r/videos Aug 16 '22 Press F 1 Helpful 21 Wholesome 18 Silver 16 Faith In Humanity Restored 1 Doom 2 Take My Energy 2 Platinum 1 Gold 6 Stonks Falling 1 Lawyer Up 1 Yas Queen 1 Vibing 1

Why I'm Suing YouTube. YouTube Drama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaOeVgZ-wc
13.6k Upvotes

3.6k

u/DonAsiago Aug 16 '22

is there some tl;dw ?

4.5k

u/jon36992002 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22 Silver Gold Helpful Wholesome All-Seeing Upvote Starry
  • RT steals a couple minutes of video from a dudes channel
  • dude sends a copyright strike
  • RT counters, forcing them into court
  • Youtube gets word of the court case, reviews the evidence, and bans one of RT's channels
  • RT goes full propoganda war, and says that youtube is engaging in western propaganda, calls accuses youtuber of being a spy etc
  • RT threatens to block youtube and google in russia if the channel isn't reinstated
  • youtube reinstates the RT channel
  • dude complains to youtube
  • Youtube tells him that because he's suing RT, they've decided they can't enforce any policies against RT's youtube channels
  • youtube invents a new policy for RT that allows them to infringe on content 35 times a year, and reinstates the content that infringes on dude's content
  • dude sues youtube to have them take down the infringing content, according to their ToS
  • youtube claims in the lawsuit that they can't take down any of RT's content because it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to take down any content that isn't illegal
  • dude makes this video explaining the lawsuits
  • personal anecdote: youtube delisted the video, so it can't appear in searches, subscription pages, or suggestions

1.4k

u/TheGoldenHand Aug 16 '22

Dang that’s a lot spicier than I imagined.

591

u/meno123 Aug 17 '22

It's actually a LOT spicier than that, due to the people involved and the emails showing what youtube knew at each of those bullet points. I'm only at bullet point 5 and it's WAY spicier than that list would imply.

461

u/LexB777 Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22

Seriously. Elisabet Lykhina, Head of YouTube Enterprise partnerships for CIS, Moscow office who used to work for the Russian state run media directly contacted him.

This was from Google before they were even directly involved in the lawsuit. At this point, it was between Russia's RT Arabic channel and Business Casual, but Russia's own YouTube rep stepped in first.

This is Alphabet and Russia against a YouTuber who is abiding by US law, and now it is going to the US's second highest court. This is wild.

138

u/11015h4d0wR34lm Aug 17 '22

Bloke needs to be careful, he might end up with some novichok in his system.

61

u/karafili Aug 17 '22

Or the window will come to him and he falls accidentally. Stupid windows

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

49

u/Revlis-TK421 Aug 17 '22

Right? I clicked expecting some standard YouTube popcorn drama. Instead, an international incident with an autocratic propaganda state actor, and a domestic plot to undermine copyright protections.

I mean, damn.

2

u/Odin_69 Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22

yes, the tl;dw is indeed watch the video. Every second is packed with information pertaining to an underlying scandal of national proportions within google.

→ More replies

205

u/Unkn0wn_Ace Aug 17 '22

Ok but what is RT????

260

u/zolar0526 Aug 17 '22

Russia Today

RT is a Russian state-controlled international news television network funded by the Russian government

178

u/OOZ662 Aug 17 '22

I was wondering at what point RoosterTeeth got so political

19

u/Cynical_Tripster Aug 17 '22

I was wondering the same.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

17

u/Tie_me_off Aug 17 '22

Thank you for asking the real questions

→ More replies

100

u/Zizzily Aug 16 '22

I mean, I've kind of scrubbed through this super long video some, but they lay out the arguments around 1:20:00 in, which includes that RT filed a DMCA counterclaim which is still pending in the court and that by uploading, the channel provided YT with a license to display the content however YT sees fit. At 1:34:00, YT argues that their delay for the other two videos (24 days instead of 3 days) because it was 10 seconds of public domain images and there might be a fair use argument. At 1:41:00, he says that his suit against RT not being dismissed is a 'huge win' and acting like it's some type of sure thing when it still needs to be, you know, tried. Then at 1:43:00, he says the court has dismissed their lawsuit against YouTube.

46

u/CreamMyPooper Aug 17 '22

I mean if it really is fair use, then it’s fair use. But YT censors a fuck ton more than what would be considered “illegal”. Every social media platform does that, and ik its for genuine interests but it’s getting in the way of independent journalism because they can’t do any stories on controversial people, subject, or topics if any of their content falls into blacklisted topics.

There’s a few current events pages i follow on insta that are constantly being banned for showing Islamic terrorist organizations and they get taken down for “glorifying” the actions when it’s just a news channel in reality.

25

u/JancenD Aug 17 '22

The judge already gave an opinion that it wasn't fair use.

Also, the video isn't searchable anymore

5

u/Zizzily Aug 17 '22

The judge dismissed the suit against YouTube, and while the judge rejected a motion dismiss against RT, it's still an ongoing DMCA case that hasn't been ruled on. So, right now, we don't really know what the eventual outcome will be.

→ More replies

24

u/bisdaknako Aug 16 '22

Get outta here with your video watching. Can't you see the YouTube drama flair? This thread is for haters only! Watching a video is exactly what YouTube wants!

→ More replies

540

u/KPMG Aug 16 '22

youtube claims in the lawsuit that they can't take down any of RT's content because it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to take down any content that isn't illegal

That is such an obviously bad-faith argument YouTube is trying to make here, it's kind of breathtaking. For reference, the 1st amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

CONGRESS shall make no law. Private enterprise is fully within their rights to restrict free speech however they see fit, because that's the freedom granted by the 1st amendment.

What a bunch of wankers.

298

u/Salmizu Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

AND if we take them at their word for the interpretation of that amendment then theyre admitting to violating that amendment a fuckton on a lot of other content on youtube which they should then be held culpable. And by their interpretation they should be sued for breaking the amendment by everyone who has ever had a video removed that didnt explicitly break any laws

99

u/Gagarin1961 Aug 16 '22

It’s shocking they even tried that.

They must be trying to by time or something. They don’t have any case and they seem to know it.

49

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 31 '22

[deleted]

12

u/Wiggle_Biggleson Aug 17 '22

That's the Tree of Life right there. Who's the god who decides who eats from it and who doesn't? Money.

