When YouTube Sues YOU - YouTube Fights Copyright Troll?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Is UA-cam finally standing up for creators?
Don’t fight copyright claims alone: copyrightcourse.com Learn all of my tips and tricks to fight demonetization and bogus copyright claims.
UA-cam has filed suit against a UA-camr named Christopher Brady for allegedly filing false DMCA takedown notices against three other UA-camrs. UA-cam asserts that he attempted to extort those UA-camrs using fake accounts and threatened to delete their channels. Worse, the complaint alleges that Brady “Swatted” one of the UA-camrs i.e. he called the police under false pretenses to the UA-camr’s home.
The Congress passed the DMCA in 1998 to deal with copyright-infringing material online. It’s one of two laws that gives websites a safe harbor - the other being Communications Decency Act, section 230, which is something I will cover in the future. The bottom line is that a website isn’t liable for copyright infringement so long as they take down the offending material when they receive a notice. This is called a DMCA Takedown Notice. 17 USC 512
UA-cam asserts that one Christopher Brady issued false DMCA takedown notices to extort certain youtubers - people that made Minecraft videos. Basically, he claimed he owned the copyright to Minecraft and therefore demanded that the youtubers pay him money or he would issue another DMCA takedown.
UA-cam has a system where if you receive 3 DMCA takedown notices, your channel is deleted.
When a DMCA takedown notice is levied against your channel, UA-cam gives you a strike. Three strikes and your out.
Allegedly, Brady would issue two dmca takedown notices and then try to extort hundreds of dollars from the creators by threatening a third takedown notice.
(Thanks to ME for sponsoring this video. I built copyrightcourse.com to help even the smallest creator fight back against even the biggest corporation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
If you're a creator and you're looking for help with bogus claims, check out copyrightcourse.com
you should contact joe Rogan and do a podcast with him he keeps saying if he just shows a still picture or just one note of a song he will get a notice and get shutdown so he might like the help and maybe it could be an interesting episode
Can you do a video on Reddit youtubers? It doesn't seem like it should be legal for them to monetize stories read word-for-word off of Reddit. Doesn't Reddit own all that content?
@@nicotti I don't think that Reddit can own someone else's post. Therefore if creators of such videos here, on UA-cam, get permission from the original creators of the sourse material, they should be ok. Even if they don't do that, I think no one on Reddit would be willing to go through the process of claiming such videos.
I feel like this proves that copyright trolls can eventually get smacked down . . . if they engage in other illegal acts so heinous that the underlying copyright-related offense can come along for the ride. (C.f., e.g., Prenda.)
I am quite interested in this online course of yours. I checked out the site I applied to the wait list, but I'm curious how much will the final price be, I see no mention of that on the site. Have you not decided on the final price as of yet?
False DMCAing a lawyer sounds like the legal equivalent of punching a professional boxer
I think it was It’s Always Sunny... that tried to strike him. He responded, won, then re-uploaded the video as his own personal FU.
Hahahah accurate
I've done that when I was learning to box... It didn't end well.
Beat me to the punch
@@dr.floridamanphd . . . puttin' the "FU" back into "Fair Use."
Anyone who falsely takes down a Copyright Lawyer's video is literally asking for it.
I can't think of anything more stupid.
At least not anything that isn't liable to get one killed or maimed
@@An_Ian Starting a land war in Asia? But yeah, it's in the top 5.
@@paladin677 going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line?
@@bentoth9555 INCONCEIVABLE
I know, right? That's exactly what I said.
Update - as of 14 October 2019, the case has settled. Brady admitted fault and signed a statement confirming the fact.
The case was settled for $25,000 and UA-cam is donating the money from the settlement to a non-profit in support of creators.
punishment is too light for that trash tbh
To be clear, he didn't admit to SWATing that last guy and UA-cam conceded that they didn't have much evidence for that incident.
What was his sentence
@@mrreasable2015 it was a settlement. just a fine.
@@mrreasable2015 This was a civil trial, so there is no "sentence" (that's for criminal only). There are damages and the original poster stated those damages pretty clearly. But full disclosure requires that I state clearly that IANAL.
Troll: falsely copyright strikes a lawyers channel
Troll: "why do I hear boss music?"
