Hammond DMCA Claim Update

[TomK]

You could see if the CLA would represent you, Brother Darrell.

[leaving]

CLA are the reprobates who are defending Phelps. I assume you were tongue in cheek Tom buy boy I lost any and all respect for them once I found that out. I want to know what other Christian criminals they've defended too now.

[Laurie]

(04-19-2011 07:22 AM)Darrell Wrote:  Someone has pointed me to Hammond's Terms of Use page to suggest that their DMCA claims may be legitimate.
http://www.fbchammond.com/about/terms-of-use/

This doesn't make sense if you didn't get the video from their website in the first place.

[RobMille]

(04-23-2011 05:41 AM)Laurie Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 07:22 AM)Darrell Wrote:  Someone has pointed me to Hammond's Terms of Use page to suggest that their DMCA claims may be legitimate.
http://www.fbchammond.com/about/terms-of-use/

This doesn't make sense if you didn't get the video from their website in the first place.

Darrell might not have gotten it directly from their website, but it's obvious that video was captured from their stream by someone. I still think you have to have somewhere you affirmatively agree to the terms, not a "by accessing you agree Eula somewhere else on the site to be able to enforce it.

[Beowulf]

(04-23-2011 06:01 AM)RobMille Wrote:  

(04-23-2011 05:41 AM)Laurie Wrote:  This doesn't make sense if you didn't get the video from their website in the first place.

Darrell might not have gotten it directly from their website, but it's obvious that video was captured from their stream by someone. I still think you have to have somewhere you affirmatively agree to the terms, not a "by accessing you agree Eula somewhere else on the site to be able to enforce it.

I agree with Rob. Just think of the abuses ANY organization could enforce simply by visiting their website...

Quote:Visitors to this site agree to pay the owners of said site $1,000,000 per view. Failure to do so may result in legal action

I think we might have found a new revenue stream for Darrell.

[RobMille]

(04-23-2011 06:46 AM)Beowulf Wrote:  

(04-23-2011 06:01 AM)RobMille Wrote:  Darrell might not have gotten it directly from their website, but it's obvious that video was captured from their stream by someone. I still think you have to have somewhere you affirmatively agree to the terms, not a "by accessing you agree Eula somewhere else on the site to be able to enforce it.

I agree with Rob. Just think of the abuses ANY organization could enforce simply by visiting their website...

Quote:Visitors to this site agree to pay the owners of said site $1,000,000 per view. Failure to do so may result in legal action

I think we might have found a new revenue stream for Darrell.

I missed that revenue stream post. That's hilarious! Or better yet, have a EULA that says by accessing this blog you grant access for commentary purposes to any copyrighted or EULA'd video stream. It wouldn't generate revenue, but would be funny to have competing invalid TOS's!

[Crystalclear]

I'm willing to contribute to the SFL legal team. Let me know if I can help! I would love to get in on this!