About the youtube user who downloaded one of my youtube videos and reuploaded it

[superblonde]

I previously had a message about how someone had downloaded one of my videos from my youtube channel and uploaded it as their own video to their own channel, in complete length and even the same title as mine. (Maybe the first thread disappeared in the spam cleanup) Having a video stolen was bound to happen eventually I guess..

Here’s the update..

But first..

I have always hated youtube because it was literally started for the purpose of stealing content. The founders were pro-piracy and pro file sharing regardless of royalty rights, so they start youtube, and let it thrive based on spreading stolen content (especially stolen music put on top of people’s home videos). Remember Prince freaking out about the early viral video where a baby was dancing to Let’s Go Crazy, without any royalties or recognition going to Prince.. yet youtube shrugged it’s shoulders and basically said, “meh, screw the artists, we can get away with theft, as long as the government doesn’t force us to act properly, we don’t care”. Meanwhile all other video sites, like vimeo etc, were and are very careful about copyright, so they grew much more slowly and didnt become household names like youtube did.. later google acquired youtube because it had the fastest growth of all the video sites, and the thieves won again.

So ultimately I get a youtube account and ta da, someone downloads one of my videos from my channel and uploads it verbatim as their own and youtube does not bat an eyelash. I happened to find their copy by coincidence, not by any youtube notification sent to me. I filed a claim through youtube’s copyright form thing, they took down the person’s video several days later.

The update..

Months later, I get an email from youtube. It’s a counter-claim. The person states that my copyright notification was a false claim and legally swears that they’ve never visited my channel (which is obviously false, considering they have re-uploaded my video from my channel).

This is what youtube sends as their email. Saying I have 10 days to take legal action in federal court otherwise youtube will put the stolen video back up.

We received the attached counter notification in response to a complaint you filed with us.

We’re providing you with the counter notification and await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you’ve filed an action seeking a court order against the counter notifier to restrain the allegedly infringing activity. In most cases, such evidence would include a lawsuit against the uploader who filed the counter notification, which names the specific YouTube URL(s) at issue.

If we don’t receive notice from you, we may reinstate the material to YouTube.

If you have any questions, please contact copyright@youtube.com.

Counter-Notification as follows:

Videos included in counter-notification:
Display name of uploader: xxxx

[blah blah this isn’t valid because blah blah]. The strike should remove because it was by a channel with 13 subscribers who dosen’t own the rights. I hadn’t come across the channel before until then. This action is illegal.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief the material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant.

It is basically ridiculous for youtube or any internet service to assume a typical person can serve a lawsuit against some random person who is likely in another country (this person was in another country too). As if I’m going to pay a lawyer to initiate a legal action against someone in Europe? It’s especially lame because youtube could easily verify that the video was a direct copy of my video. Same length, same title, absolutely no edits or cropping of my video at all, and this is very easy to verify with software to flag the video as stolen. The person had obviously downloaded my video with a downloader and re-uploaded it on their channel.

Luckily I sent them a very directly worded email and after some really petty responses back, they removed the video. (But only because they thought I would pursue legal action or concluded I was just a normal guy somewhere and not an evil record label or something.. if they had not deleted the video, then youtube would have maybe reinstated it, as if nothing happened.)

What bums me out the most is that people don’t care about digital theft. They just do it and see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Copying a video in it’s entirety without creative modifications and most ridiculously even copying the video title is very obviously not fair use. Probably 99% of the entire internet was scratching their heads wondering why Prince was freaking out about his song being in their published home video and he gets absolutely no property rights for having his work used. Is it because everyone assumes artists are rich and don’t need the money? As if money even has anything to do with it. Rights should be rights. Theft is not a right.

