Since before Google owned it? Are you an ancient wise man? /s

continue reading the comments on this article. I posted/explained how it works.

I already did, several times in this article as comments. I have two posts that explain how it works, they are just “pending approval” right now.

So they need to get “recommended” so they can be seen.

Thank you for the correction. As it was presented to me in 2013, the ad share was not split among other content Id matches when I joined the program.

what he did doesn’t do anything. he is completely 100% wrong on what he thinks happened.

I had to dig for the Content ID Guide for YouTube since everything is handled through their CMS (for Content ID)

But again, Jim is wrong.

Policy column is the chosen Policy determined by the copyright holder as to what policy to apply once the digital fingerprint of an asset is matched, and the policy is then applied

In…

And I’ve been using YouTube since its inception (yeah before Google purchased it) Doesn’t mean that HE knows everything, and he surely doesn’t have a CONTENT ID account like I do.

He knows jack shcitte about how Content Id works, and his ‘work around” is complete bull hockey pucks. He doesn’t even understand that the…

and your post shows how you don’t understand how ads work with monetization.

and that is not what happened.

Once again, Content ID policy (since its under the “Policy” Column is the POLICY set forth by the copyright owner. They chose not to have the content monetized. That is the policy they put forth.

you need to just stop. you are not speaking from experience, nor do you know how Content ID and Policies set by Copyright owners work, on YouTube. You are spreading misinformation and everything you have posted in reply to Texas is not based on any truthful information.

Uh, no. Fair Use can only be determined in a court of law. YouTube by DMCA law, has to follow up on any complaint or counter claim. They cannot give any claim or counter claim any validity, and leave it up to the parties to “duke it out”, in a legal forum.

NINTENDO has chosen to not monetize that content (which we don’t know what it is). He’s not doing anything to Nintendo.

And no, that’s not how ads / monetization works placed by copyright owners/Content ID. Even if there are 20 content ID claims on one video by 20 different companies/copyright owners, they are ALL…

Uh no, that’s exactly what it means (I have an active Content ID account) . Notice the column says “Policy” - That means the copyright owner of the content, has dictated that the policy for that particular content cannot be monetized by the uploader (it has no bearing on the copyright owners). They are probably using…

Which is not what will happen. The message doesn’t mean the copyright owners can’t monetize it, just means that HE as the uploader can’t monetize it.

His method creates conflicting claims meaning that by default no one gets any money. So the corporations then have to sort out who wants to get money (if anyone), even if they do come up with some agreement such as splitting the money any money they do get is slim to none, probably not even enough money to pay for…

Its not a work around. The message he is getting doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

Uh no, the “cannot be monetized” statement doesn’t mean that it can’t be monetized by the copyright holders, only that the video cannot be monetized by the uploader. The copyright holders have placed it into THEIR policy (on Content ID, which they have to clarify to YouTube when they submit their work) on how to…

and what gets me is that these people who think vaccines cause autism are showing that they rather have their child die from a disease that we have a vaccine for, than to get vaccinated that in their minds, cause a mental disorder/disability. Like having a special needs child is much more distatesful than a dead one.

Th…

No, in California, its specifically not prohibited or allowed

nope. there is no specific law in California allowing lane splitting. its a grey reading of a law that allows motorcycles to switch between lanes when needed. California doesn’t prohibit or allow lane splitting.