"Well, for a start, hypocrisy does not invalidate an argument."
Sometimes it can.
"I eat meat but I still preach against animal farming."
Practice what you preach. That hypocrisy does hurt your case as a preacher trying to persuade others.
" As far as I'm concerned your channel is frequently breaking the law and profiting from it"
I think you're wrong. I think fair use and attribution add much nuance to the debate. I think I'm a benefit to them and give them traffic. Maybe if enough people share content and it get's exposure these sites will add a Steemit button alongside the existing buttons they have which endorse the behaviour of sharing a snippet with a link on social networks.
That's conjecture. They'd more likely make their own steemit account and post their own material. It's not nuanced when it says right there clearly that you may no use entirely or in part their material for commercial use. There's no getting around that with nuance.
The only exception I can think is what I do; contacting the authors and asking for permission (And that really could potentially lead to a little steemit button on some websites, who knows)
"It's not nuanced when it says right there clearly that you may no use entirely or in part their material for commercial use. "
That has disqualified you from trying to make any more points in regards to the law in my eyes. You've demonstrated a complete lack knowledge on the matter.
"The only exception I can think"
Your thought on the matter is myopic.
edit: I forgot to mention that your casting my words as conjecture is ironically hilarious. The way you fused conjecture into an accusation of conjecture on someone else is some next level shit.
ok