dmca at Brave New Films

Inmendham was Photoshoped as Hitler Because He Is a Bully

2008-11-19T04:47:01Z

Inmendham is a Bully

The Amazing Atheist's (TJ's) Father died in early January. Inmendham made a "condolence" video in which he told a story about TJ's Father that most people would find disrespectful. Tommyfromthebronx called out Inmendham on this and he said Inmendham didn't give a damn about TJ or his Father, and that he just made the video for the views. Inmendham swore up and down that he didn't mean any disrespect for TJ and his Father and that he did feel bad for TJ and that he didn't make the condolence video in order to gain subscribers. Then Tommyfromthebronx posted a video in which he called Inmendham a liar and presented the evidence that convinced him that Inmendham was lying. Tommy was convinced Inmendham was a liar because he had featured a really disgusting video by Cho Sung Hui that mocked the death of TJ's Father.

I can't show you Tommy's video directly, because Inmendham threatened to sue Tommy for calling him a liar, and Tommy removed the video. Fortunately, Fakesagan had downloaded the video and he reposted it with his own introductory commentary.

INMENDHAM IS A LYING SCUMBAG: the video he tried to bury

www.youtube.com (Feb. 6)

Inmendham then made a Big Drama video in which he threatens to sue anyone who calls him a liar. He explained that he was going to sue Fakesagan for reposting Tommy's video, and he threatened to sue Youtube if Youtube didn't provide Fakesagan's personal info. Note at 4:32 Inmendham talks about using his potential case against Fakesagan to go on a fishing trip to discover information about whether Fakesagan had lied when he claimed that CapnOAwesome had blocked him. This dispute between CapnOAwesome and Fakesagan had nothing to do with Inmendham's threatened lawsuit, and Inmendham's hint that he was going to use the case to discover information about a totally unrelated controversy suggests that this case, had it been filed, may have been filed for frivolous reasons.

BIG DRAMA: fuck fucking fake faker for funny fun (Jan. 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naFu64d05BY

Inmendham further explained why he was going to sue Fakesagan and possibly Youtube. He explained that he only featured the Chosunghui video after theamazingatheist favored Tommyfromthebronx's video stating that Inmendham was not human:

Re: BIG DRAMA: small update

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxMKlZLD4So

In this next video, Inmendham explains in depth why it is so terrible to call him a liar, and why he has a right to sue everyone who does.

BIG DRAMA: small update...just for the jerks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eERv2y9VbRE

However, Inmendham is quick to call others liars—even when they are not. Look at 7:22 -- 7:51in the video entitled "the Lawsuit: Vol 2: so far all talk no game".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_JqA63Uq7Q

Inmendham said that some asshole claimed that he pm'd him with some kind of shit. He then went on to call the individual a fucktard and a liar. That's right. He accused this person of being a liar. And within a few seconds of this claim, he went on to say that this person was probably duped by someone who was imitating him with a fake Inmendham account. If that was the case, Inmendham should have called him confused, and not a liar.

Bcj999 made it quite clear that he included the Inmendham/Hitler Photoshopped picture in his video because he objected to Inmendham's blocking tactics.

This is a censored version of the video that bcj999 made that caused Inmendham to launch DMCAs and threaten lawsuits. He removed the Hitler/Inmendham picture, and instead of using clips from Inmendham's videos, he donned an Inmendham wig and spoke the words that Inmendham spoke.

Censored version of 'Inmendham is very ignorant'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEnhrG9Z6Rw

Pay attention to the part starting at 4:48 where bcj said:

"Inmendham, I don't think you are an outright Holocaust denier. The reason why I have you Photoshopped as Adolf Hitler is, well quite frankly your behavior on Youtube is quite ignorant and very fascist. I find it very disgusting that you go around blocking people who leave positive comments on certain individual's videos. You know, don't be blocking people who leave comments to me or anyone else. You keep the issue with me, motherfucker. You leave my subscribers and anyone else out of it. You know, grow up!"

Look at VirtualHolocaust's video—if anything, his video is more explicit in his questioning the Holocaust than Inmendham's was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwLey-wKsdc

Yet the response to his video was fairly civil. No one, as far as I know, Photoshoped Virtualholocaust as Hitler. Why is that? Because Virtualholocaust's behavior on Youtube has been far more civil than Inmendham's.

Watch the video

Don't Use Copyright Law To Do Libel Law's Work

2008-11-19T04:47:01Z

It looks to me (in my ever so humble and Constitutionally protected opinion) that Inmendham is using copyright law in a way that it was never intended to be used. It looks to me like he is using Copyright law as a way to do an end run around the legal protections built into our judicial system that protect the right of people to speak anonymously. That is what it looks like to me. Much of this video should be taken as speculation of Inmendham's state of mind and not as statement of fact.

"Copyright: new video series (includes patents and such)" (See 1:53 -- 2:10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYppOSpYi90

by Inmendham. Posted Feb. 15, 2008

". . . by just realizing what the hell copyright's intended to do. It's intended to protect the value, the commercial value of intellectual property, for the purpose of encouraging people to be inventive."

