Just got a hillarious email.

[Tylzen]

Yes, I am aware that I am posting my personal details, I have no problem with this.
I got this email after I filed a counter-notification on a DMCA that "Daniel Owens" made.
The video was a mirror of a video that Th1swasatriumph made months ago.

I am tempted to just reply, bring it on! And give them my phone number, even though they can fucking google my phone number, it is not that hard to find.
But it is a blast.

(From: Anon Ymous <anonymous201210@yahoo.co.uk>)

Christian Thostrup Mà¸ller-Jensen,

I am speaking on behalf of Daniel Owens with regards to the Copyright Counternotification which you filed against him and in doing so it maybe that you will have to go to court, which is serious!
A solicitor has been contacted on Daniel's behalf and we need to get in contact with you to discuss some serious issues.
All we have at the moment is the following address:

<address>


Is this address correct?

Please could we have your landline and mobile/cell phone numbers to discuss this case, also to confirm your identity.

Christian, please bear in mind the following points in reply:

- Due to Daniel's Copyrighted Videos not being available to the public anymore, as he removed all of them from the internet almost a year ago, the Fair Use Act is irrelevant.
- The video in question does contain one of Daniel's videos, whereby Daniel owns the Copyright.
- You did not ask for his permission to use his video.
- There are Privacy, Identity, Bullying and Harassment Laws which apply to this case.
- We have copies of your videos, comments, quotations etc, which are aimed at Daniel.

You will receive the documentation including who we are, our addresses and contact details within the next week or so. We cannot reveal our identity on the internet due to privacy and identity implementations.

To avoid this case going to court, all you have to do is do not upload anymore videos containing Daniel's videos, personhood, idendity and privacy.

Thank you for your co-operation,

Anonymous

 

[Womble]

So the gutless follower couldn't even give you their name? I say play ball, but do it this way..... Contact someone for some legal advice, say that you have had to counterclaim a false dcma and that you've have been contacted by someone anomolously, i should imagine that such an act could come under intimidating behaviour, which backfires in their faces.

 

[TechTiger]

I like how they leave out restricting the use of his identity. And how this representative puts his legal credability on the line by calling itself Anonymous.

 

[lrkun]

Seek legal advice bro. ^-^

 

[Josan]

Christian, please bear in mind the following points in reply:

Riiight, because real, educated, legal help would obviously call someone by their first name like that.

Can't this be considered an attempt at a phishing scam?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Give them the phone number of the nearest escort service...

 

[AndromedasWake]

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

If I were attempting to intimidate someone I would not contact them to discuss a few things and tell them they're in serious poodoo. I'd first get advice from a solicitor, then make it abundantly clear that I had already consulted a solicitor before contacting them and state that I intend to take legal action.

I would include my contact details with the email and would ask for an address for a subpoena.

I would not offer them an out of court settlement until after a legal professional had been involved, and such a settlement contract could be drawn up.

Whoever sent that email is an amateur bully. If someone sent me a legal threat signed 'Anonymous' I would archive it and ignore it until someone with a name gets in contact.

Again, this is not legal advice. I would also recommend contacting dprjones.

For the record I can tell you that fair use has nothing to do with whether the original work is available on the author's channel. Those rules relate to YouTube's ToS, which have no bearing on a legal case not involving YouTube directly.

 

[Andiferous]

I would be curious if someone from one nation could sue someone from another, over copyright on the internet, on a privately owned service. Seems a bit dodgy...

So, does Youtube technically "own" videos uploaded by its users? It would have to in some legal capacity, I'd think.

 

[lrkun]

I would be curious if someone from one nation could sue someone from another, over copyright on the internet, on a privately owned service. Seems a bit dodgy...

So, does Youtube technically "own" videos uploaded by its users? It would have to in some legal capacity, I'd think.

Not related: "You changed your avatar picture?" haha nice one.

On the issue. It's best to seek legal advice with lawyers who specialize on this sort of stuff, because they know how these things work.

 

[Tylzen]

Well I would like to find some legal advice and threaten them back.
I am not taking that email serious at all, it is a weak attempt at sounding formal and it is loaded with bullshit.

I am not going to be bullied of YT by some idiot that is trying to sound all important.

 

[Vogter2100]

Auntiediluvian got the exact same mail. It is clearly bogus. No attorny at law would write such a letter in that tone.

it is bullshit.

 

[simonecuttlefish]

Here you go. There is advice and help available.



And here



I'm sure you have a LOT of friends behind you, you just may not have contacted them yet

EDIT: ADDED
A youtube channel dedicated to false DMCA abuse
This channel was set up as a result of a collaboration between the following you tube users;

AndromedasWake
AronRa
cdk007
djarm67
DonExodus2
dprjones
ExtantDodo
potholer54
ThetaOmega
Thunderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/DMCAabuse

One video from the channel

 

[simonecuttlefish]

I forgot this one
From
http://www.youtube.com/user/dprjones#p/u/88/LvvYBAnM1-Q

 

[DeathofSpeech]

So, does Youtube technically "own" videos uploaded by its users? It would have to in some legal capacity, I'd think.

No... Section 6 Paragraph C of YouTube's ToS not ownership... licensed use.

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

By posting a video you grant YT a license to use and to sublicense.

