| Re: YTA 14:2 Collaboration - 601 sec
The DMCA is being used as a tool for censorship and a tool for illegally getting the name and address of other Youtube users. Youtubes actions, heavily influenced by the mandates of the DMCA, jeopardizes the safety of the Youtube community. The least that Youtube could do is alert its users of the potential danger of unwittingly revealing their location to an enemy when filing a counternotice. Youtube should also inform users that they have a legal obligation to inform users that they must consider Fair Use before filing a DMCA complaint.
(NOTE: I AM NOT A LAWYER, SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE READ AS LEGAL ADVICE.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youtubes March 31, 2008 Blog entry saying: We often describe our You Choose '08 platform as "the world's largest town hall" for political discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=IRNhAzKFz_M
I discuss bogus DMCAs issued under the name of the Zizzle Corporation and Viacom in more detail in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypzdeL47h4
Youtubes DMCA notification procedure:
http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy
Note that there is not one word on this page about Fair Use or about a users legal obligation to consider Fair Use issues before filing a DMCA. Youtube should state that users have a legal obligation to consider Fair Use issues before sending a DMCA complaint. In fact, Youtube should post a link to the recent decision in Lenz v. Universal Music Corporation in which the Judge says exactly that.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdf
in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the laws, the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright. 17.U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Youtube bogus DMCA stalking Lenz v. Universal Music Corp Viacom safety security
 | | Kurtilein3, Please don't file more complaints for a while. - 308 sec
Kurtilein3 has filed one complaint to Youtube to try to get VenomFangX's account suspended, and he has pledged to file a complaint a day until the account is suspended or until he gets tired.
I am asking that he refrain from filing another complaint for a week or two.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: kurtilein3 venomfangx thunderf00t complaint Youtube
| | Please Reserve Judgment on the Settlement - 184 sec
Many people are unhappy with Thunderf00t and think he is letting VenomFangX get off the hook too easily. They should reserve judgment until they hear the details of the settlement.
kurtilein3 is threatening to scuttle the settlement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCG34-KF180
I explain in this video why I am supporting the settlement and why people should not try to scuttle it. Please watch it before doing anything that might endanger the settlement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRdSdLlzbhc
Rozeboosje made a valuable contribution to the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VJ1xob7iQU
I am hoping that he will incorporate rozeboosje's suggestions in the settlement.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Thunderf00t VenomfangX kurtilein3 settlement critic DMCA Youtube reserve judgment
| | Don't Scuttle The Settlement Between Thunderf00t and VFX - 502 sec
This video is a response to Kurtilein3s video: [DRAMA] thunderf00t versus venomfangx
For those who are not familiar with the Thunderf00t/VenmFangX drama—a VERY quick synopsis:
VenomFangX filed a ton of DMCAs against critics who used clips of his videos without his permission. He claims that he didnt actually file the DMCAs. Instead, he says, he authorized a friend to do it. This claim is questionable, but even if it is true he is still not off the hook. His friend acted as his agent, so he is almost certainly still legally liable.
Thunderf00t threatened to complain to Youtube about VFXs false DMCAs in order to get VFXs account suspended. He also threatened a lawsuit against VFX. He had a ton of evidence that VFX had broken the law, and it would have been a slam dunk win, in my opinion. He told VFX that he would refrain from filing suit and complaining to Youtube provided that VFX close his account and stay off of Youtbe for a year. He gave VFX until Sept. 22 to make his decision. If he did not close his account by the morning of Sept. 23, he would tell his lawyer to file his lawsuit against VFX.
VFX responded at first by accusing Thunderf00t of blackmail. This accusation, IMO, was baseless since Thunderf00t had every right to offer an out of court settlement after having been the victim of VFXs DMCA abuse.
However, VFX changed his tune as the deadline approached with this apology video.
Settlement Agreement & Apology by VenomFangX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L83CQE2d_Bs
Thunderf00t received a lot of flack by people who think he let VFX off the hook too easily. He put out this video explaining why he did not go through with the lawsuit.
