Transcrição (en)

that illustrates that maybe these lawsuits aren't coming from a genuine place of trying to enforce real fair use and are potentially just coming from a place of revenge now i don't know the intricacies of every i think that if you upload somebody's content and you intentionally say that you're trying to upload it to deprive the original creator of revenue i think that you should forego every protection from fair use possible I don't see how that in any way, shape, or form is good faith, fair use at all like regardless of how much commentary you add regardless of anything else if you are uploading the totality of another person's work and then you are saying that you're uploading it for the express and implicit purpose or explicit purpose, excuse me to deprive that creator of revenue that should not be fair use period now i don't think he knows a lot about the lawsuits we might not know that because they the the people that are the supporters of you know frogan denims and caseytron they refuse to engage with this fact they refuse to discuss the fact that they're not being sued for the fact that they uploaded the video they're being sued for the fact that they uploaded the video with the express intent of depriving ethan of revenue ethan is completely is totally justified in this i hope charlie understands like if there's anything that i'd want him to understand it's that with the lawsuit against those three girls it was not about the fact that he that they reacted and they criticized and they hated on the video like there were a lot of people who reacted and criticized and hated on the video that didn get sued it's the fact that they tried to upload the content with the express purpose of working not not ignoring fair use but acting directly against fair use they said they were uploading the video so people didn't have to watch the original video. And I can't see any universe where doing that constitutes as fair use. That is not fair use, in my opinion. It's not. I'm not sure what jurisdiction is. Their intent's irrelevant if they qualify under the law. The intent is irrelevant? Well, of course it's not irrelevant. Like, the intent is like, so for example, like something being critically reviewed is one of the elements of fair use and critical review is based off of intent so is let me ask you a question right is um i'm thinking the best way that i can i can ask this question uh is it one of the tenets of fair use that the product is not used as a market replacement because market replacement is one of the tenets of fair use And this is another component, too, is that like, I don't really care a lot about like the way the law is actually written. And I know that might sound bad, but I really don't. What I really care the most about is how it is interpreted and what is fair. I do not think that it is fair that a person will upload the entirety of another person's work with the express intent of depriving that person of revenue. I do not think that's fair. I think that's wrong.