Jim Sterling - 1, Youtube Content ID - 0

[BroliviaWilde]

Game Critic Uses Brilliant Workaround For YouTube's Copyright Bullshit

My apologies if this is the wrong forum area, and if it is, then will an admin please move it.  Also, I did a few searches and didn't see this topic already posted..

Quote

As you may already know, YouTube has something called “Content ID,” which is a system that theoretically allows users to identify and manage their videos.

Basically, once a video is online, viewers can put a digital fingerprint on it. If another YouTube channel uploads a video, and the system believes that the new video has the same digital fingerprint, then the new video gains a Content ID claim. The owners of the original Content ID can then gain some ownership over the new video, and YouTube allows them to monetize the video for themselves, or sometimes outright block it.

The problem is, Content ID is often abused by YouTubers who try to lay claim to footage that isn’t really theirs. 

 

 

Quote

So, Jim Sterling hatched a plan. He went back through his older videos, and took note of what footage got slammed with a Content ID claim in the past. He then went ahead and copied that same flagged footage, and stuck it into his new video. The self-sabotage was intentional: Sterling wanted to fuck with the Content ID system.

 

 

So when competing claims are filed, no adverts are run on the video, very clever!  Hopefully more people will do the same and Youtube will take notice and fix their broken system.

 

Source

[Squirrel724]

I mean that works, until all the claims want the video monetized or removed.

[ShadowCaptain]

2 minutes ago, Squirrel724 said:

I mean that works, until all the claims want the video monetized or removed.

Nope because if more than one company wants to claim, then they will have to battle each other for the rights

 

AFAIK you cannot have multiple companies claim a single video

 

Also Jim doenst care because those videos are not monetized anyway

[Majestic]

And you know why he does this? Becuase his channel is protected by Youtube itself. He's doing it because he can.

 

Also, Jim's a cuck.

[Squirrel724]

5 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Nope because if more than one company wants to claim, then they will have to battle each other for the rights

 

AFAIK you cannot have multiple companies claim a single video

 

Also Jim doenst care because those videos are not monetized anyway

Jim does this to keep adds off the videos. If a company wants to monetize the video he ends up with adds. I seem to recall it being mentioned that if multiple companies try to monetize the video they end up splitting the revenue.

[ShadowCaptain]

1 minute ago, Squirrel724 said:

Jim does this to keep adds off the videos. If a company wants to monetize the video he ends up with adds. I seem to recall it being mentioned that if multiple companies try to monetize the video they end up splitting the revenue.

I know why he does it, I was just saying ultimately he doesn't care

 

And im sure those companies would take it further if they knew they could get more revenue

[Katorice]

23 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Haha, class A tumblrspeak. Good job trigglypuff.

fuckin' hell man. why bring it to the tech forums? this topic wasn't about Jim Sterlings credibility, was it?

it was/is about Youtube's ContentID system. so he was the one that found the bottleneck, I fail to see how that invalidates his findings. or how his credibility comes into this equation.

 

do you? maybe you just can't get it up unless you do this sort of stuff first? no judgement, just curious.

[shdowhunt60]

2 hours ago, Majestic said:

And you know why he does this? Becuase his channel is protected by Youtube itself. He's doing it because he can.

 

Also, Jim's a cuck.

He's a cuck, but a brilliant one at the least. This was a pretty fantastic troll.

[GoodBytes]

Please explain the news or give context in your own words. It does not meet the posting guideline

 

[BroliviaWilde]

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Please explain the news or give context in your own words. It does not meet the posting guideline

 

The First sentence in bold is the gist of the news, parts of the article that are quoted tell what happened, post includes video that is referenced as well as the link to the source article, last line is giving my views on it, and I quote " So when competing claims are filed, no adverts are run on the video, very clever!  Hopefully more people will do the same and Youtube will take notice and fix their broken system. "

 

.  What part did you have a problem with?