------------------------------------------

See eternalundyinglove's video of Inmendham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXVAS9XMOQk

This video includes a compilation of Inmendham's statements on copyright law. Inmendham state's that the Fair Use complaints "shouldn't have any priority at all... they shouldn't even suspend the videos in such cases unless the complaintant (sic) can show some real economic value being compromised."

"We're not talking about piracy issues. We're not talking about a real theft of intellectual property, which is the whole fucking point for this goddamn Digital Millenium Copyright Act, bullshit. I mean it's the whole fucking point of it is to prevent a theft of something of value, not to destroy Fair Use and not to give people some extra control over their propaganda. I mean if you put it out there in the public, then in my fucking opinion, well, that's it. You don't have any more copyright control only in the sense that you have control over its value You have control over its monetary value if it has any."

One of the clips that eternalundyinglove used came from Inmendham's videos "DRAMA: War of The FuckTards, mutually assured moronifcation" www.youtube.com starting around 8:05

The other clip came from his video "Re: RabidApe .... its about the ACCOUNT suspension dammit". The entire video is brilliant, but see especially the part starting at 2:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwn9d3mNNAM

-----------------------------------------

The judicial system will not allow the plaintiff to pierce the anonymity of defendants unless the plaintiff makes a prima facie case that he will prevail in court.

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20First%20Amendment%20Right%20to%20Anonymous%20Speech.htm

It looks like Inmendham is using the DMCA to force his opponents to drop their own docs by filing DMCA counternotices. If they don't file DMCA counternotices then they get strikes against them and their Youtube accounts will be jeopardized. If they do file DMCA counternotices, the countenotices requires them to give Inmendham their names, addresses, and phone numbers. Inmendham is forcing them to bypass the judicial checks and balances that would protect their anonymity unless he first demonstrated to the court that he had a real case that he was likely to win. IMHO, he might have a chance of convincing a court that he has a realistic chance of winning against jonesr999, but he has absolutely no chance in hell against bcj999 or Voicesinthehead/supexcellency. It looks like Inmendham's biggest complaint against Voicesinthehead/supexcellency is that VIH used about 4.5 seconds of Inmendham's video while calling him a "litigious motherfucker." And now Inmendham might sue VIH for calling him a "litigious motherfucker."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiZHwmc2VQ

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

Oh, yeah. Inmendham didn't like the fact that VIH called him "trailer trash".

Watch the video

Re: ALPHACAT SUSPENDED- PROOF OF FALSE INFRINGEMENT CLAIM

2008-11-19T04:47:01Z

This video is in response to Alphacat's recent (and apparently unjust) suspension:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk

Check out this video by SeanBedlam talking about his video being suspended because someone DMCAd it. He says he was just talking into a camera. He did not use any copyrighted material at all. If you check the comments in the video, it appears the DMCA was sent in by Televiso San Angel, a Mexican broadcasting station.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKSZ0DaoHJM

Now AlphaCat has been suspended—apparently under circumstances similar to that which caused the takedown of SeanBedlam's video. Alphacat says that the DMCA that did him in was filed by Televiso San Angel—despite the fact that he was not using any material copyrighted by that company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk

I suspect there is a troll out there who is filing DMCAs under the name of Televiso San Angel, and that this troll is not connected to that organization. Unfortunately, even though this DMCA appears to be totally fraudulent, Youtube dances like a marionette to the false DMCA filer's tune.

The law needs to change and Youtube needs to change its overzealous and unnecessarily draconian implementation of the DMCA.

For more on the DMCA and why it is unconstitutional, see:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/

Watch the video

Which of your videos was infringed upon, Inmendham?

2008-11-19T04:47:01Z

When you file a DMCA complaint you must identify both the video that is infringing on your copyrighted work and the copyrighted work being infringed upon. I want to know which of Inmendham's 800+ videos were infringed upon, and how does Inmendham know that he has identified the right video.

Watch the video

I received a threat--but not from Inmendham

2008-11-19T04:47:01Z

Someone sent me some threatening emails. I wouldn't be surprised if my account disappears. If it does, then please don't blame Inmendham. I'm sure he will have nothing to do with this.

If any of you want to upload my videos to your channel then please do so. You have my permission to use upload any of my videos. I would be honored.

Please watch this video by VoicesintheHead. It is probably the most important video on Youtube today. Spread the word about this video to as many of your friends as possible

"Youtube's DMCA Loophole"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAYLBro5QVM

I see in the comments section that some people are speculating that redskull is behind this.

Redskull just sent me a pm denying he has anything to do with this. I have no idea whether he is telling the truth or not--but I do know that he is not the only suspect. It is very possible that he may be innocent here and that he might not have anything to do with this.

Until I have further evidence that he is behind this, I think we should treat him as if he is innocent. I don't want anyone going after him if my account disappears because he might not be responsible.

If the situation changes and I get evidence indicating that he is behind this then I will let you all know.

Watch the video

Thefakesaganclown and the necessity of Fair Use

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

Watch "INMENDHAM LIES AGAIN! (NEW & IMPROVED)" by thefakesaganclown. This is a perfect example of why Fair Use is so important and why the DMCA is so dangerous to free speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42q1uxCoZyM

Unfortunately, the DMCA, and Youtube's implementation of the DMCA, provides a scoundrel's veto. We may need to use clips from a video of someone we are trying to expose to prove he is a liar or a cheater or a person who makes death threats. The DMCA gives scoundrels an upper hand. (None of this should be interpreted as calling Inmendham a scoundrel. This is a generalized discussion.)

The REAL danger of the DMCA and Youtube's enforcement policy is that you must give up your anonymity in order to file a counternotice to get your video restored and to prevent your account from being jeopardized.

Watch "Youtube's DMCA Loophole" by Voicesinthehead. Also, read the comments on this video. They are especially insightful and should be must reading by Youtube staff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAYLBro5QVM

Then read the letter in the sidebar of this video by Pino Carafa (rozeboosje)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvBxvpAJjw

Make sure you check out the comments on his video as well.

And finally, I explain on my website why the DMCA is unconstitutional. Hint: it makes us give up anonymity when we file a counternotice.

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm

Watch the video

Renetto, Greg Solomon and the DMCA: Pt. 1

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

Renetto suggested that we should file a class action lawsuit against a large corporation that gets our videos suspended when it files unjustifiable DMCAs. Viacom was sued by the EFF in February 2007 when it sent out 100,000 DMCAs. Some of those DMCAs targeted videos that had no Viacom material in them whatsoever, and other DMCAs took down videos that made Fair Use of clips from Viacom's videos. The Viacom dragnet was responsible for getting LiberalViewer's account unjustly suspended.

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/LiberalViewer.htm

The Electronic Frontier Foundation responded bys suing Viacom. The upshot of the lawsuit was an agreement by Viacom to recognize Fair Use and to pledge to be more careful in sending out DMCAs in the future.

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Viacom%20Dragnet.htm

Alphacat was suspended due to a bogus DMCA from Televisa San Angel, a Mexican broadcasting company:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk

He filed a DMCA counter notice and he should get his channel back soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cILNzPj84Wc

According to Alphacat, Youtube insiders have told him that Televisa San Angel has been responsible for many DMCA notices. I am guessing the vast majority of those notices are legitimate, but they do seem to issue false ones from time to time. Seanbedlam had a video of his DMCAd. If you look at the comments section of his video you will see that he too was targeted by Televisa San Angel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKSZ0DaoHJM

So Televisa San Angel would be a logical candidate for a class action suit. But the class action suit misses the point—the main threat from the DMCA comes not from legitimate corporations trying to protect their copyright. The main threat comes from the DMCA itself and from Youtube's overzealous interpretation of it, as well as from trolls who are willing to use the DMCA to get the docs of their enemies.

The following video, "YouTube's DMCA Loophole", by VoicesintheHead (previously known as supexcellency), may be the most important video on Youtube. WATCH IT! THEN READ THE COMMENTS POSTED ON IT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAYLBro5QVM

Read the letter from Rozeboosje that he posted in the sidebar to his video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvBxvpAJjw

Now, in order for Youtube to enjoy the protection against copyright lawsuits granted by the DMCA, the DMCA demands that Youtube turn over any counter notice it receives to the person who filed a DMCA complaint. And the DMCA mandates that in order to file a counter notice, you must sign your name to it and provide your address and phone as well. So the DMCA mandates that Youtube turn your docs over to whoever files a DMCA against you—even if they are a whacko stalker who filed a false DMCA in order to get your information to kill you.

This requirement by the DMCA is clearly unconstitutional.

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm

A class action lawsuit will not affect this problem. The law needs to be changed so that we can file counter notices while remaining anonymous. We need thousands of people on board in order to have a chance of bringing about that change. The only way that will happen is if BIG Youtubers like Smosh, Michael Buckley (Whatthebuck), Sxephil, Venetian Princess, Cory (Mr. Safety) Williams, and Lisa Nova get on board. I hope that Renetto will use his contacts to try to get them to join the cause.

Once a critical mass has been achieved, then we can bombard John McCain's channel with videos asking for change and bombard Barack Obama's inbox with letters asking for change.

It will take months, perhaps years, before the law is changed. In the meantime, after we get a critical mass we should bombard Youtube with letters asking them to change the way they implement their policy. They should redact (cross out) our identifying information when turning counter notices over to the person who has filed a complaint against us. They should turn over that information only after:

1) A court subpoenas Youtube for the information.
2) Youtube forwards the subpoena to the person who filed the counter notice. This give us an opportunity to quash the subpoeona.
3) Youtube should turn over the identifying information only if the person filing the counter notice does not file a motion to quash a subpoena or if a Court refuses to grant the motion to quash.

