The Twitch DMCA Saga (Three Times Resilient!)

[Null]

What's the alternative, though?

Easy. Require an attorney and a copyright id with the USPTO for every claim.

 

[Forbidden Math]

PewDiePie got set up with special flags after they started doing it to him so he never got took down until after he got a chance to review it. Phil should be demanding the same kind of thing, and he should have an IP lawyer on standby for it.

I doubt he'll ever get PDP protection because he doesn't make PDP money or views. He's not a special case, and frankly his detractors including Tevin have been fucked with lately using DMCA too, which he laughed about, so really this is just karma. Fuck the DMCA but it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

 

[Pargon]

Easy. Require an attorney and a copyright id with the USPTO for every claim.

Doesn't that create a barrier for entry, though? How does the independent composer file one when their music is used in a big-name streamer's show without permission if they can't afford an attorney to file the claim?

 

[Null]

Doesn't that create a barrier for entry, though? How does the independent composer file one when their music is used in a big-name streamer's show without permission if they can't afford an attorney to file the claim?

If he cannot afford a lawyer he can't afford the litigation when the big name streamer who can afford a lawyer tells him to eat shit and claims fair use, which is exactly what would happen if you tried to do that without real representation.

Attorney and USPTO id. USPTO at a bare minimum. If you can't take the time to register your copyright you don't deserve an automated takedown system.

Non-attorney 3rd party representation should be illegal and penalized the same as impersonating an attorney.

 

[Comma]

PewDiePie got set up with special flags after they started doing it to him so he never got took down until after he got a chance to review it. Phil should be demanding the same kind of thing, and he should have an IP lawyer on standby for it.

Do you know to what extend Twitch is actually breaking the law, as DSP says, by handling DMCA claims the way they did in this case?

 

[Prince Lotor]

Last December, 2019 when Phil addressed the bald spot on the back of his head he claimed all pictures of it were from when he had short hair and that the hair there just wasn't growing in properly, and that all the hair there grew back in. He says it's untrue and there is nothing wrong back there and the bald spot doesn't exist, and by the way Kat agrees with him and so does his hairdresser.

Last July, 2019 though he said he thinks he has a 'thinning spot' back there, but his hairdresser assured him that it doesn't exist and is maybe just starting to thin a little bit.

Now today he has a full-on bald spot back there that "SUCKS" and he "doesn't know what I'm going to do about it".
Timestamped @ 32m26s for 'Muh hair grew back dood'

Timestamped @ 43m23s for Phil thinking there might be a 'thinning spot'.

 

[Pargon]

If he cannot afford a lawyer he can't afford the litigation when the big name streamer who can afford a lawyer tells him to eat shit and claims fair use, which is exactly what would happen if you tried to do that without real representation.

But that's exactly the sort of circumstance the current system purports to prevent. You shouldn't need a $5k retainer to be able to say, "yo, you used my intellectual property as part of an online entertainment show from which you profited and I did not". That creates a power imbalance.

Not saying that the way things work now is better but the solution isn't as simple as "everyone just gets a lawyer".

 

[Null]

Do you know to what extend Twitch is breaking the law, as DSP says, by handling DMCA claims the way they did in this case?

Not at all. The DMCA overreach is so significant that any middleman can receive it. Twitch and Amazon (for hosting it, supplying bandwidth) could receive and act on the DMCA legally.

The system is ruinous. It is the most abused thing on the Internet. It does not deserve to exist.

But that's exactly the sort of circumstance the current system purports to prevent. You shouldn't need a $5k retainer to be able to say, "yo, you used my intellectual property as part of an online entertainment show from which you profited and I did not". That creates a power imbalance.

Yes, it should, because the DMCA is not there to protect the poor. The DMCA is there to enable Mickey Mouse to fuck you. If you CANNOT AFFORD TO SUE, the DMCA DOES NOT HELP YOU. It might help because Google is chickenshit, but the laws the DMCA enable you to sue by do require financial damage. How much financial damage does someone reusing your music cost? You only get punitive damage if it's knowingly infringing. If you took someone to court for that you'd gain nothing. The DMCA only empowers you against service providers when dealing with pirate sites.