The original Prince viral baby video. From way back in.. 2007.. seems so long ago, in internet years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the 2008 ruling of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, holding that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before issuing a takedown notice for content posted on the Internet.[1]
Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a home video of her children dancing to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy”.[2] Universal Music Corporation (Universal) sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claiming that Lenz’s video violated their copyright in the “Let’s Go Crazy” song.
Lenz claimed fair use of the copyrighted material and sued Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. In a decision rejecting a motion to dismiss the misrepresentation claim, the district court held that Universal must consider fair use when filing a takedown notice, but noted that to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder.[3]

Anyways I still hate youtube.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

Attachments:

1. 

   tunecor.jpg
   

[MotleyCrue81]

Yepp, if there’s one legal area that gets blatantly ignored the most by the government and anybody else, it’s software/digital media. It’s basically this way because it’s not something that’s really tangible or physically existing, and computers and digital things still elude too many people.

Bring hair metal back!

[Doug Marks]

I’ve filed hundreds of takedown notices with YouTube and the videos are usually removed the next day.  The only problem that I’ve had is, some musicians publish through companies like TuneCore.  TuneCore searches for music and claims copyright infringement (for their artists) so they can get a share of advertising.

A friend of Jim Gillette asked me if he could use my song, You’re Out of Time on a Gillette compilation album.  I said, no problem.  He published it through TuneCore.  Now my video of my song gets flagged and I haven’t been able to straighten it out.

Metal Method Guitar Instructor

[Byron]

Seems that if you register your copyright beforehand with the US copyright office, it would be real hard to argue with that.

[Doug Marks]

It’s also hard to argue with my Songwriting Course that was created in 1995.  I literally demonstrate the song being written and recorded.  So, there’s no question about who wrote the song.

Metal Method Guitar Instructor

[Byron]

My comment was directed more to superblonde.

But Yeah, Tunecore probably has some automatic algorithm at work that it will take loosing several lawsuits to get them to change.

[superblonde]

Hmm.. I posted youtube’s notification mostly because, the counter-claim process is just not explained well anywhere. Swept under the carpet I suppose.

Copyright-wise, as far as I can tell, the new millenial-whatever legislation says that copyright is automatically established by uploading a video. Although registering it with a copyright office would be definitive proof. There’s a bit more backstory to my particular case, because my video includes copyrighted material from another source, which I’ve used in a fair use way (presumably.. ‘transformational’ clause). It’s kind of similar to Doug’s story in this way: if there is a 3rd party involved with the property, then youtube and copyright law itself gets really messy and not able to be managed. So my case, the other person claimed, it has 3rd party material, so my ‘copyright’ is not valid (not true; my use is a unique creation under fair use ‘transformation’..), but regardless, downloading my entire video and re-uploading verbatim, is definitely not legit. The re-uploader must have gotten this point and taken the video down when realizing that it crossed the line. In Doug’s case, he gave permission to a 3rd party, but then youtube’s lame system gets confused that his owner’s rights are the invalid rights. 3rd parties just mess the system up.

Youtube could fix many of these problems with technology but they don’t seem to apply much effort in this area. Social media companies in general just turn a blind eye. Some news articles have found that supposedly, facebook has less than 20 employees policing all of facebook media for hate/abuse type stuff (not even to mention ‘fake news’) and twitter has been said to only use the same small amount of resources. These are billion dollar companies and they’re basically putting 1 person to work policing a system that has millions of new content items per day. In youtube’s case, they could have easily found via software, that my video was re-uploaded in full. But they want to charge $$$ for these types of things so they or their partners (like TuneCore) make even more money. Indie content creators don’t have much protection unless they subscribe to a service or join an artists union. Seems to me that there is no technical obstacle for why small indie creators couldn’t also be automatically protected. Having random people reupload unique content has been a problem thruout facebook’s history, sometimes the reuploaded/stolen video is the one which goes viral (and makes some $$) instead of the original. Google itself is known for pushing the limits in breaching copyright… like attempting to scan every book ever published so they could put it online for “free searching” aka free reading, without compensating authors, meanwhile, google makes money from showing ads alongside the search results and storing the search result data for reselling later.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

[superblonde]

By the way, registering officially with the copyright office costs some small change ($35 per item if there is 1 author, otherwise if more than 1 author then $$ fee increases). The whole thing can be done online. A hobbyist video maker or song writer isn’t ever going to recoup $35 through ad/stream revenue per video. I havent heard of any blogger or vlogger registering their content. Poets and book authors/writing clinics used to be very very concerned about the official copyrighting, so registration was always emphasized, these groups would circulate that myth about “just mail a copy to yourself and the post stamp acts as the copyright date” (the myth was not true).. but with the ebook crowd, copyright didn’t seem to be focused on so much, it was more like, “write an ebook as fast as possible then just push it out, the ebook publisher acts as registrar”, no worries about registering a copyright with the government at all.

