top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]kvachon 48 points49 points  (15 children)

Any plan to remove submissions of stolen videos?

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points  (12 children)

I've said repeatedly that I think the mods should be able to edit a submission. If a vid is stolen, actually replace the link with the original. That'll stop that and just give appropriate attention to the original.

[–]Meepster23 10 points11 points  (0 children)

We do to an extent as it's usually considered "spam", but feel free to check out /r/videos_discussion as there are some threads there on the topic.

[–]Uraflght 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would be excellent !!!

[–]Dan_Dead_Or_Alive 106 points107 points  (7 children)

I always wondered if this was happening.

I called an OP out on this awhile ago for posting a video that the original had well over 2 million views and was in a significant better video quality.

Later on, I checked OP's profile and he posted to /r/freelance_forhire/ advertising his services to boost your website's position in search engine results.

[–]Meepster23 23 points24 points  (5 children)

That one looks like it might just be the usual spammers that we get, although it's entirely possible. The third party licensed ones usually end up in "compilations" of clips and the like. They are then uploaded to random channels and we get a few week old accounts mod mailing us wondering why their (obviously spam) posts won't show up.

[–]mandrous 60 points61 points  (29 children)


Well, this ought to be interesting.

[–]rws531 44 points45 points  (7 children)

I don't even know how to identify this sort of thing.

[–]terpin 14 points15 points  (4 children)

You're going to have to go look at the specific video and make sure it's not licensed or "available for licensing" by a third party before you post it. I think if they're going to do this they need to have a list of common accounts that are licensing accounts so people know who to avoid.

[–]kevinstonge 17 points18 points  (0 children)

everything I ever post to a major subreddit is isntantly removed by the mods.

you have to have a full time job as a reddit poster to navigate the sea of automoderated rules anyway. I just post to small subs and let the big guys like "CANT_TRUST_HILLARY" handle all the posting to big subreddits. I mean, it's a community website where we are all supposed to share shit and vote on each other's shit ... but people like me just suck so fucking hard at everything that no other humans should be allowed to see anything I post ever. There's a computer program out there just waiting for me to post something so it can delete it without feeling, without thinking, without caring. Meanwhile, fucking Shia LaBuff can post a 36 hour video of his unshaved face sitting in a fucking chair and it's the greatest thing on Earth.

[–]jhc1415 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The problem with that is that once those people see they are on the list, they will stop using them and go to a different account.

[–]Borax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reddit is getting much better at preventing ban evasion, if they break the rules on two accounts they might find it hard to evade the shadowbanhammer

[–]bacondev1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They already do this.

[–]Meepster23 35 points36 points  (1 child)

90% of the time you can look at the description on YouTube or the like and it will say something about contacting some company for licensing info.

[–]Squibsie[M] 25 points26 points  (4 children)

Especially when us /r/videos mods start our own Video Licensing firm and use the money to further censor the people and buy lamborghinis and books.

Is joke. Why you have to cry?

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (5 children)

Unfortunately it's going to hurt a few content owners (especially the "one shot wonder" uploaders who prematurely licence content) until the word gets out. But c'est la vie. We believe that short term loss is the lesser of two evils in this situation.

[–]cocononos 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I got suckered into joining a multi channel network. So glad I cancelled with them and finally got released. Aside that it was a complete waste they did nothing to help me, just took portion of my money. I better go through all my videos and remove all their info. The only drawback is at least it kept the others off my back. These companies are buzzards, I'm sick of them contacting me!!

[–]Sorkijan 5 points6 points  (9 children)

I can't wait for the shitshow this starts when admins undoubtedly step in because of the almighty dollar.

Companies try to leverage legal action against reddit, reddit admins are forced to make mods comply.

Hold my popcorn I'm going in.

Edit: I have no doubt that the right decision was made, and I'm sure it was not a decision made rashly at all. I in no way meant this as an attack on reddit's principles necessarily (especially the /r/videos mod team). But we have seen similar things happen in the past - granted some of it is speculative.

I just would not be surprised if these particular companies tried to make life a little harder for reddit in general. How far will it go? Time will only tell.

Downvote me if you wish but the mod themselves said I had valid concerns.

[–]Squibsie 4 points5 points  (1 child)

We haven't targeted any particular companies, as this could give grounds for all types of things like Libel etc. However, this is a website, and the admins have always maintained a hands off approach in allowing us to run the subreddits how you like (until you do a silly april fools joke).

I don't think the admins will have any interest in this, the site does not benefit from these firms, and they literally just abuse the site for views. There's strong evidence to suggest gaming of the site and community as well. We want to provide the most level playing field as possible for all types of content creators to get good content to a wide audience. I can't speak for the whole mod team, but I know I want to prevent it being monopolised by these agencies.

[–]NB_FF 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey aren't you that guy from the thing?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

These are valid concerns Sorkijan. There is a reason we did not accuse specific companies in a list. We do have evidence to support our other claims regarding a high ratio of "gaming" from these sorts of entities however. This wasn't an overnight decision without some groundwork prep.

I think Reddit would be up for a challenge, should someone kick up a fuss about this. I also think you'll find most of these companies are violating various TOS of youtube etc in the first place, (ie, spamming comments on vids to advertise their services) so they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.

[–]Sorkijan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I also think you'll find most of these companies are violating various TOS of youtube etc in the first place, (ie, spamming comments on vids to advertise their services) so they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Oh I have no doubt that the right decision was made, and I'm sure it was not a decision made rashly at all. I in no way meant this as an attack on reddit's principles necessarily (especially the /r/videos mod team). But we have seen similar things happen in the past - granted some of it is speculative.

I just would not be surprised if these particular companies tried to make life a little harder for reddit in general. How far will it go? Time will only tell.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I just would not be surprised if these particular companies tried to make life a little harder for reddit in general.

Bring it.

