Skeptic Project

Dear Jim Jesus:

We have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from Neil Kiernan claiming that this material is infringing:

[YTP] ZEITARDS FOR ROMNEY: VTV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlQ3HxHbeac

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If one of your postings has been misidentified as infringing, you may submit a counter-notification. Information about this process is in our Help Center.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material was disabled due to mistake or misidentification may be liable for damages.

Sincerely,

-- The YouTube Team

Claimant: Neil Kiernan
Representative: Neil Kiernan Stephenson
Claimant Email: L---er@gm--l.com
Work allegedly infringed YouTube video was reuploaded by another user. Source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWZJkejEyUw

I will be filing a counter DMCA is a repeal is not filed December 20th, 2013 at 2:00 PM PST which will begin the legal prosses against one Neil Kiernan Stephenson for perjury. Video in question falls under fair use, which he, under penalty of perjury, signed a legal document saying he understood and it didn't fall under fair use.

(1)it is transformitive in nature. (2)Not from fictional/art works (3)It only uses only small portion of original work (4) non-commercial

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

VTV is so ugly. I think thats why he breaks the law to silence others.

@JimJesus

Sounds like a plan and if you counter sue VTV may not have the fund to repay you but he gets the funds from his Vradio audience from those emergency broadcasts he holds when he can't deal with life to pay you what you deserve. So it all works out. If it goes that route you should make this into a documentary documenting the LULZ

@JimJesus

Is it possible to garnish his larping paycheck? You might want to do a larping trade with VTV, I heard from a far off larping land that VTV has the skillz to forge many mighty larping weapons such as a mighty larping sword forged from the best toilet paper rolls found in 7/11 bathrooms with duct tape, and a mighty larping shield forged from the best cardboard around with duct tape!

Quote from The Burger King

@JimJesus

Is it possible to garnish his larping paycheck? You might want to do a larping trade with VTV, I heard from a far off larping land that VTV has the skillz to forge many mighty weapons such as mighty sword forged from the best toilet paper rolls found in 7/11 bathrooms with duct tape, and a mighty shield forged from the best cardboard around with duct tape!

AD HOMINOIDZZZZZZZZZZZ!!1one!

Quote from JimJesus

Not much of a hoop. What happens is I fill out a form with my information on it, it sends it to VTV, the video gets restored and if he wants to take it down again he'll have to go to court. Which he will lose because there's long legal president behind my case and I'll sue him for court costs and damages. And I can get an injunction preventing him from trying again. Fair use is an easy case to win especially under parody use which is how it will be applied.

I am fairly certain VTV doesn't have the money to be fucking about with frivolous lawsuits he has no chance of winning. He is not some powerhouse millionaire who can throw cash around to silence his critics. However, this kind of fact doesn't appear to bother VTV since history has shown he is quite comfortable asking complete strangers to fund his inadequate projects.

Quote from anticultist


This would be the mighty silvermane !!! [At least according to photographs on facebook]

A famed sword throughout the woods of michigan. Hundreds of children [none larpers too] tell stories of an aged overweight elf jumping out of bushes and scaring them with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Qmok0eFws

I just donated blood, feeling a bit tired. I'll extend the deadline to whenever I wake up for work.

VTV's cyber stalking stance is interesting. That's not even close to anything remotely to cyber stalking, at that VTV is considered a public figure anything applied as a private citizen need not apply to VTV. He's subject to different types of laws since he's a public figure.

Clearly VTV is one of those types whom believes they can bully others to silence them of his criticism of him...

This is going to be fun to watch

Quote from CyborgJesus



He should consult TVP for his defense. "Your honor, your laws are all stupid; shit's gotta go."

"Your honour, one doesn't just stroke the balls when one is stroking the dog"

Preppin' for the mega event...

Something VTV never really considers is the reality that vapourware often becomes real. I sometimes pity this guys perceptions, his LARP fantasy appears to be where he forms a view of how the world should work.


In LARPLAND one can subjugate anyone with false claims because in LARPLAND nothing is real...
'The real World can be like this!" said Neil to himself as he valiantly DMCA'd all critics.
'Sorry fatty, that's not allowed outside your magic forest enclave' said Jim Jesus as he casually mocked the fat guys attempt to bend the legal system to fit his delusional claims.
'You will do nothing about it and I will reign supreme' quipped his elfiness as his stomach rolled out from under his plastic chain mail armour.
Jim squinted and fired back 'Did you even read the legal report I just sent you Neil or should I send it via your pageboy in ye olde English ?'
The fat elf rumbled without pause for any thought, 'Silence, I am lord of the internets. Look around at my many followers. Do I not command respect in my youtube clips ? I am certainly correct on this matter'
'Those aren't supporters fatty' Jim retorted.'Those are kids who haven't quite figured out how sociopathic you are. As soon as someone puts you into the box you belong, things are going to change drastically for you.' Simultaneously firing off an email to his legal counsel to push proceedings for so called vapourware to materialise on Neils lap. LARPLAND was about to lose it's magic barrier, reality was a bitch and she was in search of some clueless virgins.