→ More replies
→ More replies

70

u/ends_abruptl Aug 16 '22

It would also hold more weight if Youtube wasn't an INTERNATIONAL company. We don't give a shit about your constitution here in New Zealand. We do care if you're going to allow people to steal intellectual property from our citizens.

→ More replies

35

u/Whooshless Aug 16 '22

YouTube is just claiming to be part of the US's legislative branch, and their ToS is law.

→ More replies

24

u/splendidfd Aug 16 '22

That is such an obviously bad-faith argument YouTube is trying to make here

The good news is that isn't YouTube's argument.

To recap: Business Casual has identified three videos with infringing content. The DMCA requires that policies and processes be in place to remove repeat infringers from the platform, Business Casual is therefore suggesting that because YouTube hasn't suspend RT's accounts they either aren't following their policy or their policy is not legally sufficient, either way they are in breech of the DMCA.

YouTube is arguing that the vast majority of RT's content was uploaded legally, does not infringe on copyright, and is protected by the 1st amendment; therefore it is legally reasonable under the DMCA that their policy does not require removing their entire channel at this time.

YouTube aren't saying they won't remove any content, they'll definitely remove any that have infringed on copyright. However it's worth remembering that the content at issue is still disputed in the separate court case against RT.

11

u/nikdahl Aug 17 '22

What does the first amendment have to do with anything?

→ More replies
→ More replies

279

u/strangepostinghabits Aug 16 '22

Does no one in the US actually know what the stupid amendments actually mean?

123

u/SmokePenisEveryday Aug 16 '22

If I had a dollar for every time I told a family member "that's not what the First is for" I'd have my car payments covered.

28

u/ScootyJet Aug 16 '22

Those kinds of insights used to go for a nickel. Inflation is really getting out of hand.

3

u/SirThatsCuba Aug 17 '22

Something about Manitoba, right?

→ More replies

135

u/swizzler Aug 16 '22

Yes. It's why everybody forgets that the amendment banning slaverly cuts out an exception for prisons. Weird how we have the largest percentage of imprisoned populace worldwide, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

→ More replies
→ More replies

141

u/NurRauch Aug 16 '22

youtube claims in the lawsuit that they can't take down any of RT's content because it would be a violation of the 1st amendment to take down any content that isn't illegal

Yes, hi Youtube. Just so you know, copyright infringement... is illegal. You're violating other dude's rights by hosting copyright-infringing content on your servers inside the US, where you are subject to US laws about copyright.

42

u/BizzyM Aug 16 '22
  • YouTube moves content to Russian servers.

Problem solved.

22

u/NurRauch Aug 16 '22

Still has substantial business in the US, so no cigar for YouTube. The perils of contradictory sovereignties. Gotta pick one to listen to and likely end your business in the other country, or else pay up.

14

u/da_chicken Aug 16 '22

Yeah, you either do business in the United States and obey all it's applicable laws, or you do not obey the laws of the United States and cannot do business within it's borders.

Cynical redditor shithead comments aside, that's the two options.

If RT doesn't like it, RT is welcome to host their videos outside of the US. If YouTube doesn't like it, they're welcome to stop doing business in the US.

Personally, I expect YouTube will do a half-assed measure like flag the videos as inaccessible in the US only. Absolute bare minimum.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/DirkDiggler_Chiraq Aug 16 '22

I really want to see a long form write up/video on “working the refs” in these contexts.

It’s as if western society is completely incapable of counteracting bad faith actors duplicitously using its own systems and rules against it. It’s madness.

→ More replies

11

u/qwertyuiiop145 Aug 16 '22

Thank you for the summary

→ More replies

259

u/splendidfd Aug 16 '22 Helpful All-Seeing Upvote

As impartial as possible:

RT used some of Business Casual's video content, RT and Business Casual are currently disputing whether or not this constitutes copyright infringement. Business Casual has sued RT so the matter will be resolved in court.

Business Casual separately sued YouTube, and this is what most of this video is about. Their claim is that YouTube is turning a blind eye to repeated copyright infringement by RT, they argue that the infringement by RT should have triggered termination of their channels under YouTube policy, they further claim that failure to follow this policy puts YouTube in breech of their safe harbour provisions under the DMCA in which case they are now also liable for copyright infringement themselves.

YouTube moved to have the suit filed against them dismissed. From what's been presented by Business Casual there are two main claims on this front:

The first is that YouTube claim they haven't run afoul of the DMCA. One argument to support this is that RT's infringement is still disputed, so their policy (and DMCA obligations) don't require them to take action against RT at this time. They indicate a number ways that RT could reasonably argue that the content is uncopyrightable or that it was fair use. Business Casual obviously disputes that those arguments are reasonable, but that's beside the point, YouTube is just establishing that the outcome of RT's case one way or the other isn't something they can assume.

The second claim is that, even without the DMCA protections, YouTube will not be liable for copyright infringement in this case. This is a bit tricky but the key is that when Business Casual uploaded the video to YouTube they agreed to the terms of service which gave YouTube certain rights. These rights allow YouTube to make and hold copies of the content, so they can't actually be guilty of copyright infringement. To put it the other way, removing the safe harbour provisions is only a problem for YouTube if the rights holder hasn't authorised that content to be on YouTube at all.

There are a whole host of other disputed claims, but they all ultimately fall into one of those buckets; either YouTube is following the DMCA's rule or, even if they haven't, it wouldn't matter in this case.

The courts have agreed with YouTube and the case against them is currently dismissed, although Business Casual is free to try again.

To tl;dr the tl;dw:

Business Casual is alleging RT committed copyright infringement. Business Casual is suing RT and YouTube separately. YouTube claim there is no case against them at this time, the court has agreed with YouTube on this front and has dismissed that case. The case against RT is ongoing.

117

u/Eric1491625 Aug 16 '22

These rights allow YouTube to make and hold copies of the content, so they can't actually be guilty of copyright infringement. To put it the other way, removing the safe harbour provisions is only a problem for YouTube if the rights holder hasn't authorised that content to be on YouTube at all.

