YouTube, TAKE THIS MAN DOWN | Asmongold Reacts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- A lot of people wanted me to watch this.
by @UpperEchelon • RUclips - TAKE THIS MA...
► Asmongold's Twitch: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Twitter: / asmongold
► Asmongold's 2nd YT Channel: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Sub-Reddit: / asmongold
Channel Editors: CatDany & Daily Dose of Asmongold
If you own the copyright of content showed in this video and would like it to be removed:
/ catdanyru
If a channel wins a copyright claim against them a penalty should apply to the other channel imo, there are no real consequences for this type of bad behaviour. They should demonitise the bad actor channel for like 6 months or something per bogus copyright claim.
Each false strike should count as a strike towards the accusers channel
@@N4chtigall I think for there to be punishment, there needs to be proof that the person who made the false claim was acting in bad faith. I also think that they should pay the other parties lawyers, which is not uncommon in America, as a result of losing. After all, many people don’t even have the courage to face the court due to the cost.
@@Victor-gz8ml yea, but I think they have another trick, you can copyright claim from another account, and you are in the same place again
Many content creators who falsely strike or claim another creator has NEVER received any consequences.
@@N4chtigallImplicating someone stole your content, especially taking legal action, whether intentionally falsely or by mistake, is libelous. If a person claims X sexually assaulted them, and X didn't, that's libelous. The accused always gets punished even when they did nothing, and the other gets off scott-free. And that's why they keep doing it. We have rules against certain speech, you can't scream fire in a crowded place when there is no fire, because it could injure people. It's not exercising rights, they are abusing rights.
The issue is they take actions on strikes that are not confirmed and proven to be infringement. YT shouldn't add the strikes until proven it was an infringement.
That would make large corporations and ad companies not happy. Nothing will change.
that's the dmca system in a nutshell strike first and repeal/sue later. RUclips doesn't have the resources to verify claims because if they pick a side they could be put at the end of the lawsuit. Only way a system like this would get improved is if there was an opt in program for content creators above a certain threshold where a portion of their revenue is taken by youtube in order to fund and maintain a third party for legal counsel specifically to handle false dmca.
You prove copyright infringement in court. How the hell would your system even work?
@@TopBadge you can take the offending content down without giving the channel a strike. complying with the law without unjustly punishing people.
@TopBadger that cost tons of money, which smaller channel don't usually have. Its why justices system are plain broken, because it revolve around who got the most money, instead of making justice happens. No money = no justice for you. Which is disgusting
I'm glad Asmon covered this, it needs a wide audience.
I'll be the one to make the joke that Asmons fans are all wide.
@@Tezlaah I'll give you a lol
ah yes, Russian propaganda and pro-genocide position of RT ( owned by Russian fascist government) needs our help. I see.
@@DaddyDumptruckDeluxe so.... 1 month later. What happened with this case
so.... 3 months later. What happened with this case
I love hearing Upper Echelon feeling confident enough to do a direct callout like this, well deserved
UE is a simp for RT, why does he care so much about russian propaganda
Asmon has a saying “the worst thing a moron can do is open his mouth” and then he INVITES Alex to come on stream to give his 2 cents 😂 I love this man’s way of doing things!
Don't stop your enemy when they are doing a mistake
-sun tzu
it's kinda funny to watch people that could have an ez life due to their successful yt channel just dig their own grave simply because of extra greed
RUclips won't do anything about this, that would be them admitting their copyright strike options are wrong, ineffective and heavily abused. They would rather make creators sink and go into the unknown.
Am I missing something? They use the footage they don't own in their videos without mentioning original author. And they get copyright striked for that. How is that abused?
@@IAmAzarath What do you mean, the guy in video says multiple times they did use "just 5 seconds of footage". How copyright striking such videos is an abuse?
@@IAmAzarath He said it about two different channels pushing his narrative about abused strikes. Wtf???
They're working with people they want like music producers already established as well as things official corporate accounts, they won't ever get struck so why would they care about you?
@@Dustmadeout Because most people don't do that and there are literal companies that just go out to copyright other people's materials then copyright strike them before the original person has a chance to defend themselves. its a big problem mate.
animation work is totally different. when comparing the animations we see that both have their charm. The magnates medias work has almost no focus effect and has added animated elements like smoke and particles added to the photo. On the other hand, the next work has more levels of cuts (the image must be cut so that the elements overlap) and deph of field too. They are two types of work on the same photo and any editor can know this because, as I said, they are different works :)
It makes perfect sense this bastard was once the paul bros manager. He pulled the same shit for them as well. I recall one fortnite youtuber, small time, who had a 3 hour video of gameplay and got striked by the paul bros for having i think 10 secs or less of their gameplay footage because he played against them.
