YouTube Is Being Sued
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2022
- UA-cam is being sued by Business Casual
Original Video by Upper Echelon Gamers • Business Casual Vs. Yo...
Subscribe to Upper Echelon Gamers / upperechelongamersueg
► Asmongold's Twitch: / asmongold
► Asmongold's Twitter: / asmongold
► Asmongold's 2nd YT Channel: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Sub-Reddit: / asmongold
Thank you all for watching! Stay tuned and subscribe to the official Asmongold UA-cam Channel to always be kept up to date about the best Asmongold Highlights, Asmongold Reacts and funniest Asmongold moments from World of Warcraft, Elden Ring, Lost Ark, Final Fantasy 14 (FFXIV) and other games played on stream!
Channel Editors: CatDany & Daily Dose of Asmongold
► 🎸 Outro song: CatDany - Get Enough
If you own the copyright of content showed in this video and would like it to be removed:
► / catdanyru
►
#Asmongold - Ігри
I love the idea of someone suing UA-cam in theory. Especially with how unevenly they enforce their own rules. However, realistically speaking UA-cam has the money and resources to drag this out forever. There's no way the average person could afford to keep this case going long enough to actually win.
the unfortunate reality of a corrupt system.
Well ... Elon Musk could lmao
UA-cam is also a government entity, part of google and the US state. You can't sue the state.
@@theravenousrabbit3671 tf do you mean you cant sue the state? Ofc you can if they do something thats unlawful.
a german youtuber did already win against germany. he sued them for unrightfully deleting his youtube account. he won. but the account and channelonly exist now in germany lol. also it was probably only possible in germany, as "dragging" in court is impossible.
When such a big company gets sued I expect some kind of oily, wriggly escape full of bribes, corruption and maybe even threats on Judges lifes and so on.
Not a hoeg law style vod so I have a heathy sceptism of this video. The fact that he doesn't go into sources of materials questions his credibility in law knowledge
Yea thats in movies not real life
Its just a bunch of high quality lawyers who are arguing with more lawyers
Who then present a insanely long and complicated case to a judge
With both sides trying to find any law to use to their advantage
@@thatdamncrow9197 exactly this. some people just have the wrong idea.
Yup
OP is living in a movie world
I really feel like you should see the original video. Seeing one side of an argument is not exactly the best plan.
The root of the issue is that UA-cam would kill a smaller for this but not larger channel. I agree that they *shouldn't* get all their channels banned. But I also think that if UA-cam want to enforce their fucked up rules they should apply them to everyone the same.
Thats the thing. It doesn't matter what rules youtube has if they don't enforce them equally. I do find it interesting that asmongold is watching someones reaction to it, rather than the video itself.
The problem is that this is literally impossible ...
Do you understand how big youtube is? it has channels from all over the world so the amount of people/money they'd need to properly monitor the site without algorymths would bankrupt them
@@Reece8u He had said at 2:34 that the original video is just long so he didn't want to watch through the whole thing.
@@CanadianTick yeah but now he has no idea what he is talking about and completely misses the point of the case and takes the side of youtube.
@@Z50nemesis wazoo6
20:46 To answer Asmon's question, if UA-cam allow channels to exist that defame other people, they should allow channels to exist that defame UA-cam. If fairness is the feature we're going for.
Except for the fact that the context between those two scenarios is completely different. UA-cam channels that defame each other can be construed as arguments between content creators and no matter how much slander they throw at each other, it has nothing to do with the platform hosting that slander. Imagine for a second that you are hosting a blogging website and two of your regular writers start defaming each other, it is your choice whether or not to de-platform them, but you don't gain anything either way, and removing them from your platform may incur backlash from their fanbase. On the other hand, if one of your writers starts saying your blog is full of nazi propaganda and actively promotes pedophilia when that is blatantly not true, you have every right in the world to kick them off of your website.
Defame youtube for the sake of defaming youtube? Makes sense
You wonder why businesses don't take the public seriously.
@@WhoDaresWinso7 thats not what he said at all lol what
This is like a guy living in a friend's house for free, then proceeding to accuse that same friend for providing a shitty house.
there is no future, world war 3 is on the horizon, nuclear winter is coming, wear your new clothes now
You should watch the original video and his explanations. Don't stream it due to length, but in your off time.
I think UA-cam need to be sued.
But for selectively enforcing their TOS on certain people and not on others.
It's unlikely to happen, because it's very hard to prove. But would be good if it is actually proven to be true that they would be punished for it.
@@gothicusmaximus9742 You are so far off reality, ha.. easily proven since 2016.
@@gothicusmaximus9742 You clearly never saw what Eli Pariser and everyone has pointed out of bias since 2010 and his famous speech
@@linusgustafsson2629 agreed... eli pariser proved the bias here and the other two sotes people use, that was on stage proven bias a decade ago!
again... Eli Pariser proved all the bias in a ted speech in 2010.. it got worse 2016 and now for sure 2022. I was here the whole time
The sense of relief Asmon has in the thumbnail when he is finally able to remove his hands from his face
dude look at my banner
I agree with asmon on some points but I really think he should watch the original video because the one he's reacting to is misrepresenting a lot of business casual's points and leaving out important information.
Like?
@@stevenhair3250 Nothing. As you can tell by the response to you. So easy to share just one point but nothing.
@@juliotorres3147 it's a lawsuit, bro, not a breakfast cereal. There's a ton of details and it's not hollywood so there isn't a smoking gun and a piano-accompanied tearful confession.
Either watch the video or don't spout an opinion on it.
@@seizerkb3225 He did make a second video though?
@@seizerkb3225 and another person that could’ve shared just ONE thing but nope. Starts taking about Hollywood and shit. Bye goalposts
8:08 What Zack's describing here is a strategy known in retail as 'loss leader'. It's been a proven effective tactic for over a century, the most famous example being John D. Rockefeller's use of it to drive competition out of business, securing his oil monopoly and being a major impetus for anti-trust and minimum-markup laws.
