Well, when it's a RUclipsr who is abusing a system that keep this platform afloat in order to dox others, its kind of a big deal. So I just wanted to make my opinion clear.
Copyright existed before RUclips, and it doesn't work the way you describe it. If you were a professional musician you should know better, because copyright is supposed to protect artists. I've worked for 20 years in the media and we would pay for every single second of footage, music, VO, or any type of content we would use. RUclips is acting like that because they would be hit with lawsuits and lose millions if they don't. RUclips is a business making money from advertisers, it's not some imaginary place where everyone can do whatever they want.
Fair use has been argued in court time and time again to the point where RUclips has actually changed their policies and made them better for commentary, education, and reaction content. The problem here is someone claiming an entire video, striking a channel, and attempting to get a content creators personal information because they were mad. You can’t do that if a video actually follows fair use.
@@GarrettCrespo Thank you for your response. RUclips will always change its rules just enough to comply with the law. That's what companies do. If it was up to RUclips, this platform would be worse than 4Chan. But it's not a fringe website, it's a publicly traded company(Alphabet). I'm not a lawyer, and law differs from country to country, (while RUclips is a global platform and has to comply with every country it operates in) but how is it fair use when someone profits from it? Because the videos we're talking about are monetized, aren't they? If it was just for education/reaction etc then those videos shouldn't get any money. For example, the Drumeo video you referenced (which I happened to watch), it's a high-quality production. I'm sure they spent lots of money, time, and effort to produce it. Why should you profit from their video? Isn't it the same with song remixes, stealing melodies/samples, etc? Everyone is free to make a remix of a song, but if they want to publish it and profit from it, they have to ask permission from the owner of the original song. Why should it be any different for content? As I said, I'm not a lawyer, it's what I think is the right way to make content.
The four factors of fair use have been established for a long time now and whether you agree with them or not, it's what RUclips has put in place. It's part of their ToS, and it was abused by the creator I was talking about. Even if you don't agree with the ToS, it's still the law of the land here and this creator broke those laws. I also want to set one thing strait about my music channel and the videos on there. The Drumeo video you mentioned was claimed by Drumeo and the ad revenue went to them. That happens with any channel that is ok with fair use, but doesn't want people profiting from their content. It isn't a strike that debilitates a channel. It's just a claim that send's ad revenue to them. As for other creators that I've referenced in other videos, I have gotten ample support from the creators themselves for breaking down their content and promoting it to bring more attention to their work. In that instance, it's seen as a fair exchange. The profit I DO make (if I make any at all) is a fraction of what they made on the original content and is basically pay that these featured content creators don't have to pay for publicity. No reasonable creators here on RUclips actually care if their content is used in a fair use situation, let alone strike a video to gain personal information for doxing. I've had my own content used in mashup/compilation videos that have gotten millions of views and made the creator tons of money. Do I care? No! Because it brings attention to my content. It's a fair exchange. Even though RUclips/Alphabet is a company, the way that content is handled on the platform is completely different from the traditional media that you're referring to. RUclips is a hybrid social media/news/review/TV/movie site that sources its content from independent contractors. When those contractors/creators go out of their way to violate ToS, falsely claim videos in order to Dox other creators and them gloat about it on video, that is a major issue that needs to be addressed.
Just to be clear, I haven't seen your music video(or the Anarchists' one), I just used the Drumeo video as an example cause I've seen the original. To continue with the same example, Drumeo could also ask RUclips to take down your video. Maybe they didn't want their video to exist anywhere else but their own channel. Is it reasonable? No. But if it's within the ToS, they can. If you made a video talking trash about them and they wanted to sue you, then RUclips is obliged to give your full name to them. Just like internet providers are required to give the owners of certain IP addresses when there's a legal case against them. Who are they supposed to sue, darkfairy69 or WhiteKnight2244555? And no, RUclips, Facebook, Twitter, etc are no different than traditional media. They're trying to act as something different because they want to avoid the cost of moderating their content. That's why they ended up apologizing to Congress about all the fake news on their platforms. If someone wants to create toxic content hidden behind a username, RUclips is not the platform for it. That era is long gone. No creator is irreplaceable. Shareholders and big advertisers are.
At this point, I think that intent vs principle is where the conversation is turning. You and I seem to have a very different opinion on whether or not someone abusing the ToS to dox a creator is right or not based on the content that was used under the guidelines of fair use. I respect your opinion, but very much disagree with most of it. I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t believe that the approach that this creator took is conducive to a healthy platform. Digression is something that a lot of channels, and even big music labels, practice on the platform. And it seems to work well. But abuse of ToS for the sake of bullying someone to sooth your hurt feelings is extremely toxic. Just as toxic as bullying behind a user name. But internet anarchist wasn’t bullying. He was talking about ANOTHER scam that this creator partook in that allegedly robbed people of money. It was well researched, accurate, unbiased, and factual. But this creator struck it down to censor, bully, and dox the Internet Anarchist. This creator then ALSO proceeded to make an entire video to gloat about how he abuses ToS to scary, bully, and dox creators under the guise of “this is business.” With that context in mind, I fully stand by my opinion that this is wrong in every way, potentially harmful to the platform, and dangerous to small creators who otherwise want to make researched content that might cover facts that hurt other people’s feelings.
There's nothing more interesting than RUclipsrs talking about other RUclipsrs... except everything.
Well, when it's a RUclipsr who is abusing a system that keep this platform afloat in order to dox others, its kind of a big deal. So I just wanted to make my opinion clear.
