Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee...
by walshemj on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:08AM
(#16754786)
How is "vegan screed" controversial
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee...
by ajross on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:12AM
(#16754824)
Animal violence is controversial. I added the vegan bit to clarify that she wasn't, I dunno, a dog fighting afficionado. Her content (which, again, I haven't seen!) was "controversial", it wasn't a straightforward ToS violation.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee...
by mschuster91 on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:28AM
(#16754983)
> And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it.
Good luck trying to sue one of the most powerful companies in history. I wouldn't dream of this.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee...
by ajross on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @11:20AM
(#16755548)
What are you talking about? If it's less than the local statutory limit (quick google tells me $7500 in California, likely around what this woman thinks she was owed) then you don't even need a lawyer. File a small claims suit, show up at court, and make your case before the judge.
Now, she probably wouldn't win, because there's no contract here and Google has no affirmative duty to host anyone's video in particular nor to pay them for it. But you can absolutely do it.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee...
by mschuster91 on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @06:30PM
(#16759881)
> But you can absolutely do it.
You can do it, but who has the resources (especially the motivation and willpower) to drag such a case through the various appeal instances, with the issue that if you do lose, you have to pay the opposite party's lawyer bills? No way in hell I'd risk loading up THAT debt risk.
And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it.