Every single 'Monetized' Youtuber is about to go down HARD, due to Google's new $100 Million Dollar Content-ID System.

it's just another form of a handout for beta people. not worth the air they breathe.

There are public domain and creative commons options for music. Also, if you can collaborate with a musician who isn't under a label and get permission to use their work, that can be an option as well.

Not if you're using your own content. We have these things called cameras, they can film things other than video games...

If they're just using it, yeah, they're fucked. If they're using the minimum needed for specific purposes of things like commentary and criticism protected under fair use, then they can dispute any copyright claims and take it to court if needs be. Expensive and difficult, yes, but H3H3 got a ruling in their favor.

Personally, the only time I "use" someone else's work it's for very specific purposes of commentary and criticism, particularly for debunking. And in all of those cases, it wasn't actually that person's content to begin with, they were just ripping off NASA images or stealing some other photographer's images and lying about the source. So if they try to sue me for it they're going to have to explain why they're trying to claim copyright ownership of content that was not theirs. As for the other photographers who have been ripped off, I always inform the photographer when I find the source of the image and they are always happy for me to expose it.

Yes, you must be mindful of copyright, and you should avoid using anyone else's content unless you're prepared to defend it in court as fair use. And fair use does not mean "I only used a little bit of it." That's all true, but there are those of us who avoid stepping over those lines for both video and music.

GOOD. Its time to kill free speech for EVERYONE muahahahahauahahahahaaaa

You can use public domain music for this ,which a ton already do.

That being said, YouTube is going to become just another CNN or whatever.

People have already been leaving in droves.

Got news for you - nobody in power gives the slightest crap about the rights or payment of songwriters. This is about money for corporations, government control, and selective enforcement of whomever they want to give a white glove inspection of. Corporations will get paid, artists will not, just like under the current system - record companies rip off their own artists far more than any user ever has. Just like with terroristic threats, extreme left wing garbage will likely be allowed to do what they want most of the time, and anyone who disagrees even just for being a reasonable centrist you can talk to will be shut down.

Every single unauthorized use is not 'stealing'. Is it stealing to have the radio play music for 'free'? Do you know what payola is, when money was paid to have disc jockeys repeatedly play for free music they wanted people to hear?

There are many songs that I discovered through "unauthorized use" on youtube and went to go find the original band that I then became interested in. I love nothing more than discovering some new unknown band that I wasn't even looking for.


Google destroying free speech is not going to 'save' artists, acting like they are on the side of artists in any way whatsoever is foolish and naieve.

Not if the people in power dont allow other alternatives to exist. If every single alternative is simply shut down with lawsuits, deplatforming, debanking, soon to come DNS delisting i'm sure, direct ISP bans of 'nonauthorized' protocols will probably happen next to stop things like bitchute, bittorrent and similar workarounds from existing.

You need to watch The Monopoly Men, I believe it's a canadian documentary. It used to be on youtube and I dont know if it is anymore of course, because of course. The game is not about youtube slitting their own throat but having government help to slit everyone else's throat so you have to go to their crappy site, in the same way that most of us run Windows because any competitor was shut down with dirty tricks to force you to run their system.

YT who is owned by Google has banned Press TV because they expose the truth our leaders don't want you to hear and unlike Russia who plays the villain in a scripted 1984 play Iran shoots from the hip.

We need to take our internet back and G-,,-A..--B gives us our free speech back but someone around here does not like that, wonder why

17,000 lines of j-script spyware code is embedded by google in most sites, you are the product, your data that is being sold

The work around is free no copyright stuff, which is available. This will hurt Youtube and copyright holders in the long run because those 1-3 seconds is like free ads. How many songs i bought due to hearing the blurb on a video....too bad, so sad...but its not a big problem.

Also, if you think 3 billions is alot compared to what they make??? Why do you thinkits been going on so long. No this program is not about copyright infringement, its about control and censureship.

Not true. For music, there is content known as Public Domain and Royalty Free music. Even Google offers a library of royalty free music for use in videos. Some of it isn't half bad. Though, you're free to create your own music yourself if you're really so inclined.

As a YouTuber, you don't have to use the latest Britney Spears or Drake track to get your point across. In fact, YouTube content is much better when it doesn't contain that kind of music (it's distracting). There are plenty of other methods to add music and video content and not run afoul of YouTube's content matching system, which BTW has been around for years now.

That they reduced the matching time to between 1-3 seconds means that it's finding the content faster and perhaps more of it. It's not like it wouldn't have found that infringing content before. It usually did and then demonetized, but it might take a few weeks. Creating content on YouTube IS about creating original content. Copying another's work and then expecting to get paid because you used it isn't the point of YouTube. This change is simply going to make original content creators think twice about what they choose to include in their videos.

This means you can't create a channel strictly to review music or possibly even motion picture content. There are plenty of other topics that allow you to create original content without including any commercially copyrighted material.

Anyone fool enough to start a YouTube channel thinking they can monetize videos on the back of a pop artist's work deserves what YouTube does to their channel.

In fact, it's worth saying that the primary materials under the content ID matching system are those controlled by big music labels and indie systems like CDBaby. If you steer clear of using this catalog of music, there's actually a very large catalog of royalty free music that can be used in videos that will not match the content matching system. It just takes a little while to find it on the Internet. As a professional creator, they should already know this.

