Laci Green Threatens False DMCA For Fair Use (CONFIRMED)

[ImprobableJoe]

There's something seriously wrong in your brain! :lol:

 

[lordhathor]

There's something seriously wrong in your brain! :lol:

Now who's yelling "Checkmate!" and claiming victory?

 

[thelastholdout]

Parody:
1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See synonyms at caricature.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

My analysis:

Whoever made the video private messaged Laci to make sure she saw it.

The video's sole intent was to ridicule and demean her.

That the author of the video would ensure that Laci saw something which ridiculed and demeaned her by way of private message could qualify as harassment. Also by this point it's clear from the message subjects that there was quite a bit of an exchange back and forth, yet we only see Laci's side, and at that, only three messages, late into the exchange. Knowing that the intent was originally to demean Laci, it's a sure bet that the video author tried their best to get her upset with the messages as well. So she might have threatened the DMCA in a moment of upsetment, and while she probably wouldn't do such a thing for real, she'd be well within her rights. The video does use a good chunk of her video before zooming in on the inch of cleavage she shows, and there's no parody involved. None of the definitions of "parody" you quoted fit the video in question. It's harassment, plain and simple. And that you'd attempt to come here to this forum and try to defame her character after doing your best to provoke a response from her speaks volumes for your character.

Case closed.

 

[lordhathor]

My analysis:

Whoever made the video private messaged Laci to make sure she saw it.

The video's sole intent was to ridicule and demean her.

That the author of the video would ensure that Laci saw something which ridiculed and demeaned her by way of private message could qualify as harassment.

For something to be harassment, it must be repeated. Making one video like this is not harassment, and regardless of what anyone thinks of it or whether or not he intended for her to see it, this has no bearing on whether or not it is fair use or whether or not it is parody.

Also by this point it's clear from the message subjects that there was quite a bit of an exchange back and forth, yet we only see Laci's side, and at that, only three messages, late into the exchange. Knowing that the intent was originally to demean Laci, it's a sure bet that the video author tried their best to get her upset with the messages as well. So she might have threatened the DMCA in a moment of upsetment, and while she probably wouldn't do such a thing for real, she'd be well within her rights.

No, she would not be well within her rights. That's the entire point of fair use. Was venom "well within his rights" to file claim against thunderf00t? Was thunderf00t any more "harrassing" toward vfx than this guy was toward laci? Was vfx's claim to DMCA okay because it was "in a moment of upsetment"? NO.

The video does use a good chunk of her video before zooming in on the inch of cleavage she shows, and there's no parody involved.

The video itself is parody, and actually it's a very brief (edited) portion of the video before he zooms in and gets to the point. Again, the duration before the point is made has absolutely no bearing on whether or not this is fair use.

None of the definitions of "parody" you quoted fit the video in question.

Yes, they do. If you don't think so, you'll have to provide some measure of reasoning to that end.

It's harassment, plain and simple.

again, harassment is by its very nature, repeated. Even if this were harassment simply to have made the video, that has abzolutely zero bearing on fair use. The digital millennium copyright act doesn't even have the word "harassment" in it, and certainly makes no concessions for harassment in fair use trials.

And that you'd attempt to come here to this forum and try to defame her character after doing your best to provoke a response from her speaks volumes for your character.

defame her? I'm pointing out her hypocrisy and her false allegations. The fact that you would come on here and defend her after what she's done speaks tons for your character, namely that you're probably thinking more with your penis than with your head.

 

[thelastholdout]

For something to be harassment, it must be repeated. Making one video like this is not harassment, and regardless of what anyone thinks of it or whether or not he intended for her to see it, this has no bearing on whether or not it is fair use or whether or not it is parody.

Making one video isn't, but refusing to take it down when it is clearly stated by the targeted victim to be offensive and repeatedly messaging her on the topic with an inflammatory intent would be. I'm sure that if I asked her to send me screenshots of the exchange from the author's end it would reveal that the other person was being a complete ass to her.