So, yeah, it's a legit argument.
Thankfully MxR Plays finally got monetized (after an entire month demonetized without any notice whatsoever) again after their whole fiasco. Yes there are a zillion content creators on YT, but there has to be much better process to communicate with content creators. It's also an important lesson for content creators to not put all their content in one basket and to spread it out over multiple formats.
From the get go, making a bad faith argument in your initial compliant is never a good idea.
I saw the whole days ago. The thing that made me skeptical was when they were trying to pass off something as basic as parallax scrolling as some sort of trademark they invented.
I learned how to make parallax scrolling background effects making side scroller flash games when I was like 13.
And the way they were explaining was VERY legalize, like you could tell they were trying check boxes off to explain to a judge how it’s indeed copyright infringement.
Just really rubbed me the wrong way
@@wastedviking6280 Agreed. Thats how I got it. Art doesn't need to be trademarked.
Producing the parallax animations they did is some what skillful , not many people could produce the quality of their work. But that's not the point in the copyright claim, whatever techniques were used for creating a video , including you trivially just pointing your phone at yourself and recording, the copyright claim it's about the originality of the work . I really do think you misunderstood what they were saying Xavier, if you create something original it is yours, and people cannot just take it to use for themselves as they see fit, such use must meet legal conditions, and RT did not meet those conditions.
"And the way they were explaining was VERY legalize, like you could tell they were trying check boxes off to explain to a judge how it’s indeed copyright infringement. "
Its the law , this is how it works , of course the language used is going to be technical , they are taking people to court. I was satisfied they demonstrated that the work was theirs , and met the standards of being copyrighted , RT channel for the first claim admitted this. Subsequently RT stated they only reason they countered the subsequent two copyright claims was because not to do so would lead to two more strikes requiring their channel be removed , this was implicitly an admission they also regarded these additional claims as legitimate, and were doing they only thing they could do to stop the channel removal. This is acting in bad faith .
UA-cam should not interfere in copyright claims , it is part of the requirement in them having the legal protection of being a safe harbour , that they became involved , even offering "advice" to the judge in the case means they have overstepped the legal restrictions they must abide by, and themselves become entangled as a advocate for a copyright material thief.
They are entirely NEW SCENES from more public domain images. New edits, new scenes, thousands of hours of hard work.
@@mikafizz1022 everytime I turn on my camera and record it’s a “new scene”. So what? 🤷♂️
@@wastedviking6280 how edited must it be before it’s considered transformative though 🤔and they literally said trademark in the video, it’s not my impression it’s what they said.
They didn’t mean trademark in the legal sense. But like “our trademark style”
Watch the original video i like upper echelon gamers but he totally misses the point and by only watching a reaction video asmongold also has no idea what the lawsuit is actually about
His lawsuit isn't about fair use!! It's about policy upholding and youtube acting as mediated force when they aren't supposed to.
thanks Judge Dredd
youtube can absolutely act a mediated force tho
I mean, the lawsuit is about alleged copyright violation. RT and UA-cam are making it about fair use and the constitution in their defense.
@@AlbertoTuber yeah, and that's what opens them up more easily to lawsuits. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.
@@w1mark275 for sure, though if you get the chance to watch the original video do it. They make a lot more sense in why it ended up becoming the issue of more than just the 3 strike policy.
Just because a video isn't monetized, doesn't mean google isn't allowed to run ads in front of them for google to profit.
As a part of setting up a new channel as of last year you are told google has the rights to run ads on your content even if your channel doesn't partner. Google just takes both chunks.
A double edged sword
@@randomness1456 not really? What are the consequences for google? More money?
@@mrawesome33341 just create a video that will offend the advertisers in some way, then grab some popcorn. UA-cam will have no choice but to not run ads on your video, otherwise they risk losing advertisers.
@@randomness1456 UA-cam used to run ads in !S!S propaganda channels. I think you underestimate UA-cam's greed.
@@teemumiettinen7250 I am well aware of UA-cam's greed, their desire to choose money over their community is not new information to me (We already saw this recently with Markiplier). I'm just saying that UA-cam has to keep the corporations happy, lest they want to be destroyed themselves. A way to make corporations unhappy is by making them look bad, what better way to do that then to run their ads on 'sensitive content' that the corporations may not like.
The thing to remember is that most of this lawsuit and drama predated the war in Ukraine. Yes, _after_ the invasion, UA-cam is a lot less friendly to RT, but the causes of all of this were _before_ the invasion, and UA-cam _was_ cutting RT a lot of favors on this one. A channel should not have to invade a sovereign nation to get proper copyright consideration.
@@Sey_Moore Yeah, but fair outrage, because they _are_ colluding with Russia to brainwash USA. I mean, is that their primary goal? No, but it is RT's, and UA-cam allowed RT to continue existing on their platform, even after RT broke UA-cam's own rules.
UA-cam's handling of copyright is messed up and something needs to force them to build better, more consistent, more fair practices, maybe this will be a part of it. At the very least, a channel like RT should not get any advantages that some rando UA-camr does not get.
This is a good point to make, because so many people are getting this wrong.
YT took down the offending videos when DMCA was filed. He's mad that they aren't taking down the entire global network of 39 channels. In addition to Alex's history of scamming youtube creators under his other business, PowerTV. He's a fraud.
@@smode983 But then they put the videos back up. Did you not watch the video?
Would love to see your take after you watch the original video. The person doing the video skips on a few things that might change your view.
As someone who has seen BC's whole vid there are many things that the vid Asmongold watched dismisses or straight up doesn't mention. A few of which are that BC have official copyright ownership on their videos including their custom animation and the documentation to prove it,
a representative of RT emailing back confirming and admitting that they stole using BC's clips and accepting the copyright claim, only going back on their words when the 2nd and 3rd claims were made by BC for different clips of several minutes,
BC giving notice weeks in advance before pushing for the lawsuit, only asking to solve things internally and for the clips used to be edited out,
RT mass deleting other vids after the lawsuit was officially made which is illegal.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, and the watermark thing seems iffy, but for YT to make up new laws in light of such things is just bs imo.
