Gamer Nexus could lose their channel because of Bloomberg
Poppinfresh
Member
And nothing of value was lost…
MikeM
Member
Lol wow.
Steve clipped in 70 seconds or so of Bloomberg video into his for his report. Bloomberg seems mad that GN found stuff that Bloomberg couldn't. They put through a Copyright Strike, and GN argues its fair use.
Steve has done podcasts apparently with BN, so kinda interesting that they would do this to him, especially given his reputation lately and following in the PC market.
Go Steve! Glad someone is attempting to slap big corporation back.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Their videos are posted very frequently here and are often well regarded, not sure what you're on about.
Poppinfresh
Member
Can't stand that long-haired pretentious f*ck.
I dislike a lot of YouTubers but I have a viscerally negative reaction to Steve
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
That's what I'd be saying if you got banned.
They made a documentary about GPU smuggling in China that was 3h30 hours long. Extremely in-depth and informative. However, they used a video recording of ex-president Biden in it and Bloomberg copyright struck the video even though it definitely fell under fair use. Now they're embroiled in a legal battle with them.
Last edited:
kiphalfton
Member
Putting off salty bald guy vibes.
semiconscious
Member
fuck around and find out? if you're gonna do investigative journalism, & you're on your own, there will be repercussions. bloomberg/youtube ain't playin'...
joey Dubs
Gold Member
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
I just finished the video a minute ago, good timing.
Fake copyright claims are a plague on Youtube, its so fucking easy, too easy. Youtube's system is super shit about it all. Fuck Bloomberg lawyers.
Fake copyright claims are a plague on Youtube, its so fucking easy, too easy. Youtube's system is super shit about it all. Fuck Bloomberg lawyers.
CoreyFlawless
Member
Why?
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Youtube's copyright strike system doesn't work anymore (if it has worked at all). The bigger Youtube channels are real businesses with lots of people working there and an audience that's bigger than cable. It's ridiculous that three copyright strikes could wipe these channels from Youtube, especially when it's possible for fraudsters to game the system.
Take Rick Beato's channel for instance. He's had to employ a lawyer permanently to field off automated copyright claims, most of them coming from one company (BMG). He's smashed thousands of invalid copyright claims but BMG's bot keep sending them. BMG's goal is to find as many copyright infringements as they can and then take over the monetization of those videos. I see no problem when miniscule channels upload music videos or albums they have no rights to, but in Beato's case he's interviewing musicians, composers, producers, etc and drops in snippets of music to inform viewers. That's allowed by copyright law but the bots don't care, If Beato doesn't respond or loses three claims, it's over for his channel. And Youtube won't help here at all. It's just about impossible to fight Youtube's decisions, since they're judge, jury and executioner on their service.
The crazy thing is that musicians who play their own recording in a Youtube video can get copyright strikes from their own label too. Se video below. That guy's label wouldn't make an exception for him even though he was signed to them, because they'd rather grab the adsense money ($15).
Take Rick Beato's channel for instance. He's had to employ a lawyer permanently to field off automated copyright claims, most of them coming from one company (BMG). He's smashed thousands of invalid copyright claims but BMG's bot keep sending them. BMG's goal is to find as many copyright infringements as they can and then take over the monetization of those videos. I see no problem when miniscule channels upload music videos or albums they have no rights to, but in Beato's case he's interviewing musicians, composers, producers, etc and drops in snippets of music to inform viewers. That's allowed by copyright law but the bots don't care, If Beato doesn't respond or loses three claims, it's over for his channel. And Youtube won't help here at all. It's just about impossible to fight Youtube's decisions, since they're judge, jury and executioner on their service.
The crazy thing is that musicians who play their own recording in a Youtube video can get copyright strikes from their own label too. Se video below. That guy's label wouldn't make an exception for him even though he was signed to them, because they'd rather grab the adsense money ($15).
Topher
Identifies as young
Anything of substance or just don't like long hair guys who stick up for consumers and actually know what they are talking about?
Unknown?
Member
Rumble has like 50 million+ mau, nothing will ever get as big as YT but Rumble is pretty big.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
rm082e
Member
I managed to watch the GN movie before it was pulled down. It was a really impressive work. It's depressing as hell seeing so many gaming cards being used for AI and realizing that's just the new normal. Seeing rooms full of pallets of 5090s helps me understand why they are $2800 here in the US.
