thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:I'll give you 24 hours... for your sake, not his.
You know, the Stewie avatar fits you perfectly, lol.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ImprobableJoe said:I'll give you 24 hours... for your sake, not his.
Aught3 said:As you can see the license you grant other YouTube users is to use and reproduce your video through the functionality of the website. This refers to displaying your video on other websites using the embeddable YouTube video player. In the ToU you also agree to follow the community guidelines which state:
Laci owns the rights to the video and, although she has granted a license for other people to display that video wherever they want, she is well within her rights, as described by the ToU and CG, to demand that this video be taken down. If YouTube will not comply then the next step is a DMCA.
If you agree that the legitimacy of the DMCA is a matter of legal opinion to be argued by lawyers, then I don't see how you can maintain that a DMCA would be automatically be false or baseless. She may lose on parody grounds, but that is a separate issue. Admittedly, by law, YouTube must consider whether the video falls under fair-use (if it does not break any other community guidelines) the route to start that process is the DMCA. If Laci has a fair claim to the material (and I would advise legal advice before filing a DMCA) then the DMCA is not false. A work can be a parody and still violate copyright.
I think it's possible you might be beginning to reconsider your position, Joe it would be nice if you backed off a bit so pbjtime can examine the arguments without having to become defensive.
pbjtime said:The functionality of the website includes the ability to "remix" your video or someone else's or whatever else, to change the audio, even zoom-in on someone else's video as one of the functions of it. I'm not sure if that feature still exists but I know that it used to, because tf00t (or maybe it was dprjones) used that as part of their defense against a claim of DMCA by VFX.
While I realize that there is at least SOME room for interpretation in what is considered "false DMCA" or "fair use", I think that once a precedence is set, it's fair to CALL it false if its' been shown by precedence to be unjustified. Of course, it can still be argued in court. How about if I add "allegedly false" instead of "false"? It would be more technically accurate, but I didn't think it necessary because precedence has already been set. However, if you think it'd make it a more accurate claim, I'll add it just for good measure.
I am always willing to re-consider my position, but from as objective a point of view as I can possibly take, it still seems to me that either a) the youtube TOS protect him, b) fair use protects him, or c) both apply. I realize this is a matter of opinion to some degree but I think that the precedence and the facts support my opinion. I'm willing to agree to disagree, and I respect your opinion. I devalue joe's argument because of its' ad-hominem nature and lack of actual facts or evidence. Yours however, I accept and simply disagree with. (Just wanted to clarify that).
However, he's on ignore now.
I think personally the most accurate title for this forum would've been "Laci Green momentarily threatens DMCA against unknown harasser-discuss." The way you entitled the forum assumed guilt of perjury on Laci's part without knowing or even fully analyzing the situation.
Alleged by you? :lol: Actually, yes, this would be a good start. It is your language about this incident that is the main problem, this is why I said you were getting to carried away. If you had made a video stating that Laci had made the suggestion that she would file a DMCA and your opinion was that this video was protected under fair use and why you thought that, it would be fine. We would probably disagree but that happens occasionally Instead you made a video asserting Laci had threatened to file a false DMCA. You compared her to VFX, and suggested that she actually knew better but would have filed anyway. This went way further than the evidence actually warranted. At the time you didn't even have the screen shots to show that she had made any statement about DMCAs at all.pbjtime said:How about if I add "allegedly false" instead of "false"? It would be more technically accurate, but I didn't think it necessary because precedence has already been set. However, if you think it'd make it a more accurate claim, I'll add it just for good measure.
I think you may be referring to screen capture. This is a good point, I hadn't considered it. I It still wouldn't exempt you from recording the entire video and posting it yourself though. It certainly doesn't get you away from the CGs which state that other users videos are copyright.pbjtime said:The functionality of the website includes the ability to "remix" your video or someone else's or whatever else, to change the audio, even zoom-in on someone else's video as one of the functions of it. I'm not sure if that feature still exists but I know that it used to, because tf00t (or maybe it was dprjones) used that as part of their defense against a claim of DMCA by VFX.
The real problem is that assholes are also wrong, but pretend that if you call them out on being an asshole, that means you are conceding that they are right. it also means that they will act like a complete dick as often as possible, to drive people to call them out for their behavior, as a cover for their unsupported position. It is just one more piece of evidence that their mothers wished that abortion was retroactive, but it certainly isn't any way to conduct an online discussion, which is why I'm taking a break, probably until Monday morning, unless insomnia interferes.thelastholdout said:You know, the Stewie avatar fits you perfectly, lol.
r00tcause said:You are correct in that it is not fair use because its not really a parody.
ImprobableJoe said:Well, here's my parody of the "parody"...
You can contend it... and you are still wrong, all these long months later! :lol:lordhathor said:I blocked you because you kept posting the same exact thing, and I kept telling you that you were wrong.
She has admitted it. End of debate. The only discussion now, is whether or not it was actually FALSE DMCA - which I still contend that it was.
ImprobableJoe said:That didn't look like "fair use" to me.
Maybe... but that doesn't make her claim "false." Further, it doesn't make what you claim consistent with the way YouTube actually operates. Either way, Laci might not be able to win a case, but her claim is not "false" in the way that the claims from VFX have been.Fordi said:Irrelevant. According to YT's ToS, if you put it up, you waive copyright to the YT community. Her claim is invalid.
You keep saying that she had admitted it, but provide no evidence to back it up. I'd like to know where she admitted it.lordhathor said:I blocked you because you kept posting the same exact thing, and I kept telling you that you were wrong.
She has admitted it. End of debate. The only discussion now, is whether or not it was actually FALSE DMCA - which I still contend that it was.
Fordi said:Irrelevant. According to YT's ToS, if you put it up, you waive copyright to the YT community. Her claim is invalid.
Hey guys, I hate to interrupt the rousing debate, but can anyone verify that Laci actually made the original threat to file a DMCA claim? I saw the screenshots, but those were cropped screenshots and easily faked, and the writing style doesn't match Laci's.ImprobableJoe said:Maybe... but that doesn't make her claim "false." Further, it doesn't make what you claim consistent with the way YouTube actually operates. Either way, Laci might not be able to win a case, but her claim is not "false" in the way that the claims from VFX have been.
You missed the part where he reported me to the moderators here and tried to get me banned... not that I was at the height of decorum and polite behavior, mind you. But it IS interesting that blocking comments and trying to have people banned are his preferred strategies.Sleazy said:Strange. You make assertions, but provide flimsy evidence. Then when someone debunks your flimsy evidence and asks for more evidence, you block him from asking more questions. Then you try to end the debate by declaring that your position is correct, and then try to change the subject. I guess these debating techniques aren't reserved only for religious fundamentalists.
Wow. I guess I missed all the fun in the good ol' days. I think I'll hang out around here more often.ImprobableJoe said:You missed the part where he reported me to the moderators here and tried to get me banned... not that I was at the height of decorum and polite behavior, mind you. But it IS interesting that blocking comments and trying to have people banned are his preferred strategies.