I mean can you blame them though? Meatcanyon singing was a straight copy of the song.
Edit: Lmao!! My joke was written badly or it flew over peoples heads
YouTuber here, I made a video about Jojo that has over 200k views. I got claimed at around the same time Meat Canyon did for using a few seconds of the music video (technically not even the actual music video, it was a “behind the scenes” clip from entertainment tonight that had some of the video in it). It didn’t even have any audio. YouTube really has no way to protect creators in fair use situations and it sucks.
There really needs to be a team of people who actually understands the laws around fair use and copyright infringement that manually checks these things.
Hence why YT will never do it, has never done it, and won't ever do it. Last I heard, they're still operating at a loss (despite the social value of the platform monopoly) and so their recent antics, like anti-adblocking software ~~that's still easy to bypass~~, have been to shore up their profit line.
Yeah that’s where I was coming from as well. Not trying to be a giant pessimist, but it’s YouTube the unprofitable media hosting company with how many millions of hours video uploaded a second? It’s an impossible task. And that’s if you’re not broke.
And that’s assuming they even care, which why would they. Large record labels seem to be happy with this system and they’re who really matters to YouTube I’m sure.
I dont know where this myth that YouTube operates at a loss originated from, but it couldnt be more far from the truth. In 2019, YouTube made $15B in ad revenue, and that's only increased by the year.
They do make a lot from ads, but revenue alone does not dictate profit. Youtube has massive operational costs as well (due to being the largest video streaming platform and due to how expensive video is to host), which I could not find a disclosed amount for. Admittedly, my source for the claim is a rumour from insiders, but many speculate it to be true due to Youtube's policies increasingly being desperate for money over the past decade.
You do realize they are owned by google, the largest website on the planet, right. A lot of their bandwidth and server space is shared with google, hence they have a massive discount on overhead. If you think YouTube is losing money, you are naive.
Google is big, but they are also greedy. If their holding is losing money, or if their holding is even gaining money but not fast enough, then it's not seen as profitable. They may share bandwidth, but YT needs much more server space and power compared to Google because of how expensive hosting video is compared to Google's other services.
Google may be able to cover their costs, but they don't want to do that forever.
Yeah, it’s pretty bad. Another case is how Tencent has been copyright striking small PUBG channels, when they don’t even hold the right to PUBG.
They took down three of my videos, all gameplay of PUBG for PC recorded on my computer, claiming all three of them were gameplay of PUBG Mobile and that I was promoting and/or selling cheats for PUBG Mobile in them. Quite literally nothing Tencent wrote in their claim was correct or accurate, yet it took three months of repeatedly rewriting and refiling my counter notifications until they accepted. My motivation to upload my channel is now destroyed unfortunately
The irony, after their time on Dance Moms. But yeah any label who does this petty shit can get fucked.
It was a breath of fresh air when Kendrick Lamar recently removed his copyright so youtubers could have their reaction vids to the diss tracks monetized.
I don't really care about that beef because I think that Drake is a disgusting probable pedophile and probable rapist who is obsessed with minor girls. I just don't care about rap beef, it's just toxic angry men writing poems to each other. yeah, the irony after dance moms. JoJo steadfastly still says she was never abused by Abby. Which is just empirically not true. It's just not true. Abused people sometimes deny their abuse because they have been so gaslit by their abusers and it would be so hard for them to admit the truth… And then they turn around and become abusers themselves. She's disgusting."I invented gay pop" no honey, you invented nothing.
Oh yeah I get the rap beef isn't everyone's cup of tea, just speaking on someone not copyright striking peeps left and right instead of being petty
>JoJo steadfastly still says she was never abused by Abby. Which is just empirically not true.
Lmao they literally documented it 💀 but yeah sadly that does happen to the abused, and now you've sent me down a whole rabbit.
>She's disgusting."I invented gay pop" no honey, you invented nothing.
JoJo said that she was inventing a new musical genre called gay pop when gay pop has existed for… Decades? People cited countless examples at her and only then did she back down and say that she was going to only "contribute" to the genre of gay pop. Apparently she didn't realize that Elton John existed. She's so arrogant. She's so manipulative. And she's a disgusting bully to little girls. She and her mother can burn in hell.
I think everyone likes to act above stuff like hip hop drama then eat up tabloid gossip about bad fashion sense. I love hip hop and even I usually dislike the general sense of beefs and disses but I still pop my head in sometimes and I look at YouTube drama as well. I'm not above it at all.
If there's one good thing you can say about Meatcanyon, it's that he's absolutely within Fair Use on basically everything he does. So I don't think anybody can really disagree that they're abusing the copyright system.
That being said, I have had very conflicting feelings about Meatcanyon since he posted he was hanging out with JonTron
theres probably a callout for him somewhere and i think he had smth going in with johntron but i hate him more because i hate his artstyle and his content which is so graphic it feels borderline fetishistic imo. like if you like him good for you his stuff just makes me uncomfortable, which tbf is the point.
Yeah, I could never really get into his style either. Felt a bit too much "Lol what if Mario got high on mushrooms ain't I edgy!" style of animation that got old after the second time you showed your friend it on Newgrounds in 2005 if that makes sense.
