NYU Sues YouTube For Reposting Video After Video Poster Sent DMCA Counternotice

from the not-how-the-law-works dept

Mon, May 16th 2016 9:29am — Mike Masnick

You would think that a large university like New York University -- better known as NYU -- would have decently competent lawyers. Especially since NYU has its very own law school that is frequently one of the top ranked law schools in the country. So it's a bit surprising to see NYU file a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube that seems to, pretty clearly, go against the DMCA's rules (found via Eric Goldman).

The lawsuit is mainly focused on someone named Jesse Flores, who apparently runs a YouTube account called Atheists Exposed. I think it would be fair to say that Flores does not like atheists, and the summary of that YouTube account my be subtitled "videos of atheists behaving badly." I'm not sure which video in particular upset NYU, but the university submitted a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, claiming that some of his footage infringed upon its copyright. As I type this, the video in question remains down.

Having suffered through watching at least some of the other videos Flores has on the account, I'm assuming it's a clip of an atheist somehow associated with NYU, but (you guessed it) behaving badly. This might be embarrassing for NYU, but given the commentary around the videos, there's at least an argument of fair use here (though, without knowing more, perhaps the fair use claim isn't strong). Still... it does seem that basically all of the videos on the account are for the purpose of comment and criticism. NYU insists that the video is not fair use, stating that Flores had no license to the work "nor does the Defendant’s use of the Work fall into fair use or any other limitations on exclusive rights of copyright."

Flores, appears to have filed a counternotice on May 3rd -- in which he doesn't even claim fair use. Rather, he says that he received permission to post the video from the Veritas Forum at NYU, saying that it had the rights to the video in question.

NYU then reached out to Flores directly asking him to withdraw the counternotice. Flores, perhaps not too surprisingly, has refused to withdraw it. YouTube has made it clear that it will follow the rules in the DMCA -- specifically Section 512(g)(2)(B) and (C) -- which say that upon receipt of a valid counternotice (and the lack of a lawsuit filed against the uploader) the site is to replace the removed material in 10 to 14 business days after the counternotice. There are a few conditions around this, but none are that important in this case. There also is some question as to whether or not the site has to replace the content. The statute can be read that way, though some have argued that that's a weird result, since sites should have free control to refuse to repost any video if they so choose.

Either way, NYU noticed, YouTube took it down, Flores counternoticed, and YouTube has said it's putting the video back up. Under the very, very, very, very clear language of the DMCA, this means that YouTube is protected from liability if there is any infringement in the video. That's the whole basis of the safe harbors. They say "if you take down upon notice and follow these other rules, such as reposting it after 10 business days upon counternotice," then you're protected from a copyright lawsuit.

So, what did NYU do? It sued YouTube (and Flores). The suit against Flores, obviously, will turn on whether (1) he actually received a license, as he implies, or (2) if not, if the use was actually fair (and again, we don't know enough to say at this point). But including claims against YouTube? That's not just a non-starter, it's ridiculous, and makes you wonder if NYU's lawyers spoke to any of the copyright experts at NYU's own law school to explain that this is not how the DMCA notice-and-takedown process works. The most generous interpretation of this is that NYU's lawyers completely misinterpreted the DMCA (and YouTube's notification to NYU about the counternotice) and read the requirement of a lawsuit to include YouTube, so that the site knew not to put the video back up. What YouTube and the law actually require is merely evidence that a lawsuit was filed against the uploader. Including YouTube in the suit is an interesting way to provide "evidence," but it also goes completely against the DMCA's safe harbors.

I'm guessing that NYU will file an amended complaint fairly soon that drops YouTube from the complaint. But, still...

New-York-University-v-Flores (PDF)New-York-University-v-Flores (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 512, athiests exposed, copyright, counternotice, dmca, jesse flores, safe harbors
Companies: nyu, youtube

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

David, 16 May 2016 @ 9:35am

Perjury?
If the Veritas Group owns the copyright, and NYU is making the DCMA claim under perjury that they own the copyright and don't, this could get interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 9:48am

Maybe they are suing youtube to use joint liability against them?

