You are just assuming that though
Yep, it was a dick move that he stole this guy's article. That's basically the point. You can dial back your emotional involvement in defending him. Cheers.
DMCA is required as a first step to the lawsuit. IH agreed he was in the wrong legally and removed the video. If they sued him moving forward, it would have to be for something other than copyright infringement (plagiarism or conversion, for example), which is harder.
Nope. If the original video went up, it would be safe to assume otherwise. The new video is proof he did not acquire rights to resolve the DMCA.
You did not answer my question. Where did you get the idea IH personally stole the text, then attempted to hide what he'd done? Why are you making these assumptions?
Again at worst he copied an article. Who cares. If he was grooming kids or some shit, yes that would be a big fucking deal
I sympathize with the exhaustion over political discourse, but it's a fair point that you should be the change you want to see in the world. The annoyance over political talk in these threads frequently boils down to: "I featured a politisperg and now the amount of politisperging on my website has increased! How could this have happened?!"
Damn it sounds like you're no better than the complacent, lazy, tardraging A&Niggers.
I'm not really emotional in defending him
IH runs the business and thus assumes liability for crimes it commits.
You are wrong. This is a lolcow thread and a lolcow drama video.
He's right and it's really gross seeing people dickride yet another fucking e-daddy.
Just admit you don't have answers, it's less embarrassing than whatever you're trying to do here.
Why does it have to be a big deal? Internet Historian committed plagiarism and you guys are jumping to his defense like your fair maiden had her honor injured. I just think that's very funny.
I don't understand why I have to personally show you that IH himself directly stole the work when that does not absolve him of how he handled the coverup or how he personally directly and knowingly profited from the video and then kept that money instead of buying the rights after being made aware of the theft.
Are people really dick riding ih that hard? Most of the defence is really that plagurism is a basically nothing crime and he just shits out amusing comedy videos. Personally I find em him amusing but id not feel anything if he just never uploaded again
Nobody argued otherwise. My point is that he should have bought the rights using the hundreds of thousands of dollars he made off the video. Instead, he decided to keep that money, deprive the authors, remove the video people loved (in part because of the writing of the original authors), and then upload an inferior version.
Yes? This is like page 3 in 30 minutes.
Mostly just cause it's a who cares crime when theirs YouTubers and streamers watching full unedited videos daily and making millions doing so
Because you're avoiding direct questions and repeating yourself with increasing hysterics, all the while you accuse everyone else of action emotionally. Once again you keep going on about a cover-up without once explaining why you've assumed he was trying to hide anything, or why you keep thinking he personally stole the material.
