Report: YouTube to Buy Twitch For $1 Billion - Update

[Strazdas]

No. Copyright law is causing the problems. According to the law youtube must take down any content thats complained about BEFORE checking if the complaint is legit. thats very fucked up and you can thank Disney for it.

Nope. Google doesn't have to comply with take down request. Problem is, Google is not exactly qualified to decide if complaint is legit without investing a lot of money to hire people who are qualified to such a hellish job and complicated. And if Google doesn't comply, it can get sued.

so google does not have to comply with takedown request but if it does not it will get sued. that sounds like two opposite statements.
Yes, it would cost a lot for google to decide on that. which is why we need a system where proof of copyright infringement must be put forth BEFORE the takedown request and false claims should have penalties so companies like Nintendo can no longer abuse it like they do now.

"Do no evil" my ass, Google. That motto no longer applies to you no more. This is just another nail in your coffin.

Well that's not true. Taxes are evil, so Google pays no (ok, very little) tax. So it's still at least a bit appropriate.

And I suppose this was kind of inevitable it was just a matter of time before either Google or Amazon bought them and then subsequently run them in to the ground. Hopefully it's just a rumour.

Actually, the motto is "dont be evil", not "do no evil", so google clearly fails it.

 

[GladiatorUA]

Nope. Google doesn't have to comply with take down request. Problem is, Google is not exactly qualified to decide if complaint is legit without investing a lot of money to hire people who are qualified to such a hellish job and complicated. And if Google doesn't comply, it can get sued.

so google does not have to comply with takedown request but if it does not it will get sued. that sounds like two opposite statements.
Yes, it would cost a lot for google to decide on that. which is why we need a system where proof of copyright infringement must be put forth BEFORE the takedown request and false claims should have penalties so companies like Nintendo can no longer abuse it like they do now.[/quote]Can get sued.

And submit proof where exactly? Again, google is not qualified to judge. Request is just a formal request. And before actual DMCA, there are several levels of less official requests.

Nintendo didn't exactly abuse anything. Monetization of game footage is a grey area, unless there is a permission, and until court says otherwise, anyone can claim whatever they want. Including Nintendo. Yes, dick move, still a legitimate one.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

Can't the owners of Twitch simply say "no"?

Would you say "no" to a BILLION dollars?

 

[Roxas1359]

And submit proof where exactly? Again, google is not qualified to judge. Request is just a formal request. And before actual DMCA, there are several levels of less official requests.

Nintendo didn't exactly abuse anything. Monetization of game footage is a grey area, unless there is a permission, and until court says otherwise, anyone can claim whatever they want. Including Nintendo. Yes, dick move, still a legitimate one.

During the time in which a dispute is filed, the people who are flagging the video are supposed to submit legal documentation showing that they own the material in the video that is in question. I say supposed to, but they don't. There is a 30 day period in which the people filing the claim are supposed to respond, and if they don't the claim goes away. Used to be that once the claim expired, or was successfully disputed, that video couldn't be reflagged for the same thing. Sorta like how the 5th Amendment in the U.S Constitution works; however that rule was removed long ago so now you can be flagged for the same thing again, even directly after the claim expired. Not only that, but if your video is monetized, then during that time the revenue generated on that video doesn't go to you, nor does Google hold onto it. No, it goes to the people that filed the claim, even if they don't actually own it. Plus, YouTube's algorithm for applying claims is screwed up because it does it based on single words, to small audio sound clips.

Hell, I got a claim saying I was infringing one someone's copyright on silence. The video in question, by Orchard Music Group, claimed that I used a song by them. The part of the video that was flagged though had no audio at all, neither game audio nor commentary, it was just silence. I thought maybe it was a visual claim instead, which is still wrong because the copyright in question for the video belonged solely to Square Enix, but no it was visual. During that time, Orchard puts ads on the video to try and get revenue, something I don't do since I don't monetize, and they would be getting money for something they didn't own. Google knows that this system is completely broken, hell it was what the court case of Viacom v. Google was all about, but they don't fix it. YouTube often gets DMCA take downs, but even then they just put it in the algorithm to have it be taken care of instead of doing it themselves, and as a result the algorithm screws up and gives strikes and take downs to videos and channels that are innocent. Hell, I remember in December when Angry Joe's interview with the development team from Square Enix for Tomb Raider was flagged...by a company claiming to be Tomb Raider. Yeah, that should show that Google's system is broken badly when it comes to copyright detection and it's handling of it.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I thought people moved to Twitch precisely to get away from Youtube's draconian policies. If so, this sucks for them.

Nah, it more has to do with YouTube's Streaming system being absolutely garbage. You can't just upload videos to Twitch so a lot of YouTube's abhorrent policies don't apply.

You don't have to upload them to Twitch, they're saved in real time. Check "past broadcasts".

So you CAN save videos and the abhorrent policies STILL don't apply for now.

Fair enough, but even TotalBiscuit who recently did a video on this admits that while "Past Broadcasts" are there, Twitch's set up makes it hard to find that tab and thus a lot of users don't know about that :S

I still maintain that people Stream games on Twitch because YouTube Stream is ass in a hat.

 

[GladiatorUA]

During the time in which a dispute is filed, the people who are flagging the video are supposed to submit legal documentation showing that they own the material in the video that is in question. I say supposed to, but they don't. There is a 30 day period in which the people filing the claim are supposed to respond, and if they don't the claim goes away. Used to be that once the claim expired, or was successfully disputed, that video couldn't be reflagged for the same thing. Sorta like how the 5th Amendment in the U.S Constitution works; however that rule was removed long ago so now you can be flagged for the same thing again, even directly after the claim expired. Not only that, but if your video is monetized, then during that time the revenue generated on that video doesn't go to you, nor does Google hold onto it. No, it goes to the people that filed the claim, even if they don't actually own it. Plus, YouTube's algorithm for applying claims is screwed up because it does it based on single words, to small audio sound clips.

