Team Four Star's influence on Dragon Ball's revival

[ABED]

I wouldn't call that tacit consent. Sometimes it's not worth getting lawyers involved. Even if you win the case, you have to take into account how much you can reasonably expect to get back. Hell that's the whole reason my dad didn't go to court. Even though he would've won the case (he was legally and morally in the right), the chances of him getting what he would be legally owed is non-existent.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

There's a good chance that DBZA is by the letter of the law not on the up and up and yet it doesn't get taken down for PR reasons and it's not worth the cost of litigation.

That would be the most likely reason i can think of as to why TFS hasn't gotten hit with copyright infringement claims or had lawsuits filed against them for the Abridged videos, because the parties/licensor (FUNimation.etc) don't feel it would be worth the cost that taking them to court over it would entail and thus do not pursue the matter
on a legal level.

Tacit consent from the IP owner is basically the reason why fan works exist in the first place. You have these huge fan comic events in Japan and Japan actually has stricter copy right laws. Which is another thing, it's not Funimation that they need to worry about so much as Toei. If the IP owners don't like what is being done with their property, they can very well put an end to it.

Yet even then Toei has not actually made any moves to quash TFS on a legal front for Abridged.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Yes I can fault you when you clearly aren't doing reading comprehension.

No, you can't, because up until those assumptions were made, you had given not a single meaningful reason the laws should change. Just vague "because they're bad."

It's not "irrelevant" at all, copyright law as it is is a complete mess in general and anyone that thinks it's totally fine just the way it is is either a higher-up at a big company or isn't paying close enough attention.

It is irrelevant because changing that portion of copyright laws (that IP owners can renew their ownership indefinitely), short of retroactively throwing everything older than 14 years into the public domain, wouldn't have any change whatsoever on this perceived attack on your precious Youtube content.

Beyond that, just because one aspect of copyright laws are bad, doesn't mean they all are inherently bad.

Because genius "everyone else" can actually AFFORD to pay said licensing costs, youtubers cannot,

So? What makes you think people should be entitled to free use of copyrighted material without seeking proper permissions? Do you have any actual reasons for this belief beyond "well, I like the content as it is now, and keeping the laws the way they are now negatively impacts the content creator's ability to make the content, so the laws should be changed."

apparently you don't seem to know what Fair Use is

Apparently I'm the only one here who did the damn "required reading" Vegetto posted to try and curtail this instead of just posting "nah, I disagree." I guarantee I have a better fundamental understanding of what is and is not "Fair Use" than you do, considering you seem to think just about everything

no copyright laws are not meant to be used as a weapon to strike down some random person's youtube channel

They were meant to stop the unauthorized reproduction and redistribution of copyrighted material.

they're meant to stop people from flat out illegally selling and profiting from someone else's IP altogether(and by that I mean uploading full episodes and movies on Youtube unaltered just so we're clear)

I hope someone answers the phone, because I called it. Just you aren't uploading full, unedited episodes/movies/music doesn't mean you aren't still infringing on copyright laws.

If you had your way a big chunk of popular reviewing channels would be gone, you might be OK with that but most of the rest of us are not.

No, they'd simply change their video format. Again, the concept of reviewing something doesn't require running a 20min clipshow of what you're reviewing in the background. Especially when the scenes are just playing out of order and with little or no correlation with what's being said by the host. It actually doesn't require showing any clips or footage from the movie or show at all. Case in point, a channel like Jeremy Jahns. Does movie, show, and the occasional game review and uses maybe one 2-3 second long clip in 30+ videos, and usually only if he can't get a point across without said footage.

Also, I'm 100% certain less people in the real world care if Youtube no longer being a viable career choice then you're giving credit for. Most people aren't that invested in the careers of internet content creators.

The way you've carried yourself certainly implies you think less of certain people on Youtube just because they use footage from other properties(Even if they are just reviewing it and talking about it).

