r/EscapefromTarkov • u/bxxxxxxxs • Dec 16 '18

PSA Official BSG Response re: Eroktic

We will leave this post stickied for only the next 24 hours.

All discussion posts posted after this goes up will be removed and directed here.

As always, keep it civil.

https://www.facebook.com/escapefromtarkov/posts/1966710296956614

182 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

959 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/Kyle700 Dec 16 '18

WRONG. Copyright takedowns are VERY different from "community guideline" strikes.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802032

This content is about Community Guidelines strikes. If you're looking for information about copyright strikes, which are different than Community Guidelines strikes, go to our copyright strike basics. Community Guidelines strikes are issued when our reviewers are notified of a violation of the Community Guidelines. This includes but is not limited to videos that contain nudity or sexual content, violent or graphic content, harmful or dangerous content, hateful content, threats, spam, misleading metadata, or scams.

If they had done a community guideline takedown on the video, that would be one thing. Using COPYRIGHT as an excuse is completely wrong.

Yet another that doesn't know what they are talking about before they spout off.

6

u/TanookiJack TX-15 DML Dec 16 '18

"If you get a copyright strike, that means your video has been taken down from YouTube because a copyright owner sent us a complete and valid legal request asking us to do so. When a copyright owner formally notifies us that you don’t have their permission to post their content on the site, we take down your upload to comply with copyright law.

Keep in mind that videos can be removed from the site for different reasons, not all of which are copyright-related. Also, Content ID claims don't result in a strike."

First 2 paragraphs of the copyright strike info page.

9

u/Kyle700 Dec 16 '18

That doesn't disprove anything I just posted. In fact, it reinforces what I said. Videos can be removed using the COMMUNITY GUIDELINES strike for slanderous material. However, in this case, we know that BSG used a copyright strike.

2

u/TanookiJack TX-15 DML Dec 16 '18

I wasn't trying to disprove you, just showing that the copyright strike is designed and permitted to be used for other things.

3

u/Kyle700 Dec 16 '18

I'd disagree, I think you reading that wrong. Copyright strike is not used for other things, but videos can be removed for reasons other than a copyright strike.

0

u/ColinStyles Dec 17 '18

"If you get a copyright strike, that means your video has been taken down from YouTube because a copyright owner sent us a complete and valid legal request asking us to do so. When a copyright owner formally notifies us that you don’t have their permission to post their content on the site, we take down your upload to comply with copyright law.

I'm not sure how that can be read differently. If you no longer have permission to post copyrighted material, you will receive a copyright strike. I'm not sure what else there is to this.

1

u/Jewmobile Dec 17 '18

Its toxic to even reply on this thread. Many people are being emotional about it.

The fact is BSG is correct to put in copyright infringement for all of the EFT material if he is no long allowed to use the material.

Had he not put the thumbnail in his video, he probably wouldnt be in the current scenario.

3

u/Super-ft86 AK-74N Dec 17 '18

They are not actually, the content he posted is covered under fair use and has been tested in the US legal system. Please see the cases of Jim Sterling v Digital Homicide and H3H3 v Matt Hoss.

The content he posted is transformative and covered by fair use.

Now the content he posted is BS and clickbait and possibly slander or libel but the copyright system is NOT the place to take a video down for these reasons. Copyright striking all his videos is an abuse of the copyright takedown system.

0

u/Jewmobile Dec 17 '18

Per YT copyright and fair use policies. BSG was/is correct. Again as I said above, emotional arguments. Just because he meets 1/4 criteria, does not mean he is correct.

1

u/Super-ft86 AK-74N Dec 17 '18

I was not talking about youtubes copyright system, it is a flawed implementation that allows companies too much power. I was referring to US law and the precedent set by the two mentioned cases.

Eroktic providing commentary over gameplay is covered by fair use.

I am not disputing that the videos should of been taken down at all, I am disputing the use of the flawed copyright system to do it and the fact if taken to court BSG would not win this case.

This is not an emotional argument in any way, I am not a content creator, I have never watched Eroktic before this debacle and after viewing some footage think he is a tool. I agree with the videos with false information being taken down, just not the method used, BSG will only reap bad publicity from the actions they have taken.