What it says

[j9dz2sf]

Sorry for the football for yesterday. Shame on my country!

[rozeboosje]

It's ok ;-)

[ziparmux]

I concur but slightly concerned you may get banned lol, and that would be a pity to have your voice of impartiality here, I use that word loosly but as all all aware here, it's one that is always concise, but political correctness is not something Google is particularly fond of.

[rozeboosje]

Google won't care one iota about how Richard decides to handle the people who are false DMCAing him. Google/YT are just piggy in the middle here.

[Paxmax]

make it so!

[rozeboosje]

Well, THAT is not up to me

[Paxmax]

yeah, when coughlan moves... I'll be there to help.

[rozeboosje]

Ditto

[SlaerAkuyume]

I concur!

[rozeboosje]

Cheers. I got your PM btw and I'll see what I can find out for you.

[WorBlux]

This is Why You tube should change policy to only accept Notarized and signed DMCA notices or media companies that go through a registration process.

[rozeboosje]

Even insisting that any e-mail correspondence should have a verified Thawte or similar electronic signature would help.

[TheHogTieChamp]

Sue the false DMCA'er, eh?

How do you propose we do that when the claimant puts made-up info on the DMCA claim?

As you pointed out in an earlier video, when you (the video author) file a counter-notice, YouTube sends YOUR info to the claimant. YouTube sends the claimants info to you ONLY IF you ask for it.

Even then, the info is false. So now what?

[starfedrogue]

There is a way to counter with stipulations as to how YT go about serving the notice - DPR made a video on it.

[rozeboosje]

And so have I

[rozeboosje]

url?

[rozeboosje]

That's why I have repeatedly stated: counter notify by post and insist that the counter notification is passed on to claimant by registered mail. The only way YT can do that is to verify that the personal details of claimant are valid, and if claimant made their claim under a pseudonym and they refuse to divulge the information when asked, YT have a valid reason for reinstating your videos. Either way it absolves YT from any responsibility and it's a win/win for you.

[AbdultheImpailler]

I'd love to see coughlan or any else sue one of these fuckers but good luck finding them unless they are stupid enough not to go through proxy servers

[rozeboosje]

That's why I keep harping on that counter notices MUST be sent by post and you must insist that YT pass them on to claimant by registered post because you are going to sue. At that point YT have two options: accept that the DMCAs were false and reinstate your work immediately, OR find out who the fuckers really are and pass the info on to you so you can sue them until their arseholes bleed. Win/Win.

[AbdultheImpailler]

bleeding arseholes...win/win indeed!!!

[rozeboosje]

Richard's income from youtube is negligible. But in a courtroom ANY financial loss caused by illegal activity can be a massive stick to beat someone up with. Richard SHOULD play that card. It's the ace up his sleeve.

[Orygyn]

Ditto to that message.

[rozeboosje]

Cheers

[rozeboosje]

Yup

[Vogter2100]

Yeah sue them Richard.

6? sex and 6 is pronounced the same way in danish.. muahaha...

[rozeboosje]

Yup. 6 days until the 24th. But fuck it. I uploaded it today :P

[MoreSciFiThanScience]

I am not 6 - I am a free man

[rozeboosje]

:-)

[AbdultheImpailler]

you forgot the muhahaha..or is that only on the Iron Maiden song?

[Seccanzz]

They've taken down 21 videos with false DMCAs.

[rozeboosje]

the bastards

[Fangs1978]

Damn straight. It made sense to let VFX get away with an apology because he had reputation to loose and it was better to let everyone see him as the sniveling little covard he was. But these no-named motherfuckers... Hell no!

Time to make an example.

[rozeboosje]

The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes that Thunderf00t should, back then, have ripped VFX's guts out legally. Had that happened, the message would have been unmistakable. Now these cunts STILL think that they can get away with it. An example must be made.

[Fangs1978]

That is certainly a valid opinion, and one I have held myself at times, but when escalating a conflict you tend to loose the moral high ground if you do it to quickly or more than necessary to resolve the issue at hand.

VFX would certainly have been a great example, but he could well have become a martyr in the process. Even if charged and convicted VFX would not have had to admit guilt, the other way he did.

[rozeboosje]

Fair point, and had he kept the video up on his channel that would have been fine. Instead, he kept it up for as little as he thought he could get away with, removed it, and then proceeded as if nothing had happened. What's more, he then started levelling accusations at TF again. If I had been TF, I would have, at the very least, made it a condition that the video was to stay up and featured on his channel for at least a year, and that he was not to post videos for at least a couple of months.

[Mithcoriel]

Of course, seeing as VFX never posted the apology video on his own channel as far as I know, I don't know if it really stuck. How many of his subscribers actually saw it?

And I agree: Thunderf00t should have sued him.

[rozeboosje]

He did actually. It stayed up there for, what, I don't remember, but it can't have been MUCH more than 2 day.

[rockerwere]

Subtle. Ha-ha!

[rozeboosje]

:-)

[nelliediddle]

Indeed enough to enough!

( not comments but DMCA's)

[rozeboosje]

Quite

[rozeboosje]

wtf? Seriously?

[prodigyat9]

@pino

yeah, you have to do a captcha after a certain number of comments. Very annoying.

[rozeboosje]

Oh yes, THAT. Well. I just do 'em and move on. It's a PITA but it's better than being spammed.

[prodigyat9]

I am very bad at them but I have gotten a bit better with practice.

[rozeboosje]

yeah. Irritating little things they are