No, she would not be well within her rights. That's the entire point of fair use. Was venom "well within his rights" to file claim against thunderf00t? Was thunderf00t any more "harrassing" toward vfx than this guy was toward laci? Was vfx's claim to DMCA okay because it was "in a moment of upsetment"? NO.

There's a couple of differences here: (1) Venom actually filed multiple DMCAs after being informed that he wasn't within his rights to do so. (2) Thunderf00t is leagues above the slimeball who made the video in question. He actually used clips of Venom's videos to make points. The sole intent of the video in question was to harass Laci. If it wasn't, then why would the author make sure she saw it?

The video itself is parody, and actually it's a very brief (edited) portion of the video before he zooms in and gets to the point. Again, the duration before the point is made has absolutely no bearing on whether or not this is fair use.

Actually, there is a limit on how much of an unadulterated clip you can use, though it varies case by case. Did the author really need 10 seconds before zooming in? Couldn't he have made the same "point" in 5 seconds?

[quoteYes, they do. If you don't think so, you'll have to provide some measure of reasoning to that end. [/quote]

Parody:
1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See synonyms at caricature.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

We can ignore definitions 2, 2 and 3, as they're irrelevant. All we have left is the first definition. The video did not imitate the characteristic style of Laci or her videos. It was simply a close up shot of her cleavage. The intent of the video was not clearly comedy, because of the X factor of the author trying to make sure Laci saw the video, which he knew would upset her. This is not, by any definition, a parody.

again, harassment is by its very nature, repeated. Even if this were harassment simply to have made the video, that has abzolutely zero bearing on fair use. The digital millennium copyright act doesn't even have the word "harassment" in it, and certainly makes no concessions for harassment in fair use trials.

Most lawyers will tell you that if the victim truly feels harassed, then that's basis enough to at least get to court. I'm making the point about harassment because only one message dealt with a DMCA threat, while the other ones shown deal with her threatening to report the guy for harassment.

defame her? I'm pointing out her hypocrisy and her false allegations. The fact that you would come on here and defend her after what she's done speaks tons for your character, namely that you're probably thinking more with your penis than with your head.

False allegations? The guy is trying to piss her off. That is not debatable. Hypocrisy? Laci's never made a video saying "You should never ever even threaten DMCA use even when you possibly have a chance of winning because some creep is making a video with the intent to get you upset and Youtube sucks at kicking creeps off their sites, and even if you never follow through with such a threat, you're a total asshole who deserves to be defamed by people who have little to no understanding of the situation at hand."

Thinking with my penis? Give me a little credit. Intarweb relationships bear very little value to me.

 

[lordhathor]

Making one video isn't, but refusing to take it down when it is clearly stated by the targeted victim to be offensive and repeatedly messaging her on the topic with an inflammatory intent would be. I'm sure that if I asked her to send me screenshots of the exchange from the author's end it would reveal that the other person was being a complete ass to her.

refusing to take it down is an exercise of his rights. Not harassment. Repeatedly messaging her? Maybe, except that she was clearly messaging him as well. It was a mutual exchange. Also not harassment. I'm more than certain, however, that you're correct that he was being an ass to her.
HOWEVER, THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RIGHTS!!

(1) Venom actually filed multiple DMCAs after being informed that he wasn't within his rights to do so.

and she was witness to this entire exchange, and clearly knows full well that it is not within her rights to file DMCA, which is why she hasn't done so but has only threatened to.

(2) Thunderf00t is leagues above the slimeball who made the video in question.

I agree, but see no reason this should have any bearing on the law.

He actually used clips of Venom's videos to make points.

so did this guy, just in a way less mature way. The point was that in his opinion, she was a whore. (I'm not saying she was, but that was the opinion he was expressing.)