Asmongold you´re right. I reported Business Casual´s channel and here is why. This guy thinks he should be the ONLY youtuber, and that absolutely NOBODY ELSE should be allowed to be on RUclips, than just him. The reason for why is, because in a malignant narcissist´s dream world, there is only the malignant narcissist and nobody else. The more people who expose him and report his channel for copyright abuses, the better. Thanks for your video man! Kind regards from Ásgeir in Iceland!!
@@CallieCEntertainment Its why I stand with Magnates Media.
@@CallieCEntertainment In a lawsuit yes. But as this is youtube, as BusinessCasual showed us, we can report maliciously.
@@CallieCEntertainment Also one can report a channel for "Harassment/Bullying Behavior" as well. So go on over and hit that report button!
@@CallieCEntertainment Again, in court of law. A youtube report I make about a channel for Harassmant/Bullying IS NOT a copyright claim, or any legal claim for that matter. Try suing me.
@@CallieCEntertainment I think you misunderstood the gist of the video but from 38:50 . The owner summarised what BusinessCasual is doing is actively seeking out content that look "Slightly" similar to his and accusing the uploader of copyright and demanding an apology while showing "Made up" receipts. Its not yet a lawsuit because the creator did not agree/disagree to his claims yet.
The guy is waiting for the creator to take his bait and thinks that he might have did it and apologize to him. And then he will use that turn it around to make it "An Actual Lawsuut".
Alot of small time creators fall victim to this copyright abuse. Thats why this video is to spread awareness to either a)Notify small creators of this scammer, b) help report this person so that he doesnt do "Destroying other people's livlihood and crippling them to debt for his own Fortune".
Yo thanks for covering this! Magnates media is one of my favorite channels and seeing your coverage & reaction gives me hope for humanity to listen and allow a fair chance for everyone to be heard.
31:34 In Canada we say "sorry" so much that there is a law that specifically says that apologies cannot be used as an admission of guilt. Apology Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 3
RUclips is most definitely infringing.
Ray Donovan v. RUclips.
Sorry, RUclips.
This is exactly the current climate of school bullying.
The push against the very edge of what's allowed; turn a system of protecting the victim and the inclinations of good people against their targets.
Watching my kids going through it, and I'm disgusted at what teachers and other adults are letting go.
Is why my dad told me to fight back at school and I wouldnt get in trouble
Maybe if your kids are being bullied constantly they're the issue.... That's how it worked when I was in school.
@@thisisobviouslybaityeah, you are right. It's their fault for not breaking one of the bully's jaws. Obviously. /s but maybe not?
@@javrak From the school's point of view, it IS the parent's fault.
If parents don't want their child to be the school system's victim, they'd get out their Karen wigs and start threatening the school with scandal and lawsuits every time their child is mildly inconvenienced.
If there's one thing teachers hate and fear and can't do anything about, it's Karents.
Bullies' parents are likely to do that and everyone else has too much dignity and decency to stoop to that level.
Which is why bullies aren't punished but their victims are.
@@oleg4966 You are absolutely correct. It just sucks that the only solution is to be a useless POS human.
Anyone found abusing the copyright tools should be perma'd off the site.
I've maintained that the best solution would be to add a verification system to takedowns.
That way, bad actors can't easily abuse the system.
We need an updated law where this can get settle within a week and RUclips can just have no policy on this other then banning bad actors
offf. that costs money.
why would youtube do that
I feel like the simplest and most obvious solution would be to have an inbetween system of copyright claiming and striking a channel. Seems to me that while youtube has no choice than to take the claimed videos down, nobody is forcing them to automatically strike down and ban youtube channels after the videos get taken down. There should be some sort of review system that actually evaluates the claims and their validity and only strike down and ban channels after the claims have been proven. After all, it's one thing to take down one video, sure the creator will lose quite a bit monetarily if it's a big video they worked on for a long time, but at least their channel would be safe.