You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

You grant any other YT user the right to use your content in derived works.


So the whole issue of DMCA because someone used someone's content in a rebuttal, satire, commentary etc doesn't even rely upon fair use. You have an expressly stated license/sublicense to use the material.

Only if the original poster removes a video, does the Fair Use argument even enter in. In that case you no longer have a license/sublicense but provided that you didn't just jack the entire video, added your own commentary, etc... then fair use would definitely be a consideration.

I am not a lawyer... merely a reader.

 

[Andiferous]

Not related: "You changed your avatar picture?" haha nice one.

On the issue. It's best to seek legal advice with lawyers who specialize on this sort of stuff, because they know how these things work.

Thankee. And yes, most certainly.

So, does Youtube technically "own" videos uploaded by its users? It would have to in some legal capacity, I'd think.

No... Section 6 Paragraph C of YouTube's ToS not ownership... licensed use.

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

By posting a video you grant YT a license to use and to sublicense.

You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

You grant any other YT user the right to use your content in derived works.


So the whole issue of DMCA because someone used someone's content in a rebuttal, satire, commentary etc doesn't even rely upon fair use. You have an expressly stated license/sublicense to use the material.

Only if the original poster removes a video, does the Fair Use argument even enter in. In that case you no longer have a license/sublicense but provided that you didn't just jack the entire video, added your own commentary, etc... then fair use would definitely be a consideration.

I am not a lawyer... merely a reader.

Very interesting. I thought there must have been something about this.

I see that Tylzen has replied in other thread though: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5318

 

[Grandt]

Well, I have two fraudulent DMCA's from Daniel Owens. And yes, I'm not saying "Or someone pretending to be him", I'm 95% certain that this IS Daniel.

The first one I got was on one of my own videos, mirrored here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?6wfy7536ntc6obn

If anyone have any "throw away" accounts, or want to risk getting a temporary strike, feel free to mirror, IF Daniel is keen on legal action, lets make it as expensive for him as possible.

The second one was the AndromedasWake mirror a few days later.

I managed to get a copy of Daniel's claim, in which I and 6 others were taken down.
From YouTube:

Here is a copy of the notification we received:


YouTube | Broadcast Yourselfâ„¢
Hi there, here is a new copyright complaint submission:
Copyright Infringement Notification Confirmation


Copyright Owner Name (Company Name if applicable): Daniel Owens

Your Full Legal Name (Aliases, usernames or initials not accepted): Daniel Owens
Your Title or Job Position (What is your authority to make this complaint?): Some of my creation is being used without permission

User Address:
XX Xxxxxxxx Street
Xxxxxxx, Lancashire XXXX XXX GB

Usename: anonymous201210
User Email Address: anonymous201210@yahoo.co.uk
User Phone: 077298XXXXX
URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qnlR4Q1ik

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yCcbgOXALg

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7d3zpCCMqo

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVHJaCSjgPY

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqd2IuFDWFc

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVuqU69gDh0

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. URL of allegedly infringing video to be removed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtIE6b_Gt3s

Where is the content at issue?
video and audio

Describe the work allegedly infringed:
Other: Some of the video contains my creation, my voice, my person, my privacy. It has been used without my permission. It should not be on the internet. Country where copyright applies: GB

I, in good faith state that:

* I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
* I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
* This notification is accurate.
* I acknowledge that there may be adverse legal consequences for making false or bad faith allegations of copyright infringement by using this process.
* I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.

Authorized Signature: Daniel Owens

Sincerely,

, The YouTube Copyright Complaint Servlet

Copyright ,© 2010 YouTube, LLC


Sincerely,

Justin
The YouTube Team

I have removed parts of his address, for now. I have no idea what kind of trouble I could potentially get into if I posted it all. But from what I've been told (by DPRJones) the area given does match the area Daniel is believed to live in.
Others have stated that the building matches (small, run down, shitty), and the drapes seen on Google Street View apparently matches the ones seen in one of his videos. Leading me to be fairly confident that this is Daniel. If it's not, the impersonator have gone to great lengths to set him up, and that kind of smarts needed for that is just absent in the mails sent.

 

[Grandt]

And Daniel just keeps on going... :lol:

Received: from [91.108.23.224] by web29215.mail.ird.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:30:13 GMT
X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.3.2 YahooMailWebService/0.8.105.279950
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:30:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: Anon Ymous <anonymous201210@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Copyright Incident - Daniel Owens
To: asbjorn.grandtXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear Asbjà¸rn,

Please find attached a screenshot of a post you made on the internet regarding this investigation.

You will suffer consequences for this action.

Thank you.

And then a screen shot of my previous post.

I put a screenshot of the mail on mediafire: http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/36d7cae97954c5393b8331b8801abbe46g.jpg

 

[Tylzen]

I am planning on contacting Daniel Owens within this week.
Lets see what I can get out of that.

 

[Squagnut]

The wee lad DMCA'd me too, for the same video. I've counterclaimed, but nothing back yet. I mentioned in the "message to complainant" section that I shall forward all communication from him to my legal representatives and that I'll act only on their advice.

 

[Grandt]

I mentioned in the "message to complainant" section that I shall forward all communication from him to my legal representatives and that I'll act only on their advice.

That may be just about the best thing to write really.