The sole intent of the video in question was to harass Laci. If it wasn't, then why would the author make sure she saw it?

when you inject the word harass into the reason for his making the video, you automatically give yourself room to call it harassment. Similarly to what the christians do when saying: "WHO created the universe" -The answer is in the question.
If you instead say, the sole purpose of this video was to point out TO HER her hypocrisy - then you have a much wider range of options for why he made sure she saw it. Again, the answer is in the question. to point it out to her.

Actually, there is a limit on how much of an unadulterated clip you can use, though it varies case by case. Did the author really need 10 seconds before zooming in? Couldn't he have made the same "point" in 5 seconds?

whether or not you think he needed to use a full ten seconds (which is... really not much) is irrelevant. Again, the time it takes to make the point intended has no bearing on fair use. The limitation on the amount of time that can be used of another person's work has no precedence set. He also cut out her audio in the majority of the clip, (all except the beginning ten seconds) - so again, it falls under fair use as far as any precedence has ever been set. All precedence is in his favor and this effort to defend her in the face of this while condemning vfx for the same thing is a bit hyppocritical. As a fellow free thinker, I invite you to analyze this.

Parody:
1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See synonyms at caricature.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

We can ignore definitions 2, 2 and 3, as they're irrelevant.

although I don't necessarily agree with ruling out point 2.2, I'll grant you this.

All we have left is the first definition. The video did not imitate the characteristic style of Laci or her videos. It was simply a close up shot of her cleavage. The intent of the video was not clearly comedy, because of the X factor of the author trying to make sure Laci saw the video, which he knew would upset her. This is not, by any definition, a parody.

Number one applies 100%. "Artistic" is not something you determine. Artistic, in the legal sense, is determined by the content creator. Nobody can tell you whether or not a painting is artistic, except the one who painted it. Obviously he can call this artistic if he wants, and obviously it fits the other qualifications which are that it be for comic effect or ridicule (obviously in this case, ridicule but possibly also for comic effect. Again, this is his intent to define, not up for us to determine. I know many people found it funny.)

Most lawyers will tell you that if the victim truly feels harassed, then that's basis enough to at least get to court.

Most lawyers will also tell you that in a case like this, where there has been a mutual exchange between the both of them, you're probably not likely to win any court case for harassment. Maybe a restraining order if you're famous or something.

I'm making the point about harassment because only one message dealt with a DMCA threat, while the other ones shown deal with her threatening to report the guy for harassment.

even if it were harassment, the point about the DMCA threat still remains.

False allegations? The guy is trying to piss her off. That is not debatable.

agreed.

Hypocrisy? Laci's never made a video saying "You should never ever even threaten DMCA use even when you possibly have a chance of winning because some creep is making a video with the intent to get you upset and Youtube sucks at kicking creeps off their sites, and even if you never follow through with such a threat, you're a total asshole who deserves to be defamed by people who have little to no understanding of the situation at hand."

no, but she did stand behind the atheist community during the whole vfx/tf00t scenario and was clearly against vfx's side. She specifically mentioned it in at least one blog.tv session and I believe one video (I might be able to produce it if pressed, but I'm not certain.)

Thinking with my penis? Give me a little credit. Intarweb relationships bear very little value to me.

As a fellow free thinker, you must have some knowledge of this evolutionary drive to procreate and how it works. Evolution has no knowledge of the internet, and when we're faced with a ripe mate, we often think less with our heads and more with our penises whether our brains think it's wise to do so, or serves any purpose, or not. I don't mean this to sound condescending but maybe you should analyze your position. Do you really think this is so much different from the situation VFX and tf00t were in? (aside from that VFX actually took the last step and filed the DMCA claim)

 

[Aught3]

I think you are getting way too carried away with this. It's not like she's filed a DMCA or is even planning to.

 

[lordhathor]

I think you are getting way too carried away with this. It's not like she's filed a DMCA or is even planning to.

carried away?
I made a video showing that she threatened to file a false DMCA, knowing that wouldn't be ok because of the whole VFX/tf00t thing. That is all. The only thing I've done since then is defend that position.