@Turbo Charged urr thats a little to much
Turbo Charged found a scammer
@Turbo Charged you wouldn't have to look far since every time you see a mirror you could say that
Get naed naed
r/murderedbywords
Going after a Lawyer with a false DMCA claim? You're gonna have a bad time...
It's like "Do you have the faintest idea what you're doing here? They have that reputation for a reason!" Good to hear UA-cam is pursuing this course, hopefully it will scare other individuals with more greed then common sense.
OBJECTION: Not only a lawyer, but a COPYRIGHT lawyer.
marsdriver I was thinking the same thing.
That's a paddlin.
Such a bad time, dude makes an entire business out of whipping your ass and telling everyone else how to do it.
Who on earth is stupid enough to try a dmca takedown on a legal channel?
A crook, a scammer, a loser
Automated / mindless processes
You'd be surprised...
People get DMCA takedowns on shit that's quite obviously "fair use" all the time. Think about all the times he's covered movies. Half the time, the owner of the copyright doesn't even check with a lawyer... Or watch the video... They just know their copyrighted material was used and immediately asks UA-cam for the monetization or issue a takedown.
There are people that believe the Earth is flat, how is this worse?
Some dude: *files a false DMCA against a licensed lawyer*
Devin: So you have chosen death.
I would like this 100 times if I could.
Who would be unintelligent enough to file a false DMCA claim against a lawyer who has passed the bar in MULTIPLE states and is not just a lawyer but a lawyer in copyright law.... were they dropped on their head?
Probably was born facing the wrong way... wakes up on the wrong side of the bed just about every morning... and puts so much in their coffee that there isn’t even any coffee left and they’re basically a zombie the entire day, every day.
Or possibly so bored, that hey just do not care they are doing something so stupid to pass the time...not realizing it is stupid in the first place.
@@thunderspark1633 or maybe they were making a point. That it could happen to anybody, regardless of who they are. Still funny to watch the copyrighter get pwned though.
@@quack3891 ..That could also be true. But at the same time that person would be freaking mad and maybe so much fustrated and angry at the world (I can relate in that somewhat) that the consequences for that person (the punishment) did not matter to them, a sort of self sacrifice..scary thought.
I don't think he was dropped... He was thrown!
Tries to extort (allegedly) hundreds of dollars, get sued at the speed of 1000 $/h.
That is most certainly what we call, "a big oof".
In legal parlance, this is also known as "making a real big whoopsie".
@@DoubleADwarf oopsie? *pewnews intro begins*
It’s what we call a “pro gamer move”
Like paying 10cents to counterfeit photocopied pennies.
If you french fry when you're supposed to pizza you will have a bad day.
Swatting needs to be moved up to "attempted murder by proxy"
Maybe SWAT shouldn't commit so many murders
@@comradesky5931 🤦♂️
@@DjKagamine Are you meaning to imply that the excess violence of the police is acceptable? There are clearly two problems at play here: excess police violence and sending swat teams after people.
@@comradesky5931 are you even aware of what swat teams are for?
@@someone_u_may_know8652 Yes
"I will see you in court" Hopefully not, that would be incredibly scary.
unless we, for some unreasonable reason, are observing, THEN it'd be incredible interesting
This. I'd probably lose it with anxiety and panic attacks regardless of what the case is about.
I mean, I'd love to see him on MY side. Probably could never afford him representing me though.
Even if he were sitting at your table?
@@thatoneVoidDemon I laugh at random stuff as it is, I'd be terrible to have there even just to observe
I'm gonna copyright troll a lawyer: said no one thinking clearly ever
Said no one thinking ever
@@supercomputer0448 *Said no one with a brain ever
@@richardmillhousenixon said the single celled bacterium.
@@supercomputer0448 That's more of an insult to the bacteria really.
@@richardmillhousenixon I was setting that up for you but was worried you wouldn't take the oppertunity. You have done it.
DMCA’ing a lawyer is like walking into the well in court. You’re going to get tackled.
J.C. Gleason It’s a combination of cringe and hilarity. Cringe for the idiot who thought this was a good idea. Hilarity for the whole thing blowing up in their faces.
"Why? Because is a big F@$&ing deal" best quote of the video.
i know right? i was dead laughing at that part for awhile.
“Why is that? Because it’s a BIG FVCKING DEAL‼️”
Lmfao I like this guy
This was the first time "I will see you in court" was actually literal lol.