A) There's a HUGE difference between acknowledging when someone is doing something they shouldn't be (ie, excessively using unlicensed copyrighted material to make a living) and thinking less of them as people or their platform as a less legitimate form of work.

B) Not all Youtubers content creators are reviewers or video essay writers, or abridgers. Most of the legitimate channels. That said, not all Youtube channels could qualify as jobs. Phil Defranco? Yeah, what he does is a job. Smosh? Yup, they're a genuine production company that treats video creation like a real business. Some random dude/girl posting daily updates about their life or just recording himself being a jackass in public (because let's be real, that category is always dudes), no, that's not a "real job" regardless of what platform you're on or how much you're making on Patreon or in ad revenue.

C) Many Youtubers are fine examples of how the platform should be utilized, including many reviewers like the previously mentioned Jeremy Jahns and Lindsay Ellis. That said, there are a metric shitton who are complete cancer (who won't be named here).

Fact is videos on Youtube discussing other IPs act as free publicity, some companies are smart enough to know this and don't bother striking down certain videos

It doesn't really matter one way or the other, it's fully within the rights of an IP holder to block any form of copyright infringement, and no one but the IP holder has any inherit rights to use the copyrighted material.

some companies(mostly those in Japan...) haven't gotten the memo yet and insist nobody should ever be allowed to do videos on their stuff.

It's almost like Japanese companies abide by their copyright laws, there's no Fair Use doctrine in Japanese law, and it's fully within their rights to control how their IPs are presented to the world.

It matters because not EVERYONE has a 9-5 job like you do, this is exactly where the notion that you think it's "not a real job" to be a content creator on Youtube comes from, with nonsense like that.

Again, I never asserted that Youtube isn't a legitimate job, I asked why you're so keen on it being one. If I were to deny that legitimate content creation on Youtube isn't a real job, then I'd have to admit that pretty much all entertainment is "not a real job," and I've never held nor asserted that belief, so I'd be happy if you get out of your own head for a minute, breath, and return to the conversation when you can stop projecting my disapproval of copyright infringement as having a problem with the platform as a whole.

So what if people make videos that use footage from others content? What is so wrong with that? The way you talk about it, you act like content creators are robbing a bank or something.

At this point I'm starting to question whether your solution is to just throw out copyright and licensing laws altogether instead of reform them in a more meaningful way that better serves their original purpose; to protect the interests of an IP holder and ensure others aren't unjustly profiting off their (read: the IP owner's) work.

it's the companies they are part of that are the problem, and sorry but i'm not going to feel sorry for billion dollar companies or stan for them like you apparently are eager to do.

Oh hey, it's back to the "corporation bad, individual good" mindset. I hate to break it to you, but usually, when an artist "makes" a song, unless they're unsigned, they generally down actually own the music and their opinions on how it's used become pretty irrelevant when they agreed to sign over ownership of their work in exchange for getting signed.

You've done absolutely nothing to back up your own arguments and you most definitely do not have facts on your side either, so it is you who is engaging in strawman arguments here

And you don't know what a strawman is. Admittedly, I got it confused too when I made my statement about Abed's previous "strawman." I was thinking of a different fallacy (Ad Hominem due to all the ignoring counterpoints to belittle your opposition that you've been doing), but according to Google a strawman is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. Can you please point out where this has been happening on our side of the argument.

But no, I didn't. Vegetto pointed out where you were wrong and provided further reading to clear things up. It's you whose essentially buried your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledged realities.

On the topic of TFS specifically, Toei has had so little respect for their own properties over the years(as I mentioned in another thread, they are the main culprit behind the 4Kids dub of One Piece being so poor) that I definitely do not think they are in the right to striking down TFS.

You've yet to explain why other than "because I like them."

I have zero sympathy for Toei whatsoever.

No one is asking for sympathy for Toei, just that you understand the laws you're discussing and how they relate to the topic at hand.


