Hyperbolic title to be sure but I think it’s justified to point out Fuck Bloomberg.
I don’t usually watch gamers Nexus stuff, I find it to be a bit dense for casual watching. It’s accurate as all hell, as far as I’m concerned… They know their shit and they research the crap out of whatever they’re covering; this both makes them awesome, but adds to the density of their content.
I also have immense respect for them because they’ll call shit out like this, and just give the finger to any possible repercussions. They’re legally in the clear as far as I’m concerned, they’re hyper careful about that kind of thing. But that doesn’t mean that Google is willing to host them while they do shit that makes Google’s advertising partners grumpy; and I assume Bloomberg, or a company affiliated with Bloomberg runs ads on YouTube/Google/whatever.
They’re in a position where they have significant risk, and instead of tucking tail and doing what they’re told, they’re fighting, and pointing out the problem. They’re putting a spotlight on the fact that we all know, but nobody really mentions, that “good business” in the ad space, is to appease your advertisers as much as possible. Like it or not, Google is still, very much, an ad company. That’s how they started, that’s still a big part of the business. It’s why Google search is free. It’s why Gmail is free, and it’s why YouTube is free (almost all of these have paid options, but that’s not the focus right now).
So like it or not, Google’s in a pretty tough spot. I’m sure the views from GN drive some significant ad revenue, at the same time, in certain that the contracts for ads from Bloomberg and affiliates, are worth quite a bit as well. If they kick GN, then they lose ad revenue from any ads that would run on their videos in there future. If they don’t, they risk losing a potentially very valuable advertiser.
They’re stuck in the middle. I have no idea what they’re going to decide here.
I won’t blame Google either way. I’d like to see them standing up for GN, but I can see why they wouldn’t. They’ll have a stronger arm against GN than they would against Bloomberg, because, let’s face it, Bloomberg has more money to throw at lawyers and making legal issues for Google, than GN does.
I do, however, entirely blame Bloomberg in all of this. I’m certain that GN is using any footage insert fair use laws with proper attribution to the original source (though, I haven’t seen this video yet, nor the one in question. I just know GN well enough to know that the likelihood that they didn’t, is basically zero).
GN already has my trust for their integrity. I can’t say the same for Google, YouTube, and certainly not Bloomberg… Ha.
I will, of course, be looking more deeply into this later, and I will amend my viewpoint as information is uncovered. Until then, good luck GN. You guys are heros and legends. Never stop being exactly who you are.
I think you’re being too forgiving to Google, and also pointing at the wrong problem.
The central problem isn’t ad space, but the DMCA. It requires companies that host content the way YouTube does to have policies for DMCA takedown requests. Generally, this means removing content when they receive a request. The DMCA makes a form of compromise here, where hosting companies won’t be liable as long as they show they’re processing takedown requests in good faith.
This is exactly the same law in the US that comes into effect when your ISP gets a takedown notice. Your ISP isn’t liable as long as they pass that on to you and tell you to delete what you “stole”, etc.
The problem is partially Google’s implementation and partially the DMCA itself. To the best of my knowledge, the three strikes system isn’t something in the DMCA. That’s YouTube’s policy alone. ISPs generally don’t operate on a three strikes system–they might choose to, but they don’t have to.
The DMCA itself doesn’t have any kind of mechanism for pushing back against companies that send takedown notices abusively. This means companies setup an automated system that scans uploaded videos looking for anything they can claim is theirs and send a notice. That’s probably what Bloomberg did. These systems aren’t smart enough to distinguish fair use from not; they have zero incentive to even try something as simple as “a five second clip of our stuff in a 3 hour video is probably fair use”. The entire burden is placed on content creators to show they aren’t infringing.
Until the law is changed to deal with notices sent in bad faith, this sort of thing will continue. Naturally, companies like Disney and BMG yell bloody murder any time they even get a hint of Congress trying to do that.
All this is separate from YouTube’s own content ID automated system. That’s a whole different set of problems from the DMCA.
I understand what you’re saying here. I would reiterate “fair use”.
I know, DMCA take downs can happen for a lot less than what’s covered under fair use, especially with YouTube/Google’s system of handling take down requests. Err on the side of the copyright holder, until proven otherwise.
