panda4u

i like my bamboo with OJ

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@thelegalvices @DavidSGingras Please review this case. It is the major president setting case for fair use relating to YouTube. A very similar over zealous arrogant dude like gingras sued a YouTube channel h3h3 for commentary. He lost. Biggest YouTube fair use case

https://t.co/vvj9QzL34g

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras This has already been litigated in a lawsuits either H3H3 productions, a YouTube channel that was sued by someone like yourself. They won, and the guy who was like you lost. Sorry DG you’re wrong

https://t.co/vvj9QzL34g

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras @tiffney2trill @thelegalvices This issue has been litigated and president is set. You’re just wrong David. Sorry. And no amount of threats and posturing will make you right. h3h3 fought this battle already and won. You are arguing the same side as the losing party

https://t.co/vvj9QzL34g

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@BigBSinPA @DavidSGingras lol

[Legal Vices @thelegalvices]

David, as lawyers, we both know, and appreciate, that words mean things. Just a few comments that I have for consideration:

1. I think it is important to define terms so that everyone is on the same page. Who or what is considered to be a "JFC YT person"? How do we define that term so there is clarity and no disagreement as to whether a person is, or is not, a "JFC YT Person?"

2. @ClaytonsJustice referred people to @LethalLauren904 's youtube video. How would @ClaytonsJustice be subject to a copyright strike for recommending someone watch a youtube video? How do you go about copyright striking a twitter post from a person without a youtube channel who is recommending people watch a youtube video?

3. Even if you really hate someone, especially if they are a "JFC YT person" (whatever that term is eventually defined as meaning), and that person posts a perfectly legitimate fairy use review/commentary of your video on youtube or wherever, do you REALLY, ACTUALLY plan on issuing a copyright strike against them for using ANY part of your video? I know you understand that, as mentioned by Panda4u, that would constitute a false copyright strike, which could subject you to channel banning by YouTube. Let's not do that. Nobody wants that.

That short video was, objectively, not a good look. I understand what the purpose and intention of that video was. However, this is twitter, where your tweets go out to potentially everyone on the platform. There are going to be tons of new viewers who have no idea about this case whatsoever, and their first introduction to you, your client, and the case is, "Hello everyone. It's Douche Canoe and Pregnancy Faker." #yikes And the internet is forever.

4. It's the ole catching flies with honey or vinegar thing. Just because you are a zealous advocate for your client, which you are ethically (within certain boundaries) required to be, and to which she is entitled to have, you don't have to be so constantly confrontational. Fighting fire with fire works, but fighting fire with cool, soothing water tends to work better.

As officers of the court, I think we should always try to be better.... Just some food for thought.

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@antifa5lyfe @DavidSGingras I just don’t understand how that is harassing Laura though? The podcast studio yes… but he is acting like someone did something TO Laura. Am I missing something?

[Lauren Neidigh @LethalLauren904]

It's also illegal to intentionally file a false strike. Try me.

[Seeking Justice for All Victims of Laura Owens @ClaytonsJustice]

We’re pleading with @Rachel1Mitchell to take action and charge #LauraMichelleOwens who has left a long trail of abuse and false allegations against multiple victims and continues to do so to this day. Their voices need to be heard, their experiences validated, and their cases handled with thoroughness and fairness. Justice must be served in order to hold her accountable and prevent further harm and new victims. They deserve justice and you can make a change. #ProsecuteLauraMichelleOwens
#JusticeForAllVictimsOfLauraMichelleOwens #JusticeForClayton #JusticeForGregG #JusticeForMikeM #AbuseOfLegalSystem

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@ClaytonsJustice @DavidSGingras I called him out for admitting he was going to knowingly issue false copyright strikes and he tries to act like he didn’t say what he obviously said… and then said I’m the fool lol

He acts like he was only talking about your tweet when he said he would strike any YT Chanel

[David S. Gingras @DavidSGingras]

@DailyPanda456 This is easy - asking people to view another page just so I DON'T get views on my original source?

Yeah - ZERO percent chance that's fair use. ZERO. I know this because I've litigated fair use MANY times.

But hey, FAFO. I'll strike EVERYONE who tests this.

[Dave Neal @DNealz]

@ClaytonsJustice @DavidSGingras youtube reserves the right to strike down channels that falsely claim copyright strike. They have several pages of disclaimers they make you read so you know exactly what a copyright strike should be. Ill prob cover this tom if anything is interesting

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras Seems like you can’t handle having to deal with being shown your own words & what they explicitly mean. Explain to me how your original tweet did not obviously claim you would strike anyone who posted any part of your video. You can’t cause there is no explanation so you deflect

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras Look at your original tweet you claimed in no uncertain terms that if anyone posted any part of your video they would get a strike by you. You never said anything about only if they do so in a way where they are encouraging people to view an alternative to avoid than the original

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras David do you know what moving the goal post is? This was your quote:

“NEW RULE - if any JFC YT person posts ANY part of this, I WILL copyright strike you.”

You said anyone post any part, you would strike them. Are you being intentionally ignorant of what u said? I don’t get it

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras Yo DG what the status on the vid my g?

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras What is this disgusting act that you are referencing? What happened? Please elaborate

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras DG don’t let Laura edit the video!!! Just release it in full with no edits or cuts. We want the raw unfiltered extended cut, not the Laura Owens directors cut where she removes anything and everything she doesn’t like.

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras Who’s the guy in the back filming?

[JustJen @just_jen5072]

@DavidSGingras @Bearsfanxo @DailyPanda456 You didn’t highlight this part, but it says, “If the parents cannot agree on a plan for legal decision-making or parenting time…” If Clayton didn’t plan to raise the children with Laura, what is the disagreement? She can’t force him to share parenting time with her.

[panda4u @DailyPanda456]

@DavidSGingras @Bearsfanxo That still makes no sense DG! If she was planning on having an abortion why would she need to prove paternity legally? Why would she want to go through a lengthy legal process to prove paternity of a baby she was planning on aborting? She always claimed she wanted 2 keep the baby