Seems your whole horse in this race is that you like Youtube as it is and just want to make things easier for content creators with no regards for things like the concept of IP ownership. So, here's an honest question for you: If Youtube (or any similar site) didn't exist, or had a personal site policy of zero tolerance for copyrighted material (as in, not even if you own the IP and want to upload episodes to Youtube, only content created specifically for Youtube and using user owned assets), would you honestly give a shit about copyright licensing laws?

I think it's clear who the real "man-baby" is here-Zeon, as he is sounding like a straight-up Gamergater with his last post on this thread:viewtopic.php?p=1637820#p1637820

And back to the ad hominem. You can't refute what I'm saying in this thread, so you try to undermine my factual statements with an attack on my personality that's mostly just you projecting a bunch of shit on someone because they said they don't agree with double standards of any kind. Kinda like you keep doing here with your "you just hate TFS/Youtubers" gimmick you've got going on.

[Planetnamek]

Yes I can fault you when you clearly aren't doing reading comprehension.

No, you can't, because up until those assumptions were made, you had given not a single meaningful reason the laws should change. Just vague "because they're bad."

It's not "irrelevant" at all, copyright law as it is is a complete mess in general and anyone that thinks it's totally fine just the way it is is either a higher-up at a big company or isn't paying close enough attention.

It is irrelevant because changing that portion of copyright laws (that IP owners can renew their ownership indefinitely), short of retroactively throwing everything older than 14 years into the public domain, wouldn't have any change whatsoever on this perceived attack on your precious Youtube content.

Beyond that, just because one aspect of copyright laws are bad, doesn't mean they all are inherently bad.

Because genius "everyone else" can actually AFFORD to pay said licensing costs, youtubers cannot,

So? What makes you think people should be entitled to free use of copyrighted material without seeking proper permissions? Do you have any actual reasons for this belief beyond "well, I like the content as it is now, and keeping the laws the way they are now negatively impacts the content creator's ability to make the content, so the laws should be changed."

apparently you don't seem to know what Fair Use is

Apparently I'm the only one here who did the damn "required reading" Vegetto posted to try and curtail this instead of just posting "nah, I disagree." I guarantee I have a better fundamental understanding of what is and is not "Fair Use" than you do, considering you seem to think just about everything

no copyright laws are not meant to be used as a weapon to strike down some random person's youtube channel

They were meant to stop the unauthorized reproduction and redistribution of copyrighted material.

they're meant to stop people from flat out illegally selling and profiting from someone else's IP altogether(and by that I mean uploading full episodes and movies on Youtube unaltered just so we're clear)

I hope someone answers the phone, because I called it. Just you aren't uploading full, unedited episodes/movies/music doesn't mean you aren't still infringing on copyright laws.

If you had your way a big chunk of popular reviewing channels would be gone, you might be OK with that but most of the rest of us are not.

No, they'd simply change their video format. Again, the concept of reviewing something doesn't require running a 20min clipshow of what you're reviewing in the background. Especially when the scenes are just playing out of order and with little or no correlation with what's being said by the host. It actually doesn't require showing any clips or footage from the movie or show at all. Case in point, a channel like Jeremy Jahns. Does movie, show, and the occasional game review and uses maybe one 2-3 second long clip in 30+ videos, and usually only if he can't get a point across without said footage.

Also, I'm 100% certain less people in the real world care if Youtube no longer being a viable career choice then you're giving credit for. Most people aren't that invested in the careers of internet content creators.

The way you've carried yourself certainly implies you think less of certain people on Youtube just because they use footage from other properties(Even if they are just reviewing it and talking about it).

A) There's a HUGE difference between acknowledging when someone is doing something they shouldn't be (ie, excessively using unlicensed copyrighted material to make a living) and thinking less of them as people or their platform as a less legitimate form of work.

B) Not all Youtubers content creators are reviewers or video essay writers, or abridgers. Most of the legitimate channels. That said, not all Youtube channels could qualify as jobs. Phil Defranco? Yeah, what he does is a job. Smosh? Yup, they're a genuine production company that treats video creation like a real business. Some random dude/girl posting daily updates about their life or just recording himself being a jackass in public (because let's be real, that category is always dudes), no, that's not a "real job" regardless of what platform you're on or how much you're making on Patreon or in ad revenue.

