Did you honestly just attempt to say that because DPR might have lost he was bluffing? Come now, under that logic saying absolutely anything about anything would be considered bluffing because there's always a chance someone is wrong or things won't worked out as they hoped.
Could you please show what this "strong case" of Gary's amounts too?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your first two sentences, if you want to communicate your message to me please rephrase them. In regard to Gary showing his brief case I'd really be interested in just seeing it, though I'm curious why he would want to bite simply because I ask him what his brief case actually is. In addition, why did you remove all your previous comments that I responded to? O.o?
You just admitted here that you don't think the DMCA filing by Gary has anything to do with Copyright? Which is the actual purpose of the DMCA and the core reason for its existence? Interesting.
Could you please show me how "he thinks you Troll...that is protection for freedom of speech" is a valid statement? Freedom of speech is permitting one to express oneself however they want to, including in critical and analytical ways of others. (continued)
To say that one should be allowed to file DMCA claims against another because they "Troll" them isn't an instance or protection of free-speech, its a violation of it. Saying that anyone cannot say what they want to because you think they are a "Troll" or "too critical" is censorship, the deliberate act of suppressing another persons speech because an individual finds their idea's frustrating or too critical.
That isn't the definition of the word trolling as it was originally intended. Trolling is the act of doing something outreagoues only for the purpose of attempting to get a response instead of trying to have an intellectual debate. An example of trolling would be like slandering God in a christian forum or devaluing the rights of women on a feminist blog. Its going into something for the soul purpose of getting a rise out of a large group in the place of actual discussion. (Continues)
Straightd0pe hasn't been trolling, he's presented criticisms of his opponents activities and thought processes, a common occurrence in any debate that is necessary to put to the test ways of thinking and come closer to understanding the realities of our world.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Malicious Intent is also in the US Law
In the TOS rules is also that you can't download from youtube to reuse or reupload.
80ist Vloggers like to interact freely without restriction, understandably, but there are restrictions.....it's why lots of stuff is DMCAed daily (not by gary).
If Gary doenst want to be in your game he has the right the be kept out of it.
First, malicious intent has nothing to do with copyright law or Fair Use. Second, Gary's ranting about maliciousness is bullshit. He can yell it all he wants, but there was no malice and he can't prove otherwise.
Your absolutely right Care4, if Gary doesn't want to be in the game he has every right to stop playing said game. He does not have the right however to violate the rules assuring fair play among all parties and prevent other people from analyzing and critiquing his ideas.
Gary thinks that anything you say about him that is not complete praise is a malicious attack and you should end up in court because of it. Fuck that. Free speech trumps the butthurt feelings of the litigious motherfucker.
If the DMCA is actually about the use of Gary's images that is news to me. All I have seen thus far are claims that somehow Gary has a right to take down video's that disagree with his way of thinking about the world.
So it has nothing to do with actually using images but rather whether those images paint him in a good light or not? Please correct my understanding of your meaning if it is faulty. Also, my right to maintain anonymity has absolutely nothing to do with how valid my statements are. Honest people don't resort to such Ad Hominems. If Gary doesn't like his pictures being used in rebuttals he has every right not to put them up in the first place.
No. Gary has the right to upload anything and everything he wants to so long as it doesn't violate a law. Others have the right to use portions of Gary's work either for the purpose of education or rebuttal. Others do not have the right to use portions of Gary's work for personal profit. This is where Fair Use takes effect, making the distinction between people using material for non-profit non-commercial purposes as opposed to those trying to make a dollar off another person's material.
I didn't say anything about Bastardisation, editing, or "fallacious commentary" and voice overs. I also did not mention selective editing in any sense. I simply said for the purposes of rebuttal and criticism people are allowed to use portions of Gary's work to analyze and assess his claims so long as they do not seek a profit from Gary's work.
I'm sorry, I think your misinterpreting what I've been stating. I said that if Gary doesn't like people critiquing his works and analyzing what he is saying he has the right to not put up the videos in the first place. Gary does not have the right, however, to misuse copyright laws for the purposes of preventing others from analyzing his ideas.
Would you say that Gary has a right to misuse copyright laws for the purposes of preventing others from analyzing his ideas? In regards to doing something for the love of a non-existent God, I have to wonder why you make such a statement, or why earlier you brought up the flood myths of Judaism. I myself am an Atheist, have been for some time now, so I fail to see the meaning behind what you pen.
In regards to neither of us commenting on the legality of this DMCA dispute, that's fine by me.
Fuck Stephen Hawking and 30+ yrs of study, accreditation, peer review and proven acumen,
if only you were on the side of the experts here,,, then this attempt at an argument from authority would fit a little better...
problem is ANYONE who can read a legal dictionary can learn the terms in use here... and ANYONE with ANY legal education can tell you that "FAIR USE" is NOT up for subjective definitions...
im not saying we dont need experts, btw THATS a strawman from you... all u got?
the definition is not up for interpretation,... your misunderstanding the legal process...
your also forgetting that gary gave up all rights to that footage as soon as he uploaded it... its in the service agreement... YT owns anything you upload... and any youtuber can use it... however they please....
im not partly correct.,.. im entirely correct,.,, and your wrong 6 ways from stupid.. give it up and quit putting your foot in your mouth
well apparently you cant, it doesnt matter why gary thinks he is justified. it matters that he knows the YT service agreement, and that the DMCA was on content that he doesnt own.
is gary entitled to break the law? yup but it doesnt make it less illegal
dontyou remember when DI dmca'd FOX's material on Qdragons channel
he willingly and knowingly broke the law... do you really think this isnt a clear cut case?
you have only posited your continuation of a converse fallacy of accident...
that the DMCA was on content that he doesnt own.>>> another false meme. of course he owns his content. hello. the question is whether it's use was "fair use"
NOT COPYRIGHTED.the youtube service agreement specifically allows any user to use any other users content>>
wrong. can you read? the terms say the exact opposite of what you claim. you retain all ownership rights. you only give others the right to use according to the functionality of the site (play stream embed rate share). the right of others to use it comes from the dmca homer.
"YouTube may modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement at any time and in its sole discretion by posting a change notice to Your account, changing these terms and conditions, emailing to the email address of Your account or account associated with Your developer credentials or otherwise notifying You"
to be honest it wasnt something i looked up since i did 6months ago... it has since been changed. go figure.
You're Right and wrong. There is a joint ownership of the content. You own sole rights to it before you upload it. You grant YT and it's community a share of that ownership when you upload the video. It really is in the terms. VFX/PCS read that portion out loud with visuals, highlighting that once the video is removed that share of the copyright is revoked from YT and the community. He lost, and apologized for misusing the DMCA, THE SAME EXACT WAY GARY DID! doesn't look good for gary.
mattletc please read the terms again. the rights you give yt are far more expansive than those you give other users. other users only have the right to watch, rate, share comment etc as allowed by the functionality of the website. have a nice day.
they've already been decided, time and time again. Name one instance where someone DMCAd a video, the second party counter-notified, and then the video wasn't re-instated? I can think of 4 Brett Keane videos that had the same case against SD, they are still up on his channel despite Brett Keane's numerous DMCAs. Gary WILL LOSE. Sorry to be the barer of what you perceive is bad news.
SD has an attorney who helped him through the SAME EXACT situation with Brett Keane. The Brett Keane videos have all been re-instated and are still up. That's a pretty good sign SD's going to win this case as well, I mean... IT IS the same case. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: Gary admits to serving DMCA notices on the videos. He has discussed his problems with these videos, and never once did he site LOSS OF INCOME as a reason. That is a must for a DMCA win. That make it clearer?
nope you are wrong here. the commercial aspect is only one part of a multifaceted inquiry. non commercial use can most certainly be held as infringing.
When you upload a video you grant YT an all access pass to your content. That includes, but is not limited to, others rebutting your video, Commenting on your video, extra ads being tacked on to make YT more money, and much more. If you don't want people using your video to show everyone how stupid you are.
1. Don't be stupid, but if you must don't videotape it.
2. If you must videotape it, don't upload it to the internet.
3. If you must post it to the Internet, be prepared for a reaction.
now you're getting it. You can do whatever you want. So long as, you aren't turning a profit, or cutting into their profits by doing so. There's hope for you yet.
'Others have the right to use portions of Gary's work' so you acknowledge that gary is clearly outside of his rights to DMCA sweet fuck all and that he is in the wrong here...
im sorry... i missed what the rest of your point was for all the bullshit you are spewing....
100% true. The ONLY appropriate use of the DMCA claim is : to stop someone from making money on your material, or to stop someone from decreasing your profits, by giving your material out for free. That's why youtube filters out copywritten material now. You'll notice that you can't use anything that generates profit for someone else, unless they permit such use. Every case where a non profit youtuber files a DMCA, so long as it's counter-notified, the content is re-instated.
@BiodegradeableMan Everyone makes up their own rules as to how their content can and cannot be used. Or... wait, that's not how it works! Sorry. I get confused.
Bio, you and Gary don't understand the intent of copyright law. There is no such thing as "misusing" someone's work. Copyright law is supposed to stop unlawful -copying- of work that undermines the creator's ability to profit. It's pretty easy to understand.
