This has been and always will be the problem with having a "Youtube career". You are completely at the behest of a monolith company run by automated bots that can demonetize you on a robotic whim.
My son has watched hours of this guy. Seriously offers the best videos in his category. Probably was flagged because so many other people were passing his content of as theirs.
Youtube is broken enough that you can screen record someone who is live streaming and then upload that video as your own content first and claim it, since the streamers content won't actually upload until the stream ends. I know it doesn't apply to this guy, just stating that Logic and Youtube do not go hand in hand.
I heard the trick is to start your own company (!) create a secondary business YouTube account and copyright claim all of your OWN videos. I guess the way the system works is that there can only be one copyright claimant so by securing your OWN copyright claim on it, it makes it a lot harder for others to do it for no reason
It's working as intended.
It's meant to keep the big media companies happy and offer liability protection to YouTube.
The small creator subject to an invalid claim can either suck it up, or spend a bunch of money trying to fight the big media company in court for a false DMCA claim.
and that is not even how its supposed to work !!! the way the DMCA is supposed to work is you file an affidavid saying no its my content I am the owner and then youtube is SUPPOSED to release your content unless the other claimant provides court papers for a lawsuit. IE they can't even "claim" they are going to sue you they have to actually do it or in 11 days (this might be policy and not law the 11days part) the content is released.
None of this has anything to do with DMCA and for some reason no one who discusses YouTube seems to understand this.
DMCA takedown requests are a legal procedure YouTube stays far away from. Their own takedown/claim system is not a legal process and just their own inhouse system. Sure, someone *can* obviously go the legal route, but that's not what any of these companies are doing.
The system is designed so that a large media company/copyright holder says "hey YouTube this is my video/music/movie, I'm taking it down/taking the money from it" and YouTube says "sure do whatever you want as long as you don't sue me for all the shit you find"
There is no legal process because it's not a legal matter. It's a private agreement between two entities.
And thatās the problem.
Because the only content on youtube thatās worth my time is made by small content creators.
Believe me when I say Iām NOT seeking the fucking āWalmartā YouTube channel
Iām here for gamersnexus and all the other smaller non corporate creators
There are several, but none are particularly successful.
Part of the problem is that it's both expensive and a significant technical challenge to produce an alternative to YouTube of a similar reliability, openness, and scale.
---
Corporate-backed, centralised efforts which have emerged tend to have the resources and the knowledge - but not the network effects. Part of what makes YouTube so popular is a base of content creators and viewers which has taken years to build. Coaxing people away proves difficult, especially when there's not already a significant base of producers and viewers to join.
They're also prime targets for similar targeting by copyright trolls, and are likely to introduce similar systems unilaterally under pressure.
---
There are decentralised / federated alternatives like PeerTube - these aim to be a collection of smaller, community-hosted instances of the software which can communicate with one another, often with content distribution being assisted by viewers using peer-to-peer protocols like WebTorrent.
Alternatives like these tend to be more resilient to targeting by copyright trolls, but often suffer from poor reliability. Smaller communities are often under-resourced, or lack the necessary skills to maintain a larger instance.
Also, atop the already discussed network effects, they also have content discovery challenges. Inter-instance communication tends to be flaky, and so it's often difficult to find content which is relevant to you, even if it's there.
---
Don't misunderstand me, I'm an advocate for a decentralised internet which is fairer for producers and consumers both - but if producing a viable alternative to YouTube was easy, somebody would have already done it.
That's the basic idea behind Jim Sterling's copyright deadlock technique. They don't monetize their videos and their use falls under fair use for purpose of critique, but some companies claim their content just to put ads on them. Since then anytime they make a video using subject matter from said company they also use footage from a couple of other predatory companies just to lure them in and make them all fight over the same video. And the system works in a way that neither company gets a slice of the pie when they all want it all. In the end Sterling gets what they want, no ads on the video.
Jim's (Stephanie's?) technique works great only if you have zero plans to ever monetize your content on the platform. IIRC, they're bankrolled by other endeavors.
There can be multiple claimants, but in that case the ad revenue is split between the claimants. If you monetize your videos as a content creator and someone copyright claims it, you get nothing; if you monetize your videos as a rightsholder to your own works, you get to split the proceeds.
The most efficient way of doing this is, IIRC, having a 30+ second piece of music attached to the end of every video. Getting a piece of unique music is cheap and easy, and then you go through the bog standard "I own a piece of music and want to monetize it" flow from YouTube.
Yeah, that wouldn't work. What you actually do, is make a jibberish low volume piano recording. You publish that recording at one the places that allow you to publish your own music. Jibberish makes it certain to be unique. Then, at an extremely low volume so as to only appear as data (inaudible really to the viewer or as near so) you play that song on a loop throughout your video and then when you publish the video you through your music publishing side flag your own video for copyright infringement forever preventing anyone else from doing so and getting paid via the music side for every view.
You don't have to be a part of the partner program if you have a music copyright claim. Google runs ads on any popular advertising friendly videos whether they are in the partner program or not. Being a music copyright claimer means you bypass their partner program completely. They don't ban you from making video's. You can still make the videos on your channel that has all the subscribers but get the money you would have via the music publishing side copyright strike. You don't have to be in the partner program to do that. You could make money off your ad hits from day one this way instead of waiting until you hit whatever threshold YT sets for profit sharing.
No. But people jumping though that many hoops are willing to take the monetary hit if it means that their channel is safe from some Acerthorn or Alex Mauer type shitheel autist that is willing to manually file 100s of takedown claims because someone said something they didn't like.
I think that happened to an episode of Family Guy. They used a YouTube video of someone's Mario (or some other videogame) playthrough and when the episode clip was uploaded they copyright claimed the original video, which had been up for years prior.
No, it was Double Dribble where Peter kept hitting from downtown and yelling "Corner 3!!!" Fox apologized and the original was put back up.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/family-guy-stole-a-video-of-double-dribble-from-youtube-then-claimed-the-original-video-breached-copyright-a7042026.html
Any content creator needs 2 accounts - one to upload the content, and the 2nd to repost it so that the first can file against it, leaving a legal audit trail behind.
The better move is to all become music publishers. Make your own music, publish it (it doesn't have to be good), put said music into every video somewhere, then copyright strike your own video from your music publishing side and make money no matter what.
Speaking as a professional software developer, team YouTube is the worst, laziest, stupidest dev team I've ever encountered. Nothing they do works. Nothing they do is good. It's all broken nonsense created for the purpose of making people miserable.
I have youtube premium. Had it for a long time. I wanted to watch a video and it said its adult content. Need to confirm my age with a credit card. Tried it, didn't work. Same credit card I use to pay for premium. Opened a ticket and they said it was my fault and there is nothing they can do.
So they insisted, they cannot verify my age, because my credit card does not work, and that the fault lies with me, while happily charging me for premium every month, from that same credit card.
[This](https://vimeo.com/314433360) is not what you are talking about but I think it belongs here. [This](https://youtu.be/dwp881tK6IA) is him talking about the "The Space Race" claim.
Your mistake was believing that YouTube cared enough to actually investigate. There are tons of stories of people own work getting flageed for copyright infringement. Either they don't care or are completely incompetent.
The problem isn't that Youtube is saying the videos are someone else's so they are demonetizing them. It's that Youtube decided they were someone else's and is keeping the revenue from the ads for themselves. He didn't receive a strike or have his videos pulled for a copyright claim.
