Added: Jul 3, 2008
From: themaskedanalyst
Duration: 8:14
The following video, "YouTube's DMCA Loophole", by VoicesintheHead (previously known as supexcellency), may be the most important video on Youtube. WATCH IT! THEN READ THE COMMENTS POSTED ON IT!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAYLBro5QVM Read the letter from Rozeboosje that he posted in the sidebar to his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvBxvpAJjw Now, in order for Youtube to enjoy the protection against copyright lawsuits granted by the DMCA, the DMCA demands that Youtube turn over any counter notice it receives to the person who filed a DMCA complaint. And the DMCA mandates that in order to file a counter notice, you must sign your name to it and provide your address and phone as well. So the DMCA mandates that Youtube turn your docs over to whoever files a DMCA against you—even if they are a whacko stalker who filed a false DMCA in order to get your information to kill you. This requirement by the DMCA is clearly unconstitutional. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm A class action lawsuit will not affect this problem. The law needs to be changed so that we can file counter notices while remaining anonymous. We need thousands of people on board in order to have a chance of bringing about that change. The only way that will happen is if BIG Youtubers like Smosh, Michael Buckley (Whatthebuck), Sxephil, Venetian Princess, Cory (Mr. Safety) Williams, and Lisa Nova get on board. I hope that Renetto will use his contacts to try to get them to join the cause. Once a critical mass has been achieved, then we can bombard John McCain's channel with videos asking for change and bombard Barack Obama's inbox with letters asking for change. It will take months, perhaps years, before the law is changed. In the meantime, after we get a critical mass we should bombard Youtube with letters asking them to change the way they implement their policy. They should redact (cross out) our identifying information when turning counter notices over to the person who has filed a complaint against us. They should turn over that information only after: 1) A court subpoenas Youtube for the information. 2) Youtube forwards the subpoena to the person who filed the counter notice. This give us an opportunity to quash the subpoeona. 3) Youtube should turn over the identifying information only if the person filing the counter notice does not file a motion to quash a subpoena or if a Court refuses to grant the motion to quash. This procedure will protect Youtube users from having to turn their documents over to psychotic stalkers. It will enable us to preserve our anonymity unless a Court determines there is a reasonable chance that we will lose a copyright lawsuit. But Youtube won't implement this procedure voluntarily since doing so may subject them to a lawsuit for copyright infringement. However, by adopting this procedure they would keep in the SPIRIT of the DMCA as well as the SPIRIT of the law that recognizes our right to post anonymously. If anyone did sue Youtube over this then they WILL win this because the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional. (For the record, I am not a lawyer, and anyone taking legal advice from me would be better off running a marathon in quicksand.) Why should Youtube take this risk? If they don't risk being sued for violating the letter of the DMCA then they risk a negligence lawsuit if someone is killed after Youtube turns over docs in response to a false DMCA filed by a stalker. Even if they win that lawsuit, the publicity would kill them and invite government scrutiny of they way they run their business.
Channel: People
Tags: anonymous change dmca greg law renetto solomon stalker the unconstitutional
Rating: 4.65 (23 ratings) Views: 423' favoriteCount='2 Comments: 11
chicago85bearz Says:
Jul 3, 2008 - A way more interesting topic than usual.
fakesagan Says:
Jul 3, 2008 - huh? this is all he ever talks about...
TheSpiderMind Says:
Jul 3, 2008 - A logical solution, unless youtube is actually trying to discourage people from disputing DMCA's by forcing disputers to sacrifice anonymity.
chicago85bearz Says:
Jul 3, 2008 - Renetto. I meant.
UltimateEnd0 Says:
Jul 4, 2008 - Why are his eyes severely uneven?
lowertheboom Says:
Jul 4, 2008 - LMFAO @ Ultimate..
atypicalguy Says:
Jul 4, 2008 - One possible solution, although I wouldn't suggest it, would be to DMCA every video you see until people start realizing how insidious it is.
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 4, 2008 - Actually, I had wondered in a previous video what would happen if Youtube started receiving false DMCAs against Barrack Obama or John McCain's accounts. Would they suspend those accounts or would they get special treatment that we peons wold not get. This should stay in the realm of thought experiment. Do not try this at home, kids.
blackcrow6667 Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - I wish Inmendham would wear a mask. :/
TheSolomonGame Says:
Jul 16, 2008 - and look at you hiding under a mask
rodnisms Says:
Jul 16, 2008 - YouTube/DMCA_Policy: Please also note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability. It seems that you can file suit against anyone who isn't representing themselves... Is this any safety?
themaskedanalyst Says:
Jul 16, 2008 - It does provide a measure of relief if you are up against someone who has a modicum of decency. Of course, if the person who you are trying to sue is a deranged psychopath... they aren't necessarily going to follow legal niceties.
iceman555600 Says:
Jul 3, 2008 - Nice new Mask :)