C) Many Youtubers are fine examples of how the platform should be utilized, including many reviewers like the previously mentioned Jeremy Jahns and Lindsay Ellis. That said, there are a metric shitton who are complete cancer (who won't be named here).

Fact is videos on Youtube discussing other IPs act as free publicity, some companies are smart enough to know this and don't bother striking down certain videos

It doesn't really matter one way or the other, it's fully within the rights of an IP holder to block any form of copyright infringement, and no one but the IP holder has any inherit rights to use the copyrighted material.

some companies(mostly those in Japan...) haven't gotten the memo yet and insist nobody should ever be allowed to do videos on their stuff.

It's almost like Japanese companies abide by their copyright laws, there's no Fair Use doctrine in Japanese law, and it's fully within their rights to control how their IPs are presented to the world.

It matters because not EVERYONE has a 9-5 job like you do, this is exactly where the notion that you think it's "not a real job" to be a content creator on Youtube comes from, with nonsense like that.

Again, I never asserted that Youtube isn't a legitimate job, I asked why you're so keen on it being one. If I were to deny that legitimate content creation on Youtube isn't a real job, then I'd have to admit that pretty much all entertainment is "not a real job," and I've never held nor asserted that belief, so I'd be happy if you get out of your own head for a minute, breath, and return to the conversation when you can stop projecting my disapproval of copyright infringement as having a problem with the platform as a whole.

So what if people make videos that use footage from others content? What is so wrong with that? The way you talk about it, you act like content creators are robbing a bank or something.

At this point I'm starting to question whether your solution is to just throw out copyright and licensing laws altogether instead of reform them in a more meaningful way that better serves their original purpose; to protect the interests of an IP holder and ensure others aren't unjustly profiting off their (read: the IP owner's) work.

it's the companies they are part of that are the problem, and sorry but i'm not going to feel sorry for billion dollar companies or stan for them like you apparently are eager to do.

Oh hey, it's back to the "corporation bad, individual good" mindset. I hate to break it to you, but usually, when an artist "makes" a song, unless they're unsigned, they generally down actually own the music and their opinions on how it's used become pretty irrelevant when they agreed to sign over ownership of their work in exchange for getting signed.

You've done absolutely nothing to back up your own arguments and you most definitely do not have facts on your side either, so it is you who is engaging in strawman arguments here

And you don't know what a strawman is. Admittedly, I got it confused too when I made my statement about Abed's previous "strawman." I was thinking of a different fallacy (Ad Hominem due to all the ignoring counterpoints to belittle your opposition that you've been doing), but according to Google a strawman is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. Can you please point out where this has been happening on our side of the argument.

But no, I didn't. Vegetto pointed out where you were wrong and provided further reading to clear things up. It's you whose essentially buried your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledged realities.

On the topic of TFS specifically, Toei has had so little respect for their own properties over the years(as I mentioned in another thread, they are the main culprit behind the 4Kids dub of One Piece being so poor) that I definitely do not think they are in the right to striking down TFS.

You've yet to explain why other than "because I like them."

I have zero sympathy for Toei whatsoever.

No one is asking for sympathy for Toei, just that you understand the laws you're discussing and how they relate to the topic at hand.


Seems your whole horse in this race is that you like Youtube as it is and just want to make things easier for content creators with no regards for things like the concept of IP ownership. So, here's an honest question for you: If Youtube (or any similar site) didn't exist, or had a personal site policy of zero tolerance for copyrighted material (as in, not even if you own the IP and want to upload episodes to Youtube, only content created specifically for Youtube and using user owned assets), would you honestly give a shit about copyright licensing laws?

