If you label it "this is what cucks actually believe", then you can cite Sargon v Akilah as court precedent, that merely changing the title is enough for fair use.
Yeah, I'm just wondering if that's how the videos that were DMCA'd titled. If they're doing full mirrors of his video then I think that is DMCA-ble isn't it?
I believe you can technically attack (copyright strike) any video, but it's supposedly legal to repost someone's video if you 'transform' it enough from the original, with commentary and such.
It's still going to be a judgement call by the trannies at youtube, so there's no sure defense.
It may be legal, but activist judges won't care. They'll take down what offends them with some excuse like "it wasn't modified enough from the original video," or their favorite, "no standing."
I think the fact he deleted it and doesn't want it to be seen makes it "newsworthy" and an upload could constitute fair use. He released a vlog online for free for public consumption and now doesn't want it to be seen because he feels it makes him look bad. It's commentary on a public figure.
Again? Didn’t this already happen like 3 years ago? The guy is just manufacturing controversy for relevancy. He’s as meaningless as Literally Sam Who.
He still gets views. He ain't gonna stop until the griftbux stops flowing.
When I read this post in the morning I thought it said Burger King uploads a video labeled I'm a Cuck.
The scary thing is, eventually commercials are openly going to advocate cuckholdry, that's a fact.
What a cuck lmao
This makes him a bitch, of course, but he under the DMCA he does have the right to copyright strike so-called "unauthorized" archives right?
I mean he's still a bitch regardless, but I think you're allowed to do that if someone is mirroring your shit without permission.
If you label it "this is what cucks actually believe", then you can cite Sargon v Akilah as court precedent, that merely changing the title is enough for fair use.
Yeah, I'm just wondering if that's how the videos that were DMCA'd titled. If they're doing full mirrors of his video then I think that is DMCA-ble isn't it?
I believe you can technically attack (copyright strike) any video, but it's supposedly legal to repost someone's video if you 'transform' it enough from the original, with commentary and such.
It's still going to be a judgement call by the trannies at youtube, so there's no sure defense.
It may be legal, but activist judges won't care. They'll take down what offends them with some excuse like "it wasn't modified enough from the original video," or their favorite, "no standing."
Yes, a direct complete reupload, completely unedited in any discernable fashion except the uploader, is DMCA-able.
The ones screenshotted seem to be full mirrors based on the title and the author's subsequent tweet: https://twitter.com/Bowblax/status/1407264725096747008
I think the fact he deleted it and doesn't want it to be seen makes it "newsworthy" and an upload could constitute fair use. He released a vlog online for free for public consumption and now doesn't want it to be seen because he feels it makes him look bad. It's commentary on a public figure.
NAL, but it seems an arguable point at least.
BuntyCuck is his official name.
Yeah, but the "people he didn't like" had also waged an extended bullying campaign against him. Neither side was blameless.