Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To Fight Copyright Violations With DMCA?
szyzyg writes "I've created some popular science videos showing how asteroid discoveries have happened over the last few decades. However I've run into a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed. But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction, but even if I did so I'd have to pay court costs up front and since they're based in another country I'd have a difficult time actually collecting any money from the other party. It feels like this other group is simply gambling that I won't spend the time and resources to take further legal action, the DMCA is supposed to provide equal protection but the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are. So does anyone have any suggestions for how I should proceed here?"
Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.
If they're in another country, it's hard to get them to pay anything in a civil case, DMCA or otherwise. I don't know what to tell you other than "talk to a lawyer".
Release another video that shows asteroids smashing into the cultist's church and an undead dinosaur army emerging from the crater to devour their children.
US laws don't apply oversea. Live with it.
1. Read and understand the law before you try to apply it.
2. Decide if you really want to pull the trigger.
3. Hire a lawyer.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
> borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. ...
>
> submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do
> in fact have the rights to this work
A religious organization lie? You're kidding me!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
DMCA is Defective by Design. join http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
You could get an injunction against google ordering them to take down the video. Talk to a lawyer to see what kind of fees you would be looking at.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
One thing you can do is contact whatever organization they're promoting, and tell them that this yahoo's infringement will have consequences for the organization's reputation.
If that fails to get movement, then contact your friends to send email, snail-mail, make comments on their blog, organize an online petition, and try to build some public pressure. If you can get some buzz going, contact news media in his home country.
Either you're telling the truth, or they're telling the truth. I don't want to judge that, Youtube doesn't want to judge that, a judge should be the judge of that. And until a judge has looked at it, what reason is there to take down the video again?
I missed the financial impact in your post. Are you just offended they re-used your works, or is it impacting your sales?
Now that we have THAT out of the way, you could probably sue them both! Name Youtube and the church in your lawsuit, go for an injunction against Youtube and ask for ONE BILLION DOLLARS worth of damages from the church! It works for the music industry! The church probably won't even show up to defend itself, so take a default judgement against them and when they don't pay, use it to get warrants for the arrest of their leadership (for contempt of court or whatever) if they ever come to the USA! Just about everyone who's anyone has to come here eventually!
It'll probably cost you several large briefcases full of cash in lawyers fees which you will probably never recoup, but if you want to make your new hobby making those guys' lives miserable, that's the way to go!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message
Re-redub their version to make the group's religious message blasphemous to Islamists.
That should eventually take care of your problem, but there may be a wee bit of collateral damage to the rest of the world along the way, like World War III.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This is Slashdot. You created and released the video. The Slashdot crowd decrees that you have no rights to it. And everyone else has an absolute rights to do whatever they want with it.
Too bad. Next time, don't make the mistake of creating a video.
Right youtube are happy to take the video down again if I spend money filing a court case against the infringing party. Which is what would happen if a single person submitted a counter claim against a major corporation's takedown.
Mind you, if he'd been important enough, he would be given a government mandate to insist on a conviction at government expense.
However, all is not lost.
The RIAA and their affiliates around the world have been hard at work making copyright a criminal infringement.
Use their work.
Claim criminal infringement in their host country. Once agreed, the prosecution is paid for by the state.
That's part of the problem sir, they've put my picture on their video and are implying that I'm endorsing their message.
Apparently the religious group is outside the US, which adds another level of difficulty.
But anyway, in general, if you live in the US, and protecting your copyright is really important to you, you should file copyright forms with the US Copyright Office. Although current law says that you enjoy copyright protection regardless of whether you file, it doesn't give you *equal* protection if you don't file. If you file, you can sue for both actual damages and statutory damages. If you didn't file, then you can only sue for actual damages, which are presumably zero in your case. When statutory damages are in play, a lawyer will often be willing to take such a case on a contingent fee basis.
The DMCA sucks, but it doesn't follow that enforcing copyright automatically sucks, or even that enforcing it using the DMCA automatically sucks. Laws are like beer and shotguns; they can be used for both good and bad purposes. I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without copyright, but in such a society the GPL and BSD software licenses, for example, would be unenforceable. Likewise, I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without private property -- but if I tried to implement such a society unilaterally, I'd run into all kinds of problems.
Find free books.
But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction
Perjury is a federal offense and by doing it under the DMCA they're violating US law.
Whoever (...) (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
Perhaps filing a police complaint or giving the FBI a call would help? Unlike lawyers they're free, so it wouldn't cost you any more than your time.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
His PUBLICLY AVAILABLE registration information for his website, http://harunyahya.com, is as follows:
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Publication, Global ms7uh6j58c5@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Global Publication
ATTN HARUNYAHYA.COM
care of Network Solutions
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
570-708-8780
Record expires on 23-Jan-2022.
Record created on 23-Jan-2000.
Bulk whois optout: N
Database last updated on 23-Sep-2012 14:42:05 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS2.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS3.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS4.P03.DYNECT.NET
Both the address and phone number are fake (they apparently are the address and phone of Network Solutions itself. However you CAN sue Network soultions in small claims since they are now attached to his company. Sue them in small claims for damages and ask alternatively that they hand over all the information that they have on the person. Attempt to take over his website via court order in small claims (it's an asset).
There is also a Wikipedia page about the guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
Also: Some states allow injunctive relief (court order for youtube to take down the site) in small claims court and some do not. If your state does then file and ask that the site be taken down in addition to other damages.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
You're complaining that you'll have to file a lawsuit to defend your copyright. Boo hoo.
You should be HAPPY that you have the ability to simply file a lawsuit. If they hosted their video on their own servers, in another country (rather than YouTube), you'd have no practical recourse.
In this case, you file a case in a court that's close to home, the accused doesn't show-up at all, you win by default, and YouTube does what you want. And if by chance they DO show-up, then you've got more of a fight on your hands, but you'll be able to get legal fees and impose fines on the individuals located in the US.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
My suggestion would be getting in touch with the EFF...
Hi Scott,
You want this video down and you have made one take-down request. Ok, send another, as is your right in the DMCA. Also state you are the copyright owner of the images contained and include proof. Google should then take down the video again and ask the other party to make legal representation to you.