Did I let him off the hook? by Thunderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6f9QD4Pn-M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kurtilein3 is now trying to scuttle the agreement between VenomFangX and Thunderf00t. Scuttling that agreement would be a bad move, IMO. It is also premature to make a decision about whether VFX was let off the hook until we hear all the terms of the settlement.
My website:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/
My page on Scientology, featuring Kurtilein3s video:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm
My page on Michael Crook—his apology video is Must Watch material:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Michael%20Crook.htm
Rozeboosje made a valuable contribution to the debate:
The Apology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VJ1xob7iQU
I hope Thunderf00t will include Rozeboosjes suggestions in the final settlement.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: VenomFangX thunderf00t DMCA settlement apology monkey wrench from the peanut gallery
| | I Am a Heckler. I Am Garbage - 340 sec
This is a response to Ysabellabrave's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nYlRFGL8UQ
It is a fine line between heckling and legitimate criticism. There are times when harsh, even vicious criticism, is warranted.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Heckler criticism troll
| | Re: DMCA & Copyright FAQ - 683 sec
This is a response to two videos by 5thWatcher:
DMCA & Copyright FAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkyRzcnJhs
VFX/tf00t and the Great Copyright War of 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7BF7xNMzI
----------------------------------------
Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/
Video is increasingly becoming a central part of our everyday landscape of communication, and it is becoming more visible as people share it on digital platforms. People make and share videos to tell stories about their personal lives, remixing home videos with popular music and images. Video remix has become a core component of political discourse, as the video George Bush Dont Like Black People and the Yes We Can parodies demonstrated. Both amateur and professional editors are creating new forms of viral popular culture, as the Dramatic Chipmunk meme and the Brokeback to the Future mashup illustrate. The circulation of these videos is an emerging part of the business landscape, as the sale of YouTube to Google demonstrated. . . .
Mashups, remixes, subs, and online parodies are new and refreshing online phenomena, but they partake of an ancient tradition: the recycling of old culture to make new. In spite of our romantic cliches about the anguished lone creator, the entire history of cultural production from Aeschylus through Shakespeare to Clueless has shown that all creators stand, as Isaac Newton (and so many others) put it, on the shoulders of giants.
In fact, the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. WHERE IT APPLIES, FAIR USE IS A RIGHT, NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IN FACT, AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS POINTED OUT, FAIR USE KEEPS COPYRIGHT FROM VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. (emphasis added)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 107 of the Copyright Law
the fair use of a copyrighted work. . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html
The right to use other peoples works for parody:
Campbell v. Acuff Rose (Supreme Court
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
SUNTRUST v HOUGHTON MIFFLIN
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
)
http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/cases/gonewindappnew.htm
http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/cases/gonewindconcur.htm
Why the DMCA is Unconstitutional:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm
--------------------------------------
Bonus points for reading Lenz v. Universal and especially the opinion handed down on August 20, 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7BF7xNMzI
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdf
Here is a link to the DMCA itself. Pay close attention to part (c)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: DMCA Fair Use law Youtube Policy
| | Re: Dad beats NAKED guy - 732 sec
View these videos first:
Dad Arrested for taking a Pipe to the head of home intruder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueo14ESkv8c
Re: Dad Arrested . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyIXc-voHIM
Dad beats NAKED guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3beS1OvArk
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Islam Sharia Dad beats naked boyfriend law
| | Re: Dad Arrested . . . - 618 sec
This is a response to "Dad Arrested for taking a Pipe to the head of home intruder" by Islamandfriends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueo14ESkv8c
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: vigilante justicse abstinence only murder Sharia law Islam
| | Thunderf00t's Account Threatened by False DMCAs - 249 sec
Watch this video by Thunderf00t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOLejDyh2bI
Some scumbag has threatened to get Thunderf00t's account suspended by using bogus DMCAs, and Thunderf00t fights back.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: False DMCA threat suspension perjury Thunderf00t
| | Re: DMCA Reform - 1076 sec
I present three examples of the DMCA being wrongfully used for censorship on Youtube. In each example, Youtube took down videos in response to false DMCAs without doing ANY investigation whatsoever.
