Laci Green Threatens False DMCA For Fair Use (CONFIRMED)

[ImprobableJoe]

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.

Leave it alone... overgrown infants with a breast fetish can't be reasoned with. Anyone who would make a video of a girl's tits, and then use another profile to defend his boob obsession, isn't going to be reasoned with.

 

[lordhathor]

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.

I already addressed that first point. The definition of parody is clearly laid out and it fits within the confines of that definition.
Also, if you want to think that I'm that person, then fine. I'm not, but your opinion really has no relevance to me. If you can think of a way I could prove I'm not him easily, let me know.
More petty insults.

 

[lordhathor]

Leave it alone... overgrown infants with a breast fetish can't be reasoned with. Anyone who would make a video of a girl's tits, and then use another profile to defend his boob obsession, isn't going to be reasoned with.

Yeah, it wasn't my profile. If you want to come up with a way to verify that, I'll abide.
Also, while I do enjoy breasts, it would be counter-intuitive for me to come after her for having breasts. Again, you're ignoring the point in favor of making petty insults. This is a clear indication that your position is weak. You're pretending that somehow her breasts have something to do with her claim to DMCA. This is obviously not the case and I've said that over and over, but you keep coming back to it. I'm done responding to you until you come up with a valid argument that hasn't already been rebuked. Otherwise, I refer to you to the previous post where I outlined my position.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm done responding to you.

Yea, please... STFU!

 

[thelastholdout]

I already addressed that first point. The definition of parody is clearly laid out and it fits within the confines of that definition.
Also, if you want to think that I'm that person, then fine. I'm not, but your opinion really has no relevance to me. If you can think of a way I could prove I'm not him easily, let me know.
More petty insults.

No, you did not address that part of the definition, PBJ. Stop avoiding, man up, and explain how the original video mimicked the characteristics of Laci's body of work.

Sure, tell me how you made the screenshots video but not the first video. If your explanation is reasonable I'll let it go.

Furthermore, you keep going on about the DMCA bullshit when it's really equivalent to someone shouting at an asshole that they'll kill them when they've been repeatedly harassed. There was no followthrough, so there's no issue with Laci's moral character. Further, she explained why she thought she was well within her rights to do so, and her explanation seemed sound. You're acting like she, like Venomfangx, was told by someone with knowledge of the law beforehand that the video did not fall under DMCA guidelines.

You also failed to explain why you're so bent on defaming Laci's character.

 

[lordhathor]

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.

The "purpose" of the video is something the author defines, and he has defined it as a parody. It fits the definition of the word parody. If you're going to disagree, you're going to have to give a reason why it doesn't fit.
No, you're right, it doesn't automagically give exemption, but that's only because fair use is not defined well at all in sec. 107 of US copyright law. That's why fair use is only a legally defensible position. I already addressed this.
The reason it's fair use is because this precedence has already been set in court.
I realize the harassment thing is irrelevant to DMCA. I'm the one who said that. They kept bringing ti up so I thought I'd respond.
Yes, after being publicly bitch-slapped, she agreed to let youtube decide what to do and not file DMCA. That doesn't change the fact that she threatened it. If I threaten to kill you, and then say "nevermind I'll let the law decide", I still threatened to kill you. Obviously THREATENING false DMCA isn't illegal, but it's still wrong.
Also, since laci uploaded her videos to youtube she automatically granted everyone else on youtube a right to re-make her video and do pretty much whatever with it so EVEN IF IT WEREN'T FAIR USE (which nobody's been able to give good reason why it isn't), it would still be allowed because she essentially granted him the right to make that video the moment she uploaded it.

The end.

Jesus people, stop making me repeat myself.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The "purpose" of the video is something the author defines, and he has defined it as a parody. It fits the definition of the word parody. If you're going to disagree, you're going to have to give a reason why it doesn't fit.