Targeting an actual copyright lawyer with false copyright claims is the dumbest move these trolls have ever made.
You have to be pretty damn stupid to go after a channel owned by a lawyer. XD
False Copyright Claimer: *Lvl.* *5* *Troll*
Devin Stone: *Lvl.* *75* *Indochino* *Tailored* *Suit* *Connoisseur*
@@JediMasterBaiter *Zoot Suit
@Death Omen well its both intelligence AND wisdom... also holy crap that D&D refferance was well timed XD
Which channel was that? I missed it.
Edit: Nevermind I found it.
@@ocernia1895 (spoiler alert: it was this one)
Thank you for making Copyright Course. You are the hero UA-cam creators needs
But not the one we deserve.
It’s like he’s carrying on the work of Total Biscuit- he was a gaming UA-camr, who was also a copyright lawyer. So he’d help other content creators with their copyright issues all the time until he passed away.
This course is a great idea, cover all the basics so it’s there without needing to run people through it all individually, and then if anyone needs help above that, they could always contact him.
Hero, maybe not... But "doing well by doing good" is perfectly ok in my book ;)
Not all heroes wear capes, but they do wear custom indochino suits
@@SamVillano Exactly
Somebody tries to strike LE’s videos
Legal Eagle: **O B J E C T I O N**
RubiksFaQ this is a very underrated comment😂😂
Legal Eagle: wait...that's illegal.
Pursuit~Cornered begins to play
As a person named Brady, I wish this Brady guy wasn't dragging our shared name through the mud.
Can I sue for defamation of character? Haha
My husband is named Brady as well. We'll join you in on this lawsuit
The case of Christopher Brady vs. The Brady Bunch class action suit.
@@bradypostma5167 this is such an underrated comment
Brady Postma well done 👍
Imagine this guys legal fees if this were possible. XD
Would "troll" be the appropriate term here? Wouldn't "criminal" be more fitting, especially in this one particular case?
Troll is the appropriate term until the court date. Then, and only then, may you or anyone else (looking at you, CNN/FOX/whoever else) call this man a criminal.
In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. So while he may very well be a criminal the technical term for what he is doing is patent trolling, ergo hes a patent troll.
John the Bastard
“Troll” has various definitions. In the sense most commonly used online, it’s derived from the fishing term “trolling,” a method of fishing where you drag the bait through the water.
“Patent troll” is derived from the mythological creature.
@@tonyhakston536 I never knew that. That makes a lot more sense for the context in which it's used. Fun-fact of the day!
Copyright, patent and trademark trolling are real terms that have been used for years. I remember way back, seeing a p7nny st7ck who's parent company's business model was purely to patent troll Apple, Lenovo, etc., solely because they're too big and don't have time to deal with petty cases, meaning the smaller company winds up winning.
Not at all the same as someone sh7t-posting online.
Issuing a false take down against a copyright lawyer is like trying to mug a marine...
or trying to punch a bear and getting away unscathed...
Or bringing a fork to a gun fight.
That happened recently with Nick Irving, a special operations sniper who holds a record for the most amount of kills during a single deployment, and yet someone thought they would try to mug him.
I'm surprised you aren't a bigger figure on UA-cam. You are a lawyer AND a UA-camr. You're the hero we need AND deserve.
I sincerely hope this is a sign that UA-cam is beginning to realize that independent content creators are what keeps their site going, and that it is in their best interest to defend them.
Seconded.
I am happy not only that UA-cam is fighting back in response to all the years of false copyright claims, but I also am honored that you and LegalEagle are supporting others help them with understanding copyright laws. I know it can be a pain, but your series on the copyright system shows how truly professional you guys understand how the rules actually work. Stay awesome, and I will try to take the copyright course for myself to improve my knowledge.
3:43 When D. James motherloving Stone drops an F bomb, you sit up and pay attention!
7:08 SWAT teams ALWAYS enter with guns drawn, and aimed at you, sometimes even when they know you are not a target for them.
It happened to me: first cop comes to the door, meets with me, says thanks and leaves, just so SWAT can hit my door 20 seconds later to basically do some live practice on me inside.
.
I had just been out front in gym shorts, 50 feet from their van, with the cop, but they apparently didn't want to leave without a good raid inside the house.
