We’re in this together! Stay safe with our COVID-19 guide

View
×
Developed in part with a grant from
the National Science Foundation

Adam y.

4 Level 4 Contributor
  • 31 Reviews
  • 34 Helpful Votes
  • 0 Thank Yous

Experience: Computers & Technology, Art & Design, Business

Member since April 2017

  • Reviews

    31

  • First Reviews

    18

  • Thank Yous

    0

  • Fans

    0

  • Profile Views

    1,628

Review Distribution

31 Reviews by Adam

6/1/20
If you ignore all the good songs made or published by this person, you'll find something disturbing about this person. He is one of the people that wanted the US to have draconican copyright laws much like the MPA (previously the MPAA) and the RIAA. He's an arrogant temperament man- oops I mean kid (because he acts like a spoiled kid, despite his age is 72!! He was born in 1947 for f*cks sake! So he hasn't man up throughout 72 years) over even small uses of copyrighted works. Attacking fair uses of works and acting babyish over that he "owns" everything he makes even ones that were made before he made it.

Just look at this: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=don+henley and you'll see he is attacking artists, people using words that is used in the common language BEFORE any of his lyrics were created

The most recent article (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/*******612/midst-pandemic-widespread-unrest-senate-republicans-think-time-to-use-copyright-to-make-richest-musicians-richer.shtml as of now) made this excuse:

[Not because I don't like parodies or satires of my work. But it's simply a violation of U.S. copyright law.]

Which means he wanted to nuke stuff on the internet for no other reason just to be a copyright police without any legitimate reason.
9/27/19
Nobody wishing to create a website should accept a zero-tolerance DMCA policy by a host that would expect websites to be perfect at preventing copyright infringement and being expected to voluntary to remove them without a DMCA notice. Any website that allows posting can be abused for piracy, and owners cannot monitor all files at once to make sure they are compliant with the law (especially if there are tons of users). A tolerance this low means this company deserves to go bankrupt or change their policy for forcing web owners to do something impossible.

According to this techdirt article: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190927/*******076/adland-shuts-down-after-web-host-complies-with-bull$#*!-dmca-notice.shtml , Adland had to shut down due to a response of this server host when receiving a DMCA notice from Bridgestone Tires. Instead of locking up the site and unlocking once the DMCA notices are followed, they would rather perma-ban this site off their network, stating they must migrate to a new server within 24 hours. This is just *ONE* DMCA notice, and this host is sensitive to this.

Screw this "self-copyright-enforcement" on how they deal this "repeat-infringer policy"- oh wait, it isn't a repeat policy, its a zero-tolerance.

This is like instead of getting 3 copyright strikes on youtube to get you banned, just getting ONE now gets you banned.

Just to warn you, not all DMCA notices are true, as they can be sent in error, in an attempt to censor, and rarely, to extort people.

This is one of the "above the law" "voluntary" enforcement actions by companies thinking that liability and pressure should be increased in their own hands:
-Google banning "kodi" from the search term because it was "associated with piracy". Kodi, itself is completely legal. Funny that so far to now, Youtube have tons of videos on getting Kodi addons that facilitate piracy, and not many are taken down by youtube.
-ProFreeHost bans any and all "torrent" files even when they are not infringing copyright.

These companies are overly-chilled (chilling effect).

Tip for consumers: This hosting company is too strict with DMCA notices, if your site lets user post anything (even if it only accepts posting text, because a string of text can represent data, including from a copyrighted media), your site is still at risk of this company threatening you to leave, even if the DMCA notice is flat out wrong. Boycott this host as it is an unstable place for your website to live in.

I guess this hosting company does not understand how the internet works to address DMCA notices.

8/10/19
Imagine in real life you're going to a store. Suddenly you get kicked out because you have these that are prohibited:
-Wearing clothing that have pockets.
-Bags, including purse and backpacks.
because those are used to conceal goods for shoplifting. You are also not allowed to walk any faster than 1 MPH (1.47 FT/SEC)

This is what disabling right-click AND disabling pressing (not rolling) the scroll wheel feels like. Seriously, pressing the scroll wheel have no "copying" function whatsoever, all it does is allow continuous scrolling and that's it. The only other use of a scroll wheel is to open a link in a new tab.

