>> ^entr0py:
This is one big problem with youtube's model. They seem to simply assume that all takedown requests are valid. There is no scrutiny of any kind, I doubt there's even human decision making involved, they just automatically side with whoever claims to be the copyright holder.
No doubt they made this system to appease large companies with even larger lawyers. But it's only a matter of time before their disregard for freedom of speech gets them in trouble. Or maybe it already has, it's not like I know what I'm talking about.


This isn't really Youtube's fault; this is how the DMCA is written. The DMCA says that the host has liability for the infringing content but that they are exempt from that liability if they remove said content immediately upon receipt of a complaint, rather than waiting for a legal decision.

Could Youtube take a hard stance and leave these videos up? Sure, but it would probably end with Youtube being shutdown inside a year.

Everyone should have a basic familiarity with the DMCA as it's one of the most significant cases of rights-trampling in recent years. It's given "IP owners" more power than any single entity in the legal system. Oh, and it was brought to you by Bill Clinton... the one thing I'd really like to punch him in the mouth for.

Article cited by video creator:
http://www.clickz.com/3633218

Petition:
http://guardianhost.com/realweeklynews/index.php?news=dmca-reform-petition

For more details, see the description information links for this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V025E_b5I4g

What! Somebody on YouTube is gonna get some DMCA takedown upside the head!

burdy, c'mon mate, don't mention cats eating cans of tuna without showing us some footage. that's top 15 material right there.

>> ^burdturgler:
Speaking of the DMCA, YouTube can suck my balls. They seriously need to scrap their instant content identification bullshit. I can't upload a home video of a cat eating a can of tuna without getting insta-hammered by NBC Universal.

Speaking of the DMCA, YouTube can suck my balls. They seriously need to scrap their instant content identification bullshit. I can't upload a home video of a cat eating a can of tuna without getting insta-hammered by NBC Universal.

^paul4dirt
The point is that there is such an obvious lack of grounds to suspend this account that it's almost certainly because of an unfounded complaint. This is not an isolated case either. Youtube policy is beginning to look like the DMCA, in that they are automatically responding to complaints without checking its validity. Such a policy is all to easily abused.

>> ^jonny:
Can you people read? Try Lucky's comment again. Here, I'll make it simple:
"he got the copyright holder/videographer to request that we remove the video"
He, Ryan, did not ask to have it taken down. The copyright holder did.


To be clear about the take-down for any interested parties, Mr. VP did request that we remove the video, but since he only appears in the video and does not own the copyright, he had no right under the DMCA to lawfully compel us to comply. After informing him of that fact, he had the actual copyright holder make the same request, leaving us no choice in the matter but to abide by the law.

And for the record, they were both very cordial about it (unlike lots of other angry requests we've received in the past). Apparently the video was supposed to remain private, but someone got their hands on it and gave it permanent residence spread across the Interwebs.

>> ^dag:
Kind of lame, but I guess I don't blame him - he's probably graduated and out looking for work, and our post is 3rd from the top when anyone googles his name.
Must suck that a single moment of douchebaggery makes you a douche forever on the Internet.


I can blame him, he was a complete dick then, and he wishes that he wasn't... but you know what, this is a perfect character reference. There should be zero case for him being able to get this taken down... zero. I would hope anyway, and if there is, then that's friggen sad, that people can be a complete dick and then get all reference to that incident being taken down because they wish they hadn't done it.

Take it like a bloody man and face up to your dickery. Him trying to get this taken down I think speaks very highly of him not having grown out of this stupid mindset of his, and not being able to take a joke to this day. How can it possibly be a DMCA case anyway?

Almost 3 years later and now they file a DMCA complaint?

Question .. are you responsible under DMCA for embeds members put in their comments?





edit .. these aren't extra google tags for Ryan Holt balloon prank usc office or the balloon prank that was done at Ryan Holt's office at USC

>> ^dag:
Wow - that guy is a bit uptight...

You said it. So uptight in fact that he got the copyright holder/videographer to request that we remove the video. And so, we comply under the terms of the DMCA.