 

[Aught3]

Did she though?

 

[lordhathor]

Did she though?

well yeah, check the video. We have screenshots of her messages :S

 

[Aught3]

What did she say exactly?

 

[lordhathor]

What did she say exactly?

 

[Aught3]

Ok, thank-you for posting the video.

I'll address the three screenshots, the first one seems to be causing the problem so I'll come to it last.

No. 2: Clearly the exchange has been going on for a while and we do not know all that has been said. The title of the conversation 'hay lacigreen, i have something for you...' is creepy in nature, especially considering the video it is apparently linked to. Laci seems polite and is attempting to inform him of his position that the video does not meet fair use guidelines. She then explains that she will flag the video and report it to YouTube under harassment. This seems a reasonable course of action to me and I assume to you.

No. 3: Laci again is polite even though she is clearly bothered by the video. She informs him YouTube has been contacted and she is leaving it up to them to sort out. Again very reasonable. She even attempts to appeal to his better nature, though it must be obvious by now he does not have one. Perhaps slightly naive on her part, but sometimes it works.

No. 1: This is the one you are having problems with. Laci seems to be informing him that she is willing to contact YouTube over the video. She believes she has ownership of the video (correct) and that he does not have the right to use the material. I do not know if this last statement is correct but it is essentially irrelevant. The only sentence that indicates that she will take this dispute outside of YouTube is the following;

'I will not file a DMCA against you if you go peacefully.'

This is the basis for your video. May I point out that your case is entirely built on denying the antecedent? Also, this isn't even a 'huff & puff' cease and desist letter, not particularly threatening at all. Apart from this you have not convinced me that she doesn't have grounds for a DMCA anyway. See the second screenshot where Laci rebuts claims of fair-use. Finally, in screenshot three, Laci says she will leave it up to YouTube. Surely this indicates she will not be filing a DMCA.

Your problems with the DMCA are rebuffed by the very video you posted.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Now who's yelling "Checkmate!" and claiming victory?

No, see... that was just "parody"! :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

carried away?
I made a video showing that she threatened to file a false DMCA, knowing that wouldn't be ok because of the whole VFX/tf00t thing. That is all. The only thing I've done since then is defend that position.

Your position, unfortunately for you, is the only thing false here. She didn't threaten to file a "false" DMCA, because as people have tried to demonstrate to you, whether or not she has a valid claim of not is clearly debatable. It is unfair of you to heap scorn and ridicule on someone for threatening to file a DMCA in good faith, simply because you disagree with them... and because you think they are a "bimbo" who deserves any harassment she gets. Isn't that what this is really about?

 

[thelastholdout]

refusing to take it down is an exercise of his rights. Not harassment. Repeatedly messaging her? Maybe, except that she was clearly messaging him as well. It was a mutual exchange. Also not harassment. I'm more than certain, however, that you're correct that he was being an ass to her.
HOWEVER, THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RIGHTS!!

Actually, free speech does have certain limitations, as decided by several Supreme Court cases. When someone is clearly abusing their right to free speech by working systematically to hurt others, then there's going to be a problem. Furthermore, the slimeball doesn't have any actual rights when posting anything on Youtube. He only has priveleges, as he is using Youtube's space and servers (THEIR private property) to post material in the good faith that he's not doing anything offensive or illegal. These latter two qualifications are obviously a little hazy at this point. If it were, say, his own web site that he posted on, then there'd be nothing I could say. But as Laci pointed out the whole issue is up to Youtube to decide.

and she was witness to this entire exchange, and clearly knows full well that it is not within her rights to file DMCA, which is why she hasn't done so but has only threatened to.

Yeah, and she didn't even really threaten at that. She mentioned it once, as part of a larger message in which the connotation was that she was clearly upset. If someone says in anger "I'm gonna kill you!" or "I'll punch you in the face!" does that mean that they really, truly intend to do so, or that their better judgment won't set in? If they're someone who normally speaks on behalf of nonviolence and they say this after being repeatedly verbally assaulted by another, does this make them a hypocrite? No.