This is one of the sites that are overzealous and arrogant butthurt of unauthorized use. This puts gmarket.co.kr to shame because at least that site lets you use continuous scrolling, and only have the DRM to restrict rightclick applies to the items page and not anywhere else.
8/4/19
-This organization is a draconian copyright supporter: SOPA supporter, Destroying abandonware, and tries to protest many of the important exemptions of the DMCA about circumventing DRM.

-Supporter of Microtransactions. Not only they are trying to justify loot boxes in video games to not be government-regulated, according to a torrentfreak article: https://torrentfreak.com/esa-reports-pirate-bay-rom-sites-and-cheaters-to-the-us-govt-181003/ they have the UTTER NERVE to enforce against cheating to bypass microtransactions, (different from how EPIC and T2's reasoning to sue cheaters, since that is for multiplayer):

"In this section of its report, the ESA highlights threats to "free-to-play" games that generate revenue from micro-transactions, advertising, and subscriptions. Unauthorized third-party private' servers allow users to play such games, bypassing the original revenue model and stopping publishers from monetizing their content."

Microtransactions in video games are often designed to exploit players and make the game worse on purpose and selling off the in-game items to improve the experience in the process. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNjI03CGkb4 they rely on "creating a problem and selling the solution", For example, a "free-to-wait" mechanic in mobile games (forcing you to wait or pay up), grind walls in $60 games (make you do repetitive tedious tasks like killing enemies if you choose not to pay up). Its like going to a grocery store, to find that the floors are dirty, items on shelves not organized, on purpose and to have those fixed, you, the consumer have to pay extra.

If games are too expensive, they should've sell the game at a higher base price and not rely on "player's choice" on secondary purchases. These game companies rely on, "whales" people willing to spend a lot of money on a game. There are people out there with disabilities, addics and other issues that makes them susceptible to such business practices. News articles broke out about kids spending their parent's bank accounts and others going broke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14 .

This sounds frighting enough, until news broke out around the beginning of August 2019 that they doxxed 2000s of people's personal information at the E3, including home addresses, phone numbers, and full names out into the public that is the internet. It's as if they are trying to compete with Facebook, Equfax, and Capitol One to see who is the worse in trying to protect individual's information. Many of these 2000s are game journalists and even ones who make youtube videos criticizing the game industry.

You know that such information shouldn't be out in the public, because there are malicious people who disagree with others, and would rather stalk and attack them physically. They've been swatting, and having your home address is enough for them to target you. Therefore, the ESA's mishandling of this put many people who signed into the E3 in danger.

Tip for consumers: You should be weary of big organizations run by corporations that have terrible history of their practices. If you are attending E3 in the future, please reconsider.

5/6/19
This company, much like:
-When reddit deleting forms labeled "piracy" when the vast majority is talking ABOUT piracy (which that alone is legal) on the subreddit.
-When Google banning the term "kodi" on their search query under the excuse it is associated with piracy, despite that tool being completely legal.

There are reasons why going beyond what is legally required is a bad idea, voluntarily enforcements against legal things is a terrible measure. "Oh just in case we get yelled at by copyright holders", nope, just nope. This company is too afraid to step ANYWHERE closer to the boundaries of the law and resort to banning users who even submits an open source software that aids torrent download (its legal if you download public domain works or works that aren't under copyright).

This behavior is what happened to Bram Cohen on Libtorrent: https://torrentfreak.com/hosting-company-suspends-account-over-open-source-bittorrent-software-190504/. Its better to go to a hosting site that does not enforce its own rules more than legally-required as a "preventive measure" to avoid legal trouble.