I think it's clear who the real "man-baby" is here-Zeon, as he is sounding like a straight-up Gamergater with his last post on this thread:viewtopic.php?p=1637820#p1637820

And back to the ad hominem. You can't refute what I'm saying in this thread, so you try to undermine my factual statements with an attack on my personality that's mostly just you projecting a bunch of shit on someone because they said they don't agree with double standards of any kind. Kinda like you keep doing here with your "you just hate TFS/Youtubers" gimmick you've got going on.

You're the one "projecting" here bigot. Every single post you've made on here is nothing but "ad hominem"

You've not given any reasonable explanations for why you were defending Vic of all people in that other thread.

The aspect of copyright that nukes channels for no reason is bad, but you're a bad faith troll so i'm not surprised you're that ignorant.

You're one to talk about being "entitled" with your asinine posts.

Nah you don't know shit about fair use.

Infringing my ass, so you think EVERY single review of fictional media is "infringing" yeah you are a troll aren't you?

People work on Youtube in the "real world", man you really do have a ton of contempt for millennial and gen-z don't you? Most people aren't as ignorant and bigoted as you are.

I think you're not naming names because you don't have any real examples.

This notion that only the IP holder can use footage for anything is blatant bullshit, Japan copyright law is ludicrous, but i'm not surprised a troll like you is defending it.

You need to get our of your own head and stop being a bigot and a troll.

Nah you don't know what a strawman is, guess we can add that to the list of things you don't know about.

You're buried your head in the sand in regards to your bigotry and ignorance.

Youtube actually needs a shit-ton of improvement(getting rid of white supremacists like Steven Crowder would be a start, BTW judging by your asinine response in that Vic thread i'm guessing your a big fan of his)

You haven't refuted a single damn thing i've said here or elsewhere.

I'd normally put more effort into my response, but frankly after you outed yourself as a bigot I don't think you are worth crafting a detailed response to.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

LMAO at the man babies trying to say TFS should be legal based solely on their emotions. I enjoyed TFS, but I’m able to look at the world objectively. And it’s not legal. Understandably so. Keep you’re uppity nonsense out of here.

Go eat a dick. I am not "a man baby" and I don't even like most of what TFS produces. But there is no reason why what they do should be illegal.

[Michsi]

That would be the most likely reason i can think of as to why TFS hasn't gotten hit with copyright infringement claims or had lawsuits filed against them for the Abridged videos, because the parties/licensor (FUNimation.etc) don't feel it would be worth the cost that taking them to court over it would entail and thus do not pursue the matter
on a legal level.

Tacit consent from the IP owner is basically the reason why fan works exist in the first place. You have these huge fan comic events in Japan and Japan actually has stricter copy right laws. Which is another thing, it's not Funimation that they need to worry about so much as Toei. If the IP owners don't like what is being done with their property, they can very well put an end to it.

Yet even then Toei has not actually made any moves to quash TFS on a legal front for Abridged.

I think they did, a few years ago. It was the reason they switched over to having their own site and then gradually moved back to youtube. Again, tacit consent, but that's about it. It has to be upsetting to know that the main product of your company hinges on the willingness of the IP owner to look the other way.

[Planetnamek]

LMAO at the man babies trying to say TFS should be legal based solely on their emotions. I enjoyed TFS, but I’m able to look at the world objectively. And it’s not legal. Understandably so. Keep you’re uppity nonsense out of here.

Go eat a dick. I am not "a man baby" and I don't even like most of what TFS produces. But there is no reason why what they do should be illegal.

Here here! DBZA is the only thing of theirs I really care about and it's definitely legal.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

Tacit consent from the IP owner is basically the reason why fan works exist in the first place. You have these huge fan comic events in Japan and Japan actually has stricter copy right laws. Which is another thing, it's not Funimation that they need to worry about so much as Toei. If the IP owners don't like what is being done with their property, they can very well put an end to it.

Yet even then Toei has not actually made any moves to quash TFS on a legal front for Abridged.

I think they did, a few years ago. It was the reason they switched over to having their own site and then gradually moved back to youtube. Again, tacit consent, but that's about it. It has to be upsetting to know that the main product of your company hinges on the willingness of the IP owner to look the other way.

