Re: Youtube
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:02 am
The judge outright mentioned two DHI talking points btw:
-YouTube has a ''contract'' (probably their ToS) that allows them to change/control the terms of monetization aka you are not entitled to x rate of pay for every y shitpost video. To look at it another way, you cannot force advertisers to give you money
-YouTube is hosting your videos AT THEIR COST, and one of the conditions of that is having some amount of usership rights over the videos you upload. Not saying they own them outright, but I don't remember the exact words the judge used
So the judge mentioned stuff we've talked about, which was funny. ZGB's shitty butthurt suit was full of assumptions in the first place, like assuming an unwritten contract law thing for commiefornia was strong enough to outright contradict explicit stated terms of YouTube ToS, or assuming that they had some entitlement to a minimum income when they never went through a hiring process.
-YouTube has a ''contract'' (probably their ToS) that allows them to change/control the terms of monetization aka you are not entitled to x rate of pay for every y shitpost video. To look at it another way, you cannot force advertisers to give you money
-YouTube is hosting your videos AT THEIR COST, and one of the conditions of that is having some amount of usership rights over the videos you upload. Not saying they own them outright, but I don't remember the exact words the judge used
So the judge mentioned stuff we've talked about, which was funny. ZGB's shitty butthurt suit was full of assumptions in the first place, like assuming an unwritten contract law thing for commiefornia was strong enough to outright contradict explicit stated terms of YouTube ToS, or assuming that they had some entitlement to a minimum income when they never went through a hiring process.