The channel is not in danger of being deleted, not even close. They received a single copyright strike, which in principle already got reversed by youtube (though still pending a 10 day waiting period for the claimant to reply and file legal action). It takes 3 valid copyright strikes within a 90 day period for a channel to be deleted.
They’re not angry because their channel is in danger of being deleted, they’re angry because they got hit in the moneys, losing ad revenue on a video that probably cost quite a bit of money to produce. Because of how the algorithm works, they’ll probably not recoup the lost views on that particular video, even when it’s reinstated. I mean, that’s not cool, but it doesn’t really warrant the hysterics they’re trying to create over it.
It’s also not like abusive and frivolous copyright strikes are a new thing. They’ve been a byproduct of the safe harbor provisions (aka OCILLA ) in the DMCA for almost 3 decades now (DMCA was introduced in 1998), and the chilling effects on online speech and liberties have been well documented and covered to death by various publications over the years, but somehow GamersNexus only discovers it and starts to care when their bottom line is affected by it. I get that it’s not cool, but I don’t get why people should care about this particular instance of DMCA abuse, especially as it seems to be going as well for GamersNexus as a copyright strike can possibly go, given that Youtube already ruled in their favor.
To me it comes across as a hastily put together video to spring on their audience to whip up outrage and compensate for lost ad revenue. It’s a tried and true tactic, if you don’t have news, make the news. It seems to be working too: after one day this video already has more views than anything else they put out in the last 6 months, so it will probably make them more money than the taken down video would ever make. Good for them, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t see it for the sensationalist click bait non-story that it is.
SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 4 weeks ago
Um, the video in question here?
The channel is not in danger of being deleted, not even close. They received a single copyright strike, which in principle already got reversed by youtube (though still pending a 10 day waiting period for the claimant to reply and file legal action). It takes 3 valid copyright strikes within a 90 day period for a channel to be deleted.
They’re not angry because their channel is in danger of being deleted, they’re angry because they got hit in the moneys, losing ad revenue on a video that probably cost quite a bit of money to produce. Because of how the algorithm works, they’ll probably not recoup the lost views on that particular video, even when it’s reinstated. I mean, that’s not cool, but it doesn’t really warrant the hysterics they’re trying to create over it.
It’s also not like abusive and frivolous copyright strikes are a new thing. They’ve been a byproduct of the safe harbor provisions (aka OCILLA ) in the DMCA for almost 3 decades now (DMCA was introduced in 1998), and the chilling effects on online speech and liberties have been well documented and covered to death by various publications over the years, but somehow GamersNexus only discovers it and starts to care when their bottom line is affected by it. I get that it’s not cool, but I don’t get why people should care about this particular instance of DMCA abuse, especially as it seems to be going as well for GamersNexus as a copyright strike can possibly go, given that Youtube already ruled in their favor.
To me it comes across as a hastily put together video to spring on their audience to whip up outrage and compensate for lost ad revenue. It’s a tried and true tactic, if you don’t have news, make the news. It seems to be working too: after one day this video already has more views than anything else they put out in the last 6 months, so it will probably make them more money than the taken down video would ever make. Good for them, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t see it for the sensationalist click bait non-story that it is.