[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52454775]a birth certificate can be used to prove your identity so one that could be copied could be used to steal your identity, it has nothing to do with her birthday lmao
her thinking/reason to be upset is her identity will get stolen even though it's literally impossible, not about her birthday getting out
did you even think about this post before making it[/QUOTE]
I recall Alex has complained about her DoB being posted so it goes a bit beyond just a birth certificate but sifting through all these videos and emails would be tedious. I'm mostly being a smartass though, since she's DMCAing everything for the tiniest reason.
Besides this it applies perfectly well to the photo point because that's ALL you can find. By now there's no way she can actually combat people posting photos because that's the only you can seem to find as far as I can tell
this is a person that's DMCAing people for using a photo that was found on google, do you really think they wouldn't do it for every stupid little reason as well? She'd DMCA a video that has so much as her name in it, of course she'd DMCA a video with her DoB as well, its just an excuse to shut another video down. She'd do it if it had an email aka 'her artwork' in it if she wanted to
[editline]10th July 2017[/editline]
I mean fuck, she's DMCA'ing it and immediately telling everyone she's DMCAing it
its clear that she isn't being careful about this really delicate info 'leaking' out when she's basically announcing 'hey, back the info up' to the world
welp didn't think she'd actually do it again, this isn't gonna end well, using the same email address too.
[video=youtube;mYYkFP1SUJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYkFP1SUJQ[/video]
also:
[media]https://twitter.com/DaRogueReporter/status/884616988705804288[/media]
:s:
[QUOTE=VietRooster2;52456476]welp didn't think she'd actually do it again, this isn't gonna end well, using the same email address too.
[video=youtube;mYYkFP1SUJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYkFP1SUJQ[/video]
also:
[media]https://twitter.com/DaRogueReporter/status/884616988705804288[/media]
:s:[/QUOTE]
Out of curiosity - At what point, if any, can a person be institutionalized for immediate help? This person is quickly becoming a danger both to herself and others. :frown:
[QUOTE=snookypookums;52456535]Out of curiosity - At what point, if any, can a person be institutionalized for immediate help? This person is quickly becoming a danger both to herself and others. :frown:[/QUOTE]
I think that already happened back in June but I guess they let her out?
[QUOTE=VietRooster2;52456476]
[media]https://twitter.com/DaRogueReporter/status/884616988705804288[/media]
[/QUOTE]
I wonder if this can be confirmed as real or not
there's another post of a non-phone shot at the very least
also
[video]http://twitter.com/muso_face/status/884197991996833792[/video]
lmao Alex alt?
[QUOTE=J!NX;52456893]I wonder if this can be confirmed as real or not
there's another post of a non-phone shot at the very least
also
[video]http://twitter.com/muso_face/status/884197991996833792[/video]
lmao Alex alt?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Joined July 2017[/quote]
That's a safe bet.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52456893][video]http://twitter.com/muso_face/status/884197991996833792[/video][/QUOTE]
It's either one of two things:
1.) It's a real person who has no idea what the dispute is actually about
2.) It's an example of Alex Mauer's understanding of what's going on by way of alt account
[video]https://youtu.be/tB272wsWfrg[/video]
If it turns out that Imagos had breached contract and didn't pay her somehow this will have been one of the most interesting drama-fests the internet has seen yet tbh
It'd make for an interesting subject. A hypothetical company doesn't pay someone that was contracted. Said person has an internet shit fit and the company says they did. The internet absolutely shits on the person and they get fucked over for not taking it, as they should, to the courts. Weeks later it turns out the company lied. What would the reaction even BE at that point.
and also a lesson in going through courts!
[QUOTE=J!NX;52460328]If it turns out that Imagos had breached contract and didn't pay her somehow this will have been one of the most interesting drama-fests the internet has seen yet tbh
and also a lesson in going through courts![/QUOTE]
Even if they hadn't paid her a dime, the rights would still be with them. Just because you haven't been paid, does not automatically transfer the rights to the creator.