Highly advise watching the whole thing for a complete understanding.
Edit: spelling mistakes and such.
"RT mass deleting other vids after the lawsuit was officially made which is illegal"
explain. illegal where?
@@beelbrother1648 I think this is about "Tampering with evidence" (which has it's own wiki page)
@@hollowmind8 what are we even talking about? what countries' laws are you referring to?
Not true
Upper echelon honestly deserves more subs
Meh, he kinda lost me with his tantrum over people disliking his Doom Eternal Review when people were pointing out that he was literally just ignoring game mechanics and calling it bad
@@bransonallen2925 Agree, though I don't think he's a bad person or anything. I think he just got butthurt people pointed out he was playing badly lol.
I do agree, but sometimes I think he rushes his videos. This is a really good expample of one. Business Casual did mention that youtube has stopped all payments to the Russian owned youtube channels with the invasion of Ukraine (Upper Echelon did not mention this in his video). Another really good point Business Casual makes, is that the RT Russian channels are used for propoganda such as spreading misinformation around Covid and Ukraine, which Uppper Echelon again just ignored.
@@JillLulamoon Yeah I mean I definitely enjoyed his videos before that and watched pretty regularly, but it was such a doubling down when he could have just as easily said "Yeah I guess I skipped or missed a tutorial that told me how the chainsaw works." Calling anyone who told him otherwise "whiny fanboys" especially didn't help his case.
UE is flat out cherry picking and misrepresenting the case here. Ironic to what he called BC was doing. He missed the fact that RT has lost the case and proven to not have fair use. Despite that, youtube refused to honor the court decision and told them to wait for appeal, which is against their terms of service. He also missed the part that UA-cam has mentioned that RT has a special treatment where they could receive up to 30+ copyright strike without being terminated, which again, is not what the terms of service had said.
The case is not about copyright anymore, the judge has decided that RT is violating copyright. The case is about UA-cam not enforcing their rules equally
I had a channel of mine RichLies Rants false copy right struck I made animations and they are TM under my brand Comptuerchick Productions youtube not even listening to me. The person that false flagged is a ban evader been terminated off the platform over 10 times .
same thing happened to my old channel and it was my home business. youtube only replied with an automated message. i wasn’t even a big channel. only had 300 subs maybe at most.
@@Squeaxx Neither was RichLies Rants
I hope you watch the original video live, this guy missed 90% of the points
Lmao not really, he also made 3 other videos following up. Boiling everything down the core point of contention is the fact Business Casual is arguing against the UA-cam adjudication process. Which suits him, because as it turns out he used to run an MCN which falsely claimed ad revenue on hundreds of vids. He's an all-around scummy person.
Which points did he miss? (Just so you know the guy who made i'm suing UA-cam isn't even the original creator of the channel he bought it a couple years back)
@@Blownkingg the RT water mark is on the video itself always for years.. it isnt the channel avatar button... the is incorrect there, and likely the original video they both copied from a history documentary.. for their own film
@@dertythegrower RT puts a watermark on all of their videos. Why would they remove a watermark specifically for 10 seconds of footage on a 20 min video? Upper Echelon Gamers was talking about Business Casual not having an actual watermark on his videos.
Should watch the full video vs saying 'im not gonna do it' and still react to it.. There is ALOT of information you're missing here.
12:20 RT didn't only use few second clip, they used 9 minute clip, completely stolen.
Not exactly. They took a 2-3 minute clip and looped it a bunch of times.
23:20 I mean you already made your mind without watching business casual video or any other video
so Asmongold watched a UA-cam video that's a counter-argument to another argument/ main defense UA-cam video that he said he doesn't want to watch because of the length of the original UA-cam video even with UA-cam features offering 1.25 and 1.50 watch speed playback.
Big fan of yours and how you dont shy away from controversial topics. Curious to hear your opinion on CNBC shutting down the person today that mentioned covering shorts...
Also curious how you feel about bbby, gme going green/positive after Jerome's speed and the sp500 tanking?
A damn funny thing: the guy who wanted to sue UA-cam does the same kind of mispresentation as RT does
What do you mean?
@@blondie7240 means BC is using sensationalism and manipulation to get an army of kids to protest in his favour. If you look at some of his comments and tweets he does come across as weird.
@@blondie7240 he owned and MCN like rt except that he abused creators with horrible contract and copyright strikes , he also had people false flag creator channels he didn't like.
@@jacklynkollie535 that hasn’t been proved yet, it’s only allegations
@@Person-tj2sw welp, it's been confirmed
this has needed to be done for a very long time!
You need to see the whole video Asmongold. Business Casual did not want to take down the whole RT network. They wanted to settle this out of court and only remove the videos in question. There is a lot more to this story,. His gripe is mainly with how UA-cam has chosen to handle this, and blatantly lie and has chosen to ignore their own policies and avoiding responsibilities under the DMCA. Context matters here - and the video you have chosen to feature here, does not do the whole issue justice.
Upper echelon gaming debunked this
Did he? He focuses a lot on how Business Casuals are trying to go after the whole RT network, which there is nothing in their original video that indicates. They were only interested in having the video's removed that were copies of their work. This does violate the repeat-infringer policy that UA-cam has in place. A policy UA-cam chose to ignore due to potentially lost ad revenue. This is the problem that Business Casuals have with UA-cam. They do not actually want to take down RT's channels. They just want UA-cam to uphold their own rules and follow the DMCA laws, that everyone else has to play by.
@@greggreg5189 tbh, given his previous video, i don't believe if he really watch the full video.
