Even if that proves true, that doesn’t change the fact that the actual Nintendo could still strike down the channel. Given the precarious legal position GilvaSunner would find themselves in if they tried to fight the takedowns, shutting the channel down is the smartest possible move.
Nintendo doesn’t offer its music on streaming services; even if people want to legally stream it, they can’t.
Of the people who buy Nintendo/Pokémon products, the number of people who care about this situation is far outweighed by the number of people who don’t.
Note the spelling of the two usernames: The user who posts all the bait-and-switch videos uses an uppercase I in place of a lowercase L. Nintendo went after the GilvaSunner who was posting actual Nintendo soundtracks; of this, I have no doubts.
Over on their Twitter, GilvaSunner has said that the continual increase in copyright blocks from Nintendo has basically left them no choice but to delete the channel in its entirety on Friday.
I get that Nintendo has the right to do this. But given how the company offers absolutely no legal alternatives to the efforts of people like GilvaSunner, one can easily be led to wonder if this course of action is the right thing to do.
To be fair on the spelling front, I can understand how someone would spell it that way based on its pronounciation. I still have a bit of trouble with that from time to time.
They are, however, making it impossible to have a conversation because you get your career ruined if you accidentally say the wrong thing.
Oh, I’m sorry, are consequences for one’s actions not a thing you believe in? Or do you think everyone these days is just too goddamn fucking sensitive?
Besides, before what you’re referring to was called “cancel culture”, it was called “moral crusades”, and leftists didn’t invent it, conservative Christians did.
This only works if the artists actually own all the rights to all their music. Taylor Swift, for example, could have all her newer stuff yanked from Spotify if she so chooses—but a lot of her older works, including the original versions of the albums she has recently re-recorded, are not under her control.
Making the “it’s either me or Rogan” ultimatum isn’t an attempt at censorship, either—if Spotify were to dump Rogan tomorrow, it’s not like he would be banned from posting new episodes of his podcast literally everywhere else on the Internet. He isn’t owed a platform on Spotify and he isn’t owed the reach he gets thanks to Spotify. Nobody is owed those things for any reason whatsoever.
There are a growing number of people, both in the U.S. and the western world, who are increasingly intolerant of any speech with which they disagree. They view themselves ever being exposed to an opposing viewpoint as an affront to their very existence.
Person A: I, a queer person, believe I have every right to exist and participate in society.
Person B: I, a known anti-queer religious asshole, believe queer people should stay out of the public eye forever and a day.
Koby: Yes, these both seem like reasonable viewpoints that can and should be debated.
…and in case that goes over your head: The point, you disingenuous vacuum cleaner bag, is that some speech is so vile and odious that its only legitimate defense is that it’s not actually illegal to say such things. It’s not worth arguing against because it’s not presenting a serious or even valid argument.
Marginalized people don’t want to, and shouldn’t be forced to, hear/read speech that further marginalizes them and opens them up to all kinds of abuse from others. But under your logic, all that shit is just “an opposing viewpoint”. When a GOP candidate essentially says he believes women should be forced to bear a rapist’s child because “God put them in this moment”¹, that isn’t so much an “opposing viewpoint” as it is an affront to women everywhere (and rape survivors in particular).
It’s one thing to disagree about whether Wordle is a fun game or whether Spider-Man: No Way Home is better than Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2. It’s a whole other ballgame to disagree about whether trans people should be able to live openly in public or whether measures to stem the transmission of COVID are worth the price of “liberty” (i.e., fealty to those who whine about mask mandates and 5G in the vaccines). I know you don’t give a shit about anything but yourself, Koby, but you could at least pretend to try to care about other people for a few minutes a day. Who knows, maybe it would make you less of a right-wing asshole who thinks “gay people shouldn’t have any rights” is an “opposing view” that needs to be “debated”.
These Individuals are facists. They will do anything to prevent opposing speech
You mean like the Republican lawmakers and conservative school boards that are banning/trying to ban books like Maus, The Hate U Give, and even books by Judy Blume from schools and public libraries around the country? You mean like the Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma who are trying to pass a bill that would fine teachers for saying anything that upsets religious feelings²? You mean like those fascist assholes?
Someone who platforms quacks, liars, grifters, and malicious assholes for the sake of “just asking questions, bro” may not want to watch the world burn. But that someone sure as shit isn’t doing much to help stop the people who are more than happy to set the world aflame.
He could have made some minor changes, used a different name for the app and promoted it along the lines of "if you like Wordle but want more puzzles every day and different word lengths, you'll love this"
Funny thing is, that’s what he actually ended up doing after the Wordle ripoff debacle. If he had done that from the get-go, he probably wouldn’t be known for being a greedy fuckboi like he is now.
I think you're implying that Japanese law says the if they don't pursue infringers Toei could lose the right to enforce their copyright.
Not so much that, as much as it is Toei sticking to the near-exact letter of the law out of deference to the Japanese legal system and Japanese culture in general. Japan has some weird media laws, regulations, and traditions; Fair Use/Dealing not being much of A Thing™ over there is apparently one of them.
Toei could claim that he wasn't critiquing the actual content he was showing, but rather just discussing the animation in general while using their work as background.
He made reviews for individual episodes, if I recall right. If he’s criticizing and critiquing the actual episode, I don’t see how Fair Use/Dealing would fail as a defense.
I have an iota of sympathy for Toei here; after all, it’s doing what the law in Japan says it must for the sake of copyrights and such. But that iota is far outweighed by its heavy-handed attempt to wreck someone who wasn’t even targeting a Japanese audience with videos clearly covered by Fair Use/Dealing that were meant to inform people about (and thus promote) Toei’s works.
