The TOS being complained about here is that if you don't defend your takedowns, then YouTube presumes you are a habitual offender, and it's easier for them to ban you permanently. If you post "questionable" content, be prepared to counter-notice. If you are going to post and run, then be prepared for the punishment when you violate the TOS.
There's no liability for YouTube here at all. They get notice, it comes down. They get counter-notice it comes back up. YouTube *Can't* be sued for that. They (could possibly, but highly unlikely) be sued for encouraging violations, and to prevent that, if you don't counter-claim they will eventually ban you.
Nope. Just like the take-down is unverified, the counter-claim is also unverified. It does open up the poster to legal liabilities, but no more than the initial post. DMCA is about protecting the hosting entity, not the poster or copyright holder.
No, it doesn't work that way. The same person can't issue a takedown for the same thing repeatedly. Claim, counter-claim, then it's up forever until sued for. The same person can't continue to re-file. And they can't get someone to file for them without risking running afoul of the rules on claims only being made by copyright holders.
He also (apparently) refuses to issue a formal counter-claim asserting they do not violate copyright. If they are fair use, he can counter-claim and be done with it (until they sue him). He's effectively acknowledging that he's violating copyright by refusing to contest the assertions.
In other news, England named Soccer and (american) Football. And 200 years later, claims the US named them, and named them wrong.
They say New England (American) English is closer to 1700s English than that spoken in England today (based on rhymes and alliteration in literature of the time). Yes, that could be re-stated as "Americans speak more proper English than the English do."
As long as we're clear that you have no problem with the government extorting money from innocent third parties so long as a judge signs off.
The government isn't extorting money from a 3rd party. The jailed criminal is appealing to others for charity. You are equating me pouring a cup of unwanted water in a drain with the premeditated murder of a homeless guy sleeping in the gutter.
The point of the jailing is not to "extort money from innocent 3rd parties", but to collect money from a criminal, or punish them for failure to pay if they refuse to pay.
Of course, from TFA apparently a number of judges are not at all OK with it (in fact it was a judge that suggested that it amounts to extortion of innocents).
And a number of judges are perfectly ok with it, as they sentenced lots of people to it.
You are confusing my "clarification" of points to be suport of one position or another. You have guessed my position to the point where if I stated my position, I don't think you'd believe me. But I don't care. I state the truth, even if it harms your delicate sensibilities. A convicted criminal was arrested for breaking the law. The criminal managed to arrange for money that if 1/2 of it was delivered years ago, there'd have never been a problem. If the extended family was so helpful, why didn't they help earlier?
Does it matter if it's a poor person with a fine (hey, if you don't have a license, don't drive, how hard is that?)? or whether it's a rich person who owes some child support they refuese to pay, and moved their wealth so that they have no "wages" to garnish? How do you seize the TV from a non-payer if the owner of the TV is the family trust? Another innocent 3rd party to be protected.
If they AREN'T targets, then it would be OK to jail the immediate family. But we know that's not the case.
I'm sure you understand what you are saying, but if you read what you write, it makes no sense. The jail/kidnapping is a punishment itself. It's "okay" to kidnap the criminal (after due process). You are taking my statement that it's ok to arrest a criminal after due process to mean that I support arresting the innocent family members. Slow down. Take a deep breath. Try again.
There is a reason debtor's prison was abolished and those reasons are as good today as they were then.
And the reasons they were started were as good then as they are now.
The only person targeted by the ransom demand is the jailed criminal. That they use their criminal contacts to pay off the ransom doesn't mean the others are "targets".
If you believe that the kidnapping for ransom scheme is OK, why not go all in. If a felon flees justice, jail his immediate family until he returns.
The jailing of a convicted criminal (kidnapping) is punishing only the convicted criminal. Kidnapping innocents is unrelated to the topic at hand, arresting criminals after due process.
The person who "paid" the ransom was the person being held. They may have been brought money by others, but it was officially received by the person held, not those that showed up with it. If such generosity was available before, why would you not use it before you were sent to jail?
If you want a government that is indistinguishable from a felon, it's the way to go.
You'd prefer that those who broke the law never faced any punishment?
I haven't found any references to skipping bail in LA. What did he do there? He skipped bail in England, where he was being held awaiting extradition when he broke bail and fled to Ecuador.