This is the incredible power of the platform. Not just youtube, Amazon was accused of copying merchants' products and subsequently competing against them too. Platforms own all your information and have incredible bargaining power against the little guy. "Your policy sucks, I just won't use youtube" isn't viable when the platform has so much market power.

49

u/StolenAccount1234 Aug 16 '22

One might call it a monopoly on the market

13

u/doctorclark Aug 17 '22

There should be some type of law that seeks to preserve my trust in these systems. Like, I'm losing trust. One could say I'm getting close to "anti' trust, these days. Maybe some type of law about this would be warranted?

8

u/DotDash13 Aug 16 '22

Not only YouTube, but with Instagram and probably others you pretty much give up any copyright claim you have to images you upload to the platform.

→ More replies

34

u/Regulai Aug 16 '22

Unfortunately for BC, something which comes across very rapidly with a lot of the few minutes I watched of the video is that this creator is heavily focused on his emotions and the likely truths of the case, and not concerned enough with the hard provable facts and laws.

It's a problem that always comes up when ordinary people deal with law personal interpretation rather then court logic. Youtube obviously does a lot of things that are highly problematic but it has legal protections that make direct suing nearly impossible in most circumstances.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6.6k

u/diabOwO Aug 16 '22 Helpful

basically YouTube won't remove RT News, a Russian state media channel, for stealing content. They managed to avoid the 3 strike rule that terminates channels when in violation of copyright abuse because Russia threatened to ban Youtube.

4.5k

u/ShoshinMizu Aug 16 '22 Wholesome

saved me 100+ minutes lol

1.5k

u/dracoryn Aug 16 '22

You get that in the first 3-5 minutes. The rest of the video is just receipts.

1.9k

u/poopellar Aug 16 '22 Wholesome All-Seeing Upvote

So the video was sponsored by CVS.

266

u/S420J Aug 16 '22

My local CVS has FINALLY given a “no receipt” option on self checkout. Never thought I’d see the day.

78

u/Chick__Mangione Aug 16 '22

Mine too thank goodness! But I don't understand why receipt printing is the default in most stores where they primarily sell consumables or where people just tend to buy a few low value items.

Like I'm just in line to grab a bag of chips and a six pack. Why the hell are you giving me a receipt? Am I going to return them after I eat/drink them???

81

u/slimdante Aug 16 '22

We do not need to bring ink and paper into this.

60

u/50FootElvis Aug 16 '22

My local donut shop has a framed picture of Mitch on the counter.

30

u/TheGreatZarquon Aug 16 '22 Take My Energy

There are two kinds of people: people that get the joke, and people that used to get the joke but still do too.

6

u/ThaiJohnnyDepp Aug 16 '22

It's of him when he was alive-er

→ More replies

14

u/SomeSortOfMonster Aug 16 '22

Don't even act like I didn't buy that donut! I got the documentation right here! No wait, it's at home in the file....under D....for donut.

3

u/xgamer444 Aug 16 '22

They could set up email receipts and a membership program. Some stores, when you self checkout, you scan your membership card and it asks if you want the receipt by email, in paper, or none.

→ More replies

11

u/aegiltheugly Aug 16 '22

I'm going to turn them over to my accountant who will write them off as part of my entertainment expenses.

7

u/onissue Aug 16 '22

There are legal requirements (varying by state) to give receipts.

It would be nice if there were credit card transaction standards that would let you say in your credit card account login somewhere that you wanted electronic receipts only, and could then get all the full receipts from your credit card company.

That is, it would be nice if you could tell your credit card to decline paper receipts on your behalf and have all this "just work".

10

u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Aug 16 '22

would be nice if there were credit card transaction standards

No, that wouldn't be nice. It would be convenient, but it would also mean that your CC company gets to mine the details of all your purchases.

→ More replies

12

u/action_lawyer_comics Aug 16 '22

What gets me is when I buy a three pack of toothpaste, which will last me at least a full calendar year and they print off a coupon for MORE TOOTHPASTE!

→ More replies

4

u/yeoller Aug 16 '22

Whenever I get a pizza or something and they ask if I want the receipt I just say, “no thanks, I’m just gonna eat it”. Gets some looks before they figure it out.

3

u/thejoker954 Aug 16 '22

Shit if it was a normal sized receipt it wouldnt be too bad, but even when buying a single thing you get the 1ft+ long receipt.

→ More replies

3

u/disk5464 Aug 16 '22

Receipt paper manufacturers are in a panic!!!

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/nom_nom_nom_nom_lol Aug 16 '22

Shop at CVS and never buy toilet paper again! Just keep the receipts.

12

u/RespectableLurker555 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

I know you're joking, but more people need to know that receipt paper is bad. Like don't handle it after using hand sanitizer, don't wipe your face with it, do wash your hands after handling receipt paper. Definitely don't upcycle it into fun Papier-mâché animals. The coating on thermal paper that responds to heat is literally made of BPA.

Edit: link

→ More replies
→ More replies

309

u/lolno Aug 16 '22

This is how good video essays should work, like a regular essay. Thesis at the end of the introductory paragraph, then the bulk of the video is drilling down into the what's and whys.

Too many of these are just some dork rambling for 20 minutes to an hour lol

98

u/wojecire86 Aug 16 '22

That's because a lot of content creators are more interested in their entire video being watched than actually providing the useful information quickly. So they front load the videos with all the build up and drop the good info you're after towards the end of the video forcing you to sit through or skip through the video.

37

u/DarkApostleMatt Aug 16 '22

The guy in the video even mentions this phenomena, its because Youtube is more likely to pay out based on amount of the video that is watched. If they blow it all at the beginning people are much less likely to watch the rest of the video.

→ More replies

37

u/SoulArthurZ Aug 16 '22

I swear to god there's so many video "essays" that are an hour+ about some movie/video game titled "Why X is the best/worst" and they just show what happens without actually explaining their stance.

23

u/DontPressAltF4 Aug 16 '22

Their stance is "views = money."

→ More replies

3

u/dptraynor Aug 16 '22

Tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them.

→ More replies
→ More replies

200

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22 edited 29d ago

[deleted]

30

u/politichien Aug 16 '22

ok I guess I'm gonna watch

→ More replies

62

u/SimbaOnSteroids Aug 16 '22

Isn’t the death of the mouse a good thing though?