I mean, they try to prove that youtube is 1% guilty, but if Flores can't fork out the fine involved, they will request it from youtube and leave them to figure out how to get the rest of the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DB (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 10:03am

This is a good case.

YouTube has a strong, multi-billion-dollar motive for insuring that the DMCA safe harbor provision is actually a safe harbor.

A smaller site would likely cave rather than face a lawsuit -- a lawsuit that is only affordable to larger corporations.

One aspect that is easy to overlook is that YouTube interest isn't fully aligned with their users. No specific video on YouTube is worth all that much to YouTube. They have so much content that removing even the 10 most popular videos just redistributes the views over the other available videos. So YouTube has little motivation to fight for an individual video.

What could really hurt them is being named on ten thousand lawsuits across the U.S. That's a billion dollar nightmare. If even one suit works, everybody with a law degree would be rushing to the courthouse for a piece of the gold rush.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:04am

YouTube has made it clear that it will follow the rules in the DMCA -- specifically Section 512(g)(2)(B) and (C) -- which say that upon receipt of a valid counternotice (and the lack of a lawsuit filed against the uploader) the site is to replace the removed material in 10 to 14 business days after the counternotice. There are a few conditions around this, but none are that important in this case.

One of the conditions is that the copyright owner not have brought suit. But here, it did.

512(g)(2)(c):
replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.
The counternotice was filed on May 3, and the lawsuit was filed on May 12. That's less than 10 business days.

I know you're way smarter than NYU's lawyers--heck, smarter than all the lawyers you routinely mock. So what am I missing here, counselor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:08am

Re:
I think you hit the nail on the head. NYU likely knows the law, they just hope YouTube would rather not be bothered and just take it down. But they have a business to run and not following the process could affect that. So it probably is in their interests to get a precedent set. Will be interesting to see how it turns out, hopefully TD will do a follow up post later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
K`Tetch (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 10:13am

Ununsual as well for youtube, since it involves ACTUAL dmca notices, rather than the usual contentID notices, which don't have the restoration rights of the DMCA notices.

if NYU wants it down, just file a contentID claim, not a DMCA notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 10:14am

"Atheism in its extreme form is anti-theism and this ideology has shown itself to be aggressive and intolerant time over time again"

Sounds more like another nutjob exposing himself. LOL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:14am

Re:
So what am I missing here, counselor?

That YouTube was included in lawsuit for pointing out that they would put the video up if they were not notified of a lawsuit. All NYU needed to do was notify YouTube the they were taking the case to court, while including YouTube in the suit is premature ejaculation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:17am

Ain't Copyright Great?
For the lawyers, that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:19am

Re:
Note that they have not restored access to the video in question, as of the present time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:35am

Re:
So what am I missing here, counselor?

Right off hand, I'd say a fully functional brain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:44am

Re: Re:
That YouTube was included in lawsuit for pointing out that they would put the video up if they were not notified of a lawsuit. All NYU needed to do was notify YouTube the they were taking the case to court, while including YouTube in the suit is premature ejaculation.

All we have to go on is the complaint, and we don't know all that was said when NYU talked with YouTube. That said, whether YouTube qualifies for the safe harbor is an affirmative defense that YouTube will have the burden of proving. The complaint alleges that YouTube is liable for the original posting and that it told NYU it was obligated to repost the content after 14 days. That YouTube might be able to prove a DMCA defense doesn't mean there's anything wrong with naming YouTube as a defendant. It's still prima facie infringement on YouTube's part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:45am

Re: Re:
Right off hand, I'd say a fully functional brain.

I welcome you to join the discussion in a productive way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 10:45am

Re:
I know you're way smarter than NYU's lawyers--heck, smarter than all the lawyers you routinely mock. So what am I missing here, counselor?

The suing of YouTube. Suing Flores is fine (though he claims to have a license, but we'll see if that turns out to be true). The issue is the suing of YouTube (which I thought I pointed out in the post).

