> Vice Media Had YouTube Shut Down My Gaming Channel Without Even Contacting Me
Shouldn't the complaint be “YouTube shut down my gaming channel at Vice’s direction without even contacting me.”?
Though I'm not sure even that is a particularly valid complaint given the authors admission that he was probably infringing the trademark: because in that case, as soon as YouTube was aware of what was going on, it was also quite likely knowingly violating trademark, and the only option that did not involve risking incurring liability was to stop doing that. Now, if there was a contractual relationship which exposed YouTube to parallel liability risk for cutting of a channel for potential infringement improperly, then they'd have to carefully weigh their action, but like every online service provider of broad public services, they've structured their contracts well to minimize liability risk for actions against their users based on site policy or legal compliance issues even when the decision is ultimately erroneous, so there's a definite assymetry in disputes even where the who is in the right is a 50/50 tossup from the info available to YouTube. Or even where the complaining party is most likely wrong, as a small risk of large damage is still a significant risk.
Note that the author has zero proof of any of this. He just knows that his channel was deleted, and assumes everything written there. The correct approach would've been to contact Youtube and understand the situation. Since the content has nothing to do with Vice, I honestly don't see why Youtube would want to take down the content. Seeing that the channel is back up, it seems like it was indeed a misunderstanding and it has been resolved.
> Hey @YouTube you just booted me out of my youtube & all my google accounts for "impersonating" someone. My legal name IS Meghan Trainor. My website: http://meghantrainor.com with several decades of articles about my work. I can't even access the form to correct this! Help!
(Meghan Trainor is also the name of a popular singer/songwriter)
To YouTube's credit, they are responding via that Twitter (after 12+ hours). Amusingly they ask her to "send us a link to your channel URL or a video that you've posted in the past" and she can't because her Google account was also apparently suspended.
Part of the appeal for YouTube is that there's no storage limit or associated costs.
I've spoken to YouTubers who started off keeping backups but quickly realized it was nowhere near cost effective for them to do so. And even if you do pay enough to keep those backups around, there's no way to back up the links themselves. For some videos it doesn't matter whether you reupload them or not, if it's not available at the original link it might as well still be dead.
It irks me how, with most of these take down controversies, the creator doesn't even try contacting Youtube anymore. They go straight to making a big fiery video and post it on all social media sites. They always have bold claims with zero proof.
I don't understand how the author can just assume the cause and intent of this take down when he hasn't even contacted Youtube yet. To me it sounds like a misunderstanding or bug.
Every single content creator needs to host all their videos on something that is more under their control. People need to learn how to setup PeerTube instances. I realize people are afraid they close loose subscribers/revenue, but trust me, the people who prefer PeerTube are most likely running adblockers anyway.
Always host your video on an alternative network you pay someone for and have regular backups of. The time is coming when YouTube will not be a viable place for creators.
I can't see how PeerTube isn't a non-starter. Aside from being much worse of a cesspit of porn, white supremacists, and other things you don't want your kids finding without having you there to explain what's going on (and yeah, you're gonna say "but you can filter it!"--you can, I can, people can't), it has no reasonable-person-testable model for creatives to actually pay their bills, both through lack of reach and lack of accessibility. (Which is to say--the adpocalypse is real, but most creatives aren't finding Patreon supporters on ye olde PeerTube.)
(Aside: if your proposed model includes the word "cryptocurrency," you fail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Rent and taxes are denominated in real money, thou must do likewise.)
For all the huge, gaping problems that YouTube has, and right now in another thread I'm going to the mat on exactly that, centralization won and will continue to win and so we need to use the big lever (y'know, the "being in a society" one) to fix what's centralized, not expect people to scatter to the four winds of irrelevance.
> I realize people are afraid they close loose subscribers/revenue, but trust me, the people who prefer PeerTube are most likely running adblockers anyway.
Agreed. In fact, this is why I always host my own work wherever possible, then syndicate it to third party platforms afterwards. That way, everything stops with me. Not Google, not YouTube, not Medium or Twitter, me.
Are there risks? Sure, self hosting your work can always be risky, and there's always the possibility someone genuinely will want to take legal action.
But many, many more won't. Many more know full well that they don't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to takedowns of YouTube videos or what not. YouTube and other platforms not giving a damn about fair use is a gold mine for large companies and unscrupulous actors.
Self hosting avoids that, and makes those with questionable ethics (like say, Vice Media in this example) actually think 'do we really believe we've got enough of a case here' before trying to strike down criticism or what not.
Oh, and the time is coming? No, YouTube already isn't a viable place for many creators.
