Moving this video to JTZ's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*discuss. Video is redacted in response to the following copyright claim (but obviously the "poeTV" reference is incorrect):

A member of our faculty has identified a video that is on poeTV
without permission of the copyright owner, the Arizona Board of
Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona. The video in question,
“Telerounds 9: Cerebral Localization of Production Disorders in
Aphasia,” is located at

http://fusionaut.videosift.com/video/What-if-all-you-can-say-is-Tono-Tono-Broca-s-Aphasia

I assert that the information in this notice is accurate, based upon
the data available. I have a good faith belief that this activity is
not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. Under
penalty of perjury, I submit that I am authorized to act on behalf of
the University of Arizona in this matter.

Please have this video removed immediately.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by lucky760.

EXCUSE ME?

A member of your faculty can fuck right off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw6d54gjuvA

[embed redacted by admin]

DMCA doesn't apply, since videosift doesn't host. They can go to youtube and ask to have it removed.

>> ^gwiz665:


DMCA doesn't apply, since videosift doesn't host. They can go to youtube and ask to have it removed.


As much as I appreciate your expert legal opinion, VideoSift could in fact be held liable for knowingly providing access to infringing content. Consider BitTorrent trackers who never see one byte of copyrighted content, but are still deemed responsible for infringement. Besides, I'm sure the folks behind VideoSift don't care to get involved in a legal battle.

What kind of identification did you receive with this?
Is it an email from the university?
Were you able to determine if the sender is in fact a member of the faculty?
Were you able to determine if the U of A did in fact authorize this person's actions?

[Edit] On re-reading this I see it could be taken as asking if you (luck760) have done these things.
I didn't mean that--I don't know what your job description is, or your work load.
I should have asked, have these things been done--not if you, personally, have done them.
Sorry, lucky.

I found this as I was all WTF am I watching-

Not sure too highly of the credibility but it makes a story-

"Man with brain injury thinks he is talking normally, except he only says tono. Unless he's counting.
It's not only Broca's Aphasia, which destroys the ability to form language into spoken words, but it must be something impaired in the way his brain assigns thoughts and internal grammar/statements/vocabulary into muscle-produced syllables.

It obviously seems like he knows he's talking about something in detail, it's just that the last stage of language production - the formation of mouthed words - is impaired. The counting thing just boggles my mind."

- http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=6724

Bah humbug. Everything on videosift is infringing on something. All music, all clips.

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/knatw/brocas_aphasia_talking_without_words/ Hey faculty, go take down reddit and youtube instead of us and whatever the hell poeTV is.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^gwiz665:

DMCA doesn't apply, since videosift doesn't host. They can go to youtube and ask to have it removed.

As much as I appreciate your expert legal opinion, VideoSift could in fact be held liable for knowingly providing access to infringing content. Consider BitTorrent trackers who never see one byte of copyrighted content, but are still deemed responsible for infringement. Besides, I'm sure the folks behind VideoSift don't care to get involved in a legal battle.

The above comment was mine.

@Boise_Lib: We were provided a full, valid DMCA takedown notice. (Whenever we don't see one, we don't comply. ) I just pasted the pertinent bit.

@gwiz665: You're right about that. Fortunately, though, we aren't obliged to do anything about it unless presented with a valid claim of copyright infringement.

Weird. So he can say numbers but not words?

>> ^lucky760:

@Boise_Lib: We were provided a full, valid DMCA takedown notice. (Whenever we don't see one, we don't comply. ) I just pasted the pertinent bit.
@gwiz665: You're right about that. Fortunately, though, we aren't obliged to do anything about it unless presented with a valid claim of copyright infringement.


Oh. Shit.

I guess they are just trying to protect this poor guy from ridicule. Understandable. There is no way they can scrub this completely from the interwebs, it's already out there.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I guess they are just trying to protect this poor guy from ridicule. Understandable. There is no way they can scrub this completely from the interwebs, it's already out there.


Yeah, my vid about the little girl who didn't want to turn black is dead because the owner disabled embed. He changed the title of his page to, "Leave My Kids Alone!"

Made me feel bad about even posting it. I'm going to just kill it.

Not to be a smartass at all, but why are we *discussing this? If there's a valid DMCA takedown request, shouldn't it just be killed? Or is this the standard procedure and I just haven't seen it before?

Valid complaint/question, @xxovercastxx. There's no official procedure for this scenario, but it is customary to make a public notification that the video was removed instead of silently vanishing the post in the darkness of the night.

Plus, it gives newer, unfamiliar users the chance to partake in a discussion about it.

The way juris doctor blankfist sees it, the video content isn't being hosted on nor ever touches the VideoSift servers. The key difference between BT trackers and VS, according to the honorable judge blankfist, is the intent of the service. Whereas trackers are used to assist in peer-to-peer file sharing typically of copyrighted material, VideoSift is meant as an aggregator of material accessible via public and widely accessible video sharing sites.

It's thereby the verdict of the superior court of blankfist that this DCMA claim is bull fucking shit. Case dismissed.

Well, at least that's settled.>> ^blankfist:

The way juris doctor blankfist sees it, the video content isn't being hosted on nor ever touches the VideoSift servers. The key difference between BT trackers and VS, according to the honorable judge blankfist, is the intent of the service. Whereas trackers are used to assist in peer-to-peer file sharing typically of copyrighted material, VideoSift is meant as an aggregator of material accessible via public and widely accessible video sharing sites.
It's thereby the verdict of the superior court of blankfist that this DCMA claim is bull fucking shit. Case dismissed.

DMCA notwithstanding and all, it's an interesting video.

Well, I don't think I would have watched this if it wasn't for this thread.

*discard

Only the original submitter of a post may discard it unless the submitter is banned - ignoring discard request by jonny.