and that is not what happened.

Once again, Content ID policy (since its under the “Policy” Column is the POLICY set forth by the copyright owner. They chose not to have the content monetized. That is the policy they put forth.

you need to just stop. you are not speaking from experience, nor do you know how Content ID and Policies set by Copyright owners work, on YouTube. You are spreading misinformation and everything you have posted in reply to Texas is not based on any truthful information.

Uh, no. Fair Use can only be determined in a court of law. YouTube by DMCA law, has to follow up on any complaint or counter claim. They cannot give any claim or counter claim any validity, and leave it up to the parties to “duke it out”, in a legal forum.

NINTENDO has chosen to not monetize that content (which we don’t know what it is). He’s not doing anything to Nintendo.

And no, that’s not how ads / monetization works placed by copyright owners/Content ID. Even if there are 20 content ID claims on one video by 20 different companies/copyright owners, they are ALL…

Uh no, that’s exactly what it means (I have an active Content ID account) . Notice the column says “Policy” - That means the copyright owner of the content, has dictated that the policy for that particular content cannot be monetized by the uploader (it has no bearing on the copyright owners). They are probably using…

Which is not what will happen. The message doesn’t mean the copyright owners can’t monetize it, just means that HE as the uploader can’t monetize it.

His method creates conflicting claims meaning that by default no one gets any money. So the corporations then have to sort out who wants to get money (if anyone), even if they do come up with some agreement such as splitting the money any money they do get is slim to none, probably not even enough money to pay for…

Its not a work around. The message he is getting doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

Uh no, the “cannot be monetized” statement doesn’t mean that it can’t be monetized by the copyright holders, only that the video cannot be monetized by the uploader. The copyright holders have placed it into THEIR policy (on Content ID, which they have to clarify to YouTube when they submit their work) on how to…

Tell that to Monsanto’s goon squad going around the country, suing anyone who happens to test positive for having any of their seed products....

Have you even read each of the 140 cases? Did you know that a a huge majority (90%) of them were not for accidental cross pollination but for willful violations of seed contracts? That the farmers harvested their seeds from existing crops and replanted them (which is in direct violation of the patent?)

140 cases, 700…

Except that you just pulled it our of your ass. There is no basis or support to your claim

you are confusing contracts with corporate ownership

GMO do not introduce “something completely inorganic” . Bt was introduced to Bt corn. Bt is a commonly used organic pesticide as well (its a bacteria, that means its not inorganic).

can you please share with us exactly what GMO crop has an introduced inorganic pestcide into its genes?

If you say RoundUp ready, then you…

Well, semantics aside, EVERY food item produced today has been so modified from their original ancestors. So every food item, whether its the corn on your plate, or that mouth watering steak you just cooked, have been geneticially modified (either through direct gene editing, introduction of genes through…

you do realize that terminator seeds are a myth right? there are no terminator varieties of crops.

you are confusing a seed contract (which prohibits farmers from harvesting seeds because of generational quality issues with resulting crops) with terminator seeds (which don’t exist)

that has never happened. once again, misinformation abounds.

You have a human right to food. you can grow your own, but you don’t have a right to grow any food you want, or use seeds without permission.

there are alot of heirloom seeds that are not patented you can grow.

which has never happened. The Canadian case proved that the farmer lied.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread: Wrong

Majority of our corn is actually going to FEED livestock, of which we eat a lot of. Without corn, you wouldn’t have chickens, cows or pigs. 4.5 billion bushels a year.

only 87 million bushels of corn goto ethanol production. That’s still behind using it for Sweetners (400…

Why do people continue to persist on this myth?

I’m not going to rewrite my post on this, but in EACH instance of Monsanto suing anyone, it was due the FARMER violating seed contracts.