It would also help if you can only file one copyright claim per channel or every 24 hours that way spamming strikes can't happen
10:45
"Wear your tinfoil hat. That way no one can get into any of your accounts." -Zack
Pure wisdom.
all hail the bald
Bro, Upper Echelon really living up to his namesake, he's always so on point, salient and relatable, despite being a relatively modest creator it would seem. Very based, indeed.
yeh about same time i unsubbed, supposed to be a gaming channel
@@Spectrum0122 being against wokism is the definition of based. It's been like that ever since 4chan co-opted the term from some rapper (it was originally weed lingo). Based doesn't mean "wise" or "on point", it means "right-wing and savvy". It is not an apolotical term. You don't have to be right-wing, to each their own, but don't use "based" in that case.
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573nah based was started by Lil B it meant being true to yourself. 4chan just took it and made it cringe.
15:58 yt should respond with just "you can turn of the adnotations, it will dissapear"
This kinda thing has to stop and it seems like it should only take one actual human employee of RUclips to figure it out in about 20 minutes
3 second of seeing the paralax comparason are more than enought to prof it was just bs
I've said for years that Poo Tube NEED to punish false claimers, there is no deterrent to doing it so the bad actors will ALWAYS do it.
Becouse the defult is normal copyright laws if they can not do dmca takedowns. And that is unsustanable for a company where anyone can upload a video to. = taking away peoples/comanies ability dmca takedown could cost youtube millions in lawsuits
One thing thats funny about the apology with an accident, within Canada we have a law that states "that if you say sorry in an accident, it is not an admission of guilt." Since sorry is apart of our culture. We are an apologetic people. Its called The Apology Act
When someone accuses another of doing something out of nowhere 99% of the time its because theyre doing it themselves
As Zak said the guy is probably crazy.
I know using the word crazy might offend some people but I genuinely mean it in the same vein as mentally ill or severely cognitively impaired
31:50 Former insurance agent here, the answer to "does apologizing count as admittance of guilt?" is maybe. As a blanket, we typically advise clients to never say anything close to an apology due to a peoples' nature to want to explain themselves. The apology itself isn't automatically a loss, but what comes after it can be. "Oh my god I'm SO sorry!" isn't great, but where people really get into trouble is is "oh my god I'm SO sorry, I was changing the radio station/answering my cell phone/nodding off at the wheel/etc etc and didn't see you!" They tend to admit something that actually IS a fault off the back of an apology.
Copyright laws are out of control
Scott Shafer also got on board with this case.
It's amazing to see how Upper Echelons video spread like rings in the water.
For the record, Asmongold didn't say the houses are the same. He said Look at this house and look at this house. In the sense that it's not the same identical shot. Then he proceeded to break down why it wasn't the same identical shot and their are different. Yes, it's the same building. Not the same shot.
The problem is even if they ripped the content frame by frame from his video and even if he hand drew it himself it doesn’t matter because the original work is in public domain and his work is too similar to the original to be copyrightable
You can actually hold copyright on elements of an image. Business casual would own the copyright on the editing that was done to the photo, but not the original components to the photo. Ofc as we saw, the editing of the photo was not infringed on as magnate media had their own editing process. Another youtuber Leonard French of Lawful Masses is a copyright lawyer and has gone into this topic quite a bit on several occasions.
@@BretekV fair enough idk enough about copywrite to argue and concede but if he had business casual would still have an uphill battle to fight I bet
He also said in his community posts that he's using money from the lawsuit to kill Russian soldiers in Ukraine. I'm all for support of Ukraine, but outright flaunting that you sued a Russian media company then bombing them with the money? That seems a bit sadistic.
In this case, a broken clock is correct twice a day. Take Russian money and use it to kill the subhuman beasts that are Russian soldiers? Epic win.
This situation reminds me of a situation where a musician got copyrightstruck for his own song and couldn't do anything about it, several years ago and we still have the same broken system with all of the power in the hands of the accuser.
The accused should never have the burden of proof of their innocence.
Asmon felt insane saying they were completely separate images, until he explained 5 minutes later, actually had a point but needed to explain it. Also, legally in Australia an apology is not an admittance of guilt.
Same with Canada
0:44 - lmao that face 😂
I believe when he's talking about the "adjudication requirement" he's referring to the fact that strikes will get removed if the copyright holder doesn't sue you.