Making money off of YouTube may now be more difficult, but not because of this content ID matching system. If anything, YouTube's demise will be because of the advertiser meltdown that began in 2017 and that continues through today. Starting in 2017, many of YouTube's largest advertisers pulled a very large chunk of their ad revenue from YouTube. These same advertisers then laid down strict rules about what types of video content their ads may be displayed on. These rules are very strict. This demonetizing system is what will see to the demise of YouTube. YouTubers will no longer see the value in spending days creating and editing content only to see a few dollars in ad revenue or, more likely, demonetization.

Worse, YouTube recently changed its channel requirements to require 1000 subscribers before a channel can even be considered for monetization. This means that new channel creators must spend at least a year wooing 1000 subscribers to their channel before they can see a dime in ad support. Many creators have now turned to Ko-fi and Patreon and the use of SuperChat within live streams to gain direct subscriber revenue... which doesn't rely on fickle advertisers.

The diminishing amount of monetization is what will no longer be worth the time and effort and what will ultimately doom the YouTube platform. If creators can't get paid on the platform, YouTubers using their channel as a "full time job" will fade away. Only creators who don't care about the "income" will remain. This will revert YouTube back to its early days of mostly silly, amateur videos and seeing its use as THE video sharing platform fade away, just like MySpace.

New markets, making content altered just enough to legally defeat infringement.

New market for creating audio for video entertainment.

Gave up social media and am way happier because of it. I read lot but stay off that crap. What I do with my time is nobody's business.

Just want to point out, you have to be approved for ad partnering to be eligible for superchats. Even if you meet the minimum requirements for subscribers (1000, as you point out) and viewer hours per year (4000 hours per year, every year), there's still no guarantee they'll even let you into the program to begin with. They're very strict. They turned down my channel citing "reused content."

Even if you don't have a single contentID match on your channel, even if you're only using public domain and other content that you actually have permission to use for commercial purposes, they can still refuse you. Their big push now seems to be to drive everyone away from the platform who isn't using their face and voice in their videos, they actually mention this in their explanation of why they may decide to refuse a channel for the "reused content" reason.

"Are there any other best practices to show YouTube my content is unique?

Here are some best practices:
Add commentary or show your presence in your videos (voice or on screen)"
[link to support.google.com (secure)]

If they so much as think you *might* be reusing someone else's content, even if nothing matches contentID, they will turn you away from the system. My videos usually just involve images from my telescope or rocket launches, and at the time I applied my latest videos were heavily focused on the latter and did not have any narration nor did I show my face in those videos. I started showing my face in my videos and reapplied for monetization, sure enough they let me in. Pretty much unless you do "vlog" style videos at least some of the time, you can forget it.

Good...stop stealing people's music or people's video and make your own. There are literally thousands of sites where you can obtain free music, public domain material, or for literally pennies obtain use of quality music, graphics, and even video. Pretty simple to just obtain permission from a source and attribute that source as you reuse it. Too many just lazy, too many feel like it's free if it's on the internet, or many who just have no problem ripping off other people. Time to grow up

To one person above, your point DOESNT stand, youtube's system is designed TO BE ABUSED by corporations who have the final say whether or not you are infringing. So like people who did things like post a recording of things they made and wrongfully claimed to be infringing - the person claiming you infringed has the SOLE DETERMINATION if you are guilty.

This same applies to 'fair use' - corporations flag your video, and they have the SOLE DETERMINATION of it is fair use. Youtube wont stand up for you, they dont even care, they dont have the time, or interest, they dont care about principles, and they wont take the risk. About the only thing that might force your video back on the air is a court order and even if you got one, then some other corporation just flags your video as infringing now it's right back off again.

Youtube is implementing totalitarian uncontestable systems giving all the power to very abusive people. It's like a slaveowner being told he has to not abuse his slaves but he gets to decide what is abuse because he thinks everything is justified.

It will only affect those they want it to. If you want to post a pro-abortion video, go ahead and use the entire tune.

[link to www.businessinsider.com (secure)]

It's not normal people ripping off musicians.



If everybody else made music that people wanted to listen to as much as an Elton John or Streisand they would get paid more.

Or maybe not if youre Pharrel. Music is a crappy business to be in - nobody forced anyone at gunpoint to be in it. If anyone had any sense they'd say "your chances of even making more than minimum wage are slim" in college music programs.



How about I want them to get a job that does something productive? Who gave them the fantasy they could study something the majority doesn't deem important and they were entitled to a living doing it?

Hi.

On my YouTube channel, when viewing all of the video uploads, there's a category called "Visibility".

All of them still show "Public" but now there are at least 7 videos tagged with a "Copyright claim".

Does this mean there's a pending decision to have these fully removed?

I don't' believe that "Copyright claim" description was ever present before and I don't know what this means.

Please and thank you. :)

It means someone is claiming the monetization for the video. In most cases the video is still publicly available though in some cases it will be restricted to certain countries.

Dlive is a decentralized blockchain video platform. Pewdie Pie, he moved from Youtube to Dlive. He had millions of people subscribed on his Youtube channel.