Print Story VTR E-Mails on March 10th & 11th - A
Law
By lylehsaxon (Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 10:03:04 PM EST) (all tags)
Getting close to the wording at issue.  This is all of another string I found.  The continuation is somewhere else.  I'll dig some more....

Note the date of the proposed licensing - it goes way past the take-down request, which I didn't notice at first, but before committing to his suggested contract, which I considered, I realized that date was wrong and suggested a date prior to the take-down request, and then things stalled there.  They suggested another date, but at this point, I realized they were trying to lure me into a trap and were not discussing this in good faith - and then enter [stage left] the lawyer, who was probably in the background all along.



from    Aabbc Bbdde <Aabbc@Ppqqr.com>
to    "Lyle" <lyle@nanjara.com>
cc    Ssttu Vvwwx <svvwwx@google.com>
date    Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM
subject    Fwd: DMCA retraction template
  
Lyle,

Here's the legal language I received from YouTube's attorney, Ssttu Vvwwx who is CC'd here.

Please send this email to copyright@youtube.com and I can wire you the settlement money.

Cheers,
Aabbc

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ssttu Vvwwx <svvwwx@google.com>
Date: March 9, 2010 7:46:18 PM PST
To: Aabbc Bbdde <Aabbc@Ppqqr.com>
Subject: Re: DMCA retraction template

"I hereby retract the DMCA notification I submitted for the video located at the following URL:  [Stolen Video Title: http://www.youtube.com/__StolenVideoTitle__"

Regards,
Ssttu


    On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Aabbc Bbdde <Aabbc@Ppqqr.com> wrote:

        Hi Ssttu,

        Does YT provide a template for retracting DMCA notices? If not, can someone provide the key points?

        Cheers,
        Aabbc

        --

        Aabbc Bbdde
        CEO



from    Lyle <lyle@nanjara.com>
to    Aabbc Bbdde <Aabbc@Ppqqr.com>
cc    Ssttu Vvwwx <svvwwx@google.com>
date    Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM
  
Aabbc
cc: Ssttu Vvwwx

I intend to maintain full ownership and copyright protection of my video material, which I took myself and am the rightful owner and legal copyright holder of.

You contacted me saying that Google has a "strike" against you over this that you would like to erase.  Is there an option for me to just say that while I maintain full ownership and copyright protection of my material, that I harbor no ill feelings towards you and they can drop the strike against you?

I am not retracting ownership of my material.  It was a time-intensive and expensive operation in 1991 accumulating video footage of Tokyo, of which that video is the most valuable part.

Sincerely,

Lyle H Saxon



from    Aabbc Bbdde <Aabbc@Ppqqr.com>
to    "Lyle" <lyle@nanjara.com>
cc    Ssttu Vvwwx <svvwwx@google.com>
date    Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM
subject    Re: DMCA retraction template
  
Hi Lyle,

By releasing us from the strike, you are not retracting ownership of the material in any way. All you're doing is retracting the NOTIFICATION to Youtube.

Cheers,
Aabbc



from    Aabbc Bbdde <Aabbc@Ppqqr.com>
to    "Lyle" <lyle@nanjara.com>
cc    Ssttu Vvwwx <svvwwx@google.com>
date    Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:03 AM
subject    Re: DMCA retraction template
  
Hi Lyle,

I had another idea!

Instead of you messing with DMCA notices and so forth, we can use the $1,800 as payment to license the video for past use and deal with YouTube ourselves. Actually, now that I remember, you may have proposed this in previous emails.

Just like any traditional, non-exclusive, commercial license deals, the rights of use will be strictly limited by the time period (we'd be paying for use until Dec. 31, 2009, which means the use has already expired and we can't use that video again) and method (in this case, YouTube only).

Here's the full agreement:

"I, Lyle, the full copyright and rights owner of the video formerly hosted at: [http://www.youtube.com/__StolenVideoTitle__", grant XYZ-Co., Inc. a non-exclusive commercial license to use that video only on YouTube from the date it was first posted to XYZ-Co.' account until December 31, 2009 in exchange for a payment of USD $1,800."

How does that sound? This accords you any and all rights due to you as the copyright owner while removing the strike. This would mean that we can ask YouTube to remove the strike from our account and clearly designates you as the copyright holder and full rights owner.

If this is okay with you, we'll wire you the funds shortly.

Cheers,
Aabbc

----------------------------------------------------------------

< February & March 2010 VTR (Video Theft Related) E-mails | Girls Just Wanna Have Fun >
VTR E-Mails on March 10th & 11th - A | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
I don't think anything shady is necessarily going by garlic (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:05:42 AM EST
on. The deal proposed "money for a license to the past usage" doesn't seem scammy. Google says here that multiple infringements will be cause for account termination -- a real risk for a company taking anonymous video submissions and posts them on youtube. So I understand their desire to 'remove the strike', but there's no good reason for you to do so -- it just enables them to infringe again without it counting against them.

So if you want them to stop infringing on other people, leaving the strike against them makes sense. But you can't stop people from suing you over something you think is retarded, either. So if they keep pressing after you tell them what's what, you may have to deal with any repercussions of them trying to take you to court.


The sticking point is... by lylehsaxon (4.00 / 3) #2 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:49:06 AM EST
... that I find it wrong to say that I shouldn't have requested the video be taken down.  That needed to be done!  In addition to the fact that it was stolen, they had it sitting there with the comments section open and with absolutely no moderation - pilling up racist and horrible comments - inflaming passions and leading towards trouble.


The shortest way home is the longest way 'round....
[ Parent ]
I don't see by aphrael (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:43:00 PM EST
I don't see anywhere where you are being asked to say that you were wrong to post the DMCA notice.

