That's the bit that doesn't ring true to me, his "non-commercial" claim. I'm not at all suggesting that he deserves the treatment he's getting, but it doesn't seem like he's being entirely straightforward here. Can anyone who knows the law weigh in on whether I'm missing something about the distinction between 'commercial' and 'monetized via advertising'?
My sense from listening to him talk is that he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube, means that he's in the clear. I fear that this is not exactly how the law works, but I'm also not a lawyer.
>he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube
I don't see where he says that. He says he's never profited from selling other people's material. I think he considers putting up content for free with ads to not be selling content.
You are probably being more precise about what he said than I was, but I think the two claims are roughly isomorphic, and also roughly equally incorrect. If I use someone's song in my advertisement I didn't "profit from selling their material," but it's still a commercial use and they will succeed if they sue me or take down my ad.