1) Therealweeklynews had put up a video in July urging Youtubers to boycott Viacom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJbCWJNQUYI
*SOMEONE* pretending to be Viacom, sent Youtube a DMCA complaint demanding that the video be taken down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5FHwuHVPsY
It turns out that Viacom was not the one who sent in the complaint, and whoever did send the complaint committed perjury by falsely claiming that they had a copyright interest in the video.
The DMCA complaint came from an email address that Viacom doesn't use. This should have tipped the folks off in Youtube's copyright office that the complaint may be bogus. After all, they have received DMCA complaints from Viacom before. In fact, in February 2007, they received 100,000 complaints from Viacom:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Viacom%20Dragnet.htm
Yet despite the fact that the complaint against the realweeklynews didn't come from the email address used by Viacom, Youtube took down the video.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) This is not an isolated incident. My account was suspended for four months after Perjury Boy complained about a video by Firefly515 that I hosted on my channel. Anyone who watched the video would see Firefly515 was BEGGING people to host his video on their channels. Yet it took Youtube four months to restore my account.
You can read more about my suspension here:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/
This is the video that I hosted and that Youtube suspended me for. Pay close attention between 2:40 and 3:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtKXb2UrNeI
My correspondence with Youtube's copyright department reveals just how little they cared about my wrongful suspension.
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Correspondence%20with%20Youtube%20Legal.htm
3) MyRealityBytes made this video entitled "Renetto's Toy" featuring a toy manufactured by Zizzle LLC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw
*SOMEONE* filed a DMCA claiming to be from Zizzle and claiming the "Renetto's Toy" video infringed on their copyright. It turns out, this was a totally bogus DMCA and Zizzle did not file it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w-40gouGH8
Two other incidents are worth mentioning and may influence your opinion of how Youtube's copyright office carries out their responsibilities.
A user named Thoughtblock stole five videos from Sheldonwh. Sheldonwh sent a DMCA notice to Youtube demanding that the videos stolen from him be taken down. Instead of removing Thoughtblock's stolen videos and closing Thoughtblock's account, Youtube suspended the account of Sheldonwh—the rightful copyright owner of the videos!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrugUOD_82I
Youtube did eventually do the right thing by restoring Sheldonwh's account and removing the stolen videos. However, thoughtblock's account has still not been suspended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFLyK1F6pQU
http://www.youtube.com/user/thoughtblock
2) LiberalViewer had four videos removed because Viacom DMCAd them. LiberalViewer believed that they fell within Fair Use, so he sent Youtube DMCA counternotices to get them restored. The DMCA required Youtube to restore the videos upon receiving the counternotices if they do not receive notice from Viacom that they were suing LiberalViewer. But Youtube's copyright office did not know this, so LiberalViewer had to teach them the basics of how the DMCA worked.
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/LiberalViewer.htm
http://www.liberalviewer.com/YouTubeDocs/LiberalViewerExplainsDMCAtoYouTube.html
And now some Praise for Youtube
Mark Bunker (Xenutv and Xenutv1) had been suspended in April 2008 and restored in June after filing counter DMCA notices. The story of his previous suspension can be seen here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yKqhGKq1_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GYy0OFESAI
Someone got Mark Bunker's account and the accounts of many other Scientology critics suspended again a few days ago. Hundreds, possibly thousands of anti-Scientology videos were removed in the last few days. The DMCAs came from a company called "American Rights Counsel LLC" No such company or organization can be found and it is presumed to be a front organization for a Scientologist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-DahPt2Jc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uszfjLlKNk
A mass cry went out to Youtube and Youtube restored Mark Bunker's account as well as many of the wrongfully removed videos within a day. Youtube should be congratulated on this. Does this signal a change in policy, or merely an incident of Youtube reacting to a very high profile case?
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: DMCA abuse reform thereelweeklynews perjury myrealitybytes SheldonWH Liberalviewer Mark Bunker Xenutv Scientology
| | Who Edited Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry? - 206 sec
Check out this story on NPR about Sarah Palin's Wikipedia article. Someone made lots of changes to it—all the changes being favorable to her. What is really interesting is that the changes were made ONE DAY BEFORE McCain announcer her as his VP candidate.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118849
There are only two possibilities to account for this.
