>>10413>>10413As far as I can tell, no serious threats have been made, and no legal action is going to be taken. However, plagiarism is more akin to libel or slander in that the main crime is lying which damages a person's reputation (although this is incidental to plagiarism). For "IP theft" the issue is not lying (whether outright or by omission) about w/e, but merely using an idea, a recording, etc.
>>10416>but over intellectual property ownershipSource?
>fictitious capitalsThat's not what fictitious capital means
>exclusive rights of value extraction "from their ideas™"That's not how Youtubers make money. They make money either through advertisements (which are a form of brainwashing mostly targeted on wealthier workers, professionals, or management) or through a gift economy, which is unironically communistic (although this is somewhat subverted through waged laborers), or some combination of these. The only "value extraction" is of whatever waged (or otherwise compensated) laborers worked under the group, although since under Marxism, the whole operation doesn't even produce value, even this doesn't make any sense.
You can say he's arguing for the exclusive rights to beg for money with the backing that they actually wrote what they wrote I guess? But this is the same as arguing for not lying. Maybe you could also say he's arguing for exclusive rights to gain from advertising, but as far as I recall he doesn't mention mirroring videos, which would be the relevant case (if he was against this, this would cross my line).
>campaigns for youtube to give stronger intellectual property rightsOnce again, source? at 3:38:38 he seems to state the exact opposite
>petty-bourgeoisiePeople hate the upper middle class so fucking much that they keep on pretending that they're part of a non-working class in the Marxist sense even when there's 0 evidence that they are. A group that mostly consists of people who don't have any capital, don't sell any products, and don't employ any labor are "petty-bourgeois" apparently because
1. The successful ones are rich
2. They're annoying liberals (even if they say they aren't you know better, don't you?)
3. The ones you hate come from "rich" (upper middle class to middle middle class) backgrounds, which you despise either because you came from one too and hate your family and peers, or because you grew up poor and they seemed rich to you because actually rich people segregate themselves to such an extent that they're invisible to poor people's resentments.
Call them what they actually are: semi-independent service workers. They do the bidding of capital in a problematic way to the extent they advertise, but otherwise there is little structurally wrong with them (at least in comparison to the actual petty-bourgeiousie).
>The "content" is not a source of value, or research, but of mass waste.Value isn't a moralistic category for Marx you fucking dilettante.