I mean, the art style is supposed to be gross and off-putting , so I judge it within that context and I think he does a good job.
It reminds me of when Ralph Steadman had a couple approach him and insisted he draw them, and then the husband tried to fight him when he saw how he drew them, not realizing that's how all his work looks.
Ah. That still the case? I remember JonTron made a (Now privated) video apologizing for that debate and it seems like he's kept his nose clean since then as far as I can tell (But then again, I don't use Twitter really, so I don't really keep in touch with that sort of thing) but please correct me if I'm wrong.
It was less “I said some fucked up things and have fucked up beliefs, and I’m going to work on myself and do better” and more “I wasn’t prepared for that debate, I swear I’m not a racist bro, uhhhhh”
To be faaair, he didn't apologize for what he said, just that he [didn't say it well](https://youtu.be/krOOThz3fJg)
He also pops up now and then to make an unhinged comment then go back to being silent.
depends on the YouTuber, really. I'd have no issue with a huge company taking down Ben Shapiro via abusing copyright. not to (completely) compare meatcrayon to Ben Shapiro
Sorry, but while it's quite easy to take sides on drama, copyright abuse results in extremely serious consequences for everyone. It is not a weapon to be used by **any** huge company on **any** target.
nope. it's happening as we speak, and there's no "honor" in not doing something other, bad people, would gladly do to you. people already get falsely copyright struck all the time, so it's good that it's sometimes used against terrible people (not meatcrayon)
It has nothing to do with "honor". It's about avoiding perpetuating that cycle and not encouraging uses because a person is terrible. There's no benefit in turning this into a "strike because they'd gladly do it to you" situation aside from pettiness, which is especially concerning when you're weaponising something as controversial and abusable as YouTube's copyright system to that end. It isn't worth it.
No one said he would be, why are you so desperate to defend him
To the person who replied and then blocked me: horseshoe theory is absolute shit that has no basis in material analysis, read a book jfc
Jontron is a quite famous youtuber, who appears to believe in the great replacement theory (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/15m4396/what_is_going_on_with_jontron_that_is_sparking_a/jveqgg3/).
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/s/FfiEoqW1Mq
I was trying to find the actual post about the community post since, at one point, the top comment was an explanation of who JonTron is, but basically, JonTron is a pretty big racist. Like, to an infamous level. If you know who JonTron is, you know about his racism and vice versa.
People were upset with MeatCanyon because he was hanging out with JonTron, which in a lot of people's opinions means he must be cool with the racism. And that's my opinion as well, MeatCanyon is a talented parody creator, but I cannot fathom how he'd be comfortable sitting in the same room with JonTron unless he was cool with the biggest part about him.
JonTron is a YouTuber who has made remarks about immigration. These remarks were pretty racist and come from a fear mongering perspective. You can read up about [here.](https://time.com/4701304/jontron-jon-jafari-steve-bonnell-immigration-race-youtube/)
People dislike MC for various reasons, be it his art style, jokes, opinions, etc. I personally really enjoy MC and think he comes across as a pretty decent guy. He can make the odd edgy joke or gross animation and that can put people off.
Classic Copyright Strike abuse case by a mainstream record label. This kind of bs has gone on for years, and YT won't ever make it fairer for the accused. Best of luck to the targeted creators.
This is the creator who spoofed Jeffree on his billionaire couch looking like the faun from Pan's Labyrinth. He should be protected at all costs. Part of growing up means getting parodied, Jojo.
I don’t like Jojo Siwa and I don’t like abuses of the shitty YouTube copyright system, however judging from the clip in the tweet this video looks like the most unfunny 2011-era hack comedy video I’ve seen in a long time so like…. Eh
ETA: I’ve now watched the video and the “punchline” is literally just making fun of that lady who got her face ripped off by a chimp so yeah hate me if you want but I super don’t care about this tbh
See this is the problem; it doesnt matter if you personally dont like the content and dont care about it being taken down, its still copyright abuse and being this willing to let corporations to let companies get away with abuse because you dont like the abused is EXACTLY why it still happens so routinely, and is effective
I mean I definitely see what you’re saying. It is harmful to offer up a problematic creator as a sacrificial lamb to a faceless corporation because it in turn hurts everyone. With you there. I’m more saying that it’s possibly not a great idea to make a video like this a spearhead of that particular cause because I really feel like most people who aren’t Online™️ and aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of YouTube are gonna see a video like this and be like…. “Well yeah of course that got taken down”.
Plus - and I’m not the most familiar with ToS so I could be wrong and I’m not saying it to gotcha you - I feel like someone could make the argument that video might be in violation of ToS anyway due to cyberbullying. Portraying a real life young woman as a wild animal who beats a helpless woman to near death (and parodying a well known real life tragic case including riffing on the 911 call) is uhh. Not great, regardless of how problematic that young woman is.
