Retard#7822
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 11 Lut 2021
Infinitesimally small my dude. But don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Brian is delusional enough to believe we won't think it's him posing as a randy rando. It keeps shit interesting.
Holly Bone ("FuturisticHub") v. Wyde, et al (2021)
- Twórca wątku komedian
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Dołączono
- 12 Kwi 2020
Brian... You know damn well that YOU are the owner of FuturisticHub and not that skank. You just won't amit it.
- Dołączono
- 28 Sie 2018
Well, he isn't anymore because the court rightfully gave it to Moss.
- Dołączono
- 4 Paź 2017
3lamestudios is way better
- Dołączono
- 10 Lis 2015
It seems like Youtube could clear that up because they have the sign up information right? Maybe he shouldnt have sued Youtube because now they have an incentive to out him and Holly for perjury.
Leonard Helplessness
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 28 Lis 2018
Just as a quick reminder, these are the sorts of videos whose origination (made by Brian vs. by Holly) and ownership are being called into question.
Retard#7822
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 11 Lut 2021
In the zoom call hearing, the youtube lawyer basically said that signup info and current info on the channel doesn't really matter, as that can be changed at any time and you don't have to use your real name. He then proceeded to say that you have to follow the money, look at where the adsense money is going to, and that will tell you who actually owns the channels. To that affect, Brian is basically fucked, as there is zero percent chance that Holly had a bank account attached to FuturisticHub when she was 13. That being said, you never know what the boomers in the courtroom are going to decide, look at what happened to DSP lol.
pearlslam
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 13 Maj 2019
Absolutely. We do know that the whole "Holly owns the channel" bullshit line falls apart the very instant that the adsense is investigated. If given that fact, we might have Rule 11 sanctions involved, but I am not a lawyer.
EDIT to add: Adsense is completely and utterly discoverable, if Brian is still reading this thread. You're fucked for perjury on top of all of what is coming to you.
It amazes me how many people in here think they are lawyers or that their opinion matters. Brian most likely doesn’t read this and from what I have seen here the replies make no sense. What I have researched is Holly is the actual owner of the Futuristichub channel. George from Freedom verified that in the court file. The Adsense might not make a difference but I am willing to bet Holly has an Adsense linked to the channels of hers. I did notice she is with networks and the networks use their own Adsense not the channel owners. Seems many of you in here don’t understand how things work but I did look into this website and it appears to be a troll forum and not to be taken serious so there is that. I’m going to watch the case and I think Holly will win them all. That is my prediction.
Retard#7822
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 11 Lut 2021
Yes, not Brian, the adsense probably will make a difference. You heard the youtube lawyer say that in order to establish who the actual account owner is, you would have to "follow the money". Unless your wife has had her name on the adsense since the channels monetization, then she was probably not the original creator. Idk why you're still trying to keep this facade up, but we here in this thread appreciate it!
- Dołączono
- 16 Kwi 2019
>it amazes me how many people here think they are lawyers or that their opinion matters
>proceed to give opinion on legal matters
hmmmm
Ostatnio edytowane:
pearlslam
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 13 Maj 2019
Citation needed. Any autistic SOB would know that the channel's creation date is when she was a minor. Hell, look it up on Social Blade. I'll do you the added favor to attach it here:
Again Citation Needed. Holly is from the UK, no? Irrelevant to the country, YouTube's Terms of Service bars ANYONE 17 or younger from earning money from YouTube. (Original) (Archive) So unless she fesses up to LYING about her age at the time of the channel's creation (in which case monetization is removed from the channel anyway for the TOS violation), or she is LYING about the truth about the channel's owner.
Mild Powerlevel warning
Oh, but it does. It is in the YouTuber's best practice to create an Adsense account the moment that they open a YouTube account. I know of plenty of YouTubers who do this full-time, and they always recommend that you link your Adsense account to the YouTube account as soon as humanly possible. The fact that the channel was monetized LONG before Holly came on the scene suggests that she is indeed lying about the channel's origins.
Like I said I am not Brian. I am however defending them especially Holly who appears to be a victim here. You can say all you want it does not affect me and honestly this website is obviously for trolling and spreading lies about things so have your fun?
