Aren't MCNs to blame?

[KGATV]

Again, you are ignoring my point. Networks should NOT have thousands of partners in the first place because that breaks one of main rules in which they are supposed to MANAGE their partners and content.

What does the number of partners they have, have anything to do with people uploading content they don't own?

 

[AHelpfulGuy]

Adsales:
Okay i'll give you this one, you could potentially have higher cpm but after taking a cut theres no gurantee you wouldnt be making more with regular adsense/cpm.
Support:
Not really sure what mcns can do if anything in terms of problems with contentid. As far as I know the affiliates have been left to their own devices to fight content it.
Music Library:
Yea if you need that sort of thing, not all users do.
Extra features:
Like?

Likely unless they take 30-40%

Support as in general support

at 35$ per song, access to audiomicro for free is huge for small channels

Fullscreen's creator platform has tonnes of features, I'd say they provide the most for smaller channels.[DOUBLEPOST=1387836796,1387836762][/DOUBLEPOST]

No. There's this misguided belief that it is the MCN who should be responsible for the content. An MCN when you boil it right down is nothing more than a privately run Adwords. They include "nice to haves" like music libraries and such, but at the base they're just ad agencies.

In the world of old media, the ad agency can't be held liable for the content shown that they advertise over, only for the advertisements themselves. And yet, YouTube has been unable to divert blame for hosting the infringing content. So instead of properly fighting for true fair use doctrine, they caved via DMCA to big corp. But DMCA wasn't enough, big corp didn't want to have to do work manually, they wanted automated. And thus ContentID was born, from the ashes of music industry lawsuits. And that's what this whole thing is. That's where the misconception comes. A Managed MCN, is just a big YouTube channel catagory. The main company takes legal responsibility for all channels under it's wing. It has strikes, just like the rest of us but they're spread out over the managed partners. And in return for the legal immunity, YouTube gives it immediate monetization.

Being affiliate means you're responsible for your own content. That's it. The MCN's are still just ad agencies. And now, they're not responsible for your content at all, nor should they be. All they do is supply ads at a better rate (hopefully) than Adwords.

It's also worth noting that partners didn't have immunity from ContentID. What they had immunity from was the Adsense Review. ContentID would hit channels regardless of affiliation. It's just that along with this change, YouTube pooched a few things which caused a significant number of claims that shouldn't have happened. This was followed by enterprising copyright trolls capitalizing on the errors.

well said

 

[clerick]

No. There's this misguided belief that it is the MCN who should be responsible for the content. An MCN when you boil it right down is nothing more than a privately run Adwords. They include "nice to haves" like music libraries and such, but at the base they're just ad agencies.

In the world of old media, the ad agency can't be held liable for the content shown that they advertise over, only for the advertisements themselves. And yet, YouTube has been unable to divert blame for hosting the infringing content. So instead of properly fighting for true fair use doctrine, they caved via DMCA to big corp. But DMCA wasn't enough, big corp didn't want to have to do work manually, they wanted automated. And thus ContentID was born, from the ashes of music industry lawsuits. And that's what this whole thing is. That's where the misconception comes. A Managed MCN, is just a big YouTube channel catagory. The main company takes legal responsibility for all channels under it's wing. It has strikes, just like the rest of us but they're spread out over the managed partners. And in return for the legal immunity, YouTube gives it immediate monetization.

Being affiliate means you're responsible for your own content. That's it. The MCN's are still just ad agencies. And now, they're not responsible for your content at all, nor should they be. All they do is supply ads at a better rate (hopefully) than Adwords.

I would agree with you except that MCNs were not like regular youtubers. They had special powers of being immune to content id and they abused that power by having too many partners they did not actively watch their content for.

What does the number of partners they have, have anything to do with people uploading content they don't own?

The mcns should have been only signing up channels with views/content they would actively look at it to make sure that it weren't breaking copyright, instead they signed up anyone who applied. It is completely understandable that some users would upload anything that they dont down because of desire for quick money or not realizing how copyright works. The mcns should have been signing up only few channels and actively looking out for such problems and getting the benefit of instant monetization/no content id scans.

 

[AHelpfulGuy]

I would agree with you except that MCNs were not like regular youtubers. They had special powers of being immune to content id and they abused that power by having too many partners they did not actively watch their content for.

The mcns should have been only signing up channels with views/content they would actively look at it to make sure that it weren't breaking copyright, instead they signed up anyone who applied. It is completely understandable that some users would upload anything that they dont down because of desire for quick money or not realizing how copyright works. The mcns should have been signing up only few channels and actively looking out for such problems and getting the benefit of instant monetization/no content id scans.

The contract between MCNs and Google says nothing about the number of users you can affiliate with your Content owner.

 

[L.G.]

No. There's this misguided belief that it is the MCN who should be responsible for the content. An MCN when you boil it right down is nothing more than a privately run Adwords. They include "nice to haves" like music libraries and such, but at the base they're just ad agencies.

In the world of old media, the ad agency can't be held liable for the content shown that they advertise over, only for the advertisements themselves. And yet, YouTube has been unable to divert blame for hosting the infringing content. So instead of properly fighting for true fair use doctrine, they caved via DMCA to big corp. But DMCA wasn't enough, big corp didn't want to have to do work manually, they wanted automated. And thus ContentID was born, from the ashes of music industry lawsuits. And that's what this whole thing is. That's where the misconception comes. A Managed MCN, is just a big YouTube channel catagory. The main company takes legal responsibility for all channels under it's wing. It has strikes, just like the rest of us but they're spread out over the managed partners. And in return for the legal immunity, YouTube gives it immediate monetization.