Even if Steve isn't your cup of tea, the work the GN team is putting into these consumer advocacy programs is really impressive.
I recommend anyone who is interested watch some of the movie when it gets put back up. They could use a fresh wave of views to get the algorithm back up on step.
Even if Steve isn't your cup of tea, the work the GN team is putting into these consumer advocacy programs is really impressive.
I recommend anyone who is interested watch some of the movie when it gets put back up. They could use a fresh wave of views to get the algorithm back up on step.
peish
Member
He is just drama farming now. The 3hr video and the preludes to it, were baiting Nvidia to make any kind of statement, all his youtube faces, thumbnails and content peppered with snide commentaries
Thank gosh Team Jensen didn't take his bait , which would enable his continued take on journalistic shenanigans
Well now Bloomberg sorta did, but this is nothing out of the ordinary, my own videos got copyright taken down before . But leave it to steve to make more shitty outcrying video$
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
Vimeo is great but mostly for Enterprise IIRC, it switched target audience ages ago after not being able to compete with YouTube if I'm not mistakenVimeo to the rescue
FeralEcho
Member
Yeah,you tell em!
Those poor multibillion dollar greedy corporations! How dare someone call them out when they abuse the system and prey on people!
Thank God for people like you white knighting for them.Poor Jensen wouldn't be able to buy a new 10k jacket every new week otherwise.He can sleep soundly now knowing Neogaf user peish has his back.
rm082e
Member
Yes, yes. How dare he...
*checks notes*
Report facts and interview people to inform viewers while making some jokes along the way.
What kind of self-righteous asshole does that?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
is Jason going to make a book about this?
peish
Member
Right on, the steve kind. His videos have become nothing short of op-ed filled with his interpretation bias that is made for maximum viewership, minimum objectivity .
He is just a caricature of the watch dog role that he claims himself to be
Seomel
Member
If you dont care for tech sure, but they have done great exposing massive companies for different issues be it qc, greedily scamming their own customers etc
CamHostage
Member
So, just asking, how does it definitely fall under fair use?
I have no dog in this fight, it doesn't matter to me. I haven't seen the video or use the channel as far as I remember, and I personally do really appreciate a company using the severe copyright strike without first a cease-and-desist. (Everybody in media knows that YT strikes are brutal, so I'm curious too what's the info if the strike was intentionally set or if it was an auto-detect catch? I'm not seeing the reason why Bloomberg would pull that trigger if it's just a clip of content when there are other ways to protect your media property, and if the content used in proper context of commentary and length and attributation then they know they don't have the rights... although come to think of it, I'll assume there is no type of counteraction if a YT strike is proven a hostile abuse of the system when YT evaluates its reconsideration.)
Having worked on some video productions though, I see mention here of over a minute of unlicensed footage from a major broadcast news outlet, and I know my butt would be puckering until I was super-duper-extra sure my legal work was locked down.
Last edited:
rm082e
Member
The clip GN used from Bloomberg was a clip of the POTUS speaking. There was nothing original from Bloomberg in the clip. A clip of a politician speaking is exactly the point of fair use.
AGRacing
Member
Exactly my thoughts.kruis made a simple explanation, that's all we need.
Long hair dud make a ranty video to continue farming for outcries, the usual episodic shit he does nowadays, the aim is to prolong viewers engagement for his new saga drops
Yeah. I'd love to disagree on these points but he DID make a half hour video beating the absolute fuck out of a 350 dollar mountain bike. Nobody who buys a mountain bike for 350 dollars is going to do the shit he did to it. Thats a bike you ride with your kid to school. It was pretty clear he just wanted to show off riding a bike. As an aside I'm also pretty sure he'd help take Taiwan if China asked him to… *wink wink*
He's undeniably smart and the channel benchmarking is second to none.
He's also a bit of a self righteous prick.
CamHostage
Member
(EDIT- I just noticed that this reply wasn't from the original person I was asking about the "fair use" usage question. So, this reply is for rm082e, and I'm still separately curious what Gaiff's take on the situation is.)
Err, I hope this is your rationale and not Gamer Nexus's, because that's probably going to lose in court if that's the argument.
