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

Yes, it's bullshit, and that's what I'm trying to tell you. It's only the words in the law that tells you what you can or can't. The weight does not tell you that. It's YOUR logic: "Because law weight higher than TOS..". Wrong. If there is no law, then weight doesn't count for anything. Same with the constitution vs law: You can't say a law is unconstitional if there are no constitution...

..got it?

Correct. But if there were no law against it, then you couldn't say a law supercede your TOS. You can still disallow it in your TOS...

got it?

Wrong. That argument is only valid if he state the reason is infringement. He can still remove for ANOTHER reasons without losing safe harbor. If that weren't the case, then his sites would be flooded with spam and Youtube would be flooded with porn.



Taking down child pornography neutralize DMCA. You are required to do so by law. But DMCA doesn't neutralize you from removing content for another reasons than infringements. If you disallow underage content that is not illegal, you can still TOS away that content, even if the uploader didn't make an infringement, and without losing safe harbor.

Like I said, you can't have it both. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm telling what you can and can't.

DWB, until you run a tube, you have no clue what 'losers' are willing to do to look cool. ALL content is user uploaded unless we bought the license for it then it MIGHT be that we upload it. But we have licenses for THOUSANDS of DVDs we do not even upload.
Anyone that thinks otherwise can try to prove so in court, but since it is impossible to prove something that is not true, it will just be a waste of time and money.

Dirtydane, DMCA does not allow filtering 'non beneficial' content. Even filtering out content that does not match a specific niche is dangerous unless automated or user controlled! This is the whole point here. Just removing content virtually by random will definitely not help your DMCA safe harbor!

Then why are you saying on the website that you can block or remove user submission for any or no reason then? Aren't you the one who toss away safe harbor by saying that?

There you say you can, here you say you can't. You can't have it both ways.

Dirtydane, because it gives us the widest freedom possible. If we would try to formulate something matching dmca or other applicable laws 100% that line would be 3 paragraphs and we would be uncertain if we did not miss some aspect and thus do not protect us enough.

Additionally, just by writing it this way in the TOS does not mean we do it as written without considering dmca. So no, we are not throwing away safe harbor.

What you (especially gideongallery) don't seem to understand is that DMCA and safe harbor is about infringements and liability thereof only. That and the procedures don't affect other laws and defense (that is also pointed out in DMCA), nor does it prevent you from enforcing other terms. You can run a service with both safe harbor and other rules that is not about infringements. In fact, DMCA permits you to remove content if you have good reasons to believe so, even without a copyright notice.

Why even discuss safe harbor? Do you qualify for it?

so your arguement is never right because it based on non existant situation

if we lived in a world where no constitution existed no TOS would be unconstitutional,
if we lived in a world where there were no anti-discrimination laws no TOS would be discrimintory.

Problem is that world doesn't exist

laws exist, the constitution does not exist, your trying to argue that even though the laws DOES exist, it should not apply. There is a huge difference and priority or "weight" clearly count in the real world case


there is always a law against it, becaue your TOS is defined by contract law, the principle of law that allow you to sue for disputes in contracts. and those laws are bound by the constitution, which defines what type of laws congress can make.

again your not argueing the existance of a law, your argueing weather a law that exist APPLIES

but your using the impossible condition that the law does not exist at all as a justification for your bogus arguement.

Yes you would be right if we lived in a world where no constitution existed, no laws exist, but if that were the case copyright laws would exist anyway and nat could do whatever the fuck he wants.

Given the fact that copyright act does exist, two laws always exist against TOS (fair use under the copyright act, and free speech part of the constitution that defends free speech).

while you might be able to argue those laws do not apply to your TOS, you would still have to spend the money to make that arguement and that is a liablity.



what the fuck are you talking about have you every disputed a wrongfully banned account

every single video that is removed has a reason beside it

to successfully get the account back you have to prove every single one of those reasons is wrong, or that they allowed something equally (in which case the reason is discrimintory)

having to have a legitimate reason doesn't create a situation where you can't stop porn from being posted on youtube, porn is a valid reason for stopping content as long as you apply that rule to every every single time . Allow one guy to post porn, and your going to get your ass sued for discriminiation when you remove someone elses porn.

IT not discrimination if you universally apply the rules.

That being said, just because you don't want to universally apply the rule doesn't make it wrong. Any tube site could restrict itself to only showing 2 minute clips, and use "bigger than 2 minutes = gone"



your trying to make if A >B then A must be < B arguement.

but that is totally wrong.

look in every case you choose to remove the content for a non take down case you lose the safe harbor provision, in fact the act defines the safe harbor as a protection granted if you follow certain rules.

In your kiddie porn case you don't care about giving up that protection, because the actual criminal law gives you the cover instead. Your basically trading one form of cover for another.

