Aperture Science

Members
  • Content Count

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,357 Excellent

About Aperture Science

  • Rank
    Benny Harvey RIP - Miss ya big man, gone but not forgotten

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

7,823 profile views
  1. the "ol' reliable" of ksp memes:
  2. Decent aerodynamics Decent aerodynamics Decent aerodynamics Decent aerodynamics Symmetrical and cambered airfoil wings Decent aerodynamics
  3. -51/-1 "Now this playa right here - he's different. He don't drive a Cadillac. He don't got a perm. Why, should we let you in the Negative Legion of Doom?"
  4. Right, so you *believe* that their monetization/copyright policy breaks laws.
  5. We were discussing monetization and copyright so far, what you present is privacy related?
  6. Care to mention what laws it's breaking by enforcing its tos?
  7. The terms of service include following the community standards, if it didn't the community standards would have no effect; There's no explanation because the process is automatized. Why is it automatized? Because given the scale of the platform it's impossible to put humans in the loop. 500 hours of content uploaded per minute. Like I said previously, if a copyright claim isn't valid (btw it's not youtube that claims it, it's usually a third party), appealing works 99% of the time. The 1% it doesn't work is because a) it is in fact copyright infringement or b) poorly made appeal, as in intentionally bad Youtube doesn't owe you a "rational and fair treatment" (as if the current way wasn't). You've agreed to their terms, you've agreed to the way they said they'll treat you. Nobody has forced you to create a channel, and you're not paying for their service. It's fair game.
  8. Now, if Youtube was a service where you'd have to pay to upload content on or if somehow the creator was a hired employee, I'd agree - however, Youtube is a free service; in essence, the creator is getting something for nothing. Youtube has no obligation to bend backwards to please creators who violate the ToS or that complain about not getting revenue from unmonetizable content whatsoever.
  9. So, what do you want Google to do, force the advertisers to pay for adverts on content they don't want to advertise on? The problem isn't coming from the platform, it's coming from creators not abiding to the terms they've agreed to then blaming Youtube for not giving them the offered privileges even though it's a consequence of the creators' own actions. Nobody is being screwed around because besides the "creator has agreed to this" argument, Youtube didn't employ the creator and grant him a secure income, at all. The creator has chosen by himself to upload content, getting money from it is merely a bonus. Google could very well advertise on the content and not share any income with its creator if they wanted to, and legally. Treating this as if the creator has been ordered to make content, made it and didn't get paid for it full "dine-and-dash" style simply doesn't apply.
  10. I planned on saving this for later (you know, playing the bigger game), but no Invalid above, last valid below -43/-1
  11. Doing some more preliminary investigation into this story, in the "updates about copyright infringement" video Lowne's complaining about the situation and that Sony has claimed more content. He shows a screenshot of his e-mail inbox, which have the infringing videos' titles. So I typed in one of the video's titles to see what music was used. Keep in mind I didn't even have to go hunting for them, it was literally what he chose to show when saying "sony has decided to go ahead and claim even more of my videos". This screenshot speaks for itself.
  12. Take Lowne's channel, for instance. The story told is that Youtube baselessly went ahead and gave copyright strikes for abusive reasons, that there's no infringement in the channel. Well, go to his channel and a trailer video automatically plays. Surprise surprise, the video's soundtrack is a direct ripoff of the Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer 1 (timestamped for your convenience) - no alterations at all, to the point where Lowne even had to "camouflage" the track's name in the video's description. Is Youtube really the one who's wrong in this story?