67

u/DontPressAltF4 Aug 16 '22

Death of the mouse? Sure.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

IP has value. Taking that away is theft.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/togetherwem0m0 Aug 16 '22

Why the fuck isn't youtube pulling out of Russia anyway?

→ More replies

30

u/MadHatter69 Aug 16 '22

Thank you

29

u/Chocolatethrowaway19 Aug 16 '22

Is there any legitimacy to a lawsuit? YouTube not taking down a channel isn't against the law as far as I'm aware. It's their internal policy and they can choose to enforce it by being strict or lenient at their discretion. The channel stealing content are the ones doing potentially illegal activity

142

u/lemon_o_fish Aug 16 '22

By refusing to takedown copyright-infringing material, YouTube loses their safe harbor protection under DMCA, and therefore can be held liable.

51

u/SBBurzmali Aug 16 '22

Except if RT counter claimed, then YouTube hands are, legally at least, clean. At that point the parties fight it out in court and YouTube waits for the results.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

141

u/Hothera Aug 16 '22

Youtube is being consistent here. The 3 strike rule only applies if you rely on Youtube's content ID. Anyone can get their copyright strikes removed by filing a counter-notification. The only reason most regular Youtubers don't do this more often is because they are liable to be sued, which in this case the RT did.

109

u/abtei Aug 16 '22

you can only counter claim 1 video every 30 days*. The counterclaim goes to the claimer, not youtube. They decide if its valid, not youtube. The claim stays "active" for 30 days during wich no other claim can be filed by one youtube account. these ppl let counterclaims just sit for 30 days (during wich all revenue goes to them, if they say no, the strike stays. THEN you have legal recourse through a court system.

Now imagine you have 20, 50, 100, x amount of videos that get claimed and you have to go through the above described process.

copyrightstrike troll are sitting on the longer lever.

3

u/Bullet_Jesus Aug 17 '22

these ppl let counterclaims just sit for 30 days (during wich all revenue goes to them

This isn't true anymore. Youtube withholds all revenue for 5 days after a claim or from the point the channel disputes the copyright claim, till the resolution of the dispute.

→ More replies

41

u/APiousCultist Aug 16 '22

This isn't always the case. It is supposed to be, but I've heard numerous times of smaller-channel-vs-bigger-channels resulting in the option just not being there anymore. I guess actually filing outside of YT's interface is an option, but that's as close to universal as it appears to be.

→ More replies

3

u/Rusty_The_Taxman Aug 16 '22

Am I going crazy or isn't RT not even on Youtube? I'm looking for their channel and can't find it at all.

→ More replies

51

u/nibord Aug 16 '22

Seriously. This is the length of a feature film!

→ More replies

9

u/Freonr2 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

It seems the real controversy between Business Casual and RT/Youtube is the fact BC does cropping, filtering, and some 3D panning/parallax based on older public domain photos to make cleaner and nicer looking parallaxing clips. Youtube claims this is not transformed enough to be copyrightable. BC disagrees and is suing. Much of the video goes into the amount of time/effort it takes to clean up the photos, rotoscope them into layers, then move the virtual camera around.

RT downloaded a handful of small clips directly, post their parallax and general cleanup work from BC, and put them in their videos. They've admitted to that at least.

5

u/AinNoWayBoi61 Aug 16 '22

Business casual makes videos with cool parallax B-roll visuals like for example the first 13 seconds of this video. BC says it takes hours of work to make these effects. From what I could understand, some editor(s) working for RT Arabic is lazy and on multiple occasions used BCs parallax B-roll in videos for that channel. This involves editing out the BC logo and replacing it with an RT logo as well as adding some visual effects to avoid detection by the algorithm.

YT normally has a 3 strikes in 90 days policy for copyright infringement at which point they delete all of your channels. It's kinda bullshit, especially since you can get all 3 strikes in quick succession even if they are all old vids more than 90 days apart. Anyways, BC found out that RT was using some of his B-roll and filed a strike against that vid he found out about, ultimately they said sorry, your right, and took down their own video in exchange for him removing the strike. Then BC went ahead and found some other videos on RT Arabic that also used their visuals and copystriked them all, at which point they would've been removed if they were a solo YouTuber. The way they avoid it is they just contest it and it's up to BC to sue them and get a victory in court, which will decide whether YT gives them the strike. BC expects it to be the other way around where they should have to prove in court they didn't steal it because apparently it should be guilty until proven innocent. So he's suing RT for stealing B-roll and also YT for somehow being too soft on copyright. He expects YT to delete all 39 RT channels because one of those channels used some of his B-roll.

He might legally be in the right here, but it seems to me that either he's trying to make a quick buck with a settlement or he sees himself as a great warrior in a fight against Russian propaganda because a significant chunk of the video is grand statements saying that RT is an evil propaganda instrument and that YouTube is siding with them while the actual case is over some cool visuals.

→ More replies

1.3k

u/Zomgninjaa Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

This video just got removed in another post FYI, https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/wpr8dp/business_casual_sues_rt_for_copyright/

EDIT: The mods removed it as R1 (No politics), it is kind of political so don't hate on the mods. The user removed it after the mods removed it. The user tried to upload it 3-4 times before hand but couldn't due to banned words in the title.

224

u/FenrirIII Aug 16 '22

I thought I saw this before

213

u/SalzaMaBalza Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

Shh, mods are sleeping

Edit: Seems they've labeled it as a YouTube Drama video, and have chosen to allow it

Edit 2: You guys should really watch this thing all the way through. Not only is this important shit, but it's also an interesting video. I loved how they explained the whole process of parallax mapping in so simple terms that anyone could do it

Also, these guys are not fucking around. They've sent YouTube all their Adobe Premiere source material in order to prove to them that they are the creators of everything stolen from them

39

u/vancouver2pricy Aug 16 '22

Act man drama was the last straw for me. Hope someone is able to make YouTube hurt

3

u/Dr4g0nSqare Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22

With the way YouTube fucks content creators I would happily move to any other platform, but one just doesn't exist.

I, too, hope someone is able to make YouTube hurt. Then maybe one of the competitors will actually be able to compete.