Nothing you say holds any weight. Holly is the owner and if you followed the case you’d see that holly owned her own house in the state of Texas which means she also did at some point live in the United States so don’t try and tell me your post is evidence when there is a mountain of evidence showing holly is in fact the owner and Brian was the manager and it appears he was helping holly with her channels. Also your reply about Adsense and YouTube account is actually another falsity. I will explain: if Hollys channel was created when she was 13 that makes it believable since I believe youtube allows people to create a channel at that exact age. Furthermore when you create YouTube channels in the past even for me I did not have to link any certain Adsense account if I joined a YouTube network. You do not use your own Adsense if you are in a YouTube network. I think you all just don’t want Holly winning her case and you continue to make up stories to make yourselves feel better but in the grand scheme of things none of your opinions matter in the case at all. The case is already being defended by Holly and her counsel now which if anyone tried to use this website and it’s opinions it would be laughed out of court. I think you all should focus on the facts and not the hate. I will say this again. Holly will win. Ive seen enough. Save your replies because they mean absolutely nothing at this point. It sounds to me like you all just don’t know how things work and you are making stories up. Well I guess that is what this website is all about huh? The law is clear. Holly is the owner and been confirmed no matter what by YouTube networks so nobody can just take that from her. That is not how it works and that is exactly why she sued Google YouTube and appears to be the same people who attacked her channels. Bursting all your bubbles but I came here for a debate that makes sense and instead I’m talking to a bunch of idiots who pull the law out of their asses. We don’t even know the whole story how holly owns or started her career so I’m not going to guess. In legal terms you are doing nothing but hearsay and that never holds up in any form of law. I might as well just leave. The replies I’ve seen here are so biased it’s not wonder nobody would take any of you people serious. Holly will win her case and I’m very sure the channels will return to her and she will be paid lots of rewards for the things that happened to her and her career. To those people who want to argue about how she runs her channel it is very obvious before she revealed her identity she referred her character Steve as Futuristichub and Steve is a fictional face of the channel and wild is supposedly The girlfriend of Steve. Anyone who wants to argue that has no idea how entertainment is ran on YouTube. Holly owns every channel and if she wants to role play her characters it is no ones business to argue her meaning behind her channels and businesses. Not even the law would be able to take that from her when you can not argue freedom of expression which I believe is a constitutional right and since this is fought in the United States I’d say her defense wins
Ostatnio edytowane:
Learn to multiquote and break down your litteral word salads with paragraphs. No way in hell I'm reading this trash.
You can call them names constantly and deflect any claim against your position, but their argument are compelling, yours are not.
"Wait and see"? While they list potential failures in raised argument, with screencaps and prior court judgements.
You can call them names constantly and deflect any claim against your position, but their argument are compelling, yours are not.
"Wait and see"? While they list potential failures in raised argument, with screencaps and prior court judgements.
If you can’t read everything then you have no business debating.
pearlslam
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 13 Maj 2019
I mentioned NOTHING about channel creation. MONETIZING that channel is a whole different ball game, which makes everything I said true you autistic fuck. I believe that my exact words were "Earning Money from YouTube". Nothing was stopping Holly from creating channels left and right. The fact of the matter is that YouTube, per their own Terms of Service bars anyone who is under 17 from making money off their channels.
This might require a being better than Mother Teresa to explain it to you. I know people who are YouTubers full-time. Any time you DO decide to make YouTube a full-time job, it is SMART business practice to link Adsense to your account ASAP. I never said anything about it being required.
Not true. The ONLY time that you don't use your Adsense account is when the person who owns the channel is the adult and the YouTuber is a minor. Are you making such a claim? It appears that you are. In either event, it is STILL a violation of the Terms of Service.
Circling back to this. I never mentioned ANYTHING about the channel's location when I presented the screenshot. In fact, I was referring to the Channel Age, which is perfectly relevant to this topic. 2012 would make Holly 13. Even if she DID create the channel here in the US, IF there is ANY sign that the channel was monetized when she was a minor, then that is a violation of Terms of Service. Bottom line.
You said defended. She's the plaintiff. Learn to use a dictionary.
Don't worry. I got enough of this sick fuck to know that he is Brian.
Leonard Helplessness
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 28 Lis 2018
My god it’s just “holly is the owner” again and again with nothing to back it up.
Read above under your paragraphs
I am not Brian. I am simply just defending Holly because of the evidence I’ve seen and I do not think the people attacking her will win. That is all and if Brian is reading this. You’re a weird person but I can see how this whole thing can get mixed up. Keep up the good voices and I think you are Steve right? Good luck Brian and Holly. Sorry to hear the problems.