Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums
Sign in to follow this  
FloydMayweather

DSP can now remove channels reuploading his videos

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FloydMayweather said:

This new YouTube rule was made today, if these channels are monetizing it they will be classed as spam.

 

DRqnLhtWkAAp1rX.jpg.4c2035158b31b12d1b25254ed91603a0.jpg

Something tells me this rule should've been enforced a long time ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LastSonOfKrypton said:

This rule is vague enough that it could end up affecting Phil too. He does upload an enormous amount of similar content on a daily basis after all.

That would suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LastSonOfKrypton said:

This rule is vague enough that it could end up affecting Phil too. He does upload an enormous amount of similar content on a daily basis after all.

I don't really think that would be a problem. Short form videos should always have a place on YouTube. Now uploading videos that are less then 10 seconds long with no context would be a different story. That being said the rule means nothing. YouTube is too lazy to actual enforce these rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could always monetize detractor videos in the past, and he did. He can remove them but they'll just be reuploaded unless he makes an effort to look out for them (haha no)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LastSonOfKrypton said:

This rule is vague enough that it could end up affecting Phil too. He does upload an enormous amount of similar content on a daily basis after all.

At least Phil would have a better defence, since he pays for most of the games.

11 hours ago, KGhaleon said:

He could always monetize detractor videos in the past, and he did. He can remove them but they'll just be reuploaded unless he makes an effort to look out for them (haha no)

I agree, TIHYDP videos are edited versions of his own playthroughs, he would be taking back what was his to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WOOF! said:

At least Phil would have a better defence, since he pays for most of the games.

Um, how exactly is that a defense against YouTube's spam policy? "You're uploading too many samey videos at once." "But I paid for the game I'm playing." Huh? It makes no sense as a defense for this.

Edited by LastSonOfKrypton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LastSonOfKrypton said:

Um, how exactly is that a defense against YouTube's spam policy? "You're uploading too many samey videos at once." "But I paid for the game I'm playing." Huh? It makes no sense as a defense for this.

Not saying DSP is 100% full proof against this, but he has a better defence case than channels who don't pay for other peoples content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 11:22 AM, WOOF! said:

Not saying DSP is 100% full proof against this, but he has a better defence case than channels who don't pay for other peoples content.

Ummmmmm..... I’m just going to say agree to disagree, because we already debated this on another thread.  

Edited by moka'roka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So going by that description alone, if they arn't making a profit from the videos, then its fine.

But then what if these uploads have editing behind them, like they add stuff into the video if phil/whoevers content? Wouldn't it still fall under fair use for like parady and whatnot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

But then what if these uploads have editing behind them, like they add stuff into the video if phil/whoevers content? Wouldn't it still fall under fair use for like parady and whatnot?

Good question, the rule is so vague that it's hard to tell. If it's edited and they add stuff than I assume it's going to be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ziggy said:

So going by that description alone, if they arn't making a profit from the videos, then its fine.

But then what if these uploads have editing behind them, like they add stuff into the video if phil/whoevers content? Wouldn't it still fall under fair use for like parady and whatnot?

Jesus Christ are you guys still arguing about this whole fair use thing? Give it a rest already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nich2440 said:

I seriously don't see how DSPGaming would be considered spam. Think some people are grasping here.

Actually it could be the amount of videos that he uploads per day that cam be considered spam..... Also, you have to take the title of the video.  If the title has the game name and part number.  YT’s  Algorithm probably would see the game name excluding the part number and strike it as spam. 

Edited by moka'roka
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nich2440 said:

Jesus Christ are you guys still arguing about this whole fair use thing? Give it a rest already.

Who argued? It was a genuine question related to the topic. Go on vaction man, your getting hysterical.

9 hours ago, FloydMayweather said:

Good question, the rule is so vague that it's hard to tell. If it's edited and they add stuff than I assume it's going to be fine.

Yeah, if its a straightup reupload with nothing in it, then its pretty much spam. But if its edited content, then it is an original work (somewhat. guess it depends) which wouldn't be spam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, moka'roka said:

Actually it could be the amount of videos that he uploads per day that cam be considered spam..... Also, you have to take the title of the video.  If the title has the game name and part number.  YT’s  Algorithm probably would see the game name excluding the part number and strike it as spam. 

The stupidity is incredibly strong in this one, lol.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

Who argued? It was a genuine question related to the topic. Go on vaction man, your getting hysterical.

1) We already have a thread discussing fair use. 2) it's been discussed for at least a week with back and forth banter.

I'm just tired of hearing about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Nich2440 said:

1) We already have a thread discussing fair use. 2) it's been discussed for at least a week with back and forth banter.

I'm just tired of hearing about it.

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Phil said:

The stupidity is incredibly strong in this one, lol.

I’m not insulting you so no needed to insult me. I was just giving an example of how YT algorithm can consider your video spam....  just in the same way that it strikes video for demontization.  It’s a hypothesis....

 

Edited by moka'roka
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moka'roka said:

I’m not insulting you so needed to insult me. I was just giving an example of how YT algorithm can consider your video spam....  just in the same way that ot strikes video for demontization.  It’s a hypothesis....

I just want to know does DSP really think over the years his ex fans and Youtubers alike just turned insane over watching a TIHYDP video and ended up hating him, or maybe it's these types of responses, how he talks to people, or attempts at damage control that might of drove people away faster than just him being horrible at a video game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ReliantRalph said:

I just want to know does DSP really think over the years his ex fans and Youtubers alike just turned insane over watching a TIHYDP video and ended up hating him, or maybe it's these types of responses, how he talks to people, or attempts at damage control that might of drove people away faster than just him being horrible at a video game.

I don't speak for Phil, but its a mixed bag of rumors, and people taking jokes way to seriously. On BOTH sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

                   I said this months ago , as a public person online your gonna get rumors and more. Rolfe was attacked hard in 2016 for not liking Ghostbusters if we remember. He literally had people tweet how some how a woman married him. Like him not wanting to see a film made them literally tweet how in some way , no woman would ever want him lol. But Rolfe never let it bother him. In fact Rolfe just went about his business and never really fired back. Because if he did , he was adding fuel to it all. So he concentrated on doing what he does .

                    Sometimes you have to let those things go and not let it effect you. I know its hard , I can understand being angry. But why add fuel to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×