thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
That's an excellent idea, and I agree. If he's just a random dude who found the video and wants to blow the whistle, then why is he trying so hard?
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Laci Green Threatens False DMCA For Fair Use (CONFIRMED)
- Thread starter lordhathor
- Start date
That's an excellent idea, and I agree. If he's just a random dude who found the video and wants to blow the whistle, then why is he trying so hard?
ImprobableJoe
New Member
I've got an idea, but I'm saving it for the video...thelastholdout said:
thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
What's your Youtube name? I'll subscribe to you.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
LOL, same name as here, but I have zero videos, and this might be the only one I ever make...thelastholdout said:What's your Youtube name? I'll subscribe to you.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Well, here's my parody of the "parody"...
thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
You did a damn good job of it, too.
I wonder what PBJ will have to say next?
ImprobableJoe
New Member
He'll make a DMCA threat against me?thelastholdout said:You did a damn good job of it, too.
I wonder what PBJ will have to say next?
thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
LOL! You never know in this crazy world.
You know, I didn't even come here looking for this thread. I came to this forum because I saw that someone had linked to one of my videos here, and I was scouring around trying to find it. This has been quite a fun diversion so far, though.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Glad you stumbled over here, or else I'd never have posted an actual video!thelastholdout said:LOL! You never know in this crazy world.
You know, I didn't even come here looking for this thread. I came to this forum because I saw that someone had linked to one of my videos here, and I was scouring around trying to find it. This has been quite a fun diversion so far, though.
thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
Who knows, maybe I've helped kickstart the next big Youtube celebrity!
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Sweet crispy chocolate-covered caramel Christ on a stick, let's hope not!thelastholdout said:Who knows, maybe I've helped kickstart the next big Youtube celebrity!
thelastholdout
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
Mmmm....chocolate...making me hungry...
Actually, you're right. With enough time you'd probably end up like The Amazing Atheist. *shudder*
ImprobableJoe
New Member
You mean with an ego bigger than Laci Green's chest? :lol:thelastholdout said:
thelastholdout
New Member
*snort* Yeah, that guy. And a sadistic streak that runs longer than the line of guys who want to date Laci online.ImprobableJoe said:
lordhathor
New Member
I looked through all of the posts since I went to bed, and was going to make a 4-part post to respond to everything said since then but I realized everything I was saying was merely repeating what I had already said, and everything you folks said was merely repeating what you'd said before.
Your points have already been rebuked. I welcome you to read above for the reasons why:
1) This is fair use
-A. This is parody because
--a: This is artistic in nature (not for you to determine)
--b: This is for either comedic effect, or for ridicule.
-B. This qualifies as "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment"
--a: It is obviously a quotation, while not being a complete re-printing of her work. The audio was cut out, and time was cut down.
--b: This is obviously meant to be a criticism for the purposes of comment on her style. (Comment need not be verbal).
2) This is not harassment
-A. There was a mutual exchange of messages.
-B. Harassment is by its' definition, repeated.
-C. Even if this WERE harassment, this has no bearing on his right to fair use.
3) This video is allowed by the YouTube terms of service.
-A. The following excerpt from section 6, paragraph C of YouTube's terms of service:
--a: Laci submited her video as a user submission to YouTube
--b: Laci granted all YouTube users a license to use, reproduce, distribute, display, and perform with her submission.
I will no longer directly rebut a reply which relates to one of these points, I will merely refer to this post to save myself time.
Additionally, I don't care if you still think it's harassment or not. I'm willing, even to accept that it may be harassment despite the fact that I don't believe it to be - simply because the video was obviously childish - however, this has no bearing on his right to fair use, and while he may be liable for harassment charges which would probably end in a restraining order at best, that still has nothing to do with her DMCA threat.
Thank you for your understanding.
PS - Since this is the outline of my case against Laci, if you intend to claim that I am incorrect, please point out the specific point on which I am mistaken and I'll gladly consider your side to it. Thanks ^_^
Your points have already been rebuked. I welcome you to read above for the reasons why:
1) This is fair use
-A. This is parody because
--a: This is artistic in nature (not for you to determine)
--b: This is for either comedic effect, or for ridicule.