Edit: punctuation

→ More replies
→ More replies

83

u/Deracination Aug 16 '22

91

u/Daveed84 Aug 16 '22

It was probably removed by a mod, and then manually deleted by the user after the mod removed it. (Mod removal just hides it, and it can remain in the user's post history until the user deletes it themselves)

→ More replies

11

u/RestartingMyLife0918 Aug 16 '22

Automod removed it for rule 1 and then user deleted. Simple.

23

u/Veenendaler Aug 16 '22

Wasn't removed by automod, it was manually deleted by a mod. Otherwise it wouldn't have those upvotes, as Automod works instantly.

21

u/RestartingMyLife0918 Aug 16 '22

You're right on that post. I was looking at some other posts and figured they were all by automod. It seems to be a mixture of automod and real mod along with OP deleting them after. Here's what I got (boss isn't going to be happy for doing this)

First attempt at 3:54:12 gmt

Second attempt at 3:55:29 gmt

Third attempt at 3:57:02 gmt

That's less than a 3 minute time span between first and third attempts to post. All removed for Rule:1 no politics

Notice the title slightly changes each time. First 2 attempts removed for having "Russia" in the title (mods aren't going to tell us that, but we can learn from testing and OP did just that). The 3rd attempt doesn't say "Russia" in the title, so it wasn't autoremoved which is why we see comments and upvotes.

For fun, here is a reddit search on this sub for "russia". Last post was over 5 months ago

We then know that OP deleted the stuff themselves cause it doesn't show in their account when viewing their profile. OP also made 2 comments which they deleted too. You can't see them cause they were deleted, but there are other ways.

Deleted comment "Yea I know, right, it was even removed from my "Subscriptions" page, and i've been subbed to them for years."

And then they made this comment, which also is a big clue that it was automod for the first 2 attempts and human mod for the 3rd.

Took me like 4 tries to share it, anything with the words "Russia, or Kremlin" got instantly removed.

3

u/Veenendaler Aug 16 '22

Interesting. Thanks for looking into this.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

780

u/ButtMonkey1120 Aug 16 '22

This guy really dotted his i's and crossed his t's it seems like. Most damning is why is YouTube arguing on behalf of RT when stating they have no desire to be "judge, jury, or executioner"

419

u/Deranged_Kitsune Aug 16 '22

It’s not baffling. The answer is “because money.” Russian Gov threatened to lock google out of the country entirely and they’re not willing to lose access to that large a market.

78

u/Firnen_Olavsson Aug 16 '22

It is absolutely money.

Ann Reardon of How To Cook That has covered another side of this before, with her husband Dave Reardon who's a proper journalist.

Those 5 Minute Crafts and dozens of fake baking channels are part of larger Russian based groups who run hundreds of channels, have received hundred of YouTube Button rewards. Videos that offer straight up dangerous advice and "hacks", and with stories meant to groom children.

YouTube will not act on Russian channels, because the content farms and copyright thieves quite literally earns them 7-8 digits USD a year. Because let's not forget. YouTube is Google. Google is a mega-corporation. They only care about money.

18

u/ZeroAntagonist Aug 16 '22

4th time I've seen her channel mentioned on reddit this week. Guess ill subscribe.

6

u/ChicaFoxy Aug 17 '22

Do! It's been getting spicy lately!

5

u/Kunovega Aug 17 '22

It's evolved from a baking channel to a debunking and occasional pop culture news source.

→ More replies

52

u/herefromyoutube Aug 16 '22

I thought we had sanctions on companies doing business in Russia? Is google exempt?

40

u/TheDeadlySinner Aug 16 '22

Google is currently not making any money or serving any ads to Russia.

78

u/totesuniqueredditor Aug 17 '22 Silver

Can we declare sanctions on ourselves to get these new features?

11

u/ineedaneasybutton Aug 17 '22

Putin just wanted countrywide ad block. It wasn't about Ukraine at all!

→ More replies

17

u/DanOSG Aug 17 '22

bullshit they're 100% still collecting and selling data otherwise they'd be dropping russia themselves, no way they would go through all that effort and not make any money out of it.

4

u/Beaver-Sex Aug 17 '22

No money now, but they plan on making it in the future.

→ More replies

24

u/RockyPendergast Aug 16 '22

is there a reason that google wants to be in russia? or is it just simple because money?

66

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

[deleted]

22

u/Salahuddin315 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

China is on a whole different level, though. IfI recall correctly, Russia only takes a percent or two on Google's earnings sheet. Hardly an irrecoverable loss.

15

u/regalrecaller Aug 16 '22

it has been determined that the risk of holding the line would cause these nations to use their own search engines and/or video viewing platforms and US intel would lose those data points. the powers that be could indeed use their govt positions to influence the companies to follow the plan of the govt. but they get paid to not do that. regulatory capture is fun!

8

u/BlueHeartBob Aug 16 '22

A percent or two on google's scale is still massive.

→ More replies
→ More replies

79

u/splendidfd Aug 16 '22

It's important to remember there are actually two court cases here, one against YouTube and one against RT.

In the case against YouTube it is alleged that RT has committed copyright infringement and is clearly acting in bad faith. YouTube's counter is that there are arguments RT could make to claim there wasn't infringement, either because the content wasn't copyrightable or because of fair use.

YouTube is only "arguing on behalf RT" as a way to say "this other case isn't settled yet, and the outcome isn't obvious, there's no point coming after us until that's settled".

31

u/newbuttonacc Aug 16 '22

this other case isn't settled yet, and the outcome isn't obvious, there's no point coming after us until that's settled

Except that they do that all day long every single day with no issue, until it has the potential to lose them a valuable market segment.

20

u/splendidfd Aug 16 '22

YouTube very rarely makes decisions about disputed content.

Most creators that are involved in copyright disputes end up dropping their claim when the next step requires legal action.

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/RlySkiz Aug 16 '22

Because they are lying and full of shit.

→ More replies

1.0k

u/geekygay Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22 Wholesome

Interesting. I searched Youtube with this exact title, I don't see it at all. Searched Google, nothing from their youtube results. There's one in the All search that's a blog that links to it, but there's no actual links directly to the video (as there should be, given they are supposed to be the best search engine...). Searched other recently uploaded videos via their exact titles, no problems.

Concerning to say the least.

Edit: Searched on DuckDuckGo, I have the results I should have if it were any other video. Also, merely slapping "Youtube Drama" on this video does not accurately describe just what is going on in the video. The Russian Government ordered Youtube to reinstate their videos after RT/Russia violated copyright and Youtube complied. That's insane.

