Yeah K-16, I really doubt you are able to monetize them when you use the radio songs

You never, ever put licensed music into a YouTube video that you want to monetize for yourself. Even some game soundtracks can and well screw you over. It's the reason why I almost always turn off the music in games I do videos on.

Both of you have common sense not to do so. What concerns me is the feature to put licensed music into videos and publish to YouTube may give misleading options to YouTubers who don't know any better, as they attempt to monetize their videos under the false pretense of fair use after publishing it through the editor. So like I said, either Rockstar and Take-Two somehow paid for a multi-trillion dollar licensing deal that allows all YouTubers to feature licensed music on monetized videos, or the people who don't realize licensed music can't belong in monetized videos without a commercial license from the label will toss crap at a fan when it happens.

Either that or the editor has a warning message to remind people not to monetize videos when using GTA V radio music. I can't wait to see Content ID flag so many GTA V videos, because resellers of music will use this opportunity to automatically hit all related songs they just so happen to sell (even if the original label gave permission for GTA V videos). Apparently the system is available for anyone remotely related to selling music to have Content ID shotgun blast all YouTubers regardless of whether they own the actual original rights or not.

I also noticed they called it the Rockstar Editor. I don't have the game yet, but I do wonder if this means Rockstar intends on supporting other games in the future with this editor?

One last thing: Nintendo apparently makes their own sound effects in-house, so Nintendo-related videos without music aren't immune to Content ID, because Nintendo has flagged videos for sound effects as well according to the podcast discussion Address The Sess, back when Adam Sessler was with Revision3.

That's their problem then, just as it was my problem and the problem of countless others before and after me. There has always been the ability to put music into videos, Partnered or not.

Those videos will not be monetized from the uploader, period. The Content ID system will most likely catch the music before the video is ever even finished uploading and it will simply deny the uploader the ability to monetize it for themselves, instead putting ads up that benefit the actual owner(s) of the third party content. If, somehow, a video is uploaded and their automatic scans somehow miss it at first and if the uploader somehow manage to monetize it (huge, huge if's) then they might be hit with a strike at worse or a removal of the monetization on that video at best.

They are not automatically banned from YouTube. It's a 3 strike policy. And those strikes can go away after time. Obviously, if you're an idiot and repeatedly break the rules by just uploading full tracks of licensed music from the game, yeah... you deserve to be banned.

They can toss all they want to but it won't matter for this case. There are tons, TONS of reasons to hate YouTube's mega shitty Content ID system but actually having it used to track down "well known" licensed music used in uploaded videos isn't one of them.

There is also the whole idea of being part of YouTube Networks that handle the potential licensing for stuff like this so that perhaps some of those licensed songs can be used without issue. In cases like that, the uploader typically doesn't have to do anything as all of it is generally handled by the Network, no matter how much of an asshole that network is.

Nintendo is still in the 19th century on this stuff. That is why most Partners and networks absolutely will not make videos of Nintendo games or products. It's not 100% bad from them, least not like it used to be, but it's still kind of crappy. Their system is that you register with them and make a deal and yadayadayada they take a big cut of the videos that are monetized that feature Nintendo games. Most companies LOVE the free publicity that comes from things like let's plays or preview videos. Not them.

True.

I didn't know Content ID can flag a video before it even finishes uploading. If the system can prevent monetizing before the video is even up, then yeah that would eliminate a lot of the problem I mentioned.

Well that I know, but I wasn't referring to copyright strikes. I was thinking YouTubers complaining about their monetizing options taken away, and redirected to whoever is using the Content ID system (which may not necessarily be the original label as resellers can use them too, which is stupid and somewhat illegal, but current laws do not penalize false claims at the moment, so it's a guilty until proven innocent method, similar to the mindset and design of DMCA; anyways that's a story in and of itself).

By all means, the original label using Content ID for YouTube videos of GTA V makes sense. I just think there's going to be a lot of people who don't know any better, will be surprised to see their machinima suddenly have ads where the revenue will go straight to the label, or naive YouTubers who attempted to monetize their creations (again, I didn't know Content ID can flag before it even finishes uploading so that concern is mostly pointless now) will see their revenue immediately redirected.