It's in his lawsuit against UA-cam, not in his original video
@@oqlassic8799 Dude made 3 or 4 videos about Business Casual and literally talked about stuff no one else did.
i found this lawsuit bizarre whenever i stumbled upon it a while ago
the ad on this video was literally a ad blocker "totaladblocker" lmfao
Buisness Casual don't want to shut down the 39 chanel, he sent multiple letter to just delete the video with his content, they didn't respond, so he followed the law and sued them
I feel like he might have just been stupid and didn't understand how that watermark works, but maybe not. Something I don't remember hearing Upper Echelon Games talk about is how long BC claims the videos were actually. He claims they were up to minutes at a tame and over the total of all the videos over like 9 mins. That sounds like more than a few seconds so what then? I feel like Upper Echelon has points in this but also a lot of bias too. I really didn't feel good about BCs video during it and I couldn't really get why, but I also feel slightly similar at UEG for this video. There is a lot he doesn't cover from the original video that would need to be talked about that he just glosses over, such as it being UA-cam'S POLICY to delete all associated channels for repeat violators. If it weren't the policy I wouldn't care about deleting all the other channels. I am sure people have had all their channels removed for bullshit, and I feel like RT at least abused the system if not got special treatment from youtube. I wish UEG was more in depth in countering the original video.
this is why I love asmongold. we don't agree on everything and even when we do he still challenges arguments and has the conversation, even if something seems self evident. The commentary about getting finessed when you agree with something because you want it to be true revealed to me how much asmon actually influenced the way I think things through.
Upper dude. He tried to sell red dead redemption 2 merchandise back when RDR2 first came out & rockstar was gonna sue him so he had to remove his RDR2 merchandise & he was crying about it.
LMAO the more I hear about this Upper echelon the more bizarre the thing gets xD
Asmon makes a good point, and it mirrors something I've heard many lawyers say over the last year in light of the notable court cases that have been covered on UA-cam:
*It doesn't matter if you're right if you aren't likeable.*
And UA-cam, as a company, has made itself hilariously unlikable, over a number of years, in the face of many, many controversies. So, in the court of Public Opinion, it doesn't matter that UA-cam took all the right actions, and blocked that content, and did nearly all they could to show that they would not support it.
What matters is that they're getting sued by someone because they continue to fail at putting forward a good, likeable face and fair, even handling of their policies and enforcement of those policies.
Public opinion doesn't matter in the case itself though, which is what decides if you're gonna be right. And people's opinion of YT or RT news isn't new nor it is going to change from it.
It only garners support as a shield against criticism of how the thing could set a terrible copyright precedent should it ever succeed by making the opposition to YT and RT news sensational.
By all means UA-cam pushes incredibly hypocrite standards with varying degrees of rule enforcement and people are right to be skeptical of UA-cam but attributing malice only makes sense when you can rule out incompetence first.
@@NewNecro I mean, *we know this,* but it might be helpful to have such a short saying for it in mind if you happen to come across someone who misunderstands the conflict at hand, I suppose.
Not exactly the same wording but my father always said "If when they talk about the stuff I know I can see it's wrong/bs I can't trust them when they talk about stuff I know nothing about".
"When people try to push 'facts' I know to be false, how can I trust them when they talk about things I do not know"
They you can't trust anyone saying anything ever. People get all sorts of stuff wrong all the time. The best way to know something is to look into it yourself. Otherwise it's always going to be a leap of faith to believe something someone else says.
Of course there is nuance to this as well. Some people are more generally knowledgeable and are usually right and some people constantly spout incorrect BS about things they don't know anything about. But everyone makes mistakes about facts sometimes.
@@liarwithagun If you talk about everything as if it was a fact and on the things I do understand I've noticed you're wrong why would I not think the same about the thinks I don't? Did it really need explaining? Jesus christ
One of the scary channels does that photo layer crap and makes the eyes of pictures of victims and killers move. It looks ok sometimes but most of the time it is creepy as hell.
pls what the original video and make it a 10 hour long video, i would like it as a background conversation
"You see, like, one thing is not true, I immediately assume everything else is bullshit."
> UEG leaves out the fact this case started in early 2021 when saying UA-cam hasn't been siding with RT, so they indeed sided with RT for almost a year. And this isn't easy to miss, it's addressed not only in its own special timestamp in the original video, March 2021 is mentioned multiple times.
*sweating furiously*
Also, if you want hilarious BS arguments, BC highlights a point where YT's lawyer says he doesn't know if RT is funded by the Russian govt or not, though he DOES immediately point out that his client, YT, has a big warning under all RT videos stating they might be funded by the Russian govt.
As for the actual video, I've watched both and as a guy who's followed a lot of these sorta cases, I'm 60-40 on BC weaponizing the DMCA. But unlike literally every other case I've seen, BC has actually done everything correctly. It's surprising when such a person does ONE thing correctly. On the flip side I'd put BC vs. RT as 60-70% in favour of BC, which should have been MORE than enough for YT to decide against specially intervening on RT's behalf. (it should honestly be lower than 5% if we're being generous to Google, if I were running YT it'd be 1%, it should look like an absolutely trivial slam dunk) That said, I'd put the YT lawsuit appeal somewhere in the 10% chance to succeed. (for various reasons that I won't go into on this comment as it's already too long)
This exactly. People need to watch the original video from BC, even if its painful and their ADHD and tiktok corrupted mind can't watch 2 hour long video.
Finally, why is it so hard to find people that actually understand the situation? This video by UEG is terrible and blatantly misrepresents the whole thing and it's frankly disgusting. Unfortunately most people on the internet don't have an attention span longer than five seconds, as evident by this comments section.
What the video says is true but it misses a lot of points from the original and the main reason he blames yt which is because of covid missinformation. Watch the full video first
I watched the entire near 2 hour video. Covid misinformation was just an extra point just to show general hypocrisy. He was using that to try to say UA-cam is entangled with Russian politics due to money. That may be true. But the potential consequences of the case are real.
@@unlockingillusion3087 yes indeed but that extra points is the most obvious thing against yt
@@thanosks I mean, youtube sucks. If the video was just that youtube sucks or that there should be more competing video sharing companies, I would agree. The point of the video is a lawsuit. Arguably the details of that lawsuit and the potential consequences of it is what we should be focusing on. Both UA-cam and Russia suck but that shouldn't blind us to the actual case.
