Fullscreen CEO Replies to George's Nonsense with Freedom.

[neno64]

Like I said people need to get and blame their own networks for making everyone an affiliate channel for no reason. If they really cared for their partners as they promoted themselves when they approached you to be with them they would not have made everyone a affiliate partner for no reason at all.

There is actually a very good reason why most channels were set to affiliated after the YouTube change. YouTube wants networks to be held more accountable for the copyright strikes they receive, and therefore if the network receives too many copyright strikes on managed channels, there are severe consequences.

At 10 copyright strikes across all managed channels, the network will no longer be able to invite anyone new. At 15 copyright strikes across all managed channels, all network partners will no longer be able to use live streaming or upload custom thumbnails. At 20 copyright strikes across all managed channels, all network partners will no longer be able to upload ANY videos.

And by the way when you join Freedom you agree a no lock in contact so if for some reason you don’t like what they do you can always leave..

George likes to say that he's not responsible for the actions of BBTV, but let's not forget that partner support for TGN was one of the main things that George was responsible for. I don't know these days, but it had to of been one of the worst supports for any network in history.

What do you think is going to happen when the network receives 20 copyright strikes across all their managed channels, and everybody is trying to get out all at the same time?

Again not prompting Freedom or something but wanted to point it out to people that are saying that Goerge may be laying or something.

Listen guys, George likes to use complicated marketing terms to try and confuse you and make you believe that what he's pitching actually makes sense. When George was running TGN, one of his biggest selling points at the time was that he had a payout of 80%, "the largest payout on YouTube." It turns out that 80% was actually closer to 49% and it was only when Athene, a large YouTuber, called TGN and George out on this percentage that George changed it to 100%. He claims he sat there and only resigned when he knew that BBTV was lying to its partners, but he didn't actually know that until he was called out for it. So the truth is that George had been lying to his partners for over a year before he submitted his resignation, if that's truly what he did in the first place.

Several times on this thread I have asked him what he plans to do when he receives too many copyright strikes. His response was: "Heartbeat is our internal control to monitor every video uploaded by our partners for copyright. This means, not only do I personally check every channel before accepting it as Managed, we continue to check every video as it gets uploaded by our partners." - George Vanous.
This actually says absolutely nothing about what their actual game plan is long-term. It simply a bunch of marketing mumbo-jumbo to try and distract people. In fact, the entire post containing this quote has no actual substance to it.

I then simply asked one of his partners who had come onto this forum to defend him, whether or not they were a managed channel. The channel in question was riddled with so many copyright problems, I don't see how anyone with even a basic understanding of copyright would allow that channel to pass.

I then questioned George on the legality of an underaged individual that run a network under freedom being able to sign a binding contract with either George or myself. He did not ever answer the question, his response was simply that I was "disparaging young entrepreneurs".

To partner with Freedom is to put your channel at risk of losing custom thumbnails, live streaming and the ability to upload videos for 3 months at a time.

George's only substantial selling point for his network freedom is that he's willing to give managed away, believing that he is somehow immune to the consequences of that action. Any YouTuber considering linking op to his CMS needs to seriously consider the fact that they will be locked in a network where they will no longer be able to upload videos or use custom thumbnails when freedom gets copyright striked out, is "managed" status that important to you?

 

[ShawnG]

@neno64 Look bro you just keep assuming that Freedom network is going to get copyright strikes and is going to be shut down no matter what. But you can’t predict what will happen so stop saying that if he gives people a managed status he is going to get the strikes as if its 100% clear or something.


There are networks that offered some partners managed status so you can also say that those networks are also at risk because they gave some people a managed status.


And about the reason that you are giving to why networks did all of this is not really relevant. I am just pointing out that networks don’t care to what will happen to their partners they only care of themselves. They could have just given people who did not have any copyright issues a managed status but they did not they just turned almost everyone to affiliate without asking them or without reviewing each channel separately and seeing who can be managed and who cannot.


I myself am with YouTube for like a said 3 years and have never had any copy strike issues but I am not managed so I am disappointed to not be managed considering I was always very careful and always went by the rules.


And I know all about the problems that TGN had back than but I am just giving George the benefit of the doubt because I think that if someone makes mistakes they learn from it and just go and do the right things afterward. Because why would he go and lie again and loose his network it doesn’t make sense. Because like I said he is offering a NO LOCK in contract so everyone can just leave if they don’t like the way he works. So I don’t think that he will risk all what he stands for by just lying to people because they can just leave when they see fit.

 

[Tarmack]

@neno64 Look bro you just keep assuming that Freedom network is going to get copyright strikes and is going to be shut down no matter what. But you can’t predict what will happen so stop saying that if he gives people a managed status he is going to get the strikes as if its 100% clear or something.


There are networks that offered some partners managed status so you can also say that those networks are also at risk because they gave some people a managed status.


And about the reason that you are giving to why networks did all of this is not really relevant. I am just pointing out that networks don’t care to what will happen to their partners they only care of themselves. They could have just given people who did not have any copyright issues a managed status but they did not they just turned almost everyone to affiliate without asking them or without reviewing each channel separately and seeing who can be managed and who cannot.


I myself am with YouTube for like a said 3 years and have never had any copy strike issues but I am not managed so I am disappointed to not be managed considering I was always very careful and always went by the rules.


And I know all about the problems that TGN had back than but I am just giving George the benefit of the doubt because I think that if someone makes mistakes they learn from it and just go and do the right things afterward. Because why would he go and lie again and loose his network it doesn’t make sense. Because like I said he is offering a NO LOCK in contract so everyone can just leave if they don’t like the way he works. So I don’t think that he will risk all what he stands for by just lying to people because they can just leave when they see fit.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Managed status is the network taking full and complete legal liability for the actions of the managed channel. YouTube can't get sued for what the channel puts up now because the network said they take responsibility for the channel content. It's not just about copyright strikes. The decision to put everyone on managed is a marketing ploy. No company that has any degree of intelligence would accept that kind of legal liability.