I still have a lot to look into on this so I can’t say how relevant your point or mine is in the context of GN. But you certainly do make good points.
I don’t see as much potential malice in Bloomberg as the conspiracy theories are saying, just normal every day malice of their legal department seeing their footage being used and suing to get money out of it. The news industry is particularly cutthroat now, so paying top buck for video exclusives probably makes them think they can demand cuts from channels like Steve’s. If it was pressure due to any one of the conspiracies being brought up, the opposition would be much more organized and not just coming from the legal department, and they wouldn’t be giving him an out by just saying he can pay a licensing fee to resolve the dispute.
Bloomberg can suck a bag of dicks🖕🖕
Put it on peertube, maybe?
Can’t hurt to cross-upload, the reality is that GN would need a YT channel to be commercially viable, but I think they are better positioned than most to use PeerTube as secondary channel.
the reality is that GN would need a YT channel to be commercially viable,
How did you arrive at this “reality”?
I’d be interested to hear your proposals for alternative business models.
It’s not an alternative business model. It’s the same business model on an alternative platform.
And is that alternative platform in the room with us now?
Then the fact that YT is more popular and the annoying catch-22 continues ever thus.
I don’t know what that has to do with anything. Yes, YouTube is more popular, what good does that do you if you’re banned from it?
If you’re banned, nothing. But until then, YT is where the audience is. That’s why no-one/very few have jumped ship. A creator needs a large audience on a platform to make it worthwhile for them while an audience needs a good selection of creators to make the platform worthwhile to jump to. Until content creators band together to decide on a platform for everyone to jump to, we’re stuck right where we are.
I am on the Threadiverse, so it is a reasonable assumption that I use the internet…
“I use the internet” explains absolutely nothing.
It was a joke. You can’t seriously think that PeerTube is viable alternative to YT (as a sole distribution channel).
I say this as someone who does use PeerTube for a few content creators that mirror from YT.
Are you going to answer my question or just continue replying solely to insult me?
No insults intended. Apologies if it came off that way.
The market share dynamics, UI/UX issues (average person finds federation to be a difficult concept) and lack of an “easy to pick up” monetisation system make PeerTube non-viable as a sole distribution source for a commercial (or even part-time income) channel.
I would argue the market share difference is by the far the biggest factor (other factors can arguably be accounted for with varying degree of success).
The hell does Bloomberg have to do with gaming videos
Apparently Bloomberg ordered the takedown of a GamersNexus video because they used one of their clips. The video was about the smuggling of GPUs into China, so the assumption is that Bloomberg is actually trying to silence the story.
The video in the post mentions that Blomberg has their own coverage of Nvidia GPUs and the black market which obviously isn’t as detailed and probably gets information wrong and they certainly want to silence this true reporting of the facts.
That’s my theory… They did a fake investigation and then got cucked.
So now they are big mad
It is an AI GPU smuggling video. Bloomberg made their own but got basically nothing. Their journalists sucked. Then GamersNexus went to China and got tonnes of insider knowledge and footage.
Was it really neccessary to fly there?
This is one of those times where it’s entirely justified. Our local government (USA) is saying one thing about foreign lands, but reality is observably different. There’s no way to accomplish this kind of journalism without traveling to the place the administration is lying about.
Why not?
Decent content slop to send their message
It’s bad for the environment to take uneccessary flights and it sets a bad example.
Lol… People got on vacations every day, I don’t see normies cry about it.
In fact telling a normie not to fly, will make it act indignant
I‘ll not take away the working person‘s well earned vacation once or twice a year, especially in a big country like the US (I generally understand that the attitude towards flying is different there).
But some dude who took a plane to yap in front of an office building? Nah.
Lmfao good lord. Get real
There are very few dedicated passenger liners left in the world that aren’t luxury travel cruises. The only one I’m aware of that has a US route only goes across the atlantic from NY to the UK.
The only sea based options to get to China from the US would be to try to get passage on a cargo ship going the same way, or charter a small vessel for the voyage, which would likely cost thousands.
It would be nice to tax plane travel heavily, and then subsidize sail travel to make that more viable, along with mandatory consecutive monthly vacation time for all jobs, like the EU has.
