YT support are bots DMCA Copyright Abuser Threats Exposed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- YT support are bots DMCA Copyright Abuser Threats Exposed
Attention RUclips Staff! This is an urgent request for a thorough review regarding the misuse of the DMCA system on our channel. We are facing false claims that are threatening our content and livelihood, and we need immediate action to rectify this situation.
📄 What’s Happening:
I am revealing the entire drama and email exchange, containing the admittence of guilt then trying to pose as the aggressor then the offender in question boasts in arrogance he has some "source file" that somehow proves his work is original after he admitted they were not, is it really that easy to bend youtube into reinstating your channel after 5 proven copyright infringement with 4 severe category 4 accounts of song / track / composition and 1 digital art theft?
he thinks if he has a "process" if his end product is substantially similar somehow that doesn't infringe another person's copyright? so if you present the mona lisa with a different hair color and slightly different colored background and called it your own, it doesn't infringe Da Vinci?
What nonsense is that?
He is now making False Privacy Claims with Bogus Time Stamps which actually relate to the ACTUAL evidence of his crimes that he wants to shut down, and not to any personal identifying information revealed!
I certify in this video there is no "full name" revealed as there is no identifying middle name
e.g John Smith, there's millions of people called John Smith, I re-state again there are no identifying features that violates Joe Ritter's Privacy, Joe was the one that remade his youtube channel and posted his public facebook on his youtube about page, of which now his youtube is deleted.
Protecting Creators: The misuse of the DMCA system is a serious issue that affects countless creators on RUclips. We urge the RUclips team to prioritize this review and safeguard the integrity of the platform.
Upholding Fair Use: Our content adheres to fair use guidelines, and these false claims are an abuse of the system that undermines the creative freedom of RUclips creators.
RUclips Team: Please review our case urgently and take necessary actions to address this misuse of the DMCA system. We believe in the platform's commitment to supporting creators, and we trust that you will help us resolve this issue.
Fellow Creators and Viewers: Stand with us in calling for fair treatment of all content creators on RUclips. Your support is crucial in bringing attention to this issue.
🔔 Stay Updated:
Subscribe to our channel for updates on this situation and to continue supporting our content. Your encouragement means the world to us during this challenging time.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech, allowing individuals to express opinions and criticize others, including public figures or private individuals, without fear of government censorship or retaliation. Here’s how this applies to my situation with Mr. Ritter:
First Amendment Overview:
The First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Application to Criticism:
Right to Criticize: Under the First Amendment, you have the right to criticize Mr. Ritter’s behavior, especially if it involves unlawful actions, misconduct, or threats. This includes expressing your opinions about his actions publicly, as long as your statements are based on truth or are clearly presented as your opinions rather than false statements of fact.
Protection of Opinion and Truth:
Opinion: Statements that are clearly opinions (e.g., "I believe Mr. Ritter’s actions are unethical") are generally protected under the First Amendment. Even harsh criticism is protected, provided it is not based on knowingly false information.
Truth as Defense: If your criticism is based on factual information (e.g., emails, documented misconduct), the truth is a complete defense against defamation claims. This means that as long as your statements are truthful or you reasonably believe them to be true, your speech is protected.
Criticizing Unlawful Behavior:
Public Interest: Exposing or criticizing someone’s unlawful behavior, misconduct, or threats is often seen as a matter of public interest, further reinforcing your right to speak out under the First Amendment.
No Prior Restraint: The government (or, in your case, platforms like RUclips) cannot prevent you from making these criticisms unless they fall into a very narrow category of unprotected speech, such as incitement to violence or true threats.
#teamyoutube #DMCAAbuse #copyrightinfringement
Related Topics:
US constitution first amendment
false copyright
a.i and copyright problems
suno being sued for copyright by sony, umg and warner brothers
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech, allowing individuals to express opinions and criticize others, including public figures or private individuals, without fear of government censorship or retaliation.
I was tired last night and I may have been not thorough, I have cleaned the video so no addresses of any form is revealed in any way, that was me being tired from doing 2 jobs and dealing with this crap, I am stating these and revealing this to expose Mr. Ritter his admittence of guilt, misconduct, violation of DMCA, his twisted opinions and making up laws to suit his narrative, and then he makes threats, i will expose all these in my video as criticism which is well within my U.S Constitutionally protected rights, as you all know we engaged in counter notification, that means youtube already gave my personal information and his personal information to each other. youtube is the one that put both parties in some degree of danger. so I made these videos public, should anything happen to me.
and in the event IF Mr. Ritter supplied a fake name and fake address, then he doesn't legally own any of his material if he was operating under a false name.
and would have committed fraud and youtube should be made aware. He could be Barney the Dinosaur for all we know
No full name has ever been revealed in my video, as nobody knows what his middle name is, therefore I didn't breach his privacy, as I previously state, US Constitution First Amendment Trumps privacy as a defense when this individual is carrying out criminal activities and this video exposes all this!