You are asserting that Gary is treating the law properly, when he is doing anything but. He is ignoring the spirit, intent and word of the law to serve his own ends. It is not legitimate for Gary to redefine Fair Use just because he's willing to have a judge consider his redefinition.
'he can only have an opinion or is that now disallowed?' sure he is allowed an opinion... he just better have his pocket book ready when the judge laughs his ass out of court for thinking his opinion somehow changes the word of law...
'if its not fair use then its misuse' i dont think the DMCA makes a statute for "misuse", not that there will be any debate with the courts... its clearly covered under fair use...
you CLEARLY misunderstand the DMCA's legislation, and despite this, have decided to back up someone as equally clueless as yourself.... ignorance is no excuse...
i research... legality is all about understanding the word of law...
fair use is a legal term, which gary's entire case, is based on redefining...
THATS why i know his case will be thrown out...
can i do surgery.... well i wouldnt be the first choice in a normal situation... but i do have a rather large grasp of anatomy, so in a pinch, ya i think im capable of it.... ive sewn wounds before....
@BiodegradeableMan I didn't know that the first amendment had to stop when someone's sensibilities were hurt. Nowhere do we say that anyone has the right to not be insulted. Gary is a litigious motherfucker and a liar and a little whiny bitch. I hope he doesn't sue me for being insulting.
I wonder how many cases like these can be found now that IM's channel is up?
/watch?v=C3_3sJAOEBI
The judge will laugh hearing IM's arguments in this case. "Fair Use means whatever the hell I say it means, when I say it means it! Ok goddammit. DMCA law was intended as a way for ME to screw the American Taxpayer whenever somebody on the internets pisses me off. And the power to decide my cases is MINE, ALL MINE. But those Greedy Rich Bastard Judges (who are all of em) stole this right from me!"
Hey BernardegradableManning, if you were a true friend to Gary you would attempt to talk him out of this. You know, try to save him from eating out of bins for the next six months after spending all his dole money on legal costs again.
A strawman is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument. How is he misrepresenting your spelling? You wrote "president" when you meant "precedent," no? No misrepresentation there. Maybe some sarcasm and condescendence, but no strawman.
Personally, I could give two shits, but I think it's hilarious that you're so pissed off.
What the hell? Are you attacking him because he did not answer you right away? The comment section is a forum. It is not a chat. People are not 'active' all the time. (Most people that is).
Did it ever come to mind, that terminaldeity might be occupied by other things in the timeslot?
Not everybody is up untill 4 am on a weekday.
Should he eagerly await your response? Are you really that important?
He pointed out a spelling error, that isn't straw manning. Throughout almost all of your statements thus far Biodegradeable you have done nothing but use Ad-Hominem logic fallacy while expressing obscure points veiled in well crafted undercurrent. Your points seem to amount to:
"Well Youtube returned Gary's account to service so he has a chance in a completely unaffiliated court of law with no actual connections to Youtube."
and
"The Law Changes, so you don't know for certain you'll win."
Your right that the law changes, and one cannot be certain that they'll win. One also can't be certain they'll get a new television or get that new job or find love in life. All humans know they only knows to a degree, that's just the nature of reality in relation to our understanding of it.
I personally also have issue with any beliefs about eternal life in a supernatural realm and 900 year old men building boats large enough to contain tow of each land animal on earth. I myself am an atheist, have been for some time now. This lack of belief however doesn't change the fact that using DMCA's for any purpose other then copyright, as it was originally intended, is wrong.
Thus far I do not recall commenting in regards to how the court will rule. Thus far all I have stated is that to use DMCA's for a purpose outside of copyright goes against the foundational purpose of a DMCA. I have made no statement on whether a court of law would or would not agree. Now, your right to say we cannot perfectly predict what will occur in a court of law, as stated above no one knows everything, and what one does know they only know to a degree (Continued)
However, based on the premise of what a DMCA is and its foundational principles assessments and assertions can be made in regards to how the case may or may not go. That of course isn't saying the case inherently will go that way, it simply states that there are multiple things going in its favor.
With my last employment, I signed away a few of my rights (notice my profile). I still have a few years on my contract, AFTER I resigned. And I'm held to those terms and conditions.
Once Gary joined Youtube, he signed away certain rights to his material. Allowing other users *to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service*
I think that anyone with the mental problems that Gary has (or Shawn) should seek treatment before exposing themselves to the stresses of society, in general. Often, they think that they can interact on the internet, from the safety of their own, created , controlled, artificial, world. It's their safety net.
It never lasts. And never will.
Gary needs to seek treatment, if he hasn't already. If he is getting treatment, he needs to double his efforts because it isn't working.
please sue him, its getting around that our side of reason is much too soft on these false DMCA-issuing assholes, which just makes them think they can get away with it
No I didnot. I am totally in your favor about Garys account donotgod being suspended. Gary is a loser and just plane stupid for what he is doing. I still say you are pretty and gentle. i saw the last pic you had of you. on your channel. Take care and have a good day.
Wow. In a way I empathize. Although, it's a little hard to empathize with a person who delights in the prospect of making me pay him thousands of dollars for criticizing him in a YouTube video.
If it turns out that he was suspended for bullshit reasons, I'll support his reinstatement (as I've done in the past). ...even though he'll probably still act like a total asshole towards me and anybody else who helps him out.
song pl0x?
ipwnm00bs 1 year ago
Gary is mentally ill.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
What makes you think DPR bluffed?
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
Did you honestly just attempt to say that because DPR might have lost he was bluffing? Come now, under that logic saying absolutely anything about anything would be considered bluffing because there's always a chance someone is wrong or things won't worked out as they hoped.
Could you please show what this "strong case" of Gary's amounts too?
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
*sigh circles!
show what if have heared?
maybe Gary wants to show his brief case
but be careful he bits ;o)
Care4alot 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand your first two sentences, if you want to communicate your message to me please rephrase them. In regard to Gary showing his brief case I'd really be interested in just seeing it, though I'm curious why he would want to bite simply because I ask him what his brief case actually is. In addition, why did you remove all your previous comments that I responded to? O.o?
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
Hold up.
You just admitted here that you don't think the DMCA filing by Gary has anything to do with Copyright? Which is the actual purpose of the DMCA and the core reason for its existence? Interesting.
Could you please show me how "he thinks you Troll...that is protection for freedom of speech" is a valid statement? Freedom of speech is permitting one to express oneself however they want to, including in critical and analytical ways of others. (continued)
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
To say that one should be allowed to file DMCA claims against another because they "Troll" them isn't an instance or protection of free-speech, its a violation of it. Saying that anyone cannot say what they want to because you think they are a "Troll" or "too critical" is censorship, the deliberate act of suppressing another persons speech because an individual finds their idea's frustrating or too critical.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
That isn't the definition of the word trolling as it was originally intended. Trolling is the act of doing something outreagoues only for the purpose of attempting to get a response instead of trying to have an intellectual debate. An example of trolling would be like slandering God in a christian forum or devaluing the rights of women on a feminist blog. Its going into something for the soul purpose of getting a rise out of a large group in the place of actual discussion. (Continues)
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago 2
Straightd0pe hasn't been trolling, he's presented criticisms of his opponents activities and thought processes, a common occurrence in any debate that is necessary to put to the test ways of thinking and come closer to understanding the realities of our world.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago 7
The 80ist community has adopted a fair use policy for using clips, that Gary doesn't fully support....
Now there are people that think the policy counts for everyone and then think Gary is wrong and get in to conflict ....the DMCA thingy
[I think people should put up a sign when you can freely use there stuff]
You can still hate anyone you like ;o)
Care4alot 2 years ago
Fair Use is in copyright law, it wasn't invented by anybody on YouTube.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Malicious Intent is also in the US Law
In the TOS rules is also that you can't download from youtube to reuse or reupload.
80ist Vloggers like to interact freely without restriction, understandably, but there are restrictions.....it's why lots of stuff is DMCAed daily (not by gary).
If Gary doenst want to be in your game he has the right the be kept out of it.
My opinion hope you can respect that ;o)
Care4alot 2 years ago
First, malicious intent has nothing to do with copyright law or Fair Use. Second, Gary's ranting about maliciousness is bullshit. He can yell it all he wants, but there was no malice and he can't prove otherwise.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Your absolutely right Care4, if Gary doesn't want to be in the game he has every right to stop playing said game. He does not have the right however to violate the rules assuring fair play among all parties and prevent other people from analyzing and critiquing his ideas.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Gary thinks that anything you say about him that is not complete praise is a malicious attack and you should end up in court because of it. Fuck that. Free speech trumps the butthurt feelings of the litigious motherfucker.
SpinozasPsyche 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
If the DMCA is actually about the use of Gary's images that is news to me. All I have seen thus far are claims that somehow Gary has a right to take down video's that disagree with his way of thinking about the world.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
So it has nothing to do with actually using images but rather whether those images paint him in a good light or not? Please correct my understanding of your meaning if it is faulty. Also, my right to maintain anonymity has absolutely nothing to do with how valid my statements are. Honest people don't resort to such Ad Hominems. If Gary doesn't like his pictures being used in rebuttals he has every right not to put them up in the first place.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
No. Gary has the right to upload anything and everything he wants to so long as it doesn't violate a law. Others have the right to use portions of Gary's work either for the purpose of education or rebuttal. Others do not have the right to use portions of Gary's work for personal profit. This is where Fair Use takes effect, making the distinction between people using material for non-profit non-commercial purposes as opposed to those trying to make a dollar off another person's material.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
I didn't say anything about Bastardisation, editing, or "fallacious commentary" and voice overs. I also did not mention selective editing in any sense. I simply said for the purposes of rebuttal and criticism people are allowed to use portions of Gary's work to analyze and assess his claims so long as they do not seek a profit from Gary's work.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I think your misinterpreting what I've been stating. I said that if Gary doesn't like people critiquing his works and analyzing what he is saying he has the right to not put up the videos in the first place. Gary does not have the right, however, to misuse copyright laws for the purposes of preventing others from analyzing his ideas.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Would you say that Gary has a right to misuse copyright laws for the purposes of preventing others from analyzing his ideas? In regards to doing something for the love of a non-existent God, I have to wonder why you make such a statement, or why earlier you brought up the flood myths of Judaism. I myself am an Atheist, have been for some time now, so I fail to see the meaning behind what you pen.
In regards to neither of us commenting on the legality of this DMCA dispute, that's fine by me.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
'qualifications and or professional accreditations to assume ' we dont need qualifications... he has admitted he is abusing the DMCA,,,,,
'...the right to misuse the internet to make unfounded statements as to a persons intent?'
i dont see how anyone has....
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Are you aware that you've spelled "biodegradable" incorrectly?
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Degradable is already a derivative of degrade. Where's the play on words? (Pointing out a spelling error is not making a strawman argument)
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
You still spelled it incorrectly, idiot.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
"Biodegradable," you moron.
kokobaboko 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
IKR? He totally straw-manned you by pointing out the 0 in your name. I think someone needs to watch a video on what a straw man is.
@BiodegradeableMan your explanation makes no sense at all.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
Fuck Stephen Hawking and 30+ yrs of study, accreditation, peer review and proven acumen,
if only you were on the side of the experts here,,, then this attempt at an argument from authority would fit a little better...
problem is ANYONE who can read a legal dictionary can learn the terms in use here... and ANYONE with ANY legal education can tell you that "FAIR USE" is NOT up for subjective definitions...
im not saying we dont need experts, btw THATS a strawman from you... all u got?
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
well you were wrong after you said "its" ...
the definition is not up for interpretation,... your misunderstanding the legal process...
your also forgetting that gary gave up all rights to that footage as soon as he uploaded it... its in the service agreement... YT owns anything you upload... and any youtuber can use it... however they please....
im not partly correct.,.. im entirely correct,.,, and your wrong 6 ways from stupid.. give it up and quit putting your foot in your mouth
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
well apparently you cant, it doesnt matter why gary thinks he is justified. it matters that he knows the YT service agreement, and that the DMCA was on content that he doesnt own.
is gary entitled to break the law? yup but it doesnt make it less illegal
dontyou remember when DI dmca'd FOX's material on Qdragons channel
he willingly and knowingly broke the law... do you really think this isnt a clear cut case?
you have only posited your continuation of a converse fallacy of accident...
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
YES, i have clearly said as much...
your insinuation to the contrary is logically fallaciousw,,.,, its called a converse argument of accident...
your arguing that since they were wrong about OJ then there are no clear cut cases...
if this is the best you got... no wonder you are scared to comment TO me,...
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
that the DMCA was on content that he doesnt own.>>> another false meme. of course he owns his content. hello. the question is whether it's use was "fair use"
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago
i will take back "own" but i will replace it with , NOT COPYRIGHTED.
the youtube service agreement specifically allows any user to use any other users content.
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
NOT COPYRIGHTED.the youtube service agreement specifically allows any user to use any other users content>>
wrong. can you read? the terms say the exact opposite of what you claim. you retain all ownership rights. you only give others the right to use according to the functionality of the site (play stream embed rate share). the right of others to use it comes from the dmca homer.
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago
-sigh- i guess the only rule to remember is
"YouTube may modify any of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement at any time and in its sole discretion by posting a change notice to Your account, changing these terms and conditions, emailing to the email address of Your account or account associated with Your developer credentials or otherwise notifying You"
to be honest it wasnt something i looked up since i did 6months ago... it has since been changed. go figure.