All of the channels should've been deleted because of continuous misinformation long before Business Casual ever made a copyright strike. And it's not just a little misinformation about facemasks being child abuse and sufficating because it somehow blocks oxygen (Matt Gaetz and Ron DiSantos or however you spell their names). RT repeatedly claimed, in their videos that are still on UA-cam that the US created covid to target the arabic world and the arabic world has no more free speech than Russia does, and UA-cam actively helps enforce the censorship of critics in those countries, so no one is going to challenge them on that. Those countries will not know better than that the US created a virus to target the arabic world, driving them even closer to Russia and UA-cam is helping them, actively, by allowing those channels to get away with everything and by censoring critics of those governments.
And what the video says isn't true. Asmon should've checked if this echelon dude is even credible. He is not. He is a rightwing extremist who shills for Russia and constantly misleads his audience with lies and fast scrolled screenshots that contradict everything he says. I mean, "If one thing is bullshit, what else is bullshit?" If you don't check, I guess everything is just fine. Just don't look in the grass and you won't be bitten by any snakes.
As per any time that big tech is sued, it will probably get settled out of court and nothing will come of it.
I just downloaded this video to test the watermark thing. Downloaded video has no watermark. I was unaware that that would or could occur and i think its reasonable to assume BC didn't either. I had seen BC's video before this one and ill be looking at Upper Echelon as well to form a more rounded opinion on this
My initial opinion is that BC's case against RT was fairly strong, there was only one point i truly thought was flimsy at best.
As for the case against youtube, there appears to be moving goalposts. The alleged unequal treatment of content creators seems apparent, and there are other videos on the topic, a reaction to one on this very channel.
As for the potential fallout of the youtube case, that was not something I had initially considered. I have very little skin in the content creation game, a single unwatched video, so i hadn't considered the potential damage to the copyright protections that are currently in place. With that in mind, I am very much on the fence
15:00 please note that at the end of Business Casuals video, he states that he had not recorded anything for the previous month or so.
Also note that the only proven inconsistency before this point is the watermark, which is designed to poison the well. The rest of Upper Echelon Gamers points are not actually backed up with quotes from the actual video and or is pure speculation based on incomplete evidence.
My point is: please watch BC's original video before you pass judgement based on one person's hit piece. There's actually a lot of proof of UA-cam's collusion for profit, and a lot of of their actions in all of this have been genuinely shady (breaking down YT's lies to a federal judge (its literally unarguably perjury) to get the case thrown out, hosting big deal internally meetings, unfairly involving RT in said meetings, providing additional protections to RT's channels that NO OTHER YT channel has access to, breaking the DMCA content provider safe harbour rules by undoing a ban on RT as a repeat offender, etc.)
@Ptao Tom I know right?
Honestly its so crazy how much YT are pulling the strings here. Directly suggesting to creators like this to create more modest length videos criticising BC for stuff they didn't say, whilst giving a 0% rate of announcements for BC's video.
Legit from the outside, if you couldn't see the evidence, it would sound like a conspiracy, and that's what I think YT is playing around.
@Ptao Tom A think Upper Echelon Gaming also fails to mention here is that RT isn't banned at all, its just blocked world wide and restricted to Russia. Which can literally be undone at any point unlike with the DMCA copyright protections.
Like its supposed to be this massive point about how UA-cam do support the blocking of Russian influence during wartime, and that Business Casual is trying to push this under the rug.
But business casual literally has a section of his video plainly discussing exactly this.
People really need to watch the original video.
Honestly I’m still on Business explained side. The few regulations UA-cam has, including the deletion of all channels is written and not new. If there are 3 stolen parts of some video on one channel you can’t be sure that on the other 32 channels there aren’t violations and cannot be trusted to post original content. Just because it is a state owned channel it has not the right to stand above the regulations
But RT hasn’t infringed anything… I think? If any channel uses a small snippet of clips from other videos or media, then what they should get their channels deleted or removed? That’s ludicrous no matter how you look at it.
I don’t support Russia but this is obviously so dumb especially claiming UA-cam/Google are working with Russia to undermine America. Why would a mega corporation side with any one particular country for no reason.
Or I might be not be understanding the entire situation, in which case please enlighten me on my mistake.
Getting the name wrong really set the stage for this reply.
This system is not state exclusive. Content managers are not always state media- more often than not, they arent.
@@Gliccit Russia Today is completely controlled by Kremlin and is used as propaganda weapon.
"stolen" since RT is a news channel I hardly believe they "stole" anything since they would have to try very hard to use content that doesn't fall in the fair use category...
'Oh. It's this thing right here?' he says, looking the wrong way.
I'll be ready interested to see if Rekeita Law talks about this
Imagine if a book publisher physically printed a book that infringed the copyright of someone; you wouldn't call for the publisher to be closed down and all the books they've ever printed and published to be taken out of circulation would you? No, you would get them to stop publishing the book with the copyright infringing part in it (maybe have them re-publish with the infringing part taken out)
I think today it depends on the material they are publishing. Especially along political lines.
Don't UA-cam have a policy of taking down multiple channels owned by the same creator when the creator is a repeat offender? I'm not saying it's right or fair. Just saying, isn't that what they do to other, smaller creators with multiple channels?
Ok but the book publisher is refusing to stop publishing the book because it's a best seller and is making them bank.
UA-cam's policy is to terminate the account of copyright infringers. If all 36 RT channels are linked to the same original account, that means bye to all of them.
Copyright law also specifically uses the word "terminate"
Business Insider is only trying to do exactly where copyright law's line is. UA-cam is refusing to enforce their policy so he's also suing UA-cam.
@@razorednight Yeah, if you get banned, they take all your accounts. I'm sure there are some loopholes for corporations, though. Like if different ppl are managing the accounts and are posting on behalf of different companies (even if those companies are owned by the same mother company), it probably changes things.
That's my guess, anyways. No idea how it actually works, though.