Youtube already screwed their creators before the whole mess with the ads and made it less and less viable to make a living from revenues on their platform. Most creators who do this for a living have switched to something like a direct contribution-based system. Youtube’s seen and inderstood this, seeing as how they slowly started implementing these payment features themselves.
As a platform for making a living the company is completely untrustworthy: they are impossible to contact, quick to act and deceitful. I wouldn’t trust them with my livelihood myself. I mean, they were caught sending robotic replies in response to support complaints disguised as legitimate messages, what else do they have to do to prove to creators that they’re only good for hosting but the revenue has to come from somewhere else and a direct line of contact needs to exist towards fans in case they decide to randomly disappear your channel?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
Shouldn't the complaint be “YouTube shut down my gaming channel at Vice’s direction without even contacting me.”?
Though I'm not sure even that is a particularly valid complaint given the authors admission that he was probably infringing the trademark: because in that case, as soon as YouTube was aware of what was going on, it was also quite likely knowingly violating trademark, and the only option that did not involve risking incurring liability was to stop doing that. Now, if there was a contractual relationship which exposed YouTube to parallel liability risk for cutting of a channel for potential infringement improperly, then they'd have to carefully weigh their action, but like every online service provider of broad public services, they've structured their contracts well to minimize liability risk for actions against their users based on site policy or legal compliance issues even when the decision is ultimately erroneous, so there's a definite assymetry in disputes even where the who is in the right is a 50/50 tossup from the info available to YouTube. Or even where the complaining party is most likely wrong, as a small risk of large damage is still a significant risk.
[+] [-] ehsankia|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afpx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|7 years ago|reply
I'm not sure he's right about that.
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
> Hey @YouTube you just booted me out of my youtube & all my google accounts for "impersonating" someone. My legal name IS Meghan Trainor. My website: http://meghantrainor.com with several decades of articles about my work. I can't even access the form to correct this! Help!
(Meghan Trainor is also the name of a popular singer/songwriter)
To YouTube's credit, they are responding via that Twitter (after 12+ hours). Amusingly they ask her to "send us a link to your channel URL or a video that you've posted in the past" and she can't because her Google account was also apparently suspended.
[+] [-] amanaplanacanal|7 years ago|reply
I think I see the biggest problem here.
[+] [-] reificator|7 years ago|reply
I've spoken to YouTubers who started off keeping backups but quickly realized it was nowhere near cost effective for them to do so. And even if you do pay enough to keep those backups around, there's no way to back up the links themselves. For some videos it doesn't matter whether you reupload them or not, if it's not available at the original link it might as well still be dead.
[+] [-] dewey|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goda90|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehsankia|7 years ago|reply
I don't understand how the author can just assume the cause and intent of this take down when he hasn't even contacted Youtube yet. To me it sounds like a misunderstanding or bug.
[+] [-] djsumdog|7 years ago|reply
Always host your video on an alternative network you pay someone for and have regular backups of. The time is coming when YouTube will not be a viable place for creators.
[+] [-] eropple|7 years ago|reply
(Aside: if your proposed model includes the word "cryptocurrency," you fail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Rent and taxes are denominated in real money, thou must do likewise.)
For all the huge, gaping problems that YouTube has, and right now in another thread I'm going to the mat on exactly that, centralization won and will continue to win and so we need to use the big lever (y'know, the "being in a society" one) to fix what's centralized, not expect people to scatter to the four winds of irrelevance.
[+] [-] b_tterc_p|7 years ago|reply
Doesn’t this just validate their fears?
[+] [-] CM30|7 years ago|reply
Are there risks? Sure, self hosting your work can always be risky, and there's always the possibility someone genuinely will want to take legal action.
But many, many more won't. Many more know full well that they don't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to takedowns of YouTube videos or what not. YouTube and other platforms not giving a damn about fair use is a gold mine for large companies and unscrupulous actors.
Self hosting avoids that, and makes those with questionable ethics (like say, Vice Media in this example) actually think 'do we really believe we've got enough of a case here' before trying to strike down criticism or what not.
Oh, and the time is coming? No, YouTube already isn't a viable place for many creators.
[+] [-] yesco|7 years ago|reply
Looks to me like it already is.
[+] [-] beezischillin|7 years ago|reply
As a platform for making a living the company is completely untrustworthy: they are impossible to contact, quick to act and deceitful. I wouldn’t trust them with my livelihood myself. I mean, they were caught sending robotic replies in response to support complaints disguised as legitimate messages, what else do they have to do to prove to creators that they’re only good for hosting but the revenue has to come from somewhere else and a direct line of contact needs to exist towards fans in case they decide to randomly disappear your channel?
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Animats|7 years ago|reply