That's a good question - since the video is marked as having sponsored content in the metadata, it's not like YouTube was unaware. What's the deal @TeamYouTube?
-
-
Replying to @thelindsayellis
Following up: Our Copyright team looked into this & confirmed that the claim is valid. We see that you’ve appealed the claim, which provides UMG with 30 days to review your appeal. If you would like to resolve the issue directly with them, please DM us for more info.
186 replies 9 retweets 246 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @thelindsayellis
That’s a fuckin’ y i k e s from mepic.twitter.com/2Q3lEtDq23
1 reply 1 retweet 373 likes -
It's how the DMCA system works. Get mad at
@UMG They made the claim and confirmed it's not false. The creator appealed now its back to@UMG. Here wordpress explains their process https://en.support.wordpress.com/our-dmca-process/ … Notice the webmaster/host must follow this to not be held liable.7 replies 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
am i missing something, or are you?pic.twitter.com/u7zboDdlTI
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
Simple, companies say that but never actually act on it in all but the most blatantly obvious cases because fair use is mostly a defense used in court. For example when Trump used Tim McGraw in a meme Twitter followed through with the DMCA request even though it was fair use.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
so what are you saying, exactly? is youtube being forced to obey a law as written, or simply failing to do their due diligence?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
No, they are compiling with DMCA such that they are not held responsible. All DMCA is designed to do is protect hosts from being liable for people who use their platform for copyright infringement. If Youtube rejects the claim they become liable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
what part of this takedown is valid? they have no obligation to accede to invalid requests for takedowns.pic.twitter.com/Kc7Xt4p6ye
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
It's valid in that the company believes it is. IE they are not using the DMCA to try to takedown something they don't own or something along those lines. As long as the company believes infringement happened its enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
what’s the point of including a clause that says a claim must be valid, if, by your definition, the very act of making a claim validates the claim? utterly asinine, circular logic.
-
-
Replying to @AwfaFalafa @jess689_ and
Well, if youtube sees that Warner Brothers DMCA'd something that contains not a single Warner Brothers copyright property, it's not valid. This isn't up for debate because no part of the video can even possibly belong to Warner Brothers and thus the DMCA is invalid.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Bucket_Of_Crabs @jess689_ and
also, by your definition, if WB even BELIEVED they owned something in the video, the claim would be valid.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.