This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w</a> The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well. In the end stuff like this goes to show that Youtube's systems are a complete and utter joke, but since Youtube has zero competition, it won't change.<p>1: The creator used CD Baby, if you're going to do this, I recommend DistroKid, it is about a zillion times better than CD Baby. Even the CD Baby creator endorses DistroKid.
This kind of "gaming" (ha!) the system has been around for a while now - another channel (Internet Comment Ettiquette) had a video called the "Copyright Claim Olympics" which featured a whole bunch of different types of content from many different copyright holders (olympic footage, movie footage, music videos, distorted audio/video, etc. etc. even mixed and dubbed over each other in order to make it even more difficult for content ID) to the tune of "if I can't have my ad revenue for my other videos that were clearly fair use/parody, nobody can have any ad revenue, fuck you Youtube content ID claim abusers!"<p>Unfortunately it was taken down (probably 20+ copyright holders complaining about a single video forced Youtube to do something about it) but can still be found on Vimeo with a simple Google search.
Note: story is from 2016. It's been three years, so it's unclear how relevant this story is to the current status of ContentID, copyright identification, and monetization on YouTube.
Content ID is such bullshit. Here we are years later and it <i>still</i> doesn't permit fair-use like critique; one of the shown matches is barely <i>21 seconds</i> in length. How is that a substantial copyright infringement?
So if I understand correctly:<p>1. Youtube makes money from ads.<p>2. Jimquisition is funded from Patreon, and despises ads on his content.<p>3. To resolve this paradox, Jim has found a way to (allegedly) infringe on multiple parties' copyright<p>4. Youtube's technology doesn't allow multiple monetizers, and therefore in this situation allows none.<p>If Jim disagrees with the funding stategy of YouTube, why bother with YouTube at all? Is free riding on youtube video distribution that valuable?
Great for making your video ad-free.
But things have moved on since then, you can now guarantee 50% of the ad revenue.<p><a href="https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/Mz14Ul-r63w</a>
IANAL, But doesn't monetizing the video and giving the proceeds to the claimant of the original copyright (nintendo) consitute infringement against the derivatives work author(Jim), assuming that the derivative work falls under fair use?
Shouldn't Jim be able to sue both nintendo and youtube?
I'd like to hear if anyone has a better solution than ContentID considering the scale, laws, and stakeholders involved.<p>Everybody likes shitting on it but it's the best solution to the problem.
What a garbage website. Please autoplay video advertisements for me. That is so helpful. Oh wait, who owns it?<p>p.s. Jim Spanfeller is an herb: Slate
Web results
The Media-Sensational Rise and Fall of “Jim Spanfeller Is a Herb”: <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-is-a-herb-rise-fall-blog-post-deadspin.html" rel="nofollow">https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/jim-spanfeller-i...</a>
Most articles I've seen about the YouTube system are wildly misinformed.<p>Here's the facts: in almost all cases [0], anyone can easily get rid of any abusive claim by simply disputing it, and filing a counternotice if and when it is elevated to a DMCA notice (copyright strike). The only way for the copyright holder to prevent this is by actually filing a lawsuit, and being as this requires a lawyer to sign off on, is extremely unlikely to happen for frivolous cases. Any article that claims that this can't be easily disputed, or that the burden of proof is on the YouTuber who uploaded the video (outside of the exception discussed below) is wrong, full stop.<p>[0] there is an exception for a small number of content owners. See <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals#contractual-obligations" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-contractual-obligations-users-free-speech" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/casualty-youtubes-cont...</a>. As far as I can tell, the only company known to be part of this is UMG.