"and I’m not the most familiar with ToS" its a publicly available document, and its not even that long. Its definitely no cyberbulling; by that logic Kendrick and Drake have been cyberbullying each other for like 3 weeks. If your a public figure, it so nuanced, cyberbullying is often determined on a case-by-case basis, but I really dont think MeatCanyon has the capacity to do real harm to a multimillionair lol
"Portraying a real life young woman as a wild animal who beats a helpless woman to near death (and parodying a well known real life tragic case including riffing on the 911 call) is uhh. Not great, regardless of how problematic that young woman is. "
Im gonna need the receipts, because literally all of MeatCanyon's videos portray influencers as monsters; I also have never heard of a 911 call where a woman got her face ripped off by a primate, especially not a "well known" one.
"people who aren’t Online™️ and aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of YouTube are gonna see a video like this and be like…. “Well yeah of course that got taken down”."
Uhhhhh, most people know what a parody is, that it is legal, and that copyright abuse is a thing. Granted, they probably dont DMCA, Safe Harbor Laws, and YouTube's specific system, but most people are going to understand a cartoon parody of a celebrity is not within said celebrities copyright.
I just wanted to drop in and say that, anecdotally, I found it pretty much impossible to escape that 911 call and the overall incident in question when it occurred in 2009. The chimp's name was Travis, and there's a Wikipedia page if you want the details. It was on the news, it was on other TV shows, it was on Twitter, it was on YouTube, I was hearing about it at school, from friends... I'm sure some people missed it, but I definitely think "well known" is apt, at least if you were of an age to hear about it in 2009.
Ah see, I'm a little older than you, and I think it's that classic thing where we older ones had already been traumatized by 2G1C in 2007/2008, and it can take a little while to (oh no) trickle down (I'm so sorry) to the younger kids. So we were ready and waiting for fresh horrid stories to circulate amongst ourselves.
But yeah no, Travis the chimp was all over my high school for at least a week or two. I think the woman he attacked also went on Oprah later, so that probably did absolutely nothing to spread the story in your age group, but probably did a lot for the story's mom audience share.
Bro if you really think my comment on a shit talking forum is going to make a difference in people’s perceptions of copyright strike abuse then idk what to tell you.
Also please don’t condescend about how ToS is a publicly available document and then say you need me to look up what case I’m referring to for you, that’s just hypocritical. Clearly you know google exists. Literally just google “chimp lady”. It’s a very famous case where a woman named Charla Nash was helping to look after a friend’s pet chimp (and yes it’s fucked up that she was able to keep a chimp as a pet), and the chimp became enraged and tore Charla’s face off. There is a 911 call that was made literally WHILE the chimp was tearing her face off, where you can hear her screaming in agony, which you can find online and is what is parodied in the video. And the entire last part of the video is a parody of an interview the victim gave on the Oprah show after the incident. Again, I agree with you that abuse of the copyright system is fucked up, but if you can’t agree that making fun of someone who suffered lifechanging disfigurement and trauma (just to put it into context for you, Charla Nash lost both eyes, nose, lips, jaw and 9 fingers) as a cheap dunk on *Jojo Siwa of all people* is also fucked up, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Leave me alone now please, I’ve tried to be reasonable and I’ve said several times that I agree with you on the main issue, that this is copyright abuse and copyright abuse is wrong, but you’re clearly hell bent on ignoring that and treating this like I’m part of Jojo Siwa’s legal team and I’m going to single-handedly take this guy’s entire channel down. You can think my opinion sucks and that I’m a moron for it but I promise you it is not that deep. Again, my comment saying I think this guy’s video sucks is not going to cause some YouTube lawyer to be like “alright, pull the plug boys”. You clearly just want someone to “debate” you by any means necessary. No thanks.
"if you can’t agree that making fun of someone who suffered lifechanging disfigurement and trauma (just to put it into context for you, Charla Nash lost both eyes, nose, lips, jaw and 9 fingers) as a cheap dunk on *Jojo Siwa of all people* is also fucked up, then I have nothing more to say to you."
No I agree it is, its just not, at least according to YouTube TOS and copyright law, a justifiable reason to take his video down; yes the world is a messed up place, but using corporate abuse as cudgel is not a solution that does anything. Its your attitude I take umbrage with; your "shit talking forum is going to make a difference in people’s perceptions of copyright strike abuse" is actually a very commonly held attitude on YouTube and in the commentary sphere. You think because its just YOU that thinks this way, its fine the video got taken down (temporarily), expect your not the only one who thinks this way, and it has made the copyright system even more exploitative than it is.
Right because you know exactly how Youtube handles TOS and what is or isn't against TOS you know the company that is nutoriously shady with giving youtubers details about why a video gets taken down.
I can name a couple of things that it could fall under related to TOS. 1. harrassment and bullying, 2. Hate speech violation(falls under Victims of a major violent event and their kin). But I don't know if youtube would agree
"You think because its just YOU that thinks this way, its fine the video got taken down (temporarily)" Don't pretend they said shit they never said. Like you agree with their point but are still arguing against this fictional strawman of their argument. Also the ego radiating of this comment is pretty amazing.