NYU can sue Flores and tell YouTube, at which point YouTube WILL NOT replace the video. But adding YouTube to the lawsuit is just bad lawyering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 10:49am

Re: Re:
NYU knows law very well. Especially the part where it doesn't really matter what the law says. What matters is what you can convince/bribe/confuse/pander a judge or jury to rule, and that justice is the domain of those willing and financially able to fight longest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bart, 16 May 2016 @ 11:06am

Re: Re: Re:
"It's still prima facie infringement on YouTube's part"

Is it though? It's a claim of infringement on the part of one entity vs a claim that it's not infringement on the part of the other party, on the basis of copyright owners being yet another party and that permission has been given for use.

Youtube is a third party to all this and has prima facie evidence of nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 11:07am

I find it ridiculous that NYU "asked" Flores to withdraw his counter-notice complaint. It's practically hilarious. What NYU fails to realize is that every youtube uploader has the right to file a counter-notice complaint because it acts as a balance against improper DMCA claims.

Many organizations get away with filing DMCA complaints against video uploaders without fear that uploaders will file counternotices. NYU assumed that the uploader would simply back down, out of fear of litigation.

Now, NYU has found itself in the middle of a screwup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
X, 16 May 2016 @ 11:10am

It is fair use
The "Fair Use" doctrine of the DMCA clearly states the video can be posted for "comment and criticism".

This means any video can be posted, because people will talk about it, comment on it, criticize it, etc.

Certainly Christians seems to get all butt-hurt when people correctly point out they worship a fictitious god, and venerate a supposed "savior" who is nothing more these days than a dusty pile of bones somewhere in the Middle East (if Jesus existed at all...there is no proof he ever was a real person). Nor was this supposed "Jesus" (not his real name) character unique....there were several dozen other prophets who existed hundreds or thousands of years before Jesus supposedly lived who all had the same traits attributed to them: Born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, healed the sick, raised the dead, died and rose again after 3 days, etc.

But that is all academic.

NYU has no case.

Youtube Should turn around and sue the crap out of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 11:17am

Teaching them to do it "right"
What is the greatest risk to YouTube: people like Flores suing? Or NYU (and other "big content" providers) suing again and again and again?

Yes, the dismissal for the case against YouTube will make the case relatively inexpensive--NYU will win no award. But it will cost YouTube lawyer hours; and at $600+ per, those are not cheap.

Suppose such lawsuits are filed regularly by NYU and others. That would tend to discourage the restoration of content after the filing of a counter-notice. Such restoration is not mandatory under the DMCA. For example, there have already been complaints that YouTube sometimes refuses to restore content after receiving a counter-notice; due to contract requirements.

In this specific case, it is already likely that the easy settlement would involve YouTube contracting to discontinue content restoration after an NYU DMCA. If enough big content providers follow the example, perhaps non-restoration will become universal policy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 11:19am

Re: It is fair use
This means any video can be posted, because people will talk about it, comment on it, criticize it, etc.

It's not quite that extensive. Commentary and criticism apply not to the reaction to the video, but the purpose behind posting it and using copyrighted material within it.

You can't just post anything and claim that it falls under fair use by saying 'People will comment and criticize it', the use of copyrighted material has to be for a use that falls under fair use, like posting a clip or excerpt for discussion, parody or critique.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 11:27am

Re: Teaching them to do it "right"
In this specific case, it is already likely that the easy settlement would involve YouTube contracting to discontinue content restoration after an NYU DMCA. If enough big content providers follow the example, perhaps non-restoration will become universal policy.

... completely gutting the idea and purpose behind counter-notices in the first place, and driving yet another stake in any respect people might have for the law.

You seem to be looking at the long view here, but I'd argue that you're looking at it the wrong way. Much like patent trolls the best defense is to make it clear that you'll fight, even if it costs you, no matter what, so folding here would just encourage other companies to sue YT to try to force them to keep content from being restored on their service after a counter-notice has been filed.