But, like in the case I was commenting on, it often motivates people enough to find a way to pay it off that it usually does work. The only case I know of an extended holding for failure to pay was for a divorce where the husband claimed that he cleaned out all his accounts, then sent all the money overseas, with no paper trail, and lost it all in a "bad investment" that was also untraceable. The judge decided that there were only two likely scenarios, he lied about what happened (he was scammed and didn't want to admit it) or he lied about what happened (he is hiding the money for the express purpose of hiding it from the court), so he was held in jail for an extended period. But that one was exceptional, and most of the times, people come "bail out" their friend/family.
Yes, that makes it a kidnapping for ransom, but if someone with the means to pay refuses to do so, what else would you recommend? It's not like you can garnish the wages of someone who deliberately takes cash-only jobs so that the government never sees/knows what their actual income is.
Yes, and the fact that it worked indicates that those kidnapped did have access to the funds. If they had taken the fines, warnings, and warrant seriously, they wouldn't have ended up in jail for $900, but paying off fines for $450. They went double-or-nothing and ended up with nothing.
I have no idea what that has to do with anything this thread is about.
The "regulation" that stifles competition but doesn't hurt users is often to separate the commercial provider from the service provider. Have one wholesale-only company. They dig trenches, lay lines, plug into houses. Then other companies rent those lines (or sometimes, just portions of them) to provide services to the end user. You have cheap, low barrier competition for the services. The wholesale company is regulated not unlike AT&T (the coverage was good, but the service poor, but that's fine if they don't provide service).
A similar model is to have the homeowner own the fiber from the house to the CO. A "tax" provides for that basic infrastructure, and taxes pay for maintenance, and anyone that wants to use it can, with the permission of the homeowner it terminates at. That's the "community fiber" model, but they can differ in whether 100 people own 1/100th of 100 fibers, or 100 people own 100% of a single fiber.
If you can't understand how a discussion on regulations has to do anything with a discussion on regulations, I can't help you.
If the police refuse to enforce the law, what happens to them? You can't sue them for malpractice. The police were called and notified that a violent criminal made a specific threat (time and place) and the police refused to enforce the restraining order, and refused to respond to the crime of threats, but showed up to help clean up the body. Family sued, and the police won. The police are never "bound" to enforce the law, that I've seen. Since you seem to believe otherwise, can you explain better? All I see about it is the lawsuits against the police for ignoring crimes in progress and such, and I've never seen the police lose.
They *always* have it. If a judge issued a warrant for arrest for "treason" because someone drove across the judge's lawn, the police should very much refuse to honor that warrant. If the police don't do their job, someone remains free. If that person remaining free was supposed to be free (is innocent), then not doing their job is a good thing. That's the point of 3 branches in conflict. All 3 must agree for the government to be able to act against a person.
You make it sound like they had that money just sitting around in a checking account and just didn't want to pay up.
I made it sound like they refused to pay, then, once they were in jail, managed to come up with it. I stated it how it happened, rather than painting the criminals like victims.
Most "deadbeat dads" are really dead broke dads. They are behind on their payments not because they drive BMW's while their kids live in refrigerator boxes, but because they cannot afford that $150 a week.
Yeah, and I've met more than one that admitted quitting work and refusing to work so "that bitch" wouldn't get anything from him. They can pay, and like the other example, when hauled to jail, people show up, cash in hand, paying the debt that was always payable that they refused to pay until forced to do so.
lol. My very own stalker who runs around lying about what I say. If you could turn that obsession into something productive, you'd be in the 1% (and no, not the top 1% of insanity, but you could stay there too, if you like, but when you are filthy rich, like me, they call it "eccentric").
Arrogant 1% doucheprick scores again! It's a FUCKING RENTAL MOVIE. For Fuck's Sake, Man, get your balls out of a knot. This isn't someone's child support. How the hell do you rack up $450 in fees?
You didn't read the post I was replying to. It linked to someone put in jail for $450 in fines that weren't paid, who, once in jail, came up with $900 to get out of jail.
The owner of the video store spent more on collecting the lost video than it was worth. I'm guessing it's out of business because he was a little loony and drove his customers away with abusive tactics that weren't exactly legal. If I "borrow" something and don't bring it back, it's a tort, not a crime. Making it a crime was a poor decision by whoever signed the warrant.
No, it's not a violation of the law to exercise discretion. The police have sued many times for that right (and almost always win), so they could have used it this time as well. They chose not to.
Statute of limitations usually applies from crime to filing formal charges. Once formal charges are filed (And they would have had to be done here, as there was a warrant), there is no limitation.