The contract they proposed in this thread simply retroactively gives them the right to have used your video prior to a certain date, which allows them to go to Google and say "look, there's no infringement".

It's a bit awkward to retroactively assign rights. And there's no reason you have to agree to it - you're well within your rights to refuse - but it's the functional equivalent of them (a) agreeing to stop, and (b) compensating you for the damage they caused you, simply rearranged into a form that works for YouTube.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
I see nothing that could constitute an agreement, by muchagecko (2.00 / 0) #3 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:56:42 AM EST
on your part.

But I'm not a lawyer, and these creeps seem hell bent on taking you to court.

I'm so sorry you've got these a-holes harassing you. You don't deserve it. You've done nothing wrong.


A purpose gives you a reason to wake up every morning.
So a purpose is like a box of powdered donut holes?
Exactly
My Name is Earl

Thank you for saying that - by lylehsaxon (4.00 / 1) #4 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:06:24 AM EST
I appreciate your saying that.  I'm still trying to put the whole chain of e-mails together....

The shortest way home is the longest way 'round....
[ Parent ]
I see a couple of agreements by BadDoggie (4.00 / 1) #5 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:57:04 AM EST
But only ones made by the thieves, none by Hiroshi. I'm going to disagree that they want to go to court; I think they're trying to bully and scare him into accepting their terms. However, I am litigious and all too happy to walk into a courtroom, sometimes even wearing my designer Riding Gear by Quixote while my buddy Pyrrhus sits behind me for moral support.

Following my advice will cause them to shit or get off the pot. Know that there is a chance they will shit, but I don't see how based on what's been presented so far. There's not even an inkling of an agreement to any terms on Hiroshi's part, only multiple begs on theirs to contact YouTube and to consider taking $1800 along with wording which completely indemnifies their past illegal behaviour.

If this was my stolen video, my letter would have read much like the last one I wrote, except that I probably would not have let them have the out that you are. But that's me and I like going to court (except for German divorce court).

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?

[ Parent ]
I agree with Bad Doggie by yankeehack (4.00 / 1) #6 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:55:46 AM EST
aside from the fact he's a smart guy - he's right.

Here's the thing, do not be scared of legal language. You did nothing wrong here and the reason why they want to enforce the agreement is

a)Someone at their company did something really, really wrong here. It could have been an intern, a martketing manager or a clueless VP. But they as a corporation are responsible for that.

b)$1800 is cheap compared to the 3.5 MILLION views that video got. Also, hey did the put their name on the YouTube page or a link to their corporate site? I bet they did. Think of the traffic they profited from. No wonder why they want this to go away.

Even if you decide you don't want the money or future claims from them, my very very strong personal opinion is not to take that YouTube notice down at all. It's that request which bothers me the most.

Also, BD and I have run the gamut in terms of the legal system in the states. Here's my advice - do not be afraid or intimidated by this lawyer or the language. Stick to your guns and if this goes to court, I would follow the advice lm gave yesterday which would be to solicit the help of a local bar association (wherever this company chooses to file legal action - which probably will be Mountain View, CA). Hell, Stanford Law has an excellent cyber/tech law program. I bet - once you document this all - we could help you contact a few professors. I'm sure someone there would love to help out...Stanford Law vs. asshole company trying to remove a takedown request for stolen content on YouTube.

But, please for the love of God, do not back down and do not be intimidated.
"...she dares to indulge in the secret sport. You can't be a MILF with the F, at least in part because the M is predicated upon it."-CBB

[ Parent ]
Yes, it's as you imagine... by lylehsaxon (4.00 / 1) #8 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 07:38:34 AM EST
Re: b)$1800 is cheap compared to the 3.5 MILLION views that video got. Also, hey did the put their name on the YouTube page or a link to their corporate site? I bet they did. Think of the traffic they profited from. No wonder why they want this to go away.

Oh yeah - it was tied in with their websites, etc., including the one with a vast collection of copied videos.  Presumably many of them are even with permission of the owners, but many must not be.  That's what I've been thinking.  They must have a backlog of complaints and are trying to do whatever they can to stay in a position to keep preying on other people's material....

The shortest way home is the longest way 'round....
[ Parent ]
agreed. by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:47:09 PM EST
do not be afraid or intimidated by this lawyer or the language.

agreemsg.

legalese can be intimidating, but there's no reason why it needs to be.

i'm constrained in giving my opinion because i'm a lawyer-in-training. but this really does seem like the sort of thing where they're trying to intimidate you, and talking to a lawyer may help you figure out how to resist.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
I agree by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:44:11 PM EST
that in this exchange, I don't see lyle agreeing to anything.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
Also, one more thing by yankeehack (4.00 / 1) #7 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 05:59:37 AM EST
You have not revealed the company and the reason why they may be so aggressive is that they have a past pattern of behavior. 

Why would the guy you were emailing with "have contacts at youtube?"
"...she dares to indulge in the secret sport. You can't be a MILF with the F, at least in part because the M is predicated upon it."-CBB

Exactly.... by lylehsaxon (4.00 / 1) #9 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 07:52:24 AM EST
What I could never quite understand is why the guy he CC'ed some of the e-mails to would never answer me when I wrote directly to him.  I've just noticed (at the bottom of an e-mail - I didn't see it before) that the Google guy that is his "contact" has this title: "Product Counsel | Google Inc."  What position exactly is "Product Counsel"?

The shortest way home is the longest way 'round....
[ Parent ]
His area is Google 'products' by BadDoggie (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 11:21:34 AM EST
As opposed to general legal, courtroom representation, contracts, M&A, etc.

woof.

OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?

[ Parent ]
VTR E-Mails on March 10th & 11th - A | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback