First it was Alex Jones - Louder With Crowder next on the chopping block?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

“They are a private company they can do whatever they want” 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Joe's wrong in pointing the finger at Youtube.   All Youtube did was set up a system that notified a copyright holder of a possible violation - this is just how the DMCA process works and the copyright owner has all the power.  If Youtube were to intervene they would lose their safe harbor status. 

Quote

 

DMCA takedowns normally result from formal notices of copyright infringement from rightsholders to YouTube about your video.

As part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), Congress granted online service providers (like YouTube) certain protections from copyright infringement liability, so long as they meet certain requirements. One requirement of this "DMCA safe harbor" is that online service providers must implement a "notice-and-takedown" system. Another requirement is that YouTube must cancel the accounts of "repeat infringers."

That's why, when YouTube receives a formal DMCA takedown notice from a rightsholder, it removes the video. It also puts a "strike" on your account, and requires you to complete a mandatory session in its online "Copyright School." Once you accumulate 3 "strikes" on your account, YouTube will cancel all of your YouTube accounts, taking down all of your videos and refusing to allow you back as a YouTube account holder.

Full Article

 

Now, if he were to pursue this in court, he stands a good chance to prevail on parody and fair use issues*.   But the 'they are coming after us conservatives'(maybe it's true, maybe it's not), isn't the issue here.  

*Might be a case the ACLU would be interested in...which would be it's own delicious irony. 

ETA: After reading a bit more on parody, they might not be interested.   Parodies are protected, but the courts seem to say that parody must parody/comment on the original work.   That might not be happening here, this might be a case where they copied the music and made funny lyrics to go with it, which isn't explicitly protected.

[Big Guy 1,400]

it's all about controlling the narrative

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Joe's wrong in pointing the finger at Youtube.   All Youtube did was set up a system that notified a copyright holder of a possible violation - this is just how the DMCA process works and the copyright owner has all the power.  If Youtube were to intervene they would lose their safe harbor status. 

Now, if he were to pursue this in court, he stands a good chance to prevail on parody and fair use issues.   But the 'they are coming after us conservatives'(maybe it's true, maybe it's not), isn't the issue here.  

You didn’t watch the videos in the OP retard. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Just now, iam90sbaby said:

You didn’t watch the videos in the OP retard. 

Yes, I did.... and wow that escalated fast.   

[kutulu 1,551]

Don't fock with Crowder

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

11 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes, I did.... and wow that escalated fast.   

No you didn’t. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

For anyone curious this is the video that will potentially get him banned:

 

 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

4 minutes ago, kutulu said:

Don't fock with Crowder

 

One year mug club membership for only $20. Normally it’s around $80. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

No you didn’t. 

You know instead of name calling and accusations, why don't you tell me what I said that you find objectionable or believe to be false and why you think I didn't watch the videos. 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You know instead of name calling and accusations, why don't you tell me what I said that you find objectionable or believe to be false and why you think I didn't watch the videos. 

 

Why don’t you just watch the video first? Why won’t youtube remove Fallons parody and give him a hard strike? Even when someone destroys your argument with reason and logic you’ll just retort to “well it’s a private company, they can do what they want”

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

3 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Why don’t you just watch the video first? 

 

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You know instead of name calling and accusations, why don't you tell me what I said that you find objectionable, or believe to be false, or why you think I didn't watch the videos. 

 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

Why didn’t that system flag a possible copyright violation for the hundreds of other parody’s on the internet? Perhaps there is more to it than that, have you considered that at all? There’s a 100% assault going on against conservatives. Our content is getting banned, our pundits are getting their audience taken away from them. It’s not just YouTube. It’s Reddit, Twitter, Facebook. It’s not a debate anymore it’s a fact. YouTube and every other social media website is heavily skewed to liberals to show their content first. I’ve disliked every CNN video I’ve ever seen on YouTube, just pulling up my watch history and what’s I’ve liked, any fair algorithm would know I’m a right leaning male. It’s obvious, yet every time I get on YouTube there’s tons of liberal content recommend to me. Why? 

This is the first hard flag against Crowder and they are laying the ground work for an eventual ban. It’s painfully obvious that is what’s going on. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

31 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Why didn’t that system flag a possible copyright violation for the hundreds of other parody’s on the internet? Perhaps there is more to it than that, have you considered that at all? 

Because as I explained above, true parody and probably falls under protected speech/fair use the copyright owner didn't bring action against, and Joe's thing wasn't a parody---that was using(or nearly using someone else's music) to make a political point on a commercialized channel.   What Joe did was in an area that probably isn't protected(not sure the courts have heard a case like that).

31 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Our content is getting banned, our pundits are getting their audience taken away from them. It’s not just YouTube. It’s Reddit, Twitter, Facebook. It’s not a debate anymore it’s a fact. YouTube and every other social media website is heavily skewed to liberals to show their content first. I’ve disliked every CNN video I’ve ever seen on YouTube, just pulling up my watch history and what’s I’ve liked, any fair algorithm would know I’m a right leaning male. It’s obvious, yet every time I get on YouTube there’s tons of liberal content recommend to me. Why? 

This is the first hard flag against Crowder and they are laying the ground work for an eventual ban. It’s painfully obvious that is what’s going on. 

No, a fact is something that can be proven and all I have seen are dubious allegations from the usual suspects on the matter.   And just because you seemed to miss it the first time, I didn't take issue with that belief, all I did was point out the issues Joe was facing.  Fair Use

Quote

But the 'they are coming after us conservatives'(maybe it's true, maybe it's not), isn't the issue here.  

 

31 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

I’ve disliked every CNN video I’ve ever seen on YouTube, just pulling up my watch history and what’s I’ve liked, any fair algorithm would know I’m a right leaning male. It’s obvious, yet every time I get on YouTube there’s tons of liberal content recommend to me. Why? 

Because you watch a lot of political orientated videos and apparently haven't figured out how block content on youtube from showing up in your feed(might want to be careful about throwing around the term retard if you can't figure out how to do this).   

31 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

This is the first hard flag against Crowder and they are laying the ground work for an eventual ban. It’s painfully obvious that is what’s going on. 

No, all that's obvious is that they are following the actual laws of the DMCA to cover their ass and leaving it up to the courts to decide if this falls under Fair Use.

Quote

 

3. Fair use

Contrary to popular belief, there are no hard and fast rules about what is fair use and what is not, making fair use one of the most commonly misunderstood parts of copyright law. Instead of clearly defined rules, the courts evaluate fair use on a case-by-case basis, weighing four factors to determine if something is fair use. Determining fair use includes considerations like whether the use is for commercial or nonprofit/educational purposes and how the use will affect the value of the original work. To read about all four factors involved in determining fair use, see the United States Copyright Office's website.

Fair use myths often include the belief that using a specific limited amount of somone else's work is legal, and you'll often hear people give false statements such as, "You're allowed to sample up to 15 seconds of a song," or, "It's okay to copy one page of a score." But the fact is that there are no clearly defined rules saying that this is fair use, and whenever you use someone else’s copyrighted work without getting the appropriate licenses/permissions, you may be doing something illegal.

There are some things that musicians do which are clearly not fair use, such as providing friends with copies of sheet music or recordings, since such copying and sharing means that the copyright owners will sell fewer copies of their music. But what about parody? The freedom to make social commentary through parody creates lots of grey area where copyright law is concerned. Shows such as Saturday Night Live and late-night talk shows constantly parody the work of artists, but when parodies have a commercial benefit for the creators, they are often denounced as attempts to piggyback off of the work and success of the original artist.

Don Henley's song "The Boys of Summer" provides a good example of the perils of claiming parodies as fair use. An altered version of Henley's song, re-titled "The Hope of November," was created by a political candidate to parody opponents during a campaign. In 2010, the court ruled that this unauthorized use of Henley's song was not fair use because, among other things, it was used for a commercial purpose (to garner campaign contributions), and hurt Henley's chances of licensing the song for future uses. For a more complete description of the ruling, read about the case on the US Copyright Office's website.

 

And not one thing you said explains why you don't think I didn't watch either video.   

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

32 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Because as I explained above, true parody and probably falls under protected speech/fair use the copyright owner didn't bring action against, and Joe's thing wasn't a parody---that was using(or nearly using someone else's music) to make a political point on a commercialized channel.   What Joe did was in an area that probably isn't protected(not sure the courts have heard a case like that).

No, a fact is something that can be proven and all I have seen are dubious allegations from the usual suspects on the matter.   And just because you seemed to miss it the first time, I didn't take issue with that belief, all I did was point out the issues Joe was facing.  Fair Use

 

Because you watch a lot of political orientated videos and apparently haven't figured out how block content on youtube from showing up in your feed(might want to be careful about throwing around the term retard if you can't figure out how to do this).   

No, all that's obvious is that they are following the actual laws of the DMCA to cover their ass and leaving it up to the courts to decide if this falls under Fair Use.

And not one thing you said explains why you don't think I didn't watch either video.   

They made the entire song from scratch 100% it was a true parody. You didn’t watch the videos in the OP otherwise you would have known that. You always have an excuse. 

And it is a fact, their algorithms are skewed to favor the left. Only an idiot wouldn’t see that. This is also coming from someone who works in marketing and specifically with SEO and analytics. You’re wrong. 

[fandandy 3,311]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

You know instead of name calling and accusations, why don't you tell me what I said that you find objectionable or believe to be false and why you think I didn't watch the videos. 

 

Shut your dirty little mouth you non-video watching retard!

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

2 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

They made the entire song from scratch 100% it was a true parody. You didn’t watch the videos in the OP otherwise you would have known that. You always have an excuse. 

And it is a fact, their algorithms are skewed to favor the left. Only an idiot wouldn’t see that. This is also coming from someone who works in marketing and specifically with SEO and analytics. You’re wrong. 

From my first response

ETA: After reading a bit more on parody, they might not be interested.   Parodies are protected, but the courts seem to say that parody must parody/comment on the original work.   That might not be happening here, this might be a case where they copied the music and made funny lyrics to go with it, which isn't explicitly protected.

