TheRealist1196
varishangout.com
Hi all,
This article debunks the popular myth that SSSniperWolf:
Abused the copyright system on YouTube in order to silence her opposition.
Enjoy the read:
This is another accusation that appears to get a lot of attention because of the way in which it is framed. If someone makes a video which is literally dedicated towards criticizing and/or exposing another person's YouTube channel and then they use that person's photograph in the thumbnail of the video then, it is to be expected that the one being criticized will call the shots regarding the copyright rules that pertain to the unauthorized use of there photograph. It is also worth noting that the use of a thumbnail containing a photograph of an individual for a video will inevitably draw the attention of a lot more viewers to that video than simply a title containing the name of that person. It is clear that the inclusion of a photograph containing Lia (which was taken by someone affiliated with Lia) in the thumbnail of a video is a move that is intended to draw many more viewers to that video. Given that these were hostile settings and that these critics of Lia were making those videos with the sole purpose of undermining her reputation (even if what they said was true), it doesn't take a far stretch of the imagination to see that if there was a way in which she could convince YouTube to have these videos taken down then she would sure do just that.
Another point worth mentioning here is that, the inclusion of video footage taken from another person's channel in of itself is not that concerning and constitutes fair use. However, content taken from another YouTube channel that has been used in an effort to undermine that channel could be perceived as offensive especially if the argument being made in that video does not reflect the truth. Should a content creator become offended in such a situation, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will try any means necessary to have the video removed from the platform (even if the video is borderline 'fair use'). Do not forget that by someone adding these additional elements to their videos that criticize other people, they are essentially giving those people the reasons they need to have those videos taken down. Sure enough, you could argue that doing this is impolite and does not respect the rights of users being able to freely critique one another. However, when someone takes this type of criticism too far and begins distorting the truth and presents biased hate driven arguments which are heavily lacking in evidence, then making such a move is not entirely unreasonable nor is it braking any rules, at least according to YouTube's standards. Also, although it is unlikely, it is not out of the question to assume that videos which are clearly continuations of the one that used copyrighted material may also get copyright struck. If SSSniperWolf had made a video which was that dedicated towards criticizing another youtuber and used their photograph in the thumbnail on it (without them having done this beforehand) then we can be pretty sure that she wouldn't be surprised if YouTube took it down.
At this point some of you may be wondering, were the videos Lia posted about Enigmahood braking any rules. This matter is subject to debate, however, as far as I am aware, these videos were created in response to a series of videos which did include footage taken from Lia's channel and were intended to undermine her reputation. Perhaps at this point you may be wondering, were the claims made by Lia in those response videos accurate. The truth is, at this point, we just can't tell. Lia claims that Enigmahood is or was a 'Registered Sex Offender' (RSO) and her evidence for this is that she saw this being listed under his name in a registry. However, Enigmahood denies this and has referred to the claim as a slander. Interestingly, according to the youtuber Turkey Tom, the registries that were meant to show Enigmahood's criminal offenses now show that his record is clear (ls had also stated more recently that the records she viewed no longer show this). Turkey Tom then goes on to suggest that these offenses may have been removed from these registries. At this point you may be wondering, was Lia in fact making this up all along. Well, it is not impossible to suggest this, however, when people make up crime based claims about others, the claims are typically based on common accusations. It is not common for someone to live with their parents and be an RSO. A more likely possibility is that someone made an accusation against Enigmahood and while the case was still ongoing Lia had come across these offences being shown in the record and then later on when Enigmahood was proven innocent, they were removed from the registry. It is also possible that, although Lia managed to obtain Enigmahood's real name, she may have found the phrase 'Registered Sex Offender' being listed in the criminal record of another person with the same real life name as Enigmahood. I am guessing that, as of now, Enigmahood is considered by some to be a an RZO (something distinctively different from an RSO) and is probably on a particular authority's most wanted list. Therefore, the beef between Lia and Enigmahood is starting to become less and less relevant. Having said this, it appears that some pesky and cunning critics of Enigmahood are now making use of this drama (and pretending to side with Lia) in order to undermine him in completely unrelated conflicts. What they fail to realize is that Lia is not so easily fooled by these stunts.
Now, regarding Lia's use of the copyright system, her actions of copyright striking some videos could be regarded as impolite. However, in order for it to count as abuse, she would need to have been copyright striking videos that had nothing to do with her, from multiple rivals or critics on multiple occasions, or, she would need to have been copyright striking videos that attempted to objectively criticize her, from channels that didn't use any of her materials what so ever. Currently, there is no evidence that Lia has participated in this type of behavior. Interestingly, according to a number of sources, this is what GirlGoneGamer was accused of. The irony of this matter is that, when GirlGoneGamer is accused of copyright striking videos on a regular basis and deleting comments that attempt to critise her, people in the community are not really too concerned by it, but when Lia does anything even remotely related to this type of behavior, it is seen as a heinous crime. Whether GirlGoneGamer was actually abusing the copyright system or not is still a matter of debate. Don't forget that, on a channel that once did use copyrighted material to criticize a person, it is perfectly possible for that person to mistakenly copyright strike other videos on this channel (thinking that the videos are related) but this would not necessarily count as abuse. If that person was to then do this consistently even after being shown that they had misused the system then it would count as abuse. If there is one thing that these matters do highlight, it is that, as a rule of thumb, when talking about someone online, if you have nothing good to say about that person, then unless they are a danger to you or to others, you should remain quite about them.
Best regards,
TheRealist1196
This article debunks the popular myth that SSSniperWolf:
Abused the copyright system on YouTube in order to silence her opposition.
Enjoy the read:
SSSniperWolf Myth Number 2: Abusing the copyright system of YouTube in order to silence her rivals, critics and haters, as well as her general opposition
This is another accusation that appears to get a lot of attention because of the way in which it is framed. If someone makes a video which is literally dedicated towards criticizing and/or exposing another person's YouTube channel and then they use that person's photograph in the thumbnail of the video then, it is to be expected that the one being criticized will call the shots regarding the copyright rules that pertain to the unauthorized use of there photograph. It is also worth noting that the use of a thumbnail containing a photograph of an individual for a video will inevitably draw the attention of a lot more viewers to that video than simply a title containing the name of that person. It is clear that the inclusion of a photograph containing Lia (which was taken by someone affiliated with Lia) in the thumbnail of a video is a move that is intended to draw many more viewers to that video. Given that these were hostile settings and that these critics of Lia were making those videos with the sole purpose of undermining her reputation (even if what they said was true), it doesn't take a far stretch of the imagination to see that if there was a way in which she could convince YouTube to have these videos taken down then she would sure do just that.
Another point worth mentioning here is that, the inclusion of video footage taken from another person's channel in of itself is not that concerning and constitutes fair use. However, content taken from another YouTube channel that has been used in an effort to undermine that channel could be perceived as offensive especially if the argument being made in that video does not reflect the truth. Should a content creator become offended in such a situation, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will try any means necessary to have the video removed from the platform (even if the video is borderline 'fair use'). Do not forget that by someone adding these additional elements to their videos that criticize other people, they are essentially giving those people the reasons they need to have those videos taken down. Sure enough, you could argue that doing this is impolite and does not respect the rights of users being able to freely critique one another. However, when someone takes this type of criticism too far and begins distorting the truth and presents biased hate driven arguments which are heavily lacking in evidence, then making such a move is not entirely unreasonable nor is it braking any rules, at least according to YouTube's standards. Also, although it is unlikely, it is not out of the question to assume that videos which are clearly continuations of the one that used copyrighted material may also get copyright struck. If SSSniperWolf had made a video which was that dedicated towards criticizing another youtuber and used their photograph in the thumbnail on it (without them having done this beforehand) then we can be pretty sure that she wouldn't be surprised if YouTube took it down.
At this point some of you may be wondering, were the videos Lia posted about Enigmahood braking any rules. This matter is subject to debate, however, as far as I am aware, these videos were created in response to a series of videos which did include footage taken from Lia's channel and were intended to undermine her reputation. Perhaps at this point you may be wondering, were the claims made by Lia in those response videos accurate. The truth is, at this point, we just can't tell. Lia claims that Enigmahood is or was a 'Registered Sex Offender' (RSO) and her evidence for this is that she saw this being listed under his name in a registry. However, Enigmahood denies this and has referred to the claim as a slander. Interestingly, according to the youtuber Turkey Tom, the registries that were meant to show Enigmahood's criminal offenses now show that his record is clear (ls had also stated more recently that the records she viewed no longer show this). Turkey Tom then goes on to suggest that these offenses may have been removed from these registries. At this point you may be wondering, was Lia in fact making this up all along. Well, it is not impossible to suggest this, however, when people make up crime based claims about others, the claims are typically based on common accusations. It is not common for someone to live with their parents and be an RSO. A more likely possibility is that someone made an accusation against Enigmahood and while the case was still ongoing Lia had come across these offences being shown in the record and then later on when Enigmahood was proven innocent, they were removed from the registry. It is also possible that, although Lia managed to obtain Enigmahood's real name, she may have found the phrase 'Registered Sex Offender' being listed in the criminal record of another person with the same real life name as Enigmahood. I am guessing that, as of now, Enigmahood is considered by some to be a an RZO (something distinctively different from an RSO) and is probably on a particular authority's most wanted list. Therefore, the beef between Lia and Enigmahood is starting to become less and less relevant. Having said this, it appears that some pesky and cunning critics of Enigmahood are now making use of this drama (and pretending to side with Lia) in order to undermine him in completely unrelated conflicts. What they fail to realize is that Lia is not so easily fooled by these stunts.
Now, regarding Lia's use of the copyright system, her actions of copyright striking some videos could be regarded as impolite. However, in order for it to count as abuse, she would need to have been copyright striking videos that had nothing to do with her, from multiple rivals or critics on multiple occasions, or, she would need to have been copyright striking videos that attempted to objectively criticize her, from channels that didn't use any of her materials what so ever. Currently, there is no evidence that Lia has participated in this type of behavior. Interestingly, according to a number of sources, this is what GirlGoneGamer was accused of. The irony of this matter is that, when GirlGoneGamer is accused of copyright striking videos on a regular basis and deleting comments that attempt to critise her, people in the community are not really too concerned by it, but when Lia does anything even remotely related to this type of behavior, it is seen as a heinous crime. Whether GirlGoneGamer was actually abusing the copyright system or not is still a matter of debate. Don't forget that, on a channel that once did use copyrighted material to criticize a person, it is perfectly possible for that person to mistakenly copyright strike other videos on this channel (thinking that the videos are related) but this would not necessarily count as abuse. If that person was to then do this consistently even after being shown that they had misused the system then it would count as abuse. If there is one thing that these matters do highlight, it is that, as a rule of thumb, when talking about someone online, if you have nothing good to say about that person, then unless they are a danger to you or to others, you should remain quite about them.
Best regards,
TheRealist1196