This procedure will protect Youtube users from having to turn their documents over to psychotic stalkers. It will enable us to preserve our anonymity unless a Court determines there is a reasonable chance that we will lose a copyright lawsuit.

Watch the video

Renetto, Greg Solomon and the DMCA: Pt. 2

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

The following video, "YouTube's DMCA Loophole", by VoicesintheHead (previously known as supexcellency), may be the most important video on Youtube. WATCH IT! THEN READ THE COMMENTS POSTED ON IT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAYLBro5QVM

Read the letter from Rozeboosje that he posted in the sidebar to his video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvBxvpAJjw

This requirement by the DMCA is clearly unconstitutional.

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm

Once a critical mass has been achieved, then we can bombard John McCain's channel with videos asking for change and bombard Barack Obama's inbox with letters asking for change.

But Youtube won't implement this procedure voluntarily since doing so may subject them to a lawsuit for copyright infringement. However, by adopting this procedure they would keep in the SPIRIT of the DMCA as well as the SPIRIT of the law that recognizes our right to post anonymously. If anyone did sue Youtube over this then they WILL win this because the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional. (For the record, I am not a lawyer, and anyone taking legal advice from me would be better off running a marathon in quicksand.)

Why should Youtube take this risk? If they don't risk being sued for violating the letter of the DMCA then they risk a negligence lawsuit if someone is killed after Youtube turns over docs in response to a false DMCA filed by a stalker. Even if they win that lawsuit, the publicity would kill them and invite government scrutiny of they way they run their business.

Watch the video

Viacom Will Be Getting Your Video Viewing History: Pt. 1

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

A court has just ordered Youtube to give Viacom your username, IP, and video viewing history. Click on the links below for more details.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488268.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9242

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9983631-93.html?tag=nefd.lede

Youtube could use this opportunity to strike a blow against Viacom in the court of public opinion. I describe how.

Watch the video

Viacom Will Be Getting Your Video Viewing History: Pt. 2

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

A court has just ordered Youtube to give Viacom your username, IP, and video viewing history. Click on the links below for more details.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488268.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9242

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9983631-93.html?tag=nefd.lede

Youtube could use this opportunity to strike a blow against Viacom in the court of public opinion. I describe how.

Watch the video

Re: DMCA: Anonymity verses Accountability

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

This is a video response to the "DMCA: Anonymity verses Accountability".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY7tgsogP6M

He posted his video as a response to one of my videos. Yet, he has blocked me, so I won't be able to post my video as a response to his. Pretty pathetic, Inmendham. Pretty pathetic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is possible to file lawsuits against anonymous defendants, and it is possible for anonymous defendants to defend their anonymity by filing motions to dismiss or motions to quash a subpoena. Here are a few interesting stories involving John Doe lawsuits.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1174986234526

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070925-video-professor-upset-by-criticism-sues-100-anonymous-critics.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/business/main3364365.shtml

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/24/autoadmit_libel_case/

http://www.crn.com/security/208400657

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/07/02/piercing-the-veil-of-anonymous-bloggers/

"More fundamentally, in situations where a site does not choose to do any of the above, there is the John Doe subpoena. A complaint that states a reasonable claim against John Doe defendants for unlawful online speech usually will result in a judicial order that a web site or ISP provide available information about the speaker. Generally that information will include at least an IP address, and often the full name and postal address. Such data has been plenty for the recording industry and the government to identify defendants and proceed against them. I predict a similar outcome in the AutoAdmit case. (Indeed, Concurring Opinions' own Frank Pasquale recently found his name in use as a pseudonym for a blogger running a gripe site critical of a health care company; in that case the court has allowed the plaintiff to "pierce the pseudonymous veil" and discover the blogger's identity.) We may need some better procedures for discerning when such "piercing" on the basis of a complaint is appropriate, but I believe this doctrine will develop, just as it did in "corporate veil" cases. In that sense, we are evolving toward a model that allows psudonymity, but rarely true anonymity."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Church of Scientology has a history of harassing their critics. Would a $10 deposit by one of their members stop other members from harassing a critic whose name was revealed after filing a false DMCA? (Not that I am saying the Church files false DMCAs in order to harass their critics. This is a hypothetical example of what COULD happen—it is not a statement of fact of what HAS happened.)

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Sceintology%20and%20the%20DMCA.htm

Watch the video

Defendants Who Win Copyright Lawsuits May Be Entitled To Leg

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

William Patry is the Senior Copyright Counsel for Google. He is the expert's expert on copyright law. Here is his review of an important ruling in Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services . Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that defendants who prevail in copyright cases may be entitled to recovery of legal fees, even if the Plaintiff's lawsuit is not frivolous. Here is Patry's blog entry:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/07/judge-posner-on-attorneys-fees-to.html

And here is Judge Posner's opinion:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/EX1FFU9X.pdf

Watch the video

High Drama and a Two-Bit DMCA Complaint: Pt. 1

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

This is a series of videos about a dispute between Greg Solomon and Myrealitybytes that erupted after Greg used clips of Myrealitybytes' video to paint renetto as a plagiarist. Myrealitybytes sent a DMCA to Youtube and Youtube removed Greg's video. I examine whether renetto is a plagiarist and whether this was the proper use of copyright law.

