Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

There's a box you have to check if you want a copy for yourself.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Google's legal department doesn't process cases on the weekends. Have some patience guys. But by all means gather up the evidence for the EFF, see the stickies in this subforum, particularly this one:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/186-...-youve-had-youtube-dmcas-ollie-schaper-53513/

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

EFF should make this a class-action suit. If Ollie, Savelo, or any other faggot is able to keep abusing the DMCA, this will never end.

There needs to be a precedent set. As it stands, the DMCA is being abused more than Davey's female staff.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

did you miss the part where i said the copyright owner would have to sue? my point was that all they can sue for is legal fees and damages which in this case amount to nil. whoop-dee- doo. ollie has money to pay for lawyers (thanks to his GAY PORN business). anon doesn't (since we distribute our gay porn for free).

and perjury charges must be brought by the us attorney. best of luck with that.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

We know the copyright owner has to sue. This is why I am trying to pursue the one instance where Ollie claimed copyright on one random video on an Anon's account to get it closed and it turns out the video is owned by Time Warner.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

No, and you're wrong. Why so bad legal advice?

Google/YouTube HAS had expenses dealing with this, so they can sue.

If gregg or any of the uploaders has spent any money to rectify this, he can also sue.

The copyright owner can probably sue too, based on defamation or something like that, but Google actually has more of a claim here than the copyright owner, right, since the copyright owner doesn't have an easily quantifiable damage?

Google has easily quantifiable damages, particularly the man-hours they've had to spend on cleaning up Oliver Schaper's shit.
Gregg is less likely to have had quantifiable expenses, but let's leave that up to Gregg and his lawyers to speak on.

So even though Google is not the original copyright owner, and only has certain rights to your uploaded work based on their terms of service, since they've had expenses dealing with Oliver Schaper's fraudulent claims, they have a legitimate legal claim to get their expenses covered, and maybe even punitive damages payments because Schaper is acting with such obvious malicious intent.

Gregg says he has lawyers who are interested in the case pro-bono. Did you miss that?

Google/YouTube HAS had expenses dealing with this, so they can sue.
If gregg or any of the uploaders has spent any money to rectify this, he can also sue.

I know, which is why I said it was a long-shot. But it's not good to pretend that that prosecution risk is completely absent, or we'll get some space-cadet anon making thousands of false DMCA claims to YouTube and getting himself partyvanned by a business-friendly prosecutor. "Let's make an example of this guy, since false DMCA claims cost US businesses X million dollars annually."

Don't fall for bad legal advice.

That means, don't listen to me or Lil'Debbie, but ask the EFF or Google's lawyers, or get your own. Then see who's right.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

let me explain something to you:

[size=+2]GOOGLE IS NOT GOING TO SUE SOMEONE WHO PAYS THEM SIX FIGURES A MONTH IN ADVERTISING FEES NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO[/size]

understood?

oh, and gregg doesn't have the right to sue simply because he uploaded content, you tit. read the fucking statute (US Code, Title 17, Chapter 5, § 512(f)) before you open your whore mouth.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Jesus titty-fucking Christ

See that bold part. That is gregg. And here's a lawsuit that the EFF succeeded in, to shut you up:
Diehl v. Crook | Electronic Frontier Foundation

To parse it for you:

If alleged infringer (e.g. gregg) AND injured: You can sue.
If copyright owner (those people who made the photography) AND injured: You can sue.
If copyright owner’s authorized licensee (YouTube and Vimeo) AND injured: You can sue.
If service provider (YouTube) AND injured: You can sue.

The only question here is how much injury there has been.

Besides, that section of the law - as far as I see - limits liability for the service provider, not for the fraudster - so even if the "alleged infringer" wasn't mentioned, gregg could still sue.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

how is gregg injured in this circumstance? it's not his content and it's not like he has a meaningful reputation (sorry, gregg) to be injured by the accusations.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

I've already said that gregg would have to show that he was injured by it, and that I leave it to gregg and his lawyers to speak on that.

But you do admit that your assertion that only the copyright holder can sue, is bunk, right?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

After this long, there has to be an update.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

iaxillulz - account suspended still... (Which sucks - one of his videos was a nice piece of my collection.

And The Shadow was working on this, but since he's banned, who the hell knows.

Gregg hasn't been back,... and the EFF Takedown Hall of Shame does not feature Scientology yet.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Now that Gregg is back, is an update possible?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

I emailed youtube on the day it was supposed to go back up and got no response. I emailed again 2 days later, no response. I have started a new counter claim notice and got no response.

If this remains the case into next week I will be talking to the EFF again.

The video still says this on the account:

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Odd that YouTube is violating their own rule that if no charges are made against you in two weeks, your video goes back up. Here's hoping something happens this time.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Vir. It really is annoying when Monique Yingling posts using her skull-fucked Lambchop sock puppet.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

So I can not has my channel back ?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

This. I hate to admit this, but the tinfoil is on on this one, unless, by some act of divine intervention for Ollie, YouTube is conveniently backlogged with counter-claims and emails.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

yeah well i guess the mods never considered shadow might be working on stuff, either that or they just didnt give a shit because they wanted him gone. looks like mod agendas are more important than anything else in todays WWP.

i asked shadow about this video takedown thing on msn, he said that he emailed turner media about the video that olly had removed and that they have not emailed him back and if anything happens he will make sure you are kept updated (probably through me unless i get banned, because the mods think i am a shadow sock LOL)

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

The Shadow was banned for posting personal information of other anons. He's done many good things, but we can't accept doxxing people.

