Cited on HN 7 times, 2019–2022, never outright recommendedscore 0
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN cites it as an explanation of the self-claim workaround and an example of how broken YouTube's copyright system is.
The Original Ace shows how creators can use a third-party music distributor to file Content ID claims on their own videos, turning false-claim abuse into a share of ad revenue. It also names distribution companies and their revenue splits.
“Could you act as your own copyright troll? Yes!” (HN, 2021)
This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: [this video] The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well. In the end stuff like this goes to show that Youtube's systems are a complete and utter joke, but since Youtube has zero competition, it won't change. 1: The creator used CD Baby, if you're going to do this, I recommend DistroKid, it is about a zillion times better than CD Baby. Even the CD Baby creator endorses DistroKid.
Turning the tables on copyright abusers with a 50/50 split.
If you don't have access to directly make a claim, that solution is exactly what he walks you through. But if you're looking for more clarity, the original video [this video] also discusses the use of a third party to make a claim through the Content ID system. Jump to about 3:30 into The Original Ace video. Just don't stick around the outro on the original vid. It's terrible , more proof-of-concept than anything.
Explains using a third party to make a Content ID claim.
What's preventing them from making their own tune, put it on cdbaby or whatever it was to get it into the content id system, and then issue copyright takedowns? Similar to this[1]. [1]: [this video]
Similar scheme of self-claiming via a distributor.
> Could you act as your own copyright troll? Yes! [this video] > That is, what happens when you file copyright claims against your own works from a second account? You split half and half with the copyfraudster. If you make more sockpuppets to copystrike yourself, you get proportionally more and deprive the cf, e.g. 4 puppets vs 1 cf splits 80%/20%. > Also, how many TOS and laws would this violate? lolwhocares, I'm with emplemon - no respect for broken tos and laws
Claiming your own works to split revenue with the copyfraudster.
The self-claiming thing has at least been done already (through the use of online music labels): < [this video] > and < [link] > YouTube doesn't let just anyone make ContentID claims and start trolling. You do need to jump through a few hoops to get an air of legitimacy first.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
7 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more