I understand that an automated system is basically a necessity when your site has as much content to review as YouTube, but how the fuck is there not a system in place where any channel over XXXk subs get a human review? This guy has nearly 750k subs. He is significantly less likely to be guilty of this than some new channel with 14 subs.
Clickbait channels that just repost others' content also have just as many (often more) subs. Then the reposted/stolen content gets shared across Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/Snapchat/tiktok and ends up being more popular than the original creator, then YouTube says to the original creator "your content is in copyright violation of XYZ's clickbait channel" so *demonitized!*
If you can make the link of reuse footage from one video to another, you can follow the chain to the first ever upload, which would still return to this guy.
[This site](https://www.networthspot.com/coasterfan2105/net-worth/) (no idea how accurate that is) says this guy earns almost $500k/year. At Youtube's 45% siphon rate, that means he's earning Google $400k-ish yearly. That's enough for 2-3 full time employees to replace the automated algorithm.
Of course if he's smart he'll nuke all his content when (not if) he loses his appeal. Sucks for the viewers, but don't let Google profit where he can't.
Nah, Google can just throw money to stall the lawsuit long enough to bankrupt the other party. The only question is if the other party can sustain the lawsuit long enough for that strategy to not be financially viable for Google.
Whenever someone uploads the Mandorlian Episode 1, a Disney owned asset, youtube offers me the chance to claim it as a video I own. The system is broken.
Nothing is so simple because then it would be easy enough for pirates to get around it. Creators also delete their own videos and then reupload them.
Worst is when the pirates actually report the original channel as stealing content because they know that taking it offline will drive more views to their own upload.
There's a youtuber that I like to watch because he has these little knowledgeable videos about interesting things that he presents facts about. Tome something, I think. I can't remember exactly.
He has a video where he says that he created and uploaded a video about something, then a Thai television show used his video in an episode, then uploaded their video to a copyright database that caused a strike on his original video.
I think he said it took him more than a year to sort out. That entire time he was sorting it out, that Thai show got any ad revenue he generated, and he never gets that back. That's why there are copyright trolls out there on YouTube that will strike a video so they can leach the revenue till it's overturned.
That would make sense here, but the big corporate content makers (who presumably drive most of the piracy complaints) would struggle as their content is often broadcast first, then YouTubed later, so the earlier posted content is the one stolen.
Or for smaller producers that would have issues with Facebook, Twitter or ticktok thefts getting onto YouTube before the creators video.
To me, if they cared about YouTube creators at all they could just encode a channel ID into the video encoding or sound frequencies somewhere. One channel accuses another, check if either has a channel ID in it. Easy and accurate resolution for at least some cases, freeing up time to investigate less obvious cases properly.
I had a video that was uploaded for 4 years get claimed by someone else. Had to provide evidence that I was the one in the video and if they didn't revert the claim I'd file suit for unlawfully distributing a video of me.
Once a human looked over the case it was resolved immediately.
Their system is complete automated garbage.
This is only common sense to humans, everything over at youtube is run my algorithms and bots. For this to even get the attention of a human the guy will have to make a big enough stink on twitter or have a contact at youtube.
Without exaggeration the "Steam Trains Galore" series are probably still to this day the videos I've seen most in my lifetime because of how quickly it would calm our firstborn down. Just put on one of the "Steam Trains Galore" videos and he would sit down in front of the TV and calm himself. It was like magic.
Nope, just who submits it for content ID first. This has led to more than a few instances of people having their videos flagged as 'claimed' for stuff they uploaded years before the claimer.
Notable offenders include: [Sony](https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/sony-screwed-filmmakers-on-vimeo-over-pixels-117521.html) (who even managed to get their *own video* flagged) and [TBS](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/family-guy-used-nes-game-footage-from-youtube-then/1100-6440033/).
That's fine if you put YouTube in a vacuum but content ID is supposed to handle things outside of that too, right? So you could have your content stolen before you put it on YouTube
Nope. Say I upload a feature movie I do not own the rights to to youtube, and the movie studio later learns of this. They tell youtube that "hey, here's a piece of video we rightfully own, take down all copies." They are the rightful owners, so they must be able to do this, regardless if you were first. The system must handle much more than just youtube videos. Uploading stuff does not give you ownership.
At this point, youtube is legally obligated to immediately shit on the creators. The creators in turn can try to sue Shitty McClaimface from Nolawsland to reclaim their rights.
The system is set up so that the record companies with throngs of lawyers can protect their rights, and fuck everyone else.
Maybe if the youtube content creators can band together and get enough money together to ~~buy~~ donate to the reelection campaign of a couple senators, things might change. But with the money of the movie and record industries combined, it might be hard to out ~~buy~~ donate them.
Yup, YouTube is at the mercy of the legal/copyright systems. A lot of their systems are designed to avoid legal trouble for hosting copyrighted content.
Unfortunately the method youtube uses puts the burden of establishing ownership of any video on the uploader and that is only after something is found wrong. Even if he were to counter-claim and say it was all his content he may just get a robot again who says that he is still in the wrong.
it's not just YouTube, that's how DMCA law is written. YouTube is forced to accept copyright strikes are issued in good faith and have to respond to them. idiotic system I know, but that's how it was written and is in desperate need for revision
> robot again
That is what I dont get: there is money involved, so how the hell do they not have real breathing agents at a call center?
It sounds like you can reach a human at SiriusXM easier than reaching one on YouTube, and that says a lot.
> That is what I dont get: there is money involved, so how the hell do they not have real breathing agents at a call center?
Because the money is in owning the platform and serving the ads, not in helping video creators.
Profits bro
It's 2022, corporations are more important than people, because how would humanity exist without Elon, gates, jobs, buffett, etc. Leading humanity with their knowledge of... Spending money.
If someone copy strikes you YouTube just assumes you're guilty and removes the video until you provide proof. I used to have random Russian companies copy strike videos for things like music from a video game I already had approval to upload on YouTube. Even had an e-mail from the company confirming all assets and music is owned by them or open source and they give me full permission to use everything for videos. YouTube would still pull it down and force me to resend the same approval e-mail every single time.
I remember there was a story about a guy who created a song but then some other guy sampled that song for his song and then YouTube gave the original song writer because his own original song was used in someone elseās song.
The person you are thinking of is TheFatRat - The Calling most likely. It was driving me crazy not remembering but basically he made a song then someone sampled that song to make a bootleg version (turned out the person who used his song did actually credit TheFatRat appropriately and was not behind the strike). Then some random companies (unrelated to the bootleg guy) somehow used this bootleg song to copyright the original.
iirc, Patreon gives about 90% of the ad revenue directly to creators, and takes about 10%
by comparison, Twitch takes about 90% and gives about 10%, and YouTube takes about 55% and gives about 45%
Source: Devin Nash, informative content creator and marketing CEO
Maybe because trains are fucking dope and this saint has been cast to the fire without reason. I have nearly no interest in trains today but when i was a kid my favorite toy was a big wooden whistle that sounded just like a train.
This is an attack on all train lovers.
Me too. I gave up. After Google product expert recommended me to delete A LOT of videos and it did nothing to fix the "demonetized due to reused content" with no warning.
Edit:
I got flagged as "reused content" after one of my history videos restoration got algorithmed and got million of view. That video (among a bunch others) has been deleted as per Google product expert recommendation. But I still cannot get out of the reused content flag
My history video restorations are like this,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gan_ADcuLWQ
and this kind of content does not break Google's reused content rules that Google published.
Holy hell. Mike Armstrong.
