Copyright Deadlock (The Jimquisition) on HackerTube: recommended by 1 Hacker News commenter across 1 month, 2016–2021.
commentary · dated
A Jimquisition episode by Jim Sterling demonstrating the Copyright Deadlock, where a video includes footage owned by several companies so that competing YouTube Content ID claims cancel each other out. It highlights how absurd the system is.
HN cites it as the clearest explanation of how broken Content ID is and of the deadlock trick for defeating forced monetization.
“Jim Sterling has done a brilliant job at explaining how broken the YouTube Content ID system is”
5 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
Jim Sterling has done a brilliant job at explaining how broken the YouTube Content ID system is, and how to prevent these companies from monetizing your work (though you don't get to run ads on the videos either). Possibly NSFW: ▶ this video
in “Can Beethoven send takedown requests?” · View on HN
▶ this video (cw: strong language) TL;DW - nothing happens, it's an unresolvable deadlock. This "feature" can sometimes be used by deliberately adding many easily claimable works in a video to prevent anybody from monetizing it.
in “Dear Google: Public domain compositions exist” · View on HN
Jim Sterling talking about including footage from multiple companies as a "copyright deadlock": ▶ this video
in ““A company is copyright-claiming every video I have ever made”” · View on HN
Jim Sterling already uses a variation of this strategy, which he calls the "Copyright Deadlock"[1]. He discovered it is possible to defeat ContentID-based forced monetization of his videos by including multiple songs/footage from different businesses. [1] (warning: Jim Sterling uses strong language) ▶ this video
in “The Internet Archive Pushes Back on “Notice and Staydown”” · View on HN
When Pewdiepie (person on your [2] link on Silver & Up banner) complains [0] that YouTube isn't communicating enough, most people will agree that problem is at their side. >Demonetization happens when a video doesn't meet their "advertiser-friendly" policy, but there is an appeal process where you can have a human look at it to determine if the original assessment was wrong [0]. Do you have data to support your claim that their algorithms are "poorly calibrated"? It happens all the time when content creators are using content under fair use. Jim Sterling goes over demonetisation with ContentID [1] and latest changes [2] in his videos. I don't know if he have used that email support, but it would be fair to assume that he have tried and gave up. [0] [link] [1] ▶ this video [2] [link]
in “YouTube Community goes beyond video” · View on HN