New claim of YouTube copyright strike extortion (Update: Jukin Media responds)

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/01/10/new-claim-of-youtube-copyright.html

2 Likes

I’m still frustrated that YT has done nothing to fix their mess and how scummy everything is. Someone can falsely claim something in your video and they can temporarily get revenue for it or stop the creator from getting money from it. Even if the issue is sorted out the revenue is something that gets lost regardless, nevermind the incentive that currently exists for this kind of scam behavior. Youtube if anything actively incentivizes this kind of bullshit even if that’s not their intention.

I’m also amazed how it’s 2020 and YT has yet to even address this problem. Their “solution” so far has been to give creators more tools to address disputes but how the fuck does that help when people are being maliciously targeted?

Still waiting for a YT competitor to come along. I know that’s a hell of an uphill battle to compete with the platform but anything has to be better than this mess

9 Likes

Don’t Be Evil

They could fix their corrupt system anytime they like. They simply do not care. YouTube profits by theft and extortion. Pontius Pilate would be proud.

6 Likes

It sounds like these people are victims, but that is not entirely the right perspective.

Making a living on ad-driven platforms is a shitty business model: You are driving money towards people who exploit others, becoming an accomplice that helps perpetuating said exploitation. I have zero sympathy for that.

Content creators could address that problem by themselves: they could stop creating content. Problem solved.

2 Likes

But if you don’t want to put up with it, the only short-term solution is not to make a living on YouTube.

This is the only answer to this

I just visited my small YouTube channel for the first time in about a year, because they change their service based on the need to define adult/kid content.
I noticed that one of my videos ) all homemade by the way), had been flagged for copyright content, then cleared, all without my intervention.
Of course, I can afford to ignore takedown notices, because I just don’t care. But being a YouTube Creator these days has to be a major pain in the ass.

2 Likes

I had an instance where i recorded a drag show, the music was remixed by the artists and its performative/transformative so its fair use. However Youtube is entirely, at their own discretion, able to determine if its fair use or not and they think that i “lied” on its fair use status they can shut my channel down. Because of this most people are afraid to dispute false claims when stuff gets flagged on their vids, meanwhile there’s zero punishment for people putting in claims.

2 Likes

YouTube is a study in risk management, particularly how you have to accept extra risk to be competitive because most people don’t do any risk management.

Isn’t that just working under capitalism? Do you have the same contempt for all workers?

3 Likes

Actively supporting surveillance capitalism is pretty fucked up in my book.

Of course every worker bears some responsibility for the actions of the organization they work for, OTOH they have to make a living somehow.

But some jobs actively do harm to society The NEF hat a nice explanation, see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/dec/14/new-economics-foundation-social-value

I wonder how they would rate a dollar earned on ad revenue on youtube or revenue earned via facebook. We’d first have to quantify the damage done to democracy, and its consequences (e.g. the orange creep) to do that.

And this is how we got caught off guard by fascism.

We had two choices, subvert new media or avoid it. Too many people chose avoiding it about 10-15 years ago for the reasons you give, and proto-alt-right groups like Casa Pound took advantage, setting themselves up as the visible alternative to neo-liberalism when the Great Recession started. There are some people who finally understand and are putting videos on youtube, they don’t like it but they need to be where the people are. Preaching to the converted does not help anyone. There are some experiments in putting videos on alternative sites a few days before Youtube, but until Google and Youtube end up like Myspace they have to stay there.

Yes, the Mister Gotchas will be there criticising us, but they understand there is no ethical consumption under capitalism and want us to die off in an impossible quest for perfection.

There is also the mental health cost, when you get people who think they are the only socialist in a world of hostile fascists and indifferent liberals because they can’t find anyone else vaguely like them. I could go further into that, but I need to stop because I am ill.

2 Likes

You raise some very important points here and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be where the people are, and put videos out on youtube, or be politically active on facebook (which does not require that we use it for our private life).

But I draw the line at making a living on ad revenue, or on anything else that actively promotes surveillance capitalism.

Unfortunately, most of us live in capitalist societies, and we need to earn money to live. And it takes money to make educational and/or activist videos. The equipment, hardware and software, costs money. The Internet access to post videos costs money. If research materials, costumes or props are used, they cost money too. Background music? There’s free stuff out there, but it’s safer to license tracks, which costs money. Did anyone help you produce, edit, or otherwise participate? Ideally, they should be compensated-- more money. Not to mention the time and effort involved in a really well-written, edited and produced video… which is worth something on its own.

Since the product costs money to make, why shouldn’t the creators be entitled to earn a living from their efforts?

At least some creators out there are using a hybrid ad/sponsor/crowd-sourced income model, and it seems to work okay for them. (My sample size is very small, as I don’t follow that many people.) I’d like to see them continue to make a living through their work, or at least enough to defray the costs incurred.

It’s not a perfect model, and I’ve heard at least one creator acknowledge the problematic nature of YouTube’s relationship with channel owners. But at this point, it’s the best way for video makers to get their message to the world… so until a better system develops, it’s play the game, or stay silent. And as @the_borderer says, we need progessive, socialist voices out there to counter the fascists’ narratives. I’d prefer a better alternative, but I’d rather have what exists than nothing at all.

1 Like

Does Jukin Media definitely own the rights to everything they claim?

As I recall, some stock photograph companies were vacuuming up public domain photos, even ones that someone definitely owned, and claiming them as their own.

I doubt that would be a problem with the current hot viral stuff that people are making “reaction videos” of, but older stuff that’s been around for ages, and the origin more obscure would be tempting targets to claim. “Dancing Baby? That’s ours, pay up!”

1 Like

I think you have a point, and it‘s a really complex issue. Of course it‘s preferable ad revenue goes to socialist voices than to alt-right voices. I still believe that is just a temporary fix, and not a sustainable business model for a socialist, because of the obvious contradictions to a socialist mindset. In my experience it does make a difference where the money comes from. In a way it‘s a bit like working at Exxon to finance one‘s XR activism. The end does not justify the means.

The channel mentioned in the article does not appear particularly socialist to me, though. But I didn’t watch more than a couple of minutes.

Wasn’t youtube changing to require the monetization of all videos?
IIRC it was reported by an educational channel who preffered to keep their videos ad-free, but were pressed to allow ads.

Last time I checked you needed 4000+ hrs per year and 1000+ subscribers to be able to monetize a channel. But that might have changed.

Are alleged copyright holders allowed to forcibly monitize videos that are below that threshold? If so, sounds like being a copyright troll is way more profitable because there are more opportunities for monitization.

IIRC they are, everything else would be against the logic of making as much as revenue as possible. You can still remove the video in that case, they can’t force you to keep it in your channel.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.