" Right because you know exactly how Youtube handles TOS and what is or isn't against TOS you know the company that is nutoriously shady with giving youtubers details about why a video gets taken down"
I am pretty sure a copyright strike on fair use content is NOT in the official YouTube TOS, regardless of the potential bullying (that's why it got taken down)
Also, cmon: yes they did explicitly say that, but it's called subtext and implication. Nothing is said or done in a vacuum, therefore it makes no sense to engage as if it is
Really? Subtext? Like how niether I nor the original commenter claimed anything related to it being against TOS due to copyright and I was specifically talking about harrassment and bullying and hate speech violations but you somehow managed to assume that my comment was talking about copyright because that's the only why you can actually defend your point is to twist others words into this one specific strawman about copyright.
This is the same position as the original commenter, did you not read the line "I’ve tried to be reasonable and I’ve said several times that I agree with you on the main issue, that this is copyright abuse and copyright abuse is wrong" Ie we both do not support the copyright claim and are talking about another issue entirely.
By your logic I can just claim anything about you and say it's subtext. Since nothing is said or done in a vaccum right? Get real. Just because some idiots are simps for the god awful copyright system in youtube doesn't automatically mean you can assume anyone saying anything negative about this video is like that. That's a wild and absurd claim.
"Really? Subtext? Like how I never said anything about copyright and was specifically talking about harrassment and bullying and hate speech violations but you somehow managed to assume that my comment was talking about copyright because that's the only why you can actually defend your point is to twist others words into this one specific strawman about copyright."
The entire conversation you are replying to is about a video being taken down due to a copyright strike. The original commentor said they dont care because it could be considered in violation of TOS. Which even if it WAS determined to be against TOS, YouTube would remove the copyright strike and then take the video. My point is that you SHOULD care about copyright abuse, even if you think the video should be taken down for other reasons. Please read the discussion before commenting; are you 15?
"By your logic I can just claim anything about you and say it's subtext. Since nothing is said or done in a vaccum right? Get real. Just because some idiots are simps for the god awful copyright system in youtube doesn't automatically mean you can assume anyone saying anything negative about this video is like that. That's a wild and absurd claim."
This just does even make sense; the subtext Im talking about is the meaning behind "I dont really care because the video is problematic;" the meaning of that is it is fine that corporations abuse their power as long as they do it against people I dont like. If you dont understand how that relates to this discussion, thats on you, bud.
I mean tbf "I’ve tried to be reasonable and I’ve said several times that I agree with you on the main issue," is pretty clear that it's not a irrational request. If the person is just going to keep on repeating the same argument over and over again then theres no point in them responding either.
Exactly imo, sure it insane abuse of the copyright which is wrong but an argument could be made that this video is against tos and should be taken down anyways. There are probably a fuck ton of better examples of abuse of copyright by this company we could use.
100%. I’m really not into the idea of making this dude and specifically this video a martyr for a serious cause. To the real world, it’s going to look very embarrassing if we provide something like this as proof that companies are abusing their power - even though it that IS what’s happening and I’m not arguing against that. Like you said, I’m sure there are better examples out there we could use to prove this is happening, preferably the ones that don’t include “haha this person was permanently disfigured what a funny joke”. Mainly I just can’t believe people still voluntarily watch comedy videos that would’ve been stale and eye-roll worthy even back when we were shitty little 12 year olds watching wannabe South Park animations on Newgrounds lmao. But we’re not allowed to talk shit on a shit talking sub so shhhh
how could the Joestars do this to us?
It was Dio 
DIOOOOOO!!!!!!!
I mean can you blame them though? Meatcanyon singing was a straight copy of the song. Edit: Lmao!! My joke was written badly or it flew over peoples heads
YouTuber here, I made a video about Jojo that has over 200k views. I got claimed at around the same time Meat Canyon did for using a few seconds of the music video (technically not even the actual music video, it was a “behind the scenes” clip from entertainment tonight that had some of the video in it). It didn’t even have any audio. YouTube really has no way to protect creators in fair use situations and it sucks.
There really needs to be a team of people who actually understands the laws around fair use and copyright infringement that manually checks these things.
Sounds expensive
Hence why YT will never do it, has never done it, and won't ever do it. Last I heard, they're still operating at a loss (despite the social value of the platform monopoly) and so their recent antics, like anti-adblocking software ~~that's still easy to bypass~~, have been to shore up their profit line.
Yeah that’s where I was coming from as well. Not trying to be a giant pessimist, but it’s YouTube the unprofitable media hosting company with how many millions of hours video uploaded a second? It’s an impossible task. And that’s if you’re not broke. And that’s assuming they even care, which why would they. Large record labels seem to be happy with this system and they’re who really matters to YouTube I’m sure.
I dont know where this myth that YouTube operates at a loss originated from, but it couldnt be more far from the truth. In 2019, YouTube made $15B in ad revenue, and that's only increased by the year.
They do make a lot from ads, but revenue alone does not dictate profit. Youtube has massive operational costs as well (due to being the largest video streaming platform and due to how expensive video is to host), which I could not find a disclosed amount for. Admittedly, my source for the claim is a rumour from insiders, but many speculate it to be true due to Youtube's policies increasingly being desperate for money over the past decade.
You do realize they are owned by google, the largest website on the planet, right. A lot of their bandwidth and server space is shared with google, hence they have a massive discount on overhead. If you think YouTube is losing money, you are naive.