-B. This qualifies as "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment"
--a: It is obviously a quotation, while not being a complete re-printing of her work. The audio was cut out, and time was cut down.
--b: This is obviously meant to be a criticism for the purposes of comment on her style. (Comment need not be verbal).
2) This is not harassment
-A. There was a mutual exchange of messages.
-B. Harassment is by its' definition, repeated.
-C. Even if this WERE harassment, this has no bearing on his right to fair use.
3) This video is allowed by the YouTube terms of service.
-A. The following excerpt from section 6, paragraph C of YouTube's terms of service:
Code:
"By submitting user submissions to YouTube [...] You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions"--b: Laci granted all YouTube users a license to use, reproduce, distribute, display, and perform with her submission.
I will no longer directly rebut a reply which relates to one of these points, I will merely refer to this post to save myself time.
Additionally, I don't care if you still think it's harassment or not. I'm willing, even to accept that it may be harassment despite the fact that I don't believe it to be - simply because the video was obviously childish - however, this has no bearing on his right to fair use, and while he may be liable for harassment charges which would probably end in a restraining order at best, that still has nothing to do with her DMCA threat.
Thank you for your understanding.
PS - Since this is the outline of my case against Laci, if you intend to claim that I am incorrect, please point out the specific point on which I am mistaken and I'll gladly consider your side to it. Thanks ^_^
ImprobableJoe
New Member
No, they haven't. Your argument is a steaming pile of shit, and repetition doesn't make it stink any less. Also, you're a troll and a cunt. You can't complain about it, because if you complain it makes you a troll, a cunt, and a hypocrite. After all, I can say and do anything I want, and then I can just call it a parody... which you have said is a "get out of jail free card."pbjtime said:
So, when I call you a cunt troll, it is just parody!
lordhathor
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
Resorting to petty insults.... you sure you're not a theist?pbjtime said:Now who's yelling "Checkmate!" and claiming victory?
Once again, it being parody and therefore fair use, has absolutely nothing to do with harassment. You're confusing the two issues once again even though I've explained it to you 3 times.
Fair use applies to digital media ownership. Not harassment.
thelastholdout
New Member
pbjtime said:
I already explained exactly why the video was not a parody, you keep ignoring the "characteristic of the person or their work" part. Why don't you explain that, PBJ?
And why don't you explain why you're not the person who made the original video in the first place?
Why is it so important to you to tell others that according to you Laci is despicable and deserving of scorn?
People like you have one motivation in life: destruction. You're not happy unless others are miserable.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
You're wrong, and so pathetic that I guess we should leave you alone to stew in your own FAIL.pbjtime said:
Point 1. This is fair use because it is a parody.
Flat wrong - even if you could show that the purpose of the video was a parody (which I now doubt) this does not automatically grant an exemption under the fair-use legal code. If Laci were to file a DMCA there would be valid discussion around this point. Therefore her 'threat' to file a DMCA is not a 'threat' to file a false DMCA.
Point 2&3. Not harassment and YouTube terms of service.
By Laci's comments, which you posted, she has said she is willing to allow YouTube to make the decision on compliance with it's terms of service and whether or not this counts as harassment. This is irrelevant to your assertion that she 'threatened' to file a false DMCA.
Flat wrong - even if you could show that the purpose of the video was a parody (which I now doubt) this does not automatically grant an exemption under the fair-use legal code. If Laci were to file a DMCA there would be valid discussion around this point. Therefore her 'threat' to file a DMCA is not a 'threat' to file a false DMCA.
Point 2&3. Not harassment and YouTube terms of service.
By Laci's comments, which you posted, she has said she is willing to allow YouTube to make the decision on compliance with it's terms of service and whether or not this counts as harassment. This is irrelevant to your assertion that she 'threatened' to file a false DMCA.