Just stay away from this site, with the voluntary enforcements like this, I can imagine if they are too open to attack stuff and users in the name of "more-than-legally-required copyright enforcement".
3/17/19
While I liked the service, but I do not like their overly-cautious policy that they edit your review (often censoring certain phrases and even links by replacing things with "****") for their "Any privacy rights", as that is too inclusive since even mentioning a person's name that is known to the public gets revoked.
12/6/18
There is no such things as sucessful automated filters. False positives and negatives are bound to happen. Robots only know what they programmed to do, they don't understand context, and are not self-aware.

You probably have herd about the European Union's article 13 that forces major websites to employ an automated copyright filter to prevent people from uploading infringing material to websites. Youtube have done a similar thing before this happened but merely notifies copyright holders instead of proactively taking down what's potentially legal content. And yes automated takedown themselves also exist, ToppleTrack went haywire due to a bug.

While telling if something is copyright infringement is easier for most cases, due to the fact that it compares with a databases that copyright holders are welcomed to prohibit unauthorized distributions there (via matching-based data hashes), it is much harder to try to tell if something is pornographic or not, due to a sheer number of ways to represent inappropriate stuff and this isn't matching base, so it doesn't compare with anything.

The result: Tumblr ends up flagging TONS of posts that have nothing to do with "Adult Content", images of dragons, dogs, and even abstract art with no "characters" in it (here: http://dailyrothko.tumblr.com/post/*******506/not-to-pile-on-here-but-this-doesnt-look-exactly) ends up in the wrong. You really can't trust robo-police here.

Is it enough that most websites require you to be at a certain age to even create an account. Why is it that most places, like apple's (the same company who made proprietary closed-platform in which they can decide what app can run on their devices) app store forbid porn altogether (regardless of the age of the viewer). This is overzealous censorship. We all know that parents are smart enough to prevent their kids from seeing such stuff on the Internet, there are parental controls at almost every services and systems (game consoles, google's safesearch, etc.).

Tumblr you should've done these things:
-Do something similar to how art sites censor for minors. No joke, if you are going to make changes to your policy, at least you would've done is to make existing post compatible with future changes. Something like a checkbox to notify the system to only display works towards older audiences.
-You should've made a no-porn policy when you were creating the website. But you decided to welcome them and then brake your promise.

Congratulations: you've lost a lot of your users. And also, screw apple, companies and other services who pressured tumblr to a censorship blogging place. It's another photobucket incident that images are disappearing (ESPICALLY for inactive users, which can be deleted forever).
6/23/18
Internet Archive is basically a website back-upper. Content on the internet cannot last forever. A prime example is when web pages for news content gets deleted. Sometimes, your favorite article may be the victim and suddenly vanish.

Don't get me wrong when it is used for copyright infringment, copyright holders can simply ask to exclude the site.
6/23/18
While the site does permit removing logins if its a legitimate issue (pay per view), add/change post content, etc. there are countless times where websites ask guests to login to view stuff such as links or in the worst case, the entire page being behind a "login-wall".

These types of practice are just for advertising to spam people's emails. Not to mentioned that they cannot be archived with 3rd party sites like the internet archive since the archiver is a robot.
3/22/18
In 2011-12, along with the MPAA, TV companies, some cable companies (like Comcast), its the team who supported the controversial SOPA/PIPA bill. Along with supporting perfect 10 against the fight with giganews (and perfect 10 lost tremendously), this company HATES liability limitations. It wants to be the person who sues anyone who manufactures knifes just because people can use them to murder others.

If that is not enough, they have a long history of assuming people are pirates, from assuming that if you get pop-ups and viruses (malware), its piracy: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/02/riaa-parents-pop-ups-viruses-piracy. Soo, is news sites piracy then? Because they have such crap on their sites. How about trying to force radio makers to have DRM on them: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/riaa-trying-copy-protect-radio. To suing many families. This one is a huge copyright troll. In simple terms, they are one of the copyright maximalist who is afraid of anything that is innovation and thinks that its innovations for pirates.
3/6/18
...Thought it would be a good idea to extend the attacks towards people that don't pirate at all.

"How do I stop this infection? How about use a nuclear bomb to kill everything in sight?"

They are NOTORIOUS for trying to create a handful of new copyright enforcement tools (more specifically, laws, crappy DRM) which ALL of them have dangerous side effects that nobody ever wants besides any copyright maximalist who think its a good idea to add more restrictions, enforcement, and even monitoring to users. From annoying FBI warning screens (in this modern age, you cannot skip) to requiring certain devices they don't own to have DRM on it (such as television flags), this organization has it all:

*SOPA (and its clones, including PIPA) supporter. In a nutshell, they wanted to make sites punished more easily just because it has infringing content, rather than a notification before a takedown if the site owner doesn't obey when it is in fact infringement.This goes without saying that safe harbor is bypassed should this bill passed into law. When I mean sites being punished, I mean that any copyright holder can simply send a notification to payment network providers, advertising services and any other groups to stop supporting the site that is flagged for infringement, WITHOUT ANY PROOF. This comes before the victim of the attack have to proof that they're not supporting piracy. So the damage to the site is already done. Along with Viacom (yes, another copyright maximalist who f*cked youtube along with false takedown to any reviewers like they are being above the copyright law) and others who previously try to pass the COICA bill, they have the NERVE to try again on a similar law enforcement tools all over again. If you fail to succeed, DON'T try try again. They wait no time to attack. Treating online service providers or anything else that is abusable for piracy like slaves is egregious.

-Of course, members of the MPAA was Universal Pictures and Walt Disney Company, who got into a fight with sony (Not sony pictures, just sony) for releasing a video tape titled "Betamax" in 1984. Find more on "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc." and thank god that Sony didn't lose the battle. They are afraid that if a tool that is often used for piracy, they will try to take it down for liability just because it enabled them to do so. This is an example they trying to be against fair use.

They're slogan "don't talk and don't record" (can't remember exactly) pretty much tells me that the first two words is censorship, for the Internet under the name of copyright enforcement. This organization represents the crumbling, corrupted, corrosive form of copyright. They hated safe harbors the same way they hated piracy, up to where people would like to use content in creative ways that doesn't harm a copyright holder's revenue. This is the complete opposite of what copyright intended to do: "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." More like "To promote dictatorship, monopoly, and relying on extremism by combating freedom of speech".
2/20/18
This company is a stealth police car, equipped with X-ray cameras, to see anyone what they are doing if they think it is suspicious. Your house is basically made out of glass, this is how they can see what are you doing.

Im okay if DRM would do something creative (like the video game earthbound that increases the enemy spawn rate, and other things), and I understand that piracy is harmful, but this vigilante-like malware DRM like this is like having excessive surveillance in private places. Anti-piracy, more like anti-privacy. Even if the DRM was perfect, no consumer would like to have a potentially abusive copyright enforcement on their machines in a matter similar to leemena's fangame "sonic gather battle", and the fact that DRM can be exploited by actual malware writers the way it happened with Sony BMG rootkit.

It was discovered that the DRM have a google chrome password dumping tool named "test.exe" that steal passwords should the software's serial number check fails (use to verify if the user is a pirate or not). Should it flags that the user is a pirate, it sends the password information to this company just for investigation of the user.

This is not a fake exe made by vigilante 3rd parties who support copyright-maximal-ism enforcement, this is an OFFICIAL COMPANY who place this digital rights malware on their software, for ALL downloaders regardless if the user was a pirate or not. Guess what, you can make excuses that it only runs if the user is in fact a pirate, but it is UNACCEPTABLE the fact that is INCLUDING this in the software that users download.

