#The harlem shake poop edition series

The key to DMCA is that once companies have вЂњactual knowledgeвЂќ of copyrighted material on their platforms, they have to вЂњact expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.вЂќ And how do they get that knowledge? Well, in many cases, the copyright holder simply tells them.ДЇrom Google, YouTube, or FacebookвЂ™s perspective, itвЂ™s better to be safe than sued, so megaplatforms often default to using their own copyright detection algorithms and, failing that, they usually take content down rather than challenging DMCA takedown requests. In fact, a large but unknowable portion of YouTubeвЂ™s early growth was fueled by illegal song uploads, as the site became one of the larger repositories of music on the internet. Without the safe harbor provision of the DMCA, itвЂ™s not a stretch to say that these companies and platforms could not exist. This law has allowed for platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to flourish, because with millions or billions of users, some portion of them are going to upload photos, videos, or songs they donвЂ™t legally own the rights to. This law gives sites like Google, YouTube, and Facebook immunity from lawsuits, as long as they donвЂ™t have вЂњactual knowledgeвЂќ that вЂњmaterial вЂ¦ on the system or network is infringing.вЂќ вЂњ Section 512,вЂќ a part of the law thatвЂ™s also known as the вЂњsafe harborвЂќ provision, protects Silicon Valley giants from being sued into oblivion when their users upload copyrighted content to their websites. Provisions in the act have been used at different periods to criminalize, for example, security research and independent repair. The DMCA is a sweeping law enacted in 1998 that is vitally important to the ways the internet has grown and is governed. At the bottom of the Google search results, however, I saw a notice: вЂњIn response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), we have removed 1 result from this page.вЂќ

#The harlem shake poop edition series

I Googled вЂњHarlem Shake PoopвЂќ and found a series of YouTube videos of people reacting to BlippiвЂ™s original video (think of the 2 Girls 1 Cup reaction video genre), but not the original video itself. 'For another thing, filing a takedown notice hardly qualifies as going to 'extreme lengths.' Then again, the fact that you can call BuzzFeedвЂ™s piece about a six-year-old gross-out comedy video 'a blockbuster investigative report' with a straight face may suggest that journalistic standards arenвЂ™t what they used to be.'ДЄfter reading NotopoulosвЂ™s article, I naturally went searching for the video. 'It wasnвЂ™t BuzzFeedвЂ™s reporting that led me to try to get the video taken down IвЂ™ve been doing that for years, pretty much whenever and wherever I find it up somewhere,' Blippi told Motherboard in an email after this article was originally published. I swear under penalty of perjury I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner that holds the exclusive right of the Harlem Shake Poop video that allegedly infringed.вЂќ

The information in this notice is accurate.

This Russian site is illegally storing the videos on their servers and your search results have indexed them.

вЂњThis video was not authorized for use on the links provided. вЂњThe copywritten work of вЂHarlem Shake PoopвЂ™ is of a NSFW video of one man defecating on another,вЂќ the takedown request reads. In early January, someone claiming to represent Blippi filed a copyright takedown request with Google, which previously had linked to a Russian website that host the so-called вЂњHarlem Shake PoopвЂќ video. And certain internet artifacts can be actively cleaned up and legally protected, which is how a video that was actively promoted and went viral in 2013 (вЂњPLEASE ENJOY AND SHARE THIS AMAZING VISUAL ART PIECE WITH YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY,вЂќ Blippi wrote on at the time) can suddenly become pretty difficult to find in 2019.Д«uzzFeed reporter Katie Notopoulos did not link to, embed, or otherwise share the Harlem Shake Poop video in her piece, noting that вЂњan attorney for sent BuzzFeed News a cease and desist letter asserting copyright on the video.вЂќД«uzzFeed isnвЂ™t the only company that got a legal notice about the videoвЂ™s copyright.