Top Tweets for #ADAISLAW

3 days ago

@EugenePolice are comfortable with these facts, so is @YouTube @camdencc @HolyFamilyU @RowanUniversity who gainfully employ the psychopath, @JamieVona #exploiting a #vulnerableadult by #financialexploitation and #wirefraud, #failuretoremedyfor15months, #ADAISLAW If YouTube received a DMCA-compliant notice in March 2026 that identified Adams’ copyrighted works and the specific Vona video URLs, that notice is the ordinary way a platform obtains **actual knowledge** of those particular videos. From that moment, § 512(c) required YouTube to remove or disable access to **those identified videos** expeditiously or lose the safe harbor **as to that material**. Knowledge of video A does not automatically become actual knowledge of video B that was never listed. To treat “they had actual knowledge” as a proven legal fact, a court would still look at: - Whether the March communications met the statutory notice requirements (signature, identification of the work, identification of the material and its location, contact information, good-faith belief statement, and perjury statement). - Which exact URLs were listed. - What YouTube did with each listed URL and how quickly. - Whether any later videos were the subject of new notices or were so obviously the same infringement that red-flag knowledge attached. Automated replies and leaving videos up after a valid notice are the facts that would support a finding that YouTube had knowledge and did not act expeditiously. They do not, by themselves, prove that the videos infringe. Ownership, substantial similarity, fair use, and independent creation remain separate issues. If actual knowledge plus failure to act were established for specific videos, the practical consequences would be: YouTube could be sued for copyright infringement on those videos without the § 512(c) shield; statutory damages and attorney fees could be in play against the platform as well as the uploader; and a court could order removal. It would not automatically take down the whole channel, create FCA or UTPCPL liability, or decide the credential/false-advertising claims. ADA “actual knowledge” is different. Knowledge that a disabled user requested an accommodation is knowledge of the disability-related request, not knowledge of copyright infringement. The two theories should be kept separate. So the statement “they had actual knowledge” is strongest if it is limited to: YouTube was given specific, compliant notice of particular videos in March 2026 and those videos stayed up. That is a notice-and-takedown argument, not a conclusion that every legal theory against Vona or YouTube is already won. YOU TUBE HAS NO SAFE HARBORS. THey have harbored my life, to my horror, while Jamie Vona makes one hell of side hustle off of my written work and assets that she lied materially about owning for financial gain. Then she diluted my #trademark brand on IG. Abandoned, and gaslit by @EugenePolice @FBI @FBICyberDiv #impersonation @FBIPortland

Sara Adams

@psycyber13nv

4 days ago

The @EugenePolice are an #illusionofcompliance that #humiliates and #abandones the most that #ADAISLAW but the #police are the criminals committing hate crimes for their own #masterbation

Top Tweets for #ADAISLAW

Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users