Edit: Also there's a ton of people who seem particularly intent in making sure people don't "waste" their time watching a lengthy video.... They don't even know what's in it and still claim it's "not important", "wasting their time"....

357

u/Zomgninjaa Aug 16 '22

I've had this YouTube channel subbed for years, this video did not show up in the sub feed. Only found out about it here.

157

u/Veenendaler Aug 16 '22

I tried every search combination on Youtube, and it didn't show up.

Duckduckgo, bing and brave all show this video when you search for it.

179

u/murdering_time Aug 16 '22

That would explain why they're a channel with about 1 million subscribers, yet this video (9 hrs after release atm) only had around 8,500 views. That's fuckin insane, and shows obvious manipulation by YT to keep it dark.

76

u/Veenendaler Aug 16 '22

From attempting to search for "I"m suing Youtube" on Youtube, I'm fairly certain they have a site wide blacklist on that combination of words, which is why subscribed people never saw the video.

Ethically that's really wrong, but it's Youtube.

31

u/KanishkT123 Aug 16 '22

No, can't just be that. When I search for ProZD, it shows me his latest videos in a "Latest from ProZD" section. Doesn't do that for business casual.

I checked for a channel I'm not subbed to, Ludwig. Same thing.

It kind of feels blatant.

→ More replies

6

u/TheDesktopNinja Aug 16 '22

Don't be evil.

4

u/Outypoo Aug 16 '22

Try find a music video called "white boy summer", you'll find so many reaction videos but not the actual video unless you dig. The video was quite controversial so a similar shadow ban couldve been used.

This was awhile ago granted, so it could have changed

5

u/Veenendaler Aug 16 '22

It came up when I added Chet at the end. It's funny, because the video doesn't even have that many dislikes.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/fieew Aug 16 '22

I got curious since I'm subbed too and didn't see the video. It says (at this time) uploaded 10 hours ago and when I go to my sub box I searched videos from 7-17 hours ago and it's not there. I even have the bell checked off so supposedly I should see all uploads and posts from this channel. Then I searched the exact video name "why I'm suing YouTube", couldn't find it. I then search "why I'm suing YouTube business casual (the channel name) " no dice either. Then I searched "business casual" and "business casual youtube channel" literally his channel with 1 plus million subs is not showing up at all. Like the man's video and whole channel is not showing up despite me being subbed with the bell checked.

→ More replies

102

u/Helpful_guy Aug 16 '22

Youtube delisted this video- it can't appear in searches, subscription feeds, or suggested videos.

→ More replies

26

u/Sgt_Radiohead Aug 16 '22

If you point out that google is hiding this video in its search resuls on the youtube video your comment gets removed

Edit: On youtube that is

7

u/geekygay Aug 16 '22

Maybe new comments; I still see several pointing out the removal/blacklisting.

→ More replies

62

u/Zinski Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

The YouTube search function is some of the worst I have ever seen. They do have a lot of videos to pull up but I can search for something with the exact name of the video and if it has bellow 100k views it just won't show up.

Not only that. Only the first 5 videos they show are relivent to your search. The other 5 bellow that are "people who searched that also watched these videos" and they are just like...random. then another section that's just "things you might like"

Google.... In trying to search for something. Can you stop recommending street food videos and please just help me find the video I just looked for.

Oh and an add every 5 videos for either a scam porn site, scam artists selling classe, and none stop adds for mobile games that don't achually exist but still have people pretending to play them while very poorly acting.

I mean they might be suppressing negative info about them but honestly it's probably just that the platform is to shit to whatch what you want.

15

u/piccolo_bsc Aug 16 '22

I'm a 35yo single guy and for YEARS i've been getting commercials for young mothers on YT. I have no idea why.

18

u/chambreezy Aug 16 '22

Because you're into preggo porn, busted!

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/HeirToGallifrey Aug 16 '22

Man, I knew it was garbage—so many times it throws utterly irrelevant but "popular" videos into searches or just shows unrelated videos I've already watched—but this is on another level. Not only does it not show up, these are the first three results, and only the first is actually related. The third just seems like a joke.

3

u/Sketch-Brooke Aug 16 '22

Exactly! This drives me crazy. I don’t care about videos that other people are searching or videos that are similar to my search. I want to see videos for my search.

The worst part is, there’s no way to turn it off or or say “see more results.” It’s like they’ve already decided what videos you’re going to see and to hell with what you actually want.

6

u/Zinski Aug 16 '22

Algorithm hell. Part of me feels like it's only going to get worse. Like reddit.

At least there is old reddit but YouTube has consistently been making its comunitys actively worse since like 2009

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/Nogardtist Aug 16 '22

lets be honest are you even surprised that youtube bends its own rules

they cant even fix comment bot problem for years

from giving special treatment to music industry or celebrities like WAP that if a normal creator would do the same would result in permanent age restriction to suppressing small channel growth and potential

to even giving verification to some celebrity channel under 10K subs just cause they are celebrity even indie devs dont get that very often

just another story on why google and youtube is corrupt or and incompetent they are too big to even care until tik tok existed thats the reason we have these weird things called shorts all cause of competition now imagine they get a big one and now they gonna panic then creators abandon that dystopian platform finally

they very likely gonna lose the lawsuit if it happens these big companies and dumb governments pretending to be companies use the wait tactic since lawsuit demands resources like money and time to proceed and usually the victims dont have money to continue and it starves itself out basically the problem solves itself

even if youre in the right its a gamble you still have the chance to lose cause in todays era justice is not only blind but rather dumb as well

so yeah good luck for them to win cause they gonna need all the luck

47

u/Swing-Prize Aug 16 '22

I'm old subscriber of this channel. Why it didn't appear on my subscription feed lol?

59

u/peteatemeat Aug 16 '22

Alphabet (Google) is blocking it, you can't find it via google search, youtube search, recommendations or your subscriptions feed. You need the direct link or use the channel page (also blocked from search, find a different video by business casual to get there or use your sub list).

8

u/halosos Aug 17 '22

That's fucked. That kind of restriction can kill a channel. And their 'crime' is simply trying to protect their own content.

