1. It's Anecdotal. Not necessarily damning, but you need wider studies and information on both sides of the isle.
2. The Trademark claims that have been listed in the videos are all perfectly valid.
3. Both Videos revolve around the same single incident as an example for trademark takedowns, and incident which happened to that individual. This compromises impartiality.
Again, I'm not saying these videos are bad, I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm saying they're not good sources and do not incontrovertibly lead to the conclusion that, and I quote you, "Trademark claims allow companies to take down videos UNHINDERED!"
-1) There is no study REQUIRED it is a system within youtube that already exists. What would you be studying? Nothing!
-2) No, they aren't... that is a complete misunderstanding of how Trademark works. At no point did either of them claim that the product was theirs or that they are the owners of said product... NOR was there any confusion over it. (And in the Playboy case it is even more deliciously fraudulent... so much so it might actually go to court)
-3) Impartiality is not a requirement for evidence. No one is thrown out of court because they were shot by the defendant in a case where the defendant allegedly shot them. That is ridiculous.
Again... show me EVIDENCE! that you do not have. Show me how Trademark takedown works on YouTube if you so believe these sources inaccurate.
Wait, I need to show you evidence to prove your claim isn't true?
Neon, that's not how claims work. You make claim, you provide evidence. We either accept or reject based on given evidence. From there you can either provide more evidence or resign yourself to some people not being convinced. Arguing that your evidence is just fine and everyone else is wrong doesn't go far.
1. Yes, a study is absolutely needed. You would be studying case reports, going over a set of incidents, looking at both parties involved, and weighing the validity of the claim against the action taken by Youtube. This is called Journalism.
2. Um. Neon, no. Tradmark law is complex, but this situation is simple. Let me break down the Playboy case for you.
A. There is a famous company called Playboy.
B. There is a not-so famous company that makes an item that uses Playboy's image to sell their product, but this not-so famous company is utterly unrelated to Playboy.
C. An individual makes a video reviewing the non-legitimate product.
D. Playboy successfully makes a trademark claim against the counterfeiting company.
E. Playboy then makes a successful trademark claim against the video comparing the two products.
It doesn't
matter that the review knew they were two separate entities and one was a knockoff. The original company still has the right to not be associated with the knock-off.
Imagine if an Indie company calls itself Bethesda Softworks and makes the world's shittiest open world game. Real ZeniMax comes in and files a copyright claim against the fake. Actual Zenimax should have the ability to remove or force changes made to reviewers who (quite rightfully) reviewed the game and said that Bethesda Softworks is a steaming pile of dog feces.
If I am in error, please locate the section of case law stating otherwise and forward it to me. I'll happily read it.
3. Uh, that's a terrible example. In court cases, a person is nearly never (I've never heard of it) convicted on the word of one person alone. No, the accuser is not thrown out, and their testimony is not discarded, but how many court cases have you ever heard of where the sole evidence was the word of one person against another? As I said, I'm not saying they're wrong, but you need the equivalent of ballistics information, finger prints, camera footage, etc. Impartial evidence.
EDIT:
Neon, complete posts. Please. You're giving me conniptions.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14979326 times)