I don’t remember the berklee songwriting class even mentioning copyright.. other than to say, “good artists steal but modify so you don’t get caught”.. funny, eh?

The very early video sites, some of them had physical paperwork that you had to mail in, or fax in, because digital signatures were still a grey area, forms with a lot of fine print, asserting that everything in the video was 100% original, every frame, etc etc, or 100% guaranteed royalty free etc etc which allowed global redistribution, etc etc.. later they allowed a PDF signature on the form but it still had to be signed and with a physical address etc.. (I was on the video share site founded by, strangely enough, Al Gore, remember that one?) As can be guessed, those services didn’t explode with content like youtube which just allowed anyone to upload any copy of anything, theft or legit. In some ways that explosion is great, but in other ways.. I just dunno, it’s not cool.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

[Igglepud]

I really don’t get the Prince thing. Nobody stole his song, nobody tried to claim they wrote it, and nobody was performing it live anywhere without him getting paid. It’s a silly video, and the spirit of it is “hey, look at my kid dancing.” If they had downloaded the track and used it as backing music for something like Bad Lip Reading or a Literal video, that’s different, but there is nothing malicious here.

MY ROCK IS FIERCE!!!

[superblonde]

Igglepud wrote:

I really don’t get the Prince thing.

The test to apply is this: Rename the video to something non-Prince, lets say, “Kids running circles in kitchen” and then watch the video without the audio / music. And/or pretend the laughing-kiddie audio is there but there is no music. Does it significantly remove the artistic quality of the video? Would it still be viral or would it just be another typical kid video? To me, without the Prince element, that video is nothing, it’s just a regular or typical cute-kid video. Only because of the Prince music, and the Prince title (kids ‘portraying’ “Lets Go Crazy”), is the video interesting or artistic or funny or have any value at all. It’s why it went viral. The artistic result is, “WOW, these kids are dancing to Prince, it’s amazing that they are dancing to Prince’s music, they are going crazy just like Prince’s song says.” So to me, Prince’s ‘contribution’ to that video is like 80% of the value of the video, and the use of Prince’s work is a typical show of enjoying Prince’s music (it’s not like, an educational documentary or something, there’s no fair educational use type angle). To me, this test that shows “OK, the artist’s contribution to this is like 60% or 80% or 90% of the value here” is why an artist deserves compensation. Maybe Prince himself could have said, “yea it’s OK, they have permission” but he needs the option to do that. The evil thing of course is that Prince isn’t given the option anyway, because his record label owned all of his work, Prince himself had no choice or control, and a bunch of greedy suits aren’t going to let their power slip by giving some people permission meanwhile withholding that permission from other people (they’d probably say, because the laws force them to be greedy and deny everyone permission, because otherwise the copyright itself would be weakened and the whole house of cards falls down). The 2nd evil thing is that the greedy suits will have an army of lawyers to beat someone into the ground, something which a normal individual can never have.

Replace the music with something totally public, okay like the mom is playing Ode To Joy on an organ while the kids run and dance around, would it go viral because “WOW these kids are totally getting down with Ode To Joy and totally running in circles with Joy” ? Hah, somehow I don’t think so.. that just does _not_ rock..

Anyway it’s like, you wouldn’t make a pizza from stolen bread dough, sell the pizza, then say “yea, that baker doesn’t get any compensation for the dough, cuz I baked it myself and sold the pizza myself.” The dough is basically “the” foundation of the pizza, it’s 80% of the value of it, if it’s missing, the entire pizza falls apart, it’s not interesting to a consumer at all, no one wants just a bowl of cooked toppings, they want them on the cooked dough.