On the post: GilvaSunner YouTube Channel Shuts Down Due To Copyright Strikes From Nintendo; Pokemon Releases Music
Even if that proves true, that doesn’t change the fact that the actual Nintendo could still strike down the channel. Given the precarious legal position GilvaSunner would find themselves in if they tried to fight the takedowns, shutting the channel down is the smartest possible move.
On the post: GilvaSunner YouTube Channel Shuts Down Due To Copyright Strikes From Nintendo; Pokemon Releases Music
Two things.
Nintendo doesn’t offer its music on streaming services; even if people want to legally stream it, they can’t.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative
Note the spelling of the two usernames: The user who posts all the bait-and-switch videos uses an uppercase I in place of a lowercase L. Nintendo went after the GilvaSunner who was posting actual Nintendo soundtracks; of this, I have no doubts.
On the post: Virginia Police Used Fake Forensic Documents To Secure Confessions From Criminal Suspects
Never talk to the cops without a lawyer and a video camera in the room with you.
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
Trick question: Rich folks exist in both groups.
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
If you’re going to use sarcasm in a text-only format, you’ll need to mark it as such. You seem bright enough to understand that~.
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
Power doesn’t corrupt—it reveals.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative
Over on their Twitter, GilvaSunner has said that the continual increase in copyright blocks from Nintendo has basically left them no choice but to delete the channel in its entirety on Friday.
I get that Nintendo has the right to do this. But given how the company offers absolutely no legal alternatives to the efforts of people like GilvaSunner, one can easily be led to wonder if this course of action is the right thing to do.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
To be fair on the spelling front, I can understand how someone would spell it that way based on its pronounciation. I still have a bit of trouble with that from time to time.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
You’re a bit late for worrying about that; the DMCA has literally been used like that for years.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Oh, I’m sorry, are consequences for one’s actions not a thing you believe in? Or do you think everyone these days is just too goddamn fucking sensitive?
Besides, before what you’re referring to was called “cancel culture”, it was called “moral crusades”, and leftists didn’t invent it, conservative Christians did.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
This only works if the artists actually own all the rights to all their music. Taylor Swift, for example, could have all her newer stuff yanked from Spotify if she so chooses—but a lot of her older works, including the original versions of the albums she has recently re-recorded, are not under her control.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Making the “it’s either me or Rogan” ultimatum isn’t an attempt at censorship, either—if Spotify were to dump Rogan tomorrow, it’s not like he would be banned from posting new episodes of his podcast literally everywhere else on the Internet. He isn’t owed a platform on Spotify and he isn’t owed the reach he gets thanks to Spotify. Nobody is owed those things for any reason whatsoever.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Person A: I, a queer person, believe I have every right to exist and participate in society.
Person B: I, a known anti-queer religious asshole, believe queer people should stay out of the public eye forever and a day.
Koby: Yes, these both seem like reasonable viewpoints that can and should be debated.
…and in case that goes over your head: The point, you disingenuous vacuum cleaner bag, is that some speech is so vile and odious that its only legitimate defense is that it’s not actually illegal to say such things. It’s not worth arguing against because it’s not presenting a serious or even valid argument.
Marginalized people don’t want to, and shouldn’t be forced to, hear/read speech that further marginalizes them and opens them up to all kinds of abuse from others. But under your logic, all that shit is just “an opposing viewpoint”. When a GOP candidate essentially says he believes women should be forced to bear a rapist’s child because “God put them in this moment”¹, that isn’t so much an “opposing viewpoint” as it is an affront to women everywhere (and rape survivors in particular).
It’s one thing to disagree about whether Wordle is a fun game or whether Spider-Man: No Way Home is better than Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2. It’s a whole other ballgame to disagree about whether trans people should be able to live openly in public or whether measures to stem the transmission of COVID are worth the price of “liberty” (i.e., fealty to those who whine about mask mandates and 5G in the vaccines). I know you don’t give a shit about anything but yourself, Koby, but you could at least pretend to try to care about other people for a few minutes a day. Who knows, maybe it would make you less of a right-wing asshole who thinks “gay people shouldn’t have any rights” is an “opposing view” that needs to be “debated”.
You mean like the Republican lawmakers and conservative school boards that are banning/trying to ban books like Maus, The Hate U Give, and even books by Judy Blume from schools and public libraries around the country? You mean like the Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma who are trying to pass a bill that would fine teachers for saying anything that upsets religious feelings²? You mean like those fascist assholes?
¹ — Citation.
² — Citation.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Someone who platforms quacks, liars, grifters, and malicious assholes for the sake of “just asking questions, bro” may not want to watch the world burn. But that someone sure as shit isn’t doing much to help stop the people who are more than happy to set the world aflame.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
And besides, Disney will probably own the franchise (and its current owners) within the next decade.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Funny thing is, that’s what he actually ended up doing after the Wordle ripoff debacle. If he had done that from the get-go, he probably wouldn’t be known for being a greedy fuckboi like he is now.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Not so much that, as much as it is Toei sticking to the near-exact letter of the law out of deference to the Japanese legal system and Japanese culture in general. Japan has some weird media laws, regulations, and traditions; Fair Use/Dealing not being much of A Thing™ over there is apparently one of them.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
He made reviews for individual episodes, if I recall right. If he’s criticizing and critiquing the actual episode, I don’t see how Fair Use/Dealing would fail as a defense.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
I have an iota of sympathy for Toei here; after all, it’s doing what the law in Japan says it must for the sake of copyrights and such. But that iota is far outweighed by its heavy-handed attempt to wreck someone who wasn’t even targeting a Japanese audience with videos clearly covered by Fair Use/Dealing that were meant to inform people about (and thus promote) Toei’s works.
Copyright really is brain damage.
Next >>