As time goes on, we keep seeing more and more disgusting enforcement over copyright going out of their way against users legally using content. These sh!theads want even more rights than copyright can take a hold on the use of a product, from copying a content under fair use, to preventing use in unauthorized countries (example: new zeeland crappy companies like MediaWorks, Spark, Sky Network Television, and TVNZ are enforcing this copyright region licensing against VPNs), to prevent modification, tampering, editing and even repairing a content, and now trying to make it mandatory for sites to use automated filtering system a similar way how youtube takes down videos. Now we're in an age where anyone who dare violates any of these obnoxious, stupid, anti-consumer, f**ked up, vomiting, co*ksu***ng, bullsh!t policies restrictions could be legally punished? It's like they're trying to be above the copyright law than actually following how copyright actually works.

EDIT of June 10, 2018:

On JUNE 4, 2018 they've done it again. This time they are even more similar to how Sony used malware: using deceptive file names to try to look like legitimate software to try to "trick pirates" into thinking not to delete that file. The software in question: cmdhost.exe is equivalent to Sony's "Plug and Play Device Manager", just for "authentication" purposes. It was on Torrentfreak article about flightsimlabs: https://torrentfreak.com/flight-sim-company-threatens-reddit-mods-over-libellous-drm-posts-180604/. The file itself isn't a virus or malware, rather a "dummy" file to be used by an exe to do things that malware would, called "system hollowing": https://youtu.be/v6gu8HCMrTo?t=196.

Whats worse, is the company itself. They're censoring their forums to hide what they were caught doing and now trying to bully outside sites like reddit to "take down these DRM criticisms or we will sue you for libel" as an attempt to prevent anyone from knowing about their own tactic.

F*cking. distasteful. If I criticize a store for installing HIDDEN cameras IN THE TOILET, I should not be under the influence of the store policy saying "you cannot disclose our security system".

We're already in the time where the EU is now planning to have the worst draconian copyright enforcement in the planet of mankind. Demanding mandatory content ID to be on all internet platforms, removing safe harbors, pretty much SOPA 2.0.

Tip for consumers: Go get a better flight simulator software, not this one. Its Sony BMG but with a flight simulator instead of music.

2/19/18
According to a Wikipedia Article regarding the AACS Key controversy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy

They removed the link to "Digg-it" on their blog because:

"Until the Digg community shows as much fervor in attacking intellectual piracy as attacking the companies that are legitimately defending their property, well, we do not want to be promoting the site by using the "Digg It" feature."

Guess what, it isn't a crime to have people posting "infringing" decryption keys on website when the webowner AT LEAST tried to remove such content. Not to mention, how is content (which is often digital content such as software) on a DVD used as piracy even related to this company who specializes manufacturing? WHAT THE HECK?!?

Also, this company is a SOPA supporter, so this company is not worth supporting then. F#ck off.
2/18/18
When I was searching for any images on google, I've noticed 2 buttons were missing. I looked it up and they are the one to blame for removing the "View Image" and "Search by image" buttons on Google.

Many news sites mentions gettyimages doing this because their images gets stolen (a.k.a pirated) or that users access the content without the ads.

2 reason why these reasons to remove the buttons are pathetic:

-The image displayed on google images are basically hotlinks to the original source (which is how google image main function), thus users can still pirate using google images by right-clicking on the image and using browser addons. And no, asking google to remove rightclick won't work, I already explained that sites like Benitaepstein did that and nobody would ever wanted to visit a website that have DRM.

-You know, people can still evade ads not only by direct accessing the image (as in, going to the image's URL itself), but also (obviously) using ad blockers. Have you ever herd of using ad block detection?

This is the stupidest move I've ever seen. It is nothing more than adding more clicks to use a great image service; downgrading google images. Why can't they just have images that are full resolution behind a robots.txt or 403 forbidden on the actual image and the watermarked downgraded version available for public? And yes, I said "google images", not specifically images from gettyimages displayed on Google that the buttons were kicked.

This isn't the only turd they drop, there is one that is still coming out of this company's arse (and it's a long one that clogged the toilet that even a plunger couldn't fix): Threat letters. I have mentioned on this article that this company complains about it's images being stolen and they go out of their way of screwing legitimate things over. They have a long history of sending "demand letters" coercing and even intimidating many site owners that their users is uploading images without their permission. I said demand letters, not DMCA notices, meaning they do not use takedown notices kindly asking them to remove the content without any liability incurred. This is basically the ransom version SOPA/PIPA, these enforcement that goes against the safe harbor liability limitations provisions.