So, yes, I did watch and saw that they made and entire song from scratch, and I explained that the courts might not define that as parody.   From that context alone, should be pretty apparent that I had watched the videos in question.  Again, you might want to look at the link I provided on Fair Use which shows why his song might qualify.  And whether or not the song is a parody or not is the crux of the issue.   

The rest of it seems to be more of the same 'they are out to get us' stuff, after people have been caught breaking the TOS, like Alex Jones.

Also, unless you have seen those algorithms and can provide the code, it is not a fact, it is an opinion...you can tell it's an opinion when you follow it up with how you are basing it on 'what you see.'   I'm not going to debate your conspiratorial view of the world, if you have proof I'll listen. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

1 hour ago, fandandy said:

Shut your dirty little mouth you non-video watching retard!

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

From my first response

ETA: After reading a bit more on parody, they might not be interested.   Parodies are protected, but the courts seem to say that parody must parody/comment on the original work.   That might not be happening here, this might be a case where they copied the music and made funny lyrics to go with it, which isn't explicitly protected.

So, yes, I did watch and saw that they made and entire song from scratch, and I explained that the courts might not see define that as a true parody.   From that context alone, should be pretty apparent that I had watched the videos in question.  Again, you might want to look at the link I provided on Fair Use which shows why his song might qualify.  And whether or not the song is a parody or not is the crux of the issue.   

The rest of it seems to be more of the same 'they are out to get us' stuff, after people have been caught breaking the TOS, like Alex Jones.

Also, unless you have seen those algorithms and can provide the code, it is not a fact, it is an opinion...you can tell it's an opinion when you follow it up with how you are basing it on 'what you see.'   I'm not going to debate your conspiratorial view of the world, if you have proof I'll listen. 

Then how come none of the lefts parody videos get flagged when doing the same thing? You’ve yet to answer that. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Then how come none of the lefts parody videos get flagged when doing the same thing? You’ve yet to answer that. 

Because you haven't asked that question.  And if you are asking it, please provide the examples where the left is doing the same thing so I can see exactly where they are getting away with it.   Heck, I'll even report it.   

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

29 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Because you haven't asked that question.  And if you are asking it, please provide the examples where the left is doing the same thing so I can see exactly where they are getting away with it.   Heck, I'll even report it.   

 

That took me 3 entire seconds!!!

Can you screenshot your report for me? There’s hundreds more if you’re interested. 

And if you watched the original videos you would know this, because Crowder specifically mentions the Old Towne Road parody. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

14 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

That took me 3 entire seconds!!!

Can you screenshot your report for me? There’s about hundreds more if you’re interested. 

And if you watched the original videos you would know this, because Crowder specifically mentions the Old Towne Road parody. 

Maybe you should have spent that 3 seconds thinking about this and asked yourself the question..."Does Jimmy Fallon and the Tonight Show" have the ability to secure the rights to these songs, by either asking the copyright holder or by purchasing the license.   After that question, you might have realized that in the third video, they are with the original band, so I'm they probably did ask.   Or did you just assume they made these videos, slapped the The Tonight Show logo on it and and the NBC lawyers were like...yeah, go ahead, no problem.   
 

4 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

Even when someone destroys your argument with reason and logic...

The irony is really thick here....

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

11 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Maybe you should have spent that 3 seconds thinking about this and asked yourself the question..."Does Jimmy Fallon and the Tonight Show" have the ability to secure the rights to these songs, by either asking the copyright holder or by purchasing the license.   After that question, you might have realized that in the third video, they are with the original band, so I'm they probably did ask.   Or did you just assume they made these videos, slapped the The Tonight Show logo on it and and the NBC lawyers were like...yeah, go ahead, no problem.   
 

The irony is really thick here....

You have an excuse for everything. There’s more than just Fallon. Just search “parody song” on YouTube and there’s thousands of videos. You’re wrong. 

[sderk 1,040]

Democrats are idiots.

[wiffleball 4,645]

I wouldn't put Jones and Crowder in the same boat.

 

Or ocean for that matter.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

36 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You have an excuse for everything. There’s more than just Fallon. Just search “parody song” on YouTube and there’s thousands of videos. You’re wrong. 

You didn't understand the law as shown by the fact that even after having parody and Fair Use explained which in part is making fun/commenting on the original performance---you bring me two videos of Fallon doing exactly that as examples of copyright violations.  Next you assume that Fallon and NBC are breaking copyright laws, offering no proof at all, and ignoring the very fact that the artists haven't sued should be proof enough they haven't.  And lastly, Youtube is out to get conservatives and letting all the lefties off the hook, without offering any proof at all, despite the fact there are thousands of examples of me being wrong.  

Yes, you certainly have destroyed me with logic and reason.   

 

[wiffleball 4,645]

I think Twitter is hypocritical but in a different way. If anybody else was as abusive and name-calling is Trump is on Twitter he or she would be banned or ticked off. I'm not the first guy to raise that. I don't care, other than the fact it's our president and he seems to have mentality of a 14 year old girl 

, but it does seem hypocritical.

Also, trumps constant stealing from Game of thrones imagery, graphics Etc has to be actionable. I know music artists have gone after him are using their songs without permission. Seems to be the same principle.