 So as some of you may know, there was a six episode of the Libre podcast that I recorded and uploaded two days ago. But YouTube has since deleted that episode, and it has given my channel a copyright strike for having copyrighted content in the four hour long podcast. Now surprisingly, it wasn't for the Steamboat Willy content, or rather Brock's dub of Steamboat Willy. I did get a copyright claim for that video, and the podcast originally got demonetized because of Disney's copyright for the Steamboat Willy audio, which was even more ridiculous because we were watching this video, which is literally a dub. It's not even the same audio as the original. So I disputed that claim, and I probably would have won if the video actually stayed up long enough for the dispute to be reviewed, which can take over a month in some cases. But what I got, or what got the podcast taken down rather, was me disputing the use of this clip, which I won't play either for obvious reasons, but I'll just show the still from Mike and I reacting to a free solo climber passing these assisted rock climbers. That's what the video is about. Now personally, I don't think this here counts as a copyright violation because it's a reaction clip. It's not like I just re-uploaded this on my channel and said, oh, hey, look at this rock climbing video, guys, without any additional commentary or anything that would be what is it transformative in nature, I think is what they call it. We added commentary to the video and we only watched maybe a couple minutes of it, and that couple minutes was towards the end of an almost four hour podcast. So needless to say, our usage of this video does not impact the copyright holders ability to make money off the video. Nobody is going to mistake that video in the podcast for the original, which is the whole point of copyright law. But unfortunately, the law as it's currently written, as it's currently interpreted, and YouTube's content ID system, all of this constantly gets abused by companies like Cater's Media Group who do own the rights to that rock climbing video. And by the way, if you never heard of Cater's, they're the same company that owns these images of the smiling monkey. So if you or anyone else you know has ever run into copyright issues for using those smiling monkey memes, Cater's was the company responsible. I think they were called like Cater's News Group back then, but they're, you know, Cater's Media Group now. So what companies like this do is they reach out to people who post videos that go viral on Twitter, TikTok, or Reddit, in this case, you know, that's where we saw the rock climbing video. And they'll offer to pay that person some sum of money, probably not a very large sum of money for the rights to that video. And then they turn around and they sell licensing to people who want to use the video or as they did with meme, they'll try to extort you when you email them about the copyright claim issue. And then they'll try to sell you a retrospective license to use the video, which in my case was 500 pounds. And like I said, this is a totally legal thing to do. And the only way to actually fight against something like this, since YouTube's Content ID system tends to favor the copyright holder, they had to design it that way so that media companies wouldn't sue them into oblivion. The only way to really fight this would be to fight Cater's Media Group or whatever company in court, which is likely going to cost me, you, or anybody else who would take up this fight, even more than the 500 pound licensing fee, retrospective licensing fee, which isn't worth it to keep a random clip in a four hour podcast that's not even a tentpole topic, just literally random thing that we reacted to real quick. Both of us have a little bit of rock climate experience, or at least indoor rock climate experience. It's free use, it's transformative in nature, but I can't afford to actually take that to court and have a judge decide that. So yeah, these companies really, really suck. And by the way, if you're a content creator yourself and you want to copyright your work, I mean, I totally get that, right? I'm not even necessarily opposed to the principles of copyright, especially if it's the person who actually created the thing who owns the copyright. But if you want to earn money off of copyright on a viral video, you really shouldn't just sell the rights to your video to some company. You're never getting a good deal when you go that route. And that's been true for decades now, but it's even more true in current year because you yourself can get paid from other people using your content just like these media companies are, and they're making millions of dollars doing it, because what they're doing is not actually that difficult. They're really just putting the content that they bought from you into YouTube or Facebook might have a content ID system like this as well, you know, all these different social medias where people might upload something to get monetized. And that content ID system is what actually does all the heavy lifting. So with YouTube's at least, this is how it works. That automated system is going to automatically detect whenever somebody on the platform uses your content, and then you can decide how to act. So in your YouTube studio, you just go to this copyright tab right here, and then you can see every single instance that content ID found across YouTube or somebody else infringed on your copyright, which in this case, a lot of them have a 100% match, which probably just means that they just re uploaded my content, right, basically stealing the content fair use wouldn't even hold up here. But personally, I don't care because the only thing that I really care about copyright for is to make sure that it's not harming my ability to make money off of it, which clearly it's not. I mean, these are, you know, tiny channels with like less than 1000 subscribers. You know, it's not like Linus tech tips or some other, you know, huge tech creator on the platform was stealing my content and actually stealing views away from me. These are just, you know, random people, probably even fans honestly. So why am I going to bother with giving them a copyright strike or trying to get revenue out of them? Like none of that's just personally worth it for me. But hey, maybe you want to do something like that. And if you wanted to, you can just claim the videos within this part of the YouTube studio, and then you would be able to get half of all the revenue that they make off the video. Or if they don't want to share revenue with you, they have to remove your content from their video. And if they appeal to claim, right, if they try to go that route that I did where it's like, no, I haven't done anything wrong, then it's you, the copyright holder who actually get to make that final decision. You know, YouTube says they have humans that review this stuff. And obviously they have an automated system that reviews it. But if a human ever actually does review it, it's not going to be a legal expert. It's not going to be somebody who knows about fair use. And the way that they're probably trained at Google is to just get through the catalog of copyright claims as quickly as possible and to just side with the copyright holder, because that's what benefits YouTube the most ultimately, because oftentimes the copyright holder is some large company with a bunch of lawyers who could give Google or YouTube some legal problems. So if you go that route and, you know, they try to refuse it and you want to continue trying to hurt that creator, then you can give them a strike on their channel, a copyright strike, and the entire video is going to get removed. They have to go back, edit their video, remove your copyright content. You know, if they don't remove your copyright content, then they'll actually get blocked from uploading the video. So there's really no other way around that other creator who used your video getting able or being able to continue using it unless they try to fool the content ID system, which is a whole other thing in and of itself. But yeah, the point of that rant there is don't ever sell your work to these companies because abusing the copyright system is as easy as that. Or you know, if somebody in here, like if the actual owner of that rock climbing video or the person who originally made that rock climbing video, email me and they're like, Hey man, I want like $10 or something because you reviewed my thing. I probably would have given it to him. You know, I probably would have totally settled, but these companies, you know, they get so greedy and ask for 500 pounds because, hey, gotta try to make that stock value or whatever go up somehow. Yeah, it's totally legal to do that. And it probably will be for a long time to come since the people who make enforce these laws don't understand how the internet works. But the Libre podcast will be back soon with all copy written material removed. And we're going to continue doing what we can to keep the law Libre podcast going, which is most likely going to involve looking up alternative platforms to host it on. I mean, a lot of people have been asking me to put it on like, was it Spotify and other platforms that I don't even necessarily really want to use. But if I can still monetize it there and I can actually have the podcast exist there without all these copyright nonsense, then it might be an approach that I'll take. And also I'm going to look into techniques to just get clips past the content ID system, because if that doesn't detect someone's copyright material, then the odds of getting a claim will go down significantly. But anyway, have a great rest of your day. Thanks for listening to my rant. And thanks for the support.