Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9425822" data-attributes="member: 18">This has nothing to do with YouTube TOS violations, let's be clear. Copyright strikes are themselves often issues in violation of YouTube TOS. For example, my wife did a Sims 3 video, with the sound off entirely to make sure she didn't get a copyright strike, and talked over it, and it was raining at the time, and she got sent a copyright strike on the basis that some company owned the sound of the rain, which, hilariously dystopian stuff aside, was obviously crooked and violation of the YouTube TOS itself. But there are absolutely consequences attached to that. She refuted it and pushed it back so they have to respond, and obviously as they were scammers they didn't respond. But either way accusing people of violating YouTube TOS, not of falling afoul of copyright law is quite misleading in my view. They're separate things. I'd advise you to stop repeating that phrase like it means anything, because all it is, is misleading.There's absolutely no evidence this happened in this case. And there's clear evidence, that YOU YOURSELF have posted, that it did not. So please stop advancing this unsupported theory. I've never even heard of YouTube doing this outside of:A) Music.B) Actual footage that belongs to someone - i.e. actual video being nicked.More to the point, do we know if Reynolds Law also wrote the polite request letter sent to Mike Shea?If so, then this becomes more interesting, because it would look like not &quot;one hand doesn't know what the other is doing&quot;, but rather &quot;We care about some of these guys, just copyright strike the rest&quot;. If they didn't, that is noteworthy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9425822, member: 18"] This has nothing to do with YouTube TOS violations, let's be clear. Copyright strikes are themselves often issues in violation of YouTube TOS. For example, my wife did a Sims 3 video, with the sound off entirely to make sure she didn't get a copyright strike, and talked over it, and it was raining at the time, and she got sent a copyright strike on the basis that some company owned the sound of the rain, which, hilariously dystopian stuff aside, was obviously crooked and violation of the YouTube TOS itself. But there are absolutely consequences attached to that. She refuted it and pushed it back so they have to respond, and obviously as they were scammers they didn't respond. But either way accusing people of violating YouTube TOS, not of falling afoul of copyright law is quite misleading in my view. They're separate things. I'd advise you to stop repeating that phrase like it means anything, because all it is, is misleading. There's absolutely no evidence this happened in this case. And there's clear evidence, that YOU YOURSELF have posted, that it did not. So please stop advancing this unsupported theory. I've never even heard of YouTube doing this outside of: A) Music. B) Actual footage that belongs to someone - i.e. actual video being nicked. More to the point, do we know if Reynolds Law also wrote the polite request letter sent to Mike Shea? If so, then this becomes more interesting, because it would look like not "one hand doesn't know what the other is doing", but rather "We care about some of these guys, just copyright strike the rest". If they didn't, that is noteworthy. [/QUOTE]

Verification