New "Request to Unlink" Question.

I am in Machinima a 3 year contract, if I request to unlink and within the 30 days if they do not answer my request, and I get automatically unlinked is it in violation of my contract term?

0210c0333685a887de072b321dc2698a.png

and when click Request to unlink.
26993d58006bfb464ec23f55e7d4ff84.png

Hi bro how did it work out for you? Did machinima respond or are you still waiting for an response? Or even better did you get unlinked? Would be interesting to know how it worked out for you so if possible pots it here ok?
 
I've joined machinima yesterday, didn't receive any e-mail, just notification on youtube, joined (stupid me?), now I want to unlink them, requested the unlink 10 minutes later, got the answer today saying no. I didn't receive any e-mail regarding contract and such. Should I be worried?
 
Liable for what? lol :p They're terminating their relationship with you if they're going to release you.

This is actually one of the more interesting queries that has been made of late. He's not wrong in asking the question. Every contract has terms for termination. If indeed Machinima screwed up and didn't notice the unlink request for 30 days, they certainly could make a case for relinking (if it ever went to court) because the unlink inside of YouTube is not one of the terms of the contract.

Now, they're not going to bother for a small channel, but from a legal perspective it is certainly plausible.
 
This is actually one of the more interesting queries that has been made of late. He's not wrong in asking the question. Every contract has terms for termination. If indeed Machinima screwed up and didn't notice the unlink request for 30 days, they certainly could make a case for relinking (if it ever went to court) because the unlink inside of YouTube is not one of the terms of the contract.

Now, they're not going to bother for a small channel, but from a legal perspective it is certainly plausible.
It's their duty to keep tabs on certain things within their MCN, like unlink requests, reference file conflicts, and disputed claims. If they are not properly operating their internal side, then I doubt a judge would side with them.
 
It's their duty to keep tabs on certain things within their MCN, like unlink requests, reference file conflicts, and disputed claims. If they are not properly operating their internal side, then I doubt a judge would side with them.

Doubt all you like. The judge will base the decision on what the contract says.
 
Doubt all you like. The judge will base the decision on what the contract says.
Neither is it one-sided. If the relationship isn't mutual, a judge isn't likely going to allow it to continue. None of us are trained in legal but it's common sense I'd say.
 
Neither is it one-sided. If the relationship isn't mutual, a judge isn't likely going to allow it to continue. None of us are trained in legal but it's common sense I'd say.

The determination of whether or not the relationship is mutual is defined by the contract. Yes, a contract can be invalidated by being dis-proportionally one sided. However we're not talking about that here, we're talking about a third party unlink button not mentioned in the contract becoming a forced termination button if the network for some reason doesn't deny it in time. As I mentioned, you will never see this court battle. If it ever did happen, it would be the biggest of channels involved only and what big channel is even going to use that stupid button. Still doesn't make it a legal request for termination as per ANY MCN contract I've read so far.
 
However we're not talking about that here, we're talking about a third party unlink button not mentioned in the contract becoming a forced termination button if the network for some reason doesn't deny it in time.
I brought it up because why else would someone use the unlink button unless they're unhappy with their relationship with the MCN at hand. Unless there are people who do it for the fun of it lol and yeah I realise we're talking theoretically :P
 
Back
Top