I really feel like SWAT are overused and have become abusive and actually a bit of a public danger. That ordeal was just insane.
Police doctrine in general is pretty rancid across the country. Too many departments that seem to develop the rules and procedures based on hollywood action movies than on sane ideas.
On top of the other comments, to keep the military gear and get new gear the police must show that they are using it and need it. So SWAT gets used more for less so that they can say they need more military equipment
Just get a door that can't be kicked in
On average, gun owners murder one cop EVERY WEEK for the past 6 years. That's not counting the many who suffer severe and possibly life-changing injuries, that's only fatalities. What do you mean overused and not necessary?
I can also tell you why. If they strike outside, your arrest delays them while a possible second suspect can barricade the house, arm up and destroy evidence. That's why you probably want all potential suspects and all evidence to be in the same area.
Plus, you were clearly guilty of crimes against good taste with those gym shorts. Sounds proportional. ;-p
@ Cops murder an average of 3 citizens per DAY. That is just the deaths. It doesn't count the number of injuries, both mental and physical, the human rights violations, civil rights violations and constitutional violations that happen every minute of every day. The whole premise of a "no-knock" raid which is the lifeblood of "swatters" is a constitutional violation in and of itself.
You're narrative of "cops live in fear so they can do what they want" fails and has been played out for years. If they're that afraid then they shouldn't be cops. Period.
Copyright Troll: Hmmm, who to hit next? Well this channel called "LegalEagle" seems to be trending today, so lets go with them.
LegalEagle: So you have chosen death.
Agreed
I object to the lack of an Indochino ad.
🍃...Indochino...🍃
I object to your lack of a brain.
@@protestssopeacefulweneedad2017 Overruled, Ms. Marchand cannot control her lack of a brain, and we do not have a substitute brain to provide her with at this time.
@@austinluther5825 _Use that Promo Code LegalEagle!_
*_Indochino_*
"All of the facts are coming from UA-cam, so take it with a grain of salt..."
Already love this guy!
I feel like the fact that SWAT teams often just run in with a "shoot first ask questions later" attitude is a big part of the United States' police problems.
Security forces anywhere. Guard, police, junta, doesn't matter. One-sided power brings one-sided actions
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 Not true. Training and culture is a big part. Accountability and consequence for breaking protocol. If both sides had equal power than law enforcement would not exist. It would be lawless. Just two opposing groups fighting for their own ends.
@@aoikemono6414 when america was first formed that was exactly what happened, so they changed it. Not that swat teams existed back then but there was still resistance
Not to mention swat teams are basically one step below military action in a sense they deal with alot more stressful situations. So do police but no where near as high caliber the swat teams deal with so i would give swat teams alot of slack
There was one call where the police officer shot when the guy opened the door
Can you continue to give updates on this case as it goes on?
That would be nice.
He paid 25grand to youtube as penalty
When you try to copyright strike a lawyer youtuber
3:11 That's a joke right? UMG has been strongarming UA-cam to ignore literally every counter-claim by having UA-cam delibrately break the Counter-Claim pages on videos with a UMG copyright strike and rejecting freeform counter-claims via email, they're skirting around the ruling of Lenz v Universal (which was another case of UMG not taking the DMCA seriously), *the counter-claim never reaches them thus they don't need to consider fair use,* which I'm _fairly_ certain is a safe harbor violation, it's an issue that the EFF has been aware of for a long time now but still for some reason has yet to do anything about...
"I get a lot of claims on my video and spoiler alert I'm an actual copyright lawyer" hahahah OOP!
trying to falsely claim a LAWYER'S video seems like a very stupid idea to me
What is your profile picture i recognize it but i cant remember
@@officialeggland7477 knowyourmeme.com/memes/winged-doom-welcome-to-omsk also known as the Omsk bird (provided it was the same profile pic 2 weeks ago)
hahahaha
Prediction: Leagle Eagle will be a key figure in the impending case to determine where the line of fair use actually belongs
I'm here for it. ^-^v
Whenever I see UA-cam creators having copyright issues, I always send them your way! Keep up the great work!
3:01
lol what
false dmca'ing a LAWYER? lol thats hilarious
CopyrightCourse seems like a great idea! Maybe if more people fight these false claims the trolls will start being more careful about what they do.
That is a fantastic website! I’m so excited for UA-camrs to educate themselves and protect their content
I second!
