Snake in the Grass Update: Quadjacks doing battle with former associate SrslySirius, takes down all of his songs

[Dan Druff]

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards... )

That's a great point.

You're right. Nobody could claim legal ownership of this -- at least not for commercial purposes.

The owner of Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory could actually file a DMCA notice and get it taken down from BOTH Quadjacks and Srsly's pages. They could also get an injunction to stop its distribution and/or usage for commercial purposes.

But since we're not talking about a court of law and more of what is ethically correct here, Srsly still has a point. He created that video on his own, posted it to Quadjacks' channel, and doesn't want them using it to promote their site after he stopped volunteering his services to them. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially since Srsly never got paid for any of his efforts there in the first place.

[Sandwich]

I'll just throw this out there into the mix...
PARODY is statutorily-protected "fair use" under the U.S. Copyright Act.

[SrslySirius]

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards... )

I'm surprised how often this argument comes up. It doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Full ownership of all content is not required to make a copyright claim. If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim. Of course they're not claiming to own rights to Major League Baseball. But part of that video does infringe on their IP. It would be pretty silly if the uploader could just say "HA, but you don't own ALL of it"

Whether the claimant is infringing on any copyrights is not relevant. If a movie studio has a problem with the use of Wonka footage, they can take that up with me in a separate claim. It isn't QJ's or anyone elses business to use that as a defense.

If such a claim was made against me, I would argue that it's Fair Use, btw.

[Steve-O]

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards... )

I'm surprised how often this argument comes up. It doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Full ownership of all content is not required to make a copyright claim. If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim. Of course they're not claiming to own rights to Major League Baseball. But part of that video does infringe on their IP. It would be pretty silly if the uploader could just say "HA, but you don't own ALL of it"

Whether the claimant is infringing on any copyrights is not relevant. If a movie studio has a problem with the use of Wonka footage, they can take that up with me in a separate claim. It isn't QJ's or anyone elses business to use that as a defense.

If such a claim was made against me, I would argue that it's Fair Use, btw.

But whoever it is that owns the rights to Willy Wonka could in theory ask for you to take said video down, especially if you used it without attribution and permision, correct? Not that I think you've done anything wrong here mind you, it just seems liked if someone wanted to be a dick about it they could.

[SrslySirius]

I'm surprised how often this argument comes up. It doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Full ownership of all content is not required to make a copyright claim. If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim. Of course they're not claiming to own rights to Major League Baseball. But part of that video does infringe on their IP. It would be pretty silly if the uploader could just say "HA, but you don't own ALL of it"

Whether the claimant is infringing on any copyrights is not relevant. If a movie studio has a problem with the use of Wonka footage, they can take that up with me in a separate claim. It isn't QJ's or anyone elses business to use that as a defense.

If such a claim was made against me, I would argue that it's Fair Use, btw.

But whoever it is that owns the rights to Willy Wonka could in theory ask for you to take said video down, especially if you used it without attribution and permision, correct? Not that I think you've done anything wrong here mind you, it just seems liked if someone wanted to be a dick about it they could.

Yes, they could. Whether they'd win or not is hard to say. Certainly not as cut and dry as my claim against QJ. In the past I have successfully defended copyright claims against me by citing fair use.

[ftpjesus]

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards... )

Nope Seca isnt a girl. I believe he's a longtime 2+2er which we should try not to hold against him .. YET

[ftpjesus]

But whoever it is that owns the rights to Willy Wonka could in theory ask for you to take said video down, especially if you used it without attribution and permision, correct? Not that I think you've done anything wrong here mind you, it just seems liked if someone wanted to be a dick about it they could.

Yes, they could. Whether they'd win or not is hard to say. Certainly not as cut and dry as my claim against QJ. In the past I have successfully defended copyright claims against me by citing fair use.

