Viacom emails WBM and will not retract

Originally Posted by FreedomToThink

Sounded to me like Mark completely gave up when he got the baytsp email, it's their job to make him completely back down, and if fines were imposed pay them, they will never admit to fair use, ever from any communication that does not have legal weight like the DMCA counter claim people keep saying he should be doing.
And then after that is successful he now has it in writing that youtube would give his accounts back.
I think it will be a great shame if he just gives up and moves elsewhere because 'it's easier', As long as doing a DMCA counter claim is not expensive it absolutely should be done.

I agree.

It's around here somewhere, not sure where, but Mark emailed me telling me that he didn't file an original counter-claim, because on the form it said something along the lines of it being a mistake, and he didn't want to lie. Personally, I'm so confused about the Fair Use and DMCA thing, that I don't know my ass from my elbow in relation to it. Whomever is the expert on the subject really should email Mark, because he doesn't read these threads much.

As long as doing a DMCA counter claim is not expensive it absolutely should be done.

What are the potential costs involved with DMCA counterclaims? There have been a few accounts on YouTube that had content reinstated as soon as the counter claim hit YouTube's door with no response on the other side. I can't say whether or not Viacom would let it slide so quickly. My understanding of fair use isn't spectacular but it seems to me that Mark has a good case - the question is with so much potential publicity on Viacom's decision how will they react?

IF the costs are minimal THEN Mark should be doing this.

Mark stated that Stephen Colbert is the one who can help him now, have there been efforts to contact him?

stephen.colbert@comedycentral.com

what if we start flooding viacom with complains and emails? and maybe a mail a day for each one of us. that will keep the pressure on them and maybe help to change their minds?

Originally Posted by Skeptic1337

I have a question / suggestion..since I don't know how youtube would deal with it.

Let's say WBM set up a s-corp and gave the rights to this corp to use his videos and this corp created a youtube account. The sole owner being of course WBM.

The corp would have no DMCA violations right? And WBM could just walk away from this fiasco and his vids would be safely guarded from future issues with WBM him self? Right?

As opposed to trying to work through corporate bullshit just use it.

Attorney Anon here: my 2 cents:

While it is true that either an S Corp or C Corp, or for that matter, a limited liability company (LLC) would be a separate and distinct legal entity from the individual WBM, my concern is that if (i) WBM is the sole owner of the entity, and (ii) it can be shown that sole purpose of establishing the corp entity was to defeat YT's prohibition against WBM opening another YT account, CO$ or Viacom or whomever would claim that WBM is simply the "alter ego" of the corp entity - and hence, the corp entity is really a "fiction" or "illusory" and should not be considered separate and distinct from WBM. The argument then might be applied to deny him another YT account.

Now, that sounds like (and is) a bunch of legal BS. But it can be effectively used in court to show that an individual who sets up a corp entity, and then commits civil wrongs in the name of the corp entity (or incurs substantial debt in the name of the corp entity and tries to get out of it), that individual should be held personally liable for the wrongs/debts of the corp entity because it is really just one and the same as the individual.

I'm sure that in consultation with an attorney, WBM could/would come up with valid other reasons to establish a corp entity; maybe for purposes of raising money to fight first amendment attacks, whatever; or maybe WBM already HAS a separate corp for purposes of marketing and selling his wares on the net. [searched California Secretary of State's online resources and didn't find ANY California corporation or LLC or LLP with the name "xenu" in it - so, XenuTV is available, WBM!]

An alter ego claim is a way to attack the validity of a corp entity for purposes of tearing down that wall of protection between the corp entity and the individual, so it's application in this setting is not clear.

But wanted to throw it in for info.

P.S. if WBM wants someone to form a corp entity free of legal fees, he needs look no further than this humble, faithful anon.

There are several YouTube accounts that some of us share, and we all post our videos that are relevant to the theme of the channel.

Mark could participate in one of those. Someone could set it up and a few people could post their stuff, him included.

b u l l s h i t

Strategy

Someone needs to make a large number of YouTube shill accounts. Then proceed to upload all of Mark's videos into each account, with the exception of the alleged "infringement" videos. Since the cult is afraid of his videos, upload them en masse to the clone channels. Just don't upload the target video. It will give the scilons very little to work with plus it allows Mark to keep his hands clean.

Now if I were a punk, I'd create a few other YouTube shill accounts, using anonymous means, and I would mass upload the OFFENDING video. I would also make connections between Viacom (owner of MTV) Steven Colbert and the evils of $cientology. Rember, Joe Public hates the $cilons.

But that's just me thinking out loud.

Flag Sci-Fag vids.

That is all.

I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as bad publicity...

Perhaps making sure awareness of what occured is raised and just keep hammering as long as it is amusing to us.

In the meantime... since we all operate independantly, we may as well take whatever individual actions regarding youtube that we wish.. be it complaining, flagging, rehosting, shilling, accusations, fact-finding etc.

I don't actually see this as a horrible thing.. long as we keep xenutv links actively visible in youtube content nothing is lost... and maybe publicity is gained.

VIACOM pulled the southpark ep. they don't budge on stuff because they, well... they suck. If Trey Parker and Matt Stone couldn't even get a word in, we need more man power than just one guy.

I bet you that Viacom THINKS that Mark Bunkers wants the notices retracted so he can post the offending vids again.

Either that or Co$ is paying them not to cooperate with Mr Bunker.

Originally Posted by eksef

Nothing would make the scilons happier than to see all of anonymous move away from YouTube.

LETS NOT make that happen! Stay on YouTube, show the scifags taking out even WBM himself will not move us. We are legion. Expect us.

Let us remember why we are on Youtube. We are to reach the masseses. We do this by posting free videos and messages on easily accessible public spaces, by leaving we give up one of our major advantages (as has been pointed out many times). Although we re angry, dont raid or harass YT, take it to the one who is really responsible for this, The Corporation of $cientology. They pressured the pull, they are our enemies, not the media-forum YT.

/my 2 cents