Also if you really want to mess with them and have some tie to waste can use Shazam or similar you can source where they get their music from and inform the music's copyright holder. Then go through all the videos posted by this user and do the same. By then Google will be getting multiple DMCA requests from multiple parties for a single user, this will result in them suspending all this users videos and their account.
have you tried contacting them and asking why they feel they own the rights?
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
Then you likely have a defamation or publicity claim to add to your copyright infringement claim. Make sure to bring these up at the initial consultation with your lawyer.
The DMCA is designed to force content distributors like YouTube to take action to get on the record statements. They did that. At this point they now have your statement made under "good faith clause" and the church's statement made under penalty of perjury.
Assuming your version of events is correct you have a situation where the religious organization is engaging in perjury. The problem is civil perjury is rarely prosecuted. Generally the system responds to perjury via. large awards. So in your case if you sued you would be likely to get a large reward that you wouldn't be able to collect on.
However, YouTube is potentially involved in contributory infringement if you notify them. Provide them a complete set of documentation proving your claims and then they are on the hook. What happens from there is up to them. Suing YouTube is not going to be cheap but then again they are unlikely to care enough for you to have to fight them.
Of course, if you were a corporation such as a distributor, music label or movie studio, you could instantly delete the offending content, no questions asked. Seriously, I'm not kidding. In the land of YouTube, alleged copyright holders such as performing rights organizations can take other people's content down with no proof of ownership. If the claimant is a powerful corporation, they can do whatever they want. The person against whom the claim was made can dispute the claim, but the corporation can immediately dismiss the claim. That's right. YouTube does not arbitrate. It's assumed that the corporations always hold the moral high ground, and individuals are nothing but scumbag pirates out to destroy the economy.
It's always been this way. Law is expensive. Lawyer costs, court costs, transport, time off work. Even when the case is open-and-shut, it'll cost a small fortune to fight. This isn't new: It goes back as far as law does. Call it the cynic's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet - some way that lets you bypass all the expensive bits in between where you are now and where you legally should be. But there isn't one. This isn't even a politically important case, so you can't expect any activist group to come to your aid with money and experts. Basically, you're screwed. You really only have two options:
1. Accept it. Let them have your video.
2. Get MAD. Spend your savings and go through some legal hell. You'll win, easily, but all you will win is petty revenge. The victory will hurt more than just giving up. With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
You nailed it. Legal questions in Ask Slashdot are requests for the community's help in performing steps 1 (understand the basics of the law) and 2 (understand the costs and benefits of suing) in order to become better prepared for step 3 (initial consultation with lawyer).
That guy may be grossly misinterpreting your data, but it almost seems like a fair use of the video, as absurd as the usage and interpretation is. Would you want to be limited as to usage of video clips in this way? And what would this say for free speech, which is supposed to protect this sort of speech, even though we find it ridiculous.
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
And on one image they even left in "© Scott Manley" visible.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Too bad it was such a horrible piece of legislation.
Wait, it's a "religious organization", in which case all values fly out the window. If this was an atheist organization pilfering a church's video and redubbing, it'd be "fair use", no?
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Filing only costs $350, and you can save yourself some money and file it per se. They're not very likely to bother you after that.
It would still have to be before it was published.
While performances and demos are not considered publishing unless you're offering to sell (or something like that... might be in the FAQ or circular 40a), it's arguable that posting on YouTube is an act of publishing.
But because you didn't register it, you probably can't get punitive damages.
Not sure why the religious org would lie and claim ownership. After all, I think fair use applies (whether or not you agree with the use):
1) Satire.
2) Did you create the video (looks to be an animated rendering), or is it mashed up? If it's your original content, then there's some protection there, but you can't copyright facts. The same organization could take the source data, and assuming they used the same software you used, would the end product be materially different?
That said, IANAL, but I do believe there are limits on how much of the original content one uses. I can create a satirical derivative of your work all day long, but I don't think I can use the entire thing, only a portion.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Talk to a lawyer. It may cost a bit of money to do this, unless you can find a lawyer that will do it pro-bono; but you need to know what your options are and what you are getting into. A simple lawyer's letter to YouTube may be enough, or you may need to go to court to enforce your rights. At least get competent advice; not the random collections of /. drivel and musings.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
As I pointed out in my other post, using some of your video around scientific facts could be construed as satire. However, using your image and name isn't cool, if they haven't identified it as satire. Even if they did, I think this isn't a copyright issue, but a libel issue. The video isn't the issue, but your personal character and reputation. Moreover, I believe libel claims have less gray area than copyright, and even if the video isn't a for profit venture, you can get money out of a libel claim.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Are you being purposefully ignorant considering that IN the video the guy admits that Scott created the video?
Before you do anything at all consider this web page:
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
Oh man, only $350? I'd pay that filing fee!
If no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's why the DMCA is bullshit. It encourages a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality and forces the website to remove the content. You should have to see a judge to have it removed (at the very least) in the first place.
That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.
You still have your original video, yes?
Copying isn't like stealling a car. If you copy a video, the original video still exists. Nothing has been lost, only duplicated. It's like someone making a perfect copy of your car, but you still have the one you had, so you have not been harmed.
Best solution is to realise that on the internet, any data you post in a public place can be copied by anyone at any time for any reason. Information wants to be free. There's no such thing as imaginary property. If you want to keep your data private, put it behind a password protected page.
If I were you, I'd do a LOT of research before even thinking about suing a religious organization. Especially if I had a family, wife and kids.
then use a different approach...flag it for spam / mass advertising....with all those hyperlinks there...it can be viewed as attempting to do some form of SEO manipulation
Coincidentally, I'm watching Deep Impact now on Netflix.
Lots of asteroids, check
Black president, check
All the elements of the making.... this is fiction, right?
When somebody asks you for legal advice on Slashdot, you're supposed to give it. In case you hadn't noticed, simply having an account on Slashdot qualifies you as a legal expert, especially on IP issues. No legal training? No problem!
Go to court anyways. Youtube is owned by Google, and both are US companies. You CAN get an injunction forcing Youtube to remove the video regardless of the infringer's country of origin. Best advice: talk to a lawyer and step up to the courtly batting box. Spend a little money to protect your interests. if you cannot, contact pro-copyright groups and see if you cannot get legal counsel or representation from one them pro bono.