If it's state-provided footage, sure, I guess, but if it's an interview or even a recording of a public speech, a camera crew had to go film that footage and an editor had to clip and post it and a broadcast company had to air/host it. They don't own the moment, but they own the footage of it. A repurposer doesn't just get to say that this is a public figure saying something in public and so it's fair game to take anybody's footage of it that they want. That's Bloomberg's angle on the footage, that's their professional equipment capturing that event at that quality, that's their airing of the event through the ad-supported service that it provided the material. If Gamer's Nexus wanted that moment for its production, it needed to have sent somebody to film the event or it needed to have licensed the segment or needed to have used verifiable methods of transforming Bloomberg's recording of the material to clearly classify as fair use.
Part 2: Understanding Fair Use
By Matthew B. Harrison TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer Incorporating copyrighted material, such as video clips or act…
talkers.com
Obviously, the term "fair use" is always up for debate and legal reinterpretation; you can get away with a lot of shit on the internet, and you can also get burned for the most inconsequential use of material where ownership on anybody's part is questionable in the first place. However, a media outlet has still got to do due diligence to justify repurposing pretty much any outside content. (Again, I haven't seen the clip, but Gamer Nexus seems to be experienced, so I'm assuming there was commentary/criticism and attribution and a care for brevity of usage and all of that needed to stake the claim?)
Last edited:
Laptop1991
Member
I hope Gamer Nexus win this, Youtube's copyright system gets abused all the time by corporates and bad faith people and they should overhaul it.
Paulistano
Member
Like him or not... have you guys seen the video? They made a claim of copyright in a video when the american president was talking, that's absurd.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
They did build a three hours video around it
(well about far more than this.. the segment could be replaced with a picture and some text overlay and they video would lose none of its potency). This should be fair use… grumble…
Rocco Schiavone
Member
CamHostage
Member
They did build a three hours video around it
I mean, ask The Verve how much building original lyrics and song structure and musical augmentation, not to mention an entire album build on top of that, made in establishing authorship on song with 22 little seconds of Rolling Stones samples...
(*Bitter Sweet Symphony isn't the same legal matter, I just like sharing the link to that song breakdown.)
But either way, I'm not arguing what fair use should be.
(The whole concept of "fair use" in the A.I. Age is currently a turbine in a shitstorm...)
I'm just saying what it is considered to be where it matters.
Incidentally though, no, the three hours of documentary work wouldn't count as enough context by themselves to fair use somebody's news content. You have to be specifically commenting on/critiquing/satirizing the specific clip (and not just the clip, but each narrative segment of it) in order to claim a right to use it without payment. And even then, they might come after you, because rights are always up for interpretation.
Check out for example how The Daily Show uses short clips to very deliberately lead into each joke, or how news pundits run soundbites to trigger the next block of their rants. They aren't just cutting clips into tiny little segments of dialog so that the anchors have more screentime than the footage; they're deliberately cutting in and going off at the right time to glue together their transformative recontextualizing of that footage. (Come to think of it though, maybe that's one of the reasons why news has gone south, because none of the context of the actual moment can be retained... it's not only "the boring stuff" left on a loudmouth pundit's editing floor, but also, legally, it'd be an issue to use parts that don't make them angry / spawn a joke.)
Last edited:
Pakoe
Member
Retarded ass take.
Connificent
Al Pachinko, Konami President
Digital Foundry in the cut like
PeteBull
Member
Imagine being so invested in a corpo u arent even neutral but want to delete one of the very few actual independend tech channels, im perfectly fine if u dont give a damn what happens, thats normal, but actively hoping/enjoying potential huge troubles for independend channel just coz u dont like how the person looks- thats srsly fucked up.
Btw, i wouldnt hope for shreier coming to the resque, he is strong against weak and weak agains strong, so he will never trully put his job/livehood on the line to go against any corpo, hell its very likely he is on corpo's payroll
en.wikipedia.org
Btw, i wouldnt hope for shreier coming to the resque, he is strong against weak and weak agains strong, so he will never trully put his job/livehood on the line to go against any corpo, hell its very likely he is on corpo's payroll
Jason Schreier - Wikipedia
Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
You should read his books i heard they are greatImagine being so invested in a corpo u arent even neutral but want to delete one of the very few actual independend tech channels, im perfectly fine if u dont give a damn what happens, thats normal, but actively hoping/enjoying potential huge troubles for independend channel just coz u dont like how the person looks- thats srsly fucked up.
Btw, i wouldnt hope for shreier coming to the resque, he is strong against weak and weak agains strong, so he will never trully put his job/livehood on the line to go against any corpo, hell its very likely he is on corpo's payroll
Jason Schreier - Wikipedia
Similar threads
- Locked