Jim Sterling versus Digital Hommicide

http://www.thejimquisition.com/2015/07/special-podcast-jim-sterling-and-digital-homicide-hash-it-out/

DH raises a few interesting points against the practices of youtubers. A youtuber's work is 100% derivative and in most cases not gracious towards the people they derive their videos from. It's almost a money for nothing deal for a youtuber when you regard the 'new profession' secly.

A youtuber doesn't have to contend with a lot of things to get their work out there.

1. 1) They don't have to get licenses (fair use),
2. 2) They don't have to create the material they cover,
3. 3) They super-impose their opinion as law on somebody else's work,
4. 4) They generate income on somebody else's work.

DH compares youtubers of especially Jim Sterling's ilk to leeches and I'm inclined to agree. In fact, in Jim Sterling's case it's actually very accurate. The man is continuously selecting the products that are the easiest to 'critique' and is literally getting fat on the revenue of it all, next to also raking in more using Patreon. More power to him if there are people who ignore the homeless man in the alley next street over to feed a youtuber more money. You can only admire those who are so unscrupulous as to open a Patreon to beg for even more money and are able to defend it. But doesn't take away from the fact that I personally get a bad taste in my mouth when I see someone with 2 million subs on youtube for instance proudly pointing to his Patreon, while at the same time pointing to the triple-A industry as being only in it for the money.

And that is packaged so well that people go like, "You're so right, youtuber X, the industry only wants our money! So here's my money for your Patreon! Preach bro!"

DH makes another point too, being, "Youtubers endanger small time developers at no risk to themselves." Again, I'm inclined to agree. A developer creates a low quality game with no guarantee that he will even break even when you take into account development-time as even a low quality game takes effort to end up in at least a sellable state, while a youtuber makes a five minute video trashing the low quality game and in the case of Jim Sterling be assured of at least 5,000 clicks. And Jim Sterling makes about three of those videos per day. I didn't research the revenue Jim Sterling generates per day pinging arguably the easiest targets out there, but would it be too farfetched to assume that he's the one better off?

I do think that the junxtaposition that exists between youtuber and 'developer' (used loosely) has to be examined legally. A developer is a sitting duck, a youtuber is not. The disparity is heavily in favor of a youtuber and any fool with a webcam can start a channel. Even I had a shortlived let's play channel at one point and if that isn't an indication that the barrier to entry into that business is non-existant, I don't know what is.

Hmmm...