Copyright has problems but this is pretty clear cut and easy to solve without abusing the system or making things somehow worse. Just calm down, think things through and realize that Youtube is following the law, and if you want justice done you will need to use the law better than the other guys.
I'm going to assume that if they've put your name and face on the video, they can't genuinely argue that the video has nothing to do with you.
If you haven't already, plaster your website with messages about their group, how you don't endorse them, and how they're lieing thieving gits. Tell them that you'll be happy to remove the messages if they stop infringing your copyright. It probably won't work, but at least you can give their reputationa good kicking. Speaking of which- you failed to mention the infringer by name in your submission. The YouTube submission is in the name of Harun Yahya, real name Adnan Oktar, a Turkish Islamic fundamentalist, creationist, conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier (so says Wikipedia).
Looking at his Wikipedia page, it looks like this man is no stranger to court cases, but it's still worth going the legal route. I think you're British, right? In that case, go to your local Citizen's Advice Bureaux and ask them to hook you up with a good specialist lawyer in your area. Ask for a free consultation and see what they think. If they advise you not to bother, it might be worth just leaving it and moving on with your life.
The irony here is we're giving lots and lots of view hits to the stolen video.
Copyright infringers can't absolve themselves of guilt or legal liability simply by including the original copyright statement or acknowledging the copyright owner -- it's still against the law to use someone else's intellectual property without their expressed (by way of license) permission.
Just try posting a popular movie from Sony or Warner to YouTube and see how you get on when you try to claim "but I left the copyright statement in".
Confession may be good for the soul but it doesn't eliminate the crime.
Boo hoo. It's Youtube. Get over it. If you make enough of a noise, you invite the Streisand effect. Don't go blaring about it. Just fuck them over. Like copy THEIR stuff into a new video and make fun of them. When they go "wah wah wah" and have it taken down, pull the same thing - declare that it isn't. The law isn't set up to help YOU, it's set up to help major corporations extract wealth from the working class. Claiming DMCA with idiots like that is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You're not going to win, unless you are very fast and very good at throwing knives. Since you've piddled away a lot of time on this already, fast isn't going to help, so you need to nuke the fuckers. Don't advertise it, just destroy them. And then: get over yourself. Anything on the web is fair game. That's the new rule: it's a game of TEGWAR.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
DMCA (the part you are talking about) is there to make it possible for websites to be run without being sued all the time, to help copyright owners to act fast against copyright infringement, and to allow innocently accused parties to publish non-infringing material.
What happened to you goes past what DMCA is there for. The website can refuse to remove the materials - in that case they risk becoming part of any court case. The infringer can insist on continuing to infringe. In that case things go to court. Now _if_ you are correct and they are infringing, they have just added substantially to their wrongdoing by making claims that they own the material.
There are severe penalties for acting against the DMCA rules. If you accuse someone of infringing when you are not the copyright holder, and likewise if they claim not to be infringing when they are. Probably worse than the copyright infringement.
ask a lawyer first but:
Send them an invoice for the use of your video. (for a reasonable amount)
if they don't pay try small claims court for non payment of the bill.
IANAL, so take this with the usual sodium supplement.
I notice that your video contains no copyright notice of any kind, As I understand it, this doesn't actually give away your ownership, but it does make it a lot of difference enforcementwise.You might want to do a little reading so you can better protect your work in the future.
It's also worth remembering that Youtube is very much about repurposing other people's content.. You can fight this with legal boilerplate and takedown notices, but really you're going against the spirit of the place.
I thought it was illegal to be this kind of stupid...
This means you are kinda [censored]. Whoever has tons of money can tell Google what videos they want taken down, and they will claim rights over any video they can see that will make them some profit. Trying to dispute is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. I wish Google never bought YouTube.
Congratulations, you've illustrated perfectly one of the major problems with the DMCA. Written by corporations for corporations, the law implicitly equates a rights owner with a person or institution that has substantial resources to pursue and litigate violations. Nowhere in the law is there relief for the individual creator or small business whose works are appropriated by another party that has money and lawyers.
Cases like this have got to be a dime a dozen. As much as registering your work with the Library of Congress helps, it won't until you get to the expensive part where lawyers are involved.
I'd like to see YouTube provide the option of registering your work with THEM. If you're the first person to upload specific material to them, that should count as a tie-breaker in such cases as these. They look at the original asteroid video, they look at the subsequently uploaded video (which will also have slightly poorer video quality after being re-encoded), and then the latter video gets denied if they try what they're trying here.
A watermark embedded by YouTube on encoding would also help make it difficult for people to pull material from their site, and repost it as their own.
All you are willing to say about them is problem with a religious organization ???? If you are so cowardly that you are not even willing to name those who you claim have wronged you, then you deserve the treatment that you get.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Don't waive any rights, but ask them if they think they made the video, or if they purchased it.
Most likely --the purchased the video from some kid or company that ripped it off. The average church just doesn't even have the fucking expertise to youtube.
I've worked at more than one place that hired 'media consultants' to make a video, only to get served with DMCA notices I had to sort out because they went with the lowest cost bidder.
Yeah, the consultants should never be used again, but *our* people filed the counter notification. And then crumbled in a hurry a week later. Why? Well, the damned moronic idiots honestly thought they owned the content in question, despite not even had a word about their own licensing in the contract to a consultant making a work for hire.
Now... there's always the chance that...they're just /assholes/.
At that point, you've got two choices...Assuming they're a .com, I recommend you file against them, show a non response, and in the collections phase move to get their entire damned domain and youtube account taken down.
Alternately, you can look into what jurisdiction they do exist in, and see if there's any way to start applying pressure through other channels.
Just because they don't live in the US doesn't mean you can't take their US property as part of collecting damages with an appropriate court order.
this could potentially include:
- their domain
- any systems pointed at it in the US
- their youtube accounts
- any balance in their paypal
See your lawyer.
And please try to resist any urges to change the video and content of their website to be filled with goatse and tubgirl.
I'll say to you the same as I say to big media. - The one sure fire way to not have your shit taken by others is not to make it public.. Now put you big stick away..
You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet....
He KNEW he was boned. But by coming here on Slashot, he got one hell of a sympathetic audience AND caused a shit storm on youtube against the people who fucked him over.
Mission accomplished.
Hat's off to szyzyg!
