24 hours a minute. the current stats on youtube uploads.
who besides me was surprised at the suggestion that the plethora of videos on
youtube was a clear and present danger to the porn guys that built thenet .
voyuers are what they are, no matter how they find what you have to offer.
so go there, claim our rights, use our name, see what happens.
dyna-flix.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor videoblogyahoogr...@...
wrote:
Steve Elbows: I very much doubt that you have to be a user of the service
in order to file a takedown notice under the DMCA.
I
What are you going on about?
Protecting your copyrighted works via takedown notices is not the same as
signing up for the site in order to upload content.
And other people cannot claim to be the copyright holder and start throwing
takedown notices around on your behalf, that we be bogus and an
daredolls: so go there, claim our rights, use our name, see what happens.
Ahhmmm, yeah, right... This issue requires only a pittance of comprehensive
grasp; you are mistaken. Intellectual Property defense does not depend upon
membership with a subject ISP. Never has, probably never will.
I'll chime in on YouTube
DMCA is one thing - one can file, and then the recipient can file a
counter-notice to get the file put back up, and one has no option
except to satrt proceedings. Thus it is not a very effective or
economical way to take stuff down
Terms Of Use takedowns on content on
Joly MacFie: ...one can file [DMCA], and then the recipient can file a
counter-notice to get the file put back up, and one has no option except to
satrt proceedings. Thus it is not a very effective or economical way to take
stuff down
Presuming you are referring to litigation by use of the
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:09 PM, daredolls dared...@gmail.com wrote:
24 hours a minute. the current stats on youtube uploads.
who besides me was surprised at the suggestion that the plethora of videos on
youtube was a clear and present danger to the porn guys that built the net .
voyuers
our work, like 50% or so of what is on youtube, does not pass the church lady
standard. all you have to do to get a competitor's product removed from
youtube is flag it as innappropriate. a pornographic producer took offense at
our million channel views in 4 months and started flagging us.
I very much doubt that you have to be a user of the service in order to file a
takedown notice under the DMCA. You being banned from youtube should have no
bearing on your your ability to protect your copyright.
Cheers
Steve
we can't even protest use of our video by others because our
Steve Elbows: I very much doubt that you have to be a user of the service
in order to file a takedown notice under the DMCA.
I agree.
17 USC §1203 is clear about this, as is ample supporting case law. Being
banned from a video ISP (YT, Yahoo, etc.) cannot and does not preclude one
from
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:22 AM, daredolls dared...@gmail.com wrote:
our work, like 50% or so of what is on youtube, does not pass the church lady
standard. all you have to do to get a competitor's product removed from
youtube is flag it as innappropriate. a pornographic producer took offense
heck, i'd pay somebody to go for me, or, to be specific, i'd give a piece of
any action to one who helps arrange it.
i would love to take the easy path, google adsense and youtube, but, as has
happened over and over in the history of the small screen, edgy material gets
pushed aside and has to
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:53 AM, daredolls dared...@gmail.com wrote:
heck, i'd pay somebody to go for me, or, to be specific, i'd give a piece of
any action to one who helps arrange it.
i would love to take the easy path, google adsense and youtube, but, as has
happened over and over in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
