I don't bother trying to make money on my channels and only post for the benefit of others so that they may learn something they would have never known from watching others. After all getting into any more mess could cost me more in the end as for youtube it is slowly dieing. Between the stupidity and childishness of YT/Google's management and the payed shrills that keep most in a fog so many are saying to hell with it and moving on.

Then just turn off those bloody ads. I've always rolled ad-free and never had a single issue.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Then just turn off those bloody ads. I've always rolled ad-free and never had a single issue.

As I already said though, if Content-ID hits a video with no ads, it can end up showing ads anyways and divert that revenue to whoever supposedly owns the matching content. >_>;

And so what?

You say you aren't doing it for the money, but then please own it.

I must say this "I don't do it for the money" on one hand and then complaining about loss of revenue on the other hand is something that rubs me the wrong way.

Now I might be the odd man out here, but for me, as soon as money is involved, I don't buy the "passion for retro" anymore and it's a business with the goal of making money. Unless I can't avoid it I try to don't watch any videos with ads.

I'm not complaining about a loss of revenue though. I think you've misinterpreted me here...

The problem is not whether I get ad revenue or not, it's that OTHER PEOPLE (and not me) are getting ad revenue directly from my videos. Either YouTube itself, who's effectively labelling me as a thief for trying to upload game reviews and yet hypocritically making money off of the ads they show on those same videos they supposedly have a problem with, or in the case of Content-ID matches, other people who may or may not have anything to do with a game I'm covering, get all the money involved instead, and while the dispute process once prevented this from happening while the dispute was in place, it doesn't work that way anymore, so disputing Content-ID matches is pretty much pointless now.

People have commented several times now by eMail that the only reason they don't block the ads on my videos is because they know I receive a tiny portion of it. I DO NOT, EVER want to abuse that trust and subject people to ads that do benefit to no one but the advertiser or some other third party I have no affiliation with. This is a part of the reason why there's virtually no ads on my website save for the GOG thingy, since I do have an affiliate account with GOG.

But disabling ads on YouTube does not guarantee no ads will be shown, and to that end, I do not trust the YouTube system to keep ads off of the videos I upload there.

The point is: If I can't make any money off of the videos I myself make, NO ONE ELSE should be making money off of them, and I won't stand for that happening.

The reason there is revenue in the first place is because you chose to upgrade your account to enable monetizing. I don't believe that a non monetized account suddenly receives ads because of a dispute.

Hmm... you know, I don't actually know the answer to that... let me look some stuff up on YouTube...

*does so*

...oh dear frick... >_>;;;

OK, so as I've said before, you don't have to be monetized to get hit by a Content-ID match. Well, when those matches happen, one of three things will happen, based on a decision made by the third party who put their stuff into the Content-ID system in the first place. These potential outcomes are as follows:

* The video will be tracked by the third party and they can view statistics related to it or post in-video links to related content.

* The video will be blocked, your account receives a Content-ID strike, and you become unable to use numerous YouTube features, such as the ability to upload videos longer than 15 minutes.

* The video will become monetized by the third party. They will gain tracking stats, the ability to post in-video links to related content, ads will be shown on your video, and the third party gets all of the ad revenue.

While the first one is inconsequential and the second one can really screw an account over depending on the type of content being produced, it's that last one which I think is going to bother a LOT of people who didn't know this. Again, this is all related to Content-ID, and since Content-ID functions on absolutely everyone's account, you DO NOT HAVE TO BE MONETIZED for this to happen! D:

Hmm the word potential implies a bit of leeway 😀

Have you had an ad-free video that got content flagged and ads forced on it?

Like it or not, Youtube makes a lot of money from the ads either way. Otherwise there would be no ads at all.

I've been getting stupid content ID matches recently (some of them I disputed and got it back) but I don't even do monetization.

Ever since Viacom sued YouTube over "copyright infringement" this situation has worsened and worsened as time went on... it really is time to go to other video sharing websites or hell even just keep it strictly "darknet" at this point.

Interest DracoNihil. Care to share what video / company / details?

The only issue with anything I uploaded was a soundfont. The one from rfnagel. It was linked with a sound font thread in VOGONS. It got removed from Media Fire...

Gemini000 wrote:

* The video will become monetized by the third party. They will gain tracking stats, the ability to post in-video links to related content, ads will be shown on your video, and the third party gets all of the ad revenue.

it's that last one which I think is going to bother a LOT of people who didn't know this. Again, this is all related to Content-ID, and since Content-ID functions on absolutely everyone's account, you DO NOT HAVE TO BE MONETIZED for this to happen! D:

and its not just irks the original content maker, its also irks their followers as they usualy expect that video from are not suppose to be ads-ed.
Its obvious that the followers will accuse the uploader of money grubbing, while that fact are not.

You've seen my channel yes Mau1wurf1997 because I seemed to have gotten into a conversation with you on my Privateer video.

The videos that got content ID'd and disputed were:

Cosmic Lifeforms (was claimed from some random ass company I googled, then googled what the supposed real song was and found no results thereof, really simple dispute resolvement)

There were some others but I forgot how I resolved it in the first place...

