Nathan / Fabian - Please step inside. Time to step up to the plate.

if as you say it has nothing to do with the law and is simply a policy
then TOS should cover you for ANY violation of the law , including distributing kiddie porn

your claiming that TOS as a contract supercedes all legal liability, well the criminal liablity for distributing kiddie porn is legal liablity.

Just because consequence of violating that legal liablity is jail time, instead of money doesn't change the fact that it still a legal liablity.

so again if you truely beleived that TOS contract, grants you immunity from legal liabilities, put up the kiddie porn and put a TOS clause saying they can't use it as evidence.

whores do that all the time, see how many of them get convicted of prostitution even though their TOS require that you don't enter their site if your a police officer.




your the only one who wants it both ways

if the law worked the way your claiming it did, i could simply put in my TOS that by using the service to view copyright material you claim ownership of you agree to put all your content into the public domain

that way the first time you made a takedown request you would have been forced to put all your content into the public domain.

I would never have to listen to another take down request from you ever again, and i would be legally authorized to put the content right back up again.


The worst thing in the world for you guys would be if TOS did supercede the law as your trying to claim it does because this type of TOS clause would be perfectly legal and there would be nothing you could do about it.


so then the question is back to you , do you still stand by TOS supercede the laws even if it was used in this way.

ask the religious right how ethical you are for producing porn.

i stand up for fair use irregardless of the medium

using youtube to comment that "check out quest crews best dance routine"

should be just as legal as putting a tape cassette in vcr fast forwarding to the dance routine
and saying "check out quest crews best dance routine"

how ethical is it to censor that free speech.

However, this is the porn business and others in the same business are stealing my videos.

There is a difference.

I do not base my ethics in this business on mainstream or any other factor than what is the acceptable standard of this business. If I were to base what is ethical in the porn business based on my non-adult values, most of the thieves would be dead already, as I don't consider human life very valuable when that human steals from me, as they are also stealing from my family. In the real world, and if I catch you inside my house, that is punishable by death. Luckily for all of you and unfortunate for me, there is a difference between the two.

I agree with this guy. Why?

KISS rocks
He knows his shit
I like how he BASHES GG for being a fucking idiot

Carry on.

PS: I do NOT have a "Man Crush" on Robbie. HOWEVER: I DO have a Man Crush on Robbie's biceps.

there is two problems with that copyright infringement will never and has never been theft

your talking about out and out censorship, the blanket removal of all the videos of a persons account (something which even youtube does not do)

while at the same time working in an industry that only exists because of 1st ammendment.

without that protection you would be hauled off to jail on pimping and pandering charges.

it two faced at best.

btw since your also argueing that TOS should supercede the law

would you support the right of a tube site owner to put a term of service condition that says if you use the service to view content you claim a copyright too, you must put all your content in the public domain.

if TOS can supercede things like free speech, why should a tube site have a right to basically turn the takedown notice into a trap that forces you to put your shit into the public domain.

this statement makes no sense, the market is moving towards tubes as the new primary traffic source.

ethics by the way are not supposed to be fluid and dependent on what the enviroment is.

by definition that is an unethical principle, in fact it given it own name situational ethics.

My moral compass is defined by one simple rule your right end the second mine begin, and vice versa.

I never demand 1 rule for myself and another for other people, irregardless of what the market conditions are around me.

so i will ask the question again, would you defend your position that TOS should over write the law if a tube site used their TOS to force you put your shit in the public domain if you sent them a takedown request.

I have repeatedly pointed out exactly what they would have to say to do it.

while you have repeatedly called Nat out to do something that even youtube doesn't do

demanding that he extend TOS and accept a liablity he currently avoids, would you except such an extension if it worked against you.

gideon, you can call it whatever you want and write about why it isn't theft until your fingers bleed, but it is stealing.

It's not yours. You don't own it. You don't have the rights to it. You didn't pay for it. You can't time shift it. You're not renting it. You do not have permission to take it, and you sure as shit don't have permission to profit from it. Whatever "laws" you want to hide behind, I wipe my ass with. I'd beat your ass just the same if you stole my bike or a single video from my website.

Your silly talk is wasted on me gideon. Save your nonsense for someone else.


Of course TOS can not supersede the law. Stop being a fucking dick head. But if someone violates your TOS and you've already stated you can remove the account or submission if they do, then do it. This is not even an issue of TOS superseding the law, not even sure how it spun into that. This is about doing what your TOS was written for in the first place. Your TOS should be within the law, then you follow it. Why have it otherwise if you are not going to use it?

