ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

nikkiboy wrote:

ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:50 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:50 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

You mean the argument someone who was allowed to promote his illegal DVDs on here has appeared in Crown Court, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in 11 days time?

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:22 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:50 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

You mean the argument someone who was allowed to promote his illegal DVDs on here has appeared in Crown Court, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in 11 days time?

No I mean the truth, as in someone had a web link in his signature like you do which like yours linked to copyrighted material being broadcasted or distributed by someone who is not the owner of that copyright.

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:22 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:50 pm

nikkiboy wrote: It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

You mean the argument someone who was allowed to promote his illegal DVDs on here has appeared in Crown Court, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in 11 days time?

No I mean the truth, as in someone had a web link in his signature like you do which like yours linked to copyrighted material being broadcasted or distributed by someone who is not the owner of that copyright.

Report me then and see if i appear in Crown Court.

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:35 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:22 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:50 pm Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

You mean the argument someone who was allowed to promote his illegal DVDs on here has appeared in Crown Court, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in 11 days time?

No I mean the truth, as in someone had a web link in his signature like you do which like yours linked to copyrighted material being broadcasted or distributed by someone who is not the owner of that copyright.

Report me then and see if i appear in Crown Court.

Are you still crying?

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:35 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:22 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:50 pm Or you could reply to his last post in a sensible manner.

There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

You mean the argument someone who was allowed to promote his illegal DVDs on here has appeared in Crown Court, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in 11 days time?

No I mean the truth, as in someone had a web link in his signature like you do which like yours linked to copyrighted material being broadcasted or distributed by someone who is not the owner of that copyright.

Report me then and see if i appear in Crown Court.

Why would I report you? You are not the one infringing copyright.

You really are struggling with this aren't you, do you want me to ask Oche to explain it to you?

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:35 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:22 pm

nikkiboy wrote: There's a whole three or four paragraphs in response but it's going so far off topic and into the intricacies of copyright, fair use and monetisation involving legislation before and after the rules were relaxed/changed a few years ago, how you need to credit the copyright owner if you are claiming fair use and also how YouTube sometimes doesn't detect copyrighted material via it's content ID system if it's a short clip or has been incorporated into a frame. Can't be arsed because it in no way changes the principal or the argument.

You mean the argument someone who was allowed to promote his illegal DVDs on here has appeared in Crown Court, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in 11 days time?

No I mean the truth, as in someone had a web link in his signature like you do which like yours linked to copyrighted material being broadcasted or distributed by someone who is not the owner of that copyright.

Report me then and see if i appear in Crown Court.

Why would I report you? You are not the one infringing copyright.

You really are struggling with this aren't you, do you want me to ask Oche to explain it to you?

Im ok thanks. Im just glad that justice has finally been done, mate.

nikkiboy wrote:

ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

I couldn’t care less about defending anyone, I’m mearly telling you that the couple of paragraphs you wrote to try and make some obscure point to him was complete bollocks

If you want me to get back on topic basgooner was an idiot for what he was doing and how blatantly he was doing it (and how he spoke to people) and you was an idiot for letting him advertise it on here.

Zapp Brannigan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:32 pm and you was an idiot for letting him advertise it on here.

Why?

It's nice though to think that Chris will jump to Nick's defence over anything

Ginge wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:39 pm It's nice though to think that Chris will jump to Nick's defence over anything

Or you could reply to my post in a sensible manner.

Zapp Brannigan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:32 pm

nikkiboy wrote:

ChrisW wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:45 pm Hang on Ginge didn't create the clip. Why are you even discussing it.

It's nice though to think that Zapp will jump to Ginge's defence over anything

I couldn’t care less about defending anyone, I’m mearly telling you that the couple of paragraphs you wrote to try and make some obscure point to him was complete bollocks

If you want me to get back on topic basgooner was an idiot for what he was doing and how blatantly he was doing it (and how he spoke to people) and you was an idiot for letting him advertise it on here.

Just re-read this, complete bollocks?

Is the YouTube clip in breach of copyright, i.e. is it from the official copyright owner or does it have a fair use disclaimer?
Breach of copyright exists regardless of whether it has been reported to or discovered by the original copyright owner.

Is the YouTube channel monetised?

Does a member link to it in his signature?

Which part of my paragraphs are bollocks?

Grammatical errors aside, how was he 'advertising' it on here?
In your own time zapp.....

I would imagine the fact it was in his signature for years was advertising it ffs. Only removed when i reported it and you finally relented in (i think) 2016.

Be interesting to see the sentence.
I would be more worried with the Proceeds of Crime order than the prison time.

BlueSpark wrote:Be interesting to see the sentence.
I would be more worried with the Proceeds of Crime order than the prison time.

Indeed. In the meantime im just setting up my animal porn website. Will be putting a link in my sig at some point.

Well all this occurred from before I was a moderator and indeed mostly before I even joined here.
A great read though, this thread.

Would be no surprise.

BlueSpark wrote:Well all this occurred from before I was a moderator and indeed before I even joined here.
A great read though, this thread.

Oh i know it was before you were around. But we have established that having a link to a website in your signature isnt the site allowing an advert, so once its all setup ill amend my sig.

Got some great videos.

Edited by Admin