Brave taking cryptocurrency donations “for me” without my consent

They are not taking cryptocurrency "donations" they are taking user contributions. If the creator doesn't want them then I, as a user, have agreed that they go into the "User Growth Pool". In my opinion I don't really care if the creator has signed up or not, as a consumer I have decided I would rather pay for content using Brave's system rather then being forced to use the incrediably intrusive and malicious tracking based ad system of the traditional web ecosystem. If a creator doesn't like it they can block me from watching their content. I will not subject myself to their abuse of my data.

The real issue here is that consumers are using the same tactics creators have used since the first ads appeared on the internet, and now the content creators are upset. If they don't like the new rules then block me, some sites have already done that with Ad Blockers and paywalls.

It’s no surprise that you’d ignore blatant copyright violation, misrepresentation, and abuse of personal data when you’re a fan of the project.

Except its none of those things. The courts have held that not subjecting yourself to advertisements is covered under the "Fair Use Doctrine". This is why Ad Blockers, Tracking blockers, or both are not only legal, but built into every single major computing platform. This is now taking that concept and allowing me to pay for things I like.

I would love to hear how you think Ad Blocking is blatant copyright violation, or how linking to content on the internet is misrepresentation.

I think ad blocking is fine. I don’t think you get to copy someone’s photo of themself and distribute it on your platform without asking them first.

You mean like how if you google for Tom Scott[1] Google will pull the public profile info for a number of platforms ( twitter, youtube, instagram, wikipedia, and his own website ) and post it right there for you to read ? That is how the internet works, Google does this while displaying ads and tracking not only what you search, but what links you visit and then selling that information to advertisers via their ad-sense platform. Tom will never see any of that revenue. When I go visit Tom's content I get to say if he would like he can take some of the money I have set aside to pay for content I like and he can have it. If he doesn't want it then he doesn't need to claim it.

Every time the status quo has shifted in advertising people have claimed its illegal and a violation of copyright, but the courts have been much more nuanced. Thankfully in this kind of case you can't separate ad blocking and content discovery from what brave is doing, so if someone is going to pick a fight they will be picking the fight with Google, Microsoft and every other tech company out there not just with Brave

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott

Google isn't impersonating Tom Scott here. Brave is.

You're the bad guys here and you can't see it because you think everyone else is Google and Facebook and tracking people. People want nothing to do with either you or them. But clearly less to do with you.

I'm not surprised that the angle is "sure we're bad but people will have to go for the guys with big pockets first". At least you know you're the bad guys. That's something.

Brave is no more impersonating Tom Scott then Google is, in fact they use the same source of information and get it the same way, the only difference is in Brave, after they pull and display that information from the public place where Tom put it ( specifically how he put it there to get displayed in this fashion ) they let me decide if Tom should be able to have some of my money. Every other company that displays this information injects their ads with no ability for me to decide where the money goes or what information they pull off me as part of that process. Even more so I have no way of opting out of that. If people want nothing to do with Brave then don't use it.

The idea you think I, someone with no affiliation with either Brave, or Google, or Tom, is a bad guy because I want to support content creators is laughable. I think the idea that there is a way users can control their personal information and still support content creators is really upsetting to people who are used to being able to dictate the terms of the internet and get wealthy off the backs of users and creators. I for my part won't let random corporations take my information and sell it to anyone who wants. I know that may make some people want to label me a bad guy and I am ok with that. They can continue to participate in that economy, and creators can block my browser. As long as they allow me to freely obtain their content I will use the systems I find useful to attempt to support an open and fair internet.

Google doesn't pop up a thing asking me to donate to Tom Scott's fundraising campaign.

Brave apparently does (based on screenshots shared by others; in order to preserve my right to legal action in the future I'm very carefully never going to personally do anything that would require accepting Brave's ToS).

See my other comments in this thread for why A) that's a bad thing and B) if you work at Brave you should quit and hire a lawyer.

Neither does Brave, its really clear when you use the browser that you are allocating your funds via the BAT system not "fundraising" on behalf of a person, and its also clear what happens to your funds if the person you allocated them to doesn't want them.

Also the idea your in more legal jeopardy working at Brave, then you are working at any other company is silly. There is a distinction in corporate liability between employees and officers of a company ( its why no Thanos employees have been held liable for the fraud there). It makes me wonder what is going on when I see people participating in such strong fearmongering. Especially when you are flat out wrong on some of the basic legal principles you are discussing.

Like I said elsewhere: these kinds of schemes don't really "work". The best that happens is you get away with it for a while until you accidentally do it to someone with resources.

Are you carefully vetting every single entity whose content you show this pop-up on (regardless of what description you choose to use to spin what it is) to make sure none of them have trademarks that could be enforced against you? Because if any of them do, game over. You can hem and haw and deflect and pretend to be helping creators as much as you like, but you don't have the legal right to appropriate someone else's mark to raise money.

And if you are vetting to make sure you don't pop up on anyone who has a trademark, what if that comes out in discovery when someone goes after you, and suddenly you get to answer questions about whether Brave knew that what they were doing might not be legal (as evidenced by the care they took around trademarks), did it anyway, and now it's really over.

And like I said elsewhere: when the shit hits the fan, what's your personal plan for Brave deciding that all your "helpful" comments here weren't authorized and were in fact misrepresenting them, which led to the terrible misunderstandings that provoked the legal action?

I'm trying my best to help you see the ways this can go badly. I'm also very sincere in my advice of "lawyer up". I'm not your attorney and this isn't legal advice, but I think you should have both an attorney and legal advice.

The folks who've run this scheme in the past were mostly small-time, and the worst that happened was they were forced to stop or retool because they weren't worth the effort of going after properly. Brave has attracted enough attention and money to be a lucrative target for someone to eventually turn into a smoking hole in the ground. Please, for your sake, fix this or get out of it ASAP.

The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection when you place your information on the internet for others to scrape ( you can however opt out, read up on the various Google News fights if you need more info ), but lets say we live in a world where Brave looses that court case, and someone decides this was all illegal. There is no liability for employees who work at the company ( even if they post on a public forum ). In fact it turns out according to the US court system that even if you as an employee _know_ you are violating copyright, and even if you send email's using your corporate account about the known violation, and even if those emails show up in discovery, you are not personally liable ( see Youtube vs Viacom )

You are wrong about this, there is lots of precedent to say this is legal, and even more to say that working at brave is not a legal liability. However I am not your lawyer, nor am I Brave's lawyer, or Tom's Lawyer. I am not at all related to anyone involved in this fight, I am just a lowly internet user who happens to think this is a good model for the future of the internet. Feel free to ignore me and continue to tell people the sky is falling.