UE left out some key parts to this case. RT stole minutes of content and they refused to take the videos down. Business Casual has copyrights registered. UA-cam didn't terminate their channel/s as per their own rules - 3 strikes and you're out. Instead they made up a bs excuse of 35 strikes in a year for "special" channels.
If the book publisher didn't pull down the book infringing on your content, and the one who made the book wouldn't care about you, you'd have to sue one or the other, or both, to take the book down. That's what's going on here.
12:10 that is precisely what happened to my last channel
Over 500 videos. Countless hours of editing time (literally)...
*GONE*
With no explanation.
I love Upper Echelon! Thanks for covering this.
UA-cam is probably in court all the time.
I'm against censorship across the board. Even if they are an enemy, knowing your enemies perspective is important otherwise the cycle of hatred continues.
Good. I fucking hate Chinese and I fucking hate communist pieces of shit.
True. Big true. True and real.
But it's not their perspective, it's what they tell you their perspective is.
For example, people who thought the holocaust was good, are holocaust deniers.
Saw this one. These types of allegations really want me to wish the enemy of UA-cam, Adpocalypse, to be present.
Edit: Okay… pardon my emotions, and I apologize for that, but the only way to get UA-cam to change something in the TOS for the better is to bring Adpocalypse.
I can say that both sides can be wrong, but the unfairness of UA-cam may contribute to this type of lawsuit.
What they said about the “solution” for dislikes is likely doing the opposite of what is meant to be, and causing mental distress, and in fact, they don’t tell you which part you are getting demonitized, claimed, struck… nothing in the cases of both Act Man and CoryXKenshin.
At least for me when it mostly comes to Hololive, I’m only claimed if their songs are remixed.
This crap should either end with a defeat, a victory, or an adpocalypse if it means fair.
You should definitely watch the entire video by business casual. It goes very deeply in detail on thing not even mentioned in the video (as well as some things that were misrepresented in the video).
he can freely skip first half of video without any lass and just scroll lawsuit. Well maybe also watch animation making process. I still mostly agree with summary from that "gamer" dude - business casual bein dishonest and manipulate ppl emotions even if he is partially right in his case. I never suppor a person that clearly tryin to manipulate me even if he sounds like he is doing fight for the right side.
I mean it was just a question of when at this point
asmon: people already made up their mind without watching the original video
also asmon: makes up his mind without watching the original video
fantastic, and before anyone comments something, watch the original video and watch Upper Echelon's video, then make up your mind, watching asmongold reacting to a video reacting to a video is pointless
Asmongold should know better
Thank you for saying this. Ue cuts a ton of points and circles a bunch of word play nit picking. It's silly!
I've watched both, Business casual is being irrational.
@@whitewall2253 are they though? When you are employed with a company and someone is objectively harassing you and your boss goes about ignoring half of it. With another supervisor gaslighting you is that wrong to challenge in court to make sure it doesn't happen to someone else??
Remember that youtube is not just a tech company part of the alphabet mafia, it is also the boss of thousands of content creators.
@@lightkira4119 this video that reviews the original does not capture the correct intention of the author. One does not assume history as fact by listening to a 3rd party source. You gather more information and that requires listening to all sides. If you wish to ignore this fine be another sheep that lets other people do the thinking for you.
would be nice to see Asmon watching whole video, as Upper Echelon Gamers skipped bunch of important points
Vague
EUG is an extremist rightwinger. Dishonest representation and strawmanning is their thing. They can't even represent their own talking points properly because they don't believe in anything and honest representation isn't an ability they trained, it's just a card they pull when they're accused of something.
They just say words people want to hear and flip as soon as their audience wants to hear something different. Now it's pro Russia, 5 years ago Russia was a commie country and the enemy. Now the left is the enemy, so Russia is their friend. Before women got the right to safe abortions, Republicans were the ones advocating for that right.
It's a little more than just skipping a lot of important points, it's with a purpose and not a very healthy one.
If this happens, where would we go to watch video??
"UA-cam needs to be WAY better at communication" sounds about right.
They communicate just fine. They literally emailed Business Casual why they took some extra time to review a copyright claim: to prevent Russia Today from receiving a third strike within 90 days. UA-cam admitted with that that it actively supports Russia Today's policies, anti American misinformation propaganda in the middle east and more. Oh, in the "more" part there is also helping the Kremlin silence critics of the Russian government by banning them and deleting those channels. But sure, it's just a miscommunication toward western content creators, why not.
Asmon looks like that one meme, in the thumbnail. Not sure what it's called, but the one that looks like Casper the ghost yelling lol
I mean youtube let quantum TV false copy right claim and more with out doing anything to him.
Why the government drones in the background at the end of the video man?
Man got more tabs than I have brain cells
As a smaller creator I always saw this lawsuit as an overall negative. Glad to see Asmon and other larger creators sharing their opinion. For a while it felt like it was just smaller creators disagreeing with Business Casual.
As a smaller creator you are just another imp of youtube
sue everything youtube has bby.
nice russian bot here
@@yeetyeet7070 its not a bot upper echelon gaming debunked business casual
@@greggreg5189 No he hasn't.
I feel like Upper Echelon skipped over the part that the copyright issue with RT is going on already since 2020 and therefor pre 2022 both youtube and RT still earned money on the videos.
Otherwise I agree with him, a network with tons of channels and who knows how many workers should not be wholy terminated for three strikes. That can happen just too easy, you do not have the overview of all the staff, especially when theiy are all across the globe. Now they introduced the system that across all channels you can have 35 strikes, fair, but they did not communicate this at all, which just makes it look rly bad.
As I see the case is not about copyright needs to be stricter, but that youtube should abide by its own ToS and properly review copyright claims and the counter claims, this connects as such also with The Act Man, JiDion and cory.
Okay, let's put aside the big corpo hate, I dislike them just as much. But you also need to see those companys have tens, hundreds or even thousands of employees that might get fired out of this. Do you rly want to make them as well suffer because the big shots are some idiots?