Get the word out, friend! Tell as many people as you can, share the video even!
That, but I'm also excited for them to understand what *doesn't* fall under fair use. I'm getting pretty tired of youtubers complaining when they're clearly abusing the system. It's possible to pay royalties for what isn't covered by fair use, lots of youtubers do it.
@@badaboum2 You mean 3s from a trailer getting their video claimed? Most complaints against youtube's system and copyright trolls are fully legitimate.
@@00wolfer00 No I mean using copyrighted background music completely unrelated to anything in the video's subject matter for several minutes. Or using copyrighted music as an opening. Some complaints are founded and some youtubers are very well informed (better than me), but some are either just dumb or more nefariously pretending to be dumb.
"I will see you in court"
wait what
hold on
what
More people need to see this. Google has gotten a lot of crap for their take down system but we never understood why it works as it does. And the help you provide as for legally handling the situation can't be underestimated.
Objection! You failed to provide a score for legal realism! This case feels surreal!
Overruled: the defendant did not make any statements at the beginning of this video to score the legal realism of the situation.
(Really though, despite the fact that it's actually a 10/10, I still find this hard to wrap my head around)
Overruled: He says at the beginning at the video that it was UA-cam's side of the case itself, barring any reason for "legal realism".
Legal eagle is now the marvel avengers lawyer equivalent of the youtube extended universe
Sure hope Sony doesn’t buy him
Jennifer Walters and Matt Murdock not included..
"I will see you in court" I sure hope you're on my side dude...
Best advertisement I've seen in one of your videos, I absolutely love that you're doing that.
WOW..... I can't believe YT/Google is the "good guy" in this..... or any other situation for that matter.
Oh they are doing a good thing here but that doesn't make Alphabet/Google/UA-cam the good guys.
@@polocatfan
exactly which part of "the law" was hard to understand? google does not have discretion when handling dmca cases, only with their content id stuff.
UA-cam would win it and it would be a HUGE deterent for false claimers. UA-cam is not perfect (it could do more to prevent bogus copyright claims), but I would see this happen.
What would you suggest they do, to do more?
@@williameldridge9382 At least, somewhat working appeal procedure. AFAIK, it's almost impossible for creator to defend yourself in that case. This, with the "3 strikes rule" makes it possible to extort money in the first place.
Man, this guy restores my faith in lawyers. Good on you! I've seen most of your videos... about time I subscribe!
That was a really smart idea to create a site & course that teaches people proper laws regarding that situation.
More people need to do such things when it comes to our laws & Rights.
You are awesome, my man
Soooooo.... When is there going to be a LE /PhillyD interview? You're both doing solid interview shows, this would be a fascinating treat for those of us who watch both of you.
Also I visited my sister recently, who is a contract attorney. I got to sound upper level layperson smart, and gave LE and Lehto's Law the credit for that! Thanks man!
Is he from an alternate time line that Ryan Reynold became a lawyer instead of an actor
You mean like in "woman in gold"?
Thank you@@Plelement94, for mentioning that movie, saw the trailer looks like a good beer and wine movie night.
It's seriously an amazing film. Could be one for Legal Eagle to examine
Lmao
The effort you put into educating people on something that's so important but also so poorly understood by many is a beautiful thing
This is honestly becoming one of my favorite channels.
Just want to say I've been watching your stuff for a while, and while legal talk usually flies over my head, you explain it in a way that's easy to understand. You rock!
Also, I think it would be cool to see you do a video on The Devil and Daniel Webster. Halloween is right around the bend.
@LegalEagle:
*_Objection, your Honour!!!_*
The Plaintiff still had an obligation to both the Court, and to the Law; why didn't they alert the U.S. Attorney's Office, nor the FBI that the Defendant made Death Threats over an Interstate Carrier?
*Motion in Liminae for additional charges of Obstruction, and Negligence!*
It's still really weird to me that you can get arrested for murder when your murder weapon is the police yet those cops still don't face disciplinary action.
@@o76923 :
What's wierd about it? Cops protect Cops.
We're considered the enemy!
@@o76923 Eh, yeah. That's similar to how a criminal can get arrested for hiring a murderer to kill someone he doesn't like. Similar crimes get similar punishment.