22:37 I thought the obvious answer was that both videos used the same original photo, then one used a parallax effect and the other superimposed effects on top
Correction on the courts in the UK with AH comment, the courts in the UK never saw those. She was a witness, did not have to provide evidence. The Sun just had to supply information she gave them, which wasnt any comparison photos, but the ones AH gave them.
0:39 the only reason I clicked on this as I seen the video already
RUclips could totally monetize copyright abusers. To file copywrite strikes and such, there should be something the striker must agree to and in the case it can be proven false, RUclips should be able to sue them and bankrupt them. Free money.
Any time anyone makes a false allegation and it’s proven false, from Murder to DMCA, the same penalty for the formerly accused should apply to the “accuser”.
This is basically balckmail.
This guy is quite literally mirroring what big media and other corporations have been doing, right or wrong as it is (wrong). Many huge faceless corps have done this, but he's a 'powerless' individual with a public face. Cant hide behind PR.
Do the strikes only go one way? seems like to me the copyright strike should go back on the claimant if its shown to be a false claim
Often claimants aren't youtube creators/channels and so they can't get channel strikes. I don't think youtube has a mechanism in place at all to block repeat dmca strike abusers.
Another great take from Asmon. If I had any amount of $ to lose, I wouldn't host this guy on my channel. Frivolous lawsuits seem to be all the rage now and I wouldn't risk it. You might win in the end, but it ain't worth it. Thanks for the video.
Honestly at this point we all need to start abusing it to the point that it hurts RUclips's Ad Revenue. That is the only way, the only time, the only context that RUclips would ever want to address this in.
Three Strike Rule was invented by Cricket 200 years before electricity was invented. The building looks different because of the blurring of the image, but the images are identical.
Hearing Upper Echelon allude to the triple-strike as "holding the deletion of their entire account over their head" reminds me of the story of the sword of Damocles.
Essentially, Alex Edison has strung a sword of triple-strikes over the head of MagnatesMedia by a single hair strand of a horse's tail, and RUclips can, at any point, decide to cut the strand and kill MagnatesMedia.
We need to defuse this sword before MagnatesMedia's entire channel is wiped and its owner's (and any potential team members') livelihood(s) destroyed.
It would be very funny and fitting if someone, anyone, filed 3 copyright strikes against Alex Edson for those exact same examples citing Magnates Media's videos as the source for Alex Edson's copyright infringement. As well as multiple strikes against Alex Edson for various public domain images and video that the channel he bought, used.
I mean, definitely don't do it. You know, seriously. Don't. Stop. Submitting copyright claims against everything Alex Edson bought and is trying to make money off of. You know what I mean. It's against TOS. Which he clearly respects. So, you know. Don't do it. Definitely.
NEVER APOLOGIZE! Even if you are 100% sure you are at fault. Don't ever do it!
I hope with the action from the community taken this might push youtube to actually change how things work so they can't be taken advantage of in a case of innocent until the evidence is provided instead of immediate deletion, this would also further improve youtube's credibility with it's user base, my problem with that is if such actions were taken companies could hold youtube liable and sue them as it's acknowledgement of the problems that beset it which would then negate any legal protections as a social platform! due to the fact it is up to the community to take on and call out any one person within the community misusing these features against another for malicious or competitive reasons we must all hold eachother responsible and see to it youtube acts upon that!
This is why any channel that uses this tactic should have their channel removed or completely demonetized.
36:24 no, introduce the same rule 3 bs strikes = account deletion
You have to prove that it is fair use in court, but the one filing the lawsuit also has to consider, seriously, if it is a case of fair use before filing the lawsuit. Not doing it is illegal.
From my perspective, I believe RUclips hasn't acted thus far because they are primarily concerned about being held liable under copyright laws in a court of law (i.e. the original impetus for the current copyright system).
If bad actors begin to cost RUclips too much money in reviewing faulty copyright strikes and/ or court cases, then they will probably begin to change their stance.
In Canada, "I'm sorry" can not be used as an admission of guilt. Canada literally has an bill titled "The Apology Act", wherein it states that "apologies made by a person does not necessarily constitute an admission of guilt."
It's RUclipsa fault for not making the copyright infringement laws more strict. The problem in our world is that there is no repercussion for false accusations whether it's civil or criminal so people will keep abusing the system.
It's hard to implement a false accusations system that won't discourage crime reporting.