I agree, but see no reason this should have any bearing on the law.

Okay, that wasn't a point in of itself. You don't need to break my messages down THAT much.

so did this guy, just in a way less mature way. The point was that in his opinion, she was a whore. (I'm not saying she was, but that was the opinion he was expressing.)

Actually, from the video itself it's not clear what his "point" was. There's no subtitles, no audio commentary, nothing saying "Hey, look at the boobcrack, she must be a whore because it's there throughout her entire video." Just her cleavage, an inch of cleavage, which is there because *gasp!* she wore a tank top. Guess what? Her breasts are big; the only way she wouldn't show cleavage is if she wore a T-shirt going up to her neck. So what was the point? "You should only wear T-shirts in this video"? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

when you inject the word harass into the reason for his making the video, you automatically give yourself room to call it harassment. Similarly to what the christians do when saying: "WHO created the universe" -The answer is in the question.
If you instead say, the sole purpose of this video was to point out TO HER her hypocrisy - then you have a much wider range of options for why he made sure she saw it. Again, the answer is in the question. to point it out to her.

I'm injecting the word because it fits the situation; the slimeball made the video with the specific intent that Laci would see it. He repeatedly messaged her on the topic, and for all we know all she was saying on the other end was "Please take the video down and leave me alone." I'm talking about the original video, the one with the zoom in, not the screenshots one.

whether or not you think he needed to use a full ten seconds (which is... really not much) is irrelevant. Again, the time it takes to make the point intended has no bearing on fair use. The limitation on the amount of time that can be used of another person's work has no precedence set. He also cut out her audio in the majority of the clip, (all except the beginning ten seconds) - so again, it falls under fair use as far as any precedence has ever been set. All precedence is in his favor and this effort to defend her in the face of this while condemning vfx for the same thing is a bit hyppocritical. As a fellow free thinker, I invite you to analyze this.

Actually, there have been limits on how much of a work can be used, but again, it varies case by case. There are major differences between this case and the VFX case. If Laci had actually filed a DMCA claim after being given the legal advice that she had no right to such a claim, then I wouldn't be defending her here. However, the fact remains that she didn't, and I view this as a case of her saying something that she probably didn't mean in a moment of upsetment while dealing with a total ass. She mentioned a DMCA once, and afterwards decided instead to nail him on harassment. She did not say "I have just filed a DMCA against you, see you in court." You're acting like she did file the DMCA after being told that she had no right to do so by someone who knew more about the law than the slimeball or her.

although I don't necessarily agree with ruling out point 2.2, I'll grant you this.

Why don't you agree? The latter definitions don't apply to the definition of parody which would be used here.

Number one applies 100%. "Artistic" is not something you determine. Artistic, in the legal sense, is determined by the content creator. Nobody can tell you whether or not a painting is artistic, except the one who painted it. Obviously he can call this artistic if he wants, and obviously it fits the other qualifications which are that it be for comic effect or ridicule (obviously in this case, ridicule but possibly also for comic effect. Again, this is his intent to define, not up for us to determine. I know many people found it funny.)

I said nothing about it being artistic or not, I said that it DOES NOT MIMIC HER CHARACTERISTIC STYLE, NOR DOES IT MIMIC THE CHARACTERISTIC STYLE OF HER VIDEOS. A parody would be someone sitting there in a wig and tank top, mimicking her voice and words in a silly way, or something of that nature. This video just zoomed in on an inch of cleavage, with absolutely no additional commentary. It's a safe bet that the music used isn't copyright free either.

Most lawyers will also tell you that in a case like this, where there has been a mutual exchange between the both of them, you're probably not likely to win any court case for harassment. Maybe a restraining order if you're famous or something.

even if it were harassment, the point about the DMCA threat still remains.