[–]Meepster23 4 points5 points  (1 child)

And what legal grounds do they have exactly? "Boohoo that privately run website that we violated the TOS multiple times on stopped us posting our content".. That'll go over real well with a judge..

[–]Atheist101 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Reddit Revolt Rebooted or RRR for short?

[–]MageeDisease 70 points71 points  (38 children)

JukinMedia and Break contacted me through YouTube to have one of my videos licensed and I told them to go fuck themselves.

[–]keozen 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I go to concert

[–]Brian2one0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How much did they pay you?

[–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator[M] 41 points42 points  (1 child)

Not making any specifics as to if they were the main reason this rule went out or not but.... good for you!

[–][deleted]  (28 children)


    [–]MageeDisease 41 points42 points  (11 children)

    [–]PingPing88 14 points15 points  (9 children)

    I got a few offers with a few different companies for mine. Break offered me $50 but a family friend owned the ebola plane cough video and had success with Jukin media so I decided to go with them. My video hasn't made it anywhere on or off of YouTube and I haven't heard anything from Jukin. I should've taken the $50 from break.com.

    [–]gekkepoes01 5 points6 points  (4 children)

    You should check if they copy your video, and sew them If they did. Most of time If their bot places a response like that it already has been ripped.

    [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (1 child)

    I think you're looking for the word "sue"

    [–]PingPing88 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    There was communication back and forth with Jukin. You can find the video on their website and I allowed them to have it.

    [–]crschmidt 8 points9 points  (9 children)

    I should get around to writing up all the offers I got. Other people in YouTube asked me about them too. (I got Break, Storyful, Newsflare, and a few others; I ended up going with Newsflare, who have been effective at doing exactly what I wanted them to do: Handle paperwork so I don't have to, pay me quickly, and not bothering anyone else with my video.)

    [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (5 children)

    We busted newsflare running a rather massive spam ring on Reddit. Their content has been banned here for some time before this announcement. They (or an affiliate) even tried socially engineering us via modmail to unban various channels / alt accounts.

    [–]crschmidt 21 points22 points  (3 children)

    So, the problem I have as a creator is "How am I supposed to know this?"

    I did a ton of research on various licensing agencies who contacted me, and others that didn't. Newsflare did what I wanted, and didn't do stuff I didn't want (at least, to the best of my knowledge); and no research I could find at the time seemed to point to this being a bad choice.

    And this is why I argue for more aggressive naming and shaming -- so people like me, who usually know what they're doing, but apparently screwed up in this case -- can find out what not to do.

    (It's also possible that my searches just weren't sufficient; I don't usually chill here on /r/videos, I only got dragged in because someone mentioned my name recently.)

    edit: Heh, searching now, I see that a reddit post I replied to is the top rated post for "newsflare reviews", so basically, it's entirely possible that I am part of the problem; I'd be happy to be part of the solution, but I can only act on what I know.

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Honestly I'm yet to find a company that hasn't engaged in this to some degree. So the general 'heads up' sticky seems appropriate at the moment. We can't speak for their conduct elsewhere.

    [–][deleted]  (82 children)


      [–]crschmidt 280 points281 points  (56 children)

      This isn't why this is happening.

      Previously, when you watched from an embed, when you clicked the "Watch on YouTube" link, it would not include the timestamp, if you were following the link within the first or last 10 seconds of the video.

      This link also affected the "Copy URL (at current time)" debug menu icon, and some users were confused by the fact that they copied at current time at 15 seconds into a 20 second video, and it didn't actually include the current time.

      So we changed the code, but the code was used in both places, and people didn't really notice.

      So this trend is almost 100% because YouTube changed some code, trying to make a particular behavior less confusing, and in the process, many people who just grab a link and post it without looking at what they're posting will now get a link that links to the last few seconds of the video, when before that wouldn't have happened.

      There is nothing I can think of in YouTube's ranking algorithms that prefers this type of traffic. (There might have been, at one point, long ago, but there isn't anything now.) So I am 99% sure this is just our bug, and nothing else, especially if it started about 3-4 weeks ago.

      [–][deleted] 185 points186 points  (0 children)

      Of note for anyone scrolling, this guy works at youtube.

      [–]Meepster23 22 points23 points  (52 children)

      Wait, you said we as in you work at YouTube? If that's the case, we need to talk to you!

      [–]crschmidt 79 points80 points  (51 children)

      Yes, I work at YouTube, but you probably don't want to talk to me unless your video is buffering.

      [–]Polite_Insults 22 points23 points  (39 children)

      So your whole thing is buffering videos? Why does a video buffer? How do you fix it?

      [–]crschmidt 91 points92 points  (38 children)

      I work within the YouTube Quality of Experience team. I help manage the operational components of our aggregated user experience data -- so I take information about what users are experiencing buffering, and I figure out why, and I try to inform the right teams responsible for fixing it.

      This means that I work with:

      • The teams that manage our global traffic management solution (which traffic goes where for loading videos)
      • The teams that manage our fleet of caching nodes around the world.
      • The teams that write the software that runs on those caching nodes hosted around the world.
      • The teams that manage our client applications (Android, iOS, Desktop, TV)

      Things that I might do on any given day:

      • Identify and correct problems with network configurations for a given caching node.
      • Share data about current ISP performance with teams who work with ISPs to improve their capacity and delivery.
      • Write code to breakdown errors reported by clients to help find and fix bugs in specific client behavior.
      • Respond to alerts about high rates of errors for a particular platform by speaking to the relevant team to identify root cause and report bugs upstream.

      I also sometimes get deeply involved in reddit threads talking about how the internet works -- https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/3ijlpd/apparently_youtube_gaming_is_slowing_f_regular/cuh49nw , which is probably another insight to some of how the job we have to do is hard.

      [–]BeefJerkyJerk 16 points17 points  (21 children)

      Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain stuff to us common folk though! I don't know if you're paid to do this, but you taking the time to explain something that you don't really have to is pretty cool in my book.

      [–]crschmidt 26 points27 points  (20 children)

      Yeah, I was never asked to interact with users on reddit; in fact, Google makes it kind of explicit that if you do this, you're a little bit on your own. But I've been doing it with enough success for the last year that I'm happy to do it, even though I sometimes end up looking like a tool, and sometimes end up looking like a fool. :)

      [–]KarmaticOne 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      Damn, Eric Schmidt has really tumbled down the corporate ladder over there at Google.

      [–]crschmidt 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      Yeah, and he changed his name to start with a "C"!

      [–]Khrrck 2 points3 points  (6 children)

      What's the correct pathway to make bug reports about the Android Youtube app? Mine gets locked into buffering every 24 hours or so and the only cure is restarting - clearing cache, killing the app, etc won't fix it.

      [–]crschmidt 6 points7 points  (5 children)

      Out of curiousity, are you on a motox?

      Anyway, /r/youtube has a good sticky.

      [–]Khrrck 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      Yes, it's Moto X! It's a known issue? :D

      This guy.

      Thanks for the link too.

      [–]crschmidt 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      We recently identified a problem with the Moto-X, unfortuantely dating back to July. There is no short term fix available, and we haven't even figured out what the cause is yet :( But we're working on it. If I can use your help, I'll let you know.

      (Sorry for the late reply, I got flooded for a while at work and only wandered back to this thread because the parent comment got gold.)

      [–]Namlocnz 1 point2 points 2 (2 children)

      this job sounds like it pays bank and yet u give this mofo gold

      [–]jpallan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Sir, I thank you. Both my husband and I laughed so hard when reading this that we both were inclined to gift you gold, and /u/crschmidt never really gilds anyone.

      [–]crschmidt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      and jpallan gilds everyone, so for the most part, we make up for each other. :p

      [–]donuts42 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Why can we not disable dash playback and have 1080p and or 60 fps?

      [–]crschmidt 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      Because storing all the videos in the world is a big enough job when you only have to do it once.

      DASH playback is, generally speaking, good for users. (There is a specific flaw with our implementation for users with low bandwidth -- that you can't pause to buffer -- but overall, it's a huge net win.) The ability to adapt to changing bandwidth conditions is key to being able to successfully watch YouTube for the vast majority of users.

      So, with that being the case, we definitely want DASH. But our non-DASH transcodes would be a completely separate copy -- we'd have to store every video more times than we already do, and for a vanishingly small portion of users: the number of users who would actually end up watching 1080p60 progressive transcodes would be ~nil, because the overlap between non-DASH playback and 60fps capable devices basically doesn't exist.

      So you're talking about 10s of millions of dollars that would be spent every year -- growing at an increasing rate, given the upload rate of 400 hours of video minute -- for something that almost nobody would use.

      It's pretty much all cost, no benefit; I can't imagine why we would want to do such a thing.

      [–]Meepster23 12 points13 points  (0 children)

      I believe YouTube doesn't actually count those as views (if it does, some QA should be fired), but in any case please discuss it here. The more support the merrier, and I'll be sure to bring it up in the backroom and see if we can't get something moving on that. It's been a bit slow with classes starting back up for some and jobs seemingly all kicking into over drive at the same time, but we aren't ignoring it I promise!

      [–]I_Burned_The_Lasagna 15 points16 points  (6 children)

      Damn, is that what's going on? I've been seeing this a lot lately but I just assumed the OP's who linked to the end of their videos were just incompetent.

      [–]Plorntus 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      This actually sounds more like a failure of youtubes system if it allows something like this through. Should count as a percentage of the video viewed rather than if they watched it through to the end.

      [–]floodster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      It absolutely is, but people that do that shouldn't be allowed to link like that when posting here imho.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I wish I could punch you in the head.

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator 1 point2 points  (13 children)

      I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, could you explain? This sounds interesting.

      [–]zerbey 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Thank you, I'm getting sick of seeing JukinMedia's name all over the front page.

      [–]olivicmic 26 points27 points  (2 children)

      This is great. Other subs should crack down on shills. /r/news would fall apart.

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      If you really wanted to break news, make a rule where you cant point out the race of the criminal and victim in the title of article

      [–]BadboyBandito 38 points39 points  (19 children)

      Let the shilling begin.

      Top shill talking points (so far):

      • This will bring down the quality of the subreddit, as all the best videos get licensed
      • This is unfair on content creators, as they deserve to get paid for their videos
      • Nah uh, shilling never happens! It's just other redditors posting and upvoting these licensed videos
      • I made $200 from a video, therefore third party entities are good for everyone

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator[M] 26 points27 points  (16 children)

      I know you are being sarcastic/satirical, but I'll answer some of these points in case anyone actually thinks this.

      1. While this is currently true, we are hoping to bring people's attention to these shady companies and hopefully stop supporting them! At first a lot of videos will get pulled, but after the word gets out, more and more people will stop using them.

      2. Content creators are still more than welcome to sell the rights of their videos to anyone privately such as news stations and such, they just can't use these companies to do the hard work for them, in the end if you put in the work, you'll be able to get MORE out of your videos! Plus you can still make good money off of ads.

      3. We have confessions and other conclusive evidence that proves at least 2 of these companies have been using either bots or other people to upvote content that they want upvoted, and downvoting other content.

      4. Easy money is nice, I know, but its not healthy to the reddit community.

      [–]BadboyBandito 9 points10 points  (3 children)

      Well said. I'm glad you made this because I did think about writing a list refuting the shill talking points but it's way easier to just be snarky.

      [–]life-form_42 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      You know, there's always a market for snarkiness. Why don't you license your snark to me and I'll help you make some money?

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Seems legit

      [–]BadboyBandito 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Ok but I can't accept anything less than reddit silver.

      [–]crschmidt 5 points6 points  (6 children)

      Your point about shadiness is somewhat obviated by the fact that the shadiness isn't being addressed directly? That is, I think there are shady licensing companies -- I'm pretty sure that you could scroll through this thread to find a list of them -- but they're not actually all shady: there are companies out there that license content in a reasonable way, but the policy and information available doesn't distinguish, because you're being (understandably) quiet about which companies are doing what.

      (Unfortunately, since I work for YouTube, saying "I think these <n> licensing agencies are shady and I would like to see them DIAF" is probably even more problematic than it would be for mods of this subreddit ;))

      For #2: I think that you're probably wrong on this one for at least some types of content. Content aggregators have experience in licensing content that I will never have: they can do things I could never do. Most of my licensed sales aren't to news outlets and so on -- the ongoing money comes from TV production companies that use these aggregators as stock video sources for their productions. 2/3rds of the revenue I have gotten has come from this type of usage -- and even almost a year later, the money keeps rolling in (another $600 sale this month, after revenue split). Most of the news stations don't want to pay anything; the big ones do (ABC Nightly News paid $800 for the 14 second clip they used), but the little ones just beg for free. Having someone experienced in negotiating these deals, and to whom people turn for stock video content, are both super useful things.

      The allegations in #3 are strong, and suck, and are consistent with what I would expect from some of these operators. I wish that more public naming and shaming would happen so people would stop licensing to the shitty aggregators.

      That said, easy money is nice. But a moderator should go and delete https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2ipky0/hawk_attacks_quadcopter/ now.

      [–]BadboyBandito 5 points6 points  (3 children)

      Fair use doctrine dictates that news stations don't actually need to license your video or pay you at all brah.

      Also your argument is basically, "I made money". You're thinking of you, when this is about the /r/videos community. The community will be better off now we've gone back to content creators gaming the reddit system rather than these horrible entities doing it for them.

      [–]crschmidt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Oh, I'm not saying it's good or bad for /r/videos (I'll acknowledge it's bad.) The comment that OBLIVIATOR made was "in the end if you put in the work, you'll be able to get MORE out of your videos". I'm not convinced of that; if your goal is "maximize revenue", I think that giving content to a licensing organization is a reasonable way to do that. (Pretending that YouTube ads pay well is just silly.) Sorry, this is my picky personality come out; I let my desire to argue a specific point overwhelm the context in which it's being made, and I apologize.

      I totally understand (and support) the decision to not allow content like this on the subreddit; I totally trust that it's being done for the good of the community.

      I was going to reply to your fair use comment, but I realized in hindsight that doing so would be making the same mistake twice; feel free to PM me if you're interested on the court cases on which I base my opinion on these things and how they apply, but I'll shut up otherwise :)

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      Funnily enough, these (satirical) talking points were all discussed among the team, as valid concerns / user viewpoints.

      [–]Mutt12239 7 points8 points  (17 children)

      Imagine I'm a bumbling incompetent of monumental proportions and I want to share my favorite Spice Girls video that I found on youtube. How will I know which ones break the new rule and which ones don't?

      [–]Meepster23 9 points10 points  (16 children)

      90% of the time you can look at the description on YouTube or the like and it will say something about contacting some company for licensing info. The other 10% is normal spam, or channels that are owned by those licensing companies. We might publish that list of channels, but we are a little hesitant because that lets them know which channels we know about and remove.

      [–]Mutt12239 1 point2 points  (7 children)

      Ah, thanks!

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator[M] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

      To confirm, the description or annotation in the video will probably say something like: "For licencing or ____ please contact insert shitty scam company here at shittyscamcompany@gmail.com"

      or something to that effect.

      [–]Pesceman3 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      But can you really expect the average user to know and do this?

      [–]Meepster23 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      It's no different than running into any of our currently banned YouTube channels. And this rule you can actually check yourself, we don't publish the banned channels list.

      [–]Boxxi 15 points16 points  (1 child)

      Prepare for the agency upvote bots to be pretty pissed about this and switch over to downvote mode on/in this thread.

      [–]dancing_raptor_jesus 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      This should be stickied, otherwise it's gonna disappear faster than a video protected by a 3rd party licensing agency.

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Done :)

      [–]MechaStewart 3 points4 points  (6 children)

      So what if you post your own original video hoping people may like it enough to share and watch it, that when the licencing people offer to represent it, would those videos be removed after the fact? Assume it's because you should use adsense instead of giving up the licence?

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

      Yes, they would be removed once the description is updated. We very much wish these companies weren't playing silly games, because ultimately helping creators access more revenue streams would be a good thing.

      In the meantime, on youtube their own ads would be your best bet.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      While I am all for levelling the playing field, the one thing licensing companies THEORETICALLY do is obtain licensing fees from websites and television shows that reupload/use your video instead of embedding your monetized YouTube video. It is really hard to negotiate fair deals with these websites and most creators do not know they should be charging hundreds to thousands of dollars for such licenses and should not simply say, "yeah, sure, use my video DailyMail!". This is in no way me defending said viral media agencies, but know that they theoretically can increase or facilitate revenue collection for creators not available on YouTube alone or if a creator does not want to negotiate licensing fees themselves. They also upload your video to Content ID, so scammers who reupload your video and monetize it, if Content ID detects it, you gain the revenue instead of needing to do manual copyright takedowns.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Yes, in theory it's great for content creators. Most of us wish these companies didn't collectively earn this ban through dodgy practices, because on paper everyone wins from the business model.

      [–]Marinealver 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      Dear YouTube, Please ban all vines! The automatic content ID match should be able to grab those Vinespam channels that show up in everyone's recommendations. It is obvious there is some manipulation of the recommended video code these channels are using.

      [–]MrPennywhistleSmarterEveryDay 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      While you're at it ban facebook video. 99% of them are stolen.

      [–]WoodzEX 10 points11 points  (21 children)

      Everyone is talking about it being unfair for one side or the other. I'm just afraid that it will result in a big decrease in new content.

      [–]awxvn 4 points5 points  (13 children)

      I don't like this change but if I speak up then I'll just be shouted down for being a "shill" and the mod team seems dead set on carrying it through, so what's even the point of disagreeing? Well, I'll share my opinion anyway.

      Speaking from the perspective of someone who likes watching random videos on this subreddit, I've seen a lot of random amusing home videos that are licensed that I would never have encountered otherwise. A lot of licensed videos are these types of home videos, most don't get popular and they seem to be bought pretty randomly.

      A quick example would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L2X8VzWwYs (from another thread), which can not be posted here since it's licensed. Is it "quality content"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it something that people might be amused to see? Probably, the .gif of this was pretty popular.

      I can't speak for vote manipulation and other shenanigans since that's a mod team issue, but as someone who just wants to discover some interesting/amusing videos, I see this as only limiting the content that will show up here.

      [–]Meepster23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      It's not that we have any inherent issue with "licensed" content, it's just been the repeated behavior of the companies that are doing it. Not a single licensing company hasn't been caught attempting to game /r/videos at one point or another and we've finally just had to say, enough is enough.

      It would be awesome if these companies didn't behave this way and gave content creators a real good, and safe avenue to monetize their content. But we've been proven too optimistic too many times now unfortunately.

      [–]cpavlovski 6 points7 points  (8 children)

      Hi everyone,

      I'm the founder of Rumble, a video platform that helps democratize distribution and monetization for social video creators. Rumble has never participated in vote manipulation or any sort of Reddit tactics. In fact, one of our creators videos was #2 on Reddit for the first time this weekend (directly linking to Rumble.com because it was uploaded to Rumble before YouTube). We represent over 15,000 creators and over 80,000 viral and social videos. We share 90% of YouTube revenue with our creators even when its displayed on our own channels (according to comments, other companies aren't doing this, which is sad).

      In all honesty, I feel offended that Rumble and other good companies are going to be affected by this decision because of a few bad apples. It's disheartening and simply discriminatory to companies that are legitimate.

      I have a few questions for Reddit:

      1. Why are you assuming all companies participate in vote fraud? Maybe its the creator?
      2. What would you like to see rights management companies do differently?
      3. Why is it a blanket approach to ban ALL 3rd parties? This is simply wrong and goes against the fabric of everything I believe in. It's completely discriminatory.

      Everyone hears about the bad stories and it seems like everyone has made up their minds, which is unfortunate. I'm not going to sit here and give you examples of how we make creators lives better, but if you actually care, you can talk to our community here: https://rumble.com/community/

      As a business, we don't rely on Reddit much (aside from research and discovery), so the impact will be minimal on us. But I have a duty to protect our creators and stand up for whats right and wrong. This move is simply wrong to ban all 3rd party companies (which includes every MCN and video rights management company on the planet).

      That's my 2 cents.

      [–]Meepster23 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      Why are you assuming all companies participate in vote fraud? Maybe its the creator?

      We made the decision based on the licensing companies we knew about and had seen on /r/videos. It's looking like perhaps we should have done some research into other licensing companies that we hadn't seen, but it was a big enough problem and on going for long enough that we needed to do something. We are currently discussing a "whitelist" so to speak, of licensing companies that we don't believe are engaging in any sort of manipulation and haven't caused us issues.

      Addressing your first question a little more directly as to the why it's the companies, well for several reasons. The biggest tip off is that it's not the original creators channel that's being spammed. It's one of the many channels that are run by some of these companies that it's being posted from. Then there's the cases of a direct bribery attempt, and employees directly trying to social engineer us.

      What would you like to see rights management companies do differently?

      Be more upfront about who is operating on Reddit and how. We have way to many accounts message us asking why a video from one of these spam channels associated with a licensing company doesn't show up, and when we ask about their association with the company, we get crickets and the account is either deleted or never posts again.

      Why is it a blanket approach to ban ALL 3rd parties?

      Honestly, because we hadn't had any interactions with 3rd party companies that weren't gaming Reddit. I hadn't heard of Rumble before reading your comment honestly. We may need to re-evaluate who is banned as there seem to be more companies out there than we may have initially realized and weren't taking them into consideration as much as we maybe should have.

      There's currently a post in /r/videos_discussion that the people from Storyful posted about this announcement and linked to for comments on their twitter to get some responses hopefully. I haven't checked it out for a bit, so I'm not sure what's going on there at the moment, but we are okay with you heading over there and having a discussion in that post as well. Feel free to tweet out the link if you like as well, since it's the discussion sub and we want a discussion, we are okay with tweets this time!

      [–]Frank4010 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      Please don't make a white list for these people. These is beyond voter manipulation, this is also about promising people decent money from their videos and giving them pennies or nothing in return.

      [–]azdesign 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      As someone who has used Rumble, I haven't had a single problem.

      [–]Frank4010 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      "We share 90% of YouTube revenue with our creators even when its displayed on our own channels"

      Making a statement like that on a public forum like Reddit can get you in trouble if you get a lawsuit. All it takes is a Subpoena to your Adsense account to find out if this is true or not.

      [–]cpavlovski 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      This is not a problem for us. We are completely transparent and our terms are publicly available here: https://rumble.com/s/terms.html

      We have nothing to hide.

      [–]amphetaminesfailure 9 points10 points  (23 children)

      Personally, I disagree with this ban.

      It should be left up to the users here to decide if they want to support a third party licensed video.

      If enough people have a problem with them, then they can downvote them, regardless of whether they actually enjoyed the content.

      If you're against the practice, don't support the video.

      If other's are supporting it, explain why they shouldn't in the comments. Spread your views on it.

      Eventually, if the idea of licensed videos being posted here is disliked by enough people, and they stop reaching the front page of the sub, then companies will stop posting them here and focus on other media outlets.

      However, if enough of the subscribers here don't care....then that's that. You may not approve, but the majority of others do.

      Obviously every sub needs certain rules and guidelines enforced by moderators, but I see this as overstepping.

      The users should be given as much power as possible over what is and isn't seen.

      Leave it up to them to decide if they want licensed videos at the top of this sub.

      [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children)

      If enough people have a problem with them, then they can downvote them, regardless of whether they actually enjoyed the content.

      This doesn't work when fake accounts are being used to upvote / resubmit content again and again.

      I get your points, but you don't see behind the scenes. Another mod here has said

      We literally had one company pose as an OP soliciting votes, had another employee report it to get it removed, and then tried to bribe us to unban their licensing after we caught them, all because an OP wouldn't sell the rights to the video to them..

      [–]amphetaminesfailure 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Well, I just mentioned in a response to him that there should be a distinction.

      If a specific agency is gaming the sub in a way, then you should take action. If a 3rd party licensed video is simply being posted here and you have no evidence that there is any manipulation, it should be allowed.

      Edit: You're right though, I don't see behind the scenes, so I admit I could be completely wrong here and this decision is appropriate.

      From an outside perspective though, I feel differently.

      [–]MstrPoptart 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Bottom line: 3rd party licensing agencies have been using vote manipulation and other deceptive tactics to gain an unfair advantage over other original content creators in /r/videos and we plan to put an end to it.

      With 2 "TL:DR's" and 3 bolded statements, you'd think one of them would have been this, actualy informitive line.

      [–]Mentioned_VideosApproved Bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Videos in this thread:

      Watch Playlist ▶

      Alrighty then 5 - help shape the future of what Reddit does with video Reddit hires someone to direct future video management and this is how the mods of /r/videos find out about it? Alllllllllllrighty then. Whelp, interested to see what the future holds. For this...
      Longboard Wipeout 2 - I sold this video to Jukin for $100 Easiest money I've ever made.
      Chocolate Fountain DISASTER 2 - I don't like this change but if I speak up then I'll just be shouted down for being a "shill" and the mod team seems dead set on carrying it through, so what's even the point of disagreeing? Well, I'l...
      HEREINMYGARAGE.mwv 2 - For those who are missing the reference.
      (1) Gato malo (2) Kicked in the head by a train (3) Dogs don't understand our language my ass! 2 - I'm not sure I understand. A person with a youtube account can sign up for an adsense account (to make money from ads) and place those ads on their videos at any time. This is what a vast majority of people do. There are more people doing th...
      Rick Astley Never gonna give you up lyrics!!! 1 - Here is some actual proof for anyone curious
      Lego Star Wars : Storm Trippin' 2 - A New Home 1 - please tell me your ideal about
      151108 Running Man Got7 JB B Boy Dance Cut1 0 -
      Cheese 0 - Then you have to watch this!!!
      Don't Fight Wth Him Who Want To Save You 0 - I always wondered if this was happening.
      THE LOFT Trailer Thriller 2015 THE LOFT Trailer Thriller 0 -

      I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

      Info | Chrome Extension

      [–]GuruMeditationError 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      A lot of short funny one day hits are licensed by the time people see them. This should be an interesting experiment...

      [–]SylvainLacoste 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Do these "agencies" even do anything, or are they only trying to claim people's videos lol

      [–]cocononos 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      Thank you!!!! I totally support this and am so happy to see that you guys noticed it.

      I have 2 channels. I'm independent. I love creating content, and I get to use the proceeds for the animal rescue group I volunteer with.

      The thing that sucks is that I use Reddit, I follow the rules, I participate, I support others. Yet it's the guys manipulating the system and stealing our content that get more credit than We do. They repost under fake accounts. I've seen my own content reach the front page by someone else. These places are starting to get like sharks. We are in the water holding onto our content and they are circling around us!

      My videos have been ripped and used by huge websites in their native players and compilations without my permission. Yahoo, HuffPost are some of the worst.

      Small content creators are being taken advantage of and stolen from left and right. The minute I load a video to YouTube I'm contacted by all these companies, new ones every day . It's gotten overwhelming and the greed is taking the fun out of it.

      I just enjoy the process. Me and my other friends view it as more of a creative thing, it's not about the money. But it pisses me off that others are making money off us. That's so unfair.

      Thanks r/videos for having our back!!!

      Side note: won't they just manipulate the system again by putting up the video before claiming it?

      [–]SomethingIntangible 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      We've discussed the eventuality that a user finds their content on reddit, stolen under a different youtube account, and there is actually a good plan of attack.

      If the video you created has been uploaded to a different youtube channel, you can contact youtube to get it removed under your copyright. If you contact us we can make sure to put "video deleted - original in comments" as a flair. Your videos popularity on reddit is still somewhat intact and some views (or the money you deserve) will come your way.

      [–]bmaya 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      how do i see if it is licenced by third parties? Does it show on the video page?

      [–]interestingAnything 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Very nice. Thanks for doing this.

      [–]spearcarrier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      First I've heard of this. Not surprising. Glad something's being done about it.

      [–]KarmaCatalyst 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      So happy to see this here. Junkin Media is one of those companies and approached me in 2009. They then tried to remove the original video from my channel claiming that they owned it and it took a very serious threat of a class action lawsuit to get them to backdown. These companies are leaches preying on people who aren't familiar with the "internet fame". Thanks for going into such great detail!

      [–]redstrawberrypie 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I have to wonder why people sell the rights to their video. They no longer have any say in how it gets used, where it gets published, and so on. And the third party can just take down the video whenever they feel like it.

      [–]micajoeh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I was actually approached by a licensing agency today. I sent them four words in a twitter message. "Fuck off you parasites"

      [–]CmdOptEsc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I applaud your efforts here to make the Internet a better place!