Contrary to your position I'd argue that they are much better off presenting as strong a defense as needed, spending considerable resources if needed to make it clear that they are willing to do so, and thus discourage others from trying the same to bully them into keeping content down when a counter-notice has been filed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 12:04pm

I'm curious what the content of the video was since the title seems to imply it was a discussion of agnosticism. Atheism could come up in such a discussion, but I'm curious if Flores is lumping atheists and agnostics together just to score some more criticism points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 12:16pm

Re:
Why does pointing out the crimes of Stalin and Pol-Pot make you a "nutjob"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 12:17pm

Re: Re:
Or really good lawyering, because everyone knows Google is evil & is destroying copyright. One just needs a Judge who had connections to IP related businesses, and the case is pretty much sown up.

Think of all of the things they can do with a billion dollar settlement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Avatar28 (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 12:22pm

Re:
Even if YouTube were found to be 1% liable (and they won't, the DMCA is pretty clear on this area), how could they be on the hook for the entire award vs they pay their 1% and the plaintiff has to fight to get the remaining 99% from the other defendant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 12:28pm

Re: It is fair use
Uh, no, there is no smoking gun against the Bible. If there was, it would be all over the news. Instead, you have different branches of science all putting forth theories as if they are fact. Please read up on the counterpoints if you want to see what the "evidence" actually says.

For instance, there is no field where evolution should be more evident than the field of genetics. And guess what? Nothing in that field shows evolution is even remotely possible. In fact, it shows the opposite, that organisms can specialize, but never generalize and gain new information. Look at pure breed animals. They are the result of inbreeding and thus have genetic defects that follow them all throughout the generations. Genetic info, once lost cannot be gained.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 12:41pm

Re: Perjury?
In what way? I do not recall having seen a single suit against a company where they had to pay anything other than pocket change for making false DMCA claims.

If they lose they will just pay for it and file another false claim the next day. A lot of people do not know but most of these companies actually set aside a certain amount of projected capital just to spend them on cases they already know they are going to lose because it is more profitable to legally hold people down through the court system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: It is fair use
And the bible is so clear and true that there is no way that it could be interpreted differently by different groups.

/sarc (because some believers will not see it)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re:
It all comes from the assumption (perhaps a bad one) that NYU has decent lawyers. If so, they should be smart enough to know that YouTube will easily escape liability via 512(g)(4) if/when they put the video back up and suing YouTube is a waste of the court's time. Therefore, including YouTube in the suit is just to annoy and have them incur legal fees.

Of course, if the initial assumption is wrong and NYU's lawyers are morons, then including YouTube is a little more understandable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: Re: It is fair use
Sure, it can be interpreted differently, but that is human fallibility, there is only one true meaning. Each new translation is an attempt to be more accurate, not to change the meaning to make it say what they want it to say. If you want to see what the scientific evidence really says, read the book "Evolution's Achilles Heels".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
Think of all the things they can do after being disbarred for bringing frivolous claims...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re:
The issue is the suing of YouTube (which I thought I pointed out in the post).

You did, very clearly. (hence the functional brain comment)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
Already done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Teaching them to do it "right"
Their defense:

"We took the video down upon receipt of the DMCA notice. We never restored the video. We performed our statutory duty. Therefore, these claims against us are frivolous and we move to dismiss them in their entirety with costs to be paid by NYU."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 2:05pm

too big to fail makes for some very sue happy and insanely stupid people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: It is fair use
Nothing you said is even remotely accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re:
The suing of YouTube. Suing Flores is fine (though he claims to have a license, but we'll see if that turns out to be true). The issue is the suing of YouTube (which I thought I pointed out in the post).

NYU can sue Flores and tell YouTube, at which point YouTube WILL NOT replace the video. But adding YouTube to the lawsuit is just bad lawyering.

Don't move the goalposts. Your original claim was not "bad lawyering." It was that the suit against YouTube is "a non-starter" that "goes completely against the DMCA's safe harbors."

Since we don't have the facts, we can't really analyze NYU's case. But we can read the complaint, which states: "YouTube asserts it is required by § 512 (g)(2)(B) to 'replace' or republish the Work within 14 days of the date of the counter-notice."

