DMCA ABUSE ON YOUTUBE: ZYCOPOLIS SUBMITS 62 WEBFORM COPYRIGHT NOTICES FOR ONE FILM

YOUTUBE WEBFORM ABUSE
FAKE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
FALSE COPYRIGHT NOTICES
FRIVOLOUS COPYRIGHT NOTICES
FRAUDULENT COPYRIGHT NOTICES
CONSEQUENCES FOR BOGUS NOTICES
EVIDENCE OF REPEATED BOGUS NOTICES
zania.jpg

EVIDENCE OF

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

WHILE MY 5 YEAR OLD BABY GIRL WONDERS:
WHERE IS HER YOUTUBE?

PLEA TO QUASH BOGUS COPYRIGHT NOTICES

CORE EVIDENCE  OF 62 DMCA COPYRIGHT NOTICES FILED FOR ONE CLAIM:

LINK: http://idamawatu.tripod.com/youtube/evidence.html

Who lives under a rock long enough to be deprived from knowing that most of the YouTube copyright issues are handled under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Yet I spent an hour being lectured about French copyright law! Hey Mr. Frenchman Patrick Savey, didn’t you know you were surrendering to the American Jurisprudence when you clicked the submit button on that YouTube Webform 62 times? Not to mention that the form itself says so, right along with a caveat to warn users against filing bogus claims. I even sent a bug report to YouTube thinking that there was a glitch on their Copyright Webform submit button. Now what kind label do we put on this one, copyright spam?

SCREENSHOT SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

With or without out the DMCA, copyright owners usually enforce 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, most of the 62 notices filed by Patrick Savey amount to Internet harassment and blatant abuse of the DMCA copyright law.

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 10 business 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 takedowns but he could not to keep the material down because he failed to go to court and it is not due new or repeated infringing activity as he falsely claims.

This flowchart is modified from another one that was uploaded by a user in the previous YouTube Help Forums. Since the forums switched to Google Groups, I have not been able to locate the the original chart and I will update the page to give credit when I find him. Here it shows that YouTube can takedown or block users' videos and unblock them with total DMCA Safe Harbor Immunity. My actions are seen as uploading videos under the non-infringing, non-profit Fair Use Doctrine and defending myself against bogus claims of infringement. It is Patrick Savey who failed to challenge these claims in court, now seen with big red X that he has no recourse at YouTube, [DMCA 512(g)(2)(C)].