1) Palin, or someone from the McCain camp made the changes on Wikipedia to make her look good. They did this knowing that few people outside of Alaska knew anything about her. Her Wikipedia article could be expected to get millions once McCain announced his selection. The edits were made with the intention of making a good impression on those who were just learning about her.
2) News of McCain's choice leaked to someone who wanted to make her look bad. Is it possible that the Democrats have a mole placed in McCain headquarters? If so, the mole could have made the changes, knowing that the changes would be discovered and that voters would assume that Palin or someone within the McCain camp did it in order to make her look good. Of course, Palin would look really bad if the voters thought she, or someone within the McCain camp were behind the edits.
Either way, this is a story that is worth watching. McCain is 72 years old, and it is very possible that he may not be able to serve out his term. There are already plenty of reasons to believe that Palin is not qualified to be President.
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/ms-alaska/
Lots of commentary on Daily Kos:
http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/21034/4861/159/579549
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Sarah Palin McCain Obama mole democrat Wikipedia
| | Re: Rushed Response to "In Praise of Judas and Commercialism - 539 sec
This is a response to Theestranger's video.
Rushed Response to "In Praise of Judas and Commercialism"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRAfcxGxyE
Youtube has abandoned the Vlogging community. This has now been confirmed by the YourtubeAdvocate:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z735KaAT7U
It was Youtube's decision to treat us with contempt—not the decision of anyone at Vloggerheads. Vloggerheads has arisen to meet the needs that have arisen from Youtube's decision to abandon the community. Whether Vloggerheads has the right approach and whether they will succeed is still an open question that reasonable people can disagree over.
What should be beyond disagreement is that a need for a site like Vloggerheads wouldn't exist had Youtube not turned its back on the community and had they taken their responsibility of custodians of "The World's Largest Town Hall" seriously.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Youtube contempt for the community renetto myrealitybytes product placement
| | In Praise of Judas and Comercialism - 390 sec
Christian Theology needed Judas to betray Jesus in order to provide a path for human salvation.
Youtube needs commericalism in order to survive. It costs an estimated $1 million a day to pay for their bandwith.
http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/03/25/youtube-looks-for-the-money-clip/
Without commercialism, Youtube would have folded long ago.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: theestranger renetto Youtube commercial judas Jesus religion Christianity
| | To TheBeeOBee: Call Off the Attack - 1067 sec
This is a video response to TheBeeOBee's "blackmail" of Vloggerheads. I realize that it is quite possible that his whole video may be a joke, and maybe I will look a little foolish posting an 18 minute response.
But even if it is, this gives me an opportunity to state why I joined Vloggerheads, and my hopes and aspirations for the site.
And it gives me an opportunity to knock the way that Youtube implements the DMCA. That is always a good thing.
Section 512(i) of the DMCA:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: thebeeobee Vloggerheads attack blackmail Youtube DMCA
| | Repost from Vloggeheads: Themaskedanalyst's law - 415 sec
I posted this video on Vloggerheads on August 6.
t would be nice to think this is an isolated incident, but I think similar incidents in the future are inevitable. Godwin's law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There are many variations of Godwin's law, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has already come up with the following. However, if I am the first to come up with this, then I propose calling it "Themaskedanalyst's law":
No matter how carefully you hand pick people to join a group, as the size of the group increases, the probability that the group will have a member who can't be trusted approaches 1.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Vloggerheads themaskedanalysts law security breech was inevitable
| | Talking about Vloggerheads with TheBeeOBee and Theestranger - 821 sec
Why are those who post on Vloggerheads considered traitors to Youtube? Why shouldn't we be allowed to post to both places? Why do we owe one site our loyalty?
TheBeeOBee's video about Vloggerheads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AmeyV45gHw
Theestranger's video about Vloggerheads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6PIw4Pe9NA
My correspondence with Youtube's copyright department about my wrongful suspension via a false DMCA. It should have taken them three minutes to figure out that I was wrongfully suspended. It took them four months to do the right thing and restore my account.