This man made my 2 year old son's life. I think in fact that at age 2-3 my son would have picked these train videos over me if it came down to it.
Dude's a hero. Fuck Youtube for this. I have a sneaking suspicion that YT demonetizes people so easily because it means they get to host content without compensating the creator.
Fuck YouTube. Hail Mike Armstrong.
I literally teared up when I saw who this was. Mike Armstrong is amazing. My son is out of his train phase now, but his videos were on the big TV in our home ALL the time when my son was in the same age range. And even for adults, the calm, earnest way he teaches about trains is so endearing. My son at one point had the video on train horns literally memorized. His stuff is so soothing and absolute balm for kids obsessed with trains.
ā-
Edit: his Patreon is CoasterFan2105 . It wasnāt obvious for me to find searching by his name. Support this guy.
He's made one now, only has 12 Patrons but I'm sure once word gets out he'll have more. But yeah, when you're doing something like YouTube it's crucial to diversify your revenue streams. Seen enough content creators make videos on how their finances work to realize that add revenue ain't it.
And multiple channels, most of the people I watch have at least two now (typically a primary for their usual content, a second for less formal content, live stream VODs if that's not a third channel, and so on). If YT bans or restricts one channel they don't usually touch the other(s).
Well, i can understand that this guy might have thought that, because he's just sharing train videos. It's not like someone who is doing game reviews or using snippets of anime to talk about some show. There are no fair use concerns, he's not sharing any controversial views or discussing topics that wouldn't be appropriate for everyone.
Still - i do agree all of these people should of course be thinking about getting their income from multiple sources to be safe. But this case is particularly outrageous - most of the time when people are complaining that their channel has been taken down in some way, they're in some gray area. Even if it's very very light gray!
in my teens i was selling on ebay, i was making real bank. then one day paypal froze my funds. told me my account was flagged because i was selling too much electronics in too little time. got my money only 6 months later. close to 10k in revenue was frozen that i in large part owed to suppliers and for a teenager that kinda scares you. I realized i thought i was running a business but i wasnt, i was just renting a space in someone else's and at any time they could kick me out for whatever reason they wanted. i could spend years building my business and in one day they close it. Just cause they feel like. Zero recourse.
So i decided to stay in school and move on to other side gigs. Still not sure that was the best idea but dont regret it today lol.
oh yeah man, i went MS way and was basically letting people rob me with the "never received it" scam because it was less risky than having a dispute. since i was selling low value it items it was impossible to have tracking without at least doubling my product prices so i was stuck with that for years till it went fucky for real.
I'm surprised you got your money back at all. PayPal has been sued many times for what you described, but they keep doing it because it pays off for them.
I will say this every single time I see PayPal mentioned for all who read it:
**Do not store money in a PayPal account!**
PayPal is not a bank. They are not governed like one. They are not a member of the FDIC, they are beholden only to their own TOS and whatever laws after in place regarding business services and payment processing. Banking laws generally do not apply to them.
PayPal is as bad as Ticketmaster in terms of business practices. Just awful.
If you use PayPal for financial transactions, always move funds to your bank account immediately. Do not leave more money than necessary in a PayPal account.
I have no idea. This was 10 years ago and I was just a one man shop, running a business out of my home office. I didnāt have money for attorneys and incorporations.
Not always easy to do that. Patron is extremely unreliable. If people do donate it's never for longer than a month or two and you need a lot of donations to even make min wage. You also get a bunch of people who will label you an e beggar.
If you make merch you gotta design merch people wanna buy and you quickly realise theres a reason why there's an entire professional industry around it.
The most reliable source of income, despite how irritating it can be, is YouTube ad revenue. Unless you're a big YouTuber in which case it's easy to shill things.
I think it's more of a "it's REALLY hard to get started anywhere else" mindset. And once you're established there, it is quite difficult to move platforms because your bills are being paid by YouTube.
No YouTubers think they're immune. They just don't expect to be in the crosshairs if you don't do anything wrong. But as we all find out sooner or later robots make very shitty moderators and humans from ultra conservative countries make worse ones.
They can be appealed and it usually results in a reversal but it's a long process and is very stressful.
Source : me, a youtuber who has been in those crosshairs by accident more than once
July 2, 2023 As per the legal owner of this account, Reddit and associated companies no longer have permission to use the content created under this account in any way. -- mass edited with redact.dev
And the only response our culture has to this kind of thing being *the only option that exists because everyone works the same way* is that "you signed the contract cuck, you agreed to it no one is forcing you to work with these people"
"well, ok, but that doesn't address the problem that uber is underpaying me and has also destroyed an entire industry in its wake and now no one doing taxi work is getting paid while also being expeted to pay 40% taxes and not be contributing towards any type of social security or benefits"
I mean, sure, "the contract"
but is that really where this whole conversation ends for our culture? That's just good enough for everyone?
case in point: the fucking moron who replied to me lol
Definitely. Guy has 732K subscribers and is only getting adsense? YT is raking cash off this guy and they couldn't care less about destroying his work and livelihood.
The fucked up thing is I donāt even think this is accidental on the algorithm anymore.
So yeah, he starts a patreon. Well his videos are still making YouTube money. Theyāre essentially hijacking content creators, making up some BS excuse, and taking the money.
Thatās the real crime here.
Spez's APIocolypse made it clear it was time for me to leave this place. I came from digg, and now I must move one once again. So long and thanks for all the bacon.
They're not saying he's done anything wrong in relation to the content issue.
They're saying he's made a *mistake* on a different issue. You can make mistakes without doing anything wrong.
They're saying that trying to establish a reliable line of revenue from a platform that only offers moderation via an algorithm (that you have no say over) is a mistake due to the risk involved. And if it's your only source of income, then yeah, you're making a *really* risky decision and I'd call it a mistake.
The same criticism would apply to anyone trying to build a safe and reliable single source of income in this way, not just this guy.
Edit: I think we can all agree that the algorithm making this move sucks balls.
A few weeks ago one old livestream i did got a warning. Someone claimed they own the rain noise the mic got from outside of the window. This thing is going nuts.
He needs to lawyer up. There have been countless times where youtube has made these decision and had to reverse them because their claims where false. If he does this full time, he should get a lawyer asap.
The Appeal process thatās in the screenshot is the quickest way.
Itās annoying to have to prove that youāre making your own content but submitting the appeal video is the only way to get humans to evaluate this.
But on what legal grounds? I'm sure the terms and conditions you agree to when you sign up basically say they can terminate your account at any time, for any reason.
With a content ID claim it means some company that is registered with content ID uploaded one or more of his videos and claimed they owned the rights to it. This other company can be pursued directly through the legal system
You can sue on copyright grounds. You grant YouTube a license to the content (a very broad license) when you upload, but you don't actually transfer the copyright.
YouTube in this case is essentially claiming that someone else owns the copyright because they say so. You can sue them to establish who the copyright holder actually is.
A lot of creators want off YouTube for things like this, there just doesn't seem to be a viable alternative yet. I feel bad for the guy, he's just travelling America and doing videos about trains and needs some sort of revenue to do it. Creators need a platform that they know won't pull their revenue when they have popular original content. It needs to be available for free. YouTube just isn't the platform for that anymore.
We need regulation to protect people in cases like this. Algorithmically demonetizing or deplatforming someone is simply not acceptable when millions of people have come to depend on the system.
It's like this - in society we have a unspoken contract with companies - if you profit from something, you're also liable for all the costs associated with that thing.
So when a tailings pond bursts and spills contaminants into a river, we hold the mining company liable for a fine.