Applying baseball's "3 strikes and you're out" to other things in real life doesn't always make sense. If you strike out in baseball, you are going to get a few more at bats that game. That is way different than "3 strikes and you are out of the league forever"
Abusing copyright? That's a paddlin'
1) Thank you for covering this and sorry for the necro, but 2)(before I finish the video this is just bugging me) At ~25:00, they are different by nature how they were edited to achieve the parallax, it is indeed the same fair-use image. Magnates just did a better job of the editing for the parallax effect.
Just saw the portion a couple of seconds later where he effectively points this out xD
I love how at 30:22 you can just see an unregistered copy of Total Commander flash by lol
Doesn't matter if RUclips blocks adblocker. I have that feature build into my router.
I'm glad you notice this issue
Zack, you are a warrior of truth. An actual beacon of light to shine upon this world where none could before you. I have so much respect for you and have been watching your content for so many years now. Thank you.
Admission of guilt is so stupid, preasure some one to apologize should not be able to be used as evidence
If you take a picture, expand it so it fills a larger space, then trim a couple of millimetres from the edges to fit the original window size... then you have altered the original work (i.e. transformed it).
No matter how slight the adjustment, you DID make that adjustment, therefore - fair use under transformative.
And that's just the technical detail.
The second use also added a transition/partition for an additional overlaid image AND added another layer (the puffs of smoke or "explosions") so it was transformed in multiple ways, meeting the "transformative" clause.
Add to that the fact that the 1st person is trying every trick under the sun to condemn the 2nd person (incl. passively threatening them) without legal recourse; it shows that the 1st person KNOWS they don't have a case but are determined to harass the 2nd person to attempt to remove their "competition".
I agree with this video.
1:1 like with false accusations about crimes .. it HAS to have serious consequences
the ABSOLUTE VERY LEAST .. give false accusers the same punishment of what the accused would have faced if found guilty
12:25 because under the youtube system anyone can file a copyright strike at any time over anything regardless of wether they have proof of said infringement or even own the thing they are filing the copyright strike for at all.
Honestly, even though it'd be a shitshow and nearly impossible to enforce...lying should be illegal. Like all lying, not unintentionally for example if you genuinely believe incorrect things, willful deliberate lies. The penalty should start small, and become severe if you are in a position of authority, and deadly if you are an elected official. Tired of candidates making "campaign promises", and lawyers outright destroying lives.
Saying something is transformative or not is a pointless exercise, you don't have the law on your side until its taken to a court of law and a judge agrees/disagrees.
34:49 I totally agree. This is part of the reason why the United States is such a litigious country. Often, cases are brought AS a punitive measure against people when the case has no merit. It should be a crime to waste another person's hard-earned resources on a legal battle that has no merit. A litigant could counter-sue for legal fees and time compensation through civil court but that's not enough. A bogus suit meant to harm the other litigant in psychological or monetary fashion should be a crime, 90-days in jail and a 100,000 fine to shared with the victim and the court for compensation.
We have Muta, Charlie and now Asmon. Good. Thank you for watching this.
DMCA does not require the removal of content. It requires expeditious removal (tho the definition of expeditious has not exactly been tried in court) IF you wish to maintain Safe Harbor protections. IF you have other protections or feel the evidence is false, you are free to use the DMCA as toilet paper and do nothing. Tho legal fees may be involved even if you are right.
You can’t copyright an idea. Only the precise execution of an idea.
The issue here is while it is clear that Business Casual is a copyright troll, Upper Echelon is being dishonest in how he is presenting the LAWYER'S words. First off, it's not Alex's words, let us distinguish that. Second, all that passage proves is that the lawyer admitted that the system can be gamed. Upper Echelon has had an unhealthy obsession since that guy went after RT, and I really am hoping he is being honest about not trying to bat for RT but it's a little hard to believe.
If I were RUclips, I'd get both parties to send in their parallax animations for comparison. If the complaint is valid, the video gets taken down, if not, the plaintiff gets a warning (pre-cursor to a strike).
i love it when asmond goes lawyer mode
24:28 ENHANCE ENHANCE
just draw square across top of the first pics roof over the roof of the second pic to show the position/angle is different in the second.
Bro, what I respect from these videos, is Asmond watches the sponsors/ ads, of the videos he reflects on/ reacts to. And this causes people to not go after him to literally watch their entire videos and make a video out of it, big brain
Yeah, it avoids upsetting a channel's sponsors too. A sponsor might be rightly annoyed if another youtuber reuploads the content they paid to have an ad on, and then the ad is skipped by the 2nd youtuber. This way they get an extra boost of free advertising to a usually much larger audience. Then ofc its common for the asmongold audience to go check out their channel which is quite good for them as well.