Huh i must've not noticed then, but as of now their Abridged videos are still up so i guess whatever action Toei took against them didn't last very long.

[Michsi]

Yet even then Toei has not actually made any moves to quash TFS on a legal front for Abridged.

I think they did, a few years ago. It was the reason they switched over to having their own site and then gradually moved back to youtube. Again, tacit consent, but that's about it. It has to be upsetting to know that the main product of your company hinges on the willingness of the IP owner to look the other way.

Huh i must've not noticed then, but as of now their Abridged videos are still up so i guess whatever action Toei took against them didn't last very long.

This was years ago, I don't remember the details exactly, but their videos used to get taken down a lot.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

I think they did, a few years ago. It was the reason they switched over to having their own site and then gradually moved back to youtube. Again, tacit consent, but that's about it. It has to be upsetting to know that the main product of your company hinges on the willingness of the IP owner to look the other way.

Huh i must've not noticed then, but as of now their Abridged videos are still up so i guess whatever action Toei took against them didn't last very long.

This was years ago, I don't remember the details exactly, but their videos used to get taken down a lot.

Apparently something must have changed at some point, because it seems like that's happening a lot less.

[Michsi]

Huh i must've not noticed then, but as of now their Abridged videos are still up so i guess whatever action Toei took against them didn't last very long.

This was years ago, I don't remember the details exactly, but their videos used to get taken down a lot.

Apparently something must have changed at some point, because it seems like that's happening a lot less.

Well, for one thing, they are not putting out episodes anymore and haven't done so regularly for years. I think the episodes that came before the finale got taken down.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

This was years ago, I don't remember the details exactly, but their videos used to get taken down a lot.

Apparently something must have changed at some point, because it seems like that's happening a lot less.

Well, for one thing, they are not putting out episodes anymore and haven't done so regularly for years. I think the episodes that came before the finale got taken down.

I suppose not making new ones has made them less of a target compared to when they were still actively in process of doing Abridged.

[Melee_Sovereign]

I've yet to see any real evidence that DBZA has in any way had a "detrimental effect".

As pointed out before, DBZA has shaped some people's perception about the series. The prime example is how much its further perpetuated the notion of how much Goku is an idiot, a bad father, is selfish etc... Has this affected the series directly? It's hard to say. Though Goku's personality did change rather drastically in Super (for the worse). Goku's character has basically been assassinated.

[Planetnamek]

I've yet to see any real evidence that DBZA has in any way had a "detrimental effect".

As pointed out before, DBZA has shaped some people's perception about the series. The prime example is how much its further perpetuated the notion of how much Goku is an idiot, a bad father, is selfish etc... Has this affected the series directly? It's hard to say. Though Goku's personality did change rather drastically in Super (for the worse). Goku's character has basically been assassinated.

But there's zero proof of that actually being true, as others have pointed out here jokes about Goku being a bad dad were common YEARS before DBZA was ever a thing so i'm not buying it.

[Melee_Sovereign]

But there's zero proof of that actually being true, as others have pointed out here jokes about Goku being a bad dad were common YEARS before DBZA was ever a thing so i'm not buying it.

Key word here is "perpetuated". Not "started" or "came up with" or anything like that.

I've seen enough people quote DBZA directly enough time to make the point that Goku is all these things. And me personally, I was actually completely unaware of any of these jokes about Goku until I watched DBZA. So I'm at least one example among a fanbase that heard the jokes first from DBZA. And I highly doubt I'm the only one.

It's to the point where things like Death Battle hire the TFS VA of Goku and make him adopt the Abridged persona rather than trying to portray Goku as he actually is. If that's not an example/proof of DBZA's influence and how much it perpetuates these notions of Goku, then I don't know what is. That's a direct example of perpetuation.

[Planetnamek]

But there's zero proof of that actually being true, as others have pointed out here jokes about Goku being a bad dad were common YEARS before DBZA was ever a thing so i'm not buying it.

Key word here is "perpetuated". Not "started" or "came up with" or anything like that.