Note: if this wasn't his intent, I'd be horribly disappointed!
Post this to http://reddit.com/r/atheism and rally the troops. It's a huge, highly-motivated community that delights in challenging these sorts of offenses.
The enemy of my enemy is quite possibly also my enemy. I've made a lot of enemies.
put different video, and use a similar name.
It doesn't matter if they are in another country or not. YouTube is based in the US, so all you need is a default judgment from a US judge, mail the judgment to YouTube, and watch the video get taken down permanently.
If you are also wanting to be awarded damages, then that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. You *might* get an award, but good luck ever collecting it.
It sounds to me like you're not interested in damages, just getting rid of the offending videos would be enough. So, do it. It will cost a little bit, but that's the price of enforcing Copyright.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Intellectual Property Law!
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Don't use the government to solve your problems.
Take matters into your own hands.
Get a story off to www.groklaw.net and ask for publicity and advice there.
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
Copyright infringers can't absolve themselves of guilt or legal liability simply by including the original copyright statement or acknowledging the copyright owner
My point was how blatant they were being .. not even trying to hide the infringement.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
register www.churchswhateverareabunchofthievingbastards.com. Put up your side of the story. When they complain tell them that you're willing to swear under oath that they, are in fact, a bunch of thieving bastards and so you have the right to keep the site up.
Bark less. Wag more.
Oh, and don't hire Salman Rushdie's lawyer.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
Just apply copious amounts of bleach and ammonia, that's guaranteed to take care of the real problem.
Disclaimer: anyone who thinks this is serious advice should do some research first.
> the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are
Welcome to reality.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
And why are you modded 0 and and not 5 insightful? The OP have a claim, the religious group have a counter-claim. You need to take it to a curt. Why artists always insists on some kind of special rights? If my neighbour steals my car I need to call the police and prove that it is indeed my car. If the neighbour somehow states that it's his car, I need to sue him first. So why artists are taking it for graded that some kind of magic fairy should come, swing her magic wand and resolve all copyright claims?
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Religious organizations typically know eachother and plot against eachother.
Expose their behavior to other religious organization in their area and in their field.
Are you affiliated with a university? Their legal department might be willing to lend a hand if you teach there, or least give some advice on how to proceed.
This post smells like a Hollywood sponsored campaign to plant seeds of good will towards the next attempt to have some treaty to enforce US copyright laws globe-wide. You even picked the targets that you think the slashdot crowd would be sympathetic towards: good guy=independent science film maker; bad guy=religious group. Personalize the issue, because that's how people forget their principles.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Definitely not. That's more of a reddit question
Hi there.
Per one of my gripes a day ago, thank you for being actively involved in your Ask thread!
My next question for you, and the /. crew at large, is ... why not ask one of the IAAL types here if they can do this Pro Bono? I'm a little fuzzy on what jurisdiction is legal to file in vs where you are, etc, but aren't we all saying the initial file is the easy part? Can't one of the IAAL gang here drill that off in like an hour?
Slashdot Lawyers: Won't You Think Of The Little Guy?? : )
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
:-D
Join the army. Go kill the radical ragheads.
This really sucks, but from looking at this individual's Wikipedia entry he has successfully taken on far, far larger entities and caused enough trouble that it would seem as if he is some sort of well-funded masterful troll in his own way.
I think (unless you really want to go the predictably expensive legal route) the best course of action would be to find a way to start some sort of grass-roots effort to deface his entries and comment on all of these posts so that YouTube and WIkipedia are continuously overwhelmed with negative posts explaining the ploy, especially if you can find people who do it in in native tongue.
Then you can become a thorn on his side enough that at that time in my opinion he will just move on and pick other low-hanging fruits, driven by whatever motivates him and his organization of minions.
And if your work does not contain copyright notices, this incident should be a strong incentive to do it from here on out!
Burn their church to the ground with everyone locked inside. Problem solved.
Scott is going about this entirely the wrong way. He is referenced as the original source of the video in the religious redub but the interpretation is wrong. Trying to remove the video does nothing to address the error in the editor's interpretation. He must be taught that the increasing number of asteroids as Scott's video progresses represents the total number of detected objects and not the total number of new objects. A DMCA takedown will not accomplish this. His quick blurb on the edited video's comment section also does nothing to accomplish the need to educate the ignorant. It merely says "delete this" which is unhelpful and confrontational.
What difference does that make? There are cases when it's okay to upload material containing copyrighted works for which you are not the copyright holder. Again, a judge can determine whether the material is appropriately licensed / ineligible for copyright protection / covered by fair use. That's not Youtube's job.
Time to use community pressure to obtain the desired result.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Put up another video saying that no one should join that religion, what ever it is, since its leadership is all liers.
There's such a thing as fair use of your work in another work. While it sounds like these folks went well beyond fair use, it doesn't sound like you care enough to spend lawyer money argue the finer points.
Have you tried talking to Youtube again? He said that he has permission to use your video. Well, say something like "The video is mine. I created it. He does not have my permission.". That shouldn't require a lawyer.
It costs $35 to register your work w/ the U.S. copyright office and another $50 or so to file in small claims court, if you even have to do that. Once your work is registered w/ copyright.gov, Google may accept the registration as proof and remove the Harun Yahya's infringing material without further difficulty.
In the mean time, if copy is the sincerest form of flattery and Harun Yahya is an Islamist creationist with any authority whatsoever, you should take great pride in being copied by a representative of God.
Once I get my asteroid mining operation going, I will be happy to aim one in their direction. Just give me GPS coordinates to make sure I get the right target, and right size rock.
(Targeting asteroids for the highest bidder is an often overlooked revenue source).
If you can prove you own the video in question, and I'm sure you can, take your complaint to your local US attorney - it is his job to enforce US law. Maybe contact the US attorney where youtube is headquartered. In any case the opposing party (the thieves) have committed a crime by swearing under penalty of perjury that they own the video. Not that they will ever be caught but if you are successful you can probably keep them out of this country as you can likely get the US Atty to swear out a warrant for their arrest. If the US attorney is not cooperative contact your US Representative or Senator. Better yet go see them at some local meet and greet. If you are persistent and polite you will likely eventually get some where, but not fast.
Before you do anything at all consider this web page:
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.
So this is a chapter of Scientology?
Be seeing you...
as inappropriate. What would happen?
Get a declaratory judgment. Once a Court rules it is yours, then Google will listen. How much would Google spend to fight when it has no dog in the fight.
Fight Spammers!
I don't know, but this seems like something you need help with. And how likes to fuck with religious groups? Anonymous. How to get a hold of anonymous? 4chan, /b/, ask for help. Explain what is going on, and how you feel helpless to do anything about it.
Peeps will get info, dox, and maybe even start some trouble.
Because chances are, asking here isn't going to get shit done.
Be seeing you...
Did you read the quote? In context, he was pointing out that it adds credence to the claim that his name was tarnished by being associated with this ridiculous crap.
Unless of course, you just wanted to share your out of context opinion about copyright attribution. :-)
Go outside Slashdot and take it to the "real media". Point out the current interest in "maximal copyright enforcement" and show how you, the content producer, have been abused. But be prepared to SHOW PROOF the video is indeed yours. However, be aware that people in that area of the world already feel taken advantage of by the USA, and feel that this kind of thing is justified, especially after the media hoopla over the “Innocence of Muslims”.
I had a satirical video on YouTube which was targeted by ContentID. After I contested (because it is satire), some of the copyright holders removed their claims, but one reinstated them (one based in Germany, where I believe there is no "fair use").
At that point it was I who had no further recourse, not them. I was under the impression that YouTube's policies were basically biased towards presumed copyright holders. What makes this situation different? Have you already confirmed / reinstated your claims using their system?
.: Semper Absurda
First I'd like to say that I watched your video and really liked it. Thank you for putting together such an interesting visualization of the progress science has made in detecting asteroids. I just fired up Boinc and attached orbit@home earlier today after nearly finishing up Pale Blue Dot, so I found it particularly interesting.
In my experience, there's only really one way to deal with the religious: just walk away. It looks like YouTube's like/dislike system is functioning, and when I watched the Islamist video, there were 484 dislikes compared to 22 likes, and your comment about giving no permission is the top comment with 267 likes.
It seems like the religious have a peculiar view of science: they take anything that seems to agree with their views completely out of context and trumpet it as science confirming some strange verse in their holy book. Then, when science challenges notions such as the earth being many factors of 10 older than their 6,000 year guess or that humans might not be special little snowflakes to some sky wizard, the religious go ballistic on science. The religious can't seem to decide whether to accept observations about the reality around us or to reject reality entirely.
As others have pointed out, if you really want to pursue legal action further, you're going to have to put up some money and hire a lawyer. If fruther action really is necessary, though, I think I like the idea of mocking the Islamist video. Trying to fight people who choose religion over reality tends to only have the effect of proving to potential followers that "scientists" really are these big bad bogeymen sent by Satan. Fighting against them legitimizes them. Mocking them, though, I think is the appropriate response and conveys the message that their delusion is too stupid to even engage, but not too incoherent to feel sorry for.
Thanks
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
The problem is any self-respecting lawyer would not dare give legal advice on a forum, because of liabilities/etc.. Lawyers need to be careful that what they say, especially if it's not in full possession of the facts, is not taken as legal advice, because they can be held liable if it turns out to be bad advice. And no, I am not a lawyer, but I have studied some law.
Your best bet, in a situation like this is to do a little research. First off, make sure that they actually are violating your copyright... from what I've seen, there's a small amount of the original work that gets used repeatedly. My understanding of the US "fair use" allows for re-use of a small clip in a derivative or other work, as long as it is not a large part of the original film, and is not substantially the same as the original. There are also considerations for the potential impact on market value of the original, and for the commerciality of the derivative work... is it being used for educational purposes, for example?
These are questions I can't answer, because I don't know enough about US copyright law, but I suspect that they're arguing that their film is allowed because it's educational in nature, because it is substantively different from the original, and because they're only using a small part of the video without including the sound.
If you still feel you have a case, then make an appointment with a lawyer and ask them whether it's worth pursuing it. If you don't like their answer, ask another lawyer.
Information wants to be free. Copyrights are evil. IP is fantasy. Remix. Rehash. Reuse. Mash up ALL the things.
This is the bed you made, now fucking sleep in it.
The DMCA is like the Skull of Mondain. You can do a lot of destruction with it, and you can even only destroy bad guys with it if you like. But it's an evil law and you're evil for using it.
I thought it was illegal to be this kind of stupid...
Nah, it gets you votes in US elections. Just watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM
why not go after Youtube?
Why go after Youtube?
The real culprit was that whatever "yahya" cult (sounds like Islamic) that took the effort to redub the video and re-upload the vid back on to Youtube as though they are the original producer.
They are the same ones who rioted over a lousily made video and now they are stealing other people's video and claim it as their own.
Why not go after those scums instead?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The advantage that you have is that you are here in the U.S. and so is Google. You have the opportunity to go there and show them your work.
If they (or he, Adnan Oktar) submitted the proper counter-claim, then they/he submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction per ...
3. The statement: "I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
Sue in that jurisdiction. Send the service process by certified mail to the address provided to YouTube, which should have provided it to you. If the service of process is returned DO NOT OPEN IT so that a judge can open it and see what was really sent and refused. At this point if the defendant did not answer or appear, file a motion to ask the judge for an injunction against the defendant, which can then be served on YouTube to take the video down in their role as agent of defendant.
Actually getting money for losses might be hard. You'd probably have to go to Turkey for that. But within the USA you can get YouTube to take it down, and possibly even get a judgment for damages since it could be argued that the harm took place in the USA. Collecting on the judgment is the hard part if they have no assets in the USA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I don't use youtube often enough to know about this, but can you ask youtube to look at the places in the video where the nutcase admits you produced the original?
Be aware, of course, of the Streisand effect. In this case, your attempts to shut his video down may give him fuel for his claims that he is being persecuted, adding slightly to his base of believers.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Ask on www.Groklaw.net
> Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.
It's shit comments like that, that bring slashdot into disrepute ..
Private Individuals do not have nor ever will have, Copyright.
Copyright, since Obama, is Copyright as Owned by the USA Government.
If you do not sell, at a ridiculous discount price of your legal copyright then
the GOD OBAMA will usurp the information form the USPO copyright
application and re-submit it as HIS own copyright application, in less than
one hour local DC time.
Well.
Looks like Obama Boy has a nifty money train financing his re-election
re-erection campaign.
Hardy har har.
8D
That doesn't mean they don't have the rights to that video. They could have licensed it for all we know.
1. Create video that is insulting to muslims and islam. 2. Put this dudes name in the credits and his business address etc. 3. Profit? Crowdsourcing take down. You're welcome.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
That's utter rubbish. The reason lawyer don't give advice on forums is because there's no way to get paid for their six-minute time slots. You just have to look at sites like http://www.justanswer.com/sip/australia-law where they'll give you a very broad-based, useless answer before going all Nigerian 419 on your a$$ :-)
Which is: the unauthorised use of content is totally overshadowed by the fact that the video itself is a steaming pile of camel faeces.
I particularly like the way all the NEOs are gathering in orbit preparing for an attack, as if they're coming from somewhere else. It couldn't be just that we're now able to more accurately count them and THEY'VE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG!
Just like the Islam video causing so much trouble. I watched it, and the first thing that struck me wasn't the attacks on the prophet or the religion itself, it was the fact that the quality of the video was so bad that it actually put all of Ed Woods' films in the same league as The Matrix. Seriously, it was THAT bad. I honestly can't remember from that video whether Mohammed was "child-friendly" or bestial or whatever other blasphemy they spouted.
But I can remember in excruciating detail the bad dubbing, video overlaying and segues that almost gave me an aneurysm.
Let them have their movies. You're not going to change the minds of the great unwashed who believe this rubbish. Let them wallow in their ignorance and get on with your own life.
Expanding is putting it lightly, we are dictating other countries. Do as we demand or else, and we wonder why others hate the US!
You don't have to WIN a court case to have it removed. In fact you don't even have to actually file. Under DMCA, you only have to show Youtube that you INTEND to file in court and at that point they have to remove it until the other party proves that they won in court. So fill out the form as though you were going to file the case and send a copy to youtube. That should get the video removed again. Actually paying the filing fee is optional, so long as youtibe thinks you INTEND to file. I have used this technique with a fraudulent car dealership - they blew me off until I delivered a copy of the legal complaint form, at which point they got real cooperative real fast. I never actually filed the suit, just filled out the paperwork.
The courts are already overtaxed and its not like court fees cover the all the externalities involved. Youtube may in fact be a great first line of arbitration and THEN it can go to a court. It would save the taxpayers a lot of money.
I'm suspicious. You really think these whack jobs deserve the publicity? They're already prominently featured on slashdot, ffs...
Fair enough.
Meanwhile the rest of us are downvoting it, flagging it for fraud, and commenting the truth of the matter.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I'm saying, wy not have an IAAL guy here contact the Asker, do a half hour interview, get the info he needs, and do an hour's worth of filing?
No need for it to be posted. Just why burn 200 slashdot comments when an hour and half might kick it along?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The counterclaim requires agreeing to U.S. jurisdiction (point 3 in youtube's list, which is quoted straight from the DMCA). And since it's an open-and-shut case, you can probably find a lawyer willing to do it on contingency.
A situation like yours is kind of the poster child for contingency fees.
The poster has made a very interesting video, which was "borrowed" by an organization that he doesn't like. This organization gave proper attribution and their video is not strictly identical to the poster's. This case is probably not that trivial, it may border on the "fair use" side of things.
The best response would probably have been to continue working with youtube and not publicize the organization's message, but it is too late now.
See part D.
File charges wherever they state. If they don't defend, then presumably you get a default judgement in your favour.,.
Remember, Youtube doesn't have any special legal status. Any rules that you apply to Youtube apply to everyone. If you run a blog, someone sends you a DMCA takedown notice for a comment posted on your blog, and the commenter sends a counternotice, what do you want to have to do? Leave the comment deleted? That's so wide open to abuse it's not even funny. Make a random guess whether the comment should be restored? Ditto. Pay a lawyer to look at the comment and determine whether it's likely within the bounds of the law? Why should you spend hundreds of dollars on a matter that has so very little to do with you? What other options are there but to restore the comment and leave the matter for someone else to handle?
If some religious nutcases use your shit to promote their bullshit call them out, make fun of them, launch a google bomb.
What makes free societies free is the open exchange of information including tolerance for speech of idiots and crackpots you don't agree with.
They are clearly not plargarizing your work and have right to fair use although this is perhaps rather excessive.
The youtube comments and severe downrating is evidence you have effective options available to you which do not lead to enrichment of lawyers.
I watched the video and I did not leave with the impression that your research supports their message. They just credited you with the video. I think you're grasping at straws here. Other than the video possibly blocking the small amount of money you make on youtube, the video is fair use.
Contrary to what others have said, Defamation requires that you have financial injury that resulted from them making false statements about you, as a non-celebrity. I did not see false statements about you and even if they did, you'd have to prove they injured you financially, such as losing your job or something like that.
Ask them whether they know the meaning of the commandment concerning stealing. It's quite final. "Thou shalt not steal". It doesn't read "Thou shalt not steal, unless it serves your purposes".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is his facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/harunyahyaworks
Might be a good idea to let him know what you think of him
Have you registered your copyright with the USPTO copyright office. It's pretty simple and costs a few $ (I think $35).
Once a copyright is registered, violations can be hit with a statutory damages - which means you don't have to prove an actual amount of monetary damaages, the law sets the amount. But that only is for violations that occur after you register. And it is only for violators you can drag into a US court.
Also, proof of registration is a necessary pre-condition for a US court to hear a copyright claim.
Even if something is issued under an open license like one of the Creative Commons ones, it is still a good idea to register the work so that the license can be enforced.
I don't work for Google, I used to work for eBay in the VeRO department.
The proper way to enforce a DMCA is to
1. Disable (NOT DELETE) the content, send a notice to the infringing user.
2. User has X days to send a counternotice
3. Counternotice is supposed to be reviewed by lawyers, and then the content goes back up.
Please note that filing a counternotice means "I AM FILING A LAWSUIT RIGHT NOW", as in they have prepared the paperwork already.
At this point If you want the content gone, you must sue them for copyright violation. The staff at Google take no part in this except providing the URL's to the content in question. You are on your own. Once you get a judgement, you send a copy of that to Google and the content is removed again.
Big media, eg MPAA, RIAA, BSA, ESA, etc tend to file bulk reports, so sometimes, something may get taken down by accident (or in the case of Warner Bros, maliciously take down everything with the word "batman") and there is a LOT of over-reach. For the most part the staff who receive the reports are not allowed to interpret the DMCA request, unless they are legally recognized as a lawyer. So a small portion, maybe 5% of requests will be passed up to the expensive lawyers if something appears to overreach or be too vague. But with experience comes knowing when users are being malicious, so if you want to resolve this, do it.
Otherwise I'd just let it go, upload a better quality, watermarked version next time, and if they steal it again, you have more proof. I've had code and stuff stolen, but I don't pursue it primarily because they are stolen by members of my social community and being uptight about it, would just piss off people. Yes I feel a little sad when I'm not asked permission, and they horribly butcher it, but I'm not going to do anything about it unless they start claiming they wrote it and want to charge people for it.
I am not a lawyer. I do have a photography business and have studied some copyright law.
All of your original works are protected under US copyright law whether you register them or not. HOWEVER if you don't register them then there will be serious legal limitations to your ability to recover damages. If the work is registered, then damages stack up quickly. Why is this important? Lawyers are going to want cash up front to pursue unregistered works issues. With a strong case, a lawyer will frequently be willing to take on a case on contingency for a registered work. His/her willingness to take the case on contingency is in part an indication of the strength of the case.
Anyone, including lawyers, can give advice and help to understand the laws, but in the US at least, run risks of liability issues if they give "legal advice" by telling someone how laws apply to a person's particular situation. It is the difference between answering what to do when a video is re-purposed with something along the lines of "Well, it depends on several factors and these are potential outcomes" versus "In your case this is the best course of action." The former you can find lawyers giving out for free all over the place, from blogs to even luncheons where you can get free face-to-face time about a subject.
Hack their site, beat em up, throw a pie in their faces... You could do a lot, it would require travel.. You could at least get some media coverage.. :)
Perhaps contact a lawyer there and have him use scare tactics.. Maybe if it's a shady country you could just pay some mercenaries to "prove a point"... lol
You could save a lot of money, but just ask yourself, do you want to do something about it? Or do you want to troll them? Perhaps make a ton of fake craigslist ads for some super cheap tv's or cars and put their phone number down?
P.S. Ha, my verify I'm human catch phrase to type is 'damages'
This does not help you now, but perhaps you could put a watermark on your video, so it is not so easily copied. By the way, this entire story disgusts me that your intellectual property is pirated by another as their work product.
I think this video falls squarely within fair use. The guy is commenting on your work, which is the point of fair use. He is offering a different interpretation of your results. And the way he uses your name, he is just citing the source of his material. That's a good thing.
Just because you are offended doesn't give you the right to censor. I find it sad that no one else on slashdot seems to realize that what you want is censorship.
AND YES, I see that the video is complete bullshit, but that doesn't matter. Truth is not a measure of whether something falls under fair use.
Plus a solid list of posts calling it a fraud and thief. Not to mention lots of misspellings of common swear words. Kind of embarrassing when you can't spell the 7 Dirty Words.
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
I hate religion as much as the next person with a brain, but isn't it a bit hypocritical for everyone on slashdot to suddenly be all in favour of the DMCA just because the copyright breaker is a religious group?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Filing only costs $350, and you can save yourself some money and file it per se. They're not very likely to bother you after that.
Pro se. "Pro se" means you're representing yourself. "Per se" means as a matter of law. A court wouldn't be impressed if a litigant came in and announced "I'm representing myself per se." But you're right, there's nothing really preventing him from representing himself on this. Lawyers are just transaction cost engineers. They do things that you COULD do on your own, but they are already know the procedure (and court procedure is really tricky, especially in federal court) and they're probably already familiar with some of the basics of the law you're dealing with.
The OP's original video is a visualization classic. The link he posted that abuses it is, well, a blasphemous insult to Urania, the muse of astronomy &c &c. Probably best just to laugh these things off rather than Streisanding it.
Which country does this other person reside in? That's an important point. Many other countries who take copyright violation seriously (Western Europe, Australia, etc...) might be willing to cooperate more with DMCA-like requests, so that when an American violates similar policies there, they will be taken seriously.
4chan, that is all.
Step 1) restore the content
Step 2)Contact both parties and see if they will agree to binding arbitration (or change the terms of service to force this)
Step 3) Ask both parties to submit evidence
Step 4) Make a determination. If someone doesn't like it then they can take the other party to court.
I have run into this circumstance in the past with Linden Labs and SecondLife. Content I created was being copied and sold by others as their own original work without my permission. I followed the same procedure as you did: Notified Linden Lab. They took down the content. Then the other party did exactly what happened to you: they filed a counter claim. At that point Linden Labs told me that they could do nothing more without a court order. They, like YouTube, are not in the business of - nor do they have the resources to - investigate this stuff. They did everything legally required of them. So it all boils down to how much is it worth to you and what do you want to spend?
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
So if the RIAA/MPAA sued to protect their content then there would be a massive tirade on Slashdot about the evilness of DCMA and those trying to protect their content. However the moment some "average Joe" finds someone is using his content without his permission suddenly it's Slashdot to the rescue to try and offer advice on how to protect his interests.
You can't have it both ways guys and gals.
So either DCMA is evil and must be abolished, meaning that anybody posting content is at the mercy of unscrupulous users that would simply take the content and use it however they see fit,
OR
DCMA is a necessary component of digital distribution in which those people that choose to offer their content under its protection are entitled to fight for their IP distribution rights when its in violation.
You can't pick and choose to defend or deny the existence of DCMA based on the amount of money the content holder makes off it. Just because some movie company wants to protect their billion dollar blockbuster is no less valid a claim to protect their IP as some guy that doesn't hope to earn a penny off their content. DCMA is offered to ANYBODY that wants to distribute content that requires licensing for use or viewing.
So, the majority of posters here offering advice to this guy to protect his interest are pure hypocrites because if this was a story about the RIAA or MPAA suing some grandmother for distributing millions of songs and movies then the very same people would be in outrage.
So, my advice. Get over it, accept the fact that the moment you post something digitally online people are going to abuse it. If you are suffering financial or personal damages because of its use, then sue like every other claimant under DCMA protection.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
You have just initiated the Streisand Effect. Your best option was to ignore the nut jobs. Now you have become their recruiting bitch.
OK, I rescind any earlier comments I've made on here (not sure if I made any actually) now that I've had a chance to come home from work and watch the videos.
He gave you full credit. He didn't use a huge portion of your video. He didn't really even mischaracterize your research (at least initially he does in fact say these are astroids _discovered_ between 1980 and 2010, which seems accurate). So what's your complaint here -- that someone you don't like read and used your research? It seems like the video clips he's using are small enough to be fair use, and he _does give you full attribution for those clips_. I highly doubt anybody is going to watch this and decide you must support everything said in that video -- pretty sure they'll realize this is some crackpot. The legion of Slashdotters who have since commented and downvoted the video will probably help there as well -- which I suspect may have been your real reason for posting this here, which I can't really complain about. Nothing wrong with calling out a lunatic, but he doesn't seem to have done anything illegal and certainly not morally wrong (well, except spewing his FUD)
As we are one of the most professional nfl football jerseys cheap online suppliers for NFL Jersey, cheap wholesale jerseys what cooperated with thousands of clients across the world since foundesDo Fund Raising ActivitiesThe team can do some fund raising stuff like car washes or offer to pass out flyers for a sponsoring team in order to raise some cash themselves or you can cheap nike elite nfl jerseys ask the parents to chip in a little extra to cover some of the costs of wholesale nfl football jerseys getting custom hockey jerseys for the team The staff should be informative and willing to help you in selecting the best jersey of your choice You will discover comfortable accommodation with all basic modern facilities at low priceAlmost all of all restaurant in New Jersey offer great accommodation with great views of moscow There are wide options for shopping enthusiasts across the city I understand why it is so hot This is why people prefer to buy the replicas which are affordable and are cheap mlb cheap nike nfl jerseys wholesale jerseys good enough In 2008 autumn and wholesale nfl football jerseys winter, LV launch of this series been brought new dazzle main leather goods, classic LOGO, hot stamping, patent leather and bright purple accessories turns authentic nfl jerseys wholesale on stage Here are some helpful ideas for you to make the event a successful one: After thinking of a concept which is softball or any related to sports, you should also think of a festive atmosphere where everyone will enjoy the event If you are confused over the issue to find the right fit jersey, check the sizes and other features of the jerseys that are properly displayed at this store And now, if you read this carefully enough, you will not ask the nonsense question again, just go and choose a proper baseball team jersey authentic nike nfl jerseys online according to my advice They differ in quality, color, and design For many a t-shirt can express to the world that they are and what they think Wholesale market rates will variably differ with quality support The jerseys may also be cheaper thanks to clearance sales
This website sells second hand materials for lesser cost and it would be your great haven if you do not mind getting pre-owned products Cheapest NFL Jerseys prices from us will collect her favorable NFL apparel popular clothing of your favorite player Why and where the prices vary, with authentic nfl jerseys wholesale high-quality cheap nike nfl jerseys watches, luxury cars and jewelry Evisu jeans, Schneider became a status symbol because of its importance does not d
The store should be able to provide you nfl football jerseys cheap with timely delivery service and in case you are a regular member it should offer member benefits also The state of New Jersey is divided into three different regions which include North Jersey, Central Jersey and South JerseyTo make you enjoy the sport world better ,we always bring the best quality sport jerseys at the lowest price They are licensed chauffeurs who are fully vettedAdChoicesBuying in bulkNot only cheap nike elite nfl jerseys do manufacturers buy in bulk when cheap nike nfl jerseys making the NFL football jerseys and cheap NFL throwback jerseys, but also when they sell them in bulk to distributors, they are able to cheap jerseys give a good price which suits their customers Rider you possess a gal, it determination in reality be starry-eyed stipulation you locate her designation featuring in the jersey with the intention of you classify for her No matter whether you would like professional entrance installing or maybe have to have a number of brand-new a lock mounted at your house, you can support One of the biggest reasons for success is simple Regardless, Priceline is the place to go to if you want a cheap hotelFourth, check the reputation of the site youre nike nfl jerseys cheap purchasing from Now this question pops in my mind when I see these cheap jerseys, how are they able to supply jerseys that looks like a real one but at a cheaper cost?The chief factor which helps the suppliers to sell the jerseys at authentic nike nfl jerseys affordable authentic nfl jerseys wholesale prices is authentic nike nfl jerseys the low manufacturing costs These jerseys constitute the majority of those sold and seen in NFL stadiums and sports bars coast to coastIf you can not afford an authentic NFL jersey, you can take a step back and ask first NFL jersey Of course the result is a less durable but cheap NFL football jersey One of the common things in every game is Soccer Jersey that is worn by almost everyone in that stadiumcomWhen the craze over old school jerseys began a little over a decade ago, one would have a fairly difficult time finding them at all
Most people can not distinguish the difference between a replica jersey and a fake shirtWhile shopping for Steelers jerseys if you compare the price range and other features of the products of NFLsnapbacksS If you are planning wholesale Nike NFL Jerseys to have more colorful t-shirts, you might to need broaden your budget a bit It is obviously a very traumatic event to see a glob of chip dip fall from the high-rise platform of a tortilla chip, in slow motion, and watching helplessly as it lands in a splashing manner upon your $400 threadsThere are a couple of ways to get custom cheap nike nfl jerseys hockey jerseys made f
Read Technogirl's reply above. It's usually not worth duking it out directly with criminals and ne'er-do-wells who are not above breaking the law (or any of your limbs) to get their way. Get your facts together and try to re-present them to Youtube, find other ways to publicize this, take the registered claimant of their web-site to court (small claims if you want to handle it yourself, regular court with higher limits if you can affortd an attorney) and win a default judgment since they are out of the country and will not appear. In order for this to work, you must "serve" them proper notice of your suit. You'll need help for this small claims court; you might be better off hiring an attorney to help you with that. Once you win a default judgment, pass along the appropriate court-case docket and ruling information to Goo-You-tube and ask them to please please now help you and realize that those copycats are the infringer and that you are the rightful holder of the copy-right. Good luck, sir.