Totally not worth to even go to their site (other than to visit their site with maximum ad blocking protection (to make them lose revenue), page source editing prank to make people think gettyimages is even *******@ppier, and sending hate mail to the CEO). After giving google image users and web owners the middle finger for allowing image piracy, this company should be publicly shamed by all users on the internet.

2019/3/12 update: Oh look: https://torrentfreak.com/100s-of-rightsholder-groups-urge-eu-parliament-to-adopt-the-copyright-directive-190312/ (I cannot use certain characters such as left/right quotation marks here thanks to this site's text handling system):

[The full list of supporters includes popular names such as Thomson Reuters, The Independent, the Association of Independent Music, *Getty Images*, PRS for Music, SACEM, Eurocinema, and many, many others.]

Thats right, Just as I was expecting. If Gettyimages was in the US during 2011-12 they WOULD support SOPA. If you are too lazy on what is Article 13 in the EU, in simple words, its a "Notice and Staydown" provision aimed at crippling the safe harbor provision. Sites will be held liable if an infringing material happens to be re-uploaded after being taken down. This explains why people are complaining that this would lead to automated system to detect a match like youtube's ContentID system, but takes down content instead of monetization.
Jasrac.or.jp
12/26/17
Okay, according to some Japanese articles, they oppose the making and distribution midi songs of a copyrighted song. To me, that's unnecessary, because it is possible to make derivative works even by making songs with your voice, and also can teach some people how music patterns work. Its like anti-fan music. A midi file is like a source code of a software, but without illegally hurting businesses (legitimate use).

If that isn't enough, they wanted to collect copyright fees on schools too. Therefore rendering schools more expensive. It's already bad enough that textbooks with a passcode for online version REQUIRES you to pay money to register this key should you rent the textbook (therefore, violating the first sale doctrine).
12/17/17
EDIT: actually, it isn't ad-related problem, the website actually got hacked. Visiting that website redirects to bad sites that can infect your PC, stay away until this is resolved (indicated by google search result).

Edit: website now fixed. All good.
12/8/17
Look at this: https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/05/16/how-telecoms-and-cable-have-dominated-net-neutrality-lobbying/

They want your experience to be:
-slow site loading
-Block sites THEY don't like, regardless if the site is legal, safe, etc. The same inconvenience in school and public places that uses web-filtering (or content control software) to censor sites. This is basically internet dictatorship.
-Charge you extra money for unlimited access. This is equivalent to freemium games, where the gameplay is restricted by "timer walls" in which you either have to wait a period of time or spend money to remove the restrictions. When a good thing is deliberately downgraded just to FORCE you to pay money to enjoy it. Same goes to shareware/crippleware screencasting software, which they do things like crappy watermark to harass you to spend money (filmora did this crap).

In case if you don't know net neutrality, its basically a rule/law that ISP must treat all data in the internet the same, without any discrimination. So no blocking, no slowing, and no charging extra money based on the type of data in general. It's basically internet freedom.

Ajit Pai is an American attorney who formally worked with this company, and he had the NERVE to say:

"This is just evidence that supporters of heavy-handed internet regulations are becoming more desperate by the day as their effort to defeat Chairman Pai's plan to restore internet freedom has stalled. The vote will proceed as scheduled on December 14".

So he's saying that net neutrality is "heavy-handed internet regulations"?

Just F*ck you. That is the same as saying "Freedom of expression is a heavy-handed conversation regulations".

We need money too, being single sided on handling money is being outright selfish that you discriminate who talks and who gets censored, we're not in china, and no, we are not in NK. Don't turn the US into a censorship country like those, @$$holes.
12/3/17
Would you like to use a file hosting service that have a tendency of deleting your files? Then this is for you.

