"This video has been removed because of a copyright claim by JAMES A. ALEFANTIS" - oh really, youtube? (pizzagate)

submitted ago by throwaway345678

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.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

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.

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.