verissimus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
This for me has to be the 2nd best Rekeita moment this year (excluding talking to Ty Beard) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo3lvMbz-M8 (skip to about 59:30)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ryan Ledoux
Jonathan Ryan Ledoux
https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news...perty/69-d29ab55a-683a-48f9-88d9-967b90a1d43d
If anyone has Pacer:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27607967/USA_v_Ledoux
What's the context from the stream? Is there a legal question here or were they just discussing some sick fuck being a sick fuck? I see the indictment but I'll be honest, if the news story is any indication, I'm not sure I really want to read 19 pages of this freak getting opposite-BlueSpiked.
YouTube doesn't give a shit whether the copyright holder sues. They can just leave the copyright strike against the channel regardless.The copyright holder won't sue
YouTube doesn't give a shit whether the copyright holder sues. They can just leave the copyright strike against the channel regardless.
I was wondering if the people who do that do chargebacks after because I can't comprehend throwing money away like that.It really is shocking to me how much money people are willing to spend to watch some guy on the internet parrot their autistic musings. I like rekieta, but even I don't think its worth 100 bucks to see him say something stupid and then another 100 bucks to say oops I misstyped that last 100 dollar super chat.
I was wondering if the people who do that do chargebacks after because I can't comprehend throwing money away like that.
Wrong. Null has had a video struck over a copyright claim and tried that. Counter claim, fair use, under penalty of perjury, the whole nine yards. YouTube told him that his counter notice was not valid and to go pound sand.That's not how it works. Rekieta is counter-noticing them. After counter-notice, if they DON'T sue, the strike comes down and the video monetization goes back to him after a period of time.
Wrong. Null has had a video struck over a copyright claim and tried that. Counter claim, fair use, under penalty of perjury, the whole nine yards. YouTube told him that his counter notice was not valid and to go pound sand.
I mean, in theory, under the law, what you said should be correct. But under YouTube's TOS, they don't have to follow the DMCA. YouTube can, at its sole discretion, decide that your video infringes on copyright and/or violates its terms of service. You have literally no recourse for this, unless you'd like to try to sue them - and good luck with that.
But conveniently they still get safe harbor protections. Funny that. They get to decide if your video infringes copyright or not, but they don't get to be liable if they decide wrongly. Their TOS is written to firmly absolve them of any responsibility.
Most normal people would be blocked from responding to shit like this because they can't find a lawyer to take the case.