@@o76923 :
Addendum: just watch the movie: *Serpico* ,and you'll gain a better understanding.
Copyright law was one course I fervently avoided in law school lol but your course sounds fabulous! Can't wait to get started!
I wish there was a channel like this for every single profession
When UA-cam sues you... Call Legal Eagle!
Legal Eagle: "Well... glhf."
I thought you're supposed to call Saul?
@@guyclykos wait... isnt that kinda bad tho? i mean, hes a youtuber, they can easily just throw him out if he does that...
This is what UA-camrs needs Legal warriors ready to defend his community.
Not every youtuber has money to do that though
"Trolls" are different from "con artists."
If they gain anything other than sadistic glee, it's not trolling.
Great point.
Patent trolls are a specific "thing" unrelated to the common internet troll.
A patent troll legimately acquires various patents, often from bankruptcy liquidations, then proceeds to make demands on everyone he can think of who might conceivably be using the subject technology, without even doing cursory due diligence to determine whether or not any infringement is actually taking place.
If the amount demanded is relatively low, many companies will pay it as shut-up-and-go-away money.
@@Zomby_Woof
Then it ain't a troll, or do you not understand the meaning of troll?
@@richardgates7479 The point is that terms used in a specific industry might have a technical meaning that they don't have when used in common parlance. This is true in pretty much every industry and hobby in existence, its just a normal universal feature of human language.
@@jaygreen7494
Nonsense, it's not a technical term.
It's more like the misuse of the acronym HD. It's a popular term that's easy to remember.
You see, people of low intelligence (or lazy) will reuse words because of their limited vocabulary. A word ends up having multiple meanings until nobody actually knows what the word means. The language devolves because nobody gives a shit enough to complain about it. And so idiots claim the language is evolving. The world will be run by those of low intelligence when the intelligent become meek, as they well outnumber them.
The actual point of the discussion is that it's not trolling. Why do you suddenly get to change the point?
"When UA-cam Sues YOU"
Is that a "in mother Russia" joke? :)
Objection!
Isn’t suggesting UA-cam are doing their best to defeat false DMCAs being a case in which somebody’s life was actually put in danger setting the bar incredibly low?
Personally, I’d like to see justice take hold before someone has the opportunity to cause the loss of my life or limb.
Not sure I’m going to praise UA-cam for this one action, given the fact that the only reason this came about was due to their ineptitude or negligence.
Im sure the person who swat was called on could sue chris.
i'd give them a "good start" badge
I don't mind praising them on this, but I'm only praising them for this particular instance. They don't deserve praise beyond that.
@@polocatfan I don't see what the issue is with giving credit where it's due. Sure, you shouldn't have run the guy over, and I may have some strong words to say about it later, but at least you didn't just leave him there. A lot of people (and companies) would.
He spends a fair part of the video explaining specifically that they're obligated by federal law to act swiftly on these claims and that they receive an overwhelming volume of them, such that investigating them all thoroughly would be impractical and assuming bad faith would be legally foolish. Unfortunately, at this scale, this is the sort of thing that needs to happen to stand out enough that UA-cam can realistically take individual directed action against this individual.
Furthermore, a large percent of false DMCA flags are likely made by people who are effectively unable to provide a recovery remotely commensurate to the expenses incurred to pursue a lawsuit, meaning attempting to pursue every identified copyright troll would be a massive money sink for UA-cam, which is still a for profit business. It's not a *good* thing, and I'd love to see the process revised to protect fair use more effectively, but at the same time, that's something that would require revision of the law itself, which is well and truly out of UA-cam's hands (and should be, because corporations should not play a role in writing federal law.)
You'd have to have a pretty dope sound system to fool trained SWAT into thinking that your video games are real gunfire through walls/doors...
But seriously, copyrightcourse is a great idea man, thanks for putting that together!
True, but imagine they hear the racking sound of a weapon being loaded and a dude yelling “I’m going get you #!?!+hole!”
Imagine your on a call where your told that there is a chance for a firearm (lets assume this is the case if SWAT show up), and when you approach you hear someone screaming inside. Would that not be enough for you to draw your firearm and atleast be ready when you enter?
@@ssu7653 Are they not trained in identifying the difference? Lots of people play video games. I can tell the difference between SFX and real conversation/yelling through a wall. I would assume tactically trained specialists would have at least my skill level.