There's still the bit of chaos in terms of who uses the Content ID system first, though I suppose these mainstream songs have large enough labels not to let other third-parties steal their ad revenue. Or if they do, can easily take it back. So I guess resellers wouldn't be much of an annoyance and I'm thinking too much into this.

(I'm assuming you're referring to MCNs when you say YouTube Networks, rather than YouTube's own network. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance and the following reply is irrelevant to your comment then. The fact that YouTube has its own partner system makes it a bit complicated for me.)

Now that.................... Is a whole discussion in and of itself. Even the Address the Sess podcast lightly touched upon that. As you said, there are networks who are... Uncooperative with the YouTuber who signed a contract to give his or her channel to the network. I'm well aware that networks are supposed to legally protect the YouTuber (provided the content produced is done under fair use) and occasionally provide sponsorship opportunities (mostly good, some are ethically evil), in return for a portion of the ad revenue (so it's now a three-way split between YouTube, network, and you) and a contractual obligation to produce content under certain conditions and timeframes. Whatever they may be. The thing is... I've seen things networks have done that show lack of diligence or even effort to support the channels that work for them. Deliberately making distinctions between affiliate and managed channels only makes their original purpose even more of an issue.

Networks were informed months before Content ID was fully implemented to give them time to educate their member channels to anticipate for new policies against copyrighted material, yet no warning was provided to the YouTubers at all. One network made an announcement to claiming they were just as "blindsided" and are working towards helping the YouTubers in getting their content in compliance (Content ID can apparently also detect video in some circumstances).

While I can't confirm that network was informed by YouTube as the article I linked to only specifically mentioned Fullscreen Inc. (also curiously has a search tag of another MCN that isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article), I do have reasonable doubt that an organization as big as this network would have no awareness of YouTube's attempt to warn MCNs. Plus this network also made an acquisition that makes me call bullcrap. The timing is far too suspicious.

I have seen videos restored on occasion (ScrewAttack's Death Battle video was restored today likely from Fullscreen Inc.'s involvement, and is probably the main reason why ScrewAttack stopped being independent in the first place). FarFromSubtle Productions is one independent group of two people who keep getting offers from networks, but they have to keep rejecting because the actual agreements don't line up to what the network's original purpose is supposed to be. Ask them anything about networks and they'll tell you the realities of what they discovered. Ugh... Like I said, a whole discussion in and of itself.

What's sad is that the media is NOW mentioning how YouTubers are "blindsided" (there's that buzzword again) by the Affiliate program. Apparently nobody read the bold print about giving away the entire channel just so you can get a decent cut of the ad revenue. Keeping your channel is akin to working for pennies when doing the Nintendo Affiliate program. And then there's the whitelist which in itself defeats its very purpose as not all Nintendo games are safe to broadcast (I'm guessing due to third-parties involved with its development of certain titles).

Like you said, Nintendo hates free publicity and so YouTubers are better off covering games that appreciate the free publicity, and in return dev/publisher claims are released quickly so the video producers can rightfully claim the full 50% ad revenue that they deserve (other 50% of course goes to Google). Only Nintendo-focused channels are really screwed from this like NiNTENDOMiNATiON as they more or less have no other choices. Back when Nintendo focused on disseminating their news directly to consumers, instead of the traditional press releases and conferences, by introducing Nintendo Direct, I thought Nintendo is finally experimenting with modern ways of business and technology.

And then I see they are one of the extremely few companies who refuse to release Content ID claims regardless of how well the videos applies to fair use. And following that, I see Nintendo Treehouse which flat out copies some of the Let's Play channels I watch... So... They'd rather do it themselves instead of have fans do it for them for free? Region locking too? Well crap... 19th century it is. At least Nintendo is old-fashioned enough to give Mr. Iwata a salary cut, instead of resorting to shutting down a studio as a first resort. I mean, most fire staff first and raise the CEO's salary for the heck of it in the modern age of business. So keep on taking those salary cuts Iwata-san, we'll celebrate the present day with the other companies who paid attention to how technology can be used for consumer-friendly practices.

Sorry for sidetracking from GTA V... I think I opened a can of worms without realizing it.