Stop white knighting this faggot bastard law because it hurts Phil. Cutting off your foot to spite your nose big fucking time.

 

[Pargon]

Yes, it should, because the DMCA is not there to protect the poor. The DMCA is there to enable Mickey Mouse to fuck you. If you CANNOT AFFORD TO SUE, the DMCA DOES NOT HELP YOU. It might help because Google is chickenshit, but the laws the DMCA enable you to sue by do require financial damage. How much financial damage does someone reusing your music cost? You only get punitive damage if it's knowingly infringing. If you took someone to court for that you'd gain nothing. The DMCA only empowers you against service providers when dealing with pirate sites.

Stop white knighting this faggot bastard law because it hurts Phil. Cutting off your foot to spite your nose big fucking time.

I'm not whiteknighting anything and you're taking a contrary position personally. I understand that you deal with bullshit aftershocks of this law on a weekly basis and I'm grateful for the fact that you do so for comparatively little compensation, but that doesn't make your alternative right or significantly less harmful to other smaller entities.

 

[Null]

that doesn't make your alternative right or significantly less harmful to other smaller entities.

If you cannot afford an attorney the DMCA does not benefit you in any way. The DMCA provides a way for rights holders to hold service providers liable if they refuse to act. That is to say, if someone otherwise immune from damages under Section 230 of the CDA ignores a rights holder after a valid DMCA, they become liable for damages in instances where the infringer himself is anonymous. i.e. a person uploading to YouTube. Without the DMCA at all, it is carte blanche immunity for big tech to infringe on rights as well and operate as de facto pirate sites requiring anyone wanting to protect their rights to sue John Does all the time. As the DMCA is, it is total carte blanche for random, anonymous retards to abuse the everliving fuck out of people with legitimate businesses.

The amount of economic damage the DMCA inflicts on the Internet as a whole is so preposterously outweighed by the "little guys" it actually protects, especially in its current form.

As it stands, anyone, anywhere, can DMCA anything, for anyone, with or without evidence, and service providers at all levels are legally encouraged to take them at face value as opposed to critically evaluating them to maintain a free and open Internet. I have gotten DMCAs from Greek non-lawyers regarding the IP rights of Canadians. They don't even have to be American to strangle the free speech out of Americans on American services.

I will personally put this Mickey Mouse abortion on its fucking knees and blow its stupid fucking brains out if it's the last goddamn thing I do.

 

[Trappin in the Trap]

"We *snort* have some idiots derailing the forum posts here, guys. So, i'm just going to *mattes hair down* Lean and in manual ban them!"

 

[ZehnBoat]

As it stands, anyone, anywhere, can DMCA anything, for anyone, with or without evidence, and service providers at all levels are legally encouraged to take them at face value as opposed to critically evaluating them to maintain a free and open Internet. I have gotten DMCAs from Greek non-lawyers regarding the IP rights of Canadians. They don't even have to be American to strangle the free speech out of Americans on American services.

hell, it's frankly unamerican
if you get hit with a dmca, you're guilty until proven innocent

 

[Schmeckel]

"This is a legitimate business registered in Washington I pay taxes on" Sure Phil you tell yourself that. How many pamentplans have you used in the last years? His business is on so shacky legs that only his luck has carried him so far. This will break and perhaps new strikes will come soon. and I doubt Twitch will cry a single tear when he leaves. tghere are enough Thots to make up for the loss of one roach

Hasn't Phil claimed in the past that he's had to pay tahxes on credit? And having gone through bankruptcy, and his credit debt having been discharged, wouldn't it stand to reason that he doesn't have or never really had some sort of payment plan for this tahxes?

It's been demonstrated before that he's put on multiple begathons before to raise funds for seemingly legitimate reasons (tahxes, save the house, hint hint) and used it for other purposes (move his horse into the barn, baby along emerald 7 funds until whatever time, etc.). This crap is even more evidence that he's just bilking his wheelchairs out of SSI money.

Aside from sweaty jpegs, there's no reason he's needing to beg for EXTRA money to pay for every financial crisis he makes up.