Across the Internet just before the approximate year 2012 or so, almost ALL links to dropbox files suddenly breaks and leads to error 404. This is not because the user purposely deleted them. This can be proven here:
https://smwc.me/871994 (if it was deleted on purpose, it would've state the reason)

This is a disgrace, almost as bad as the recent photobucket disaster when they changed their TOS to require $399/year to display images off-site. Again, if the user of Dropbox is inactive, there is no way for that to be fixed unless someone else has a backup available. Use google drive instead.

How can they do this? A site designed for backup and sharing your files (legally), now trashed and gone for good.

EDIT: it happened on March 15, 2017. They decided to remove public links and never admitted the reason why.
11/6/17
My review was late, but they use to be great in the past until they wanted more money out of a consumer's wallet. Give big thanks to alternative software that don't do this cr@p.

Basically on May 5, 2013 Adobe decided to make their software only available as "software as a service" rather than selling it as a product from a store. This means you don't actually own it, but renting it. The only good thing I can say about this is that it cost $10 at the cheapest, but as everyone knows, monthly payments will eventually be more expensive than just what you're buying if they were to allow it.

Imagine if you can only rent laptop and not buy it, that would be terrible.
11/5/17
This train wants to crash into other youtubers for containing songs even if played in the background. This is equivalent to celebrity fights, He is basically Jessica Price (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q50oy4-UJM) in terms of passive-agressive and giving the public the middle finger.

I'm not blaming bandcamp at all, bandcamp is good. I'm looking at an horrendous, pugnacious, death threatening, perjuy-est musical artist named Alex Tomas Mauer. Blame part of it on youtube for allowing this.

This user is chiptune music maker who made music for Star Mazarr DSP, River City Underground, and many others. According to SidAlpha on youtube, this user decided to go to war with youtube containing gameplay of video games containing any of his music from the game itself, regardless how small it contains its (transgender user) music, reflecting back on Lenz v. Universal on a video about a baby dancing to a Prince's song. It saddens me the most that youtube's DMCA system does not require proof of infringement, therefore, all you have to do is fill out an application and thats it. I'm pretty sure that the agreement for musical artist to have their musics in video games states that you cannot take down game footage of any kind for any reason.

To top it all off, before the user closes its site, it decided to have the cost of the vaganox to be $1000 to buy it. That's criminal. This user had the nerve to anger its fans to not buy its stuff again.

Combine that behavior with even hitting a police in one of the documents, this user is never going to be a composer ever again for a company.

What this user could've done is have somebody help him out when signing in agreements, many people says this user have mental issues, and that to understand how the offical copyright ststem works. She cannot control how copyright works, she can copyright hisworks but not have more restrictions past the limitations and exceptions of it.

I think his works diserved to be pirated

Tip for consumers: This person is extremely dangerous, treat her like how Sony BMG's decision to use DRM malware to infect user's PC. Boycott her, just stay away.

Adam Has Earned 34 Votes

Adam Y.'s review of Rayfile earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Tumblr earned 5 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of Filmora.wondershare earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Dropbox earned 3 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of theesa.com earned 2 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of Motion Picture Association of America - MPAA earned 2 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of Jasrac.or.jp earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Adobe Systems earned a Great Find vote

Adam Y.'s review of MediaFire earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of National Association Of Manufacturers earned 2 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of Photobucket earned 6 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of Internetarchive.org earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Comcast earned 2 Very Helpful votes

Adam Y.'s review of RIAA earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Viacom earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Flightsimlabs earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of GettyImages earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Adobe Systems earned a Very Helpful vote

Adam Y.'s review of Photobucket earned a Well Said vote

Adam hasn’t received any thanks yous.

Adam doesn’t have any fans yet.

Adam isn’t following anybody yet.

Similar Reviewers on Sitejabber

bernicet6
4/29/20

The Better Business Bureau AND MOSTLY ALL of the so called " consumer advocate " agencies are...

richardd195
3/14/20

I have mentioned this before on this website about online review site in general and NOW I am...