MatPat of Game Theory & Film Theory says that his YouTube rep explained the company has a categorization internally for video game accounts, which means they can never be part of the VIP category.

I don't understand why popularity, not the type of content, isn't what makes you VIP?

Any VIP program works on the (perceived) social standing that comes from (perceived) exclusivity. YouTube doesn’t want to alienate the traditional celebrities with ties to big media companies; part of that means stocking the VIP pool with only people that those celebrities consider to be their peers.

It's not that. YouTube is very worried about the copyright position of video game streams (ie. The stream clearly shows the copyrighted artwork of the games, unlicensed).

If they don't review the video, they can use the safe harbor provisions. If they look at the content and decide to promote or reward those creators, Google themselves could become liable for that IP infringement on aassive scale that so far is mostly going unprosecuted.

What a weird system.

In English, please?

A person who uses YouTube heavily, who's content many people here will recognise, has a contact inside Google. This Google representative has reportedly said that the group who are recognised as "VIPs" (Very Important Person) by the company specifically excludes people working in a particular field of content production, namely gaming.

Thanks, I didn't parse "MatPat" as a personal name.

He has a contract with the musician whose songs he incorporated in the video. Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process and maybe indemnity built into that contract, tell the musician to call off the dogs and reimburse him for diverted profits and his time/expenses.

This doesn't sound like an example of YouTube badness, but rather an example of the hazards of working with unreliable business partners. And pay attention to your contracts!

>Would be simpler (and possibly more profitable) to use the dispute-resolution process

For each 1800 videos? The youtuber claims that you have to do it for each video and it takes 1 to 2 minutes each.

Though this case looks more reasonable then the idiotic case where white-noise gets a copyright strike.

It's quite possible that the musician doesn't actually own the rights and was never allowed to license the music in the first place. They may have negotiated some deal (handshake or formal), but musicians normally don't own the publishing rights to their own music; the label does.

I've just listened to the music and it sounds like it's sample-based - in which case there may be a problem if ProleteR didn't clear the samples.

This isn't MumboJumbo's fault in any way. But if there are samples and they're not cleared, there's a legal issue.

That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can.

>That does not - of course - give WC the right to steal 25% of the value of MJ's work just because YT says they can.

This is completely wrong. Youtube can do whatever it wants unless MumboJumbo specifically signed a contract with Youtube to receive guaranteed compensation. The only law Youtube has to follow is the copyright law and it's doing it to the fullest extent possible in this instance.

With his recent tweets it looks like this exactly what has happened!

The recourse is to sue, and if the facts of the case are as they appear to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were punative damages attached.

Yes but he doesn't work for the large media companies that effectively wrote the copyright law. He's merely running a "one man" operation + some support. Destroying these "one man" competitors who can become dangerous to the entrenched business models is part of the strategy.