You've been given the reason, and you're a liar because you claim otherwise. It isn't a false claim, unlike YOUR claims, which are blatantly dishonest.

 

[Aught3]

The reason it's fair use is because this precedence has already been set in court.

Which case(s) are you referring to here?

I still threatened to kill you

pbjtime threatens to kill Aught3! I can see the videos already. /sarcasm

 

[lordhathor]

No, you did not address that part of the definition, PBJ. Stop avoiding, man up, and explain how the original video mimicked the characteristics of Laci's body of work.

Sure, tell me how you made the screenshots video but not the first video. If your explanation is reasonable I'll let it go.

Furthermore, you keep going on about the DMCA bullshit when it's really equivalent to someone shouting at an asshole that they'll kill them when they've been repeatedly harassed. There was no followthrough, so there's no issue with Laci's moral character. Further, she explained why she thought she was well within her rights to do so, and her explanation seemed sound. You're acting like she, like Venomfangx, was told by someone with knowledge of the law beforehand that the video did not fall under DMCA guidelines.

You also failed to explain why you're so bent on defaming Laci's character.

Oh my dog, I'm going to be responding to you people all day. This is really more work than I intended to do on this issue.
I don't want to give the impression that I don't stand by my position, but I really don't care quite that much about your opinion of this whole ordeal and so after I respond to this post, I'm going to stop. I welcome you both to have the last word, but please try and have a little respect for my position by not insulting me personally when making your case. I think we're all intelligent enough to make our arguments without ad-hom attacks.

1) The definition of parody does not demand that the video mimick her body of work, however, this clearly applies anyway because his mimickry was based around her body of work consisting mainly of her "body", savvy? I welcome your rebuttal, but I think we may have to agree to disagree, and I'm ok with that. I guess that's why people need lawyers. If everything were set in stone, there'd be no use in hiring one for $700 an hour

2) I didn't make the screenshots video mate, he did. He has 2 profiles (srsbisns and butthurtmuch or something along those lines) - and he made the screenshots video on the second one. He sent it to me in a message. I can provide a screenshot if you'd like. (Dated before I made this post)

3) - "There was no followthrough, so there's no issue with Laci's moral character." - here's another point I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on. I think that for the average joe on youtube, you'd be right about this, but it's my opinion that based on her experience and knowledge of the VFX/tf00t issue and based also on her inclusion in the atheist community, who have been victims of this sort of thing, she should know better. To me, it's similar to a black person voting yes on prop 8. A member of a group who has been held down for generations helping to hold down another minority. It seems hypocritical.

4) "Further, she explained why she thought she was well within her rights to do so, and her explanation seemed sound."
She did? If she did indeed admit her mistake after realizing her reasoning wasn't as sound as she thought then I retract my criticism entirely.
I did however see where she claimed that fair use only applied to educational videos, which she MUST know is false if she did any research at all. (I assume you know as well, but if not, see the link on page 2 of this post to sec 107 of us copyright law)

5) "You also failed to explain why you're so bent on defaming Laci's character."
I'm really not. I know it seems that way because I'm so viciously defending my position here, but really I'd do that over a case of bubble gum. I think I am right in this case, and when I think I am right, I defend that until I'm convinced I'm wrong. I'm sure you understand that position. Personally, I don't like Laci. She reminds me of my ex. Crazy witch. But that's got nothing to do with this whole ordeal, I assure you. :lol:

Now, I welcome you both to have the last words, and I don't intend to defend this position much more simply because there is plenty of information here that if anyone stumbles upon this thread they should be able to decide for themselves whether it is fair use or not, and whether the youtube TOS applies or not. We have reached an impass where our difference is one of opinion, and I fear we can go no further amongst ourselves.

Again, I'd appreciate it if your responses didn't consist of ad hom attacks, as I personally had fun in this little debate. ^_^


PS- Aught: "The reason it's fair use is because this precedence has already been set in court. "
Check above, there's a post with some text highlighted in red with an exerpt from a .gov site about us copyright law, citing precedence on the issue. I don't know the names of the case participants, sorry.

