Laci Green Threatens False DMCA For Fair Use (CONFIRMED)

[thelastholdout]

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

You know, the Stewie avatar fits you perfectly, lol.

 

[lordhathor]

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.

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.

 

[thelastholdout]

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.

I don't know that i've ever heard of this feature. I do know that as Youtube's brought more big companies aboard they have taken away many liberties we users used to have.

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 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.

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 that there isn't any real precedence for this particular case; there aren't many videos zooming in on Youtube users' cleavage. It can be argued both ways. I think she has far more justification for a harassment case, and that was obviously the road she ended up wanting to go down, but she still had some valid points concerning the DMCA.

 

[lordhathor]

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.

Maybe I sensationalized the title of this topic just a little to encourage debate, but I didn't mean to completely misrepresent the topic

(This discussion is now taking place in the chat, so I'll just respond to the rest there instead of copy-pasting everything here. I don't think anyone cares enough to read all that anyway haha)

 

[Aught3]

I'm not sure which precedence you are talking about. If you mean VFX there are several differences in that case to this one. Firstly, he admitted that he filed the DMCA, under perjury, after getting advice that those videos would not be protected by fair use. Secondly, he actually filed a DMCA.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fair use may protect him, but the supreme court has set the precedent that the parody judgment is made on a case by case basis. The issue here is 'has she received advice that his video would be protected by fair use'. If the answer was 'yes' then I would agree that she is headed down the VFX false DMCA path. As it stands all we have is one comment by Laci 'If you take down the video, I won't have to file a DMCA'. Which you have interpreted (by way of a false logical syllogism, I might add) to mean that if he doesn't take down the video she will file a DMCA. You have no idea whether or not she will consult a lawyer first or even start the process. You went way to far, I think you need to moderate the language in your video making it clear that the DMCA would not necessarily be false and that it is your opinion that the video is protected under fair use. Also the VFX comparisons are kind of harsh - no ones that bad.

btw Joe, thanks for backing off, but apparently you're on his ignore list now so I guess you can come back.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You know, the Stewie avatar fits you perfectly, lol.

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.

 

[r00tcause]

(deleted)

 

[lordhathor]

You are correct in that it is not fair use because its not really a parody.

I made a post above about why it DOES fit the definition of parody. See above.

 

[Grimlock]

Well, here's my parody of the "parody"...

What the hell is that song you used called i got it stuck good in my head and i can,´t get it out.

So please what is that song called??

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Having watched some of her videos I think the camera is so low because she gestures a LOT with her hands. Some people communicate very physically. I would like it if she didn't have the camera in such a way that you see BEWBS mostly because I think it is just inflammatory and invites people's derision.


However I think picking on her for ZOMFG BEWBS is stupid. We all have breasts, guys just have smaller ones.

 

[Sleazy]

Okay, I understand that this is an old topic, but I just recently ran across Laci's videos.

FIrst, I have to thank lordhathor for introducing me to this forum.

Second, I have to call out lordhathor for blocking me from adding more replies to his videos after I called "bullshit" on his original claim that Laci Green made the original DMCA threat.

I've read through this thread and while it appears that everyone is debating the merits of a DMCA claim for this particular incident, it seems like no one is questioning whether or not Laci actually made the threat.

I think that she never made the threat at all. I have posted my reasoning on the original video, and lordhathor replied, but then he blocked me from adding additional comments.

My thoughts:
Laci is very articulate verbally as anyone who has watched her videos can see. If you read the "more info" section of her videos, you can see that her writing style is very similar to her speaking style; she uses proper punctuation and grammar.

Now, if you look at the screenshot "proof" video, the person making the DMCA threat has the writing style of an elementary school student. For example "Take down the video or I contact YouTube" [sic] and "It is the sole property of me" [sic].

Furthermore, if you look at the second screenshot entitled "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hay lacigreen. I have something for you....", it implies that the creator of the "parody" video initiated the exchange, but his incorrect usage of the word "hay" instead of "hey" makes me believe that he wrote both sides of the exchange and that Laci was never involved.

Screenshot evidence is easy enough to fake. If someone can show me where I can post screenshot pictures, I will make one appearing to look as if someone on this forum has threatened my life and it will be very difficult to show that it was faked (hint: I will NOT use Photoshop).

In the video comments, lordhathor made the claim that Laci has admitted to making the DMCA threat, but I have not seen any evidence of this. If anyone can show me evidence that she has admitted it, then I will retract my statements, admit that I was wrong, and make an apology.

I believe that this is a poorly executed smear campaign against Laci and that lordhathor is involved.

 

[lordhathor]

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]

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.

You can contend it... and you are still wrong, all these long months later! :lol:

 

[Fordi]

That didn't look like "fair use" to me.

Irrelevant. According to YT's ToS, if you put it up, you waive copyright to the YT community. Her claim is invalid.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Irrelevant. According to YT's ToS, if you put it up, you waive copyright to the YT community. Her claim is invalid.

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.

 

[Sleazy]

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.

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.

You also said that it was all sorted out on the League of Reason forum, but here I am, and I see nothing has been sorted out at all.

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.

 

[Sleazy]

Irrelevant. According to YT's ToS, if you put it up, you waive copyright to the YT community. Her claim is invalid.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

Wow. I guess I missed all the fun in the good ol' days. I think I'll hang out around here more often.

Based on his behaviors and the fact that he's the only one constantly defending the original "parody" video, I'm starting to agree that he made all 3 videos as an attack on Ms. Green.

By the way, he's made the assertion at least 3 times that Laci had admitted to the DMCA claim, but has provided no evidence. Instead of calling bullshit on him, I'm just going to outright call him a liar.