AyeJayKay

hm... while I probably wouldn't be affected by such an issue, it makes me weary that its an issue in the first place. Does Corsair do the same?

Just bought a high gloss linnmon desk with silver legs. Got rid of my old matte linnmon since the paint chipped and it was too big.

Ban spoons cuz they enable people to become fat. Ban cars cause they enable drunk drivers to crash. Retarded logic is retarded.

Wow... Nvidia is killing it.

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

A Retina Air (assuming you're referring to the 13" variant) would basically be the Retina Pro (or have abysmal battery life).

Yes, I want a Retina Air 13" but if Apple doesn't update the Air then I will be forced to get a MacBook Pro. Not ideal but what can you do.

This is good news as I'm probably going to have to upgrade to a MacBook Pro with integrated graphics since Apple refuses to upgrade the Air to a Retina display.

Another example of abuse of government power... and here people were thinking bigger government will solve the problem.

I put my iphone under some red lights and played some sexy music. It looked pretty hot to me.

it looks like ass. but more power to those who claim they don't care about looks!

2 minutes ago, iPC said:

It will be a 2560x1440 monitor

oh. Isn't 2K 1920x1080? Since 4K is double that at 3840x2160p? Anyway, if that's the case then I say wait to make your decision and look at the benchmarks of the latest cards of the titles you want to play.

Wasn't the 970 already quite good at 1080p gaming? If the performance rumors are true, the 1070 will be more than capable for 1080p and the 1070 will serve more value than its flagship priced counter part.

I say go 1070 and g sync monitor.

X-99 A looks bootiful.

I would get a MacBook. You'll find in college that outlets are quite scarce and so you'll want something that has really good battery life. 

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Speak for your own lawless nation. Here, we mostly use guns for target practice and self defense.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Today, in America, about 30 Million gun owners DIDN'T KILL ANYONE!

Hush! Logic isn't welcome on this forum!

Bernie's policies wouldn't work in the US. Heck, they wouldn't work anywhere. Take a look at failing economies of Europe. Europe is only standing due to the US economy and even the US economy is quite poor.

Been watching live streams of UC4 and its incredible. The amount of detail and fidelity they can pull out of a $350 machine is insane. It's why I continue to recommend a PS4 over an equivalently priced PC.

My IKEA Markus was a pricey but worthwhile purchase. I wish there was an IKEA nearby me but there is not and their shipping costs are quite expensive.

I rank Naughty Dog as the #1 console developer. Pretty much everything they put out is stellar and they have done so for like 2 decades.

The want is real but all I play is CSGO and my 960 is more than capable for that.

Why is it called Battlefield 1? Didn't Battlefield 4 come out only a little bit ago?

but I thought the Surface phone was supposed to be the ultimate productivity phone

The laptop I used in high school was pretty shitty but it wasn't mine so I will say the original galaxy s1 (samsung fascinate for verizon). Shitty build, shitty battery, slow performance, had an amoled screen but it was pentile so it was shit. At the time the iPhone 4 wasn't on Verizon so I went with this. Big mistake.

I personally don't browse here as often as I did. The format change is just too different for me.

ev-gah lol.

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Well the problem is that neither of the claimants (especially if both are legit) can win. One of the claimants has to withdraw for the other claimant to be able to monetize the video. They could, I suppose, work out a private deal between themselves, but good luck with that.

 

The Content ID system really only works properly if one person claims your video. Furthermore, if someone (or multiple parties) claim their copyrighted material despite you clearly using Fair Use, often you still lose.

 

For areas like Let's Play, especially those who do little or no commentary, then it's a grey area for sure (even though Let's Play's have been shown to increase game sales).

You assume that the main goal of content ID is to find 1 claimant. It can work properly if multiple parties, such as this case, own parts of the video.

16 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Yeah, you seem ignorant of the fact that Jim is allowed to use the footage by law under journalistic fair use ergo non of them have any rights to monetize Jim's content.

Well in that case, why isn't the point about fair use under journalism than it is some deadlock between two valid copyright holders?

12 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

You're missing the point that he's had to go out of his way to dump as much stuff unrelated to the true content in his video so the companies who don't give a toss about Fair Use of Copyrighted Material try to claim ownership of the WHOLE video and as such they lock themselves out of any chance at monitisation (particularly if one company tries to monitise on videos they claim and another nukes monitisation on videos they claim, both claiming ownership of the same video), just so his viewers do NOT get ads on his ad-free/unmonitised videos.

All because he's trying to use content from one company within the realm of Fair Use as a JOURNALIST discussing said content from said company.

 

He's showing how smegging BROKEN the whole Content ID system is, where the system doesn't even bother to check the validity of the claim by the claimer (or the legality of said claimer to said claim), as such people who upload footage of Valve games (which Valve themselves say is perfectly fine) get false claims from Valve IMPOSTORS who get the ad revenue (as pennies to the dollar/pound it might be) illegitimately.

Okay, so if the point is about fair use, why am I reading a thread about two valid copyright holders facing a deadlock? If he's trying to prove a point about fair use, shouldn't he be discussing the laws and policies of fair use rather than proving that content ID is able to accurately identify not 1 but 2 owners? Additionally, why are we talking about monetization when I thought the focus was on fair use? 

There is indeed a problem with fair use but nobody has yet to explain to me why content ID is broken by having two parties make a claim on a video. If it was a party that had absolutely no stake in the video (a copyright troll) then yes, I see the point of a deadlock, but its not.