Joe: "You've been given the reason, and you're a liar because you claim otherwise. It isn't a false claim, unlike YOUR claims, which are blatantly dishonest."

I have responded (in my opinion, adequately) to every "reason" I've been given, and I think my position has been effectively defended. I see no reason to change my mind, but I welcome you to give it another shot. I promise to be as open minded as one can possibly be on this issue. Just leave the ad-hom attacks out of it please, because it's really hard not to "lock up" to an argument (close your mind to it), when it's being used as a personal insult.

 

[Aught3]

PS- Aught: "The reason it's fair use is because this precedence has already been set in court. "
Check above, there's a post with some text highlighted in red with an exerpt from a .gov site about us copyright law, citing precedence on the issue. I don't know the names of the case participants, sorry.

Ok, I read you post again. In my opinion the criticism example does not apply because he was not reviewing her work. This is obvious because he did not add any material nor make any comment on her style of video. I think that the parody exception is more likely to apply here. You cite precedence for this kind of decision but no sources (that's cool I just thought you might of had one that I hadn't heard of) allow me to cite Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. as the precedence for this kind of case. The supreme court found that the factors related to a parody must be applied on a case by case basis and said "'The fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line. Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use..." I think Laci would have a good case to argue based on the precedence (or lack of any).

The four factors to consider are
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

1 - Purpose appears to be to annoy Laci, perhaps even to intimidate or harass her.
2 - Irrelevant, nobody bothers with this part.
3 - The entire video was made from copyright material, that's 100%. Also ~10sec of audio was used before it was changed to music (probably another copyright issue there).
4 - Irrelevant, no market to consider.

I'd say she has a rather good case wouldn't you? I would certainly pause and think about it before I accused her of threatening to file a false DMCA.

Of course the other factor is that she hasn't actually filed a DMCA let alone a false one. Perhaps someone did explain to her that the video would be fair use so she decided not to go through with it. Who knows what really happened, certainly not you.

 

[lordhathor]

Ok, I read you post again. In my opinion the criticism example does not apply because he was not reviewing her work. This is obvious because he did not add any material nor make any comment on her style of video. I think that the parody exception is more likely to apply here. You cite precedence for this kind of decision but no sources (that's cool I just thought you might of had one that I hadn't heard of) allow me to cite Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. as the precedence for this kind of case. The supreme court found that the factors related to a parody must be applied on a case by case basis and said "'The fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line. Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use..." I think Laci would have a good case to argue based on the precedence (or lack of any).

The four factors to consider are
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

1 - Purpose appears to be to annoy Laci, perhaps even to intimidate or harass her.
2 - Irrelevant, nobody bothers with this part.
3 - The entire video was made from copyright material, that's 100%. Also ~10sec of audio was used before it was changed to music (probably another copyright issue there).
4 - Irrelevant, no market to consider.

I'd say she has a rather good case wouldn't you? I would certainly pause and think about it before I accused her of threatening to file a false DMCA.

Of course the other factor is that she hasn't actually filed a DMCA let alone a false one. Perhaps someone did explain to her that the video would be fair use so she decided not to go through with it. Who knows what really happened, certainly not you.

While my opinion is that no, she wouldn't have much of a case with that, I'll disagree as a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. However, don't you think the YouTube TOS overrides this, since she basically granted him the right to use her video by uploading it?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

However, don't you think the YouTube TOS overrides this, since she basically granted him the right to use her video by uploading it?

The fact that ANY copyright claims exist on YouTube, and YouTube has a section on copyright violations on their website, shows that your position is completely wrong... as usual. Obviously, to everyone besides you, people maintain intellectual property rights even after they post their videos on YouTube.