And the point about the DMCA threat has already been repeatedly refuted. At this point you're just circling back to one statement which was not followed through on in an attempt to defame Laci's character.

no, but she did stand behind the atheist community during the whole vfx/tf00t scenario and was clearly against vfx's side. She specifically mentioned it in at least one blog.tv session and I believe one video (I might be able to produce it if pressed, but I'm not certain.)

But again, the Venom case was one in which the defendant KNOWINGLY FILED FALSE DMCA claims. Laci here (1) did not actually file the claims, and (2) provided reasons why she thought she would've been in her rights to do so. Why do you keep ignoring these facts?

As a fellow free thinker, you must have some knowledge of this evolutionary drive to procreate and how it works. Evolution has no knowledge of the internet, and when we're faced with a ripe mate, we often think less with our heads and more with our penises whether our brains think it's wise to do so, or serves any purpose, or not. I don't mean this to sound condescending but maybe you should analyze your position. Do you really think this is so much different from the situation VFX and tf00t were in? (aside from that VFX actually took the last step and filed the DMCA claim)

As a fellow free thinker, you must have some knowledge about how physical distance can lessen attraction on all levels. Sure, I find her attractive, but that doesn't mean that I'm dying to get in her pants. Furthermore, if I truly thought she had done anything wrong I wouldn't be defending her. I've tried online relationships before, they don't usually work. I temper my attraction to her with cold, hard reality. You're champing at the bit to stomp all over her, I'm merely looking at both sides of the story. If I have any bias, it's that I have spoken to her several times on a personal level and consider her my friend, as she considers me one, and I know her to be a person of good character all around. Therefore I'm obviously going to give her some benefit of the doubt and refuse to declare her guilty of the crimes you charge her with until I have something you have failed to provide: the FULL STORY.

 

[thelastholdout]

I made a video showing that she threatened to file a false DMCA, knowing that wouldn't be ok because of the whole VFX/tf00t thing. That is all. The only thing I've done since then is defend that position.

YOU made this video, eh? That means you had access to the original message exchange between Laci and the slimeball. That means that you ARE the fucking slimeball who made the video in the first place and made sure Laci saw it.

And now you're here deliberately trying to damage her reputation.

You don't have any higher or moral purpose, you're not trying to point out hypocrisy. You did something intentionally to get her upset and trap her, quote mined what you needed afterward, and now you're here. You're truly pathetic.

If you're NOT the slimeball, then I encourage you to explain away the statements you made above.

Checkmate, you son of a bitch.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

YOU made this video, eh? That means you had access to the original message exchange between Laci and the slimeball. That means that you ARE the fucking slimeball who made the video in the first place and made sure Laci saw it.

And now you're here deliberately trying to damage her reputation.

You don't have any higher or moral purpose, you're not trying to point out hypocrisy. You did something intentionally to get her upset and trap her, quote mined what you needed afterward, and now you're here. You're truly pathetic.

If you're NOT the slimeball, then I encourage you to explain away the statements you made above.

Checkmate, you son of a bitch.

Ohhh.... nice catch if it is true. He's a slimeball either way, but wouldn't it be more fun if he was the original slimeball?

 

[thelastholdout]

Ohhh.... nice catch if it is true. He's a slimeball either way, but wouldn't it be more fun if he was the original slimeball?

I have actually suspected it from the beginning, as no other person I've seen has made a big deal out of these videos. This last post by him screams "FREUDIAN SLIP!" To be honest, only one kind of person would go to such lengths to be such an asshole regarding her: someone who's pissed that he can't have her.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I have actually suspected it from the beginning, as no other person I've seen has made a big deal out of these videos. This last post by him screams "FREUDIAN SLIP!" To be honest, only one kind of person would go to such lengths to be such an asshole regarding her: someone who's pissed that he can't have her.

It is hard to imagine anyone considering this to be a parody, and going to these lengths to attack her in such a dishonest manner certainly suggests emotional involvement on some level.

I'm thinking I might make my first video, to demonstrate what a parody actually looks like.