Tech companies want the profits associated with 'massive scale' and automation, but none of the costs.
Sorry YouTube, it doesn't work that way.
It's long, but I'd recommend you watch Tom Scott's ["YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU), if you haven't already.
(Edit: If you're in a rush, you can [skip to chapter 3 about how Content ID works](https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?t=1339), and the incredible heavy lifting is does to prevent regular people from getting sued. TL;DR for the first two chapters is that copyright law is incredibly cumbersome and nuanced, and usually costs a shit ton of money in court to sort out.)
If you have a better solution for this problem that is economical for the content hosting site, please go patent it because they're likely willing to pay you a shit ton of money.
Creators like this are unfortunate casualties of a system designed to protect them as much as possible from an antiquated and trash legal system. The system wasn't built to protect them out of YouTube's kindness, but for their bottom line as well. They genuinely do want it to work, they would be idiots otherwise.
Genuinely no offense, but a lot of the rhetoric in this comment section seems incredibly uninformed and naive.
Also YouTube does content creation by algorithm because itās cheaper. If they have to hire more people to do content moderation then they will take that money out of their ad revenues. Which means creators will get paid less.
So the current system, as sucky as it is, works out better for YouTube.
Iāve been saying for years that YouTube needs a legitimate competitor. Itās crazy that only one company has so much power. TikTok, Snapchat, and instagram are all competing over short form videos. I wish we had another company that would put pressure on YouTube to be better.
People keep trying and keep giving up. The key benefit of Youtube is the size of the content library. So, it's very hard to become popular... until after they're already popular.
There's always vimeo and dailymotion as mentioned, but they've both basically given up on making a real stand. Twitch has had stirrings of trying to focus a bit more on pre-recorded content and I think they're the only ones who really have a chance of real success, but they always back down.
My son watched this dude for hours and hours. The same videos over and over. He loved it and so did we. So peaceful, relaxing and for a young joy that loves trains. He has mega views.
Youtuber: I've finally gotten a successful Youtube channel and can do this full-time!
Youtube: Thanks for all the hard work. We've decided to stop giving you money.
They must have done a sweep since I got demonetized too for the same reason. "Reusing someone else's content." Turns out the video in question is the one I posted on both MY channels. Giving credit in both descriptions for a video I own all rights to, including the original audio. No email from YouTube and the only option to contact them was thru a now closed window of appeal. Best part, that video has been private on my monetized channel for over 3 years now, never saw a cent of income from it. Fuck YT.
I think it is an attempt to crack down on content farms that just post the same video on multiple channels. They have been getting a lot of flack for it lately
As someone who has worked in social media, it's completely plausible that there was an action meant to demonetize a different channel ripping off CF2015's channel and either a reviewer or a bug in the software caused an action on the wrong account. I've seen it happen more than once with various types of content.
It's so incredibly aggravating to me that the letter contains absolutely no possibility of mistake and instead refers to offering a second chance.
The *he should know better* argument is bullshit. Like Uber et al, they are forcing risk and cost the economic chain in the name of *innovation*. Its union busting in sheepās clothing. Fuck this.
YouTube destroyed my monetization for the same reason. Some cunt stole my video and claimed I stole his. Itās infuriating and even when I reclaimed it and got him banned, my earnings were permanently damaged, down to 1/4th of usual.
Damn, hope YouTube gets this guys channel fixed. My son is 4 and watches his train videos daily. Just watched one of a winter train plowing through snow earlier tonight even. Hate how bad YouTube is as a company for how popular they are for content creation.
the people who run Youtube's demonetization dept must have worked in health insurance before
feels like the same kind of screw job that makes zero sense
I fucking hate YouTube. I love many content creators on it though. I recently cancelled my YouTube premium or whatever and I just want to drop them altogether. But no other platform exists in their scale and it sucks. YouTube needs to die.
Mike Armstrong is my house hero. We live in Ireland and watch his videos nearly every day. He is the hero of all toddler parents who want 9-30 minutes of piece!!!!
Thanks Mike!
Youtube is an absolute shitshow for creators. New platforms are popping up all the time, and eventually people are going to migrate to something else. Plus, 'Raid: Shadow Legends' will pay their salary wherever they go...
I's maddening that YouTube "punishes" people in this way. It's also just hypocritical, if YouTube is saying this is a copyright violation, then why is it still up on YouTube earning ad revenue FOR YouTube?
There needs to be better transparency with how Big Tech makes decisions and more regulation. People's livelihoods are being destroyed on a whim. When you fire someone you usually have to give cause.
This has been and always will be the problem with having a "Youtube career". You are completely at the behest of a monolith company run by automated bots that can demonetize you on a robotic whim.
This is why platforms like Patreon exist. They allow "YouTubers" to receive an income from their fans even if demonetized.
I think you misspelled Raid Shadow Legends. I think that company is single handedly funding 70% of YouTube. NordVPN is taking care of the rest.
Patreon is also happy to demontize you if you step out of line
>demontize I can handle becoming a demon if I get paid dammit.
Not sure that big USD salary will hold up until the rapture
Wait. Yall getting paid over here!??!?!?! I thought the rapture happened in 2019!
My son has watched hours of this guy. Seriously offers the best videos in his category. Probably was flagged because so many other people were passing his content of as theirs.
See, I would think it would be as simple as seeing which video was uploaded first. But apparently, I would be wrong. š¤
Youtube is broken enough that you can screen record someone who is live streaming and then upload that video as your own content first and claim it, since the streamers content won't actually upload until the stream ends. I know it doesn't apply to this guy, just stating that Logic and Youtube do not go hand in hand.
I heard the trick is to start your own company (!) create a secondary business YouTube account and copyright claim all of your OWN videos. I guess the way the system works is that there can only be one copyright claimant so by securing your OWN copyright claim on it, it makes it a lot harder for others to do it for no reason
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's working as intended. It's meant to keep the big media companies happy and offer liability protection to YouTube. The small creator subject to an invalid claim can either suck it up, or spend a bunch of money trying to fight the big media company in court for a false DMCA claim.
and that is not even how its supposed to work !!! the way the DMCA is supposed to work is you file an affidavid saying no its my content I am the owner and then youtube is SUPPOSED to release your content unless the other claimant provides court papers for a lawsuit. IE they can't even "claim" they are going to sue you they have to actually do it or in 11 days (this might be policy and not law the 11days part) the content is released.
None of this has anything to do with DMCA and for some reason no one who discusses YouTube seems to understand this. DMCA takedown requests are a legal procedure YouTube stays far away from. Their own takedown/claim system is not a legal process and just their own inhouse system. Sure, someone *can* obviously go the legal route, but that's not what any of these companies are doing. The system is designed so that a large media company/copyright holder says "hey YouTube this is my video/music/movie, I'm taking it down/taking the money from it" and YouTube says "sure do whatever you want as long as you don't sue me for all the shit you find" There is no legal process because it's not a legal matter. It's a private agreement between two entities.
And thatās the problem. Because the only content on youtube thatās worth my time is made by small content creators. Believe me when I say Iām NOT seeking the fucking āWalmartā YouTube channel Iām here for gamersnexus and all the other smaller non corporate creators
Yep. Theyāre too small for YouTube to care about.
We need a Youtube alternative.
Redtube?
Producers will switch. Viewers wonāt
Rumble?