 

[Kosher Dill]

I can't believe Phil is rattling the cage at Twitch. Does he not realize that he's spent the last few years pushing his paypigs as hard as he can toward tipping - that is, denying Twitch their cut? Why would they have any goodwill toward him at this point?

 

[TheGoutburglar]

You've got detractor goggles on. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have shit removed as soon as a claim is filed as opposed to after humans have a chance to counter. This is especially true for high abuse targets like DSP.

Lets say that DSP decides to stream Shrek 2 in its entirety. Is that really the kind of economical damage that is worth preventing with the same level of ham-fisted "shoot first, ask questions later" legal restrictions child porn has? fuck no.

I wasn't meaning to say "Don't fix the system because it's hurting someone I don't like." If the claim is false, Phil deserves to win, I would not root for him being perma banned over a lie or a fucked system, any more than I support someone with a kind heart getting fucked by either one. I very much recognize that letting villains be eaten by other, arguably worse villains is not something you just ignore.

What I meant to say is that even fixing the system wouldn't solve Phil's problem, which is the fact that no matter what kinds of monsters lurk about, they're always there, there is always a hazard to avoid, and it being a bullshit one doesn't absolve Phil, or anyone else like him, of being a complete and utter fucking imbecile for doing everything he can to make sure it bites him before it ever bites you or I.

Like I said, cancer can go fuck itself. Cure it and give people a chance, but don't expect that people like Phil are going to benefit from the cure because they'll find a way not to.

 

[Nigel of Ukip]

The DMCA system is ass we really can't argue with that.

But Phil really never cared too much, on thekingofhate.com he had a "legal notice" header that said he owns everything you post on the site, and he can use it.
To be fair all his art if free or troll art, since he is greedy and has no actual fans. He is really a very easy target and he does not learn, since being cheap with fanart also fucked over his YouTube channel in the past.

 

[PieceofShet]

The DMCA system is ass we really can't argue with that.

But Phil really never cared too much, on thekingofhate.com he had a "legal notice" header that said he owns anything you post on the site, and he can use it.
To be fair all his art if free or troll art, since he is greedy and has no actual fans. He is really a very easy target and he does not learn, since being cheap with fanart also fucked over his YouTube channel in the past.

He said if his head is on the picture, he owns it. Doesnt matter if the whole picture is taken from somewhere else. THE HEAD THAT MATTERS.

 

[Nigel of Ukip]

He said if his head is on the picture, he owns it. Doesnt matter if the whole picture is taken from somewhere else. THE HEAD THAT MATTERS.

That's Sargon level big brain think.
If I'm not mistaken he had several images that were stolen and people just pasted Phil's face over. One of the well known ones I believe is the praise the sun knight fanart for Dark Souls.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

Let's look at how YouTube, Twitch, everyone else handles DMCA reports: Ban the account first and eventually send an actual human to see if it is valid later.

This allows (like Null said) anyone to file a DMCA over anything and get anyone's account shut down. This is a broken system.

How Kiwifarms handles DMCA reports:
Null reads the report. He looks at the offending links. He tells the complainant to fuck off. Only a couple of times has the DMCA been legitimate.

"It would be massively expensive to have a human review all the DMCA reports." Not true. How much did Twitch pay Hassan to sit in his office and jerk it to camgirls? How much do they pay deer girl to do whatever bullshit she does? How much do they spend on inclusivity seminars and pro Latinix panels? Twitch has the money to have someone review DMCA complaints.

"Darksydephil stole my intellectual property of a 8-bit crown..." How would the human answer? Yes, delete Phil or go fuck yourself and your pixel art.

I'm sure the Twitch DMCA guy would have it easier than Null since he wouldn't have to look at dozens of images of Nickido Avocados blown out asshole.

 

[KingCoelacanth]

You've got detractor goggles on. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have shit removed as soon as a claim is filed as opposed to after humans have a chance to counter. This is especially true for high abuse targets like DSP.

Lets say that DSP decides to stream Shrek 2 in its entirety. Is that really the kind of economical damage that is worth preventing with the same level of ham-fisted "shoot first, ask questions later" legal restrictions child porn has? fuck no.

Well what kind of legal trouble could Twitch get in if a report is filed for that shrek stream, yet no action is taken until after its concluded?