I understand that people feel that way, but in the end, it's their (intellectual) property and their right to act.
Let's concider a few things here, playing 'devils advocate'......
Some random person (illegaly) downloads/saves video material by the FOM/FIA.
They then use that material for their own purposes, whether that being positive or negative.
Said person invested nothing in that material and has no right to use that material especially since said person has
not either asked for permission of the use of that material, nor paid for it, whilst possibly other 'media' have, and paid much.
said person then uploads it to youtube, and gains viewers (and as such popularity) and even gains directly or indirectly financial benefit from that material through either views or sponsors.
Is that earned? No. is it theft? yes. Is it gaining financial benefit from theft? yes it very much is.
It is stealing. And it damages F1/FIA/FOM. Rules have to be maintained. So PERHAPS there's somebody who simply wants to emphesasise his favourite driver and posts only positive stuff. Still, it is, THEFT. No matter our opinion on it, it is, by definition, theft through piracy. But let's just think that FOM would 'allow' such a thing, fanboy exposure.
Now we have another 'youtuber' that makes a video that is (delibaretly) damaging in it's content and intent. Talking negative about drivers, about cars, about sponsors, about F1 in general, including politics, and very much LIES.
People still (will) watch this, so this person is gaining popularity (and exposure) and possibly financial benefit from this means, still stolen/pirated. What is our opinion now? That this is bad and FOM should act?
But on which base? it must be the same base, so there is no choice.
And lets concider that in this case, not only FOM/F1 gets damage, the sponsors very much too as people now link multi-million dollar investing brands with something negative (let's claim corruption) and people will act, and the sponsors will lose money. They discover/learn that it is through these means and have to end their F1 sponsorship.
The team loses their main sponsor and thus go bankrupt. Now we need only paydrivers.
See where this is going? All thanks to 1(!) attention-craving pirate, an entire brand can go bankrupt.
If you don't believe that, then i suggest you look up the interesting case of famous Dutch Beer brand 'Bavaria' and the Buckler product. It was an alcohol-free beer/lager and it got critically made fun of by a famous Dutch Comedian, and the beer brand had to discontinue the product as nobody wanted/bought it after being rediculed and they lost lots of money due to it, an entire product got discontinued by 1 person. 1 PERSON. There are youtubers around that have much more 'viewers' than that comedian EVER had in all his shows combined through his entire career. So imagine the seriousness of a medium like youtube, whether we like it and whether we think about it or not.
Point is, there must be some sort of control.
The Artist Formerly Known As Prince upheld a similar behaviour with his content appearing on youtube.
After all, it's more or less the same: people buy a product, then without permission upload something and other people 'pirate' that music without investing.
Let's make it personal:
You, or me, we either invent or invest in something unique, we trademark it to protect, and we have something that is ours. Then this random unknown person copies what we invested in without actually investing in it, without your/my permission, and gets views, paid, and popularity due to it and gains so much that he/she is able to influence your/my product.
it might look from time to time like there's a cannon aimed at a bug, a nuke at a spider, or a tank versus a bike.
but in the end, it's the only and correct decision to make. Whether we like it or not.
Last edited by Manoah2u on Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.