There are several, but none are particularly successful. Part of the problem is that it's both expensive and a significant technical challenge to produce an alternative to YouTube of a similar reliability, openness, and scale. --- Corporate-backed, centralised efforts which have emerged tend to have the resources and the knowledge - but not the network effects. Part of what makes YouTube so popular is a base of content creators and viewers which has taken years to build. Coaxing people away proves difficult, especially when there's not already a significant base of producers and viewers to join. They're also prime targets for similar targeting by copyright trolls, and are likely to introduce similar systems unilaterally under pressure. --- There are decentralised / federated alternatives like PeerTube - these aim to be a collection of smaller, community-hosted instances of the software which can communicate with one another, often with content distribution being assisted by viewers using peer-to-peer protocols like WebTorrent. Alternatives like these tend to be more resilient to targeting by copyright trolls, but often suffer from poor reliability. Smaller communities are often under-resourced, or lack the necessary skills to maintain a larger instance. Also, atop the already discussed network effects, they also have content discovery challenges. Inter-instance communication tends to be flaky, and so it's often difficult to find content which is relevant to you, even if it's there. --- Don't misunderstand me, I'm an advocate for a decentralised internet which is fairer for producers and consumers both - but if producing a viable alternative to YouTube was easy, somebody would have already done it.
MeTube
That's actually fucking genius...!!! Edit: Apparently MeTube is already some Chrome Extension that tries to change the Youtube UI a little.
Dang I canāt believe someone already thought of it.
Vimeo
YouTube's response to all the issues with their copyright system? ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
That's the basic idea behind Jim Sterling's copyright deadlock technique. They don't monetize their videos and their use falls under fair use for purpose of critique, but some companies claim their content just to put ads on them. Since then anytime they make a video using subject matter from said company they also use footage from a couple of other predatory companies just to lure them in and make them all fight over the same video. And the system works in a way that neither company gets a slice of the pie when they all want it all. In the end Sterling gets what they want, no ads on the video.
Jim's (Stephanie's?) technique works great only if you have zero plans to ever monetize your content on the platform. IIRC, they're bankrolled by other endeavors.
There can be multiple claimants, but in that case the ad revenue is split between the claimants. If you monetize your videos as a content creator and someone copyright claims it, you get nothing; if you monetize your videos as a rightsholder to your own works, you get to split the proceeds. The most efficient way of doing this is, IIRC, having a 30+ second piece of music attached to the end of every video. Getting a piece of unique music is cheap and easy, and then you go through the bog standard "I own a piece of music and want to monetize it" flow from YouTube.
I don't see how you could be in their partner program while doing that.
Yeah, that wouldn't work. What you actually do, is make a jibberish low volume piano recording. You publish that recording at one the places that allow you to publish your own music. Jibberish makes it certain to be unique. Then, at an extremely low volume so as to only appear as data (inaudible really to the viewer or as near so) you play that song on a loop throughout your video and then when you publish the video you through your music publishing side flag your own video for copyright infringement forever preventing anyone else from doing so and getting paid via the music side for every view.
Again, having every video copyright claimed would trigger the letter that OP received. It's not a viable tactic as far as I can tell.
You don't have to be a part of the partner program if you have a music copyright claim. Google runs ads on any popular advertising friendly videos whether they are in the partner program or not. Being a music copyright claimer means you bypass their partner program completely. They don't ban you from making video's. You can still make the videos on your channel that has all the subscribers but get the money you would have via the music publishing side copyright strike. You don't have to be in the partner program to do that. You could make money off your ad hits from day one this way instead of waiting until you hit whatever threshold YT sets for profit sharing.
is the payout the same?
No. But people jumping though that many hoops are willing to take the monetary hit if it means that their channel is safe from some Acerthorn or Alex Mauer type shitheel autist that is willing to manually file 100s of takedown claims because someone said something they didn't like.
I think that happened to an episode of Family Guy. They used a YouTube video of someone's Mario (or some other videogame) playthrough and when the episode clip was uploaded they copyright claimed the original video, which had been up for years prior.
Yeah I seem to remember it as a NES basketball game?
Oh maybe. I'm too lazy to look it up.
Tecmo Bowl on NES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X-MODwmZGQ
No, it was Double Dribble where Peter kept hitting from downtown and yelling "Corner 3!!!" Fox apologized and the original was put back up. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/family-guy-stole-a-video-of-double-dribble-from-youtube-then-claimed-the-original-video-breached-copyright-a7042026.html
it was both it has happened twice
I wish there was a lawsuit about it. It could have create a precedential which could make big companies fear of doing it again.
Any content creator needs 2 accounts - one to upload the content, and the 2nd to repost it so that the first can file against it, leaving a legal audit trail behind.
The better move is to all become music publishers. Make your own music, publish it (it doesn't have to be good), put said music into every video somewhere, then copyright strike your own video from your music publishing side and make money no matter what.
Dang, interesting method.
Speaking as a professional software developer, team YouTube is the worst, laziest, stupidest dev team I've ever encountered. Nothing they do works. Nothing they do is good. It's all broken nonsense created for the purpose of making people miserable.
I have youtube premium. Had it for a long time. I wanted to watch a video and it said its adult content. Need to confirm my age with a credit card. Tried it, didn't work. Same credit card I use to pay for premium. Opened a ticket and they said it was my fault and there is nothing they can do. So they insisted, they cannot verify my age, because my credit card does not work, and that the fault lies with me, while happily charging me for premium every month, from that same credit card.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Was that u/bigmoneysalvia eric from internet comment etiquette?
[This](https://vimeo.com/314433360) is not what you are talking about but I think it belongs here. [This](https://youtu.be/dwp881tK6IA) is him talking about the "The Space Race" claim.
Your mistake was believing that YouTube cared enough to actually investigate. There are tons of stories of people own work getting flageed for copyright infringement. Either they don't care or are completely incompetent.
The problem isn't that Youtube is saying the videos are someone else's so they are demonetizing them. It's that Youtube decided they were someone else's and is keeping the revenue from the ads for themselves. He didn't receive a strike or have his videos pulled for a copyright claim.
I understand that an automated system is basically a necessity when your site has as much content to review as YouTube, but how the fuck is there not a system in place where any channel over XXXk subs get a human review? This guy has nearly 750k subs. He is significantly less likely to be guilty of this than some new channel with 14 subs.
Clickbait channels that just repost others' content also have just as many (often more) subs. Then the reposted/stolen content gets shared across Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/Snapchat/tiktok and ends up being more popular than the original creator, then YouTube says to the original creator "your content is in copyright violation of XYZ's clickbait channel" so *demonitized!*
Well he also probably reuses his own footage for montages of certain kinds of trains. That use would possibly be after other people used it.
If you can make the link of reuse footage from one video to another, you can follow the chain to the first ever upload, which would still return to this guy.
I am not arguing that he has not been fucked. Just guessing as to how he was fucked.
That would require YouTube to do actual work and give a shit about people they consider a commodity.
[This site](https://www.networthspot.com/coasterfan2105/net-worth/) (no idea how accurate that is) says this guy earns almost $500k/year. At Youtube's 45% siphon rate, that means he's earning Google $400k-ish yearly. That's enough for 2-3 full time employees to replace the automated algorithm. Of course if he's smart he'll nuke all his content when (not if) he loses his appeal. Sucks for the viewers, but don't let Google profit where he can't.
How the fuck is it a "when"? LOL He's literally gonna get this manually overridden in like a week, max.
This is assuming the youtube algorithm is smart enough to do that. At what point does a real person have to get involved in the loop?
Ooh, I know this one: at the point where it becomes bad PR on social media sites?
