ABUSE OF THE YOUTUBE COPYRIGHT WEBFORM

YOUTUBE WEBFORM ABUSE
FAKE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
FALSE COPYRIGHT NOTICES
FRIVOLOUS COPYRIGHT NOTICES
FRAUDULENT
CONSEQUENSES
CONTACT
zania.jpg

 

EVIDENCE OF

FAKE, FALSE, FRIVOLOUS AND FRAUDULENT COPYRIGHT NOTICES BY PATRICK SAVEY OF ZYCOPOLIS PRODUCTIONS

 

WHILE MY 5 YEAR OLD BABY GIRL ASKS:

WHERE IS MY YOUTUBE?

PLEA TO QUASH BOGUS COPYRIGHT NOTICES

CORE EVIDENCE LINK:

(Please click on thumbnail to enlarge image)

http://idamawatu.tripod.com/ExhibitA-YouTubeCopyrightWebformAbuse.png

 

Without the DMCA, copyright owners must pursue their rights by filing a lawsuit. If that was the case, would Patrick Savey and/or Zycopolis have the audacity to pay a $350 filing fee to litigate each of the 62 notices filed under the YouTube DMCA WebForm, to a sum of $21,700? Any sane attorney would identify the allegedly single infringing act; [DMCA 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)] and then make a list of multiple copyrighted works at a single online site (YouTube) to be covered by a single notice, [DMCA 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)] to file a single lawsuit. Hence, that most of the 62 notices filed by Patrick Savey are nothing but Internet harassment and abuse that must be quashed.

 

Since the alleged copyright owner Patrick Savey chose the DMCA Process to pursue his claims, I will abide by that law. Below is a link to a complete flowchart that ran its course since July 19, 2011. It is clear that the purpose of the DMCA is to immunize the Internet Service Provider, in this case YouTube, against secondary liability stemming from aiding and abetting the alleged infringer by hosting allegedly infringing material on its site. However, many copyright owners abuse the DMCA to process takedown notices only to realize that their victory is short-lived when the alleged infringer files a counter-notice and ISP re-publishes the allegedly infringing material after 14 days.

In other words, a DMCA takedown is like a Temporary Injunction where the claimant is ordered to appear in court within 10 days to show cause why a Permanent Injunction should issue. If the claimant fails to show up in court, the takedown is voided akin to having a default judgment against the copyright owner. Hence, the DMCA law is of no use to unscrupulous copyright owners who have no intentions of going to court, but they just like to pursue takedowns on the cheap. The record will show that Patrick Savey filed 32+ takedown claims but failed to keep the material down because he failed to go to court and not due repeated infringing activity as he falsely claims.