The whole concept of "SWATing" is just asking for accidents to happen. Poor unlucky bastard that happen to be at the part in his game where the person screams, while having it up *so loud* that SWAT *outside* think it's real and, well as you put it, draw their firearm and at least be ready when they entered. Keep giving accidents chances, eventually they happen.
All I'm saying is, you have to have pretty dope stereo equipment to fool people through a door, or a wall. Especially people trained in high-tension situations.
@@thirstfast1025 There are not only many cases of swat officers shooting unarmed victims due to ambient noise, but even several where they entered the wrong house because they never bothered to check if they had the right address. US police officers don't have major training requirements and outside of having to go through a safety training and hitting the gun range annually have little to no follow up training. Excluding cities like New York and Los Angeles that can afford a quality SWAT team, most places don't have true "elite" officers specifically trained for raids in the first place and use regular narcotics division officers to fill in the team.
@@akatoshslayer7599 Glad I don't live in America, and I can just make blase statements about dope sound systems, and not worry about untrained armed idiots showing up at my house, even though it was my neighbour who got SWATed. I think I'll have another beer and relax for the night!
Thanks man!
3:44 I legitimately had to pause the video and take a short walk up and down my room a couple times there.
Like, I only found your channel yesterday, but hearing you swear (or bleep out a swear) is something else.
Is teaching fair use? Thanks.
"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." - 17 U.S.C. § 107
There's not going to be a simple answer to that.
@@qwertyTRiG gave up on YT, have been uploading non-PD-sheetmusic tutorials to vimeo
But to be clear, teaching does not give you free reign to copy. Fair use is more about how much and for what purpose than it is about why you copy. Teaching does not provide protection against copyright as a whole. But, if you copy something for educational purposes and use only what is necessary to make your point, you are usually fine. The rule of thumb at the University level is less than 10% of the whole product (so 6 pages from a 60 page book, for example).
@@austinshoupe3003 in my case, I teach a piece along with the sheet music, because the main purpose is for the reader to be able to check notes. It increase popular sheet music sales, publishers should be grateful instead.
when you try to falsely claim a copyright lawyer's video
"yeah, this is big brain time"
The dislikes are from copyright trolls
I love how genuine you two are.
I've been waiting for you to cover copyright related stuff. You did not disappoint!
UA-cam actually protecting its people? That's a shock
No, no, no. They're coming under fire for systematically demonetizing LGBTQIA+ videos. A lawsuit has been filed. They aren't really protecting people. I know this video focuses on the makeup community, but this is something happening across UA-cam: ua-cam.com/video/8dPvJHxINfI/v-deo.html
They're also demonetizing videos that deal with rape (even videos meant to help survivors), suicide prevention, etc., and even saying those words can get a creator in trouble.
@@authoralysmarchand4737 I was talking about this lawsuit. The "that's a shock" part of the comment was because of their subjuctive demonetization policies. The right often complains about it and that LBGT thing you mentioned. It was a shock that they are backing up the creators because they often are subjective with demonetization and copyright.
@@HistoryNerd808 Call me cynical, but I don't trust UA-cam to be doing this for the creators. I suspect there's something UA-cam's getting out of this particular case. False copyright complaints as revenge or to knock out competition aren't uncommon thing. They've been going on for years. Why give a damn now?
@@authoralysmarchand4737 Whether their motive, it's good for their creators
Author Alys Marchand you know that youtube gets a portion of the ads on creators videos.
Please do a collab with Leonard French, he's everyone's favorite copyright attorney!
Fancy Suit Lawyer meets Silly Hat Lawyer!
@@Clay3613 It might be a struggle to leave room for dog videos with both lawyers on one screen.
I appretiate UA-cam for taking a stand on this. They could've just play deaf and keep going like nothing is happening. This could really impact further trolls in the future.
UA-cam standing up for it's users? Am I dreaming?
How about content id system? I argue that actually do more harm to fellow UA-camrs.
In addition to the victim of a SWATting being shot by police, police performing a no-knock entry can cause residents of the building to *legally* respond with deadly force to a perceived threat.
I think that is sufficient to make the act of SWATting possibly 'attempted murder of a police officer', and at the very least it's a reasonable charge to throw at someone even if it doesn't stick.