That tv show America’s Funniest Home Videos, I’m sure had to be 110% positive that everything in a home video was original and pure with no other 3rd party contributions (like music in the background).. or, maybe sometimes they paid, I don’t know.. because it was broadcast, and broadcast rules are actually very tight, meanwhile the internet is just somehow allowed to run on no rules.. allowing google, etc, to become the biggest cash-making companies in the history of the world.. The mile-long paperwork for that al gore internet video site I mentioned, was really clear and strict about this too, “video must be 100% free of any external media, or otherwise attach all 3rd party agreements stating the external media is royalty-free”, not even a radio playing in the background during a vlog, otherwise the video would get pulled from the site. One of the big reasons for strictness being that the company had a cable tv channel where they wanted to broadcast people’s popular uploaded videos on tv.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

[MotleyCrue81]

The way the company I work for is, is if you play anything that has music, or has logos in it, it needs to be approved. Approved either by a listing of things the company has received for content from other organizations, or from the source itself. Normally the listings are used.

Bring hair metal back!

[Byron]

I”m not trying to be an ass or start any arguments here. I know that registering copyrights costs money.And I know how much. I’ve done it.

My point is that in a copyright infringement action, you have to be able to prove you own it and the copyright office is the be-all and end-all when it comes to that.

[Anonymous]

Exactomundo. That is why EVERY song on my EP got recorded into the Library of Congress BEFORE it went online anywhere. I am still having issues with a giant retailer not taking it off, but at least I have the copyright number. At this point, it is hard in some cases to find legal firms with enough backbone to take on these retail giants. The proof that the material is mine is irrefutable. It is worth the money to have it done the right way.

Like anything else a little CYA goes a VERY long way. And in this business there is no shortage of people willing to rip someone off of their intellectual property (which is what music is). For instance, my former singer used to go do gigs in Knoxville, TN during the singer songwriter nights. One night he notices some people at the back of the room while he is performing. He finishes his song and casually walks to the back only to find they are stealing people’s hooks. Turns out they are all from Nashville.

His hook ends up on a famous persons song. He pulls the song up plays it, then plays me his demo made on a four track back in ’85 (24 previous to the Knoxville gig, and 25 yrs prior to it ending up on the radio). Same hook, different song. The song in question was released one year after his “Knoxville experience”. No copyrights on anything, no legal proof it is his.

Always protect yourself. The few dollars spent on getting a song copyrighted are worth it!

[superblonde]

Yes that’s true in order to easily win a lawsuit in front of a judge, but not really the problem I’m pointing at for youtube’s system. You’re totally right in an honest system. But youtube specifically demand proof that a court order has been filed, not proof of copyright registration. Court order / legal action means getting lawyers $$$$. And they give you 10 days to send that legal action documentation to youtube.

await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you’ve filed an action seeking a court order

I certainly don’t have paid lawyers in my back pocket, in order to generate a court order within youtube’s 10 day deadline. I don’t even know if a 10 day deadline is possible to meet, if I did have lawyers in my back pocket. I looked briefly into how to file something like this myself and didn’t get very far. Plus including, in this case it is international. Much of it is paperwork, it might be possible to beat the system with a couple hundred bucks in court filing fees, plus a couple hundred bucks to serve the action to the other person internationally (even without registering the copyright). Or maybe the total bill reaches a thousand bucks, who knows. Myself included, 99% of youtube authors don’t know how to do that legal action.

Probably the first thing a good lawyer would ask is, exactly what you said, was the content registered. Maybe an honest lawyer would refuse to initiate a court order if the content was not registered, and maybe a pay-me-enough-and-I’ll-do-it lawyer would file anyway. One big open question is, under what conditions does youtube allow someone to fill out the counter-notification to a copyright strike. I have no idea. Maybe anyone can fill out the counter-notification. Maybe it’s because in my video there was a 3rd party. Youtube has no documentation on this that I found so far. The EFF has a nice document for what to do in the case of a “false claim against your video” because they are anti-suit greed, but nothing about a “false counter-claim”.