At this point Im not sure anybody gives 2 cents about the 40yr old version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder. Not sure what the Copyright rules would view it but heres the principal regarding fair use. As such I doubt its anything Thomas would have to worry about because he isnt harming the value of the orginal work.. Below is the rule regarding Fair Use Doctrine

"Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"

[Crowe Diddly]

I have to agree with DanDruff, Marco seems cool but Zak is the Quadjacks Snake In The Grass.

True to form, spa speaks truth right from the get-go.

I'll just throw this out there into the mix...
PARODY is statutorily-protected "fair use" under the U.S. Copyright Act.

While very much true, that doesn't mean you could withstand the legal barrages of the big media companies' lawyers if they decided they wanted that stuff down. Being right is one thing, but having the resources to prove yourself right is something else entirely, and it's not a fight many people are willing to make. If you don't get help from the EFF or someone like that, it's just you against the eternally funded lawyers of the movie studios. That's a shitty place to be.

And even then, you aren't guaranteed to win anything.

[bukowski72]

This guy estimates Jenna Marbles makes at least $700,000 a year for her videos of Jenna sitting in a chair blabbing away.

[Yebsite]

poor kid... my offer still stand sirius for bad boy remix with isai scheinberg... can even add calvin ayres name in there now too...

[Jasep]

Everyone keeps saying how cool Marco is and how Zack is such a bad guy...

Did any of you watch the video?

It wasn't Zack on there reading a statement in such a way that is designed to completely destroy Thomas' character, that was Marco. I don't for one second think that a 30ish year old guy who lives in Vegas and seems "cool" is a victim of clever brainwashing here. Marco is just as guilty as Zack on this one. He could have simply refused to do the video if he didn't think it was warranted, or at the very least could have not given that razzi caliber performance in the video.

No one even knows who Zack is, Marco is the face of QuadJacks so everything that goes on there is immediately attached to him and he seems smart enough to be aware of that so enough with the Marco is a cool guy / victim of Zacks snakiness routine. Guy is just as much a doucher as the rest of them.

[mulva]

Yes, they could. Whether they'd win or not is hard to say. Certainly not as cut and dry as my claim against QJ. In the past I have successfully defended copyright claims against me by citing fair use.

At this point Im not sure anybody gives 2 cents about the 40yr old version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder. Not sure what the Copyright rules would view it but heres the principal regarding fair use. As such I doubt its anything Thomas would have to worry about because he isnt harming the value of the orginal work..

some candy maker owns the wonka brand. they're still selling and pumping out all kinds of wonka chocolate. they will likely only care once you start making money, and it becomes a big deal. lodging a crusade against this stuff is lol... it's everywhere.

the copy, paste and reuse internet is so badass

[pikachar]

New banger from the twitter feed

[Suicide King]

New banger from the twitter feed

that lasted long

[pikachar]

New banger from the twitter feed

that lasted long

Yeah heard he was going to act like an "adult"

This has gone to a new low... about to lose interest about this, oh wait just did.

/end message

[Bootsy Collins]

that lasted long

Yeah heard he was going to act like an "adult"

This has gone to a new low... about to lose interest about this, oh wait just did.

/end message

Here is what is in Marco's head.

[Vwls]

This guy estimates Jenna Marbles makes at least $700,000 a year for her videos of Jenna sitting in a chair blabbing away.

If Jenna makes so much, why does she keep that lame go-go dancing job?

I also find her videos to be highly annoying.

A hot chick putting on makeup telling everyone she's actually ugly and putting on makeup to fool people into thinking she's pretty? HILARIOUS!

Maybe you need a vagina to get her humor.

No... My vagina doesn't find her funny either.

[AsianSpa]

I have to agree with DanDruff, Marco seems cool but Zak is the Quadjacks Snake In The Grass. They have exploited Srslysirius,

Welcome to PFA AsianSpa. Good to see you here.

I'm bringing the Truth and as for Zak the snake in the grass, I have the anti-venom for Zaks snake oil.

[shortbuspoker]

If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim.

Why would they?

[Bootsy Collins]

If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim.

Why would they?

Well for one Drowning Pool did not do Down With the Sickness, that honor goes to Disturbed. Carry on with the argument