Taking that at face value, if YouTube really told NYU it was going to repost the video within 14 days, then getting an injunction makes sense on NYU's part. How is that bad lawyering? Or are you just assuming facts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 16 May 2016 @ 3:52pm

Re: It is fair use
"fictitious god"

Opinion

"if Jesus existed at all...there is no proof he ever was a real person"

There is more proof for Jesus than for any other historical person through the Middle Ages. If Jesus didn't exist, then you really need to look at people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, etc., because they have less proof and (by your ridiculous argument) probably didn't exist either.

There is NO doubt that Jesus was at least a historical person. To deny it is to put yourself in the same category as holocaust deniers or flat earthers. Now I understand that you may not believe he was God on earth or a prophet capable of performing miracles, but to deny his existence just makes you sound like you know absolutely nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 16 May 2016 @ 3:54pm

Re: Re: It is fair use
And nobody else even fulfilled all four of your mentioned prophecies other than Jesus. (And he most likely wasn't born on Dec. 25.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 4:28pm

Re:
Atheism, pfah!
Agnosticism, ha!

Kids these days and their anthropomorphic gods... Give me that old time religion, where gods were REAL tentacled horrors from another dimension!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 4:43pm

Re: Re: Perjury?
Yeah, except that perjury is a criminal offense, not a civil one -- you don't pay a fine for perjury, you go to prison for 5-10 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
K`Tetch (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: It is fair use
Actually, we have lots of ACTUAL writings, mostly contemporary, monuments built by those that knew them etc.

With jesus, all the writings came about decades after death - not a single one was written within at least two generations of his alleged life.

If you deem what there is of Jesus 'proof' he existed, then there's also 'proof' that Harry Potter existed, and what's more the writings about Potter are more concise, more accurate, less at odds with each other.

So if Jesus existed, so too did Harry Potter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 5:17pm

Re: Re: Re:
Don't move the goalposts. Your original claim was not "bad lawyering." It was that the suit against YouTube is "a non-starter" that "goes completely against the DMCA's safe harbors."

Since we don't have the facts, we can't really analyze NYU's case. But we can read the complaint, which states: "YouTube asserts it is required by § 512 (g)(2)(B) to 'replace' or republish the Work within 14 days of the date of the counter-notice."

We can also read IN THE SUIT YouTubes notice to NYU which states quite clearly:

We're providing you with the counter notification and await evidence (in not
more than 10 business days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order
against the counter notifier to restrain the allegedly infringing activity.

So, no, it's clear that YouTube never said that it would post the video back up even if NYU sued Flores. It said it would repost it if they did not sue Flores, as is exactly what's required for the safe harbors.

And NYU still sued them. That's bad lawyering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 5:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
Like you do, chicken noise man?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 5:43pm

Re: Re: Re:
Don't move the goalposts

"Yeah, how dare you do to me what I do to you all the time!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 5:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Perjury?
"Yeah, except that perjury is a criminal offense, not a civil one -- you don't pay a fine for perjury, you go to prison for 5-10 years."

Depends on who you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 6:01pm

Re: Re: Re: It is fair use
Nothing you said is even remotely accurate.
That's hilarious, what's your proof that what he said was totally inaccurate? Do we believe you because you have said so? Such a comment demands that you prove him wrong, or are you so feeble in your logic that you cannot debate the subject with any rational basis?

Let the conversation continue. On your mark, get set, GO!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 6:26pm

Re:
You don't file ContentID claims. Content ID is the automatic scanner that YouTube runs. When it find matches, it takes action itself. Nobody files claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 6:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can also read IN THE SUIT YouTubes notice to NYU which states quite clearly:

We're providing you with the counter notification and await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order against the counter notifier to restrain the allegedly infringing activity.

So, no, it's clear that YouTube never said that it would post the video back up even if NYU sued Flores. It said it would repost it if they did not sue Flores, as is exactly what's required for the safe harbors.

And NYU still sued them. That's bad lawyering.

You're simply assuming facts. Yes, the counternotice YouTube forwarded to NYU mentions 10 business days. But the complaint explicitly states that YouTube told NYU it was obligated to repost the video within 14 days. Since 14 days is not mentioned in the counternotice, it would appear that there was other communication between YouTube and NYU. You don't know what was said in this other communication. You're simply making up the facts. That's not what a good lawyer does.