Asmon and UpperEchelon agreed on this as well, it is not fair to the employees even if not directly so mentioned.
Is it unfair that the employees are like hostages now? Heck yeah, but there's not much you can do, but hope government expand more on worker rights that protect them from errors from their higher ups. It is a more undelying issue as you mentioned. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
5:40 Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
IMO, copyright law should follow what is stated in the copyright clause of the US Constitution
"[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Keywords are "authors" and "inventors" not the copyright or patent owner.
But based on current laws, what is drasticly needed is a use it or lose it clause. Of all copyrights in existance, less than 10% of them all remain commercially exploited. The rest will fall into the abyss of time. So, if a copyright is not commercially exploited for X number of years, it becomes part of public domain.
Copyright IS use it or lose it. Or at least there is a system where you can sue for the right. Routinely companies are essentially forced to enforce their copyright claims because it can be brought up in court if they didn't lift a finger to defend their claim, right or not.
@@nevadanate4957 What I mean with the use it or lose it is to not provide any legal way to acquire that content. SO if the IP owner keeps suing or threatenig to sue people who violate their copyright but continue to not provide an easy way for people to get it, then that counts against the IP owner.
Watch the original. Even if you don't buy it, its still a pretty wacky video. The rabbit hole goes much deeper than what UEG talks about here.
I JUST ALWAYS WANT TO SAY....I LOVE THIS KID...YOU ROCK ASMONGOLD.....AND I AM JUST AN OLD LADY
...Anyone ever notice that lawyers are just professional liars?
But you also can’t make up your mind by just listening to what the this guy says in his video.
He said “I I thought youtube was wrong in the back of my head but not after watching this video” without looking at BC video or the actual court documents.
I haven’t seen BC video but so far this guys summarization of “he was stolen from but reactors will be copyright struck more if this guy wins” seems pretty simplistic
yep, and "this guy" also heavily misrepresents BC's arguments from the video
When you have to side with the baddies because the reason they are getting punished could eventually affect you too.
Literately the point of free speech. It's not there for you to talk about the weather.
@@johanneswestman935 the irony in your comment, free speech would include talking about the weather as well if they so desire.
@@johanneswestman935 Free speech is only applicable to the government censoring you. That’s it.
@@juliotorres3147 tf are you on about? I'm not talking about any laws - which vary greatly depending on where you live. I'm talking about the concept of free speech.
@@johanneswestman935 Don't interrupt him. Based on the way he managed to completely miss the point and make a condescending response at the same time, I estimate this redditor has paid at least $8,000 for his BA education so far. There are few other ways in life that one can learn how to "akcshually" this fluently. This is his time to shine.
Yeah, I watched to full Business Casual video, and, while the points it brings up are not without their issues, Upper Echelon glossed over way too much of what the original video said in favor of the fact they're afraid of what the end impact of a successful ruling might lead to. Overall, I feel like Business Casual probably does have a strong case if tried fairly, even if winning it may make UA-cam even worse than it already is afterwards. Upper Echelon kinda traded one bias for another.
Look forward seeing the reaction to that 2 hour video if you can sit through it. It was pretty entertainingly and competently composed, so at least there's that. Dramatic was a fair assessment, but unhinged was probably overstating things, particularly in this day and age where so many truly unhinged people have the public view to compare and contrast against so easily. Ain't no Quantum TV, at the very least, just out of touch with what most creators actually have to deal with most of the time.
watch upper echelon new vid and you will see why BC wants such a draconian copyright protection , he the bought channel two years ago from origin owner , chances are he didn't have a hand in any of the vids RT copyright claimed
@@jacklynkollie535 That may change things in the wider picture, but still doesn't change the small picture of how little this one hot take video did to address the the one video it was in response to. If Upper Echelon knew this before, coulda used that extra context here. If only learned it after this video, than it doesn't really support the content of this video. Going solely off the info available in the Business Casual video and in this video being discussed here, it doesn't do much at all to explain itself or poke holes in the original arguments. While blindly following the guy suing UA-cam can be dangerous, refuting that guy without giving enough context is equally problematic. Particularly with the original video being long enough to turn a lot of people off of watching it, thus only siting the source not being enough in a short form video format. Lots of viewers, including Asmon, were looking for a summery of the original points with their criticisms. Not exactly a fair expectation, but still a point that's important to satisfy in making a solid rebuttal.
Upper made two more videos; Alex used to own an MCN network, so he should know all 39 channels will not be terminated because of that strikes. Yeah, the first one was rushed. And barely any context was given by the upper, I admit. BC doesn't give a shit about American values, and blah blah as he mass deletes comments criticizing his rhetoric from the video comment section, then admitted to it on Twitter. His justification was that they didn't watch the video to provide better feedback and the list of deleted comments showed those comments did no such thing.
@@jacklynkollie535 Welp, figures we can't have someone with even a shred of good intentions be the ones to sue UA-cam or other bad actors. Is that really too much to ask for?
@@Shalakor People with good intentions realize that UA-cam's system has no better alternative that works at the scale of UA-cam, quite frankly. If UA-cam has no system for copyright claims, then copyright holders will sue them to oblivion for that. And if they have a system, it can only be automatic algorithms, since the sheer amount of videos uploaded to the site makes it absolutely impossible to do manual oversight. And, well, algorithms are just nowhere near the level where they would be impervious to malicious actors. Kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
I am pretty sure they stopped the monetization and the more strict rules on RT during the lawsuit
love how there is another video Upper Echelon Gamers uploaded on this xD
Every time I feel like I could not be more amazed by how stupid people are; they find a new way to impress me.
RT shouldn’t be on the platform and them using loopholes to do so should be shut down
Why not?
@@johanneswestman935 You mean why? Why not means you are expressing agreement.
@@ToWatchMusic No it doesn't. You asked why X should NOT be the case. I asked you why should X not be the case?
Stop arguing semantics and answer the question.