And of course if all partners are managed he will end up in a situation where he gets punished by YouTube. How could you actually believe otherwise? The larger a network gets, the more channels it has, the more potential for strikes occur. Getting 10-20 strikes in a 3 month period of time for networks with large numbers of channels is not only likely, it's nearly guaranteed.

You're disappointed that you aren't managed, but you don't even know what managed means.

 

[ShawnG]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Managed status is the network taking full and complete legal liability for the actions of the managed channel. Channel gets sued, that's on the network. It's not just about copyright strikes. The decision to put everyone on managed is a marketing ploy. No company that has any degree of intelligence would accept that kind of legal liability.

And of course if all partners are managed he will end up in a situation where he gets punished by YouTube. How could you actually believe otherwise? The larger a network gets, the more channels it has, the more potential for strikes occur. Getting 10-20 strikes in a 3 month period of time for networks with large numbers of channels is not only likely, it's nearly guaranteed.

You're disappointed that you aren't managed, but you don't even know what managed means.

Of course I know what that means if I did not I would hot have been dissipated would I. Like I said I am not saying that a network needs to set everyone to managed I am saying that a network needs to watch every channel and talk with their partners and see who can and cannot be managed. Because like I said I have never had any copyright issues but yet I am not managed while other people are who DID have that so. But they are only because e they have more than 100K subs and I don’t and I think it’s not fair to put people on managed only because they are big. This means that if a channel is big they can’t get a strike? Of course they can so.


And about George putting everyone to managed I think he said somewhere in this forum that he is not doing that he said that he will see who understands copyright and put only them to managed and not everyone so.

 

[Tarmack]

Of course I know what that means if I did not I would hot have been dissipated would I. Like I said I am not saying that a network needs to set everyone to managed I am saying that a network needs to watch every channel and talk with their partners and see who can and cannot be managed. Because like I said I have never had any copyright issues but yet I am not managed while other people are who DID have that so. But they are only because e they have more than 100K subs and I don’t and I think it’s not fair to put people on managed only because they are big. This means that if a channel is big they can’t get a strike? Of course they can so.


And about George putting everyone to managed I think he said somewhere in this forum that he is not doing that he said that he will see who understands copyright and put only them to managed and not everyone so.

Wait, so you don't think it should be based on size? So the channel with 100K subs that brings in thousands of dollars a month to the network, shouldn't get more attention than you? Wake up. You do not understand what managed is. You don't seem to grasp the concept of accepting legal liability for hundreds or even thousands of channels, people you don't know, have never met.

As for George commenting somewhere about not putting everyone on managed, that's the expected result. That's what snake oil salesmen do. They promise the world in the pitch, but the fine print is always different.

 

[neno64]

And about George putting everyone to managed I think he said somewhere in this forum that he is not doing that he said that he will see who understands copyright and put only them to managed and not everyone so.

I gave an example of a managed channel under George's network (from his own account) without even trying to go and hunt them down. A channel that clearly has no "understanding" of copyright.

 

[Luckylag360]

I gave an example of a managed channel under George's network (from his own account) without even trying to go and hunt them down. A channel that clearly has no "understanding" of copyright.

He cleary says in his videos he is partnering everyone managed and will be setting up affiliate soon[DOUBLEPOST=1389295853,1389295719][/DOUBLEPOST]

Wait, so you don't think it should be based on size? So the channel with 100K subs that brings in thousands of dollars a month to the network, shouldn't get more attention than you? Wake up. You do not understand what managed is. You don't seem to grasp the concept of accepting legal liability for hundreds or even thousands of channels, people you don't know, have never met.

As for George commenting somewhere about not putting everyone on managed, that's the expected result. That's what snake oil salesmen do. They promise the world in the pitch, but the fine print is always different.

He says it clear in his videos, Everyone will be managed but he will be launching affiliate soon for partners who dont understand copyright, Do your research

 

[Comedy Podcast Network]

The scariest part about all of this is Freedom! Network is lying about what it means to be "Managed / Affiliate". Monetization review won't start for months, being a 'managed' channel puts you at serious risk for copyright strikes that would have otherwise been 3rd Party Claims, and networks putting channels in an "Affiliate" CMS does not void their contracts.

 

[Luckylag360]

The scariest part about all of this is Freedom! Network is lying about what it means to be "Managed / Affiliate". Monetization review won't start for months, being a 'managed' channel puts you at serious risk for copyright strikes that would have otherwise been 3rd Party Claims, and networks putting channels in an "Affiliate" CMS does not void their contracts.

Actually it does void your contract and george is warning people about what will happen to affiliates and as a partner i dont want affiliate

 

[Tarmack]

Actually it does void your contract and george is warning people about what will happen to affiliates and as a partner i dont want affiliate

Thank you for signing up just to post in this thread and show that you have no idea what you're talking about. George's justification for the contract breach is far outside the realm of what any law office would advise. Indeed it lacks the basic logic of the use of the english language and it's clear he came up with it himself, not through any actual legal representation.

As for the launching affiliate nonsense happening later. If you really believe that somehow George has the ability to handle hundreds or even thousands of managed channels while ALL OTHER NETWORKS cannot, you go girl. But, if you'd like to take a step back from the situation and apply just a smidge of logic, you will see this for what it really is. An over-enthusiastic unrealistic pitch from a salesman who lied and harmed YouTubers during his tenure with TGN. He had magic then to persuade a huge number of gamers to sign up to what ended up being an outright scam in the form of 100% that was actually 60% revenue share. You don't get amnesty by saying "my boss told me to".