The only reason I point this out is because you insulted the lawyer from NYU and claimed that he doesn't understand the DMCA. That would be fine if you actually had the facts to back it up. You don't. It appears to be another case where you're claiming you're so much smarter than someone else without the goods to back it up. It's not a good trait on your part, Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 6:59pm

Re: Re: Re: It is fair use
You need to get out and look at your historical record more. It is actually the non-biblical sources (as in anti-christian and by this I mean those who wanted all christians dead) that have some of the more interesting evidence for Jesus and his existence. This includes various Greeks and Romans.

You talk about decades for Jesus but ignore the centuries for some of the others.

The interesting thing about some of the modern scholarship is what I would call the "Emperor's New Clothes" blindness when coming up with new models or theories about historical figures and events. An example would be a review of the existence of the northern kingdom of Israel in the time period after the time of David and Solomon.

The particular authors (both Israeli) assert that the kingdom found in Northern Israel worshipped a couple of cow idols and had nothing to do with the jewish kingdom to the south (as in were not related at all.

When one reads their paper, one notices that the evidence they provide could have come straight out of the OT. their conclusion is that there is no relationship between the two kingdoms. They provide no evidence to support their thesis. If I recall correctly, they dismiss the written record as being of no help, even though the evidence provided matches the written documents.

Go figure that out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2016 @ 7:14pm

Re: Re:
There:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

Not sure how it applies in the US, but there are cases where someone had to pay the full damages even if he was proven 1 or 2% liable.

And of course, you never know what a judge will rule...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 8:27pm

Re: Re: Teaching them to do it "right"
Contrary to your position I'd argue that they are much better off presenting as strong a defense as needed, spending considerable resources if needed to make it clear that they are willing to do so, and thus discourage others from trying the same to bully them into keeping content down when a counter-notice has been filed.

Oh, I agree, they'd be much better off presenting a strong defense.

But corporate bean counters are prone to argue for the cheap solution; and hand-wave "better off."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 9:07pm

Re:
"So what am I missing here, counselor?"

Other than needing to be right to have that smug attitude. Nice, to see you fail again, though. Genius.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 9:19pm

Re: Re:
Do I really have to explain it?

Why would the fact that some assholes are atheists mean that all atheists are or that atheism is the root cause of them being assholes?

It's especially funny when you think who is complaining here: a christian who believes in a god that endorses slavery, rape, genocide...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 11:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're simply assuming facts. Yes, the counternotice YouTube forwarded to NYU mentions 10 business days. But the complaint explicitly states that YouTube told NYU it was obligated to repost the video within 14 days. Since 14 days is not mentioned in the counternotice, it would appear that there was other communication between YouTube and NYU. You don't know what was said in this other communication. You're simply making up the facts. That's not what a good lawyer does.

Have you read 512? Either you haven't or you're a troll.

The 14 days is IN THE LAW. YouTube is simply saying what the law says, which is that upon receiving a counternotice, if it does not receive evidence of a lawsuit against the uploader, it will abide by 512(g)(2)(C) and put back the video within 10 to 14 business days.

It's telling NYU exactly what it's doing *in order to retain the safe harbors.*

Suing YouTube is bad lawyering. It either ignores or misunderstands the safe harbors. NYU is going to drop YouTube from the suit fairly soon once some adult realizes what happened, or it's going to get laughed out of court for including YouTube quick.

The only reason I point this out is because you insulted the lawyer from NYU and claimed that he doesn't understand the DMCA. That would be fine if you actually had the facts to back it up. You don't. It appears to be another case where you're claiming you're so much smarter than someone else without the goods to back it up. It's not a good trait on your part, Mike.

I stand by the story. NYU fucked up. You rushed in to defend them because that's what you do, and now you fucked up too. Man up and admit it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
beelzabub, 16 May 2016 @ 11:32pm

Re: Re: It is fair use
Not even wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 16 May 2016 @ 11:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Teaching them to do it "right"
In this case fighting back is the cheap solution, even if it's more expensive in the short-term.

Spend potentially large resources now for one fight, gaining a reputation as a company that is willing to spend when it comes to defending themselves legally and they drastically reduce the chances that someone else will try the same in the future.