@@johanneswestman935 Well now I'm not. Learn proper English buddy :).
loving the "aaaaah come on!!! Again????" series of thumbnails
asmon always pause the video, gives his opinion on what this may be, and then, when he press play, the narrator says exactly that.
I don't think this case is gonna go anywhere, but I think it'll be funny to see what kind of sketchy methods UA-cam uses to get out of it
it got thrown out and hes going for an appeal it seems
I hope Asmon watches the original. I think there's a lot that UE left out but he did make some good points as well. I think if anyone is going to try and have a strong opinion on this, they should watch the original first
edit: kinda changed my mind after watching more of this video. Still would like Asmon reaction tho :D
Cringe, gigachad don't need to watch soyboy
Seems like a new saga in the making
"It has BEGUN!!!!" - Shang Tsung
Down with the king.
Only Viacom has true power over YT.
5:40
Most people are this way
It's why you never say more than you need to to strangers
Resumes, interviews, dating profiles, judges/juries, etc
Weird sound was gone untill I refreshed 3 times
As someone who has watched the entire video, it is INCREDIBLY damning.
The amount of emails and screenshots that Business Casual has is absurd. On top of that, he didn't just 'trigger Happy' Sue them, there were multiple attempts to resolve things before BOTH lawsuits, on top of that, there were multiple minute plus sections taken.
Obviously the extremity of terminating all the channels is a bit insane, BUT both RT Arabic, and UA-cam admitted themselves it was a rightful copyright claim and were blatant ripoffs, but it was reinstated AFTER termination anyway post Russia threat.
And on the point regarding the money made by the channels, this was before the blocking of videos and monetary restrictions in place. He does address this.
Further this, he isn't ANTI - fair use, even parts of his script was taken as well. On top of that, there were hundreds of videos privated from RT Arabic during this period. He isn't trying to change the way copyright strikes work, he believes in it, the lawsuit is regarding the disregard for THAT EXACT SERVICE from both RT and UA-cam. He wants it to function as it is, not something else.
And further, on the point of Russia banning UA-cam, that wasn't in regards to his copyright striking and lawsuit, it was in regards to UA-cam terminating RT Arabic, which guess what, was reinstated after those threats.
On top of that, UA-cam Moscow executives who previously worked for RT attempted to intervene and 'bring some light to situation' AFTER other UA-cam executives terminated the channel.
This video is very odd regarding how little the information he gets right is, just watch the original, it's so long FOR A REASON. The only point the guy you are watching is right about is that not all RT channels should be terminated.
Is it just me or UE absolutely misrepresenting the original video? It's like someone made him do this. 🙄🙄
It's just you 👍
UE misses completely the point of the lawsuit
Journalism am I right?!
Well he obviously does some content that could be harder to make, if BC wins the case so yea, he has his own agenda here and is clearly biased.
When he says short, that is not true. They took a whole nine minute clip as well. Also, they admitted to taking the content in the beginning.
The problem with the US copyright system is that it seek to kill the pirate not just give back the goods the pirate stole. The purpose of the justice system is to make sure that the crime does not happen again NOT to seek revenge against the criminal.
Bro this is like the third person this week I’ve seen who said they’re suing youtube. Asmond, if you’re down for a more long-form content, I reccomend checking out a vid by Business Casual about why they are suing UA-cam, it’s a very interesting video.
I mean they can easily ban Tate from every single platform in a span of 24 hours , but can't resolve a copyright issue. UA-cam should get a kick just for fun
Apples and pears
yes, UA-cam cannot change the law, but can ban someone, excellent and completely valid comparison
@@LunaTulpa Who's talking about law?
@@Jaime_Protein_Cannister ....i genuinely don't know if you're serious or not. copyright is a form of protection for various types of property, backed by the us courts
youtube would need to change how the law works, how safe harbor laws work for your suggestion. if it goes to court, it has nothing to do with youtube, and means the two parties could not agree
what happened to act man was 100% legal. youtube has the right, under the ToS, to revoke monetization. it also has absolutely nothing to do with this video
what "issue" do you expect or want them to solve in this situation?
@@LunaTulpa You're being stupid for the sake of being intentionally annoying. It's a general statement about the state of youtube and how their behaviour contrast between their proceeding against Something that they see as a threat vs something that is clearly unfair , but it doesn't clash with their political outlook(advertiser money).
Their entire copyright system is shit and I'm not talking JUST about this case alone. You're isolating JUST this instance , to make some fking mute point when the copyright shenannigans has been an ongoing issue for better part of the decade with youtube taking L after L on the moral front.
On top of that the copyright itself is a fking joke , outdated "Rules" on behalf of corposhits
Stop being annoying
Idk man I agree in part that youtube shouldn't have to necessarily suffer defamation against them on a channel on their platform- however, what happens when YT is literally the only platform in that market that anyone has any chance of gaining any traction on when it comes to reaching viewers etc? I don't know if there is a good answer, but it def gets complicated when you start getting into 'effective monopoly' territory....
Big companies are always being sued genius
All the content creators have one overlord, employer, UA-cam. It's only fair the employees (content creators) have a stronger voice. There is a reason we have worker unions, so employers cant walk all over the workers.
I'll be honest, I am guilty of clicking this video with anticipation, I had no idea about all this and the first thing I thought when I read the title was "Finally, someone did it!". But after listening to all this, I am almost impressed by how wrong that dude is. The last thing the community needed was for UA-cam to have legal precedence against a creator.
The video asmon reacted to intentionally misrepresented business casuals video so I’d have to disagree with you
Like hollow said this video dosnt give all the info. It's much better to watch business casuals.
There was no precedence set via youtube vs creator. The case was just dismissed in court, though Business Casual is going through appeals court atm
@@othercomputerjeff8679 and also just didn’t get some information right at all
You need to watch the other perspective
If like to see them get sued for financial gains they acquire through scam ads they allow.
The rulers should be the same for every creator. Won't smaller channels also lose all their channels, if they get 3 strikes?. Then they just shouldn't have that many channels