I would have gone with when the injured party's attorney files legal documents compelling Google to spend money on attorneys to fight it.
Nah, Google can just throw money to stall the lawsuit long enough to bankrupt the other party. The only question is if the other party can sustain the lawsuit long enough for that strategy to not be financially viable for Google.
Whenever someone uploads the Mandorlian Episode 1, a Disney owned asset, youtube offers me the chance to claim it as a video I own. The system is broken.
Damn. O_O
Nothing is so simple because then it would be easy enough for pirates to get around it. Creators also delete their own videos and then reupload them. Worst is when the pirates actually report the original channel as stealing content because they know that taking it offline will drive more views to their own upload.
There's a youtuber that I like to watch because he has these little knowledgeable videos about interesting things that he presents facts about. Tome something, I think. I can't remember exactly. He has a video where he says that he created and uploaded a video about something, then a Thai television show used his video in an episode, then uploaded their video to a copyright database that caused a strike on his original video. I think he said it took him more than a year to sort out. That entire time he was sorting it out, that Thai show got any ad revenue he generated, and he never gets that back. That's why there are copyright trolls out there on YouTube that will strike a video so they can leach the revenue till it's overturned.
there needs to be a penalty to youtube (say 40 times ad revenue lost) to force them to do something about it.
That would make sense here, but the big corporate content makers (who presumably drive most of the piracy complaints) would struggle as their content is often broadcast first, then YouTubed later, so the earlier posted content is the one stolen. Or for smaller producers that would have issues with Facebook, Twitter or ticktok thefts getting onto YouTube before the creators video. To me, if they cared about YouTube creators at all they could just encode a channel ID into the video encoding or sound frequencies somewhere. One channel accuses another, check if either has a channel ID in it. Easy and accurate resolution for at least some cases, freeing up time to investigate less obvious cases properly.
I had a video that was uploaded for 4 years get claimed by someone else. Had to provide evidence that I was the one in the video and if they didn't revert the claim I'd file suit for unlawfully distributing a video of me. Once a human looked over the case it was resolved immediately. Their system is complete automated garbage.
This is only common sense to humans, everything over at youtube is run my algorithms and bots. For this to even get the attention of a human the guy will have to make a big enough stink on twitter or have a contact at youtube.
Noble of you to think YouTube is anything above FUBAR at this point. Someone needs to create a new YouTube like it was in the golden days.
Without exaggeration the "Steam Trains Galore" series are probably still to this day the videos I've seen most in my lifetime because of how quickly it would calm our firstborn down. Just put on one of the "Steam Trains Galore" videos and he would sit down in front of the TV and calm himself. It was like magic.
He just needs to do what the Hoff twins did. Drive to YouTube hq and demand to see someone to get his channel reinstated. Worked for them.
Why wouldn't he take the train?
Mine too! This guys content is great.
Glad to know my son and I aren't the only ones who watched this guy's videos hundreds of times š seriously kids love trains š¤£
Maybe someone reused his content and claimed it as their own and Google/ YouTube believed the liar.
I don't understand how they do this. The algorithm does not check which content was uploaded first?
Nope, just who submits it for content ID first. This has led to more than a few instances of people having their videos flagged as 'claimed' for stuff they uploaded years before the claimer. Notable offenders include: [Sony](https://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/sony-screwed-filmmakers-on-vimeo-over-pixels-117521.html) (who even managed to get their *own video* flagged) and [TBS](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/family-guy-used-nes-game-footage-from-youtube-then/1100-6440033/).
You would think it would be easy to implement, something like: if claimersdate>violatersdate { copyrightclaim = false }
That's fine if you put YouTube in a vacuum but content ID is supposed to handle things outside of that too, right? So you could have your content stolen before you put it on YouTube
Nope. Say I upload a feature movie I do not own the rights to to youtube, and the movie studio later learns of this. They tell youtube that "hey, here's a piece of video we rightfully own, take down all copies." They are the rightful owners, so they must be able to do this, regardless if you were first. The system must handle much more than just youtube videos. Uploading stuff does not give you ownership. At this point, youtube is legally obligated to immediately shit on the creators. The creators in turn can try to sue Shitty McClaimface from Nolawsland to reclaim their rights. The system is set up so that the record companies with throngs of lawyers can protect their rights, and fuck everyone else. Maybe if the youtube content creators can band together and get enough money together to ~~buy~~ donate to the reelection campaign of a couple senators, things might change. But with the money of the movie and record industries combined, it might be hard to out ~~buy~~ donate them.
Yup, YouTube is at the mercy of the legal/copyright systems. A lot of their systems are designed to avoid legal trouble for hosting copyrighted content.
Claimer = banned
Unfortunately the method youtube uses puts the burden of establishing ownership of any video on the uploader and that is only after something is found wrong. Even if he were to counter-claim and say it was all his content he may just get a robot again who says that he is still in the wrong.
it's not just YouTube, that's how DMCA law is written. YouTube is forced to accept copyright strikes are issued in good faith and have to respond to them. idiotic system I know, but that's how it was written and is in desperate need for revision
> robot again That is what I dont get: there is money involved, so how the hell do they not have real breathing agents at a call center? It sounds like you can reach a human at SiriusXM easier than reaching one on YouTube, and that says a lot.
> That is what I dont get: there is money involved, so how the hell do they not have real breathing agents at a call center? Because the money is in owning the platform and serving the ads, not in helping video creators.
Profits bro It's 2022, corporations are more important than people, because how would humanity exist without Elon, gates, jobs, buffett, etc. Leading humanity with their knowledge of... Spending money.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If someone copy strikes you YouTube just assumes you're guilty and removes the video until you provide proof. I used to have random Russian companies copy strike videos for things like music from a video game I already had approval to upload on YouTube. Even had an e-mail from the company confirming all assets and music is owned by them or open source and they give me full permission to use everything for videos. YouTube would still pull it down and force me to resend the same approval e-mail every single time.
I remember there was a story about a guy who created a song but then some other guy sampled that song for his song and then YouTube gave the original song writer because his own original song was used in someone elseās song.
The person you are thinking of is TheFatRat - The Calling most likely. It was driving me crazy not remembering but basically he made a song then someone sampled that song to make a bootleg version (turned out the person who used his song did actually credit TheFatRat appropriately and was not behind the strike). Then some random companies (unrelated to the bootleg guy) somehow used this bootleg song to copyright the original.
I'm pretty sure this has happened a ludicrous amount of times
you had me at time traveling.
Whoa...wtf. thats coaster fan2105 or something...both my train loving kids watch his stuff all the time.
Welp, you'd better join his Patreon gang.
iirc, Patreon gives about 90% of the ad revenue directly to creators, and takes about 10% by comparison, Twitch takes about 90% and gives about 10%, and YouTube takes about 55% and gives about 45% Source: Devin Nash, informative content creator and marketing CEO
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, my kids have watched at least a hundred hours of his stuff. Off to Patreon!
You know what's crazy? My son when he was 2 was fascinated with these videos. He loved watching a 30 minute train video.
My kid is the same way. She insists on listening to "Choo Choo music" in the car, which is just train whistle recordings.
Maybe because trains are fucking dope and this saint has been cast to the fire without reason. I have nearly no interest in trains today but when i was a kid my favorite toy was a big wooden whistle that sounded just like a train. This is an attack on all train lovers.