Alternatively go the cheap route now and they get a reputation as a company willing to fold anytime someone comes asking, and as a result they get dragged into multiple cases in the future, which is likely to be quite a bit more expensive over the long term.

If the decision really does come down the the bean counters then hopefully they're smart ones able to look past the short term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 1:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Have you actually taken time out to read the book in question or are your views just a regurgitation of others? Actually go and read the relevant material first and you might get a clue. Just because you (techflaws) endorse slavery, rape, genocide, etc, doesn't mean your opponent does so. If you don't believe you endorse such things, go back over your own comments over time and see the implied endorsement in them.

As for atheism (a bona fide religious belief system), there are a variety of viewpoints which come under the general heading of this. Please specify which specific one you are into. Some versions are benign, some are toxic.

As for Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. There are many who profess belief in some supernatural entity but in actuality have no belief in such and act in like manner. If you want atheists and atheism to have the benefit of the doubt, do likewise for the various other religions.

One aspect of atheism that I find of interest is that there is little or nothing within the that specific world-view that gives rise to me having to have a high moral standard to live up to. In fact, the vast majority of atheists that I have met seem to be unpleasant, unhappy, self-focussed and basically cruel individuals. Mind you this same statement applies to many who profess a belief in a god, god's or God. There doesn't appear to be any joy in their lives or anything else that would convince me that their world-view has anything of worth (belief in no god or belief in a god).

It was those who had a personal relationship that backed up their belief that seem to have something different, unexpected, powerful and life-changing. This is what made me look at it more closely and discover that Jesus is not a long way off, but willingly walks day by day with those who are His. Does that mean a life of no trouble, no trials, no difficulties, no pain? No. But it does mean that no matter what comes, there is help in it. Does being a Disciple of Jesus Christ mean you are protected from all the evil that happens? No, but it does mean that you can have joy and can and should be a help to others in those times, even when facing extremes.

The actions of many who claim to follow Him are very much examples of choosing their own path not His. They are no more His followers than the members of the local coven down the road. Certainly, many in the west are ignorant of the reality of what it means to be a follower of The Way, unlike many of the believers in other parts of the world.

There is an old saying, there are no atheists in a foxhole. The test of ones beliefs will always lie in whether or not one changes ones belief system when given the choice of change or die. If one chooses to change then whatever belief system they profess doesn't hold any value to them. But if it is valuable to you then you won't give it up.

For those who don't believe Jesus Christ ever existed, I have a political question for you. If He didn't actually exist, why did the Roman government of that time not use that fact as one of the weapons against Christianity. The extant records that do exist seem to indicate that the Roman government of that time recognised His existence as an actual person.

One of the major problems for Christianity at that time was it propensity for being politically incorrect. To be acceptable in the eyes of the Roman government, it only required accepting (what we would and do call today) the Cult of Emperor Worship. However, Christians of the day would only bow down to Jesus as God, never to a man. This meant that there were many who faced the lions (and other wild beasts), crucifixion, burning at the stake, boiled in oil, torn apart, executed in many different ways for that particular belief. All without lifting a hand against those who brought these things upon them.

Whether you want to believe in Jesus or you don't, that is an individual choice and something that is yours alone. You are responsible for it, not anyone else. However there are consequences for whatever you choose and you need to live by it.

If you want to call Christianity a farce and that Atheism is the way, then you'd better be prepared for the relevant debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 5:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
jesus fucking mohammad. Are you saying that you want to debate the existence of magic? What a farce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 5:07am

Re:
well, you have to watch out for the 'extremist' atheists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 5:09am

Re: Re: It is fair use
Nice chain of fallacies you've got going there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 5:10am

Re: Re: Re: It is fair use
and the force. The force is the ONE REAL, magic religion. If you don't believe then you must be too stoopid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 17 May 2016 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2016 @ 1:17am is not.

And your attitude is the exact thing he's complaining about. In extreme cases, people of faith (or the wrong faith) experience discrimination.