I've seen enough people quote DBZA directly enough time to make the point that Goku is all these things. And me personally, I was actually completely unaware of any of these jokes about Goku until I watched DBZA. So I'm at least one example among a fanbase that heard the jokes first from DBZA. And I highly doubt I'm the only one.

It's to the point where things like Death Battle hire the TFS VA of Goku and make him adopt the Abridged persona rather than trying to portray Goku as he actually is. If that's not an example/proof of DBZA's influence and how much it perpetuates these notions of Goku, then I don't know what is. That's a direct example of perpetuation.

How many people though? Just because you were unaware of them does not mean they never existed, they were there, I saw them on some of the older forums.

So no it's not a direct example in the least. Besides Toriyama himself pretty much outright said Goku wasn't a great dad.

[Dbzfan94]

But there's zero proof of that actually being true, as others have pointed out here jokes about Goku being a bad dad were common YEARS before DBZA was ever a thing so i'm not buying it.

Key word here is "perpetuated". Not "started" or "came up with" or anything like that.

I've seen enough people quote DBZA directly enough time to make the point that Goku is all these things. And me personally, I was actually completely unaware of any of these jokes about Goku until I watched DBZA. So I'm at least one example among a fanbase that heard the jokes first from DBZA. And I highly doubt I'm the only one.

It's to the point where things like Death Battle hire the TFS VA of Goku and make him adopt the Abridged persona rather than trying to portray Goku as he actually is. If that's not an example/proof of DBZA's influence and how much it perpetuates these notions of Goku, then I don't know what is. That's a direct example of perpetuation.

How many people though? Just because you were unaware of them does not mean they never existed, they were there, I saw them on some of the older forums.

So no it's not a direct example in the least. Besides Toriyama himself pretty much outright said Goku wasn't a great dad.

Toriyama says a lot of things that contradicts his own work / he later contradicts himself.

[ABED]

I don't necessarily care what the author's evaluation of their characters or story are. What I care about is the story and I'll judge the characters for myself. I don't think Goku's a great dad, but he's not awful either

[MasenkoHA]

Even the abridged series went back on Goku being a bad dad so it seems weird people are still calling Goku a bad dad while using the TFS parody as their frame of reference.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Sorry, I've been meaning to reply, but keep getting sidetracked while writing this up

You're the one "projecting" here bigot. Every single post you've made on here is nothing but "ad hominem"

And you've completely devolved from having any argument whatsoever to just labeling someone who has a different opinion on an unrelated topic. Why do I have a feeling this is going to be one of those cases where you're going to try running me off the boards regardless of what topic I post in, regardless of what's being discussed, and regardless of how right I am?

You've not given any reasonable explanations for why you were defending Vic of all people in that other thread.

Wasn't defending Vic, was defending one's right to have an opinion against gender/race/sexuality swapping established characters in fanfiction. You just went off the deep end about me being making all sorts of assumptions that boil down to what I assume is you thinking I'm some far right wing Trump supporting extremist or some shit (when joke's on you, my ex was a black pansexual.

The aspect of copyright that nukes channels for no reason is bad

There IS a reason, it's been stated repeatedly. You not thinking it's a good reason doesn't change the fact that there is a reason. They keep using material they don't have the right to use.

You're one to talk about being "entitled" with your asinine posts.

What about anything I've posted in this thread comes off as "entitled," or makes my asking why you feel people are entitled to use copyrighted works for free hypocritical?

Nah you don't know shit about fair use.

See, unfortunately I actually read the previously provided discussion on the subject, which you clearly didn't, but I fact checked with

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/f ... r-factors/

And everything they said was true. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true.

Infringing my ass, so you think EVERY single review of fictional media is "infringing" yeah you are a troll aren't you?

A) modern reviews on Youtube and such platforms, yeah, a good portion of them are when they're just 20min of straight clips of the subject matter with nothing but chopshop editing to shuffle clips around, however, there are some that fall under fair use and B) Before Youtube came around the practice of using copyrighted footage in your review, even of the subject you'r reviewing, wasn't really a thing.