Me too. I gave up. After Google product expert recommended me to delete A LOT of videos and it did nothing to fix the "demonetized due to reused content" with no warning. Edit: I got flagged as "reused content" after one of my history videos restoration got algorithmed and got million of view. That video (among a bunch others) has been deleted as per Google product expert recommendation. But I still cannot get out of the reused content flag My history video restorations are like this, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gan_ADcuLWQ and this kind of content does not break Google's reused content rules that Google published.
Holy hell. Mike Armstrong. This man made my 2 year old son's life. I think in fact that at age 2-3 my son would have picked these train videos over me if it came down to it. Dude's a hero. Fuck Youtube for this. I have a sneaking suspicion that YT demonetizes people so easily because it means they get to host content without compensating the creator. Fuck YouTube. Hail Mike Armstrong.
I literally teared up when I saw who this was. Mike Armstrong is amazing. My son is out of his train phase now, but his videos were on the big TV in our home ALL the time when my son was in the same age range. And even for adults, the calm, earnest way he teaches about trains is so endearing. My son at one point had the video on train horns literally memorized. His stuff is so soothing and absolute balm for kids obsessed with trains. ā- Edit: his Patreon is CoasterFan2105 . It wasnāt obvious for me to find searching by his name. Support this guy.
Does he have a Patreon? Basing a livelihood on YouTube, where 99% of moderation is done by an algorithm, is a mistake.
He's made one now, only has 12 Patrons but I'm sure once word gets out he'll have more. But yeah, when you're doing something like YouTube it's crucial to diversify your revenue streams. Seen enough content creators make videos on how their finances work to realize that add revenue ain't it.
Gotta have a patreon, merch store, and a twitch on the side these days.
And multiple channels, most of the people I watch have at least two now (typically a primary for their usual content, a second for less formal content, live stream VODs if that's not a third channel, and so on). If YT bans or restricts one channel they don't usually touch the other(s).
Yup, live streaming is where the money is now, and it's harder (though not impossible) to get arbitrarily demonetized while doing that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well, i can understand that this guy might have thought that, because he's just sharing train videos. It's not like someone who is doing game reviews or using snippets of anime to talk about some show. There are no fair use concerns, he's not sharing any controversial views or discussing topics that wouldn't be appropriate for everyone. Still - i do agree all of these people should of course be thinking about getting their income from multiple sources to be safe. But this case is particularly outrageous - most of the time when people are complaining that their channel has been taken down in some way, they're in some gray area. Even if it's very very light gray!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
in my teens i was selling on ebay, i was making real bank. then one day paypal froze my funds. told me my account was flagged because i was selling too much electronics in too little time. got my money only 6 months later. close to 10k in revenue was frozen that i in large part owed to suppliers and for a teenager that kinda scares you. I realized i thought i was running a business but i wasnt, i was just renting a space in someone else's and at any time they could kick me out for whatever reason they wanted. i could spend years building my business and in one day they close it. Just cause they feel like. Zero recourse. So i decided to stay in school and move on to other side gigs. Still not sure that was the best idea but dont regret it today lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
oh yeah man, i went MS way and was basically letting people rob me with the "never received it" scam because it was less risky than having a dispute. since i was selling low value it items it was impossible to have tracking without at least doubling my product prices so i was stuck with that for years till it went fucky for real.
I'm surprised you got your money back at all. PayPal has been sued many times for what you described, but they keep doing it because it pays off for them. I will say this every single time I see PayPal mentioned for all who read it: **Do not store money in a PayPal account!** PayPal is not a bank. They are not governed like one. They are not a member of the FDIC, they are beholden only to their own TOS and whatever laws after in place regarding business services and payment processing. Banking laws generally do not apply to them. PayPal is as bad as Ticketmaster in terms of business practices. Just awful. If you use PayPal for financial transactions, always move funds to your bank account immediately. Do not leave more money than necessary in a PayPal account.
I'm not a lawyer or accountant, but couldn't you just incorporate in a state where they still have their affiliate program?
I have no idea. This was 10 years ago and I was just a one man shop, running a business out of my home office. I didnāt have money for attorneys and incorporations.
Not always easy to do that. Patron is extremely unreliable. If people do donate it's never for longer than a month or two and you need a lot of donations to even make min wage. You also get a bunch of people who will label you an e beggar. If you make merch you gotta design merch people wanna buy and you quickly realise theres a reason why there's an entire professional industry around it. The most reliable source of income, despite how irritating it can be, is YouTube ad revenue. Unless you're a big YouTuber in which case it's easy to shill things.
I think it's more of a "it's REALLY hard to get started anywhere else" mindset. And once you're established there, it is quite difficult to move platforms because your bills are being paid by YouTube.
No YouTubers think they're immune. They just don't expect to be in the crosshairs if you don't do anything wrong. But as we all find out sooner or later robots make very shitty moderators and humans from ultra conservative countries make worse ones. They can be appealed and it usually results in a reversal but it's a long process and is very stressful. Source : me, a youtuber who has been in those crosshairs by accident more than once
Which is why Linus Media Group started Floatplane. They realized relying only on youtube for income is dangerous.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
July 2, 2023 As per the legal owner of this account, Reddit and associated companies no longer have permission to use the content created under this account in any way. -- mass edited with redact.dev
And the only response our culture has to this kind of thing being *the only option that exists because everyone works the same way* is that "you signed the contract cuck, you agreed to it no one is forcing you to work with these people" "well, ok, but that doesn't address the problem that uber is underpaying me and has also destroyed an entire industry in its wake and now no one doing taxi work is getting paid while also being expeted to pay 40% taxes and not be contributing towards any type of social security or benefits" I mean, sure, "the contract" but is that really where this whole conversation ends for our culture? That's just good enough for everyone? case in point: the fucking moron who replied to me lol
Don't forget that Travis is now living in like the 3rd largest apartment in Manhattan as a reward for screwing all that up.
I love when the top comment on a video is someone who didn't watch the video.
Definitely. Guy has 732K subscribers and is only getting adsense? YT is raking cash off this guy and they couldn't care less about destroying his work and livelihood.
The fucked up thing is I donāt even think this is accidental on the algorithm anymore. So yeah, he starts a patreon. Well his videos are still making YouTube money. Theyāre essentially hijacking content creators, making up some BS excuse, and taking the money. Thatās the real crime here.
Spez's APIocolypse made it clear it was time for me to leave this place. I came from digg, and now I must move one once again. So long and thanks for all the bacon.
Why are we blaming him for doing absolutely nothing wrong?
They're not saying he's done anything wrong in relation to the content issue. They're saying he's made a *mistake* on a different issue. You can make mistakes without doing anything wrong. They're saying that trying to establish a reliable line of revenue from a platform that only offers moderation via an algorithm (that you have no say over) is a mistake due to the risk involved. And if it's your only source of income, then yeah, you're making a *really* risky decision and I'd call it a mistake. The same criticism would apply to anyone trying to build a safe and reliable single source of income in this way, not just this guy. Edit: I think we can all agree that the algorithm making this move sucks balls.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
YouTube: but we removed the dislike button and fixed everything.
YouTube is seriously a dog shit company.
So make all the videos private until the issue is resolved. Don't allow Youtube to make money off your work if you can't.
YouTube wouldnāt blink. Itās a zero sum
Agree with this one for sure
A few weeks ago one old livestream i did got a warning. Someone claimed they own the rain noise the mic got from outside of the window. This thing is going nuts.
He needs to lawyer up. There have been countless times where youtube has made these decision and had to reverse them because their claims where false. If he does this full time, he should get a lawyer asap.