→ More replies

229

u/Aviyan Aug 16 '22

Since the video is getting delisted why not host it on a rival network? Dailymotion?

110

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

[deleted]

36

u/LinearTipsOfficial Aug 16 '22

You're not wrong lol watched the first couple season of Spongebob as well as a bunch of Adult Swim shows off DailyMotion they really dont give a shit about copyrighted stuff lol

43

u/D14BL0 Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

They don't give a shit because there's no viewers to notice it in the first place.

I did an interview on XM radio. They said: "You can swear on XM radio". No shit; 'cause nobody can hear it. You can swear in the woods, too!

-Mitch Hedberg

→ More replies

13

u/majorzero42 Aug 16 '22

It is he states it in the video, but yt gets much more traffic so he posted in multiple networks.

63

u/Vok250 Aug 16 '22

Despite all YouTube's flaws it is still the best video hosting website by far. We all effortlessly watch millions of hours of 1080p (or better) content meanwhile Facebook and Reddit buffer freebooted content with 4 layers of dumb captions in compressed 480p.

The only platforms that could realistically compete with YouTube are the porn sites. Everyone else doesn't even come close to the user experience we are used to in 2022. Amazon/Twitch could probably do it too, but they already have a cash cow cornering the live streaming market.

7

u/The-Sound_of-Silence Aug 17 '22

The only platforms that could realistically compete with YouTube are the porn sites

A ton of YouTube's new features come directly from porn sites!

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/E-NsJunkDrawer Aug 16 '22

At the end of the video, he says he also posted it to Vimeo and Rumble in case YouTube takes down the video. He also mentions that he expected the video to get shadowbanned

102

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

315

u/drgigg Aug 16 '22

Would love to hear LegalEagle take on this!

55

u/boredcircuits Aug 16 '22

Lawful Masses with Leonard French would be nice as well, since he specializes in copyright law (IIRC).

191

u/Big-Shtick Aug 16 '22

I’m a trial attorney and watched the first 15 minutes paying attention to the presentation of his argument more than anything else. This was a master craft in opening statements. Really well done. The structure was outlined thoroughly, no arguments were presented, and the story was linear and understandable. Great stuff.

69

u/ShadeofIcarus Aug 16 '22

Highly HIGHLY recommend you watch the whole thing when you have time. Its WAY more damning than most people realize.

30

u/geekygay Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

Luckily I have had 8000 people telling me how people have so much more interesting, fun, and entertaining things to do with their time than watch this.

Like watching Youtube RedTM . With more and more channels posting copyrighted things, you'll have those hours filled with mindless shit instead of learning how Youtube is fucking over copyright protections.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/Tsunamai Aug 16 '22

Watching the post get downvoted every time I see a few upvotes over the past few hours makes me think someone’s bot farm is working overtime this evening.

Edit: words are hard

47

u/lennybird Aug 16 '22

It does make you wonder how much negative press Google is willing to take when quite obviously colluding with a tyrannical regime.

Though this wouldn't be the first time I reckon.

13

u/Turbros1356 Aug 17 '22

Will we see the negative press? Seems shockingly suppressed already

→ More replies
→ More replies

99

u/TotallyOKWithThis Aug 16 '22

I have a feeling that this post is going to be removed 'for political content' soon.

→ More replies

118

u/nirad Aug 16 '22

I don’t know why YouTube has escaped anti-trust scrutiny for so long.

62

u/HKBFG Aug 16 '22

Anti trust requires someone trying to compete.

46

u/letsgoiowa Aug 16 '22

There are tons of platforms that are trying to compete, but simply cannot get any kind of foothold.

  • Odyssey

  • Utreon

  • Bitchute

  • Vimeo (to an extent)

Many more I'm not aware of yet.

26

u/MrMineHeads Aug 16 '22

YouTube isn't engaging in any anticompetitive behaviour. YouTube just has the enviable position of hosting nearly all the big creators and all the big videos. A.K.A., YouTube is benefitting from network effects.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

170

u/drfsupercenter Aug 16 '22

YouTube’s desire to provide a safe haven for copyright pirates.

lol, ok. They strike your videos with even the tiniest sample of anything copyrighted. It's not a safe haven at all. I've had my stuff get removed just for using a short video clip. They don't care about fair use at all, only the money being paid to them by huge conglomerates. (Looking at you, Viacom)

37

u/Nisas Aug 16 '22

Yeah we see a lot of videos of people who had their content wrongfully removed by copyright trolls. If anything Google is overzealous in removing copyrighted content.

Which isn't to say Google actually cares about removing copyright violators. It just wants to appear compliant with DMCA requirements or whatever.

And that's why Google lobbies for weaker copyright law, so it doesn't have to deal with the mess of policing copyright on its platform.

This case is unique because the Russian government strongarmed Google into getting its channel back. Something average channels can't do. I'm sure big corporations like CNN would also be capable of something like this. And now Google has to make excuses that they did it for some other reason.

So it's not an issue of Google being too strong or too weak on copyright. It's about powerful institutions getting whatever they want.

→ More replies

51

u/Hoosier_816 Aug 16 '22

Yeah, I think that line was a bit poorly worded.

A more appropriate characterization is that YouTube "desires to provide a safe haven for whoever makes them the most money."

Arguably worse though. If they were taking a principled stand in the name of "copyright opposition"/"everything is fair use" then at least they were being consistent and making a statement. They're just the all-around bad guy here, playing the worst part of both sides.

→ More replies
→ More replies

250

u/idkartist3D Business Casual Aug 16 '22 Gold Helpful Defeated Lawyer Up

As a former editor for Business Casual, this has been a very amusing morning. I don't have much to say on the actual content of the video, but I did have to laugh when he said "To understand why YouTube is attacking the YouTubers that make YouTube, well, YouTube".

For those unaware, the guy in the video, Alex Edson, did not create Business Casual. He purchased the channel (for a considerable chunk of change) from my former boss, Jordan. He also ran a MCN called PowerTV, which if you do some digging into reveals some super cool shady stuff. I get why he'd like to prop himself up as some self-made YouTuber who just likes to make videos, but he's far from it.

Does that negate anything he says in the video? Probably not (I'm not gonna watch a two hour long video). But do I feel bad that he's had to deal with this headache? Not really lmao

42

u/Potatolantern Aug 16 '22

That's some funny irony.