There is also no reveal of location or any addresses.
everything Doc said is irrefutably factual
accountability of action would stifle any false accusation
and now he's making lies and false time stamps for privacy
Doctor K like totally defended himself and US First Amendment of the Constitution!
I know the U.S law inside out
3:27 If Mr. Ritter can't explain the 5 DMCA proven copyright strikes as a result of what he uploaded, he keeps thinking saying whatever he wants regarding how the video is made, it doesn't change the fact and end result of what he uploaded to be infringing
That list of green is youtube's DMCA hunter killer system, if the case isn't established it wouldn't go hunt for copyright infringement, the fact is IT IS established, and the 5 on that record is basically a white collar criminal record of Mr.Ritter's offenses and in the video he states "all I have to do is supply a source file then my channel is guarunteed reinstated!"
you think its that easy? you think that's what youtube ask you to prove? the chances of reinstating a channel with 5 copyright strikes with 4 severe catagory and 1 digital art theft using COINCIDENCE as defense, it doesn't hold up in court, just like how Coldplay was found GUILTY vs Joe Satriani they tried the same excuse Mr.Ritter is using and they lost the case. But what makes me aggravated is Mr.Ritter acting arrogantly thinking he can make up laws to suit his narrative living in his world instead of everyone else's world we live in.
Doctor K is defending the US Constitution First Amendment Right!
sure am
if he wants to even have a chance in youtube he would need to walk away and just do something else, but seems like he just doesn't want to walk away
hmm
well, hopefully the drama is over now
you'll never know
thank you for defending yourself and first amendment rights
no problem
do not shut down freedom of speech!
lets hope so
and this copyright plagiarist is trying to abuse youtube false reporting to violate Doctor K's first amendment...
and how did that work out?
Its not healthy to keep engaging with him Doc! you should be making more Ugandan Knuckle Videos!
also, just to point out, when Mr. Ritter later claims his end result is VAGUELY similar to Doc's work.
why don't we put that into perspective, what if MR. Ritter's end result of his work is VAGUELY similar to a major artist from VEVO, what if it was VAGUELY similar to Lady Gaga, Kendrik Lamar? then VEVO would file a lawsuit so big Mr. Ritter wouldn't be able to stand back up ever again.
the sad part is What Mr. Ritter failed to understand is that if your published work on youtube even resembles 5-10% similar to any TRIPLE A celebrety's work they will destroy you with copyright claims. Its happened to me when I first started out years ago on youtube just grabbing an instrument and playing a popular song. And I didn't know back then.
if your work is 5-10% similar to anyone elses work its still copyright infringement, big corporations like VEVO they don't care.
protect free speech!
George Washington would turn in his grave if he takes this video down , and then youtube would be complicit to violating probably the right that's worth the most money
He needs to man up, make a new channel and just leave you alone and accept his mistake.
he is making more bad choices
again it is no different than Coffeezilla VS Logan Paul video at 8:03 Mr Ritter tries to twist Doctor K's words and misinterpret suspicion as fact, what a misguided man.
If only he can just walk away, start a new music channel that has nothing to do with anybody's channel then we can just walk our separate ways, and if he can just take the time to go learn copyright like everyone did then everyone can get on with their lives.
Doctor K knows da wae, da wae of U.S Applicable Law😮
Aftermath: Retrospectre84 channel was never reinstated but remade😂
sigh
Doctor K should be able to make content without dealing with BS
everyone should
If only youtube would actually bother watching whats actually said here
exactly
19:06 if you look at what Mr Ritter said earlier vs what he said here, he first admits his wrong doing and guilt, because copyright infringement doesn't care about the process it only cares about the result, its like if 3 different groups tried to make a toyota and called it NOT Toyota, then Toyota Sues them then if those NOT TOYOTA creators are like Mr Ritter, then their argument is oh no I didn't make my NOT TOYOTAS the same way TOYOTA MADE IT, it just looks like a toyota YEAH Totally original!.
Court: NO
If the courts allowed it, then all these copy cat Toyotas will be running around, and if Ritter wins with his nonsense then he needs to know that the consequences would be in the future anybody can release anything that is 75% or 100% the same as his content and use his same defense against it making every a.i music videos worthless!
If Mr RItter's video that is 75% to 100% lets say...the same as a famous song like....Bruno Mars, if Bruno Mars don't sue Mr Ritter for copyright infringement then where is the value of Bruno Mars songs?
he would start a a.i art and music communism where all CPM in a.i music becomes next to nothing and everyone will have the same sounding music and same looking art with no consequences and nobody will make money