I would guess that the majority of these situations would resolve out of court. Just filing a court order from a real law firm is enough to scare the other side into negotiating. In many situations the law firm is bluffing and the person with the fanciest $$$ law team wins. Even regardless of whether the claim is valid (and even if the content is not registered with copyright office). I doubt that I would need to register anything in order to win a real lawsuit against this other person if I paid tons of $$$ to pursue, because it is so obvious that my video was downloaded and reuploaded. If I had registered the content with the copyright office, would youtube have prevented this person from initiating a counter-claim? I don’t know. Based on the email that the other person sent me, at first it seemed they wanted to email-fight against the suits trolling with fake lawsuit threats. That’s respectable that they want to fight against the greedy corporations, but a pretty hollow argument if they stole my entire video first and claimed they never saw my channel.

It points out how companies like TuneCore are a thriving business. The content protection system is so unmanageable by a normal author, that there are service companies to join so that they can deal with all of the legal hassles. For some yearly $$$.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

[Byron]

YouTube can say whatever they want, but I am absolutely certain that if you provided them with proof that YOU are the copyright holder and threatened THEM with legal action, that the offending video would disappear in a heartbeat.

[Doug Marks]

We’re offering my Songwriting course on sale tomorrow. Once again, I received a copyright infringement notice. I disputed it. We’ll see what happens. https://metalmethod.com/images/tunecor.jpg

Metal Method Guitar Instructor

[superblonde]

Byron wrote:

proof that YOU are the copyright holder and threatened THEM with legal action, that the offending video would disappear in a heartbeat.

Hmm, so, send youtube itself a lawsuit? I’d guess that would get forwarded to different departments inside youtube, google, alphabet, where there’s 2 dozen legal consultants on-call.

Doug Marks wrote:

Once again, I received a copyright infringement notice. I disputed it. We’ll see what happens.

Youtube should have more documentation on the many angles of the copyright claim stuff. I really didnt find much online about it anywhere.

I was just watching a handful of random youtube metallica interviews and reading the viewer comments, it seems alot of fans are still upset about metallica’s anti-napster work. The typical person just does not understand digital theft and how good it was that the bands with the ability to fight the napster theft did fight it. Even the die hard metallica fans today are basically still saying “gimmie my free music, napster was good!” 🙁

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

[Byron]

A cursory Google search suggests that a whole lot of people have complaints about TuneCore & their habits of theft.

[superblonde]

I just found someone has uploaded one of my tracks, from my youtube channel, to soundcloud..without permission of course.. and even says in the description “Credit to superblonde on YouTube”

I mean it doesnt really matter… except it does, ehhhh.. Crazy that someone steals even my track and I’m just a nobody anyways.

Digital streaming is crazy that is for sure.

I wonder how many of you guys have checked around (maybe searching your own titles) to see if unauthorized copies of your stuff have been uploaded elsewhere..

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screen-Shot-2019-01-07-at-3.12.31-PM.png
   

[Igglepud]

How do you check this stuff? I’m curious if any of mine are in use.

MY ROCK IS FIERCE!!!

[superblonde]

Basically, just search around for your own song titles on different services..

I found these just by coincidence really. I made an account the other day on soundcloud with the idea to upload some tracks. Then I got curious if there were other ‘superblonde’ account names there (or if I had forgotten my own old account), so I searched for that, and there were a ton of hits, but also in those hits, was some user with the same track name as my youtube video, and even in the description of the track, the user said it was copied from my youtube channel, geeezz…

the first track in this thread, I was bored so I searched google for my track name, and also I wanted to try to make my newer song name unique.. up pops my own song title with the same thumbnail as my video but under someone else’s account..

The bigger problem is, why are these online services so corrupt that they don’t do these searches themselves. When someone uploads a youtube video… youtube could easily search it’s own database to see if there is a match, and then automatically create a copyright strike.. but of course, they’re thieves who profit from others’ thievery so they don’t want to do that..

It would also be very inexpensive to simply have a record label’s cubicle farm of interns doing these searches on behalf of artists, to issue take-downs for the majority of re-uploads out there.. but nope, record labels obviously dont do this regularly either. I will probably never sign a musician contract but that is certainly a clause I would put in anything I sign, if I’m signing away part ownership to someone else for their business profit, then they should have the obligation to protect that intellectual property.