You know, you keep asserting that I'm a troll, but should we go back and re-read this thread and see whose answers are more trollish than the other's? Especially now that you've decided to start completely disregarding counterarguments in lieu of undeniably slinging insults.

People work on Youtube in the "real world", man you really do have a ton of contempt for millennial and gen-z don't you?

Yes, but it's a very small number of people in relation to the global population. And no, because I don't make generalizations about a whole group of people or hold any contempt for anyone but stupid people who ignore factual explanations when presented with them.

I think you're not naming names because you don't have any real examples.

No, because last time I made a post that was construed as just trying to talk shit about people got locked and Vegetto asked me not act like that here, so with respect for him, I'm not going to shit talk certain Youtubers. Really though, it shouldn't be that hard to go on Youtube and find a dozen "prank" channels that are really just being assholes to others or breaking laws and screaming "it's a prank bro!" when things backfire. Those kinds of channels are absolute cancer.

This notion that only the IP holder can use footage for anything is blatant bullshit, Japan copyright law is ludicrous, but i'm not surprised a troll like you is defending it.

And again, why exactly is it you think that? Also, it's not just Japanese copyright laws that prevent people from just using whatever the hell they want free of charge, as far as I'm aware, that's everywhere.

Nah you don't know what a strawman is, guess we can add that to the list of things you don't know about.

I literally just posted the definition from fucking Google after admitting that I was initially wrong in my assessment of the occurrence of strawman arguments in this thread. At this point you're just arguing to argue without actually adding anything of merit, aren't you?

Youtube actually needs a shit-ton of improvement

I'm going to be honest here, I'm having trouble figuring out what point this was supposed to correlates to. I don't disagree that Youtube needs vast improvements, but it's more along the lines of fixing their stupid algorith so it doesn't make certain types of genres untenable and fixing the subscription system so the default system actually works as intended instead of a "sometimes you'll get notifications," not repealing or amending laws to make it even harder to control and protect your IP that it already is.

(getting rid of white supremacists like Steven Crowder would be a start, BTW judging by your asinine response in that Vic thread i'm guessing your a big fan of his)

Ignoring that you're advocating censorship of free speech (mind you I don't have to agree with his views or speech to defend his right to freedom of expression). No, I'm not, but whatever assumptions you need to keep making to paint me as far right as you want.

But I have the feeling that you're the kind of person who labels anyone with differing views on sex politics (not that we do, not that you'd ever let yourself admit it because we have differing views on respecting author's intent in fanfiction of all things) or discrimination as white supremacists or nazis, aren't you?

You haven't refuted a single damn thing i've said here or elsewhere.

Again, VegettoEX, the co-founder of this site has pointed out where you were wrong and pointed to more in-depth breakdowns of copyright law, if you had actually bothered to read into the discussion he pointed to and then you know, did the slightest bit of fact checking, you'd have seen you're wrong. Just because some armchair lawyer(s) on Youtube tries to sell to everyone that everyone on Youtube not blatantly pirating content uploading it 1:1 is in the legal right "because Fair Use," doesn't mean it's actually true.

Here here! DBZA is the only thing of theirs I really care about and it's definitely legal.

Hey, there, just pointing out that you're not a judge in any official capacity and therefore your opinion on whether it's legal or not is 110% irrelevant to whether or not it actually is. Vegetto already explained why it's not, do I need to copy paste his explanations to review them further? (not that I think you read them to begin with, but rather skimmed the initial post, got the gist of "TFS is in the wrong" and "Nope, he's wrong,")

That said, why do I have a feeling this is going to be one of those cases where you're going to try running me off the boards regardless of what topic I post in, regardless of what's being discussed, and regardless of the factual merit of what I post in them is? Because if it is, I'm more than likely going to appeal to the mods to get involved. Try to actually stay on topic and stop slinging mud instead of actually refuting the counterarguments and statements.