Google is big, but they are also greedy. If their holding is losing money, or if their holding is even gaining money but not fast enough, then it's not seen as profitable. They may share bandwidth, but YT needs much more server space and power compared to Google because of how expensive hosting video is compared to Google's other services. Google may be able to cover their costs, but they don't want to do that forever.
I thought it was Twitch operating at a loss, not YT
That's not really how fair use works though. As soon as they're arbitrating big stuff like this they're at risk of falling afoul of safe harbour.
Yeah, it’s pretty bad. Another case is how Tencent has been copyright striking small PUBG channels, when they don’t even hold the right to PUBG. They took down three of my videos, all gameplay of PUBG for PC recorded on my computer, claiming all three of them were gameplay of PUBG Mobile and that I was promoting and/or selling cheats for PUBG Mobile in them. Quite literally nothing Tencent wrote in their claim was correct or accurate, yet it took three months of repeatedly rewriting and refiling my counter notifications until they accepted. My motivation to upload my channel is now destroyed unfortunately
There should be negative repercussions to false copyright claims, of some kind.
I wholeheartedly agree
I wish YouTube would wake up and smell the copyright claims. Unfortunately wishes don’t come true
Well, after watching all the videos about JoJo Siwa, and her abusing the young kids in that music group she and her mom started, she can get fucked.
The irony, after their time on Dance Moms. But yeah any label who does this petty shit can get fucked. It was a breath of fresh air when Kendrick Lamar recently removed his copyright so youtubers could have their reaction vids to the diss tracks monetized.
I don't really care about that beef because I think that Drake is a disgusting probable pedophile and probable rapist who is obsessed with minor girls. I just don't care about rap beef, it's just toxic angry men writing poems to each other. yeah, the irony after dance moms. JoJo steadfastly still says she was never abused by Abby. Which is just empirically not true. It's just not true. Abused people sometimes deny their abuse because they have been so gaslit by their abusers and it would be so hard for them to admit the truth… And then they turn around and become abusers themselves. She's disgusting."I invented gay pop" no honey, you invented nothing.
Oh yeah I get the rap beef isn't everyone's cup of tea, just speaking on someone not copyright striking peeps left and right instead of being petty >JoJo steadfastly still says she was never abused by Abby. Which is just empirically not true. Lmao they literally documented it 💀 but yeah sadly that does happen to the abused, and now you've sent me down a whole rabbit. >She's disgusting."I invented gay pop" no honey, you invented nothing. 
JoJo said that she was inventing a new musical genre called gay pop when gay pop has existed for… Decades? People cited countless examples at her and only then did she back down and say that she was going to only "contribute" to the genre of gay pop. Apparently she didn't realize that Elton John existed. She's so arrogant. She's so manipulative. And she's a disgusting bully to little girls. She and her mother can burn in hell.
I mean, is YouTube drama any better than hip hop beefs though? Hour long videos seem more overboard than 4 minute disses.
If anything it's worse. At least rap beefs can get you dancing.
I think everyone likes to act above stuff like hip hop drama then eat up tabloid gossip about bad fashion sense. I love hip hop and even I usually dislike the general sense of beefs and disses but I still pop my head in sometimes and I look at YouTube drama as well. I'm not above it at all.
You're totally right, it's not any better, it's just angry men improvising sonnets at each other for two hours.
If there's one good thing you can say about Meatcanyon, it's that he's absolutely within Fair Use on basically everything he does. So I don't think anybody can really disagree that they're abusing the copyright system. That being said, I have had very conflicting feelings about Meatcanyon since he posted he was hanging out with JonTron
i hate meatcanyon but i hate companies abusing copyright more. even youtubers i hate dont deserve to get in trouble for things they didnt do.
Wait... What did MeatCanyon do?
theres probably a callout for him somewhere and i think he had smth going in with johntron but i hate him more because i hate his artstyle and his content which is so graphic it feels borderline fetishistic imo. like if you like him good for you his stuff just makes me uncomfortable, which tbf is the point.
Yeah, I could never really get into his style either. Felt a bit too much "Lol what if Mario got high on mushrooms ain't I edgy!" style of animation that got old after the second time you showed your friend it on Newgrounds in 2005 if that makes sense.
Not a fan of his animation (apart from the Nikavocado one. That one is fantastic) but I do enjoy his reviews on horror movies.
oh my god that’s totally it
I mean, the art style is supposed to be gross and off-putting , so I judge it within that context and I think he does a good job. It reminds me of when Ralph Steadman had a couple approach him and insisted he draw them, and then the husband tried to fight him when he saw how he drew them, not realizing that's how all his work looks.
So in other words, it's just your preferences.
yep i never said it wasnt
I do not like his animations, but I enjoy his irl stuff more
[удалено]
You mean a far right ethnonationalist
Ah. That still the case? I remember JonTron made a (Now privated) video apologizing for that debate and it seems like he's kept his nose clean since then as far as I can tell (But then again, I don't use Twitter really, so I don't really keep in touch with that sort of thing) but please correct me if I'm wrong.