It means there is a contractual conflict, which needs to be resolved by a mediator or a court. The result of such a court case could mean the rights transfer to the unpaid creator, but that is not an automatic thing, unless it's been agreed upon in the contract.
Neither is the case here: Imagos paid for her time before her leave of absence and the partial work she completed and the contract has no such clause even if she were to have been unpaid.
And then on top of that Imagos purportedly went out of their way to over settle with Mauer, offering her far in excess of the "missing" amount. The courts will look at that and wonder why the hell didn't she accept if that is the reason behind the whole debacle.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52460275][video]https://youtu.be/tB272wsWfrg[/video][/QUOTE]
What is this?
"Don't give into fear"
"Don't surrender to Alex Mauer"
"(...) Instead of engaging and spreading the fear and chaos that Mauer craves"
This is turning really dramatic, holy shit.
[QUOTE=buu342;52460785]What is this?
"Don't give into fear"
"Don't surrender to Alex Mauer"
"(...) Instead of engaging and spreading the fear and chaos that Mauer craves"
This is turning really dramatic, holy shit.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, while it seems overblown from our perspective, It's a lot more dramatic when you're one of the parties involved.
Holy [b]SHIT[/b]. You think some thing is finally said and done back on page 2, but this is just...wow. She's really adamant on burying her own grave.
[QUOTE=VietRooster2;52456476]welp didn't think she'd actually do it again, this isn't gonna end well, using the same email address too.
[video=youtube;mYYkFP1SUJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYkFP1SUJQ[/video][/QUOTE]
How the fuck is nothing being done about this on Youtube's end? This has been going on for fucking weeks and still no one at Youtube has blacklisted her email address? What fucking insane levels of incompetence is this?
I want there to be a class action lawsuit against Google because clearly that's the only thing that actually scares them enough into actually fixing problems.
[QUOTE=Bird;52461093]Youtube is doing everything according to the law to make sure they cannot be held responsible for false DMCAs. They use the "safe harbour" protection which a bit simplified means they aren't liable for the content they host if they allow it to be taken down by DMCA requests.
Yes it's shitty and dysfunctional, but Youtube aren't doing anything legally wrong. In theory the targeted channels can counterclaim and either be taken to court or get their video reinstated. The problem is that the counterclaim takes 2 weeks IIRC and by that time the channel has already suffered a huge part of the revenue. Since it is expensive to sue and no guarantee of damages can be given basically no channel will risk suing to recover lost profits.
Bottom line is that the law is shit and the system is ripe for abuse. Without Imagos I doubt Alex would even be facing a lawsuit.[/QUOTE]
Youtube takes extra steps like refusing to acknowledge counter claims for 14 days in order to make it harder on the users. I'm fairly sure there is no aspect of the DMCA that demands you must keep the content offline even after a counter claim has been issued, after all once both parties have issued their claims its up to the courts.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;52461102]Youtube takes extra steps like refusing to acknowledge counter claims for 14 days in order to make it harder on the users. I'm fairly sure there is no aspect of the DMCA that demands you must keep the content offline even after a counter claim has been issued, after all once both parties have issued their claims its up to the courts.[/QUOTE]
That's actually false:
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512[/url]
Section C specifically:
[QUOTE][B](c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—[/B]
(1)In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(A)
(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
[B](C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.[/B][/QUOTE]
(I was a bit wrong)
And, with counterclaims, the site that received the claim must "replace the removed material and cease disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network."
So basically, safe harbor sites must immediately remove the content when receiving a takedown notice, and it can remain down for anywhere between 10-14 days after a counterclaim has been filed.
Fair enough, didnt realize the bullshit time requirement was written into law. how awful.
What is on youtube is that they issue a ban on so many things for the first strike, a lot of youtube streamers seem to be bailing on it because on youtube you received an effective 14 day streaming ban plus having to counternotify for a single copyright strike, if you dont counternotify its 90 days.
I would agree that YouTube is still probably too severe, but unfortunately the law is pretty clear - if you don't want to be liable for what people put on your site, you must remove it as soon as you receive a takedown notice and you can't put it back up until about 2 weeks after a counter notice has been received.
