I don't even know what your point is. We weren't even arguing about "real", because I thought you were going to be reasonable enough to understand what people meant by that.

Yes, I do know that YouTube wouldn't be making as much money as it does if it wasn't for users - that's why I conceded that in my comment.

No, naive is thinking he wouldn't ever run into issues like this when he as no control, or even input, into how YouTube manages his content.

I don't want to get into a semantic argument with you, I just find it funny that you said what Angry Joe does is a "real job" because it's "a paid position of regular employment".

It's not the same. Of course all jobs require you to rely on other people, but that alone doesn't mean it's the same as YouTube. What's important is the extent to which you are reliant on somebody or something else.

No, by definition it is not a real job, because they are not employed.

"Owns them nothing really. Well then Youtube shouldn't use the videos of content creators and fill it with ads for revenue. Such an ignorant comment. You know that youtube receives billions of dollars (50 billion this year) from ads they put on the videos of people like Angry Joe, Pewdiepie, Francis etc and still…

"That assertion is flatly and demonstrably incorrect as Tina notes in the article.
Those skills displayed in these videos can be applied to a host of other careers from video production to copywriting."

Oh, so - unlike people working for huge press companies - Youtube reviewers have no actual skill or intelligence at all, and they get their millions of views and subscribers only out of sheer luck and kind heart of Youtube's owners. Wow, you're pretty high on my Top 10 Dumbest Kotaku Comments list, I'm impressed.

Sounds pretty good, especially all the rattling.

No, they haven't taken anything. People voluntarily put their work on YouTube. They did that because YouTube has a mass of users, giving them easy access to a large audience, and because YouTube introduced the partner program, which allowed them to make money from the videos which they would otherwise be sharing for…

When did they ever take your money? It was a free video hosting service, and people used it, allowing it to stay available through ad revenue. In order to make more money, they incentivised video creation by sharing some of the revenue. They don't owe you anything.

Yes, but it's only because of YouTube that enough people even see his videos.

Harsh but true. These guys started out with a hobby they were doing for fun, and they were lucky enough to be able to earn money from it for a while. Now it's possible that their "doing what they want for a living" situation might be coming to an end. (I'm pretty sure this will be resolved within a few weeks though,…

Of course, everyone on the other side of the argument to you must be a minimum wage worker at McDonald's.

"I never said he had to work for anybody. Why not host his own videos?"

Ok, how many of those millions care enough to follow him back to his own site? The fact of the matter is that he relies on YouTube and the way it is the dominant video site on the web. He needs YouTube, and so he's got to play by YouTube's rules. If he doesn't like YouTube's rules, and can't make it on his own…

The best way to dispute a Content ID claim, it turns out, might be to go to the press. The Analog Reviews review of Tomb Raider got hit with a claim by... Tomb Raider.

Obviously you've come here from the article about game videos being copyright-claimed by the owners of music in the games.

"I'm one of these 'selfish bastards with a lot of money,'" he says.