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Correspondence%20with%20Youtube%20Legal.htm
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: thebeeobee theestranger Vloggerheads Youtube renetto
| | Discussing §512 (f) of the DMCA: Is Fair Use a Right? - 839 sec
The Copyright Alliance is an organization composed largely of giant corporations within the Entertainment Industry. This Alliance wants to gut our right to Fair Use like a dead fish.
http://www.copyrightalliance.org/index.php
Copyright Alliance members:
http://www.copyrightalliance.org/content.php?id=44
Patrick Ross, the Executive Director of the Copyright Alliance, writes:
http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/07/the-remix-culture/
"fair use is not a right. Copyright is a right. Fair use is a limitation on that right, which is not absolute. Specific methods of fair use are defined in court, and then only for that use. Fair use, then, is an affirmative defense the user can cite in court if sued for infringement."
The American University School of Communication Center For Social Media has published a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video:
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/
"...the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before."
William Patry is one of THE foremost authorities on Fair Use. He writes:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/07/patrick-ross-and-fair-use.html
"The Yiddish/Aramaic word "chutzpah" is well known, and has been defined variously as gall, audacity, insolence, and impertinence. Patrick Ross, head of the cartoonish Copyright Alliance, seems to have chutzpah in abundance, as seen on a blog post yesterday criticizing The Center for Social Media at American University, for its release of a "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video." The best practices are a "Future of Public Media Project," funded by the Ford Foundation, a fact Mr. Ross omits.
Mr. Ross is not a lawyer, but formerly was with the right wing Progress and Freedom Foundation, which usually acts as a mouthpiece for corporate copyright owners. I have no idea whether or where Mr. Ross attempts to learn about copyright law, much less fair use. For my part, I have been a practicing copyright lawyer for 25 years, and have been studying fair use even longer, beginning in law school. In 1985, I wrote my first book on copyright, which was also the first book devoted just to fair use. The treatise's first citation was by the Supreme Court in the Harper & Row case, issued shortly after the treatise came out. Subsequently, that treatise has been cited many more times by other courts. I have testified before a joint session of the IP subcommittees of Congress on fair use, worked on amendments to Section 107 as a Congressional staffer, argued fair use cases in the courts of appeals and district courts, written an article about fair use with Judge Posner, advised many clients about it, and discussed the issue with the European Commission, and many representatives of foreign governments. I am unaware of any qualifications Mr. Ross has to talk about fair use.
Nor is Mr. Ross an educator. Yet, regarding both fair use and education, in his criticism of the Center's Best Practices, he speaks as if he knows more than those who are copyright lawyers and educators (and some who are both), beginning with a pompous, purported correction about the nature of fair use, scolding the Center for daring to utter the term "right" in the same sentence as fair use. . . ."
Fair Use Is a Right—the Purpose of Copyright Law:
http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
Section 108 of the copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
"Nothing in this section — in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107 . . . "
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: copyright law DMCA Fair Use right or Affirmative Defense Copyright Alliance Patrick Ross assclown
| | Should Those on Vloggerheads Close Their Yoututbe Accounts? - 411 sec
This is in response to FabioCrow07770's Challenge to Vloggerheads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXPSb6ya4gk
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: Vloggerheads Youtube
| | Discussing §512 (f) of the DMCA: Pt. 2: Rossi v. MPAA - 775 sec
§512 (c) (3) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act states that a DMCA complaint must include:
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Moreover, 512 (f) states:
"Any person who KNOWINGLY misrepresents . . . that material or activity is infringing. . . shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer . . . who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such representation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing . . ."
This is the second in a series of videos that will explore these sections of the DMCA in great detail.
Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America Inc.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2004)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F0FA19839BAF10A88256F5D0003D3C3/$file/0316034.pdf?openelement
Michael Rossi operated a website called internetmovies.com. The website had a banner saying "Join to download full length movies online now! New movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE."
These messages were followed by graphics for a number of MPAA copyrighted motion picture. In fact, this was a lot of puffery and you couldn't really download movies from Rossi's website.
But an agent from the MPAA saw his website and sent a DMCA to his service provider. This took his website down, and Rossi sued the MPAA.
When you file a DMCA complaint you must sign a statement that you have a good faith belief that the material you are complaining about was not authorized by you or the law.