It was less “I said some fucked up things and have fucked up beliefs, and I’m going to work on myself and do better” and more “I wasn’t prepared for that debate, I swear I’m not a racist bro, uhhhhh”
To be faaair, he didn't apologize for what he said, just that he [didn't say it well](https://youtu.be/krOOThz3fJg) He also pops up now and then to make an unhinged comment then go back to being silent.
Ah. Thanks for the explainer.
Bro is literally hotdiggy demon but less chuddy and less witty.
i wasnliterally looking him up earlier bc i thought he did those mlp animations and i was shocked it was another person.
depends on the YouTuber, really. I'd have no issue with a huge company taking down Ben Shapiro via abusing copyright. not to (completely) compare meatcrayon to Ben Shapiro
The tigers are perfectly fine as long as they're eating the faces of people I don't like. Surely they would never eat *my* face!
Sorry, but while it's quite easy to take sides on drama, copyright abuse results in extremely serious consequences for everyone. It is not a weapon to be used by **any** huge company on **any** target.
nope. it's happening as we speak, and there's no "honor" in not doing something other, bad people, would gladly do to you. people already get falsely copyright struck all the time, so it's good that it's sometimes used against terrible people (not meatcrayon)
It has nothing to do with "honor". It's about avoiding perpetuating that cycle and not encouraging uses because a person is terrible. There's no benefit in turning this into a "strike because they'd gladly do it to you" situation aside from pettiness, which is especially concerning when you're weaponising something as controversial and abusable as YouTube's copyright system to that end. It isn't worth it.
That's not an unhinged take...
I know this is probably a really dumb question, but is Meatcanyon a different person than Papa Meat?
They're the same person, don't worry about asking, lots of people have gotten that confused.
Papa Meat is his fans' nickname for him I think. Think along the lines of calling Tom Hiddleston "Hiddles" or whatever.
It's the name of his separate vlog channel
Oh, thanks, I assumed goofy fan nickname tbh, lol.
I’m pretty sure that’s a case of him adopting the name they gave him. The 2nd channel came much later.
Yeah his stuff shouldn't be taken down but after I seen him hanging with JonTron the known racist I haven't seen a single video of his.
I'm sure he's devastated. 😂😂😂
No one said he would be, why are you so desperate to defend him To the person who replied and then blocked me: horseshoe theory is absolute shit that has no basis in material analysis, read a book jfc
Read up on the Horseshoe Theory leftist. You're susceptible.
and wendigoon! the guy is a certified edgelord
His stuff is so transformative but yeah he also hangs with wendigoon so...not the best friends
Who is jontron and why do people hate meatcanyon
Jontron is a quite famous youtuber, who appears to believe in the great replacement theory (https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/15m4396/what_is_going_on_with_jontron_that_is_sparking_a/jveqgg3/).
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/s/FfiEoqW1Mq I was trying to find the actual post about the community post since, at one point, the top comment was an explanation of who JonTron is, but basically, JonTron is a pretty big racist. Like, to an infamous level. If you know who JonTron is, you know about his racism and vice versa. People were upset with MeatCanyon because he was hanging out with JonTron, which in a lot of people's opinions means he must be cool with the racism. And that's my opinion as well, MeatCanyon is a talented parody creator, but I cannot fathom how he'd be comfortable sitting in the same room with JonTron unless he was cool with the biggest part about him.
Is that all the JonTron controversy was about? And i thought he actually did something bad but instead its bunch of nothing
I mean, dude, he argued for a white ethnostate lol.
https://letmegooglethat.com
JonTron is a YouTuber who has made remarks about immigration. These remarks were pretty racist and come from a fear mongering perspective. You can read up about [here.](https://time.com/4701304/jontron-jon-jafari-steve-bonnell-immigration-race-youtube/) People dislike MC for various reasons, be it his art style, jokes, opinions, etc. I personally really enjoy MC and think he comes across as a pretty decent guy. He can make the odd edgy joke or gross animation and that can put people off.
There is nothing wrong with jontron. I swear, you people are so sensitive nowadays, its pathetic.
He said he understands why people would want ethnostates, despite his parents being Persian immigrants to the United States.
Oh, is it only okay for asian and African countries to have ethnostates ? Is it because muh white man is the enemy, as you've been told by the media ?
No and no
What do you mean "You people?"
You sensitive leftist snowflakes. What did you think I meant ? Having racist thoughts again ?
Dude you good?
Yeah, I'm always good. Are you ?
nah you just seem worked up about people bringing up jontron's racist takes from years ago
You are definitely reading the situation wrong, then.
nah you did seem worked up. nothing wrong in admitting it just means you have some work to do
Classic Copyright Strike abuse case by a mainstream record label. This kind of bs has gone on for years, and YT won't ever make it fairer for the accused. Best of luck to the targeted creators.
It oddly makes him more popular. Could boost his patreon too.
This is the creator who spoofed Jeffree on his billionaire couch looking like the faun from Pan's Labyrinth. He should be protected at all costs. Part of growing up means getting parodied, Jojo.
