Monetization Disabled Out of the Blue

[truemoney18]

YouTube just fixed a bug today that resulted in monetization being stuck as disabled. Glad to hear your monetization abilities are back.[DOUBLEPOST=1475735330,1475735254][/DOUBLEPOST]
Any visual Content ID claims or global block Content ID claims?

PS. This has nothing to do with people flagging videos.

noo strikes no nothing ... no visual claims ... boxing channels know me because i have a big fan base.. so they dont really mess with me ... but it was a glitch in the youtube system my monetization returned yesterday it cost me only 60 dollars one day no earnings no biggie glad to see my channel back ... youtube glitch lol

 

[offbeatbryce]

I think that may be because of the agreement which most people only scan without reading and then click "I agree" when setting up to use YouTube Live. You basically agree not to use any copyrighted media in your live stream, and though a lot of game devs have given the nod to Let's Plays when done as static videos, YouTube Live counts as a Live Broadcast.

So anyone who does a live stream of gameplay is actually livecasting copyrighted material under and against International Law, and the saved stream will count as a re-broadcast. I will add here that I am not a lawyer, so this is an educated guess.

this is confusing me because depending on what was copyrighted is legal live. I know this because I spoke with an intellectual copyright lawyer. He has worked with TV shows. He told me that anything airing live that is an audio recording/cover song etc is exempt from copyright because LIVE broadcast doesn't need have a license. It's only when you re air or re play it. SO why YouTube is saying you can't have copyright when it's live is beyond me. Periscope and Facebook Live was sued once by Sony and the judge tossed the case out saying that because it was live it was fair game. The only thing you can't do is say hold your phone up to a movie or TV show and stream it.


Here is a section from Bonelaw Law website


"Typically, when a musical work is used in timed synchronization with video images, the user must obtain an additional license from music publishers; this license is referred to as a synchronization (“synch”) license.[9] Synch licenses can be expensive and time consuming to obtain. This is because synch license fees are not set by statute. Rather, synch fees are negotiated based on a variety of factors making the fees very unpredictable. Additionally, it is possible for a single song to have multiple songwriters and multiple music publishers, resulting in many hours of negotiations. Fortunately, as long as the video of the concert performance is streamed live, no synch licenses will be required. However, content creators and distributors need to be aware that synch licenses will be required if they desire to make videos of the musical performances available to the public after the live stream, whether in archived form, on their website, or for sale or distribution.[10]"

The only thing you have to pay for is a Performance Rights license which YouTube already pays for. This has been stated in hundreds of music companies like ASCAP, BMI and Harry Fox.

 

[UKHypnotist]

this is confusing me because depending on what was copyrighted is legal live. I know this because I spoke with an intellectual copyright lawyer. He has worked with TV shows. He told me that anything airing live that is an audio recording/cover song etc is exempt from copyright because LIVE broadcast doesn't need have a license. It's only when you re air or re play it. SO why YouTube is saying you can't have copyright when it's live is beyond me. Periscope and Facebook Live was sued once by Sony and the judge tossed the case out saying that because it was live it was fair game. The only thing you can't do is say hold your phone up to a movie or TV show and stream it.


Here is a section from Bonelaw Law website


"Typically, when a musical work is used in timed synchronization with video images, the user must obtain an additional license from music publishers; this license is referred to as a synchronization (“synch”) license.[9] Synch licenses can be expensive and time consuming to obtain. This is because synch license fees are not set by statute. Rather, synch fees are negotiated based on a variety of factors making the fees very unpredictable. Additionally, it is possible for a single song to have multiple songwriters and multiple music publishers, resulting in many hours of negotiations. Fortunately, as long as the video of the concert performance is streamed live, no synch licenses will be required. However, content creators and distributors need to be aware that synch licenses will be required if they desire to make videos of the musical performances available to the public after the live stream, whether in archived form, on their website, or for sale or distribution.[10]"

The only thing you have to pay for is a Performance Rights license which YouTube already pays for. This has been stated in hundreds of music companies like ASCAP, BMI and Harry Fox.

We aren't talking about music, @offbeatbryce; we are talking about live gameplay streams which have nothing to do with music performing rights companies except where in-game music would apply.

 

[offbeatbryce]

We aren't talking about music, @offbeatbryce; we are talking about live gameplay streams which have nothing to do with music performing rights companies except where in-game music would apply.

I know that but still i thought like lots of game companies let you monetize their content? there is a whole list on the web of game companies that allow monetization

 

[UKHypnotist]

I know that but still i thought like lots of game companies let you monetize their content? there is a whole list on the web of game companies that allow monetization

I know this too; have you looked carefully at each company's terms to see if that monetization includes Live Broadcasting on YouTube? I found out recently that the permission may be on a site by site basis. There was a thread on the YouTube Help section of Google Groups where a user thought he could use RF music cleared for Twitch on YouTube; but when he tried it, got Content ID'd. I think the same thing could be in place for Livestream monetization; meaning that this is done on a site by site basis, and though you can do a monetized livestream on Twitch, the same developer may not allow monetized YouTube streaming.

The only way to be sure about this would be to go to each company's site, and check their terms.

 

[offbeatbryce]

I know this too; have you looked carefully at each company's terms to see if that monetization includes Live Broadcasting on YouTube? I found out recently that the permission may be on a site by site basis. There was a thread on the YouTube Help section of Google Groups where a user thought he could use RF music cleared for Twitch on YouTube; but when he tried it, got Content ID'd. I think the same thing could be in place for Livestream monetization; meaning that this is done on a site by site basis, and though you can do a monetized livestream on Twitch, the same developer may not allow monetized YouTube streaming.

The only way to be sure about this would be to go to each company's site, and check their terms.

that's interesting. I also seem to remember reading that RF music gets content ID'd on YouTube but if you bought the RF music or it was free download you could just dispute it with proof of screenshots that you have them on your computer in the same file names. I also remember where someone was extracting RF music from a YouTube Channel rather than buying the RF in a set and they got busted because their file names were different since they had extracted them from YouTube and named the files whatever they wanted