That’ll work excellent for all those people trying to find tutorial videos for ‘XYZ’ when you have no verification data to determine whether it’s even a legit tutorial.
People who watch tutorial videos only get on, watch the video and then leave. How are they supposed to make tons of advertising revenue from that? No, we must sacrifice that class of video from the platform, in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
I mean you joke, but they’re literally doing that to reaction video channels. MXRPlays had his entire channel deleted, despite having millions of subscribers. It was clear for years that someone at youtube had a grudge against them.
Especially since they deleted their channel. Gave strikes to all their videos, and took the videos down. Buuuuuuut, someone ELSE illegally reuploaded their content, and they can’t even report the video because their channel is deleted. The illegal re-uploads have no strikes, no issues, the content stay up, and some OTHER person makes money off of MXRPlays years old content.
the content creator isn’t following the proper system then. You don’t need YouTube to do a copyright/IP violation claim. Google is actually opening themselves up to significantly hot water if they are indeed refusing to allow a process for DMCA on creators that are deleted off the platform, as there are severe penalties for not reacting to a DMCA claim when you are a content provider.
If they actually owned the rights to the videos, that creators first step when learning that Youtube is not going to do anything about the violation, is to manually file it themselves, and honestly they should state that Youtube at that point is intentionally allowing it which would perhaps pull Youtube into it as well
just because YouTube decides that they aren’t going to do anything, doesn’t invalidate your claim to copyright. I’m surprised that the channel hasn’t seeked legal action against anyone regarding it.
My two cents on the matter is that it’s likely the channel is worried that their videos aren’t transformative enough fair use wise and that they themselves may get into legal troubles if they attempted to. A lot of commentary artists stay borderline on fair-use and not fair use, however if this was not the case, they have a pretty decent chance of winning that suit.
What type of reaction content? If it wasn’t using the minimum amount of copyrighted material needed to comment or being transformative, and was distributing the majority of a work, then at any point a DMCA will nuke em. Google might not think it’s worth the risk hosting that reaction content forever.
LOL. You clearly have never heard of G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome). You get on YouTube to learn how to play guitar and next thing you know you’ve bought three guitars, a closet full of pedals, amps, amp modelers, etc., and you still don’t know how to play.