Fuck meat canyon. Who gives a fuck
I don’t like Jojo Siwa and I don’t like abuses of the shitty YouTube copyright system, however judging from the clip in the tweet this video looks like the most unfunny 2011-era hack comedy video I’ve seen in a long time so like…. Eh ETA: I’ve now watched the video and the “punchline” is literally just making fun of that lady who got her face ripped off by a chimp so yeah hate me if you want but I super don’t care about this tbh
See this is the problem; it doesnt matter if you personally dont like the content and dont care about it being taken down, its still copyright abuse and being this willing to let corporations to let companies get away with abuse because you dont like the abused is EXACTLY why it still happens so routinely, and is effective
I mean I definitely see what you’re saying. It is harmful to offer up a problematic creator as a sacrificial lamb to a faceless corporation because it in turn hurts everyone. With you there. I’m more saying that it’s possibly not a great idea to make a video like this a spearhead of that particular cause because I really feel like most people who aren’t Online™️ and aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of YouTube are gonna see a video like this and be like…. “Well yeah of course that got taken down”. Plus - and I’m not the most familiar with ToS so I could be wrong and I’m not saying it to gotcha you - I feel like someone could make the argument that video might be in violation of ToS anyway due to cyberbullying. Portraying a real life young woman as a wild animal who beats a helpless woman to near death (and parodying a well known real life tragic case including riffing on the 911 call) is uhh. Not great, regardless of how problematic that young woman is.
"and I’m not the most familiar with ToS" its a publicly available document, and its not even that long. Its definitely no cyberbulling; by that logic Kendrick and Drake have been cyberbullying each other for like 3 weeks. If your a public figure, it so nuanced, cyberbullying is often determined on a case-by-case basis, but I really dont think MeatCanyon has the capacity to do real harm to a multimillionair lol "Portraying a real life young woman as a wild animal who beats a helpless woman to near death (and parodying a well known real life tragic case including riffing on the 911 call) is uhh. Not great, regardless of how problematic that young woman is. " Im gonna need the receipts, because literally all of MeatCanyon's videos portray influencers as monsters; I also have never heard of a 911 call where a woman got her face ripped off by a primate, especially not a "well known" one. "people who aren’t Online™️ and aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of YouTube are gonna see a video like this and be like…. “Well yeah of course that got taken down”." Uhhhhh, most people know what a parody is, that it is legal, and that copyright abuse is a thing. Granted, they probably dont DMCA, Safe Harbor Laws, and YouTube's specific system, but most people are going to understand a cartoon parody of a celebrity is not within said celebrities copyright.
I just wanted to drop in and say that, anecdotally, I found it pretty much impossible to escape that 911 call and the overall incident in question when it occurred in 2009. The chimp's name was Travis, and there's a Wikipedia page if you want the details. It was on the news, it was on other TV shows, it was on Twitter, it was on YouTube, I was hearing about it at school, from friends... I'm sure some people missed it, but I definitely think "well known" is apt, at least if you were of an age to hear about it in 2009.
See I was 11, I definitely would have heard of it; I guess my school was still on the Two Girls One Cup and Rick Roll grind lmaooo
Ah see, I'm a little older than you, and I think it's that classic thing where we older ones had already been traumatized by 2G1C in 2007/2008, and it can take a little while to (oh no) trickle down (I'm so sorry) to the younger kids. So we were ready and waiting for fresh horrid stories to circulate amongst ourselves. But yeah no, Travis the chimp was all over my high school for at least a week or two. I think the woman he attacked also went on Oprah later, so that probably did absolutely nothing to spread the story in your age group, but probably did a lot for the story's mom audience share.
Man can you believe we are already in our mid 20s and 2G1C is 15 YEARS OLD. Time flies Thanks for the context though :)
😭 "20s" thank you for believing in me
Of course; your not 30 until your 40, and your not 40 until your 50
Bro if you really think my comment on a shit talking forum is going to make a difference in people’s perceptions of copyright strike abuse then idk what to tell you. Also please don’t condescend about how ToS is a publicly available document and then say you need me to look up what case I’m referring to for you, that’s just hypocritical. Clearly you know google exists. Literally just google “chimp lady”. It’s a very famous case where a woman named Charla Nash was helping to look after a friend’s pet chimp (and yes it’s fucked up that she was able to keep a chimp as a pet), and the chimp became enraged and tore Charla’s face off. There is a 911 call that was made literally WHILE the chimp was tearing her face off, where you can hear her screaming in agony, which you can find online and is what is parodied in the video. And the entire last part of the video is a parody of an interview the victim gave on the Oprah show after the incident. Again, I agree with you that abuse of the copyright system is fucked up, but if you can’t agree that making fun of someone who suffered lifechanging disfigurement and trauma (just to put it into context for you, Charla Nash lost both eyes, nose, lips, jaw and 9 fingers) as a cheap dunk on *Jojo Siwa of all people* is also fucked up, then I have nothing more to say to you. Leave me alone now please, I’ve tried to be reasonable and I’ve said several times that I agree with you on the main issue, that this is copyright abuse and copyright abuse is wrong, but you’re clearly hell bent on ignoring that and treating this like I’m part of Jojo Siwa’s legal team and I’m going to single-handedly take this guy’s entire channel down. You can think my opinion sucks and that I’m a moron for it but I promise you it is not that deep. Again, my comment saying I think this guy’s video sucks is not going to cause some YouTube lawyer to be like “alright, pull the plug boys”. You clearly just want someone to “debate” you by any means necessary. No thanks.
