Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) Some of you may be aware of the formal compromise of JFK Numbers: - Our ultimate superiors are The People Plus, our fundamental principle: - The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth in the Kennedy murder case, based on NUMBERS. With that in mind, our esteemed founder: Coach Ernie Herrera prepared a video sequence taken from a "Grey's Anatomy" episode. We Are Not Even Tweeting the Time of Day The idea was to show brilliant, yet old-fashioned doctor Richard Webber: Doctor Richard Webber as an amalgamation of: - Arthur Snyder - Luke and Michael Haag - Cyril Wecht [my Pope] - Gary Aguilar [my mentor] - Joseph Riley - Pat Speer - Peter Cummings - John Costella - David Mantik - Michael Chesser - Randolph Robertson [my mentor] - G. Paul Chambers - Stewart Galanor - Anthony Marsh - Robert Harris - AARC Library [Feel free to contribute to the list above ] See the results here: Video Blocked Notice Video Blocked Dispute Against Disney -Ramon Edited July 12, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) Jim Di, e-chief: The Kennedys and King article, first draft is ready. As soon as I get home, I will re-check for spellings, etc. and e-mail it to you. For the nth. time, may you and your readers receive my profuse apologies. Thanks for keeping me honest. -Ramon Edited July 12, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said: Ramon, It's a dangin' copyright violation, and threatening to publish it anyway may create legal problems for you as well as whoever hosts it. Please do not publish it here. Hi Kathy: All I have posted here in the Education Forum is a link to: - The notice from YouTube - My dispute They are 100% legal. Incidentally: It is not the duty of forum administrators to verify copyright violations. I hereby assume full responsibility. Let's not forget that any forum which claims to be related to Education (or journalism) has a duty to: Dare to Speak Truth to Power Thanks and keep up the good work. -Ramon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) This is the current status: =============================== Quote [In the JFK Assassination Forum, John Iacoletti wrote:] Let me see if I understand this correctly. You posted a video on YouTube that was nothing but a clip from the Gray's Anatomy TV show and you're surprised that you got a copyright strike? Hi John, long time no see: I am a little surprised because of the following. Take a look at the contents of the JFK Numbers channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAE2K90XWbLWWEwEP5tfobw I do wholesale copying from Cheers and Frasier with no attribution. As soon as I posted them, I got a nice notice: "Includes copyrighted content, it may be subject to advertising". If you click in my Cheers or Frasier videoclips, you get an offer to buy the full episode. [top right, info] The way I see it, I am working for free for the copyright owners. Welcome to the new economy. Thanks for always questioning me. I wish more readers had your interest (actually cojones is a more sincere term) in: Dare to Speak Truth to Power (real or claimed). -Ramon ps: The current status of my 9-minute Grey's Anatomy videoclip is: "Copyright dispute in progress" and viewable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR1BMd5jV3Q Edited July 13, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said: "Copyright It shouldn't be surprising that similar legal issues surround the online posting and distribution of copyrighted materials. The content providers (the performers, writers, artists, and retailers) want to protect their copyrighted materials. Many website operators also want to abide by copyright laws, but they're concerned about new laws that could stifle the dynamic growth of the Internet. Online bulleting boards make it especially easy for someone to upload a song, story or image to a bulletin board. The bulletin board operator then stores the digital file, and someone can come along and download the file. Generally, the bulletin board operator is liable for violations of copyright laws. [...] Kathy: The last thing that I would like to do in my life is to get into a dispute with you. However, this is the Education Forum and we are in the middle of a learning experience. A precedent must be set. The main duty of any forum is toward its SUBSCRIBERS and to its declared principles. The text above seems to show a higher duty to non-subscribers, based on interpretation of the law by laymen. Speaking of violations of law, moral, ethics and patriotism: How about murdering a president, like a dog on a street? How about our beloved and respected media (aka copyright owners) being active participants in covering up of a five-decade old crime? I am sure that I am not the only one who wished that we focused on such lack of justice. Cheers, shalom and thanks for your hard work. -Ramon ps: The main issue is moot, anyway. See here: This is the videoclip under dispute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Unsolicited copy erased. Edited July 13, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Ramon, There is no way the EF is going allow itself to be open to a copyright infringement. The power of the "Greys Anatomy" studio would bankrupt the members of the admin. We are the ones they would first seek judgement against and we have no defence against what you want to do. We would be culpable for allowing you to post such copyright material on our site. I have removed the link to your video. I advise you not to re-link - there will be immediate sanctions against you should you do so. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) James: This is quite a disappointment. Is this the official position of its founder, John Simpkin, a very respected person in the JFK community? So Disney and YouTube have no problem but you do. I thought this was an Educational resource Silly me. When JFK Numbers claim to be affiliated with The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth, you (James Gordon) are clearly not on board. Are you sure you understand America at all? Over here, people are considered INNOCENT until proven otherwise. Just to continue our educational experience. Here's an hypothetical. Suppose that in a month Disney decides to ban the video (the same one that YOU and only YOU have decided to ban well in advance). I can post it in some YouTube wanna be and it is THEM and ME who would be liable. Webmasters are NOT required to follow all links to see whether they lead to some material that YOU deem illegal. -Ramon Edited July 13, 2017 by Ramon F. Herrera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon F. Herrera Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 11 hours ago, James R Gordon said: We are the ones they would first seek judgement against and we have no defence against what you want to do. We would be culpable for allowing you to post such copyright material on our site. James. James: The material has NEVER and will NEVER be posted in "your" site. We participants cannot even place one single picture over here.There are a gazillion links to the naked pictures of Scarlett Johansson all over the Internet. She only went after the real (not pretend, like the Ed Forum wants to be) hosting sites. For starters, she would be attacking her main possession: her loyal fans. It would be counterproductive at the level of career ending move, suicidal. I guess the Ed Forum has no such qualms. I am beginning to conclude that the reaction of this site (actually, one and half moderators) has very little to do with copyrights. Dear readers: Can you see now what I meant when I claimed to be interested in The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth? I always added: "It is not easy, there will be consequences. It can be painful and rejected. It is a lot easier to remain silent". Those who choose The Truth can suffer worse consequences than being silenced with a telephone cord: -Ramon ps: Kathy: I renew my profuse thanks for your hard work. Your intervention so far has been very professional. Keep up the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Mr. Herrera, In case you were not aware, a few years back Mr. Simkin and Andy Walker decided to discontinue their ownership/sponsorship of The Education Forum. If no new owners had stepped up, the information on the forum might have been lost. A group of people then stepped up to preserve the forum, and the fiscal and financial responsibility for keeping the EF operating. We are NOT some huge corporation with deep pockets. We are simply trying to preserve a valuable resource. As such, we cannot, and WILL NOT, allow you or any other member to expose us to litigation based upon copyright violation. How any copyrighted information from GREY'S ANATOMY, a work of fiction, has a bearing on solving or clearing up ANY aspect of the JFK assassination, I cannot seem to fathom. Therefore, we refuse to allow your post on Education Forum to expose us to litigation in this fashion. If this was YOUR site, and you were the owner legally responsible for the content, you could post whatever the hell you wanted and deal with the consequences accordingly. I don't want to be held legally responsible for the content of YOUR posting of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. It's actually a simple legal concept. If you can get permission from the copyright holder to post the material in question, I'm sure that neither I nor the other current owners of The Education Forum would have a problem with your post. Absent that permission, the owners of the forum prefers not to expose ourselves to legal action that might result in personal bankruptcy as well as the shutting down of the EF. We believe that the EF is a valuable resource, and that risking the future of the forum on the thin sliver of HOPE that we would not be sued is a risk we are not comfortable taking at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Mark Knight, Even if the copyrighted material were to be posted (linked and/or embedded) here at The Education Forum, I doubt very much that there would even be a sliver of a chance that THIS FORUM would be liable in any way at all, since THIS FORUM is not the site that is hosting the video in the first place. It's some OTHER site that's doing the "hosting" of the material. So it would be THAT site (and/or the person who uploaded it to that other site) who would face the consequences in a copyright dispute. That fact seems pretty basic (and obvious) to me. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of posts at this forum which include embedded YouTube videos. And The Education Forum isn't deemed "liable" in any way at all for the fact that those YouTube videos (many of which, let's face it, violate somebody's copyright) have been embedded by EF members. Edited July 13, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 David, You are right that the host of this site is not us but Invision. However - though I have not read all the small print - if a claim were made to Invision for copyright infringement I am certain there is something in our conditions of use where it is stated that in these cases the responsibility does not rest with Invision but the owners of this site. Further - the admin team - do not want to encourage the posting of commercial propriety material. Whether we would be chased is not the point. This site is not YouTube. Our central focus is the assassination of JFK and we have no wish to weaken that core of attention. You are also right that there are numerous linking of videos throughout the site. And I accept that we - the admin team - have been lax on this issue and allowed all kinds of video links to be posted. That will be coming to an end. This is a JFK research site and clearly videos focused on that subject - such as your collection - are acceptable. However videos that are not JFK focused - when noticed - will be removed. Finally, you claim that were a claim to be launched against this forum we would not be deemed liable. If a serious claim were to be made I am not certain that we would be free of responsibility. I am sure - within the small print of our rules of ownership - there is more than enough amunition for a claim to be made against us. Aside from the aesetics, the admin team feel it would be foolish to place the forum in such danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) When I said this earlier.... "I doubt very much that there would even be a sliver of a chance that THIS FORUM would be liable in any way at all, since THIS FORUM is not the site that is hosting the video in the first place. It's some OTHER site that's doing the "hosting" of the material." ....I wasn't referring to anything regarding "Invision". I was instead referring to the site that is hosting the video in question (such as YouTube or Vimeo, etc.). And it's highly unlikely that any "third party" site that merely allows the embedding of videos on its site (such as EF) would be liable for any of the content within those embedded (or linked) videos. I'm pretty sure, however, that this EF site has something written in its TOS that says not to post copyrighted material without permission. Right? But when copyrighted stuff is posted (and thousands of such videos are posted on Internet forums every single day), does anyone really think that all those site owners are going to perform a detailed check to make sure the video doesn't violate any copyright? Of course they aren't. No way that ever happens. The site (or forum) owners discourage the posting of copyrighted works, of course (via the TOS that nobody ever reads), but there's no way that the EF can be sued for merely having a Grey's Anatomy clip embedded in a post by a member named Ramon F. Herrera. Herrera and/or YouTube would face the copyright consequences. Not EF. Edited July 13, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 I encourage our team to hold fast and stay safe. Mr. Herrera, I really can't understand why you persist. This is not some conspiracy against you. I don't think you should begin to cast aspersions on the admin here. Just accept their position and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Ramon, I personally doubt that the forum would be sued for linking to a web page exhibiting "fair use" copyrighted material. However, I don't blame the moderators for being concerned about that possibility. If that content were directly observable on the forum (i.e. without clicking a link), then even I would be concerned. I think that the admonition "better safe than sorry" applies. That said, I believe you may be right about your clip being fair use. According to this legal article, your YouTube case is strengthened by two factors: 1) that the use is for non-profit purposes; and 2) the clip is short. The shorter the clip, the better your case. BTW, I believe that you may be hurting your case by making statements that will mean little if anything to the person reviewing it. Examples: "(specifically: its numbers)" [What does that mean?] The sentence about ABC, Peter Jennings, Dale Myers, and Steve Jobs. [That just confuses the issue.] Your threat to publish it elsewhere. [The reviewer might just think, "Fine, go ahead. Then it won't be my problem."] Edited July 16, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now