James O'Keefe should hire UEG as a reporter for actual reporting.
Two feds, one working for US government, one for the Kremlin, using the US civil courts to screw each other lmao
24:00 look at different chimney sizes
Asmon went to all that work trying to show the difference in parallax when all you need to know is that the 'stolen' one is higher resolution than the 'original', which is obviously impossible
The photos both videos used are "public domain", meaning anyone can use them for any reason. You can even resell them if you want. But you can not claim the original is your property, that anyone who uses the thing in their own work is infringing on your copyright.
"How can he prove he used ChatGPT?" The sad thing is that obviously he doesn't have to prove it if youtube is going to remove his channel.
@@Thanatos2k fair enough, besides the point that it never happened to begin with lol.
25:07 they were the same bro one was bad res one was better res.
Great video though ty for covering it.
I love how he just responds "HI"
26:30
Asmon basically did the enhance meme in real time.
My guess is that the RUclips copyright system is made for corporations to protect their IP. Major corporations aren't generally going to make false claims; so, the system wasn't built with that in mind. Thus, we have these gaps.
I’m honestly surprised we don’t have vigilantes copyright striking the abusers channels.
14:15 "thou shalt not strike falsely"
In comparing the two images, cant we simply point out the differences between the visible smoke instead of this elaborate pixel depth magnification?
I don’t understand why lying isn’t a crime, when claims happen.
His entire claim is ridiculous! That picture is so old it's almost guaranteed to be in the public domain by now, and he's using THAT to fundament his copyright strikes? That's like if you wrote a book inspired by the OG Alice in Wonderland and then went on a rampage against anyone who had the same idea as you... He just doesn't want any sort of competition and came up with an elaborate scheme to screw over and rob other content creators via lawsuits...
The unfortunate thing is that even if someone took down his channel, what guarantees do we have we won't make another channel so he can repeat this fiasco further down the line? The strike system needs to be changed in order to avoid these situations and that means taking this case straight to RUclips HQ.
If it is indeed an open source image both sides were working on, the claim is ridiculous. It's like painting the same color by numbers picture and then complaining that someone else's looks like yours.
There is only one reason why that has become the commandment though, and that's because RUclips just goes scorched earth and deletes your channel, no questions asked no investigation after 3 strikes, or that's how it was, I think it's changed a bit and you can at least appeal after three strikes, but when the punishment for any amount is so severe it becomes obvious that people have to immediately retaliate as hard as they can at the first strike or they don't have a chance, some companies have gone as far as to issue like 100 strikes on a channel destroying them out right, honestly this all comes down to RUclips and their garbage policies because they are lazy, instead of just getting rid of a perceived problem, maybe actually do some investigating.
what are we even doing here? the only correct way to solve this issue is: whenever someone copyright strikes a channel, the VIDEO (NOT THE CHANNEL) gets suspended for a time it takes to investigate. Innocent until proven guilty should be at play here. I do not agree that youtube should shoot first and ask questions later. What they should do is simply put the stricken video on hold and check whether it really violates whatever was used as a reason for the strike. If the violation is proven, video goes down and the creator has full right to upload it again without the infringing material. That's only fair. If proven innocent, video stays up and everyone goes back to their lives. The person who filed the strike can no longer do that for the video ever again (I mean cmon, this can be handled by code) and everything is golden. Like why is this even a problem? On top of that, if someone files multiple flags against another channel OR against multiple other channels, this should raise an immediate RED FLAG and not only the stricken videos, but also the person striking should be investigated. I thought this was common sense, but apparently there's no capacity for such a thing here.
RUclips can't block adblockers, all website ads have lost this war, it's never coming back. Brave, uBlock, Privacy Badger, etc. etc. etc. they are too good nowadays. Best way to get ads in is to have it baked in the video by the content creator.
The "competing" stuff, that's part of the law, one of the factors to be judged upon. That's why it is mentioned, no need to speculate any further from there.
Magnates Media is a really good channel. I hope Asmon can cover one of their videos so people could see the value they put in. There's a lot of effort on the research and editing in each of their videos.
Business Casual seems to be shadow banned, at least in Germany, as i can't find his channel on youtube.