4 ms·
It seems to me they might be speaking past each other? 1. He's trying to figure out which video infringed on what work. 2. YouTube is refusing by saying they
by mehrdadn 6y ago
It seems to me they might be speaking past each other?
1. He's trying to figure out which video infringed on what work.
2. YouTube is refusing by saying they don't know which part of which video infringed on other work.
Not sure who's miscommunicating or what the reason is, but based on what he says, it seems this is what's happening. Anyone know if this sounds accurate?
- notRobot 6y ago> He's trying to figure out which video infringed on what work. He knows which videos strikes were issued on. He doesn't know what he did wrong. Like he says in the video, he isn't provided with any timestamps or details about what has entails those strikes and the channel deletion
- mehrdadn 6y agoYeah you're right. It's confusing to me because he seems to claim different things at different points in the video. At one point he says he doesn't know specifically which part of which video is claimed to infringe on what, whereas in so many other parts he says Google doesn't have any details whatsoever, or (like in 4:48) he suggests Google is lying when it seems like he's actually conflating Google's mentions of details of the infringing work with the infringed work.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago>He doesn't know what he did wrong I think it is obvious, he was playing a copyrighted song, as he does in nearly all of his videos.