From what I understand, the whole claim-counterclaim process doesn't involve Google other than as a delivery mechanism. It's more about eliminating mistakes.

Yes, monetization thing is the biggest problem here. If google were to hold on to the revenue and award it to the one who "wins" the argument, it would eliminate most of the problems.

Content ID algorithm is configurable. You can set up a percentage of a match and a response(alert and track, claim monetization or take down). It is being misused by a lot of 3rd party content owners(or representatives, which is another issue).

If someone claims your silence you can appeal and the claim will, probably, be removed. It was automatic, in all likelihood.

 

[SeventhSigil]

During the time in which a dispute is filed, the people who are flagging the video are supposed to submit legal documentation showing that they own the material in the video that is in question. I say supposed to, but they don't. There is a 30 day period in which the people filing the claim are supposed to respond, and if they don't the claim goes away. Used to be that once the claim expired, or was successfully disputed, that video couldn't be reflagged for the same thing. Sorta like how the 5th Amendment in the U.S Constitution works; however that rule was removed long ago so now you can be flagged for the same thing again, even directly after the claim expired. Not only that, but if your video is monetized, then during that time the revenue generated on that video doesn't go to you, nor does Google hold onto it. No, it goes to the people that filed the claim, even if they don't actually own it. Plus, YouTube's algorithm for applying claims is screwed up because it does it based on single words, to small audio sound clips.

From what I understand, the whole claim-counterclaim process doesn't involve Google other than as a delivery mechanism. It's more about eliminating mistakes.

Yes, monetization thing is the biggest problem here. If google were to hold on to the revenue and award it to the one who "wins" the argument, it would eliminate most of the problems.

Content ID algorithm is configurable. You can set up a percentage of a match and a response(alert and track, claim monetization or take down). It is being misused by a lot of 3rd party content owners(or representatives, which is another issue).

If someone claims your silence you can appeal and the claim will, probably, be removed. It was automatic, in all likelihood.

A possible issue I can see though is that someone pointed out that there is no system of punishment or restriction for those who file false claims. As far as I know at least, even if you manage to get your appeal in front of a set of eyeballs before the 30 days expired anyway, at most the claim is going to be taken down, with nothing to prevent someone, or God help us maybe even the same person, from just filing it all over again and making you go through an appeal from the back of the queue. Certainly, there's nothing mechanically present that would keep someone from immediately filing again after their initial claim has been defeated, the only thing that might keep people from doing that is that it would raise too much attention if they just kept spamming claims on the same video.

Even if you manage to get your appeal filed and validated in just a week, (IS there even any sort of appeals process again claims filed, or is that 30 day waiting. The only kind of consideration that content providers get?)that's a week of revenue that goes into the pockets of the individuals who might not even own the content. Multiply that by, if you were truly determined, however many videos you filed false claim against, you could make a fair chunk of change just by being an ass, with absolutely no negative repercussions.

There are no doubt steps that Google could take to improve the service considerably, even something as simple as the monetization holding you suggested, but they are extremely unlikely to. Regardless of who gets the money, Google still get their cut, and they own such a large marketshare, they simply don't feel the need to spend time or energy on an issue that only affects content providers.

 

[Jadwick]

Google had Google videos and then bought Youtube instead because it was terrible.

Does anyone remember Google Video beside you and me?

YouTube became more popular with it's user-friendliness and drove up its 'profitability'. Boom, Google buys them up, only to find out that due to the massive amount of bandwidth and storage required that they were hemorrhaging money. Then they stick ads all over everything and generally muck everything up.

I see every internet business venture pretty much the same way now;

Step 1. Create a novel service for the average internet user.

Step 2. Carry out this plan with no thought on the long-term cost.

Step 3. Wait for Google to buy it.

Step 4. Profit.

But maybe I'm just being cynical.

 

[Strazdas]

Can get sued.

And submit proof where exactly? Again, google is not qualified to judge. Request is just a formal request. And before actual DMCA, there are several levels of less official requests.

Nintendo didn't exactly abuse anything. Monetization of game footage is a grey area, unless there is a permission, and until court says otherwise, anyone can claim whatever they want. Including Nintendo. Yes, dick move, still a legitimate one.

the request must contain proof. Google is not qualified to judge, but it should not respond to requests that are blanked statements without evidence. have you seen these notices? you would get 3 stamped lines of "please take it down" and then 1000+links list. thats it. companies have used this to effectively destroy websites that criticized them (especially seems to work for movie industry).

Nintendo abuse it by claiming copyright infringement (which gameplay videos are NOT and its NOT a grey area). But that wasnt the abuse. the abuse went as follows: Nintendo would claim copyright infrongement, the video owner would dispute it. nintendo is legally obidged to rpovide proof or detract claim in 30 days, since there is no proof obviuosly, they retract the claim on day 30. on day 31 they submit identical claim on same video again, process repeats and they release it in another 30 days. so essentialy what they did was disable videos for 30 days per month repeatedly. thats abuse.

The reason why they can abuse it is because law is set in such a way that video needs to be taken down before any evidence is submitted (opposite of how our law system works in real life, because you need to have evidence to arrest someone) and then there is aboslutely no reprecussions for false claims like Nintendos.

What Nintendo did was legitimate only because the law is broken. They found a loophole and abused it. Still technically legal, not really what the law tried to acomplish.