Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

Discussion in 'Youtube and Vimeo Problems' started by gregg, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. Anonymous Member

  2. LilDebbie Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    RE: recording telephone calls

    the FEDERAL rule is one party consent, so if that call crosses state lines and you are a participant in the conversation, you can record to your heart's content without telling doctor porn peddler a damn thing.

    fucking DMCA. i was among the many who protested its passage precisely because of bullshit like this. thanks a lot, congress. it's a good thing you fucked us all over so you could keep getting more money out of the RIAA and MPAA. i hope you all die of colon cancer.
  3. Sponge Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    A valid point.
    Also, if he did acquire the rights, then when would it have been? I mean, what is the the likelyhood of him already owning the rights and the creator of the video pickeda the one particular background sequence that fuckface just happened to own the rights to? Pretty miraculous. If it was after the video was put up on youtube then this would be an interesting tactic, acquiring rights of background content in order to get whole videos critical of him pulled.
  4. Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Erm, not true. I would recommend saying "I am recording this." The nice thing about consent to record laws is that if he continues to talk to you he is consenting to being recorded. So, you can say "I'm recording this call," and then say something provoking, like a question, and even if he says "turn the recording off, I don't consent to be recorded" he's giving his consent by speaking to you.
  5. Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    i has a concept:

    Ollie is targeting the videos using claims for the video track content (in this case, the time laps segments).

    Whether his claims are true or false is irrelevant: This behavior is giving us a clear and wide spot to attack.

    Recommendation: We flood youtube with copies of this video, except each one will carry a radically different sort of content in the VIDEO track. The AUDIO track will remain the same. The message will remain the same. Only the video will be different. Each video unique.

    The video tracks on these videos will display material from blatant and obvious self-made videos or use sources that are widely known to be within creative commons or the public domain.

    For example:
    Obvious self made content:
    - Self made shots of the guy fawkes mask.
    - Snapshots of Anonymous in action.

    Obvious creative commons or public domain content:
    - Remix of scenes from the first Edison movies from the late 19th century to match the speech in the video.

    I'd love to see Ollie claiming to be the sole copyright owner of the first Edison films. This sort of shit will drop our entire saga straight into BoingBoing - Cory loves this kind of shit.

    Sample sauces:
    [ame=""]YouTube - Edison kinetoscope films 1894 -1896[/ame]
    Internet Archive: Free Download: Edison in his chemistry lab
    Internet Archive: Free Download: Edison Motion Pictures Collection Part Three 1903-1922
  6. LilDebbie Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    can i request you lose your mod status for spreading lies? CITING MY SOURCES:

  7. terryeo2 Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement


    In that case I did not find a thread for the creation of the video, unless that thread did not contain an instance of the words "DMCA Scientology" and was not in this sub-forum. Was this video made in the Enturb days, and may have been lost with Mimi?

    Whatever the case, what website did you guys use to get the public domain time-lapse footage? I'm 99% sure Ollie the Scilon is lying about claims to that footage, so having a link to the public domain info for that footage would be useful.
  8. terryeo2 Member

  9. Anonymous Member

  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    gregg: You don't really have to provide that documentation to Schaper until it becomes required by the court proceedings, and he has to file suit in order for the DMCA takedown to be permanent.

    It would still be nice to have proof of where the footage came from, but it will only become relevant WHEN AND IF he files a lawsuit against you.
  11. Vir Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    If you have fun on the ferris wheel, you are right next to AK Bars (АК БАРС). And what is AK Bars most famous saying?

    Seriously though, I think we are looking for timelapse footage from Kazan, Russia. (I didn't help make the video, just playing internet detective here.)

    Bow down to my Internet Detective skills:
    [ame=""]Night Kazan time lapse. on Vimeo[/ame]
  12. lothar Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    You are wrong and spreading stupid information. A simple bit of googling will confirm that BOTH states involved in a telephone call must have single party consent. If you call someone in a state with two party consent you can be totally fucked. Most likely it doesn't matter but you should definitely mention you are recording the call. Why wouldn't all call centers be in a single party state if you logic applies?
  13. Vir Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Bump for video above. Now looking for sources for the other timelapse videos, but if the maker of the above video confirms that oschaper has not bought any rights for that video, then prepare for one angry German pornographer to get mad.

    I think what LilDebbie meant to point out is that you would need PRE-approval from all parties. I don't know if she's right about that though...
  14. gregg Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Update the first post again, Ollie sent me more fun threatening email.
  15. Vir Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    gregg, I've contacted the Russian guy.

    re: Ollie's email he would have had a point if you had posted the video on Vimeo, which only accepts material you made completely on your own, but YouTube allows you to upload videos which you have permission to upload, so Ollie doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    He's admitted to perjury in writing. Oh snap!
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    gregg: Ask him to identify the video makers and how he acquired the rights. The burden of evidence is on him, not you. Say that you'll be awaiting his lawsuit.

    At the same time contact YouTube at their copyright address and notify them that the notorious DMCA fraud oschaper is back in action, and can they please restore all videos he's filed a claim against. Also hint that he may have assets, so it might be a good idea to file a civil suit to recover their expenses in dealing with his over 4000 false claims, and perhaps slap him with a criminal prosecution for perjury to serve as an example.
  17. gregg Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Vir, amazing work. As soon as you hear anything from the owner of the video that should be a huge help.
  18. Ackerland Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    What if he really has got the rights to the video? If Vir found the video creator, the OSA goons could have found him, too. Do you really think if schaper paid him like 5000$ for the rights to his little timelapse video the russian would have said just "no"?