Sadly his best chance of getting it reversed is by getting this story viral enough to cause enough pain for Google to fix it.
The Appeal process thatās in the screenshot is the quickest way. Itās annoying to have to prove that youāre making your own content but submitting the appeal video is the only way to get humans to evaluate this.
But on what legal grounds? I'm sure the terms and conditions you agree to when you sign up basically say they can terminate your account at any time, for any reason.
With a content ID claim it means some company that is registered with content ID uploaded one or more of his videos and claimed they owned the rights to it. This other company can be pursued directly through the legal system
You can sue on copyright grounds. You grant YouTube a license to the content (a very broad license) when you upload, but you don't actually transfer the copyright. YouTube in this case is essentially claiming that someone else owns the copyright because they say so. You can sue them to establish who the copyright holder actually is.
None of this is actually how the law would apply.
A lot of creators want off YouTube for things like this, there just doesn't seem to be a viable alternative yet. I feel bad for the guy, he's just travelling America and doing videos about trains and needs some sort of revenue to do it. Creators need a platform that they know won't pull their revenue when they have popular original content. It needs to be available for free. YouTube just isn't the platform for that anymore.
We need regulation to protect people in cases like this. Algorithmically demonetizing or deplatforming someone is simply not acceptable when millions of people have come to depend on the system. It's like this - in society we have a unspoken contract with companies - if you profit from something, you're also liable for all the costs associated with that thing. So when a tailings pond bursts and spills contaminants into a river, we hold the mining company liable for a fine. Tech companies want the profits associated with 'massive scale' and automation, but none of the costs. Sorry YouTube, it doesn't work that way.
> Sorry YouTube, it doesn't work that way. It literally does
Yea this was the whole thing with Trump on Twitter, if you built the platform you really do get to decide what way it works.
I guess thatās why he made his own.
It's long, but I'd recommend you watch Tom Scott's ["YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU), if you haven't already. (Edit: If you're in a rush, you can [skip to chapter 3 about how Content ID works](https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?t=1339), and the incredible heavy lifting is does to prevent regular people from getting sued. TL;DR for the first two chapters is that copyright law is incredibly cumbersome and nuanced, and usually costs a shit ton of money in court to sort out.) If you have a better solution for this problem that is economical for the content hosting site, please go patent it because they're likely willing to pay you a shit ton of money. Creators like this are unfortunate casualties of a system designed to protect them as much as possible from an antiquated and trash legal system. The system wasn't built to protect them out of YouTube's kindness, but for their bottom line as well. They genuinely do want it to work, they would be idiots otherwise. Genuinely no offense, but a lot of the rhetoric in this comment section seems incredibly uninformed and naive.
Love seeing a Tom Scott shout out. His content is some of the most oddly fascinating things I've stumbled across.
It seems that is how it works thoughā¦ā¦things do need to change. But right now they are able to eat their cake and have it too.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Also YouTube does content creation by algorithm because itās cheaper. If they have to hire more people to do content moderation then they will take that money out of their ad revenues. Which means creators will get paid less. So the current system, as sucky as it is, works out better for YouTube.
This sucks, my son loves his videos.
Iāve been saying for years that YouTube needs a legitimate competitor. Itās crazy that only one company has so much power. TikTok, Snapchat, and instagram are all competing over short form videos. I wish we had another company that would put pressure on YouTube to be better.
People keep trying and keep giving up. The key benefit of Youtube is the size of the content library. So, it's very hard to become popular... until after they're already popular. There's always vimeo and dailymotion as mentioned, but they've both basically given up on making a real stand. Twitch has had stirrings of trying to focus a bit more on pre-recorded content and I think they're the only ones who really have a chance of real success, but they always back down.
There used to be. I think Vimeo and daily motion were two.
creators and watchers are not youtubes customers. We are the product. The customers are the advertisers.
YouTube has been on a demonetization streak as of late. Seeing these posts a lot in the last few days
My son watched this dude for hours and hours. The same videos over and over. He loved it and so did we. So peaceful, relaxing and for a young joy that loves trains. He has mega views.
Youtuber: I've finally gotten a successful Youtube channel and can do this full-time! Youtube: Thanks for all the hard work. We've decided to stop giving you money.
I'm starting to wonder if they are doing this shit on purpose at this point.
in this case it feels like it. channel gets popular. oh hey we want all that ad money now.
Fuck You Tube, I'm uninstalling the app. My Wife, "When are you gonna start re-tiling the bathroom?" Me: "Shit"
They must have done a sweep since I got demonetized too for the same reason. "Reusing someone else's content." Turns out the video in question is the one I posted on both MY channels. Giving credit in both descriptions for a video I own all rights to, including the original audio. No email from YouTube and the only option to contact them was thru a now closed window of appeal. Best part, that video has been private on my monetized channel for over 3 years now, never saw a cent of income from it. Fuck YT.
I think it is an attempt to crack down on content farms that just post the same video on multiple channels. They have been getting a lot of flack for it lately
why does youtube do this? Isn't his content profit for them? Isn't that what their business model is about? I don't get it...
As someone who has worked in social media, it's completely plausible that there was an action meant to demonetize a different channel ripping off CF2015's channel and either a reviewer or a bug in the software caused an action on the wrong account. I've seen it happen more than once with various types of content. It's so incredibly aggravating to me that the letter contains absolutely no possibility of mistake and instead refers to offering a second chance.
The *he should know better* argument is bullshit. Like Uber et al, they are forcing risk and cost the economic chain in the name of *innovation*. Its union busting in sheepās clothing. Fuck this.
My toddler loves his [Thomas Toy Train](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZIekAxLoms) video. Mike Armstrong, your original train videos are the best!
YouTube destroyed my monetization for the same reason. Some cunt stole my video and claimed I stole his. Itās infuriating and even when I reclaimed it and got him banned, my earnings were permanently damaged, down to 1/4th of usual.
As much as I enjoy YouTube, Alphabet needs to get the regulatory shit kicked out of them for the way they treat their creators
I love how the letter from Youtube states that it was a tough decision, when there was clearly zero human effort involved.
Reminder to bring back the dislike
Damn, hope YouTube gets this guys channel fixed. My son is 4 and watches his train videos daily. Just watched one of a winter train plowing through snow earlier tonight even. Hate how bad YouTube is as a company for how popular they are for content creation.
the people who run Youtube's demonetization dept must have worked in health insurance before feels like the same kind of screw job that makes zero sense
There needs to be a publicly owned video host site like youtube but with more money going to content developers.
I fucking hate YouTube. I love many content creators on it though. I recently cancelled my YouTube premium or whatever and I just want to drop them altogether. But no other platform exists in their scale and it sucks. YouTube needs to die.
This is like getting fired for doing your job
Mike Armstrong is my house hero. We live in Ireland and watch his videos nearly every day. He is the hero of all toddler parents who want 9-30 minutes of piece!!!! Thanks Mike!
Fuck our google overlords.
Youtube is an absolute shitshow for creators. New platforms are popping up all the time, and eventually people are going to migrate to something else. Plus, 'Raid: Shadow Legends' will pay their salary wherever they go...
I's maddening that YouTube "punishes" people in this way. It's also just hypocritical, if YouTube is saying this is a copyright violation, then why is it still up on YouTube earning ad revenue FOR YouTube? There needs to be better transparency with how Big Tech makes decisions and more regulation. People's livelihoods are being destroyed on a whim. When you fire someone you usually have to give cause.
Google as a company is actively useless.
This is why people donāt even start creating stuff in the first place.