Intentionally filing a false claim is suicide in court. Any claim has to be given time and effort by the court to address the charges, and no judge is going to take your side when he has to spend five minutes hearing you fail to justify a charge you know won't stick.
Attempted murder of a police officer would imply the accuser can prove the accused had a plan that led to the death of the officer, and the intent to complete that plan with the officer's death as a goal. The accuser would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the swatter knew a judge would provide a no-knock warrant for the SWAT team.
And when a judge spends five minutes asking you for these proofs and you come up empty handed, you look incompetent and disrespectful. The judge and jury are tainted and, worst case scenario, the case can be dismissed. The perpetrator of the SWATting will go free and your client will have to pay for his legal fees too.
Your basically calling up a hitman.
@@Metrion77 You can't bring criminal charges in civil court anyway.
18 USC 1111: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. ... any murder "perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed" is first degree murder; if the target of a SWATting does legally defend themself and the result is a dead police officer, the person who thought they were 'just' making a false police report has become guilty of a capital crime.
That that it matters, because federal law doesn't give special protection to state LEOs who aren't participating in a federal investigation; but state law in the jurisdictions where the offense took place might make it an aggravating factor.
Your fight against copyright abuse was long needed. Thanks!!!
Definitely sharing this everywhere! Thank you for all of the amazing information!
"let's pick a fight with a trail lawyer. that'll end well" - SMRT Copyright Troll, ca 2019, colorized
This was great! Your awesome dude! Awesome that you watch the PDS!
P.S. My wife loves watching your videos with me...for...some...reason.
So good to see someone standing up against this trolls!
You should cover swatting if you haven't already I do believe is a quite delicate thematic lately.
I'm shocked and chagrined!!! I wish I found your videos when I was going through my law class. Great stuff.
Man, I just love LegalEagle! In a sea of deplorable patent trolls and shady lawyers, it's good to know there are good guys like LegalEagle who have scruples.
part of me was "wow, a lawyer giving away free legal advice?" then the half price part came up :P
still a realistic , thorough explanation of copyright laws and procedures is worth paying for , so i'm just messing with you .
As long as the price is reasonable he deserves payment for his services!
He does give free advice through his UA-cam channel. Premium content for those who wish to go more in depth and support!
@@zyrohnmng #notlegaladvice
I don’t create content but I freaking love this guy for doing something to protect his fellow content creators. I love it.
10:39 Best part of the video! 😂
I also took a look through your Copyright Course...thank you for that!
As Stephen Colbert would say
"Allegedly"
I love how he laughs when he says "let this legal process play out" 8:36
You are fantastic! You do such an important thing here. Thanks to you I can actually follow along on important matters (such as the Mueller testimony)
It is so important for us, the common people, to understand all these goings-on. It's not just their world that it affects, it's all of us, and being able to translate what they say is important.
Its like watching Ryan Reynolds do a legal briefing. Good stuff. Subbed
Speaking of Sues can you try the plankton slipping court case?
YES
I think this would be fun!
YES! Real Law Review for this pls!
What the heck is that?
@@KnakuanaRka in an episode of Spongebob while trying to steal the Krabby Patty Secret Formula, plankton slips on an unmarked wet floor and feigned an injury in order to sue Mr. Krabs.
nice video
THE TROLL SHOULD SUFFER IN JAIL!
*provided the allegations have merit
@@astramancer we've seen this behavior be replicated by many people and companies before. Why would youtube try and make a case up with so many real cases they could put through?
It's more greifing.
The troll needs to have a traincar full of shrapnel fall on him
I love your channel! I cant help but feel like your ending statement is a threat though and it makes me laugh every time.
I’m not even doing anything with law, I’m a graphic designer but I absolutely enjoy learning legal stuff from you!
Really happy to see UA-cam join the fight against false DMCA takedowns.
Now if only UA-cam could do something about comment trolls
apparently their solution is auto disabling comments.
cool huh?
YES PLS OMG THAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING EVER!
Lots of comments that aren't spam get marked as spam. That was their "solution". High false positive rate.
I appreciate your attempts to be unbiased and gift accurate information. Hard to find on popular youtube channels, as I think most people believe a lack of hyperbole means a lack of clicks.
I love your channel :) I don't know why I wasn't subscribed before this but I am now. Thanks for explaining all this legal stuff in an entertaining way.