Slashdot Mirror
The TOS being complained about here is that if you don't defend your takedowns, then YouTube presumes you are a habitual offender, and it's easier for them to ban you permanently. If you post "questionable" content, be prepared to counter-notice. If you are going to post and run, then be prepared for the punishment when you violate the TOS.
There's no liability for YouTube here at all. They get notice, it comes down. They get counter-notice it comes back up. YouTube *Can't* be sued for that. They (could possibly, but highly unlikely) be sued for encouraging violations, and to prevent that, if you don't counter-claim they will eventually ban you.
Seems reasonable enough to me.
Nope. Just like the take-down is unverified, the counter-claim is also unverified. It does open up the poster to legal liabilities, but no more than the initial post. DMCA is about protecting the hosting entity, not the poster or copyright holder.
No, it doesn't work that way. The same person can't issue a takedown for the same thing repeatedly. Claim, counter-claim, then it's up forever until sued for. The same person can't continue to re-file. And they can't get someone to file for them without risking running afoul of the rules on claims only being made by copyright holders.
He also (apparently) refuses to issue a formal counter-claim asserting they do not violate copyright. If they are fair use, he can counter-claim and be done with it (until they sue him). He's effectively acknowledging that he's violating copyright by refusing to contest the assertions.
In other news, England named Soccer and (american) Football. And 200 years later, claims the US named them, and named them wrong.
They say New England (American) English is closer to 1700s English than that spoken in England today (based on rhymes and alliteration in literature of the time). Yes, that could be re-stated as "Americans speak more proper English than the English do."
They are within rounding errors of each other. So why fight to make a distinction that doesn't exist?
As long as we're clear that you have no problem with the government extorting money from innocent third parties so long as a judge signs off.
The government isn't extorting money from a 3rd party. The jailed criminal is appealing to others for charity. You are equating me pouring a cup of unwanted water in a drain with the premeditated murder of a homeless guy sleeping in the gutter.
The point of the jailing is not to "extort money from innocent 3rd parties", but to collect money from a criminal, or punish them for failure to pay if they refuse to pay.
Of course, from TFA apparently a number of judges are not at all OK with it (in fact it was a judge that suggested that it amounts to extortion of innocents).
And a number of judges are perfectly ok with it, as they sentenced lots of people to it.
You are confusing my "clarification" of points to be suport of one position or another. You have guessed my position to the point where if I stated my position, I don't think you'd believe me. But I don't care. I state the truth, even if it harms your delicate sensibilities. A convicted criminal was arrested for breaking the law. The criminal managed to arrange for money that if 1/2 of it was delivered years ago, there'd have never been a problem. If the extended family was so helpful, why didn't they help earlier?
Does it matter if it's a poor person with a fine (hey, if you don't have a license, don't drive, how hard is that?)? or whether it's a rich person who owes some child support they refuese to pay, and moved their wealth so that they have no "wages" to garnish? How do you seize the TV from a non-payer if the owner of the TV is the family trust? Another innocent 3rd party to be protected.
If they AREN'T targets, then it would be OK to jail the immediate family. But we know that's not the case.
I'm sure you understand what you are saying, but if you read what you write, it makes no sense. The jail/kidnapping is a punishment itself. It's "okay" to kidnap the criminal (after due process). You are taking my statement that it's ok to arrest a criminal after due process to mean that I support arresting the innocent family members. Slow down. Take a deep breath. Try again.
There is a reason debtor's prison was abolished and those reasons are as good today as they were then.
And the reasons they were started were as good then as they are now.
So if I kidnap an heiress and demand that her dad give her a million dollars to give to me that makes all the difference?
When you do it, it's a voilent felony. When the police arrest a criminal following due process, it's not.
The only person targeted by the ransom demand is the jailed criminal. That they use their criminal contacts to pay off the ransom doesn't mean the others are "targets".
If you believe that the kidnapping for ransom scheme is OK, why not go all in. If a felon flees justice, jail his immediate family until he returns.
The jailing of a convicted criminal (kidnapping) is punishing only the convicted criminal. Kidnapping innocents is unrelated to the topic at hand, arresting criminals after due process.
If you want a government that is indistinguishable from a felon, it's the way to go.
You'd prefer that those who broke the law never faced any punishment?
I haven't found any references to skipping bail in LA. What did he do there? He skipped bail in England, where he was being held awaiting extradition when he broke bail and fled to Ecuador.
But, like in the case I was commenting on, it often motivates people enough to find a way to pay it off that it usually does work. The only case I know of an extended holding for failure to pay was for a divorce where the husband claimed that he cleaned out all his accounts, then sent all the money overseas, with no paper trail, and lost it all in a "bad investment" that was also untraceable. The judge decided that there were only two likely scenarios, he lied about what happened (he was scammed and didn't want to admit it) or he lied about what happened (he is hiding the money for the express purpose of hiding it from the court), so he was held in jail for an extended period. But that one was exceptional, and most of the times, people come "bail out" their friend/family.
Yes, that makes it a kidnapping for ransom, but if someone with the means to pay refuses to do so, what else would you recommend? It's not like you can garnish the wages of someone who deliberately takes cash-only jobs so that the government never sees/knows what their actual income is.
Yes, and the fact that it worked indicates that those kidnapped did have access to the funds. If they had taken the fines, warnings, and warrant seriously, they wouldn't have ended up in jail for $900, but paying off fines for $450. They went double-or-nothing and ended up with nothing.
I have no idea what that has to do with anything this thread is about.
The "regulation" that stifles competition but doesn't hurt users is often to separate the commercial provider from the service provider. Have one wholesale-only company. They dig trenches, lay lines, plug into houses. Then other companies rent those lines (or sometimes, just portions of them) to provide services to the end user. You have cheap, low barrier competition for the services. The wholesale company is regulated not unlike AT&T (the coverage was good, but the service poor, but that's fine if they don't provide service).
A similar model is to have the homeowner own the fiber from the house to the CO. A "tax" provides for that basic infrastructure, and taxes pay for maintenance, and anyone that wants to use it can, with the permission of the homeowner it terminates at. That's the "community fiber" model, but they can differ in whether 100 people own 1/100th of 100 fibers, or 100 people own 100% of a single fiber.
If you can't understand how a discussion on regulations has to do anything with a discussion on regulations, I can't help you.
I need a model. Can you come stand in the middle of a street? Wearing black. For a couple of hours. I'll let you know how it goes.
If the police refuse to enforce the law, what happens to them? You can't sue them for malpractice. The police were called and notified that a violent criminal made a specific threat (time and place) and the police refused to enforce the restraining order, and refused to respond to the crime of threats, but showed up to help clean up the body. Family sued, and the police won. The police are never "bound" to enforce the law, that I've seen. Since you seem to believe otherwise, can you explain better? All I see about it is the lawsuits against the police for ignoring crimes in progress and such, and I've never seen the police lose.
They *always* have it. If a judge issued a warrant for arrest for "treason" because someone drove across the judge's lawn, the police should very much refuse to honor that warrant. If the police don't do their job, someone remains free. If that person remaining free was supposed to be free (is innocent), then not doing their job is a good thing. That's the point of 3 branches in conflict. All 3 must agree for the government to be able to act against a person.
You make it sound like they had that money just sitting around in a checking account and just didn't want to pay up.
I made it sound like they refused to pay, then, once they were in jail, managed to come up with it. I stated it how it happened, rather than painting the criminals like victims.
Most "deadbeat dads" are really dead broke dads. They are behind on their payments not because they drive BMW's while their kids live in refrigerator boxes, but because they cannot afford that $150 a week.
Yeah, and I've met more than one that admitted quitting work and refusing to work so "that bitch" wouldn't get anything from him. They can pay, and like the other example, when hauled to jail, people show up, cash in hand, paying the debt that was always payable that they refused to pay until forced to do so.
lol. My very own stalker who runs around lying about what I say. If you could turn that obsession into something productive, you'd be in the 1% (and no, not the top 1% of insanity, but you could stay there too, if you like, but when you are filthy rich, like me, they call it "eccentric").
Arrogant 1% doucheprick scores again! It's a FUCKING RENTAL MOVIE. For Fuck's Sake, Man, get your balls out of a knot. This isn't someone's child support. How the hell do you rack up $450 in fees?
You didn't read the post I was replying to. It linked to someone put in jail for $450 in fines that weren't paid, who, once in jail, came up with $900 to get out of jail.
The owner of the video store spent more on collecting the lost video than it was worth. I'm guessing it's out of business because he was a little loony and drove his customers away with abusive tactics that weren't exactly legal. If I "borrow" something and don't bring it back, it's a tort, not a crime. Making it a crime was a poor decision by whoever signed the warrant.
No, it's not a violation of the law to exercise discretion. The police have sued many times for that right (and almost always win), so they could have used it this time as well. They chose not to.
Statute of limitations usually applies from crime to filing formal charges. Once formal charges are filed (And they would have had to be done here, as there was a warrant), there is no limitation.