Renetto's video: "TUBE IT" - The UNofficial YouTube Anthem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw

The credits at the end of Renetto's video says "Written, Composed and Performed by Renetto".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"renetto's toy" by MyRealityBytes shows that a major portion of the music that renetto used was in existence well before renetto wrote the "Tube It" song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MyRealityBytes wrote to GregSolomon asking him to view her video. Greg jumped to the conclusion that most of us would jump to upon watching MyRealityBytes' video—that Renetto had stolen a major part of the music. Greg made a video in which he STRONGLY hinted that renetto was a plagiarist. (Greg did not claim this as a fact, but the hint was so strong that most people would come away from that video believing that renetto did indeed plagiarize.

MyRealityBytes did not like the way Greg Solomon used her clips in his video, so she asked Greg to take his video down, and when he didn't she made this video:

"Greg Solomon Is A YouTube Bully"

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

Pay close attention to the comments on this video. MyRealityBytes summed it up her feelings in the following two comments:

"I also have a strong belief in what is right and what is wrong. Solomon used my video without my permission - which is wrong. Solomon says that I am accusing renetto of plagarism, when in fact, it is Solomon himself who is making that accusation. So that makes Solomon a liar - which is wrong. Solomon used my video to make me look like an ass - which is wrong."

"So everyone should just be able to use everyone else's videos whenever we feel like it? I don't think so........."

Myrealitybytes sent a DMCA complaint to Youtube and Youtube removed the video. Greg Solomon sent a counter notice, so the video should be back up in about 10 business days, unless Myrealitybytes informs Youtube that she is suing Greg.

--------------------------------------

Renetto probably should have been more thorough in crediting where he got his sound loops from, but I don't think what he did rises to the level of plagiarism. He explained how he made his song in the video entitled "How to build a song with 'GarageBand'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video
American University School of Communication Center for Social Media

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/

"...the cultural value of copying is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law. The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators, to reward them for producing culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work just because one person is arbitrary or greedy.
Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has been an important part of copyright law for more than 150 years. Where it applies, fair use is a right, not a mere privilege. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, fair use keeps copyright from violating the First Amendment. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, it makes new creation harder. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before."

---------------------------------------
To understand why this was an improper use of the DMCA you must understand the purpose of copyright law and what constitutes Fair Use.

The Purpose of Copyright Law:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm

On Fair Use:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm

Watch the video

High Drama and a Two-Bit DMCA Complaint: Pt. 2

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

Renetto's video: "TUBE IT" - The UNofficial YouTube Anthem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw

The credits at the end of Renetto's video says "Written, Composed and Performed by Renetto".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"renetto's toy" by MyRealityBytes shows that a major portion of the music that renetto used was in existence well before renetto wrote the "Tube It" song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MyRealityBytes did not like the way Greg Solomon used her clips in his video, so she asked Greg to take his video down, and when he didn't she made this video:

"Greg Solomon Is A YouTube Bully"

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

Pay close attention to the comments on this video. MyRealityBytes summed it up her feelings in the following two comments:

"So everyone should just be able to use everyone else's videos whenever we feel like it? I don't think so........."

--------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/

---------------------------------------
To understand why this was an improper use of the DMCA you must understand the purpose of copyright law and what constitutes Fair Use.

The Purpose of Copyright Law:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm

On Fair Use:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20U

Watch the video

High Drama and a Two-Bit DMCA Complaint: Pt. 3

2008-11-19T04:47:00Z

Renetto's video: "TUBE IT" - The UNofficial YouTube Anthem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw

The credits at the end of Renetto's video says "Written, Composed and Performed by Renetto".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"renetto's toy" by MyRealityBytes shows that a major portion of the music that renetto used was in existence well before renetto wrote the "Tube It" song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MyRealityBytes did not like the way Greg Solomon used her clips in his video, so she asked Greg to take his video down, and when he didn't she made this video:

"Greg Solomon Is A YouTube Bully"

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

Pay close attention to the comments on this video. MyRealityBytes summed it up her feelings in the following two comments:

"So everyone should just be able to use everyone else's videos whenever we feel like it? I don't think so........."

--------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/

---------------------------------------
To understand why this was an improper use of the DMCA you must understand the purpose of copyright law and what constitutes Fair Use.

