(UPDATED - Claim has been removed) The Linux Gamer's response video to LTT got claimed by Fullscreen

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

 

 

 

For legal purposes that's what a DMCA claim is. Just because they've taken it back or because they might say they're sorry or they might want to claim Fullscreen doesn't represents them doesn't means it's not falsely reporting a crime when they know well one wasn't committed other than being critical (misguided as it might be) of their content.

 

Sorry but if all of you loss your shit when the vergue did this to Kyle probably under extremely similar circumstances (Someone or some firm legally representing them acting in an overzealous matter) Yet when Linus Media Group is (directly or indirectly as it might be) doing it to somebody else all of the discussion on this thread is just character assassination of the guy who's on the receiving end.

 

This is a double standard and you're all too biased towards Linus to want to acknowledge than none of what is being discussed here is any fucking excuse for this strike.

AFAIK, Linus and LMG DID NOT DMCA that video, the actions of Fullscreen or even a automated system run by YouTube should not be LMGs responsibility.

 

Kyle's case is VOX MANUALLY DMCA the videos, which makes VOX the OWNER of the verge at fault.

 

This case is Fullscreen or a automated system flagging the video, this would make Fullscreen a PARTNER to LMG at fault (or YouTube)

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, firelighter487 said:

i'm not biased towards LTT at all. i don't even watch anymore.

 

the thing is Fullscreen claimed it. unless you can prove that Linus ordered them to, you cannot blame Linus for this.

 

i blamed Fullscreen. and Fullscreen only. until i see evidence that Linus was involved in the strike i will stand by that.

 

When you enter a deal with a company like Fullscreen, no matter how bad it goes, you're legally but more importantly morally responsible for everything they do. For all intends and purposes until Linus himself immediately breaks all further communication and business with them is the same as if he manually claimed it himself: you don't get to hide behind a company you voluntarily decided to get in business with.

 

Just now, The Benjamins said:

AFAIK, Linus and LMG DID NOT DMCA that video, the actions of Fullscreen or even a automated system run by YouTube should not be LMGs responsibility.

 

Kyle's case is VOX MANUALLY DMCA the videos, which makes VOX the OWNER of the verge at fault.

 

This case is Fullscreen or a automated system flagging the video, this would make Fullscreen a PARTNER to LMG at fault (or YouTube)

 

Read above: I don't care and neither should you. It's people like Linus still being in business with people like Fullscreen that creates this problem as is on their end to end it immediately without question or excuses.

[Spotty]

10 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Sorry but if all of you lost your shit when the vergue did this to Kyle probably under extremely similar circumstances (Someone or some firm legally representing them acting in an overzealous matter) Yet when Linus Media Group is (directly or indirectly as it might be) doing it to somebody else all of the discussion on this thread is just character assassination of the guy who's on the receiving end.  

 

This is a double standard and you're all too biased towards Linus to want to acknowledge than none of what is being discussed here is any fucking excuse for this strike.

You seem to be misinformed. There's a HUGE difference between a copyright claim and a takedown notice resulting in a copyright strike.

Copyright claims, which is what has happened here to The Linux Gamer are often an automatic process where Content ID detects that a portion of your copyrighted content has appeared in another video on Youtube, and will issue a copyright claim on the video. The video remains public and viewable by the viewers, however any ad revenue generated by the video may be redirected to the original copyright holder. There's no punishment for the channel when a copyright claim is made against them, they will just lose the revenue for the video.

Copyright strikes or takedown notices, which is what The Verge did, are when they manually issue a legal notice that a video is infringing on their copyright and that they demand the video be removed from the platform. The channel will then receive a copyright strike against their channel which comes with punishments for the channel, such as losing their ability to live stream or perhaps no longer being 'recommended' or promoted in the search results or feed which can severely hurt the channels traffic and views. If they are issued with multiple copyright strikes, their channel can be removed completely.

What The Verge did was malicious and was purely because they didn't like what Bitwit was saying. What happened to The Linux Gamer is just the result of an automated system, and it appears the MCN Fullscreen has swiftly corrected the mistake and the video is no longer claimed.

[The Benjamins]

9 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 

When you enter a deal with a company like Fullscreen, no matter how bad it goes, you're legally but more importantly morally responsible for everything they do. For all intends and purposes until Linus himself immediately breaks all further communication and business with them is the same as if he manually claimed it himself: you don't get to hide behind a company you voluntarily decided to get in business with.

 

 

Read above: I don't care and neither should you. It's people like Linus still being in business with people like Fullscreen that creates this problem as is on their end to end it immediately without question or excuses.

even if it was YouTube automated system it would still be Linus's fault?

also shouldn't you wait to hear a statement from Fullscreen and LMG.

 

But this falls under the same ruling if you go to a accountant to get your taxes done, and they made a mistake. the mistake is on the accountant not the person that went to the account. Fullscreen does copyright management which makes them responsible for the claims they make.

[Drak3]

34 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

When you enter a deal with a company like Fullscreen, no matter how bad it goes, you're legally but more importantly morally responsible for everything they do

There is no moral obligation or responsibility on LMG for what Fullscreen does.

