I clicked on one of the deleted pizzagategear youtube videos and this came up
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by JamesAlefantis "
https://i.sli.mg/LAcbok.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3-UHwhK3T4&feature=youtu.be
I don't know if anyone has noticed this specific note on the deleted videos from youtube before, or posted about it. Seems to confirm that Alefantis wanted these videos removed, right?
It intrigued me, anyway and thought it deserved comment here.
view the rest of the comments →
SIMONBARROW ago
This would seem to imply that the recent threats were real. Copyright would only cover the FB chat because, unlike everything else, that was private (so, strictly speaking, Ryan had no right to make it public). It's a good thing that about 500 people made copies and will re-up it on YT now.
anonymousj ago
"IF" JA actually had a conversation with Ryan, and the copies of the conversation on the phone where shown in the video (they were) such comments by JA could be construed as "copyrighted" material - i.e. the written word, copyrighted the first time it is published (i.e. when he posted it to his phone). It is a loophole JA presented to YT and they bit.
samhara ago
No copyright law applies. It's fair use . Also, YouTube doesn't have to respect "free speech" It's a private company, it can delete whatever it wants. And there is a long history of that repression of information. Since the info is repressed, you don't know what it is.
bolus ago
should be noted that making a false DMCA takedown claim is perjury, and may open up the option of a misrepresentation lawsuit. (this is concerning for both parties. if JA is authentic, the discovery process could be a nightmare. if JA is not authentic, it means more trouble for the faker)
precedent: http://archive.is/yjJI5
samhara ago
He's not in Court. He's not sworn, is he? So why would it be "perjury" Good luck getting a judge to charge him with perjury when he's not even in Court. YouTube is a private company.
bolus ago
an official DMCA notice is a legal instrument. if you lie in a sworn statement, it's considered perjury.
i get it, you're hinging your argument off of semantics, and that's fine - but the truth is that if you make a false statement and it is a "legally recorded document" like a contract, deed, or the like, you can be held liable for it.
somegirlinnewzealand ago
and yet Lauren Duca responded to a private message from Martin Shkreli on twitter by taking a screenshot of the chat and posting it publicly, and they banned Shkreli's account.
SIMONBARROW ago
That's a terrible precedent! Private messages should remain so without the express permission of the person who wrote them.
mysecretidentity ago
why? if you say something, always expect it could be repeated or become public knowledge. Nothing would stop someone from sharing a letter they received, or repeating something you told them in confidence.
edit: lol I thought I was still on the thread about the connection to moonie cult. but either way george seems to respond to lots of his comments
Fateswebb ago
Depends on your state, in my state it would be perfectly legal for me to share a conversation I was a part of.
SIMONBARROW ago
Interesting! I thought - like phone calls - it would be something you'd need the other party's permission to post online.
Fateswebb ago
At least not in Texas. As long as one person that is a part of the conversation knows it is being recorded, then it is legal without any permission to record and would stand up in court. It depends on the state.