I have no idea what the policy is for putting content back up after an invalid takedown notice is dismissed, though. There's probably an argument that YouTube can improve that process.
Frankly I'm just fucking baffled that Youtube is allowing this highly publicized and visible issue to keep going when all they have to fucking do is revoke Mauer's rights to throw DMCAs at everything because she's clearly abusing it in every possible sense of the term.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52461224]I would agree that YouTube is still probably too severe, but unfortunately the law is pretty clear - if you don't want to be liable for what people put on your site, you must remove it as soon as you receive a takedown notice and you can't put it back up until about 2 weeks after a counter notice has been received.
I have no idea what the policy is for putting content back up after an invalid takedown notice is dismissed, though. There's probably an argument that YouTube can improve that process.[/QUOTE]
also as pointed out by a video earlier in the thread, she's now removing and re-issueing strikes, as well as intentionally issuing takedowns as multiple strikes to maximize damage, this resets the timer and the claim can never be dismissed or rules invalid and would effectively allow her to keep people's channels disabled forever. There has to be some control for this kind of abuse, even if its not built into the law.
How fucked would she be if Google lawyered up against her in full anyways? and went full force? Not that thats going to happen
[editline]12th July 2017[/editline]
They've been ignoring her, pretty much completely. I wish they would actually DO something about it but they're cowardly
[QUOTE=Mattk50;52461902]also as pointed out by a video earlier in the thread, she's now removing and re-issueing strikes, as well as intentionally issuing takedowns as multiple strikes to maximize damage, this resets the timer and the claim can never be dismissed or rules invalid and would effectively allow her to keep people's channels disabled forever. There has to be some control for this kind of abuse, even if its not built into the law.[/QUOTE]
There should absolutely be.
YouTube should have stepped in and intervened by now. The situation is severe enough and has enough light shown on it that there is absolutely zero doubt - even to a casual observer - that Mauer is operating well out of her rights and should have been stopped a long time ago.
The fact that YouTube has hardly uttered a word by this point is inexcusable. I hope that in the future Google will do something to prevent a Mauer 2.0, but they really don't seem to care.
So when are content creators moving from Youtube to Pornhub?
So what exactly is it that she hopes to accomplish?
Does she even fully realize what she's fucking done to herself by doing this? Nobody will ever want to associate with her ever again because of both the stigma surrounding this event and also, more importantly, nobody wants to work with someone who's stabbed their previous partners in the back. Her career is ruined, its destroyed, over. And yet she still acts like the good guy, like it'll all work out in the end.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52462001]There should absolutely be.
YouTube should have stepped in and intervened by now. The situation is severe enough and has enough light shown on it that there is absolutely zero doubt - even to a casual observer - that Mauer is operating well out of her rights and should have been stopped a long time ago.
The fact that YouTube has hardly uttered a word by this point is inexcusable. I hope that in the future Google will do something to prevent a Mauer 2.0, but they really don't seem to care.[/QUOTE]
Sid already made a video on why YT can't intervene without risking the entire site.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViGdap10YDk[/media]
Unfortunately if YT were to intervene, and then it turned out in court that Mauer [i]did[/i] in fact own even the tiniest bit of copyright for the music (unlikely, but it [i]is[/i] possible there's something in the contract we don't know about), YT will have completely fucked themselves out of safe harbour and opened themselves up to a plethora of lawsuits from many sources, including Mauer herself. YT aren't going to risk their entire site to go after a few people abusing the system as safe harbour is the one thing preventing big movie and music companies from going after YT directly for people uploading copyrighted content on their platform.
Looking to Youtube for a solution will do nothing. For anything to be done, it's the law that needs to change.
Apparently Imagos suggested a bond of $3500 but the judge set it to $100. I think we can see how much merit the judge thinks Mauer's claims have.
Lmao did she seriously fire her attorney after the restraining order was granted?
[IMG]http://www.kyle93.co.uk/i/a514f.png[/IMG]
No words.
[editline] penis [/editline]
She's actually for real
[IMG]http://www.kyle93.co.uk/i/cfde3.png[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