 

[lordhathor]

The fact that ANY copyright claims exist on YouTube, and YouTube has a section on copyright violations on their website, shows that your position is completely wrong... as usual. Obviously, to everyone besides you, people maintain intellectual property rights even after they post their videos on YouTube.

You just refuse to be civil, don't you? Oh well, I'll let your verbal flailing about speak for itself.

that's incorrect. Just because youtube doesn't let you upload copyrighted stuff (TV shows, movies, copyrighted songs) doesn't mean that if you create something as the content owner and upload it, the other part of their TOS doesn't apply. Do you see the difference?
Sure, they maintain intellectual property rights, but they ALSO grant rights to other people. That's like giving someone your CD, then suing them for pirating your music. Just because you maintain the rights to distribute your music doesn't mean nobody else has the right to use it.

Now, do you think you can be civil in your next reply?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You just refuse to be civil, don't you? Oh well, I'll let your verbal flailing about speak for itself.

that's incorrect. Just because youtube doesn't let you upload copyrighted stuff (TV shows, movies, copyrighted songs) doesn't mean that if you create something as the content owner and upload it, the other part of their TOS doesn't apply. Do you see the difference?
Sure, they maintain intellectual property rights, but they ALSO grant rights to other people. That's like giving someone your CD, then suing them for pirating your music. Just because you maintain the rights to distribute your music doesn't mean nobody else has the right to use it.

Now, do you think you can be civil in your next reply?

We all see what you are. We all see that you ignore the obvious flaws in your reasoning, and instead pretend to be a victim. Oh, I'm so MEAN that you don't have to defend your completely bankrupt POV. You're STILL wrong, and your attachment to your false position and your dishonest claims against Laci Green show exactly who and what you are. Feel free to whine about civility while you lie again and again... notice how the people posting here disagree with you? They are more polite than me, but they also agree with me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

pbjtime, didn't you promise to go away? Please?

 

[lordhathor]

We all see what you are. We all see that you ignore the obvious flaws in your reasoning, and instead pretend to be a victim. Oh, I'm so MEAN that you don't have to defend your completely bankrupt POV. You're STILL wrong, and your attachment to your false position and your dishonest claims against Laci Green show exactly who and what you are. Feel free to whine about civility while you lie again and again... notice how the people posting here disagree with you? They are more polite than me, but they also agree with me.

I have made my case quite well, I think. I see that you don't think that. You're welcome to that opinion, but you've gotten to the point now where you have no further arguments and have long ago resorted only to name-calling.
By the way, an ad-populum argument isn't valid. Just because 2 other people agree with you doesn't make you right. The first person in this post agreed with me, and he was a mod. Does that mean I get to use the argument from authority? Or I could say look at the rating on my video. Clearly 5 stars. Apparently most people agree with me. You're wrong either way. I'm through responding to you. You've made it clear you have no points to make other than to call me a "cunt". So I will now put you on my block list in favor of having an intelligent discussion with the others here who are obviously more civil than you.

You're never going to change anyone's mind by acting the way you're acting.

(PS - Don't double post. Just edit your previous post.)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

[]

I have made my case quite well, I think.

No, you made your case outrageously poorly, threw a temper tantrum and promised to go away, and then came back to assert that you've made your case. Maybe if you make the same case poorly a few more times, and add a few more incorrect statements (like your fucking stupid claim that posting to YouTube automatically means you give up your copyright claim), maybe you can convince yourself that you aren't making a fool of yourself.

 

[Aught3]

While my opinion is that no, she wouldn't have much of a case with that, I'll disagree as a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. However, don't you think the YouTube TOS overrides this, since she basically granted him the right to use her video by uploading it?

I'm afraid not. This is the full exert:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions 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 User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. 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 as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.

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:

Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorised to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos to which someone else owns the copyright, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programmes or videos made by other users, without the requisite authorisations.

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.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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.

I'll give you 24 hours... for your sake, not his.

 

[Aught3]

Cheers, let's see if he posts again.