      [–]elpelotas 1 point2 points  (0 children)


      [–]Frank4010 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      These people got caught gaming the system using vote manipulation and other deceptive tactics to gain an unfair advantage over other original content creators who does not care for licensing to third-parties. This is not made up bullshit, this is factual. r/videos should be organic with real votes. Here is one thing to keep in mind, third-party licensing agencies need Reddit, Reddit DOES NOT NEED third-party licensing agencies. Thanks Reddit for making this happen.

      [–]yerffej 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Can you ban click bait titles too? Feels like I'm browsing buzzfeed or upworthy sometimes.

      [–]simoxlolo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      You're going to have to go look at the specific video and make sure it's not licensed or "available for licensing" by a third party before you post it.

      [–]maxbrokk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      you should also add this scam youtube network QuizGroup and "network videos" they abuse the content ID system to make false claims of ownership of videos they dont own.

      cause i see they use the same tactics as the 3rd party licensing agencies that reddit banned

      to check if the video belongs to a network just right click then click "view page source" and scroll down to see name=attribution content=whatever network the video is from

      [–]HelenaGomez 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Good Step

      [–]Dr_Coathanger 5 points6 points  (6 children)

      So, question. Once I posted a video and then later was contacted by a couple of companies. I wound up licensing with Break and they had me put the licensing info in the description. If this happened again, would the post get pulled after the fact? I mean, if someone offers me money for a video that I posted, I shouldn't be punished for taking it, should I?

      [–]Meepster23 9 points10 points  (4 children)

      Yes the video would be removed. This isn't trying to punish you in any way, and it's unfortunate that we even have to do this in the first place, but the licensing companies have been repeatedly trying to manipulate /r/videos, and the only way we see to keep things fair is to remove them all and try and nip it in the bud.

      [–]Dr_Coathanger 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      It seems like this might be hard to police. But, I guess it'll be a question of what's worth more, karma or dollars.

      [–]Meepster23 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      It won't be easy, but we have stuff in place that we are hoping will make our lives easier, and more than one of us (myself included) are software developers / programmers of some sort, so bots will probably end up duking it out.

      [–]Frank4010 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      This is the best move from r/videos that I have seen in my 5 years here on Reddit.

      These companies have created many 'shadow' Youtube channels generating money and not sharing them with the original creators. When an original creator finds out about it, these companies claim that all they are doing is "promoting your video".

      One of the worst of them is Jukin video, in addition to the many Youtube channels they have, they are also uploading to their Facebook page (1.8 million subscribers) the original content further diluting the value of the videos.

      YouTube should put a stop to this practice, this is just plain fraud, people are signing away the rights to their videos with the promise of making decent money which they rarely see. Youtube has the power to stop this as they consider these companies 'YouTube Partners".

      [–]herpberp 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Thank you /u/videos_mod for creating a better community.

      [–]spgreenwood 2 points3 points  (25 children)

      I think you all have the right intentions and I'm interested to see what effect this has.

      I'm one of the guys that was brought on as an admin to help shape the future of what Reddit does with video – I think long-term, the whole 3rd party rights-licensing thing is something I'm interested in helping evolve. I'd really like us to think about how we can extend the resources of Reddit (the company) to help protect and represent our users and the people that gain popularity through communities like this one, so that firms like this have less ability to interfere with the nature of why this community was created in the first place.

      Let's keep this conversation going!

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      help shape the future of what Reddit does with video

      Reddit hires someone to direct future video management and this is how the mods of /r/videos find out about it? Alllllllllllrighty then.

      Whelp, interested to see what the future holds. For this sub in particular. Some of the new mod features have already vastly helped (like modmail muting).

      [–]spgreenwood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Thanks for phrasing it that way. I now realize I should've reached out to you all sooner – I think we were focused on getting organized internally and didn't want to impose on r/videos. In any case, look forward to getting to know you.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      ban commercials

      [–]jorsiem 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I don't get it, these companies pay the content creators for the rights of a video, then profit off that video (the video that they invested in).. what's wrong about that?

      [–]Daviddentist 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      I am happy to see Reddit taking a stand against these companies. This proves my suspicions.

      I have had many content owners reach out to me asking for my advice on these companies. The promises sound great but, I have warned them to be careful and to limit what rights they give to them. Unfortunately, it has been too late for some and they are stuck in a contract they badly want to get out of.

      The truth is, these content owners don't need help after the fact to help their content go viral! If any media wants to use it, they will be able to find you very easily. If I can handle negotiating, then anyone can.

      Its not a perfect system there are issues, freebooting, copyright infringement etc but I am confident this will get sorted out as this becomes more and more common.

      [–]SomethingIntangible 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Not reddit, just /r/videos. We aren't employed by reddit or anything.

      Question; are you the actual guy from David after dentist? If so, did you deal with all the business of your video going viral by yourself? If so, what did it entail and how many times did you have to serve copyright notices or threaten legal action?

      [–]Daviddentist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Yes, this is me, David's dad. At first we hired an attorney friend to handle everything but realized that we could just as easily handle it on our own and save the lawyer fees. I did it a few times on my own. A popular company was selling shirts with David's image and I contacted them via email. They took it down and apologized. The truth is, there are some many of them it became overwhelming. its expensive and time consuming to do it. Dont get me wrong, it really ticks me off, but you have to pick your battles. The latest one is the GIFLY app that Facebook uses with messenger. David's GIF is there in several formats but nobody asked permission to use it commercially like that. We have been very liberal with usage for parodies, and even let academics use the data for projects. Its the blatant stealing that makes me mad and has made me rethinking my approach to the whole issue. Its the principle of the thing at this point.

      [–]299314 5 points6 points  (3 children)

      I'm happy that you're using your mod powers to try to do some real good on the internet today. You're still generally a bunch of power tripping bastards who think you're martyrs for doing the thankless work of imposing your own tastes on everyone else for free, but at least you're no sellouts. This is a good step towards improving the quality of content on the internet. Don't let anyone stop you.

      [–]StartSelect 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I thought we all agreed the /r/videos mods were alright?

