Good afternoon!
My name is Charles DeBarber and I am a Senior Privacy Analyst for some of the survivors of the GirlsDoPorn Human Trafficking Ring.
I have put forward a copyright strike for your 2020 video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQdG_BNSSiw
All GDP footage belongs to its victims as of a 2019 and subsequent 2021 judgement.
I have already discussed the situation with the survivors that appear in your video and they do not wish to have their faces blurred - they want all content from GDP removed.
Would you remove the video immediately? If not, I have a copyright strike pending.
[image.png]
If you remove it before the processing is complete, it will not affect your channel. If you are unable to take it down in time, I can recant the strike if you agree to never post any footage of or personal information of anyone that appeared on GDP.
Thank you,
—————
I would advise you to read youtube's policies.
This is the most explicitly protected form of freedom of speech, both under American law, and under youtube's own policies.
Re: "All GDP footage belongs to its victims as of a 2019 and subsequent 2021 judgement."
Yes, but you see: Warner Brothers owns the Batman movies… this "ownership" does not mean that they have the legal right to prevent me from criticizing their film. Mere ownership does not mean that they can prevent me from quoting their film in the process of criticizing it. This legal tradition does not exist for the sake of artistic criticism only. The protection of freedom of speech is even stronger when the purpose is political critique and commentary (and the videos I have created are very explicitly of a political character: they're practically morality lectures, you will find, if you actually watch them).
E.M.
——————————
Mr. Mazard,
You are free to make any argument you wish regarding fair use. Their images and likenesses are their property and we'll follow through with YouTube's processes to the fullest extent and they will make a call one way or the other.
I welcome you to counterstrike if you wish, but our position is the survivors of a human trafficking ring have been exploited enough. The ringleaders of that ring are in prison or awaiting trial.
Should copyright strikes fail we'll move to harassment and "doxxing" strikes too. YouTube may not look kindly on content creators who show the faces of Jane Does of an ongoing criminal sex trafficking case.
I mean you no disrespect, but our position isn't negotiable on our end. I am going to put forward further copyright strikes for GDP content owned by my clients on both of your channels.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ActiveResearchInformedOpinion/
https://www.youtube.com/c/A-bas-le-cielBlogspot/
I have added 3 additional copyright strikes for GDP content.
[image]
Should you remove the content, I will recant the strikes.
Thank you,
Charles DeBarber
——————————
Re: "I mean you no disrespect, but our position isn't negotiable on our end."
Your position is, also, morally and legally wrong.
You will find that I have videos dealing with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, too, and discussing allegations of serious crimes (of a sexual nature) against Donald Trump. Neither Donald Trump nor his victims are in a position to silence me and demand the deletion of those videos (although they may be emotionally distressing for Donald Trump himself, or for the women who made the allegations, who may (hypothetically) want "to get on with their lives" and have that part of their past forgotten). That's not the way the law works.
You know this.
On some level, you know why this legal and moral standard exists, too: the journalistic freedom to criticize Epstein and Trump specifically, or to discuss moral and political issues connected to the pornography industry generally, is protected by the American constitution, by innumerable federal laws, by youtube policy and by clear precedent.
E.M.
——————————
Mr. Mazard,
Receipt of your message is acknowledged.
Charles DeBarber
——————————
If you would like to talk to me (via Skype, or via old fashioned telephone) I'd be pleased to discuss the issues with you, i.e., including the moral dimension (the sorrow of the victims, etc.).
You may, indeed, ask your clients if they'd approve of an interview along these lines (it is possible they'd see it as a positive aspect of promoting their own case, or giving voice to their own perspective).
Again, if you take the time to actually watch the videos you're complaining about, you'll find that they are neither pornographic nor exploitative: they are really political and philosophical discussions of the implications of the court case. They are discussions of the ways in which our own culture is changing and will continue to change in the 21st century, precisely because of the long term implications of the decisions people make on the internet (pornographic or not).
My university degree is in Political Science.
I have about 8 years of experience in this field, and I have gone to court before to deal with the implications of defamation on youtube (indeed, I have one ongoing case in court right now).
I have received requests from people begging to have videos criticizing them removed from my channel (even within the last few weeks) on matters that do not involve pornography or sexuality in any way, and I do not have a heart of stone: I take the time to explain to them the political and moral significance of what's going on, and why youtube policy works the way it does.
Very often, people are upset, and they need some time to realize that freedom of speech really is "for the greater good" even in cases like this (and even in the case of allegations against Donald Trump, etc., even if it later should be discovered that the allegations were untrue, etc.).
I, also, do not have the right to censor other channels, just because I own the videos they're quoting (in the act of criticizing me, or even in the act of defaming me… which has happened!), nor because I own the rights to my own face.
The youtuber Jaclyn Glenn made an insulting video about me that reached over 100,000 people, and that did not serve any political purpose, but I have no grounds to stand on if I were to claim that it is (1) a violation of my copyright, or (2) harassment or (3) doxxing. It would be totally spurious for me to say that I own the video she quoted, or for me to say that I own the rights to my own face. That is legally spurious, morally spurious, and has no validity under youtube's own policies.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
I would say again --genuinely-- that I'm available to speak to you by Skype (or equivalent) if you'd like to discuss this further (and you will find that I'm neither rude nor combative in discussing these things).
E.M.
——————————
Mr. Mazard,
I appreciate your feelings on the matter, but I've made our position clear. I'd recommend taking the down videos and removing the content owned by our clients. You have plenty of open source material to use with the case itself. Videos and images owned by my client are unnecessary. I have no opinion on the content outside of respecting my clients intellectual property.
I respect all content creators. In return I ask you to respect what is owned by my clients.