That some people cloak themselves in religion to lend themselves a respectability they don't deserve while behaving badly doesn't mean their bad behaviour is due to their religion. It's due to their attitudes.

I should point out that any belief system, including atheism, can and does get abused as an excuse to wield authority over others. In your case you're dismissing Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2016 @ 1:17am out of hand based on half-baked assumptions about people of faith in which the term "sky fairy" figures to a greater or lesser extent, am I in the ballpark?

Don't be so smug. Neither having nor not having a faith makes you better or worse than anyone else. It's what you do with it that counts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 7:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually go and read the relevant material first and you might get a clue"

https://www.openbible.info/topics/slavery

And no, owning people as property and being allowed to beat them so they die > 2 days without being punished is in no way "Indentured servitude".

"However there are consequences for whatever you choose and you need to live by it."

And right on with the threats. So tell us, what consequence is there for someone not believing in Jesus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 9:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Neither having nor not having a faith makes you better or worse than anyone else. It's what you do with it that counts."

This is a message that I wish more people would take to heart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha. .. christianity is a farce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 5:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is, it doesn't matter whether or not Christianity or any other belief system is a farce. At least, not to anybody who doesn't share the belief system.

The only thing that matters is how people behave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 9:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In extreme cases, people of faith (or the wrong faith) experience discrimination.
Your point? They sure as hell aren't exempt from criticism.

I should point out that any belief system, including atheism
And there you fail again. How can NOT believing in one single thing be a belief system? Atheism deals with one issue only: atheists don't believe there's sufficient evidence to prove that a god exists. That's it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 18 May 2016 @ 2:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point? They sure as hell aren't exempt from criticism.

There's "criticism" and there's "firing or refusing to give people a job because of their beliefs."

I've also heard of people being treated as mental patients because of their faith. How can that be right?

And there you fail again. How can NOT believing in one single thing be a belief system? Atheism deals with one issue only: atheists don't believe there's sufficient evidence to prove that a god exists. That's it.

That's not true, per your own comments and that of the other AC. The truth, in many cases, is atheists absolutely excoriate people of faith, going way past criticism to actually personally having a go at us. If it's merely a case of not having enough evidence to work with, surely to goodness you'd be asking for such evidence and checking it out. You're not. You're dismissing us out of hand and lashing out at us.

When I don't have enough evidence of a particular thing I seek out information on that thing. I keep asking questions until I get answers. I've had to change my mind on drug policy from a prohibitionist stance to a "treat it as a health problem" one. Why? Someone provided me with evidence.

If you don't want evidence and are not willing to check it out because you're annoyed with certain people of faith for behaving badly, fair enough. Let's agree to disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 18 May 2016 @ 2:39am

Re: Re:
LOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 5:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha, you lose again. There is no evidence for your magic wielding, dark-skinned man from 2000 years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 5:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. I hate when they get to preaching. The christians should behave 'more better.' We are not interested in childhood fairy tales as a substitute for knowledge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 18 May 2016 @ 5:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yeah?!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Have fun debunking that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 6:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are quite a card. I'm haven't laughed so hard for weeks.

Go back to school, Wendy. Don't waste your brain on this silly stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 8:23am

Re:
maybe they're just trying to fit in with all the other aggressive and intolerant theologies. "See, we're just like everyone else!" It's like atheists have to start sniping people at abortion clinics or blowing themselves up in crowded places before they can sit at the big kids' theological table. not cool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 2:00pm

YouTube is a joke, but I hope it wins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 May 2016 @ 9:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's "criticism" and there's "firing or refusing to give people a job because of their beliefs."

Oh, so you're really not allowed to live out your homophobia (based on some 2000 year old text and the say-so of an immoral god, no less) to discriminate against people's sexual orientation that's none of your damn business anyway? Tough shit!

I've also heard of people being treated as mental patients because of their faith.

[citation needed]

You're dismissing us out of hand and lashing out at us.

Dude, you guys had 10 times more time than homeopathy to come up with evidence for your beliefs and literally all you got is a self-contradictory book. Whose fault is this?

And stop with this ridiculous persecution complex already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 May 2016 @ 10:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
[ link to this | view in thread ]