Presumably if they avoided kicking down doors in a rich part of Dallas Texas or something. This is on that upper 0.01% of politically connected areas at the national/international level and perhaps top 1% of wealthy areas. Describing it as a wealthy area isn’t wrong, but that not why it’s unusual.
And if it wouldn’t have tried manipulating my emotions and gain access to my attention center, there were a chance that I would have read the article. Now I won’t, as the article apparently isn’t interesting on its own merits.
It doesn’t have to do with military neutrality.
The sentence implies that Switzerland due to their neutral status never or almost never agree to sanctions of any kind.
However their neutral status has never been an indication of that. It clearly reads as sanctions despite historical neutrality.
Either this is an entertainment piece and they can write it how they want (but it shouldn’t be mentioned on a wiki page) or it’s a news piece and should be without these kind of “suggestive but not exactly saying it” articles that blur the line between non-news and deniability thereof.
The only thing it would have cost them to not mention Switzerland’s neutrality would be clicks/money. 0% truth would have been lost writing the context properly.
This appears to me like a completely normal and legitimate copyright takedown notice because you reuploaded their YouTube video without permission? Or am I missing something?
If you wanted to advertise their video you should have linked the YouTube video (assuming that you reuploaded it yourself on Reddit instead).
You were costing them ad revenue.
I don’t really see any connection to NFT’s.
Edit: The original creator of the video literally commented on your Reddit post. You did in fact just rip his video. The time writing this article would have been better spent looking into copyright law for beginners. But tbh looking at the buzzwords in the title and the fact the creator commented on your post days ago it seems to me that you are simply not done milking their content yet and trying it with a blog post now.
A rip of his video? A digital video without any cut with all the credits at the end and beginning of the video and with the link to the source in the comments?!
No, it’s simply that people don’t understand what is a NFT.
Anyway I don’t care about the video on Reddit, but is the principle here.
As I wrote, if you make a screenshot of every Bored Apes and you use it as your avatar with the credits to the original owner, is a copyright violation? No, it’s how a digital product works.
> A digital video without any cut with all the credits at the end and beginning of the video and with the link to the source in the comments?!
Yes, reuploading someone else’s YouTube video is a shitty thing to do and a copyright violation.
> you make a screenshot of every Bored Apes and you use it as your avatar with the credits to the original owner, is a copyright violation? No, it’s how a digital product works.
No, that’s not how digital products work, and yes, it is a copyright violation. Giving credit doesn’t automatically grant you permission to use copyrighted material. Are you suggesting I can legally upload The Avengers to the internet in its entirety and it wouldn’t be a copyright violation as long as I leave the credits in? Or I can host an Adobe Photoshop binary as long as I give credit to Adobe?
You’re 100% in the wrong. Even Bored Apes has strict copyright licensing defined for their holders.
We have different point of view. I’m a photographer and when someone shows/links my photos on other sources, with the credits, I’m glad.
Anyway the web is full of mirrors of adobe apps.
It has been different if I had cut the video credits and didn’t linked to the source, but since I did, it’s not a copyright violation. It’s only someone that wouldn’t other people view it’s video outside of YouTube because he’s making money from YouTube. Now the result is that he lost all the traffic generates from the Reddit comments to his video.
And this is not the principles of free web and NFT in my opinion.
> if you make a screenshot of every Bored Apes and you use it as your avatar with the credits to the original owner, is a copyright violation? No
Yes, it is. At least in the UK and US where I've bumped into copyright laws. The copyright holder could DMCA your avatar off pretty easily
Sorry bud but your article is pretty wrong all over, you cut and dry infringed on their copyright. Web3 isn't above the law, it's above regulation (for now)
>The copyright holder could DMCA your avatar off pretty easily
This is the point, and to me looks totally wrong, in 4/5 years every online platform will be full of DMCA requests.
The point here is: if you rip off the source and you don’t give credits or cut a image watermark, then is a copyright violation. But if don’t modify the digital art and you give all the credits to the author, should not be a copyright violation.
Well the artist can do it, they don't have to do it.
If the majority of artists are like yourself and don't care if others use their work freely (from another comment not just assuming) then copyright allows them to sit and smile as people enjoy their work.
If they do care, then it's lucky we have copyright :)
I understand it and it’s also legit but my point here is still: what the social platforms will do in the future when they will be full of DMCA takedown requests from the people who bought a NFT and others have made a screenshot of it?
Is the web we want? Just asking. Maybe yes. I don’t known, I want only to talk about this.
For all we know (as the OP doesn’t mention trying incognito) the OP could have malicious software on their device that hijacks their browser to manipulate search results
that's easily verifiable doing the searches yourself;
a search for "hvor ofte bør man dusje" in my english google, conencting from brazil shows havfruen4220.dk as 6th and 7th result, which is pretty high for a spam website
"hvordan regne prosent" shows 2 dk websites www.humanrebels.dk, and havfruen4220.dk as 9th and 10th results
could be since the OP clicked on these links to find out google made his personal algorithm show even more of this stuff
thus, I imagine a never ending cycle of even more spam could easily be generated, specially for an innocent user
I think at that time YouTube used to take the frame in the center of the video but I’m not so sure about that one.