I warned you, you wouldn’t listen but I warned you nonetheless and look what happened now… I told you it was a loaded gun with no safety but everyone insisted that pointing it at their face and looking down the barrel was completely okay, because only responsible people would be wielding it…. Picture

How many times have I been the specter at the banquet screaming about how copyright is used to abuse and silence those who would point out that copyright can be used and abused to silence people? How many times have I attempted to forewarn of how those in power wish to stay in power and will step on you (and me) regardless of it being right… or even legal?
There has been much fervor over the new youtube policy for enforcing copyright claims and not without merit as they have “cracked down” on copyright issues to the point of only allowing the big companies the right to make claims and disallowing the accused (ACCUSED, not the guilty goddamn it) a right to refute the false claims made against them. Oh, there is a system set up if you feel you have been the target of a malicious or erroneous claim… but it’s a circular system that disavows any knowledge of the Fair Use provision of US copyright law* and says that no matter the reason you got flagged, it is up to YOU to prove you DID NOT infringe on the copyright of another instead of the US criminal justice provision that states it is up to THEM to prove you DID infringe. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything and according to this new system it’s up to you to fight… at your own cost as a lawyer is required to proceed. Yep, they accuse you (rightfully or wrongfully) and they are done, they have no further burden of proof to meet, you on the other hand have a noticeably uphill battle to fight and if (when) you lose your appeal, they can simply make the claim again ad nauseam. That is all old news though, I have gone over that in the past… but it just got exposed as to how rigged the system really is and I now have the proof I needed to expose the already obvious cracks in this illegal and immoral use of copyright.

On Jan 5th of this year Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media… this is important so pay attention) was informed that a promotional video he put up for Geek Juice was flagged and removed from youtube due to a copyright claim from… wait for it… Geek Juice Media. So apparently Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media) had infringed on the copyright of Geek Juice Media and according to youtube Geek Juice Media was pursuing a claim again Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media) for this infringement of Geek Juice Media’s intellectual property. Hold on, it gets better (worse)… so Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media) attempted to explain this to the computer program that insisted he (Alex Jowski owner of Geek Juice Media) was a pirate even after Alex Jowski (OWNER of Geek Juice Media damn it) told it that not only could he not infringe on his own video, but that HE NEVER COPYRIGHTED THE VIDEO IN QUESTION SO THERE WAS NO CLAIM TO BE HAD. Also, the fact that after 3 days Geek Juice Media was insistent that Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media) remove the video in question… funny part is that Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media) never received a single request about this from the side of Geek Juice Media. Youtube was simply and plainly LYING about what had transpired. This is proof that this new copyright “infringement” system is rigged, it looks for anything it wants to (remember, this is now run by bots and no human sets eyes on these claims any longer nor do they enter into the decision what is and not allowed). They blatantly MADE UP not only the claim of infringement but also the claimant’s repose to the claim… added to the fact that Alex Jowski (owner of Geek Juice Media) never made such a claim, never allowed youtube access to police the site for him nor ever even copywrote the video in question in the first place.


Lets go back to this Fair Use thing though… as this is very important and pretty vital to the very existence of youtube itself. Fair Use allows point blank for coverage and exemption of copyright claims for the purposes of criticism and yet criticism is the number one reason claims are filed… the owners didn’t like what you said about them so they abuse the system in an effort to silence those would show the emperor stark naked and with massive shrinkage. A perfect example is what happened to Total Biscuit. He got permission from Wild Games Studio to review their new game and a review copy of the video game Day One: Garry’s Incident which he HATED. He posted a video detailing everything wrong with this game and Wild Games Studio used the copyright system to get his review removed on the grounds it violated their copyright (again ignoring Fair Use entirely). Now, that would be bad enough but of course it gets worse, Wild Games Studio filed other claims like this… all to reviews that were negative… yet they did NOT file claims on reviews that were positive… they were using the system to falsely accuse their critics of copyright infringement and to get that very criticism shut down, but it was okay and NOT infringement if you liked the game. That is not only despicable but also illegal (The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733 makes it so what they did is a punishable offense as they claimed a federal violation of their property had occurred when it did not).

There are uses to quite political opponents as well. Gordon Klingenschmitt uses copyright claims (false copyright claims) to get his ranting about fags and niggers off of youtube and other sites, claiming they are violating his rights by using his own words against him… then he was found to have been abusing the system (one of the few times the system responded correctly) and he continues to do so, over and over again all the while it is up to those he is flagging to fight each and every (false) claim made against them. It’s clear abuse and yet he is allowed to do it…

Unfortunately this is hardly an isolated incident, either, I have spoken before of the claims against Dan Bull and many others all the while I am decried for my efforts as a cynic and a malcontent looking to uproot the very foundation of what copyright law is and yet I have been right have I not? The system is designed to further entrench the already ludicrously imbalanced copyright institution in favor of the large corporations and to remove what little recourse we as the content creators had. You have no rights under their regime and honestly you never did, you merely had the illusion of rights under the broken and malignant copyright law as it stood since 1978, now you have proof that I was not howling into the wilderness but attempting to warn you of the impending sky as it loses elevation and crashes down upon you.

*From the US Copyright office:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

Tell me to shut the fuck up at