Being affiliate means you're responsible for your own content. That's it. The MCN's are still just ad agencies. And now, they're not responsible for your content at all, nor should they be. All they do is supply ads at a better rate (hopefully) than Adwords.

It's also worth noting that partners didn't have immunity from ContentID. What they had immunity from was the Adsense Review. ContentID would hit channels regardless of affiliation. It's just that along with this change, YouTube pooched a few things which caused a significant number of claims that shouldn't have happened. This was followed by enterprising copyright trolls capitalizing on the errors.

Best explanation on this post! I completely agree with it!

 

[Tarmack]

I would agree with you except that MCNs were not like regular youtubers. They had special powers of being immune to content id and they abused that power by having too many partners they did not actively watch their content for.

I made a stealth edit before you replied. I'll expand on it.

There was never any such thing as ContentID immunity for partners. It didn't happen. What partners were immune to was the Adsense Review. The way to think of them is as follows.

Adsense Review is when YouTube suspects you may have used content that might not maybe be entirely owned by you. There are theories that anything from popular tags like song titles, movie names with the word trailer in the tags, and even visuals that appeared to be TV screen in nature would flag this system. The video would sit in review for a long time before eventually getting denied and the user would have to supply proof that they own the content. They would often reply that they had the rights to use it, recorded it themselves, blah blah blah but the system was clunky and terrible to deal with. There are stories of videos that went into review and sit there to this day, years afterwards. And sometimes you could just delete and reupload and on the second try it would go through.

ContentID is when YouTube has directly matched content on your video to something previously uploaded by a content owner like a music label or movie publisher. This is not a maybe kind of match, it's a direct match. These happened primarily on audio since video is very difficult to match given bitrate and other discrepencies like watermarks, overlays and such. Now, ContentID also has a whitelist system which can whitelist users. This whitelist is how networks got permission to use certain elements of content across all partners. But make sure you note that this is not immunity, this is direct permission to use.

So Adsense Review is the "it feels like you might be using stuff you don't own" system and ContentID is "you're definitely using stuff you don't own and here's who that stuff belongs to" system. There has NEVER been an immunity to ContentID matches.

 

[clerick]

It's also worth noting that partners didn't have immunity from ContentID. What they had immunity from was the Adsense Review. ContentID would hit channels regardless of affiliation. It's just that along with this change, YouTube pooched a few things which caused a significant number of claims that shouldn't have happened. This was followed by enterprising copyright trolls capitalizing on the errors.

I have never heard of or seen an mcn channel getting content id before the new change to affiliate (where users are scanned for content id). I have a number of friends who were/are under mcns (and some who stay managed) and never got hit with content id for using a song or whatever. I tested it on one of my own channels using the same song as them (in a non managed channel) and that same song would get content idd. How would people under old mcn (current managed) be able to have instant monetization if they were scanned for content id?

 

[Opticgeekify]

I have never heard of or seen an mcn channel getting content id before the new change to affiliate (where users are scanned for content id). I have a number of friends who were/are under mcns (and some who stay managed) and never got hit with content id for using a song or whatever. I tested it on one of my own channels using the same song as them (in a non managed channel) and that same song would get content idd. How would people under old mcn (current managed) be able to have instant monetization if they were scanned for content id?

I am partnered and Content ID found me. (Monstercat music , allowed as long as they Content ID you).

 

[TheBatteryChicken]

LOOOL MCN's get you f**k all, dont join one its pointless

 

[clerick]

I made a stealth edit before you replied. I'll expand on it.

There was never any such thing as ContentID immunity for partners. It didn't happen. What partners were immune to was the Adsense Review. The way to think of them is as follows.

Adsense Review is when YouTube suspects you may have used content that might not maybe be entirely owned by you. There are theories that anything from popular tags like song titles, movie names with the word trailer in the tags, and even visuals that appeared to be TV screen in nature would flag this system. The video would sit in review for a long time before eventually getting denied and the user would have to supply proof that they own the content. They would often reply that they had the rights to use it, recorded it themselves, blah blah blah but the system was clunky and terrible to deal with. There are stories of videos that went into review and sit there to this day, years afterwards. And sometimes you could just delete and reupload and on the second try it would go through.

ContentID is when YouTube has directly matched content on your video to something previously uploaded by a content owner like a music label or movie publisher. This is not a maybe kind of match, it's a direct match. These happened primarily on audio since video is very difficult to match given bitrate and other discrepencies like watermarks, overlays and such. Now, ContentID also has a whitelist system which can whitelist users. This whitelist is how networks got permission to use certain elements of content across all partners. But make sure you note that this is not immunity, this is direct permission to use.

So Adsense Review is the "it feels like you might be using stuff you don't own" system and ContentID is "you're definitely using stuff you don't own and here's who that stuff belongs to" system. There has NEVER been an immunity to ContentID matches.

Thanks for following up! In terms of your adsense review: I've yet to see any cases where a user would get presented with a notice to prove something they own while they were under an mcn or currently managed. Can you point to any big channels/users who this has happened to?[DOUBLEPOST=1387837648,1387837577][/DOUBLEPOST]

I am partnered and Content ID found me. (Monstercat music , allowed as long as they Content ID you).

You are partnered but you are not managed, you are an affiliate (hence you do not have instant monetization and contend id scans). What i'm getting at is the old mcn system/managed users of the new.