That's a good question - since the video is marked as having sponsored content in the metadata, it's not like YouTube was unaware. What's the deal @TeamYouTube?
-
-
Replying to @thelindsayellis
Following up: Our Copyright team looked into this & confirmed that the claim is valid. We see that you’ve appealed the claim, which provides UMG with 30 days to review your appeal. If you would like to resolve the issue directly with them, please DM us for more info.
186 replies 9 retweets 246 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @thelindsayellis
That’s a fuckin’ y i k e s from mepic.twitter.com/2Q3lEtDq23
1 reply 1 retweet 373 likes -
It's how the DMCA system works. Get mad at
@UMG They made the claim and confirmed it's not false. The creator appealed now its back to@UMG. Here wordpress explains their process https://en.support.wordpress.com/our-dmca-process/ … Notice the webmaster/host must follow this to not be held liable.7 replies 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
You’re supposed to lick the boot, not deepthroat it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Caterfree10 @jess689_ and
Ye old ad hom. I'm sorry if you can't figure out words that actually refute anything I say.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
You’re the one copypasting your own damn comment everywhere up and down this thread, despite Youtube blatantly violating the agreement between Lindsay and Audible, on top of the usage of music being Fair Use. Literally, you’re being ridiculous and you need to stop.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Caterfree10 @jess689_ and
"Youtube blatantly violating the agreement between Lindsay and Audible" By putting ads on their own platform? Regardless I copy pasted because everyone had the exact save response. If it makes you feel better I think I might have flipped after digging into the law more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
By putting ads on a video where LINDSAY WASN'T FUCKING ALLOWED TO DO THAT HERSELF. And then Youtube added them, violating their agreement, bc UGM is run by fuckheads who wouldn’t know Fair Use if a humanized version of the concept beat them with the broad side of a bus.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Caterfree10 @jess689_ and
The point I was kinda getting at was why should youtube respect some ad-deal that cuts youtube out their own ad revenue of the video? She wasn't allowed because she wen't outside youtube's purview to secure herself an ad deal, with arguably a competitor.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Because she’s allowed to make money when youtube sucks at the whole paying the creators on their platform thing. In addition, their job is to host the content, not violate their creators’ contracts with their sponsors for them without said creator’s consent.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.