0:04 Another day and more internet drama. So,
0:05 first things first, if you didn't see my
0:07 video yesterday or somehow you don't
0:09 know what's going on, uh yesterday I
0:11 made a video apologizing to even Bad
0:14 Wolves Gaming um for using their B-roll
0:16 in gameplay in a video of mine that was
0:18 the entire timeline of The Dying Light.
0:21 Um now, in that video, I said what I did
0:22 was absolutely wrong. I shouldn't have
0:24 done it. I'd be willing to bet that
0:25 there's probably going to be another
0:27 video coming from her showing more of
0:29 the gameplay that I use, but again, I've
0:30 admitted to doing that. It was
0:32 absolutely wrong and I will make sure I
0:35 don't do that again. Now, again, in her
0:37 video talking about me, she never
0:39 mentioned that I tried to make amends
0:42 immediately. Uh, and in my video, I
0:43 explained that I did and that there's an
0:45 email chain between number one, me and
0:47 her lawyer, and then number two, me and
0:49 her. Um, and a lot of you just simply
0:52 didn't believe me or wanted to see those
0:53 emails. Now, I didn't put them in the
0:55 original video, uh, because I didn't
0:57 want to dox anyone, nor did I I don't
1:00 know, it just felt doing so, but enough
1:02 people have asked to do so, um, that I
1:04 thought I would get ahead of things and
1:06 just put all the chips on the table,
1:08 show you everything that happened, and
1:10 you can be the judge. Again, what I did
1:12 by using someone else's B-roll and
1:14 gameplay, absolutely not okay. I
1:16 apologize to her for that. That's out of
1:18 the way. Here are the emails. I'll go
1:20 through them, explain the background of
1:22 them. After this, I will not be talking
1:24 about this anymore. I don't want to make
1:26 videos on internet drama. I just want to
1:28 make more better videos for you guys
1:30 with my own gameplay. So, I tried to
1:32 take out any names or anything emails
1:34 that people could see. I I don't want
1:36 anyone to get doxed here. Um, so
1:39 basically the day after the copyright
1:42 strike went on my channel, I resent it
1:44 and a couple days later I got an email
1:46 from the lawyer named Matthew, not from
1:48 even Bad Wolves Gaming. There was never
1:50 any attempt by her to actually c uh
1:52 contact me and get to the bottom of this
1:54 quickly. Um, the lawyer immediately sent
1:57 me what appeared to be a lawsuit in a
1:59 PDF. I don't know if I can show that, so
2:01 I I'm not. But basically, the thing that
2:02 I took away from it is that when I
2:04 resent the copyright strike, I said that
2:07 what I did was under fair use. I said
2:10 that like what I used was someone else's
2:12 gameplay, but because I edited it, put
2:13 my own script on it, put my own audio on
2:15 it, all of that kind of things, I
2:17 thought it was okay. And I thought that
2:18 YouTube could just make that decision as
2:20 to whether that was true or not. Now I
2:22 get this email from the lawyer saying
2:25 that that is absolutely not the case. So
2:28 I respond to this lawyer saying this and
2:29 I said, "You can tell your client if
2:31 they resend the original copyright
2:32 strike, in other words, taking the
2:34 copyright strike off my channel, I will
2:36 take down the video and not re-upload
2:38 it." Assuming by saying this, I'm
2:40 saying, "Hey, I I did something wrong
2:42 here. I will make this right in this
2:45 way." The lawyer then responds with a
2:47 lot that I didn't understand. But the
2:49 one thing that I did is our client also
2:51 understands that if she was to withdraw
2:53 the original copyright complaint,
2:55 YouTube would consider the matter to be
2:56 resolved and would reinstate the
2:59 infringing video. And that is why in my
3:01 original email, I said I would take it
3:02 down. Like you have my word here that I
3:04 will just take down the video anyway.
3:06 Um, the one thing that does come up in
3:08 this email is this right here. It says
3:10 this acknowledgement and insurance to
3:12 YouTube. I don't know what that means.
3:14 And it was probably at this point that I
3:15 should have just got in contact with a
3:16 lawyer. I just didn't want to have to
3:18 like waste money on something that
3:20 should have just been resolved between
3:22 two people. At least that's what I
3:24 think. And in my past experience on
3:25 YouTube, when someone has taken my
3:27 things or I have used someone else's
3:28 image or something like that, it was
3:30 always just one or two emails back and
3:31 forth to either pay for things or make
3:33 things right. But when dealing with the
3:35 lawyers, it makes things a lot more
3:37 difficult. Now, in this next email that
3:40 I sent, I said that if I withdraw the
3:42 counter notification, the copyright
3:44 strike sits on my channel. You have it
3:46 in writing that if the copyright is
3:48 resent, the video will be taken down.
3:50 And in other words, I've said in my
3:52 previous email, that is exactly what I
3:53 sent. This is when things get a little
3:56 bit more intense. Uh, basically, the
3:58 lawyer gave me two options, neither of
4:01 which I fully understand. And it said,
4:03 "If you would prefer to avoid a strike
4:05 that I have to provide evidence of the
4:07 whole amount that I made off of the
4:09 video, provide written acknowledgement
4:11 and insurance sought." I don't know what
4:12 that means. Again, we're going into
4:15 that. And after this, I need to do a
4:16 bunch of things that I also didn't
4:18 understand. Then it says, "If you refer
4:20 to retain the income made from the
4:22 infringing video, you resend the counter
4:24 notification and provide requested
4:27 acknowledgement and insurance." I didn't
4:29 I already said that I would take down
4:31 the video. I said that that was fair and
4:33 I responded to this by saying the
4:35 following. I cannot see how much I made
4:37 off of the video because your client
4:39 copyrighted it. In other words, when the
4:41 video is copyrighted, I can't see any of
4:43 the statistics or anything for that
4:45 video. At least I couldn't when I went
4:47 on there. Um, so I couldn't tell them
4:49 the exact amount that was made off of
4:51 it. And I said, if your client feels as
4:53 though the entire earnings of the video
4:55 deserve to be theirs, again, this is
4:56 where my grammar is just absolutely
4:58 brutal and actually talking to someone
4:59 would have been a lot better. I said it
5:01 is well known that gameplay is not
5:03 copyrighted content. I included this in
5:05 my earlier video. I said that is what I
5:07 understood from what I know now that may
5:09 not be the case. And I said but just to
5:11 get it over with if the copyright is
5:13 taken off I will play the uh client what
5:15 the video has earned to date. Uh then at
5:18 that point the video would stay live. I
5:19 should have had a question mark there
5:21 because I didn't understand that part of
5:23 it. Uh there's no point to pay anything
5:25 if the video will not stay live. What I
5:28 was trying to say here is that if the
5:31 video was to go back live, I would be
5:33 still playing even Bad Wolves Gaming
5:36 from that video. I did not say that
5:37 properly. And in an email that comes
5:39 later, I kind of make more sense of
5:40 that. But again, this is the problem
5:42 with talking to lawyers and me having
5:43 very, very bad grammar. Now, after I
5:45 responded in that way, they just
5:48 specifically said that I did not accept
5:50 an offer whatsoever, when in reality, I
5:53 was just trying to ask what was actually
5:55 going on with this offer. I didn't know
5:57 whether they wanted me to take the video
5:59 down, leave it up, and pay the client
6:01 for what it's made and what it was going
6:03 to make, or if they wanted me to take it
6:04 down and just pay them from before. I
6:06 was trying to get to the bottom of that,
6:08 but after this, there was just no
6:10 information whatsoever. So, some time
6:13 went by and um the YouTube actually
6:16 reinstated my video back up onto
6:18 YouTube. Um now, at this point, I didn't
6:20 know until I got this email. I didn't
6:22 know that it put my video back up. I I I
6:24 didn't see the email for it or anything
6:26 like that. Uh but even Bad Wolves Gaming
6:28 wrote to me and she said that YouTube
6:30 has inadvertently automatically
6:32 reinstated the video after 10day counter
6:33 notification period. Maybe that's true,
6:35 maybe that's not, I don't know. Um, now
6:37 it's at this point where I I I don't
6:39 really understand what she's saying
6:41 here. I'm assuming she's just pushing a
6:44 message forward from the lawyer. Um, and
6:45 again, I didn't really understand it.
6:48 So, I wrote back to her uh basically
6:50 explaining everything that I explained
6:52 to the lawyer. Now, at this point, I I
6:54 am assuming I am just talking to the
6:56 person, even Bad Wolves Gaming. That's
6:58 that's what I'm assuming here. Um, I
7:00 said if you would have reached out to me
7:02 from the beginning, uh, I would have
7:04 just took down the video or private it.
7:06 Like I said to your lawyer, I offered to
7:09 pay the money from the video uh, to you
7:11 for the video and leave it up. What I
7:13 thought that that meant is first of all,
7:15 give credit in the description or even
7:17 down in the comments or a tweet um,
7:19 saying that like this I took this from
7:20 this and this person is now making money
7:22 from this video. Let's leave it up.
7:24 They're gonna make residuals from it. I
7:25 thought that was like the best case
7:28 scenario because then in turn even Bad
7:29 Wolves Gaming would be making more money
7:31 off of it in the long term. And then I
7:33 continued to say from what I understand
7:35 and I am not a lawyer, gameplay is not
7:36 something that you can copyright strike
7:38 as it belongs to the developer. Hence
7:40 why I believe YouTube won't or didn't
7:42 take it down. Again, I might be wrong
7:44 about that. I started that off by saying
7:45 I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know that
7:47 for sure. And again, as I said in my
7:48 original video, just because it's
7:50 illegal or not illegal doesn't mean it's
7:52 morally right or wrong. Um, and in this
7:54 case, what I did was morally wrong. Then
7:56 I continued to say, I mean, once you get
7:58 lawyers involved, it's kind of silly as
8:00 it costs much, much more than the video
8:02 actually makes. I am from Canada and not
8:04 Australia. So, let me know what you are
8:06 thinking. Nice to hear from you and not
8:08 a lawyer. Have a good one. Now, here's
8:10 what I didn't realize is I was still
8:12 talking to a lawyer. And you will see
8:14 more of that in the next email. Now, she
8:16 goes on to explain that this is
8:18 YouTube's air and then declines
8:19 everything that I just said, paying her
8:21 for the video. It appears as though she
8:23 didn't even listen to what I actually
8:26 offered in the previous email. Um, just
8:28 giving me some veiled threats about
8:30 using the video being up as an
8:31 opportunity and things like that. I
8:33 finished off the email chain by saying,
8:34 "Hello again. You seem really upset
8:37 about this. As I said before, I can take
8:39 it down for you. Good luck with
8:40 everything else." I just assumed that
8:42 she was going to continue to threaten me
8:45 with various legal things like suing me,
8:47 for example. Um, so I took down the
8:49 video as I promised I would as soon as I
8:50 realized it was back up. still offered
8:53 to pay her money and we are where we are
8:55 today. So again, from the very
8:56 beginning, I was in the wrong here. I
8:58 knew that and immediately offered to
9:00 take it down and make things right. Um,
9:02 I believe that is the right thing to do
9:04 and I wish that conversation could have
9:06 been had between me and even Bad Wolves
9:07 Gaming right away instead of just
9:09 throwing a lawyer into the mix and
9:12 everyone getting confused. Now, again,
9:13 this doesn't take away from anything I
9:15 did. Taking her gameplay and taking her
9:17 B-roll is without permission, without
9:19 credit, absolutely not okay. I've said
9:21 that from the very beginning. I will
9:22 never be doing that again and I will
9:24 make sure of it. But now all the chips
9:25 are on the table. You've seen the
9:27 emails. You've seen the conversations.
9:29 You know what happened. I filled you in
9:31 completely. I really don't think there's
9:33 any reason to talk about this anymore.
9:35 You do something wrong. You try to make
9:37 it right. And yeah, it's going to
9:39 happen. Everyone does things wrong from
9:41 time to time. You have to learn from
9:42 them. And you have to be better because
9:44 of it. And I will be. And if anything,
9:46 the good thing to come of this is that
9:47 my videos and all the videos you'll see
9:50 coming forward on this channel will be
9:51 better because of it. And that's all I
9:53 can vow to you guys is to make sure to
9:55 do that and apologize to even Bad Wolves
9:57 Gaming. Once again, if you would like to
9:58 get in contact, we don't have to do all
10:00 of this through videos. You do have my