[LinusTech]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

You seem to be misinformed. There's a HUGE difference between a copyright claim and a takedown notice resulting in a copyright strike.

Copyright claims, which is what has happened here to The Linux Gamer are often an automatic process where Content ID detects that a portion of your copyrighted content has appeared in another video on Youtube, and will issue a copyright claim on the video. The video remains public and viewable by the viewers, however any ad revenue generated by the video may be redirected to the original copyright holder. There's no punishment for the channel when a copyright claim is made against them, they will just lose the revenue for the video.

Copyright strikes or takedown notices, which is what The Verge did, are when they manually issue a legal notice that a video is infringing on their copyright and that they demand the video be removed from the platform. The channel will then receive a copyright strike against their channel which comes with punishments for the channel, such as losing their ability to live stream or perhaps no longer being 'recommended' or promoted in the search results or feed which can severely hurt the channels traffic and views. If they are issued with multiple copyright strikes, their channel can be removed completely.

 

(snip) 

This is an excellent explanation of how these things work. 

 

I'd like to add that as long as the creator who gets the automated claim disputes it in a timely manner, there is no lost revenue during the period while it was "claimed". 

 

I've been down at IBM Think for the last couple of days and this thread is the first I'm hearing of this issue.. Aaaand it's already resolved. 

 

So, as far as I can tell, everything is working as it should...ish

 

We have noticed a significant uptick in copyright claims in the last couple of weeks, though, with some of them being in really really old content which suggests youtube has made some kind of change to ContentID and we've been trying to figure out how to address it.

 

We are generally pretty supportive of the creation of derivative works by our community and we want to make sure that they aren't being algorithmically claimed, but this change has caused other issues for us too. I woke up the other morning to a handful of claims made against Tech Quickie by LTT... Can't have that. 

 

I'm sure this will be resolved, but it's probably going to take some time for youtube to get their crap in order, as usual. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

9 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

I woke up the other morning to a handful of claims made against Tech Quickie by LTT... Can't have that.

Easy to solve, Linus.  Do a copyright strike whenever those Tech Quickie guys steal your content.  3 strikes and you don't have to worry about them anymore.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

He actively ignored people who brought that up on that video, he's removed many people's comments that says the same thing, he knows he's in the wrong, did he take down the video after people informed him? no, he did not. he has a misinformed video still up. 

2 hours ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

he gets no sympathy from me.

Btw both of you are wrong, the repository for the graphics driver he mentioned ALWAYS gives always the beta drivers anyway (which are still better) I don't know why he doesn't said that, he is a bit of an as*hole when it comes to this, it also doesn't matter what version you are talking about you should have that repo installed (still easy to do also with a GUI)
From the beta repo the .396.16 driver (superior to stable 390 in every way, the names are confusing) driver exist from april, the one that came the 23rd is the 396.54 which got the previous package updated
There is also the confusion on the package names... I understand why this happened.

Anyway the driver from the ubuntu versions should never, ever be considered for gaming with DXVK, why tf? this dude (The linux gamer) should be aware of this

EDIT: I'm editing this for the third time, the nvidia site and ubuntu repo are so confusing

Edited February 15, 2019 by Guest

[Ashleyyyy]

@Lukyp are you drunk?

 

2 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Btw both of you are wrong

you quoted @Rohith_Kumar_Sp twice.

 

3 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

this dude should be aware of this

who?

[Guest]

Just now, firelighter487 said:

@Lukyp are you drunk?

 

you quoted @Rohith_Kumar_Sp twice.

 

who?

Whatever, the same pic was posted twice by different persons I got confused

The Linux Gamer, I watched a couple of his videos but he seems to be confused sometimes

[Ashleyyyy]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

maybe he meant LTT and Linuxgaming? o_o

i dunno...

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

i dunno...

 

22 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

maybe he meant LTT and Linuxgaming? o_o

No I was referring to those dudes arguing in the youtube comments, I couldn't quite quote the image for some reason, and for some another reason another guy reposted the same image probably for the same reason and I thought it was a bug, sorry for the confusion  @Rohith_Kumar_Sp


I was just saying TLG did't tell the 396.16 actually came in april while the other one claiming the actual 396 it came on sep 23rd, which is true but for another 396 version TLG just did not respond properly

Edited February 15, 2019 by Guest

[Emily Young]

What a strange sequence of events... This is why people were so afraid of Content ID when it first rolled out. At the same time, that it's not legally binding and is so quickly reversible is quite a relief, though I guess if LTT took Techquickie's adsense dollars it really wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things... Either way, I think Linus nailed our position on this one: We're not trying to silence anyone here, directly or indirectly; This was a glitch in the Matrix.

[wasab]

They should copy strike all the stupid youtube ads. I lost count of how many impeach Donald Trump ads I've seen whenever I view a youtube news channel. 

[Razor Blade]

3 hours ago, GabenJr said:

This was a glitch in the Matrix.

Oh God... that means they've changed something...