      [–]Shagro 2 points3 points  (7 children)

      From this day forward any and all videos "rights licenced" by a 3rd party entity are banned from being submitted from this subreddit.

      isn't that going to hurt the quality majorly? Especially new videos. Take Ronnie Pickering, it was initially posted to /r/PublicFreakout and then to here, after it got posted here the description of the video changed to 'rights owned by viralhog' I looked at the original uploaders channel and someone from one of these 3rd party companies had contacted him - he was asking advice on whether to sell the rights for $150 dollars or something. It seems this is pretty much going to hapen to most videos as they start to go viral. If /r/videos removes stuff like this then content will suffer.

      [–]BadboyBandito 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      There is enough content on the internet that isn't owned by these third party entities that it won't be a problem.

      For specific viral videos (like the Ronnie Pickering one) it might mean they can't be posted, but that's a small price to pay to clean up the system.

      [–]Meepster23 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      isn't that going to hurt the quality majorly?

      We don't believe so.

      It seems this is pretty much going to hapen to most videos as they start to go viral.

      Plenty of them aren't licensed, and some are. The people considering it will just have to weight whether they want their video to remain on /r/videos or not.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I think it is more likely that the video owner is unaware of /r/videos or does not care.

      [–]OzzyManReviews 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Fuck yes, Reddit, fuck yes! Jukin Media does in fact game the system. I have 7-8 remix/commentary videos on my channel copyright claimed by them, I made a video about it, one of me subs posted it here and people were definitely interested in the topic in the first hour, decent upvotes, a few great comments on copyright/fair use, but then the video nosedived and so did the Likes on YouTube. Jukin Media either get all the staff to brigade a page or hired a click farm (250 dislikes for 50 bucks type thing on YouTube, the way it all rushed in was unnatural). I think this is a mint stand for reddit to take. Keepin' it real. If I go to watch something on here and it comes up with the "jukin has blocked this video from playing in the website" message I don't even bother clicking onto watch it, I don't even want to give the original uploader any views because they sold out to a company that is too far on the "permissions culture" side of the fence for my liking. Rant over.

      [–]scgustin 4 points5 points  (5 children)

      The best videos get licensed. You're basically banning all good videos. In an attempt to protect the integrity of this subreddit, you're going to lose a lot of quality content. I guess we'll see if it was a good move.

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator 7 points8 points  (4 children)

      Realistically, the best videos get licensed BECAUSE of reddit. If a video gets big on reddit these scamming companies try to grab the rights before anyone else in order to make a couple thousand bucks off of it by licensing it to ad networks and such. Now we are banning them so they will have to go elsewhere to steal their content.

      [–]ANTIVAX_JUGGALETTE 2 points3 points  (10 children)

      Any alternate sub recommendations for these licensed videos?

      [–]BadboyBandito 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      I just invited you to be a mod of /r/shillvideos, a subreddit for all your licensed content.

      [–]OBLIVIATERDefenestrator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Haha thats a great sub.

      [–]Meepster23 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Depends on the video really, although I wouldn't be surprised if other subs start getting flooded with the same issues we were having if they don't ban them as well.

      [–]JesusHRChrist 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      TL/DR /r/videos don't want video creators to make money.

      [–]_Quadro1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Good. I hope more people read this.

      [–]Rydogger 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      Thank you. The last time I uploaded a video to YouTube and posted it on here, I had two people from JukinVideo and HuffPo contact me to use my video. They somehow found my Twitter and followed and DMed @Mentioned me on there.

      Thank you for putting a stop to this

      [–]erpettie 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Did you follow them back? I don't understand how they DM'ed you without you following them.

      [–]Rydogger 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      They just @Mentioned me. I went to their page and looked at their tweets, and it was the same to a bunch of different people. I blocked them right away, didn't want to hear from them again

      [–]erpettie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

      [–]cocononos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      So they are for sure watching. I just posted a really old video of mine that's been up for 5 years and immediately I got 3 solicitations from mcns.

      [–]battlerock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Watch "Lost FOR power" on YouTube https://youtu.be/Cz1xoLgCXZQ

      [–]nicholmikey 2 points3 points  (6 children)

      I love reddit, I have been here for a long time. I made a video and got more views than I was expecting, I was contacted by a media company and fell for their pitch. This was about 1 year ago, I only signed one video with them.

      When you make a video that gets a lot of views you get slammed by messages from companies. Nothing prepares you for it and you don't know what to do when presented with their offer.

      Since I signed a year ago like an idiot my entire channel is banned from this subreddit and it kills me and it's why I have stopped making content. I know i fucked up but I don't know if it's fair that the mods here get to decide that my channel is dead.

      If someone fucks up and signed with a media company is there any way to get unbanned? I have already parted ways with them.

      Tl;Dr made a wireless system to squeak a duck. Media company took my ad revenue, reddit bans all videos from me. Not sure what to do.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

      That's probably not why you got banned, but it may have been the last straw. Your "poor me" story doesn't quite add up.

      12% of your submissions have been to videos, but of those 15% have been to your own channel with 26 submissions (breaching our spam threshold). That's interesting, because your channel only has 14 videos...only 4 of which were made after your "viral" one, at which time you changed your channel name to suit it. The next closest channel you've posted from, had 4 submissions.

      I'm guessing therefore, our bot / mods saw you flooding the sub with repeated posts to your own channel, and appropriately banned it.

      [–]masterwit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Stellar moderation. I absolutely agree.

      As a fan of the subreddit, thank you for all the hard work you all continue to give freely.

      [–]Beamonster 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I've now sold the licences to two of my videos to Storyful and both have gone semi viral. The first went for 199k, the second 115k views. The first one generated more than €500 for me, the second still to be decided as I've not had the first statement yet.

      I'm quite happy with them, they always reply to emails and questions I raise and seem very open. Anyone had a bad experience with them?

      I sold the right to one other vid to Jukinvideo and that was pointless, didn't get me anything.