Look, all of this is bullshit and everyone knows it. I'm not going to split hairs with you or Nathan over this anymore, as it doesn't resolve anything. Nathan and his company are thieves profiting from content they uploaded themselves. Users don't upload 1000s of videos, loading 4 - 5 videos a day for 2 years in a row. Yea right. It's insulting that anyone would expect us to believe they do. And you... I don't even know what you are, but I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

We come from different places and will NEVER see eye to eye about this topic. Like I said, don't even waste your time. I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

1. the submitter did pay for it
2. fair use gives them right to do things like comment, timeshift, formatshift that content, even if you don't want them too.
3. the copyright act explictly takes away your exclusive right with regards to fair use
4. which means your the one trying to break the law by demanding that all content be taken down.

your asking NAT to remove all the content of a user irregardless of if it is covered by copyright act defined fair use or not, simply because fill out 4 take down notices.

clearly if even 1 of those videos was in fact fair use authorized, that would have to TOS superceding the law (in this case section 107 of the copyright act) there is absolutely no way it can be anything else.

so now we are saying fuck innocent until proven guilty.


again what you are just saying doesn't change my question in one little bit

assuming your right and TOS that broad should be allowed, suppose that because it a contract and the act of using the service bind you to agree to that

do you support that forced nature being used against you

if i put a clause saying that if you used my service (tube site) to view your content you agree to put all your content into the public domain.

It would do a complete end run around safe harbor provision because the only way you could identify your infringement to complain about would be to USE my tube site.

and if you used my tube site (and therefore autoagreed to the TOS) you agreed to put all your content into the public domain.


I am not arguing with you about your opinion, i am asking you if you would be willing to accept the consequence of your opinion if it was used against you


PS. the key point is that for me my opinion is consistance irregardless of weather it helps me or hurts me (neither TOS condition would be valid because it takes away a right granted by the law -- fair use right to the content vs your right to dispute complete unauthorized use of your content)

I never said or claimed that TOS as a contract supercedes all legal liability. That is a strawman argument from your side, so you can argue against things I didn't say or mean. This is not about the weight of laws, but the laws themselves and what they cover. If the weight (your argument) is final, then everything would be legal in countries having constitutional free speech. But it doesn't work that way, the constitutional weight is not final, it also gives access for laws to override it, the same way laws weight are not final but give access to design terms and policy.

What I say is, the TOS can be used as a contract to prevent things that is not unlawful in the first place, but things that are inappropriate, off-topic or non-beneficial etc for your business or organization can be prevented. Laws supercede TOS, but if there is no law, then that argument become pointless. The only thing left is policy and that's what OP question.

If you claim and state one policy, but act different and refering to non-existant laws (the weight of laws is pointless argument), then there is a reason to question that policy. If DMCA doesn't prevent you from removing the inappropriate, off-topic or non-beneficial without losing safe harbor, then it doesn't prevent you from removing the appropriate, on-topic or beneficial. Like I said, you can't have it both ways...

that the stupidest statement you have every made, so everything including shit that is illegal on it face would be legal if free speech exists

Bullshit

I am saying the exact opposite and your trying to misrepresent

The reason you can take down kiddie porn is without incurring a civil liablity BECAUSE A LAW SAYS IT ILLEGAL.

The same is not true with copyright infringement there is a very specific set of rules you have to follow and that is a valid notice, with the appripriate counter notice ability to happen.

NAT WOULD BE WILLFULLY VIOLATING THAT PROCESS, by taking the content down for TOS only reason. That would make them liable if it violated free speech.

ok and if the sky was pink it wouldn't be blue

what does a fabricated case that has already been proven to not exist here, 3 examples where the laws could be violated, each with civil liablities, hell even when you deliberately limited the scope to an insane level i documented a potential violation of discrimination laws.


bullshit

When you for example take down kiddie porn you are giving up the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and justifying your actions using the child pornography laws. You trade one immunity (takedown/counternotice process )for a legally justified reason for removal (it violates kiddie porn laws).

Your saying give up the safe harbor to hide behind, NOTHING.

That the point, you want NAT to remove all the content, including stuff that could be 100% authorized, either by the copyright holder, or by fair use.

yes you did


you clearly said NO law will tell you that you can't remove user submitted content if they violated TOS.

that statement clearly put the TOS above the law in priority (which is by definition what the word supercede means).

I can't believe Pirate Nathan still has green rep.

You guys are a bunch of fucking pussies.

And there is your flaw.

Lets use PornHub as an example here. Are you going to tell me the uploaders to that site, many who have 100s and sometimes 1000s of uploads, actually paid for all the videos they uploaded? NO FUCKING WAY.

They are downloading them from torrents, they use stolen passwords, or whatever. Very few were paid for, if any. The truth is, random uploaders are not really uploading the bulk of the content to these giant tubes. The biggest uploaders work for the company, everyone knows it. No loser, regardless of how big a loser he is, is going to upload 4 - 6 (or more) videos a day, every day, for 2 years straight.

So considering they didn't even pay for it in the first place, your reasoning does not work, again.

And YES, if you are caught with my content, you are GUILTY. There is no proven innocent or anything else, you have it, you are responsible for it.



OK, you're going back on ignore. Bye.

We are limited on how much we can give in a period. I can green you today but it won't let me add or take away from you for several days after.

Nag Nag Nag

You hit my ignore list