    You can have this go to court without any further fact checking, but you are taking a considerable risk that is not worth taking. If you find out who made the video and got the approval of the author, by all means, sue schaper's ass!
  19. Vir Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Thanks, I'll do that, but it would also help if the people who put the video together could tell us what the rest of the sources are.

    There is more than one source and oschaper just claimed the whole thing. Not accidentally either, but because he didn't think things through.

    By the way, I found the source footage of another anon video I've seen lately on Vimeo. Recognize the music? :)
    [ame=]Timelapse Reel 2 on Vimeo[/ame]

    This is OSA we're dealing with. Though it is a possibility that they did this, I doubt they would even bother finding the original creators.
    And even if they had found the original creators, and the claim was in that way "legitimate", shutting down free speech by retroactive copyrighting is not the purpose of copyright, so if you took this to court you could quite possibly win even then.
  20. gregg Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Awesome work. I honestly dont know who did it. If I remember correctly it was done on IRC and the forums.
  21. LilDebbie Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    care to cite the relevent passage in the US code or are you full of shit? as we like to say: DOX OR GTFO
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    I think the poor chap is finally losing the plot.
  23. gregg Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    First post updated again. He now claims to have purchased the video from the russians.
  24. WMAnon Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    So, any lawfags wanna figure out if you can revoke the consent someone else gave for their material to be used before you bought it? That seems to be what he's trying to do here.

    And it sounds like horse shit to me.
  25. xenubarb Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    California is a two party state. We're actually in the minority, but a notification that the call is being recorded is sufficient warning. If they keep yapping, all is good.
  26. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    LOL. Just keep digging, Ollie.
  27. Anonymous Member

  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    In the meantime, just make your own timelapse and re-upload using that.
  29. Mutante Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Ollie, if you want to buy the other video material then please contact me with your best offer.
  30. DamOTclese Member

  31. Relyt Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    The irony about all this is that he's threatening to sue for defamation... He claims copyright on something in order to take down a video, a video which talks about him claiming copyright in order to take down videos he does not like. He's admitting to doing this in this latest attempt to silence free speech, but at the same time is claiming that any claims made about him doing so in the past are false? How funny.

    Also, I'm wondering if he thinks that he owns the rights to the video just because he may have purchased a copy of the video? Not saying that's what happened, but I think that would be hilarious, and dig the irony hole a little deeper.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement


    Did your correspondence with him reveal the YouTube account he is using, at all? acosbroadcasting was revealed after his correspondence with QAnon filing a counterclaim. Would be nice to know if he gets suspended as a result of remerging from YouTube after being suspended (several times).
  33. Old Shadow Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Wow, six pages already, really?
  34. Anonymous Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Hello Anonymous,

    My name is Dr. Oliver Schaper, ESQ., and I hate every single vun of you. All of you are fat, retarded, copyright infringers who spend every second of sere day breaking copyright laws. You are everysing bad in ze world. Honestly, have any of you ever owned a porn site? I mean, I guess it's fun making fun of people because you sink zey are Scientologists, but you all take it to a whole new level. Zis is even verse zan suppressing a religion.

    Don't be Anonymous. Just hit me wiss your best counter-claim. I'm pretty much at cause. I own porn sites, and have lots and lots of money. What do you have, besides Graham Berry and gay little masks? I also get away with DMCA abuse, and have friends with OSA (Zey just took down your videos; Shit was SO upstat). You are all SPs who should just end cycle. Thanks for listening.

    Pic Related: It's me and my money.
  35. Vir Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Well that's nice, since the rest of the video isn't Russian.

    He's just bullshitting you, IMO. Let him send his documentation, so we at least have something to laugh at and more dox about his lies. Time to put up or shut up. If he's filed a claim he should have the documentation readily available.

    I suspect that this is a distraction from something else, maybe the Travolta situation.
  36. Skeptic1337 Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Actually Chapper is awesome I hope he keeps doing this.

    This is exactly the kind of shit (post facto copyright, "third party" selling of content) that EFF can use.

    If a few accounts need to be sacrificed so be it.

    This shit should really be escalated within youtube though, it's obvious abuse of their system. So who goes out and has a couple drinks on happy hour fridays with some google execs?

    Also while this is about scientology vids, this aint a chanology issue imho.

    Any ways carry on!
  37. Mutante Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

  38. iaxiloll Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    Well for some reason my account is gone about 200 vids and over 1 million views so something must be up lol.


    Well I did get this email.

    Dear Member:

    This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by ACOS Broadcasting Corp. claiming that this material is infringing:

    DMCA Abuse by Scientology: [nomedia=""]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]

    Please Note: Repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

    If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Centre to access the instructions.

    Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

    YouTube, Inc.
  39. DamOTclese Member

    Re: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement

    It does not work that way, the "offender" can be successfully be charged with "wiretapping" or "intercepting" in States where there are laws against it.

    California law states that all parties in a call must "grant conscent" to being recorded and if the recording party indicates that the call is being recorded, the individuals who do not hang up have granted conscent -- even if the stupid dogfuckers start screaming that they do not, the fact that they're on the lineknowing they're being recorded, ergo they are conscenting.

    Lawyers routinely record without notifying the others in the call, and they never seem to get tagged with civil charges. That's because they don't post thye audio to YouTube and routinely expose the fact that they record.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins