I hope that it does end up in court, but I hope that YouTube is named in the suit as well because it is a combination of YouTube's actions and inactions that allowed someone like VFX to go as far as he did/does.
VFX just happened to be the first to do this to this extent. If YouTube doesn't change, it will happen again with someone else - and what we really want is for the abuse to stop - forever.
There would be no way to include YouTube in the suit as there are specific safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. It is these provisions that lead to YouTube acting as it does.
What we need is for YouTube to have a better way of dealing with DMCA claims etc.; if you visit censortube (DOT) EU, there are various suggestions, including voting for it on Google's spring clean.
I would add that if, as seems to be the case, VFX is not himself, I would venture that he might not (morally if not legally) have been responsible for his actions and would have, as I understand it, at least a partial defence on the basis of diminished responsibility.
Both accounts were suspended, then they were back up but now theyre gone again. I can understand that is mainly YouTube protecting its interest and suspending both accounts as a precautionary measure. In time, both accounts will be reinstated due to the fact that the pedophila claims are bogus (the woman in the video is in her 20's). The system needs to be updated. YouTube can easily defend its own interests but cares little for the interests (or reputation) of its users.
Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you. It would be interesting to know how many DMCAs are being served daily and if there are different procedures for dealing with DMCAs from different people. It would not be unreasonable for YouTube to have different processes for (say) a record company, which might have a lot of its music videos being posted and is going to have lawyers looking at it, an individual and someone with a track record of filing false DMCAs.
It does seem that the automatic nature of YouTube's systems is part of the problem. Part of the problem is that the DMCA makes it advantageous for an OSP to immediately take down infringing material so they can benefit from a safe harbour. The effect is an assumption of infringement unless shown otherwise, which is a perverse effect.
I hope that it does end up in court, but I hope that YouTube is named in the suit as well because it is a combination of YouTube's actions and inactions that allowed someone like VFX to go as far as he did/does.
VFX just happened to be the first to do this to this extent. If YouTube doesn't change, it will happen again with someone else - and what we really want is for the abuse to stop - forever.
ElizabethIsabelle 2 years ago
@ElizabethIsabelle
There would be no way to include YouTube in the suit as there are specific safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. It is these provisions that lead to YouTube acting as it does.
What we need is for YouTube to have a better way of dealing with DMCA claims etc.; if you visit censortube (DOT) EU, there are various suggestions, including voting for it on Google's spring clean.
dlcu38 2 years ago
I would add that if, as seems to be the case, VFX is not himself, I would venture that he might not (morally if not legally) have been responsible for his actions and would have, as I understand it, at least a partial defence on the basis of diminished responsibility.
dlcu38 2 years ago
Both accounts were suspended, then they were back up but now theyre gone again. I can understand that is mainly YouTube protecting its interest and suspending both accounts as a precautionary measure. In time, both accounts will be reinstated due to the fact that the pedophila claims are bogus (the woman in the video is in her 20's). The system needs to be updated. YouTube can easily defend its own interests but cares little for the interests (or reputation) of its users.
richieblackhearted 2 years ago
Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you. It would be interesting to know how many DMCAs are being served daily and if there are different procedures for dealing with DMCAs from different people. It would not be unreasonable for YouTube to have different processes for (say) a record company, which might have a lot of its music videos being posted and is going to have lawyers looking at it, an individual and someone with a track record of filing false DMCAs.
dlcu38 2 years ago
It does seem that the automatic nature of YouTube's systems is part of the problem. Part of the problem is that the DMCA makes it advantageous for an OSP to immediately take down infringing material so they can benefit from a safe harbour. The effect is an assumption of infringement unless shown otherwise, which is a perverse effect.
dlcu38 2 years ago
Have a look at the video I link to from the second annotation - I'm going to mirror it as well.
dlcu38 2 years ago
If anyone gets more info on this please post. Not personal info or anything.
We need to get a support vid going folks!!!
TripleAAAtheist 2 years ago
Who was it this time?
dlcu38 2 years ago
Hey another person got another dmca from VFX so i think we know who did this.
chupamiubre 2 years ago