The Purpose of Copyright Law:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm

On Fair Use:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm

Watch the video

High Drama and a Two-Bit DMCA Complaint: Pt. 4

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

Renetto's video: "TUBE IT" - The UNofficial YouTube Anthem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw

The credits at the end of Renetto's video says "Written, Composed and Performed by Renetto".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"renetto's toy" by MyRealityBytes shows that a major portion of the music that renetto used was in existence well before renetto wrote the "Tube It" song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MyRealityBytes did not like the way Greg Solomon used her clips in his video, so she asked Greg to take his video down, and when he didn't she made this video:

"Greg Solomon Is A YouTube Bully"

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

Pay close attention to the comments on this video. MyRealityBytes summed it up her feelings in the following two comments:

"So everyone should just be able to use everyone else's videos whenever we feel like it? I don't think so........."

--------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/

---------------------------------------
To understand why this was an improper use of the DMCA you must understand the purpose of copyright law and what constitutes Fair Use.

The Purpose of Copyright Law:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm

On Fair Use:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm

Watch the video

High Drama and a Two-Bit DMCA Complaint:: An Update

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

This is an update to yesterday's video, "High Drama and a Two-Bit DMCA". If you haven't seen it already, watch it before you watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoZ4J8eO24

I made a "weak move" yesterday when I took Greg to task for blocking myrealitybytes. I did not have the entire story.

It is possible that I still do not have the entire story, so I invite myrealitybytes to make comments in the comment section of this video or to make a video of her own.

I could not show you the most important part of the story yesterday—the video by Greg Solomon that was DMCAd by myrealitybytes. Greg has reposted it at Livevideo. You can watch it there.

http://www.livevideo.com/GREGSOLOMON

http://www.livevideo.com/video/ADE073F68B40445CB4B14DE6974CC177/renneto-accused-of-plagiarism.aspx

Watch the video

Greg Solomon Threatens To Sue Gimmeabreakman: Bad Version

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

I made a mistake in production last night. I have an old time director's account which lets me post videos over 16 minutes long. Last week I was unable to post videos over 10 - 11 minutes long. I heard several other people complain about this problem. I thought Youtube took away this privilege.

So last night I made a 16 minute video. I had intended to split it into 10 minute and a 6 minute parts. But it was late last night and I was tired when I made this video, so I forgot to cut 10 minutes out of the second part.

I uploaded both parts last night, and I didn't realize until this morning that the second part was 16 minutes long. I guess Youtube fixed the glitch that was keeping me (and other directors) from posting long videos.

In any case, I will not be removing the first part of this video because I don't want to delete the comments. I'd rather keep the historical record intact.

So don't watch this part. Watch the other, uncut version instead.

Watch the video

Greg Solomon Threatens To Sue Gimmeabreakman: Good (Uncut) Version

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

This is a video response to two videos by Gimmeabreakman (Victor)

GregSolomon, master of the polite F-bomb. By Gimmeabreakman (Victor)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-d4cimDAfA

GregSolomon & His LOLsuit! By Gimmeabreakman (Victor)

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

My previous videos on this topic start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoZ4J8eO24

Renetto's "Tube It" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80yQ4RUP-Mw

Renetto made a video a couple of days after his "Tube It" video explaining how he made his video.

How to build a song with "GarageBand"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIyXUE5h-k

This is the video by Greg Solomon that myrealitybytes watched and attached her "Renetto's toy" video. After watching this video, she SHOULD have known that Greg would probably use her video to bash renetto for plagiarism.

"My Song For Renetto"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bii1kz13c8U

"renetto's toy" by myrealitybytes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw

Here is the video that myrealitybytes DMCAd. It is now titled "Renetto Accused of Plagiarism", but I THINK it was titled "A Lady Accuses Renetto of Plagiarism" at one point.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/ADE073F68B40445CB4B14DE6974CC177/renneto-accused-of-plagiarism.aspx

Greg Solomon Is A Bully by myrealitybytes

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

Note the comments on this video:

RDJim (1 day ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
Greg may not have had permission to use the video but that does not clear you of culpability. Why would you submit that video response to Greg Solomon of all people if you didn't mean to harm Rennetto? You wanted attention did you not? Well seems you got it. Enjoy.

MyRealityBytes (1 day ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
The truth is I had only seen maybe 2 of Solomon's videos. I saw his song video and thought it was kind of funny. So, I had this "renetto's toy' video and I tried to post it a response to Solomon's video. I did not "egg" Solomon into doing anything. If You watch this video again and pause it where I show the email Solomon sent me. Read it carefully. I thought he meant what he said. He was going to "cite" (mention) me and my video. He never said he was going to use my video.

MyRealityBytes (1 day ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
He never asked for my permission. AND I thought he knew my video was a joke. (I mean, I even sent it to renetto himself.) EVERYONE knows that loop is royalty free. Apparently, Solomon didn't. He then portrays me as some idiot who actually is accusing reneto of "plagarizing" a child's toy! {Plagarism is a serious offense). I woke up Sunday morning with my email full of hate mail and this how I discovered what Solomon had done with my video.

MyRealityBytes (1 day ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
I asked him very nicely to take it down, that he had not been given permission to use any part my video. He immediately turned vicious (see above comments - I left them all there as proof. Whereas, Solomon removed all my comments, blocked me, removed all my friends comments and blocked them.) - He would have no part of removing that video. So ...