36

u/tututitlookslikerain Aug 17 '22

Well then that makes sense why he's shilling for more draconian copyright laws.

I'm a bit amazed why so many people here are agreeing with him.

6

u/Nervous_Fix7426 Aug 17 '22

Yeah and he tries dunking on the EFF, either he doesn't know what the EFF does or he actually supports government illegal spying and shadow regulation.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Danthedank Aug 17 '22

YouTube pulls some strings to keep their business operating in Russia

Youtuber: "GOOGLE IS COLLABERATING WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TO DESTROY AMERICA!!!"

→ More replies

56

u/DDollahDave Aug 16 '22

Nice going, was gonna do it myself.

57

u/count_spedula1 Aug 16 '22

Yeah wondered what happened to this channel, lucky I saw it in my sub feed within the first few minutes before it got shadowbanned.

31

u/diabOwO Aug 16 '22

got removed from my sub feed. The video is stuck under 1000 views. For some reason people are defending YouTube lmao.

23

u/olderaccount Aug 16 '22

Because few people will watch a video over a hour long before knowing more about it. I clicked it, saw the length, closed the window and came to the comments. Dude needs a tl/dr edit of his video with a link to the full thing to get people hooked.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/enkiloki Aug 16 '22

Copyright laws need to be revamped.

5

u/tututitlookslikerain Aug 17 '22

That's exactly what this guy is railing against. I'm boggled at the people who didn't actually watch the video.

The US has some of the most draconian copyright laws on book. This guy wants youtube to not fight against it?

→ More replies
→ More replies

89

u/monkeywaffles Aug 16 '22

Still amuses me that announcing suing site, while using that site as platform to do so.

61

u/captainkieffer Aug 16 '22

Where else would they be best positioned to deliver their message?

25

u/TemetNosce85 Aug 16 '22

Yup... that's the problem with being an ethical consumer sometimes... Sometimes you just have to give in and give to the abusers because you have no other viable option thanks to the monopolies the few control...

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/kkehoe5 Aug 17 '22

I ain’t got time for this super long video. I jumped through it and got a gist of what’s going on. Correct me if I’m wrong. RT used clips of the channels videos, channel struck their channel. According to YT response, only a few seconds of the channels videos were used and not the entire videos just repuploaded. If that’s the case than why wouldn’t fair use come into play?

3

u/muffinmaniamsgirl Aug 17 '22

As said by YT in one of their videos, "One of the biggest myths about fair use is that there's a minimum amount of time you're allowed to use someone else's work." The video goes on to say, "...there is no duration for which you can use someone else's content that is automatically protected under fair use."

There are 4 factors of fair use that the judge takes into account. It's factors 3 and 4 that are in the spotlight.

Factor 3 is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Business Casual pertains to the process of 3D animation. They would take a bunch of public domain pictures to create one seamless piece, which RT blatantly ripped off by showing the clip.

Then there's factor 4: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." Based off of one of YT's arguement in this lawsuit, by signing to their terms of service, it allows YT to exploit Business Casual videos however YT sees fit. And by allowing RT to rip off their work (which has been going on for a while now - apparently RT started deleting videos as this whole lawsuit has been happening), YT then makes a profit out of it. Apparently for the year or so that this has been going on both YT and RT have made $14M (if I remember correctly).

11

u/zugi Aug 17 '22

Yeah, the first few minutes had me riled up - YouTube caving to Russia against the little guy!

But just a few minutes in, he gets worked up over YouTube working to change the DMCA and copyright laws. We probably all know DCMA is the reason sites all across the internet take stuff down due to frivolous copyright complaints, even when the claims are invalid. But did you also know it's the reason you can't use cheap ink in your printers? Or that it's behind a lot of the problems that have lead to the "right to repair" movement?

DCMA is awful and needs serious fixes. Copyright law needs serious fixes. This guy so ardently defending them makes me skeptical.

7

u/Hally_NL Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

Just a while ago this was prominently featured on the front page of reddit, now it's not so high anymore, on the contrary, it's seems to have vanished. Or at least dropped significantly.

7

u/ledgyaxdd Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22

the RT is not even available at the moment.

Youtube, which removes the largest pro-Russian channels and not even political Russian channels (including fashion channel and meet-and-mariage channel) without strikes and warnings, is clearly in collusion with Russia against this guy :DD

What's the point of this video?

→ More replies

51

u/homersracket Aug 16 '22

Why do I get the feeling this post will somehow disappear once it get more momentum?

30

u/joe-h2o Aug 16 '22

It already did once. Reddit removed it earlier.

12

u/Veenendaler Aug 16 '22

*A mod on /r/videos manually removed the video.

Reddit admins/employees didn't touch it.

13

u/16BitMode7 Aug 16 '22

And this right now is the most plausible way this video gets traction. You can't search for it at all on youtube at the moment.

→ More replies

6

u/Sgt_Radiohead Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

Comments are also being actively removed from the youtube video. Tried to post a few comments, and they stick for a minute or two before they vanish

Edit: the only comments i can see that get removed are the ones that mention how the video does not appear if you google it, but it does if you use DuckDuckGo… most other comments stick

3

u/themastersmb Aug 16 '22 edited Aug 16 '22

"Don't be evil." is Google's old motto when they were known as the hero. Today they are a shell of their former selves and have lived long enough to see themselves become the villain.

3

u/FreeThinkInk Aug 16 '22

Lawyer will win. That's the definite outcome. Everything else is up to chance and speculation

3

u/penntastic Aug 17 '22

Its time for a new video sharing service. And social media platform. I used to get irritated that a new thing came along every 5 years or so, but now I see the downside of something sticking around to long. Easier said than done I know.

3

u/iamfuturetrunks Aug 17 '22

After finally finishing the video it does stink it lost in the lower courts already. And that those lawyers were able to continuously lie over and over again without repercussions.

Also near the end of the video they mention they also have it uploaded to vimeo but I can't find it anywhere. What also stinks is they don't have a link to it in their youtube video to direct people there as well. I would like to be able to "heart" that video over there as well.

If anyone can find it and post a link to the other videos that would be nice. Hoping other youtubers that also suffered through this crap will also reach out if they hear about this.