Is The Shadow still under the LilDebbie-induced delusion that only the copyright owner can react? He shouldn't be. But it's good that he's keeping up contact with the coprygiht owner. Maybe he could consider making a phonecall to ask how it's going?

Do you have proof - even circumstantial - that it's Monique Yingling?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

nice to see the mods still lying to ruin shadows reputation and cover the fact that they banned him for the hell of it

shadow did not dox anons. he posted a shoop and the name of a self confesed anti-chanologist, a guy who has turned up to shit up protests AND doxed anons to the cult. the guys face and name are already out there on the chans anyway from what i hear. shadow posted it in the london thread as an in joke. the post was reported by one of this guys buddies and the mods banned shadow rather than give him an 5pt infraction which they could easily have done for just a name and a pic, they also banned his other account when he tried to lodge a complaint from it

so keep going mods, youre only making yourselves look bad. those that know and like and respect shadow know he didnt do anything wrong and that he was banned because you just dont like him and you have your own agenda we know the truth

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

So "Anons who don't support Chanology: Fair game. May be namefagged or facefagged by any means by any Chanologist without any discipline of the Chanologist." ?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Whoa, thread derail or WHAT?!

Any chance we can get this back onto the subject of OLLIE SCHAPER AND HIS CUNTING VIDEO REMOVALS?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

totally skewing things there i think, the guys face and name are well known on irc and shit. shadow did not post anything new. plus the guy is not a protester so its not like giving his details to the cult nor would the cult give a shit. but most importantly this guy doxed protesters to the cult and they got letters from the cults lawyers soon after. i know anonymous is not just a label for protesters but other people on chans and shit like that, i dont think even shadow disputes that, but i also know that shadow gives a shit about fellow protesters and has a clear loyalty to the actual anti scientology stuff over just 'anonymous' in general- to shadow there is a division. this guy doxed protesters, in shadows mind that makes him an enemy to other protesters and to be honest i agree. i think this is why shadow is so pissed off, this guy doxed protesters, shadow posted one thing about him and is banned for it, so it looks like the mods are siding with the guy who doxed protesters.

tl;dr the guy doxed protesters...i dont think anyone here has any time for someone like that or sympathy, and the fact that shadow decided to have a go at the guy well i think people will respect shadow for that and support him

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

So after a two week period from the counterclaim, the video STILL hasn't been restored?
The only way a video doesn't get restored is if Ollie Schaper agreed to follow through with going to court. Gregg has made no indication of that.

A bit tinfoily, but here's my guess: Ollie fabricated fake documents to "prove" to YouTube he intends on going to court, so they are refusing to restore his videos. Gregg, would you consider affirming your point that Ollie made no such claim?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

YouTube - DMCA Abuse by Scientology

YouTube - DMCA Abuse by Scientology

ollie missed a few, lulz

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

OLLI, IF YOU READ THIS AND I KNOW YOU ARE, I WILL NOT FORGET NOR WILL I FORGIVE YOUR SHENANIGANS.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

whatever happened to you, man?
Rumors have been swirling madly.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

I had some State mandated vacation time because my parole for some BS pot shit got canned. Now it is payback time.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Just a short note - got my first DMCA notice ever on YouTube today, for the one I mirrored of Vampire Minister 'Ellen' crowing about her theft of water bags from an x-ray facility, to give to Haitians as 'drinking water'...

Backed off for reasons of non-complication and a lack of bawwing energy. But I thought of how effective mirroring of their crappyrighted videos can be in causing the cult to expend money and time in the sending out of such abuses of the legal system. It occurred to me that, in the episode of Tom Cruise's indoc video, massive mirroring and notification of the press was very effective as well. What of the idea then, where tons of mirroring accounts are created? Could even the mighty cult-lapdog YouTube/Google keep up?

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

If you want to make them work for their takedowns, and to stop YouTube/Google from doing a simple file compare, take her video, inter-cut it with commentary, and add a statement at the end about untrained goofs in a disaster area. That puts it into Fair Use territory.

Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Personally, I vote for a dramatic re-interpretation of VM Ellen's performance, like this:

Looks like the little crying bitch is at it again.

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=128613

Maybe we need some shoops of him.

Not sure.....but is this Ollie Shaper (or Oliver Shaper )? Didn't he operate some sort of porno website in Tustin, CA?

Oh look, here's another one.......

Oh mai......it looks like Ollie has been in federal prison. Could this be why he wants to erase his internet existence?

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp


Inmate Locator - Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present

Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date
Location
1. OLIVER SCHAPER 60666-112 37-White-M 07-12-2011 RELEASED

Really? I seem to recall that the take downs were tracked a couple of fake companies of Ollie.

This sounds like a kid "Waaah! You can't prove it was me that ate the cookies!" with cookie crumbs on hands and face.

That was the time when he was detained during the extradition procedure.
Find the full Olli stuff here: https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/oliver-is-a-fugitive-from-justice-in-germany.92009/

Also, if somebody could come up with Olli's court filings from July 11th 2011, whereupon he was released, it would be most appreciated.

And yes, it seems he wants to clear his internet history so he probably is up for a new "enterprise".

Edit: Lets help Google.

OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER
OLIVER SCHAPER

The german chanology wiki could use a Schaper update.