Slightly off topic, searching is a basic SEO or authorship technique- always google your own potential book title, song title, web page name, domain name, etc etc, before finalizing it.. because what might seem like a clever name, might also be the name of a very popular porn site (doh.. superblonde dot com is obviously a porn site, i never checked when picking that name) or lets say you come up with a great idea for a song titled Enter Sandman without knowing that it’s metallica’s most popular song title.. doh.. obviously if someone ever searches for your song title online, you want yours to pop up first (because it’s unique..not because you paid money to get it to the top). I was really happy when someone on the forum said they found me (purposely) because they searched google for my song title. It worked 😀 From what I understand, before the days of the internet, there used to be highly paid marketing-analyst companies whose only jobs were to check and double-check potential names for creatives, to create unique and trademarkable slogans etc.. the web 2.0 age has made these people extinct for the most part..

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! ♯ ♮ ♭ ø ° Δ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

[rorygfan]

superblonde wrote:

I just found someone has uploaded one of my tracks, from my youtube channel, to soundcloud..without permission of course.. and even says in the description “Credit to superblonde on YouTube”

At least they gave you credit and you didn’t depend on it for income.

As someone who guerilla marketed for years, my campaigns, tactics and ideas were routinely stolen and copied by on and offline competitors. But this problem is much, much worse this past 10 years with any idiot can get online and copy you and for some of us who used to make good passive money online. Ever heard of negative seo? How about having your ranking destroyed by a bunch of chinese competitors who purposely create bad links from rogue spam, phishing sites and porn they control to ruin your organic ranking? Or scraping bots stealing your writing and “spinning” the content. Or fiverr groups, Indian and chinese click farms to cause your $10 a click ads run up your credit card bill up for ppc fake clicks to $7,000. in a couple days? Then fighting to maintain your account? I could go on and on.

There is so much scamming anymore, its disgusting. The AWS IP’s are full of VPS’s specifically targeting legit sites and it has become an online slime pit of scum bag people.

Not only that, but who decides what is “offensive”? Facebook and google have been censoring Free speech and it is under attack now, Recently there are domain takedowns without due process across from some dogooder EU people.

You should feel lucky your videos are just for fun!

[. W H U N E .]

superblonde wrote:

What bums me out the most is that people don’t care about digital theft. They just do it and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

in my opinion this is the cause of most of this.

I think a lot of these people… they’re not malicious;
they’re just apathetic; and selfish;
which is a byproduct of our culture; and it’s largely a matter of WHAT one is apathetic about and HOW they’re selfish.

In my conversations with people that are pro-piracy it seems they simply do not understand how piracy is detrimental to the economy.
So frankly a big factor of this is capacity for logic.

They think copies are made at no expense to the original;
but they don’t understand:
All product is created in hopes of future profit; to support the one’s own livelihood.
When a person consumes an illegal copy they sometimes purchase a legal copy which results in the creator getting profit back on his original investment;
but they often do not;
and they think: “[oh, well; it didn’t cost the creator anything: i tried and didn’t like it.]”
But what they don’t comprehend is that a user only has so much time to invest in things;
and so every investment of time is time they aren’t investing in other products or etc.
So IF one only has time to invest in say 8 products; and 5 of those are illegal copies that do not result in return to the creator on investment Then that’s five consumptions from the financial ecosystem, with no return.
That means that’s five less units that the creator can then invest in the financial ecosystem; such as products and serviced which maintain the causal pirate’s own livelihood…

Pirate flips burgers… so feels justified in consuming illegal copies…
multiplied that effects all creators investing less in goods and services as well;
Which results in pirate not getting enough hours or high enough hourly wage to pay for his own livelihood.

So to me it’s largely an 80/20 problem: the majority of people aren’t intelligent enough to understand how their apathy and selfishness are detrimental to their own livelihood.

Also the concept of piracy is glorified in our culture in general.

Probably one of the most famous examples is the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise; not to mention “pirate day”

[Author]

Posts