 

img source: http://donthatethegeek.com/another-glitch-in-the-matrix/

 

10 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

oh is that what it means? lmao what has that to do with this??

Yeah hence my post... I'm not sure what perjury has to do with it either.

[Adama]

On 2/15/2019 at 7:39 AM, Misanthrope said:

 

 

 

For legal purposes that's what a DMCA claim is. Just because they've taken it back or because they might say they're sorry or they might want to claim Fullscreen doesn't represents them doesn't means it's not falsely reporting a crime when they know well one wasn't committed other than being critical (misguided as it might be) of their content.

 

Sorry but if all of you lost your shit when the vergue did this to Kyle probably under extremely similar circumstances (Someone or some firm legally representing them acting in an overzealous matter) Yet when Linus Media Group is (directly or indirectly as it might be) doing it to somebody else all of the discussion on this thread is just character assassination of the guy who's on the receiving end. 

 

This is a double standard and you're all too biased towards Linus to want to acknowledge than none of what is being discussed here is any fucking excuse for this strike.

To be clear bud, a youtube contentid claim isnt acutally a dmca takedown, or even legally binding, its a youtube thing not backed by any law, dmca doesnt even have stuff for covering what content id does.

[Blademaster91]

8 minutes ago, Adama said:

To be clear bud, a youtube contentid claim isnt acutally a dmca takedown, or even legally binding, its a youtube thing not backed by any law, dmca doesnt even have stuff for covering what content id does.

Except even a ID claim can be a big deal,  the creator no longer gets any monetization on a contentID claimed video. There needs to be a better way of disputing the claims for stuff that isn't obviously ripping off someones content.

[Adama]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Except even a ID claim can be a big deal,  the creator no longer gets any monetization on a contentID claimed video. There needs to be a better way of disputing the claims for stuff that isn't obviously ripping off someones content.

People don't really realise there isnt a better option, if youtube doesnt do this hollywood and the music industry will either setup external systems for automatiicaly suing people, or drive google to shut youtube down.

This also has nothing to do with what i said.

[RagnarokDel]

On 2/15/2019 at 5:50 PM, wasab said:

They should copy strike all the stupid youtube ads. I lost count of how many impeach Donald Trump ads I've seen whenever I view a youtube news channel. 

I'm paying youtube good money to specifically show these ads to you personally.

[XR6]

Looks like Content ID is back at it again.

Carey Holzman got 7 copyright claims that were supposedly from LTT (claimed automatically by Content ID) because he used Heaven Benchmark in a few of his videos.

 

[Egg-Roll]

16 minutes ago, Adama said:

People don't really realise there isnt a better option, if youtube doesnt do this hollywood and the music industry will either setup external systems for automatiicaly suing people, or drive google to shut youtube down.

This also has nothing to do with what i said.

They actually started doing this because of said people (aka not by choice but by force), they where going (or did) to sue Google/YT for copyright infringement much like how download sites got hit hard over the years. So instead of having to deal with potentially hundreds if not thousands of claims against said videos and having to issue clientele information Google/YT decided to go this path which imo is a lot easier, cleaner and causes less disruptions. If they said F it and did nothing and said "hey if one of our asshat video makers use your song legally or not we will forfeit their information and let them deal with it" imagine not just the amount of work they themselves would have to do but the legal issues that come with it and not just for disclosing personal information either but having to have a legal team on the ready all day every day. This system is not perfect but it works far better than the other options. I've had claims in the past (no strikes) and truth be told I don't care, simply because I don't monetize my videos

 

I have seen a lot of creators on YT have actually said F adsense because of the adpocalypse, the best examples I have seen are NerdCubed and Explosm. First one is now making 7K a month where as a year ago they where only pulling in 3.5K, the second is making at least 4K a month. Both have been fucked by ads in revenue, and then there is the more recent Trainer Tips and Mystic7 channels that got boned for a day. That said the system is a big pile of steaming crap but trust me it is infinitely better than the other options.

 

Youtube had to have changed something with all this crap recently going on, so if anyone wants to blame anyone BLAME YOUTUBE OR BETTER YET BLAME EU CHAPTER 13.

[Spotty]

9 minutes ago, 1kv said:

Looks like Content ID is back at it again.

Carey Holzman got 7 copyright claims that were supposedly from LTT (claimed automatically by Content ID) because he used Heaven Benchmark in a few of his videos.

Already another thread discussing this.

 

 

[savantskie]

Yeah, this is just another case of the automated system screwing up again. YT must have done something to the algorithm.

[PendragonUK]

I got one of these content claims today on one of my videos. As my video predated the LTT one by almost a year I put it down Youtube being Youtube and Youtube is a dick. I disputed it through Youtube system and I'll let Youtube sort it out. I don't have any issue with LTT or any of the team. Automated content screening is really dumb and I think everyone should know this by now.

[Ryein Goddard]

I got a copy claim ID thing on my channel as well.

 

Did I do something wrong? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_IWwOreZo

 

I really have no idea.  I just post videos very rarely.  I didn't use any of Linus's stuff so I am confused.