No real need to *discuss, but let's let her fade into history in Sift Talk...

That's a real good summary, RadHazG. The only qualifier I'd add is that as far as I can tell on the second set togetherinpeace didn't file them, he warned PCS that it wasn't a copyright issue and PCS filed those himself in spite of the warning that he shouldn't and that togetherinpeace wouldn't. Venomfangx was told straight out to "be careful, if you file a false DMCA you can get your account suspended".

Additional info would be that during the week+ that PCS had to think about it PCS had either a nervous breakdown or something pretty close to it. Two vids before this one in the playlist has segments of it, "False DMCA Consequences". PCS did at least 5 full videos in that time which were later deleted by him. There's just fragments left such as the clips used in this playlist but it got really, really weird. Costumes, makeup, lots of shouting and play acting. It got really weird. I think that had as much as anything to do with him getting off easy. It would have been kicking someone who was already in real trouble, or at least would have gave the appearance of it.

I should have done that earlier in the thread, thanks for getting to it

For those who dont fell like taking 40min+ out of the day to see the playlist, heres a basic summary.

VFX had a 'friend' file DMCA's against several channels. Tf00ts were not among this first round.
His friend (togetherinpeace) did in fact file some of those DMCA's for VFX but did not on several of them, telling VFX that the ones he didn't file on most likely did not break copyright and it was dangerous to do so.
VFX gave togetherinpeace another list containing several of the same channels he had been warned about, and this time Tf00ts was among them. Togetherinpeace warned VFX yet again that most of those screen names were innocent, and that just because they used your image in a video doesn't mean they violated copyright.
VFX ignored all this, filed the DMCA's himself this time and the video's removed.
He then sent an email to Tf00t saying his 'friend' had done this.

Much back and forth came of all this, boiled down to - Tf00t counter-filed and got the video's replaced. He then explained that what VFX had done was in fact a breach of federal law, and an act of Perjury.
Tf00t had every right to pursue legal action in either criminal or civil action, and to report this to Youtube and have VFX's account removed and any new ones created by him to be deleted.
Tf00t instead offered VFX an alternative. VFX would delete his own account and remain gone for 1 year to reflect on his actions. He could then return and do whatever he pleased.
Instead of actually watching the video detailing all this, and considering his options... VFX accused Tf00t of attempting to blackmail him. (The video submitted by VFX with the accusation is... well creepy.)
More back and forth and in the end Tf00t finally got through VFX's thick skull about the incredible legal mess he had dug himself into. Tf00t then presented a 3rd option which he had found by precedent while researching prior cases of false DMCA filings. An apology read online.

Personally I think yes, VFX got off the hook BIG time with this so called "apology". It was in fact prepared by lawyers, which is fine. My problem is given his history, if even one word of what he "apologized" for is true, I'll eat my hat. It's not as if anything of any consequence will come of the apology, anyone on VFX's side will still follow him, and not much changes. But perhaps I'm just being cynical.
Hope the summary is reasonably accurate, after wading through all that I may have missed an important detail. Please feel free post and I'll correct it if someone see's something I missed.

edit - added VFX filing the 2nd round of DMCAs himself after being warned. Thanks drattus!

Small quirk in the scheme of things but I just noticed that although the last video I sifted, http://www.videosift.com/video/Watch-This-Before-Filing-A-False-DMCA shows up on my "Highest Rated Videos" list it doesn't show up on my sifted videos list itself. I haven't added up votes or anything but I'd guess they are ok, it just isn't showing up on my sifted list as far as I can tell.

I'd guess if it happened to that one it might have to others recent vids as well so when you've got the rest sorted out you might look into it if you get a chance.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'll be happy when he apologizes for being wrong about creationism.


I'll settle for him to stop popping his damned "P"s!

>> ^ziggystardust:
Love the "pwned" tag.


I never would have thought of it myself, that was one of many tags applied to the original post. I generally check those for ideas first then add or trim as seems appropriate for where it's posted but that's not a word I'd ever use on my own I don't think. Seemed suitable here though so I left it