Exactly. Copyright infringement? He was reviewing handheld that came with ROMs which is the copyright infringement apparently?
I agree the title is fine because the whole reason why he was arrested because he was reviewing the handheld that had the games on them. That is making an argument out of nothing
It’s not pedantic. The title not only intentionally misrepresents the situation but it explains absolutely nothing. Reviewing hardware on YouTube is not a crime in any country to my knowledge, so how could he be arrested for it?
I agree, the title is literally false, just to get more engagement.
(If it was literal than any ads about such handhelds would be in the same category, not to mention YouTube as it allows this en masse.)
And this isn’t a comment abut the arrest (megacorps are always scumbags), just how “journalism” works nowdays.
It’s just a fact that the title could have easily explained why was he arrested - and it’s a fact that was omitted on purpose so that you have to click on it to see what the actual reason was (what potentially isn’t in accordance with the law).
(You don’t get the key info of the whole story until you pay for that info by clicking on the article so they get engagement monies.)
The most pedantic comment I’ve read all week. Title is fine
Exactly. Copyright infringement? He was reviewing handheld that came with ROMs which is the copyright infringement apparently?
I agree the title is fine because the whole reason why he was arrested because he was reviewing the handheld that had the games on them. That is making an argument out of nothing
It’s not pedantic. The title not only intentionally misrepresents the situation but it explains absolutely nothing. Reviewing hardware on YouTube is not a crime in any country to my knowledge, so how could he be arrested for it?
I agree, the title is literally false, just to get more engagement.
(If it was literal than any ads about such handhelds would be in the same category, not to mention YouTube as it allows this en masse.)
And this isn’t a comment abut the arrest (megacorps are always scumbags), just how “journalism” works nowdays.
It’s just a fact that the title could have easily explained why was he arrested - and it’s a fact that was omitted on purpose so that you have to click on it to see what the actual reason was (what potentially isn’t in accordance with the law).
(You don’t get the key info of the whole story until you pay for that info by clicking on the article so they get engagement monies.)
Is he reviewing the device, or is he reviewing the pirated games?
Dumbfuck.
I don’t understand the question. Which one of those is illegal?
Yeah that’s abundantly clear.