I'm saying is that OOTB would have to build a track record of NOT making posts like that for me and most likely many others to even consider not hitting the Report button instantaneously.
One reaps what one sows, and I'm not ashamed in the least for giving that jackass what he has earned for himself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
If it were anyone else then yes, but this one's a special case. The quality of his commenting really is that low. You'll note there are no other regular commenters who receive such treatment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: With all the shitty comment and channel changes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they care?
Like many things, it has a beginning, a rise, a peak, and then a decline.
See:
* Facebook
* MySpace
* Yahoo
* Usenet
* CDs, Cassettes, Vinyl scratchy disks
* 8-Track tapes
* Mainframes
Yes, it can even happen to Microsoft and PCs.
Hey YouTube, are you paying attention?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do they care?
And Yahoo? Have you seen their traffic numbers? Their financials? Just because those of us in the "tech bubble" don't think of Yahoo as relevant, it doesn't change the fact that there are still millions of adults that still have Yahoo as their home page.
And that's kind of my point: I think people who are "tech insiders" really suffer from a bad echo chamber effect, thinking most people share their interests and beliefs. All signs point to the vast majority of people going to YouTube to watch music videos and watch viral videos of cats being... cats... Is the audience of the independent content creators even a drop in the revenue bucket?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do they care?
For example, back in the days someone who could type 120 WPM could get very high pay. Now people that can type that fast are a dime a dozen (then again word processors and the ability to go back and easily re-correct what you type without having to re-type the entire page on a typewriter partly contributes to that but even so typing is just a skill that everyone has these days).
The younger generation is much more keen to the corrupt nature of politics in America than the past and this problem is only going to get worse for politicians and it will make it much more difficult for them to pass and maintain corrupt laws.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do they care?
No
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they care?
Also, government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies given to private entities or used for commercial purposes need to be abolished. They exist only because big cartels lobbied for these laws.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The key to good services everywhere is competition.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Play the game by the (imposed) rules
Enter DMCA requests against the major abusers. As simple as that. If they can abuse the system for free, so can we.
..hggdh..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am happy to let Google take a little but not everything as they are at the moment one of the most innovative Google is not that bad , they do use customers data to supply what they belive is a better service, but as long as they are not giving that data to a third party they should be fine, they are a very innovative company that has given the population of the world many many free services that are used every day and they should be applauded for that, maybe making data a little more anonymous would help or ensuring that customer data is not freely available to just anyone would be something that Google could do , but remember if it was not for Google we would not have things like Google earth Google maps gmail and a host of other services. Damn we probably would not have $100 tablets or even $50 tablets if it was not for Google supporting and making android free.
In this instance Google needs to come up with a solution that makes the content providers happy, but they need to remember that the customers are the bread and butter of Google and they come first.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't because there aren't actually any humans at Google. The whole thing is automated while Google's owners are out partying.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There needs to be a law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There needs to be a law
Also make protection lengths substantially shorter.
These are some useful changes. But the problem is that politicians don't write laws for the populations. Politicians mostly write laws so that they can receive campaign contributions and revolving door favors from giant cartels.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There needs to be a law
What we need is to see the DMCA altered to give equal protection to both big content, and the people they're accusing of copyright infringement, with mandatory fines in HUGE (in excess of $1 million per count) amounts for all false claims and criminal prosecution for claims that are known by the claimants to be false.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Disproportionate claims and abuse.
There are cases where an image is used for seconds, rendering the whole video owned by some claimant.
It is disproportionate. It is abuse.
Ok, let's pretend that copyright is not the rent system that we know it is and pretend that it deserves in fact some level of respect. Then, let's be honest, if you have a claim for a song that plays for 3 seconds on a video, you get to own, those 3 seconds. Only and not the whole video. The same with images, or whatever else.
Better yet, instead of owning any part of it, you get a proportional share from the revenue generated by the video. Your song is used for 10 seconds on a 10 hour video... you get that.
The present system, removes complete ownership from a video after a claim. It's abuse. It's prone to abuse. It's being abused. Like Dan Bull exemplifies in this song, you can create a false claim and keep ALL the revenue for 4 weeks. No questions asked.
Aside from all that, there are many things wrong with the automated system. One of my videos, an old one, was using a Jamendo song, when it was made and uploaded, the song was licensed under a CC license, No Commercial and With Attribution. Since my videos don't have ads and I placed a link to the song page on Jamendo, both in the description and in the video, I was (in my view) following the rules. Since then, Jamendo changed their licensing policy and it is now a rent collection system. My video was hit with a copyright violation. I had a choice between allowing them to put ads on the video or silencing the music. I chose to silence it. I don't want ads. 2 days later, the same. I did it again. 2 days later, the same. Why? Because, even though the video didn't play any music when being viewed, the uploaded one still had it there, so I kept being hit. I simply deleted the video. From now on, I will not even bother with remedial options, it's hit, I delete. But, that's me, I don't make money from them, or even want to.
Those that chose to build a living out of it, are screwed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disproportionate claims and abuse.
If more and more people just claimed copyright to studios content on some claim that they created the song many years ago in their bedroom then the studios would lose a hell of a lot of income and demand the situation be resolved, maybe this is something people need to do en mass, millions of claims a day so that Google is in a situation where they have no option but to do something to resolve this problem citizens are having with the studios theft.
I mean what is Google going to do blacklist your ip address when you use a proxy server.
There is a lot of money to be made if people start claiming studios content as there own.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disproportionate claims and abuse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
if you claim in a dcma notice to own something someone else owns you open yourself to these damages. i eagerly wait to see someone hand themselves a serious whooping with the automated dcma's
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How to sieve the crazy from the good complaints, the important from the unimportant?
Wait and see which ones grows and which ones don't.
Well that is my theory so if anybody wants to get a response from Google they need to make a lot of noise, they probably have a threshold in there somewhere.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the complaint is from a member of any **AA group, it is most likely flawed and overreaching.
Step 2 -
Force Congress to actually put real teeth into the lip service in the law now for bad complaints.
Step 3 -
Remove the "belief" aspect to a law. Law needs to deal with fact not feelings, and if it can not pass a test of all of the legal elements its a flawed complaint.
Step 4 -
Stop screwing the biggest shareholders in copyright. They seem to have forgotten that there are supposed to be benefits to the public, not the burdens and costs from granting a "limited" monopoly to rightholders.
Step 5 -
Stop making Google responsible for everything "internet". The **AA membership is using its monopoly power to cost a competitor millions of dollars meeting demands that only exist in their minds not in law. A simple change to the law allowing costs to be recovered from these meritless lawsuits that they use to obtain Google's acquiescence to their demands might change the field.
Google is trying to deal with a firehose of claims, the problem is if they don't move quick enough for the big guys they end up with Gov investigations, lawsuits, and well they are a corporation first.
Maybe the **AA's will win and finally make YouTube as useless as they wanted it to be from the beginning. Hopefully we can get some sanity in the law to allow the next disruptive force a shot in the market without having to kowtow to the **AA's demands that exceed the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare to Antebellum Personal Liberty Laws
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hank Green (Youtuber) on this issue
http://edwardspoonhands.com/post/71433962019/what-people-dont-get-about-content-id
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
real theft!!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So even if you took your videos to another service, no body is doing anything to stop anyone else with a content id account, from grabbing your videos from another service and monetizing them in youtube.
These guys are monetizing the presidents 2008 speech shamelessly on the changedotgov youtube channel and the government isn't doing anything about it. when I saw that, I took it as the US endorsing this practice.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply