VIACOM GUILTY ?
May 28, 2009 | Consumer reports
Related posts:
- REPORT: SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE, PANAMERA PLATFORM MAY GET USED … though i'm wondering if some of the technology used in...
- REPORT: LEAKED E-MAILS ZING YOUTUBE IN VIACOM COPYRIGHT SUIT … He reports that Viacom's attorneys have unearthed emails that indicate...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
you should talk about WMG aswell because they taking ppl songs
Haha same here. =P
i fucking hate viacom , i try and post a vid the other day, and it has “third party ownership” with a big viacom sign next to it.
There have been many points that I have made and you just went on to the next. You made it seem as if filing these claims is not against the law. This is clearly wrong, but you never admitted it. You just moved on. You can not just make false copyright claims against people. You make it seem as if you can.
I never tried to sound like a lawyer. All I ever did was state how the video was taken down unjustly and this was abusing the DMCA laws and this is illegal. You took it as I was trying to sound like a lawyer, which was never the case. That is your interpretation, not what I was trying to imply. I think you wanted to just get attention because you studied a few books and think you are above other people.
Nope..but I sure wouldn’t mind having Viacom’s money
Voisovreason is Viacom in disguise! :O
Lol JK!
“every time you get a point made against you, you just move on to another topic and act like the last one didnt happen.”
ARE YOU KIDDING? Every single one of my posts literally responded to your points one by one, which is more than can be said for any of your responses. Just look at the last exchange, or any before it.
It’s laughable how you substitute conclusory language for actual argument. Reread my posts. Every statement is backed up. I showed how you were wrong. You never attempted this.
I said that they dont fall under the copyright law as it pertains to fair use. It is treated differently then using clips from their shows. This is laughable. I love how you act like you act like you are right about everything, but every time you get a point made against you, you just move on to another topic and act like the last one didnt happen.
Secondly, before you try to sound like a lawyer, try reading the law. 512(f) is very narrow in scope and only applies when a (c) owner “knowingly materially misrepresents” that material infringes. Very different from calling all accusations that turn out to be false “illegal.” Simply put: A sues B for (c) infringement. B wins because the material was found to be non-infringing. A did not do anything illegal. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you.
Ok, I’m going to post one more time to correct you because this is so laughable. You said in your video that logos are not copyrighted. That is plain wrong, and I’ll remind you that you agreed: logos are copyrighted works of art. I did not comment on whether or not you can use them, I just corrected your false statement of law.
It is not whining idiot. It is called a rebuttal, but you seem to forget all this when you step in your own crap. You must have little mans complex by the way you talk to people. You came in here shooting your mouth off without knowing the whole story and they presumed to act like an expert on the subject. Grow up.
The easiest one to prove you wrong is this right here.
“First of all, logos, while trademarked, are also copyrighted works of art. Second, “false accusation of infringement” or whatever you call is is not illegal.”
These are both wrong. I can use any trademark I want to use when talking about them. This was the only issue of copyright in my video. There was nothing else. Second, the issue of false accusations or false flagging is illegal. There are 2 times you were wrong.
I’m not trying to back out of anything. My earlier post clearly said “Even if that’s true” so like I said, my argument assumed that you were truthful about the VP, so quit whining that I didn’t believe you. Fine, he called you. Obviously doesn’t change anything, since my argument presumed that fact. One more thing - since when does commenting on one, clearly flawed, video obligate me to watch all the poster’s work? You said some incorrect things in THIS video, I pointed them out. Deal with it.
Look at my original comments, then look at the arguments that follow, and point out specific examples of where I was wrong. I have backed up everything I have said with correct statements of fact and law. You keep returning to the original video as if that has anything to do with my comments on this one. I shouldn’t have addressed anything you said outside that scope, but I did and you can’t point to one incorrect statement, you just keep repeating that I don’t know about the original video.
You came here thinking you would elevate yourself by talking down to me. You thought you would make me look bad by throwing half truths around. You need to think again. I know exactly what you were doing. Now that you have your back against the wall you don’t have the time or inclination. Next time back up your talk or keep your mouth shut.
You dont get to just label yourself as being right when you clearly dont know the context of the original video. You dont even know the source of the problem and how it even played out.
This could have been a nice way to share info, but instead you wanted to act like a loud mouth instead of just making points factually.
Finally, you were not “right about it all” You dont get to be the judge and jury regarding your inaccurate statements. You didnt even watch the original video. You have no idea of what happened. You have proven nothing about being right.
You were the one that tried to label me as a liar and now you want to back out of it. This is why you need to know your facts before you go around making these types of accusations. I have all the emails between viacom and myself. So next time you want to share some expertise, dont be such an ass about it. There is a way to make a point without being a jerk.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to watch all of your videos, though I did watch the one that confirmed that in fact what they were doing was denying your allegation. Whether or not the VP contacted you isn’t really relevant, as my argument was based on the assumption that he did in fact call you. And for the record, I never commented on your video campaign as a whole, merely pointed out and questionable facts and legal errors in this video. And I’ve been right about them all.
Unlike you, I like to know something about a subject before I open my mouth. Perhaps you should take a lesson from this before you open your big mouth again. There is an old saying:
“it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool then to open it and remove all doubt.”
That advice is free. I suggest you take it.
I hope that you are NOT an attorney because you have bumbled this debate completely. I could beat you hands down if this is how you prepare for a debate on a subject. You saw one video and think you know the score. Your arrogance is only superseded by your ignorance. You are not as smart as you claim yourself to be.
Let me get this for the record. You do not believe that the VP of viacom contacted me? If you want to put your money where your mouth is, I will own your ass. You got that loud mouth! If you are going to bump your gums here on my channel you better know your stuff.
You have got to be kidding me with this crap. Again watch the videos who is to blame and dmca reform and get back to me. You can not possibly talk intelligently on this matter regarding my video unless you have seen those two videos.
The video is still up on my channel. It is called viacom vs you. There was clearly no copyright infringing material in it and again viacom knew this and that is why they contacted me and were VERY helpful in clearing their own name as well has setting the record straight that they did NOT issue the request. Why dont you watch the videos who is to blame and dmca reform so that you can have a little more info on this subject.