Rossi wanted the court to adopt a rule that in order to have "a good faith belief" of infringement, the person filing the DMCA is required to conduct a reasonable investigation into the allegedly offending material. In other words, would an OBJECTIVE and prudent observer believe that he was really infringing on MPAA's copyright
The MPAA argued that "good faith belief" implied a subjective belief—what did they actually believe as opposed to what a person doing a reasonable investigation believes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court found that Congress built a subjective good faith standard into the DMCA when they wrote it—not an objective "reasonableness" standard.
Quoting from the Court:
"In §512 (f) Congress included an expressly limited cause of action for improper infringement notifications, imposing liability only if the copyright owner's notification is a knowing misrepresentation" . . .
"A copyright owner cannot be liable simply because an unknowing mistake is made, even if the copyright owner acted unreasonably in making the mistake . . . Rather, there must be a demonstration of some actual knowledge of misrepresentation on the part of the copyright owner.
The Rossi court made a blatant mistake in its evaluation of the DMCA. It ignored § 512 (c) (3)(vi) of the DMCA which states that the DMCA complaint must contain:
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Congress clearly wanted the person filing the complaint to state that the information in the notification was accurate. What would be the point of this requirement if Congress didn't want the filer to verify that his complaint had some merit? Why would Congress want the complaint filer to state that the information in the complaint was accurate if it didn't want to require the filer to do at least a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of the complaint? And one vital piece of information in the complaint is that the work being complained about INFRINGED on the copyright owner's work.
Title 17 § 107 of the U.S. Code deals with Fair Use. It says:
". . . the fair use of a copyrighted work. . . is not an infringement of copyright."
So Congress wanted the DMCA filer to swear that the work being complained about infringed upon his work AND Congress has also stated that if the work falls within Fair Use then no infringement has taken place. The only logical conclusion to draw is that Congress wanted the DMCA complaint filer to make at least a reasonable investigation to determine that the work he was complaining about didn't fall within Fair Use.
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: DMCA 512(f) copyright infringement lawsuit Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America
| | Atheist Asshole Patrick Greene Threatened a Libel Suit - 659 sec
Atheist Patrick Greene threatened to sue Ray Comfort for libel because Comfort's ministry distributed bumper stickers calling atheists fools. Patrick withdrew the threat of a lawsuit after 40 atheists told him not to go through with it. Even though he has withdrawn the threat, his idiotic histrionics has provided a weapon to those who want to bash atheists. Greene's behavior has been thoroughly condemned by the atheist community, but I wouldn't be surprised if some religious zealots try to portray this as typical atheist behavior.
Atheist threatens to sue Ray Comfort over bumper sticker (1/3)—video from The Atheist Experience TV show run out of Austin, Texas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHIPag-m40
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/07/patrick-greene-checks-in.html
Ray Comfort's Blog discussion of the threatened lawsuit:
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheist-law-suit.html
Patrick Greene's filed a complaint with the FCC, apparently because the hosts of the Atheist Experience show had the audacity to point out that he was an asshole:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/07/breaking-yomin-barrier.html
Patrick Greene's non-apology apology:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/07/fools-last-hurrah.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Law of Defamation Second Edition by Rodney A Smolla—
A complaint for libel mus allege
(1) a statement of fact;
(2) that is false;
(3) and defamatory;
(4) of and concerning the plaintiff;
(5) that is published to a third party;
(6) not absolutely or conditionally privileged
"As a general proposition no action lies for the publication of a general defamatory statement about a large group or class of persons, on the principle that such a general condemnation could not reasonably be construed as of and concerning each individual member of the group, and the disparagement is too diffuse to rcreate a realistic likelihood of reputational injury to any individual member."
"Civil liability is not permitted for defamation aimed at racial, ethnic, or religious groups. Although slurs directed against Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics or any other group are repugnant and hateful, they are regarded as beyond the pale of the civil law of defamation. Thus, a defamatory statement aimed at 600 million Muslims was not actionable; 'if the court were to permit an action to lie for defamation of such a multitudinous group we would render meaningless the right guaranteed by the First Amendment to explore issues of public import.' "
Here is a great blog post on this fiasco
http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/?p=574
Auteur : themaskedanalyst
Tags: atheist libel lawsuit bumper sticker Patrick Greene asshole
|
|