Remove the videos and I'll recant the strikes. That's our position and it isn't negotiable.
Thank you,
——————————
My offer to speak to via Skype (or any equivalent telephone service) stands.
I would again say that you can ask your clients if they'd approve of you (publicly) giving interviews or discussing the matter.
You already know that your copyright claims are invalid (and will be rejected by the youtube system and legal department as a matter of course). And, indeed, that is why you followed up with the threat of (cynically and untruthfully) claiming that the videos constitute harassment or doxing. All of these efforts will fail, and you know it.
Just a few weeks ago, my channel received a procedurally identical complaint from the ex-wife of Matt Dillahunty (the latter is a famous name in the atheist movement, he can be easily googled if you wanted to know more). I am sure that she sincerely believed the same line of reasoning that you've presented here: that she owns the rights to her own face (etc.) and that I could therefore be punished (with a copyright strike) for quoting her video (that, again, she owns the rights to) in the context of a political discussion on youtube. No matter how much she may claim she suffers because she's quoted in that video, it can never validate a copyright strike (to silence the video).
The whole line of reasoning is invalid.
What's interesting about it is this: it isn't just legally invalid, it's also morally wrong.
The legal case you're involved in raises important political and ethical questions: that's why it's so important that I have the freedom of speech to quote primary sources and engage in a discussion of them (on youtube and otherwise).
Again, if you'd like to discuss it (even if your purpose is just to give voice to your clients' perspective) I would be entirely willing to host the discussion, and allow you to state your own moral argument in your own terms, although I disagree with it.
With thanks for your time and consideration,
E.M.
——————————
[Believe it or not, there were a few other emails (all in the same day) that are not included in this blog posting, i.e., just for the sake of concision.]
Mr. Mazard,
I'm a YouTuber too. I have a whole 68 subscribers to boot. ;) If you ever need content that will put you to sleep let me know. The wonders of the history of industrial beekeeping isn't the most entertaining topic outside of a handful of enthusiasts. My videos also showcase my poor woodworking and even worse editing abilities.
The IP claim is legitimate. You have videos and images owned by my clients in your videos. As I said before, our position isn't negotiable.
I had joined your Patreon to see if you posted any of their intellectual property there and submitted DMCAs to Patreon to have two postings of the YouTube videos I flagged earlier today.
As I said - my only issue is with my clients' intellectual property in your videos. It isn't necessary to discuss the topic to show them. The harassment/doxxing complaint is another route we will pursue as both complaints are legitimate.
Our position won't change.
The best I could offer you as a compromise is doing an interview for you discussing a topic separate to GDP if you take content down immediately and do not repost it in the future. I have a number of topics regarding exploitation, digital privacy, and combating online stalkers.
Thank you,
Charles DeBarber
——————————
Let's talk again after the copyright strike process has concluded.
I do not know why you imagine you'd succeed with such blatantly false claims under any of the three headings (copyright, harassment or doxing), but if you do succeed, you will have only succeeded in doing something that is both illegal and immoral.
Re: "The IP claim is legitimate. You have videos and images owned by my clients in your videos. As I said before, our position isn't negotiable."
You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have never offered to negotiate it: instead, I have explained to you (very clearly, with examples) that your claim is false (legally, morally and under youtube policy).
I have already explained to you that "ownership" does not negate the legal significance of "fair use", on the contrary "fair use" doctrine exists precisely to overcome the limitations of private ownership; it is precisely because Warner Brothers owns Batman that we have legal definitions of "fair use" to ensure that critics can use excerpts of the source --and this same doctrine applies to Abraham Zapruder's film of the JFK assassination (a recording that has a storied history of being privately owned) or even security camera footage of a bank robbery (i.e., a film that the participants did not consent to appear in).
I understand that you have a technical background in the military, but you're either insincerely pretending to misunderstand the rules and regulations here, or else you genuinely don't understand them.
Earlier, you dismissed arguments about fair use as if they were irrelevant. On the contrary, the one and only issue at stake here is fair use. It is fair use that overcomes private copyright precisely to ensure that journalists and political commentators can use excerpts of primary sources in this way.
Again, if you glance at the front page of my youtube channel right now, you might well imagine that Erin Janus could offer an argument very similar to your own, if she wanted to try to force me to delete the videos I have that include her face, etc. --but she would lose an appeal under any of the same headings, i.e., copyright or otherwise. I really do have the right to quote the people I'm criticizing, or to quote the contrasting sources involved in a given political controversy. And this is an important right, even in deeply disturbing cases.
Genuinely, I'd encourage you to take a moment to hear this video about Donald Trump's alleged involvement in underage prostitution / statutory rape (i.e., this is an example close to your own professional interests).
^ This is the Katie Johnson case (it was really poorly covered by the American press: the basic facts of the case are almost impossible to figure out from newspaper articles).
Re: "As I said - my only issue is with my clients' intellectual property in your videos. It isn't necessary to discuss the topic to show them. The harassment/doxxing complaint is another route we will pursue as both complaints are legitimate."
You have never replied to that portion of our correspondence: you never actually discuss how these videos could possibly qualify as "harassment" or "doxing" --and, again, I really am familiar with youtube policy and precedent in this area (I've been on both sides of disputes).
Sometimes, Youtube does make wildly irrational and incompetent decisions (e.g., I've had my own videos censored for racism when their intent was anti-racist, due to sloppiness on the part of the employees in the censorship division, etc.). So, yes, it is possible the videos will be deleted, or that my whole youtube channel will be deleted, but (if so) it would only be as an act of gross incompetence on youtube's part, contrary to both the law and the company's own policies.
E.M.