Watch the video

An Explanation on my production screwup in my last video

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

How I screwed up the production of the "Greg Solomon Is Suing Gimmeabreakman" video.

Watch the video

Who Killed "Renetto's Toy"?

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

The key video in the drama between Greg Solomon and renetto, myrealitybytes, and gimmeabreakman has been removed because of a DMCA. I am talking about the video "Renetto's Toy" by myrealitybytes.

See Greg Solomon's video for more details:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdymwAqzqy0

This WAS the link to the video "Renetto's Toy". As you will see, it has the message "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Zizzle LLC".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rke953hXAVw

Question: Was it really Zizzle that DMCAd the video. What safeguards does Youtube have in place to prevent someone willing to perjure themselves from sending in a DMCA while imitating a legitimate company? What is to prevent an unscrupulous individual from abusing the DMCA process to phish illegally for someone's docs?

BTW, I DON'T WANT ANYONE ACCUSING GREG SOLOMON OR ANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS OF BEING BEHIND THIS. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, SO WE SHOULD NOT BE POINTING FINGERS!!!

Oh, can someone bring this video to myrealitybytes' attention? I would get in touch with her and alert her to it, but she has blocked me.

Watch the video

Discussing §512 (f) of the DMCA: Pt. 1--OPG v. Diebold

2008-11-19T04:46:59Z

Discussing §512 (f) of the DMCA: Pt. 1
Online Policy Group v. Diebold

§512 (c) (3) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act states that a DMCA complaint must identify the work that is being infringed and the work that is being infringed upon. It must provide the name, address, and phone number of the complaining party. And most importantly it must provide:

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

And

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Moreover, 512 (f) states:

"Any person who KNOWINGLY misrepresents . . . that material or activity is infringing. . . shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer . . . who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such representation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing . . ."

This is the first in a series of videos that will explore these sections of the DMCA in great detail.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2003, Waldon W.O. Dell wrote that he was committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to President Bush in 2004. What was particularly disturbing about this statement is that Dell was the President and C.E.O. of Diebold, one of the biggest manufacturers of voting machines in the U.S.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E3DC1339F93AA35752C1A9659C8B63

In 2003, Maryland commissioned a study that revealed that Diebold's voting machines had 328 security flaws, 26 of which were critical.

Diebold was well aware of these security flaws and tons of emails were flying around within the company discussing the problems. Unfortunately for Diebold, an archive of 13,000 internal emails, including some very damning messages, were posted on the internet. You can read a few of these emails, as well as a more thorough discussion of the Diebold fiasco on my website:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Diebold%20v%20OPG.htm

See also this important article by Mary Bridges of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2004/Diebold_vs_The_Bloggers

Diebold responded to the posting of its email archives by sending DMCA notices not only to the ISPs that hosted the archives, but also to ISPs that hosted websites that just LINKED to the Archives.

The most important passages from the decision in Online Policy Group v. Diebold.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/OPG_v_Diebold/OPG%20v.%20Diebold%20ruling.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE RULING:

A party is liable if it "knowingly" and "materially" misrepresents that copyright infringement has occurred. "Knowingly" means that a party actually knew, or should have known if it acted with reasonable care or diligence, or would have had no substantial doubt had it been acting in good faith, that it was making misrepresentations. . . ."Material" means that the misrepresentation affected the ISP's response to a DMCA letter. . . .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose, character, nature of the use, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work all indicate that at least part of the email archive is not protected by copyright law. The email archive was posted or hyperlinked to for the purpose of informing the public about the problems associated with Diebold's electronic voting machines. It is hard to imagine a subject the discussion of which could be more in the public interest. If Diebold's machines in fact do tabulate voters' preferences incorrectly, the very legitimacy of elections would be suspect.

The fact that Diebold never actually brought suit against any alleged infringer suggests strongly that Diebold sought to use the DMCA's safe harobor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.

No reasonable copyright holder could have believed that the portions of the email archive discussing possible technical problems with Diebold's voting machines were protected by copyright.

Watch the video

Beware when filing a DMCA counter notice.

2008-11-19T04:46:58Z

Beware when filing a DMCA counter notice. Danger may lurk ahead!

This is in response to renetto's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU4YYDWtupc

Watch the video

Discussing §512 (f) of the DMCA: Pt. 2: Rossi v. MPAA

2008-11-19T04:46:58Z

§512 (c) (3) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act states that a DMCA complaint must include:

Moreover, 512 (f) states:

This is the second in a series of videos that will explore these sections of the DMCA in great detail.

Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America Inc.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2004)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F0FA19839BAF10A88256F5D0003D3C3/$file/0316034.pdf?openelement

Michael Rossi operated a website called internetmovies.com. The website had a banner saying "Join to download full length movies online now! New movies every month"; "Full Length Downloadable Movies"; and "NOW DOWNLOADABLE."

These messages were followed by graphics for a number of MPAA copyrighted motion picture. In fact, this was a lot of puffery and you couldn't really download movies from Rossi's website.

But an agent from the MPAA saw his website and sent a DMCA to his service provider. This took his website down, and Rossi sued the MPAA.

When you file a DMCA complaint you must sign a statement that you have a good faith belief that the material you are complaining about was not authorized by you or the law.

Rossi wanted the court to adopt a rule that in order to have "a good faith belief" of infringement, the person filing the DMCA is required to conduct a reasonable investigation into the allegedly offending material. In other words, would an OBJECTIVE and prudent observer believe that he was really infringing on MPAA's copyright

The MPAA argued that "good faith belief" implied a subjective belief—what did they actually believe as opposed to what a person doing a reasonable investigation believes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court found that Congress built a subjective good faith standard into the DMCA when they wrote it—not an objective "reasonableness" standard.

Quoting from the Court:

"In §512 (f) Congress included an expressly limited cause of action for improper infringement notifications, imposing liability only if the copyright owner's notification is a knowing misrepresentation" . . .

"A copyright owner cannot be liable simply because an unknowing mistake is made, even if the copyright owner acted unreasonably in making the mistake . . . Rather, there must be a demonstration of some actual knowledge of misrepresentation on the part of the copyright owner.

The Rossi court made a blatant mistake in its evaluation of the DMCA. It ignored § 512 (c) (3)(vi) of the DMCA which states that the DMCA complaint must contain:

"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Congress clearly wanted the person filing the complaint to state that the information in the notification was accurate. What would be the point of this requirement if Congress didn't want the filer to verify that his complaint had some merit? Why would Congress want the complaint filer to state that the information in the complaint was accurate if it didn't want to require the filer to do at least a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of the complaint? And one vital piece of information in the complaint is that the work being complained about INFRINGED on the copyright owner's work.

Title 17 § 107 of the U.S. Code deals with Fair Use. It says:

". . . the fair use of a copyrighted work. . . is not an infringement of copyright."

So Congress wanted the DMCA filer to swear that the work being complained about infringed upon his work AND Congress has also stated that if the work falls within Fair Use then no infringement has taken place. The only logical conclusion to draw is that Congress wanted the DMCA complaint filer to make at least a reasonable investigation to determine that the work he was complaining about didn't fall within Fair Use.

Watch the video

Discussing §512 (f) of the DMCA: Is Fair Use a Right?

2008-11-19T04:46:58Z

The Copyright Alliance is an organization composed largely of giant corporations within the Entertainment Industry. This Alliance wants to gut our right to Fair Use like a dead fish.

http://www.copyrightalliance.org/index.php

http://www.copyrightalliance.org/content.php?id=44

Patrick Ross, the Executive Director of the Copyright Alliance, writes:

http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/07/the-remix-culture/

"fair use is not a right. Copyright is a right. Fair use is a limitation on that right, which is not absolute. Specific methods of fair use are defined in court, and then only for that use. Fair use, then, is an affirmative defense the user can cite in court if sued for infringement."

The American University School of Communication Center For Social Media has published a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video:

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video/

"The Yiddish/Aramaic word "chutzpah" is well known, and has been defined variously as gall, audacity, insolence, and impertinence. Patrick Ross, head of the cartoonish Copyright Alliance, seems to have chutzpah in abundance, as seen on a blog post yesterday criticizing The Center for Social Media at American University, for its release of a "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video." The best practices are a "Future of Public Media Project," funded by the Ford Foundation, a fact Mr. Ross omits.

Mr. Ross is not a lawyer, but formerly was with the right wing Progress and Freedom Foundation, which usually acts as a mouthpiece for corporate copyright owners. I have no idea whether or where Mr. Ross attempts to learn about copyright law, much less fair use. For my part, I have been a practicing copyright lawyer for 25 years, and have been studying fair use even longer, beginning in law school. In 1985, I wrote my first book on copyright, which was also the first book devoted just to fair use. The treatise's first citation was by the Supreme Court in the Harper & Row case, issued shortly after the treatise came out. Subsequently, that treatise has been cited many more times by other courts. I have testified before a joint session of the IP subcommittees of Congress on fair use, worked on amendments to Section 107 as a Congressional staffer, argued fair use cases in the courts of appeals and district courts, written an article about fair use with Judge Posner, advised many clients about it, and discussed the issue with the European Commission, and many representatives of foreign governments. I am unaware of any qualifications Mr. Ross has to talk about fair use.

Nor is Mr. Ross an educator. Yet, regarding both fair use and education, in his criticism of the Center's Best Practices, he speaks as if he knows more than those who are copyright lawyers and educators (and some who are both), beginning with a pompous, purported correction about the nature of fair use, scolding the Center for daring to utter the term "right" in the same sentence as fair use. . . ."

Fair Use Is a Right—the Purpose of Copyright Law:

http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm

Section 108 of the copyright law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

"Nothing in this section — in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107 . . . "

Watch the video