TechLead is one of the most despicable individuals in the RUclips tech community… this doesn’t surprise me at all coming from this “millionaire”
Who? 👀😅
toast
With the eggs? 😂
egg
Scrambled or over easy?
@@GarrettCrespo over easy
It’s not a threat, it’s just stating that he will go to “great lengths” to keep himself safe.
Copyright existed before RUclips, and it doesn't work the way you describe it. If you were a professional musician you should know better, because copyright is supposed to protect artists. I've worked for 20 years in the media and we would pay for every single second of footage, music, VO, or any type of content we would use. RUclips is acting like that because they would be hit with lawsuits and lose millions if they don't. RUclips is a business making money from advertisers, it's not some imaginary place where everyone can do whatever they want.
Fair use has been argued in court time and time again to the point where RUclips has actually changed their policies and made them better for commentary, education, and reaction content. The problem here is someone claiming an entire video, striking a channel, and attempting to get a content creators personal information because they were mad. You can’t do that if a video actually follows fair use.
@@GarrettCrespo Thank you for your response. RUclips will always change its rules just enough to comply with the law. That's what companies do. If it was up to RUclips, this platform would be worse than 4Chan. But it's not a fringe website, it's a publicly traded company(Alphabet). I'm not a lawyer, and law differs from country to country, (while RUclips is a global platform and has to comply with every country it operates in) but how is it fair use when someone profits from it? Because the videos we're talking about are monetized, aren't they? If it was just for education/reaction etc then those videos shouldn't get any money. For example, the Drumeo video you referenced (which I happened to watch), it's a high-quality production. I'm sure they spent lots of money, time, and effort to produce it. Why should you profit from their video? Isn't it the same with song remixes, stealing melodies/samples, etc? Everyone is free to make a remix of a song, but if they want to publish it and profit from it, they have to ask permission from the owner of the original song. Why should it be any different for content? As I said, I'm not a lawyer, it's what I think is the right way to make content.
The four factors of fair use have been established for a long time now and whether you agree with them or not, it's what RUclips has put in place. It's part of their ToS, and it was abused by the creator I was talking about. Even if you don't agree with the ToS, it's still the law of the land here and this creator broke those laws.
I also want to set one thing strait about my music channel and the videos on there. The Drumeo video you mentioned was claimed by Drumeo and the ad revenue went to them. That happens with any channel that is ok with fair use, but doesn't want people profiting from their content. It isn't a strike that debilitates a channel. It's just a claim that send's ad revenue to them. As for other creators that I've referenced in other videos, I have gotten ample support from the creators themselves for breaking down their content and promoting it to bring more attention to their work. In that instance, it's seen as a fair exchange. The profit I DO make (if I make any at all) is a fraction of what they made on the original content and is basically pay that these featured content creators don't have to pay for publicity.
No reasonable creators here on RUclips actually care if their content is used in a fair use situation, let alone strike a video to gain personal information for doxing. I've had my own content used in mashup/compilation videos that have gotten millions of views and made the creator tons of money. Do I care? No! Because it brings attention to my content. It's a fair exchange. Even though RUclips/Alphabet is a company, the way that content is handled on the platform is completely different from the traditional media that you're referring to. RUclips is a hybrid social media/news/review/TV/movie site that sources its content from independent contractors. When those contractors/creators go out of their way to violate ToS, falsely claim videos in order to Dox other creators and them gloat about it on video, that is a major issue that needs to be addressed.
Just to be clear, I haven't seen your music video(or the Anarchists' one), I just used the Drumeo video as an example cause I've seen the original. To continue with the same example, Drumeo could also ask RUclips to take down your video. Maybe they didn't want their video to exist anywhere else but their own channel. Is it reasonable? No. But if it's within the ToS, they can. If you made a video talking trash about them and they wanted to sue you, then RUclips is obliged to give your full name to them. Just like internet providers are required to give the owners of certain IP addresses when there's a legal case against them. Who are they supposed to sue, darkfairy69 or WhiteKnight2244555? And no, RUclips, Facebook, Twitter, etc are no different than traditional media. They're trying to act as something different because they want to avoid the cost of moderating their content. That's why they ended up apologizing to Congress about all the fake news on their platforms. If someone wants to create toxic content hidden behind a username, RUclips is not the platform for it. That era is long gone. No creator is irreplaceable. Shareholders and big advertisers are.
At this point, I think that intent vs principle is where the conversation is turning. You and I seem to have a very different opinion on whether or not someone abusing the ToS to dox a creator is right or not based on the content that was used under the guidelines of fair use. I respect your opinion, but very much disagree with most of it. I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t believe that the approach that this creator took is conducive to a healthy platform. Digression is something that a lot of channels, and even big music labels, practice on the platform. And it seems to work well. But abuse of ToS for the sake of bullying someone to sooth your hurt feelings is extremely toxic. Just as toxic as bullying behind a user name. But internet anarchist wasn’t bullying. He was talking about ANOTHER scam that this creator partook in that allegedly robbed people of money. It was well researched, accurate, unbiased, and factual. But this creator struck it down to censor, bully, and dox the Internet Anarchist. This creator then ALSO proceeded to make an entire video to gloat about how he abuses ToS to scary, bully, and dox creators under the guise of “this is business.”
With that context in mind, I fully stand by my opinion that this is wrong in every way, potentially harmful to the platform, and dangerous to small creators who otherwise want to make researched content that might cover facts that hurt other people’s feelings.