My Tetris Song A is apparently claimed by some:

"Cover Guru-Tetris (Theme Song)", sound recording administered by:
INgrooves

when really just about everyone probably has covered this some form or way not only that this is supposed to be owned by Nintendo not some random dumbass. Interestingly enough my Troika cover never got a content ID match.

My Micon cover from Megami Tensei 1 is Content-ID as followed:

"Project SATAN-MICOM〜出発（たびだち）", sound recording administered by:
Victor Entertainment, Inc.

And the last video that's content ID'd, my dumb Half Life 2 GMod AI thing is:

"Nintendo-アスレチック", sound recording administered by: 0:01
Nintendo

Really I'm getting sick of this, I see people get their audio muted because a aphex twin song is playing in the background at like a rate of 8 kHz and 8-bit per sample, is this really what the online world is coming down to?

Fun fact of life: Deus Ex uses a expert from Aphex Twin's song from SAW2 called "Tree" in the Vandenburg Airforce Base music module.

DracoNihil wrote:

when really just about everyone probably has covered this some form or way

Where the music industry would argue that every single one of those people should be paying a royalty to the license holder. >_>;

This is why whenever someone has a birthday on a TV show, they sing "For he's a jolly good fellow" instead of "Happy Birthday to you", because the latter one is still under copyright... supposedly. So rather than spend money arguing the licensing state of the song, they just simply don't use it. :P

My own personal take on this is unfortunately, not the way the industry sees it, but it's the way I would treat my own music:
* People should be able to use other people's music in their works provided the music is properly credited and it's not possible to gleam a "clean" recording of it, thus preserving the copyright holder's ability to sell clean copies of the tune.
* If music is licensed out to be part of another medium, such as in a TV show or video game, it should be expected that the music will be present in any fair-use of that medium, provided it's matching up with the way the medium has been prepared. (Licensing issues related to this is why all the "real" music is cut from all but one of the cartoon episodes of the Super Mario Bros. Super Show DVDs.)
* Remixes of a tune that are named as such with the original author being given credit are an homage, not a rip-off.

The music industry however still wants every cent they can gleam from every potential source of music they own. This is a part of the reason why I don't typically listen to music that hasn't been done independently, though the main reason is simply that most of the non-indie music has words in it and I prefer lyric-less music. :B

I was flattered when contentID matched XENON2.MOD (a transcribing of a transcribing) to the actual Bomb the Bass Megablast song. I pulled the video immediately afterward though.

I make covers of music to show just how good I am of doing it in impulsetracker rather than actually going through the trouble of programming a 6502 or Z80 program and running through the respective emulator. And it's pretty damn hard to credit the original author WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT WHO IT REALLY IS HALF THE TIME... But I still do it nonetheless even if I credit something really ambiguous.

And no way in hell is any of my covers anywhere close to the original sound, because this is just straight up hex edited samples and PCM mixing... not actual real tone generators. The noise pattern on Micon isn't anywhere close to what it's supposed to sound like on the real game because I was lazy and just wanted to show people how the music may of looked in a editor anyways.

Episode 11 of ADG was the first one to get hit by Content-ID because of the Adlib rendition of "Canon" at the end, where I played the whole thing. Admittedly, awhile after making that episode, I realized I probably shouldn't have done that in case Keith Schuler REALLY wanted to protect his rendition of the 300-year-old song... but my first thought when Content-ID hit it was, "Really? You not only matched an Adlib rendition to an actual rendition, but of a song that's been in the public domain for centuries?"

That was before changes to Content-ID so when I disputed it, monetization was immediately re-enabled and it's been that way ever since, so that one will stay up when I take down any videos YouTube has an issue with.

For those curious, the following 8 videos are the ones that will be disappearing from YouTube, though they'll be on my website and Blip as always:
* Episode 1 - Stunts / 4D Sports Driving
* Episode 16 - Star Wars: Dark Forces
* Episode 32 - MechWarrior
* Filler #5 - NES Wiggle Trick
* Episode 36 - Tank Wars
* Episode 40 - Command & Conquer
* Filler #7 - DOSBox Sound Support
* Filler #8 - VVVVVV

Unrelated to the Content-ID system but now I can't even seek the god damn videos anymore... Any attempt I make just makes it START FROM THE BEGINNING..

God I want the 2005 youtube back... Atleast that WORKED...

And no don't even start me with "Clear your cache" "Restart your PC" "Restart Adobe Flash", because that didn't do jack %*#@! and never will. I'm getting the feeling Google is doing this on purpose now...

DracoNihil wrote:

Unrelated to the Content-ID system but now I can't even seek the god damn videos anymore... Any attempt I make just makes it START FROM THE BEGINNING..

God I want the 2005 youtube back... Atleast that WORKED...

And no don't even start me with "Clear your cache" "Restart your PC" "Restart Adobe Flash", because that didn't do jack %*#@! and never will. I'm getting the feeling Google is doing this on purpose now...

YouTube's video player has become incredibly unstable over the years I will admit. The one thing that bugs me is that in 360p mode the videos do not buffer all the way like they used to, instead it just buffers while playing, which on my system makes the video run a wee bit choppy in spots. I also am not a huge fan of how I can't replay a video after finishing it without reloading the whole page.