Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "Thunderf00t"
channel.
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@politenonparticipant4859 "the important bit is that it prevents their claim of copyright infringement official, so if they do make a string of false claims, there is a record of everyone they have scammed. If the dealing is done under the table, it would be difficult or impossible to prove how many people they cheated"
Any emails sent, like the one the Thunderf00t received, leaves just as much trail as those can be published (and a DMCA notice doesn't become public automatically).
"A DMCA notice would not be any less expensive to the person whose video was taken down, except perhaps in that it would delay the release of the video."
It can easily be a lot more expensive. It could result in a copystrike and, if it's a third one, deletion of their channel.
"As to your statement regarding the impropriety of threatening legal action on someone who has stolen your work, that is true. The matter at hand here is that the work isn't stolen if it is covered by fair use."
That has nothing to do with whether it's better to first initiate private contact or go straight to a DMCA notice. In this case, Mahlmann had clearly considered fair use before sending his email. In such a case, both a private email and a DMCA notice are valid options but I would say the former is generally morally better because sometimes unnecessary damage can be avoided if the infringer is willing to settle. (If the copyright holder hasn't considered fair use, then he shouldn't be doing either of the options before proper due diligence.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1