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
@Creationsofmyown read youtubes TOS and respond, thank you.
jacobryanball10 2 years ago
You're Right and wrong. There is a joint ownership of the content. You own sole rights to it before you upload it. You grant YT and it's community a share of that ownership when you upload the video. It really is in the terms. VFX/PCS read that portion out loud with visuals, highlighting that once the video is removed that share of the copyright is revoked from YT and the community. He lost, and apologized for misusing the DMCA, THE SAME EXACT WAY GARY DID! doesn't look good for gary.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
mattletc please read the terms again. the rights you give yt are far more expansive than those you give other users. other users only have the right to watch, rate, share comment etc as allowed by the functionality of the website. have a nice day.
floydstinkyboy 1 year ago
YT owns anything you upload... and any youtuber can use it... however they please...>>>you are the victim of a false meme.
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago
they've already been decided, time and time again. Name one instance where someone DMCAd a video, the second party counter-notified, and then the video wasn't re-instated? I can think of 4 Brett Keane videos that had the same case against SD, they are still up on his channel despite Brett Keane's numerous DMCAs. Gary WILL LOSE. Sorry to be the barer of what you perceive is bad news.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
I wish I had read your comment before replying to him. You said it more succinctly.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
SD has an attorney who helped him through the SAME EXACT situation with Brett Keane. The Brett Keane videos have all been re-instated and are still up. That's a pretty good sign SD's going to win this case as well, I mean... IT IS the same case. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: Gary admits to serving DMCA notices on the videos. He has discussed his problems with these videos, and never once did he site LOSS OF INCOME as a reason. That is a must for a DMCA win. That make it clearer?
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
nope you are wrong here. the commercial aspect is only one part of a multifaceted inquiry. non commercial use can most certainly be held as infringing.
floydstinkyboy 1 year ago
When you upload a video you grant YT an all access pass to your content. That includes, but is not limited to, others rebutting your video, Commenting on your video, extra ads being tacked on to make YT more money, and much more. If you don't want people using your video to show everyone how stupid you are.
1. Don't be stupid, but if you must don't videotape it.
2. If you must videotape it, don't upload it to the internet.
3. If you must post it to the Internet, be prepared for a reaction.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
totally off base here read the terms homer.
floydstinkyboy 1 year ago
how? Since when is "homer" an insult? I must say though, it took every ounce of restraint I had to avoid answering you with one word only. d'oh!
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
now you're getting it. You can do whatever you want. So long as, you aren't turning a profit, or cutting into their profits by doing so. There's hope for you yet.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
This thread is as dead as platform shoes, let it go FFS!
BiodegradeableMan 1 year ago
'Others have the right to use portions of Gary's work' so you acknowledge that gary is clearly outside of his rights to DMCA sweet fuck all and that he is in the wrong here...
im sorry... i missed what the rest of your point was for all the bullshit you are spewing....
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Read the context of what I've been saying and you may see the irony of your words.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
100% true. The ONLY appropriate use of the DMCA claim is : to stop someone from making money on your material, or to stop someone from decreasing your profits, by giving your material out for free. That's why youtube filters out copywritten material now. You'll notice that you can't use anything that generates profit for someone else, unless they permit such use. Every case where a non profit youtuber files a DMCA, so long as it's counter-notified, the content is re-instated.
mattluvsrush1 1 year ago
@BiodegradeableMan Everyone makes up their own rules as to how their content can and cannot be used. Or... wait, that's not how it works! Sorry. I get confused.
SpinozasPsyche 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Bio, you and Gary don't understand the intent of copyright law. There is no such thing as "misusing" someone's work. Copyright law is supposed to stop unlawful -copying- of work that undermines the creator's ability to profit. It's pretty easy to understand.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
You are asserting that Gary is treating the law properly, when he is doing anything but. He is ignoring the spirit, intent and word of the law to serve his own ends. It is not legitimate for Gary to redefine Fair Use just because he's willing to have a judge consider his redefinition.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
It's not an assumption, he's expressed it clearly.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
'he can only have an opinion or is that now disallowed?' sure he is allowed an opinion... he just better have his pocket book ready when the judge laughs his ass out of court for thinking his opinion somehow changes the word of law...
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
'if its not fair use then its misuse' i dont think the DMCA makes a statute for "misuse", not that there will be any debate with the courts... its clearly covered under fair use...
you CLEARLY misunderstand the DMCA's legislation, and despite this, have decided to back up someone as equally clueless as yourself.... ignorance is no excuse...
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
i dont have to be psychic to kno that gary is off his fucking rocker on his use of the DMCA.....
its tantamount to someone saying " im justified in killing that dude... he banged my wife..." 90% of the time that person goes to jail....
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
care to put 100 bucks on it?
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
i research... legality is all about understanding the word of law...
fair use is a legal term, which gary's entire case, is based on redefining...
THATS why i know his case will be thrown out...
can i do surgery.... well i wouldnt be the first choice in a normal situation... but i do have a rather large grasp of anatomy, so in a pinch, ya i think im capable of it.... ive sewn wounds before....
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
ya no problem, always happy to feed the trolls....
especially love it when they argue my position, then refuse to put their money where their mouth is...
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@BiodegradeableMan I didn't know that the first amendment had to stop when someone's sensibilities were hurt. Nowhere do we say that anyone has the right to not be insulted. Gary is a litigious motherfucker and a liar and a little whiny bitch. I hope he doesn't sue me for being insulting.
SpinozasPsyche 2 years ago 9
there are many asses in this world i'd like to see, Gary's is not one of them :P
whydid666 2 years ago 3
I wonder how many cases like these can be found now that IM's channel is up?
/watch?v=C3_3sJAOEBI
The judge will laugh hearing IM's arguments in this case. "Fair Use means whatever the hell I say it means, when I say it means it! Ok goddammit. DMCA law was intended as a way for ME to screw the American Taxpayer whenever somebody on the internets pisses me off. And the power to decide my cases is MINE, ALL MINE. But those Greedy Rich Bastard Judges (who are all of em) stole this right from me!"
Geodge 2 years ago 6
Some more:
/watch?v=JVlg0uW0Ty0
/watch?v=KlpUW23YVac
/watch?v=6VFOmUcB9dc
and the worst example so far?!!
/watch?v=W2dPopfiHGA
You're a tool, Inmendham. A complete joke.
Geodge 2 years ago 5
This is fun! Look at this one:
/watch?v=XVSF8GBlHZU
He always talks about how Fair Use means you need to fairly use someone's content. Was it "fair" to pan down to her boobs? Fair for me, maybe.
SteelHamburger 2 years ago 4
Fuck InMendham.
b3rtne 2 years ago 3
Maraco Jason Freddie Micheal. And the gang's leader. We all no who that is.
ElvisonTour1972 2 years ago
inmendham is an angry and bitter old pool-cleaner.
his missuse of the DMCA shall not be tolerated.
cyberweirdo2001 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Am I the only one here who's interested in the name of the music playing?
Wh3tst0nE 2 years ago
Goodluck.
TechnomancerMorhion 2 years ago
I'm trying to picture Gary's slurred ramblings while he is in court.
Oh my, how epic lulz will ensue from this smackdown
WashingMachine0 2 years ago 3
ps. I still support Straightd0pe and his justice that he rightfully will be entitled to. Fight the good fight Straightd0pe. Goodluck dude.
ElvisonTour1972 2 years ago
Thank you good sir : )
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
ElvisonTour1972 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey guys please sub me (if u want to) i will appreciate it;)
StillSkyHigh 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
What does that have to do with the law exactly?
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
You didn't answer my question.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Gary wouldn't have a case against YouTube, the TOS ensures that.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
I also know that's it's spelled "precedent."
I just saw Gary's little returning video, and even he isn't claiming it had anything to do with his threats of litigation.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
I'm also here to educate! I'll work on some put-downs for ya if you want.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
it's "you're".
Wh3tst0nE 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@BiodegradeableMan i don't play that game.
Wh3tst0nE 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@straightd0pe
Did Gary star alongside Linda Hamilton in the 1987 TV series Beauty and the Beast?
The likeness is uncanny, I'm sure you'll agree!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
"Oh dear you're really gonna strawman a spelling mistake?"
How is it a straw man? Do you even know what these words mean?
terminaldeity 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Hey BernardegradableManning, if you were a true friend to Gary you would attempt to talk him out of this. You know, try to save him from eating out of bins for the next six months after spending all his dole money on legal costs again.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
A strawman is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument. How is he misrepresenting your spelling? You wrote "president" when you meant "precedent," no? No misrepresentation there. Maybe some sarcasm and condescendence, but no strawman.
Personally, I could give two shits, but I think it's hilarious that you're so pissed off.
terminaldeity 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Yes, because as we all know, it requires SOOO much effort to type out 6 sentences.
terminaldeity 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
You, apparently
terminaldeity 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
@BiodegradeableMan
What the hell? Are you attacking him because he did not answer you right away? The comment section is a forum. It is not a chat. People are not 'active' all the time. (Most people that is).
Did it ever come to mind, that terminaldeity might be occupied by other things in the timeslot?
Not everybody is up untill 4 am on a weekday.
Should he eagerly await your response? Are you really that important?
atomicnumber86 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
He pointed out a spelling error, that isn't straw manning. Throughout almost all of your statements thus far Biodegradeable you have done nothing but use Ad-Hominem logic fallacy while expressing obscure points veiled in well crafted undercurrent. Your points seem to amount to:
"Well Youtube returned Gary's account to service so he has a chance in a completely unaffiliated court of law with no actual connections to Youtube."
and
"The Law Changes, so you don't know for certain you'll win."
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Oh I'm simply trying to synthesize your ideas. If you find any error in my understanding please correct said error.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Well, did I misrepresent your ideas in any way?
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Your right that the law changes, and one cannot be certain that they'll win. One also can't be certain they'll get a new television or get that new job or find love in life. All humans know they only knows to a degree, that's just the nature of reality in relation to our understanding of it.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
I personally also have issue with any beliefs about eternal life in a supernatural realm and 900 year old men building boats large enough to contain tow of each land animal on earth. I myself am an atheist, have been for some time now. This lack of belief however doesn't change the fact that using DMCA's for any purpose other then copyright, as it was originally intended, is wrong.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BiodegradeableMan 2 years ago
Thus far I do not recall commenting in regards to how the court will rule. Thus far all I have stated is that to use DMCA's for a purpose outside of copyright goes against the foundational purpose of a DMCA. I have made no statement on whether a court of law would or would not agree. Now, your right to say we cannot perfectly predict what will occur in a court of law, as stated above no one knows everything, and what one does know they only know to a degree (Continued)
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
However, based on the premise of what a DMCA is and its foundational principles assessments and assertions can be made in regards to how the case may or may not go. That of course isn't saying the case inherently will go that way, it simply states that there are multiple things going in its favor.
SabishiiRomanchikku 2 years ago
Subcribed, and 5 stars. I support anyone who vigourously stands up to free speech, and stands against anyone who censors because he's butthurt.
photodube 2 years ago
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
You said you would, and you did.
Thanx.
Adipatus 2 years ago
With my last employment, I signed away a few of my rights (notice my profile). I still have a few years on my contract, AFTER I resigned. And I'm held to those terms and conditions.
Once Gary joined Youtube, he signed away certain rights to his material. Allowing other users *to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service*
Perhaps Gary is also illiterate?
ravenslaves 2 years ago 2
5-starred and subbed, just for the MIA.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I think that anyone with the mental problems that Gary has (or Shawn) should seek treatment before exposing themselves to the stresses of society, in general. Often, they think that they can interact on the internet, from the safety of their own, created , controlled, artificial, world. It's their safety net.
It never lasts. And never will.
Gary needs to seek treatment, if he hasn't already. If he is getting treatment, he needs to double his efforts because it isn't working.
ravenslaves 2 years ago
please sue him, its getting around that our side of reason is much too soft on these false DMCA-issuing assholes, which just makes them think they can get away with it
CrystalEye736 2 years ago
Nice video, and good luck.
Blue skies. :-)
NielsC68 2 years ago
InMendham is no better that venomfangx, filing false DMCA to silence his critics.
I wonder if ZOMGitsCriss is going to support InMendham this time for it is he who is censoring free speech.
Gary deserves having his account suspended, false DMCA is serious business.
Gary is an asshole!
bartonstaleter 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
Care4alot 2 years ago
DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!
nicanicabad 2 years ago
@nicanicabad You are so pretty and gentle and that was sweet. I laughed. And i hope it stays that way.
ElvisonTour1972 2 years ago 2
Did you mark me down? ;-(
I hope not!
nicanicabad 2 years ago
No I didnot. I am totally in your favor about Garys account donotgod being suspended. Gary is a loser and just plane stupid for what he is doing. I still say you are pretty and gentle. i saw the last pic you had of you. on your channel. Take care and have a good day.
ElvisonTour1972 2 years ago
subscribed
gatraw 2 years ago
karma what goes around will come back and bite your ass
ttrop 2 years ago
Immendham=twat
And yet everyone seemed to love to suck his dick.
anthonzi 2 years ago
Comment removed
ttrop 2 years ago
Looks like Gary's DoNotGod channel was just suspended...
antybu86 2 years ago 4
It's confirmed. The YT user "donotgod" (a.k.a. inmendham) is suspended.
@Gary
Karma can be a bitch, huh?
theninjasoulreaper 2 years ago 4
Wow. In a way I empathize. Although, it's a little hard to empathize with a person who delights in the prospect of making me pay him thousands of dollars for criticizing him in a YouTube video.
straightd0pe 2 years ago
If it turns out that he was suspended for bullshit reasons, I'll support his reinstatement (as I've done in the past). ...even though he'll probably still act like a total asshole towards me and anybody else who helps him out.
antybu86 2 years ago 6