Planetnamek wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:55 am
It's one reason but I never once claimed it was the ONLY reason, again reading comprehension is your friend, try using it sometime.
When it's the sole reason given on multiple occasions when asked why the laws should change, you can't fault people for assuming that's your whole argument.
Another reason copyright law in general needs a major reform is that companies like Disney have gone out of control with lobbying to extend the copyright for works that should've fallen into public domain decades ago.
To this we can agree. To make things easier for online content creators to get away with using excessive amounts of copyrighted material, not so much. This reasoning is also irrelevant to why the laws should change in a way that benefits Youtubers like TFS.
Nobody else is talking about letting Youtubers ignore copyright, only you brought that up, I like how you are totally and completely unaware of the hypocrisy in your own posts.
You explicitly said "There is no reason why youtubers should HAVE to pay companies that created the piece of media just because they use footage from it in a video." Holy shit. That's basically what copyright laws are for; ensuring that people who want to use someone else's IP are getting permission (read: purchasing a usage license) to do so. Everyone else has to pay licensing fees to use copyrighted material, so why shouldn't Youtubers have to?
I never "implied" anything just cause you some random person on the internet claims I did, why don't you just admit you have no clue what are you actually talking about and stop with your one-man war against TFS?
Refer above to where you explicitly said it, so I was wrong, you didn't just imply it, you did straight up say it.
Also, "one-man war against TFS" that's cute. Did you already forget the very first thing I said to you in this topic? Also, "one-man war" implies I'm the only one who has taken the stance that they were legally in the wrong, which I'm absolutely not.
So you don't think anybody should be allowed to review movies on Youtube ever unless they use almost zero footage? Yeah no.
You seem to think these kinds of videos are 100% dependent on getting to show excessive amounts of footage from a given work. As if TV based movie reviewers didn't make a living for 20-30 years using little to no copyrighted footage whatsoever. *cough*Roger Ebert*cough* However did they do it?
I care about making content creators lives easier because i've seen a lot of good talented folks on Youtube far too often get hurt by bullshit claims
Let's be frank here, why does it remotely matter at all if Youtube is a viable career platform? Especially for people whose content is entirely reliant on other using people's content?
Evidently you seem to be under the impression that doing content on Youtube is not a "real job" judging by your lousy attitude towards certain creators
I've expressed no opinion whatsoever on whether I think Youtube is a real job, nor on Youtubers as a whole, I've solely taken a stances that A) Team FourStar and other abridgers are not in the right when it comes to the legality of their content and B) they're not special in any way and should have to pay licensing fees for using copyrighted material just like everyone else.
you might be fine defending corporations striking down channels for no reason
There's a difference between "no reason" and "keeps using copyrighted material after being repeatedly told to stop." It's not that damn hard to understand. It's just Youtubers seem to think that everything and anything they can think to throw on Youtube short of full unedited episodes/movies/music tracks falls under "Fair Use" (which, as Vegetto explained is a drastic misunderstanding of what "Fair Use" actually is) and just keep insisting on doing what keeps getting them in trouble.
Just because content creators don't work 9-5 in some office building does not mean it isn't a "real job"(and before you chime in with your predictable strawman "nobody's saying that but you response", you are heavily implying it).
My "predictable strawman" being something I said once before in relation to you constantly bringing up video essays in a conversation about TFS's copyright violations (you know, an unrelated topic).
You know, for someone who accused Abed of constantly using strawman arguments (even though the only thing close to a strawman argument he's said in this whole thread was his questioning whether your opposition to copyright laws was due to your biases of being a fan of the content under threat, which you've yet to prove isn't the case), you sure like to use it a lot instead of explaining why your stances on the subject are sound and backed by facts instead of personal biases.