When you take down non takedown (false takedown request happen all the time so you can use the word infringing) just for TOS violation, you lose the safe harbor and don't replace it with anything. Ergo you create a potential liablity for yourself.

Even no porn, nothing over 2 minutes any restriction creates a potential liablity, the biggest one being discrimination that one is avoided by always treating everyone exactly the same way (which is why i can say 1 example of letting a video up by youtube proves it is there policy not to remove all the videos of an account, if they did do it sometimes only their ass would lose a discrimination case the second they choose to remove the content of a visible minority).

Discrimination laws is nasty, you don't have to prove that reason they treated you differently was because you were a hahahahahaha if you did no one would get convicted of the crime since a bigot could simply lie and make up a "i don't like you reason" for discrimination and get away scott free.

Under anti discrimination law all i have to do is prove that i am a visible minority, and you treated me different than a non minority and you lose.

That why eharmony lost their 2 million dollar case, even though they had a really good, non discrimintory reason for the different treatment (we can't make money given the population size) they were forced to create a money losing dating site, just to comply with the law.

doesn't PREVENT is not nor will it ever be the same as PERMITS.

A >B does not mean A < B.

The DMCA give you immunity for a very specific process if you follow that process you have an immunity for the potential infringement, if you don't you don't period

whenever you doe something outside that process you accept the liablity for that action.

In the case of certain situations you basically trade the protection of DMCA for the protection of another law (kiddie porn)

but you never keep the safe harbor provision of the DMCA if you don't follow the process exactly, that the very way the law is defined.

factoring privacy laws, free speech laws, anti dscrimination laws, as well as the international treaties, and the respective difference between countries regarding those laws. try 26 paragraphs.

a blanket we can do anything, while only doing what is minimum required by law, is the best cover.

Existence of laws in general is not the same as existence of a specific law. It can't be illegal if there are no law against it. Don't you understand that?

Again, there are no law "against" a contract. There are only laws that tell what you can't write and how you can/can't create a contract.


With that argument, I could sue pornhub for discrimination, if they block or remove a porn movie I uploaded to their server? You better ask Nathan about that.

Infringements and other TOS violations are two different things covered by different laws. Learn it!

That is the most stupid thing I ever read. In other words, you are saying that Youtube will lose it's safe harbor if they "wrongfully" remove child pornography that is "copyrighted"???

existance is a binomial condition something exist or it doesn't exist. what you are taking about is weather it apply or not.

something could exist but not apply, which is the condition your trying to misrepresent as "existance of a specific law"

that called a bound contraint, go beyond that bound contraint and you most certainly are doing something that is "against" the law.

exactly what i am saying the safe harbor granted against COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT does not apply to other laws like DISCRIMINATION.

if they allowed a video when a white boy uploaded it but blocked the same video/similar video when i did it, hell yes i could sue for discrimination. And it would be up to them to prove that they didn't do it because i was a hahahahahaha.

If they failed or their reason was legally justified (ala eharmony case i previously referenced) they would lose.


the safe harbor provision is an immunity for PUBLISHING CONTENT not takeing it down

the takedown notice shift the liablity for a wrongful COPYRIGHT TAKEDOWN to the copyright holder making the takedown request but again only for COPYRIGHT TAKEDOWN

you can't make a DMCA takedown request for kiddie porn, you make a complaint about kiddie porn under kiddie porn laws.


That has nothing to do/does not exist for any OTHER type of take down.


what however they gain by the kiddie porn laws is protection from being sued for discrimination for removing the content, because discrimination laws do not give you the right to force someone to do something illegal, which publishing kiddie porn would be.

your still trying to argue that because the law doesn't prevent something it ALLOWS something.

that is A>B therefore A must be < B (that not true in math, it not true in logic, and it most certainly not true in the law).

exactly and the safe harbor immunity only applys to the transactions covered by the DMCA period.

Any other (TOS violations) has no such immunity.

That the point, use the TOS to take content down, and you are liable for any of the consequences of that takedown

unless another law grants you immunity you have no immunity for your action

That the point i have always been making

Yes we qualify for safe harbor and we make sure we keep doing so.

And your other remarks are simply not true. The point of DMCA is to protect services that do not interfere with user content because it would break the logic of the site. It is not to protect a site which takes user content and then picks the pieces of it that it likes! Claiming otherwise just means you are understanding dmca differently than major copyright lawfirms in the US. If you think you are right and they are wrong, so be it.

Install Ffvb plug-in and you'll never have to see his posts again. I had to put him on ignore today and it removed EVERY post he has ever made here. Added a whole bunch of clowns.

It's like cleaning off shit on the bottom of your shoes.