Easier than that. Just put it on peertube

We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money?

Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist.

People with enough of a viewership would still be offered sponsorship for videos. Like YouTubers who do their own ads in videos.

assuming they didn't keep 8K, Just the raw 4k footage from just the wan show for one year would be ~150tb

He's got 935 followers and about 20,000 views there

Rumble only takes half the cut YouTube does, But the amount of traffic on there is microscopic compared to YouTube. There's some room there to make money.

The vast majority of the content on there is a conservative echo chamber. I'd be a little worried about his ability to maintain journalistic integrity against big companies in that ecosystem. I'm also wondering what their ads look like

It's funny, I remember watching The Scene from torrents (or maybe eDonkey2000/eMule?) 20 years ago. And it was relatively popular. Though I don't remember the last time I even had a BitTorrent client installed. If you're right, then we've failed ourselves. (And you may be right.)

The vast majority of the content on there is a conservative echo chamber.

TIL. It's always rather amusing as someone outside of America that posts containing factual information get downvotes purely based on the perceived alignment of the subject on the zero-nuance American Political Spectrum. I block ads, so I wouldn't know.

If you're knowledgeable, I have a question. Years ago I uploaded a YouTube video that wouldn't publish because of an automatic claim. I instantly disputed it, and it took like 5 or 6 months to resolve. But I saw someone today say that claimants had a week or two to respond to a dispute. Do you know if that's the case now, or if someone was talking trash?

(I found a similar claim on YouTube, but they may've found the same line and repeated it, and who knows if FAQs are actually up to date.)

Honestly sounds like a glitch. Never heard of this before and from a quick search, I don't see anyone else having this issue. Did this by any chance happen in 2022 summer-autumn? At that time youtube was modifying it's dispute system and how many days it can take, which could have resulted in some oversight for some who were already in the process of it.

Claimants have 30 days to respond, after which it is automatically thrown out and your video should be good to go. The 7 day thing applies to counter-claims and escalation, not standart disputes, so 30+7 days(x*), but not months of just waiting.

Good on New York, and good to hear.

These two comments read like Dejá-vu…

I addressed this. Bloomberg must press actual legal charges for the takedown to stand,

Why then did you continue to claim: "the copyright strike got reverted and the video restored." ?

YouTube is basically saying to Bloomberg: yeah, we are ruling that this is not infringement,

No they are not, because the decision stands unless Bloomberg doesn't take further action.

Notice the take down notice according to Bloomberg themselves ,was not a mistake made by some form of automation. It was a manually reviewed take down notice by Bloomberg specifically against the video.
Also notice that such a take down notice result in a 100% guaranteed 10 day take down of the video, silencing it for 10 days, where even if restored after 10 days will only receive a fraction of the original views due to the YouTube algorithm not presenting it.

So the Silence part is 100% true and not clickbait as you claim.

IF Bloomberg chooses to pursue the issue in court, the take down will stand even though it is obviously made in bad faith. This is very contrary to your claim that it's already lifted which it is NOT!

that is still only 1 copyright strike

You keep claiming that, as if it has any real relevance. And as if you know how many of these they receive on average, and completely disregarding how easy it is to make a DMCA take down claim, and disregarding how these claims take down channels even when they are obviously not valid.
One aspect of how insane the YouTube practices are on handling these is described here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1fg08j6/youtube_gave_me_a_copyright_strike_for_my_own/

So now if you would care to consider the motivation for the take down, which we don't know for sure, but we do have some circumstantial evidence.
The video was about AI chips used in China that China is not supposed to have access to.
The AI market in China is a $30+ billion per year market for Nvidia. So obviously Nvidia is not interested in it being disclosed about how their chips are sold to China despite being sanctioned.
Also notice that Nvidia is Bloombergs biggest customer. And Bloomberg made a similar video to the one Gamers Nexus made, but where Bloomberg found nothing,

Now consider a billion dollar market is at stake, and Nvidia probably spend more than the total value of Gamers Nexus at Bloomberg per month. How big do you think Gamers Nexus is in that context? They are as I described small, it's like a mouse fighting an rhino.

Now if Nvidia want that video blocked more than 10 days, they can easily have Bloomberg continue their frivolous claim, and have other allies post take down notices against Gamers Nexus and have the channel closed. It's actually insane how easy it is, because Google seems to almost always side with the bigger player, probably because it's the cheapest solution requiring the fewest lawyers.

So the threat to close the channel is absolutely there. And the only real protection Gamers Nexus has is the Streisand effect. Legally they can practically do next to nothing.

If Bloomberg decides to, they can squash Gamers Nexus like a bug with little effort. If you really can's see that you are very naive.

Isn't this a bit disingenuous to why they originally started to change the algorithm though?

People figured it out and started abusing it by spinning up proxy websites that would just link to the sites they wanted higher up in the rankings. You could argue Google only became an advertising company so that they could regulate that whilst also taking a slice.

I'm not arguing that they've since lost their way though.

Fanimatrix was a fan made short movie that used torrents as the main distribution method.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/so-grimy-so-cheap-new-zealand-matrix-fan-film-becomes-oldest-active-torrent-in-the-world

Um, the video in question here?

The channel is not in danger of being deleted, not even close. They received a single copyright strike, which in principle already got reversed by youtube (though still pending a 10 day waiting period for the claimant to reply and file legal action). It takes 3 valid copyright strikes within a 90 day period for a channel to be deleted.

They're not angry because their channel is in danger of being deleted, they're angry because they got hit in the moneys, losing ad revenue on a video that probably cost quite a bit of money to produce. Because of how the algorithm works, they'll probably not recoup the lost views on that particular video, even when it's reinstated.

It's also not like abusive and frivolous copyright strikes are a new thing. They've been a byproduct of the safe harbor provisions (aka OCILLA ) in the DMCA for almost 3 decades now (DMCA was introduced in 1998), and the chilling effects on online speech and liberties have been well documented and covered to death by various publications over the years, but somehow GamersNexus only discovers it and starts to care when their bottom line is affected by it. I get that it's not cool, but I don't get why people should care about this particular instance of DMCA abuse, especially as it seems to be going as well for GamersNexus as a copyright strike can possibly go, given that Youtube already ruled in their favor.

To me it comes across as a hastily put together video to spring on their audience to whip up outrage and compensate for lost ad revenue. It's a tried and true tactic, if you don't have news, make the news. It seems to be working too: after one day this video already has more views than anything else they put out in the last 6 months, so it will probably make them more money than the taken down video would ever make. Good for them, but that doesn't mean that you can't see it for the sensationalist click bait non-story that it is.

willing to say that a $4T market cap company is full of shit.

I'm willing to say that too, but you have to admit that it's a lot easier to say such things on a Youtube video that gets you 900k views in a day.

Also: careful to censor those middle fingers so you don't get ... gasp... demonetized

Because they do actually do it for the money. It's a job, and if they put the same content on a non monetized platform, they would drive they're own viewers away from their own monetized platform = less money.

Initial setup is the only real time investment. Once you have the final edited video exported, uploading it to multiple platforms doesn't take much more time. It does take away ad impressions from YouTube, though.

That's why I never made a career out of it. I just never like the idea of putting my whole life in YouTube's hands. I do have a small channel that I post to whenever I feel like and never really cared for it much. Sometimes, I don't post for a couple of years.

. My apologies, my apostles.