>>1987863 I'm convinced that it's an intricate false flag set up either by Disney and various other corporations, or something they're intentionally turning a blind eye to.
Back in the early 90s when they didn't even have a website, Disney sued a Day Care in bumblefuck Florida for having a mural of their characters inside, they take down reviews of their cartoons which don't even use clips, they've taken down unrelated videos where people wear a shirt with Mickey on it. All within hours of posting. They spend millions trying to make people who sue them for legit reasons (groping, being accused of shoplifting despite having receipts) look frivolous. All in the interest of "making sure our copyright/image is protected and no one illegally profits from our characters".
And yet they do nothing against this shit? This shit which actually does use their characters in a disrespectful way AND is making big bucks off of them. You can't say that these channels aren't making enough to matter, as they have more views than all but the most popular YouTube videos of all time (and rival even some of those) and are monetized. You can't say that they're respecting the maker's Fair Use since they've taken down thousands of fan videos/reviews which fall within Fair Use.
Now here's the thing: The reason copyright law keeps being amended to longer time periods is precisely because of Disney wishing to retain control of Mickey Mouse. Look it up. Some of their other characters are also getting ready to enter the public domain. I don't think it's it unreasonable to assume that the reason they're allowing/funding this is so that in a few years, they can use these videos as an example of what happens if they aren't allowed to keep tighter control of their properties. It's not unlikely that other businesses (Like Marvel, who are owned by Disney) are thinking the same thing.