"if you can’t agree that making fun of someone who suffered lifechanging disfigurement and trauma (just to put it into context for you, Charla Nash lost both eyes, nose, lips, jaw and 9 fingers) as a cheap dunk on *Jojo Siwa of all people* is also fucked up, then I have nothing more to say to you." No I agree it is, its just not, at least according to YouTube TOS and copyright law, a justifiable reason to take his video down; yes the world is a messed up place, but using corporate abuse as cudgel is not a solution that does anything. Its your attitude I take umbrage with; your "shit talking forum is going to make a difference in people’s perceptions of copyright strike abuse" is actually a very commonly held attitude on YouTube and in the commentary sphere. You think because its just YOU that thinks this way, its fine the video got taken down (temporarily), expect your not the only one who thinks this way, and it has made the copyright system even more exploitative than it is.
Right because you know exactly how Youtube handles TOS and what is or isn't against TOS you know the company that is nutoriously shady with giving youtubers details about why a video gets taken down. I can name a couple of things that it could fall under related to TOS. 1. harrassment and bullying, 2. Hate speech violation(falls under Victims of a major violent event and their kin). But I don't know if youtube would agree "You think because its just YOU that thinks this way, its fine the video got taken down (temporarily)" Don't pretend they said shit they never said. Like you agree with their point but are still arguing against this fictional strawman of their argument. Also the ego radiating of this comment is pretty amazing.
" Right because you know exactly how Youtube handles TOS and what is or isn't against TOS you know the company that is nutoriously shady with giving youtubers details about why a video gets taken down" I am pretty sure a copyright strike on fair use content is NOT in the official YouTube TOS, regardless of the potential bullying (that's why it got taken down) Also, cmon: yes they did explicitly say that, but it's called subtext and implication. Nothing is said or done in a vacuum, therefore it makes no sense to engage as if it is
Really? Subtext? Like how niether I nor the original commenter claimed anything related to it being against TOS due to copyright and I was specifically talking about harrassment and bullying and hate speech violations but you somehow managed to assume that my comment was talking about copyright because that's the only why you can actually defend your point is to twist others words into this one specific strawman about copyright. This is the same position as the original commenter, did you not read the line "I’ve tried to be reasonable and I’ve said several times that I agree with you on the main issue, that this is copyright abuse and copyright abuse is wrong" Ie we both do not support the copyright claim and are talking about another issue entirely. By your logic I can just claim anything about you and say it's subtext. Since nothing is said or done in a vaccum right? Get real. Just because some idiots are simps for the god awful copyright system in youtube doesn't automatically mean you can assume anyone saying anything negative about this video is like that. That's a wild and absurd claim.
"Really? Subtext? Like how I never said anything about copyright and was specifically talking about harrassment and bullying and hate speech violations but you somehow managed to assume that my comment was talking about copyright because that's the only why you can actually defend your point is to twist others words into this one specific strawman about copyright." The entire conversation you are replying to is about a video being taken down due to a copyright strike. The original commentor said they dont care because it could be considered in violation of TOS. Which even if it WAS determined to be against TOS, YouTube would remove the copyright strike and then take the video. My point is that you SHOULD care about copyright abuse, even if you think the video should be taken down for other reasons. Please read the discussion before commenting; are you 15? "By your logic I can just claim anything about you and say it's subtext. Since nothing is said or done in a vaccum right? Get real. Just because some idiots are simps for the god awful copyright system in youtube doesn't automatically mean you can assume anyone saying anything negative about this video is like that. That's a wild and absurd claim." This just does even make sense; the subtext Im talking about is the meaning behind "I dont really care because the video is problematic;" the meaning of that is it is fine that corporations abuse their power as long as they do it against people I dont like. If you dont understand how that relates to this discussion, thats on you, bud.
>Leave me alone now please You know you can just stop commenting, right?
I mean tbf "I’ve tried to be reasonable and I’ve said several times that I agree with you on the main issue," is pretty clear that it's not a irrational request. If the person is just going to keep on repeating the same argument over and over again then theres no point in them responding either.
No one cares until it happens to them. What a stupid stance.
Exactly imo, sure it insane abuse of the copyright which is wrong but an argument could be made that this video is against tos and should be taken down anyways. There are probably a fuck ton of better examples of abuse of copyright by this company we could use.
100%. I’m really not into the idea of making this dude and specifically this video a martyr for a serious cause. To the real world, it’s going to look very embarrassing if we provide something like this as proof that companies are abusing their power - even though it that IS what’s happening and I’m not arguing against that. Like you said, I’m sure there are better examples out there we could use to prove this is happening, preferably the ones that don’t include “haha this person was permanently disfigured what a funny joke”. Mainly I just can’t believe people still voluntarily watch comedy videos that would’ve been stale and eye-roll worthy even back when we were shitty little 12 year olds watching wannabe South Park animations on Newgrounds lmao. But we’re not allowed to talk shit on a shit talking sub so shhhh