"...finding under the law and the evidence that the Defendant, Julian Kluk,
DID NOT make knowing misrepresentations in violation of 17 U.S.C. Section
512(f), and accordingly finding no liability on the part of the Defendant, finding instead in favor of Defendant and against the Plaintiff, Stefan Di Iorio." (sic)
No explanation, no consultation with an IP or copyright lawyer. Just a plain, simple verdict.
It was, in reality, a silly case. But serious. Out of not getting an apology out of the gentleman, it was about freedom of speech.
In reality, the verdict changes nothing. A few dollars flow one way or the other. What matters is there's now public evidence of the man Julian Kluk: his lies, and squirming under the law he does not understand. I now have a more robust and public showcase of the facts.
The main issue to us, or American law in general, is how this impacts the DMCA, and whether an individual, when served a take down has the capacity to properly (legally) defend themselves. Obviously, this is situational, and the circumstances surrounding subjective intent are difficult to prove. But just because something is an uphill battle, does not mean it should not be tried.
I have been reading books, movies, games, short stories, and people all my life. When something irks me, I know something's up. I'm smart enough to read between the lines. Mr. Kluk gave me plenty of lines.
When Julian first emailed me, and sent various other emails to others, he made himself a liar. His speed and tenacity, to be quite the blowhard. He was already an ignorant child, which he has apologized for (part of the childish part at least), but further negative descriptors don't help my opinion of him. Additionally, had he simply let people say whatever they wanted -- the majority of which were not of any concern -- and no one came to me after being censored, I wouldn't have cared.
Keep in mind these derogatory words are not insults to Mr. Kluk. They're observations. Even he's not that stupid to be aware of some of what he said, as he apologized for it.
Had he said and done nothing, or not much, and had only taken my video down, I would've shrugged it off. DMCA take downs are rampant online. I'd have waited the 10-14 business days for my video to be restored. Taking my video down while having a response video to it, was a slap in the face; damaging my account, notwithstanding. Oh yeah, not controlling the narrative at all there, Mr. Kluk. DMCA'ing content without suing? Censorship. Deleting, and blocking hundreds, if not thousands of people simply for having differing opinions, when the majority of which simply had something to say? Censorship. Blocking my video 5 times, posted by other individuals? Censorship. Accusing me of slander, lies and other such nonsense, without proof? Lies.
To put it in an analogy: if someone punches you in the face, breaks your nose, and prevents you from breathing properly...what do you do? How would you react, if that person comes back to you a month later...and apologizes for getting your bloodied shirt all dirty? When you commit a wrong -- even if you don't think you harmed another -- you either apologize properly, or you've just compounded a new offense to ones already stellar showcase of grace. ("Oh, I had no idea punching someone in the face gets their nose bloody! That happened to me once. I did not like getting my shirt full of blood. I am so sorry for getting your shirt full of blood. That's not what I'm about.")
Mr. Kluk has not apologized for taking down my video. He never will.
I will be making a series of videos, showcasing the evidence of the case, and that not presented to the arbitrator.
After that, I will finally be able to reply to his two "RE" and "apology" videos, which I've been waiting to do so for over a year.
Oh, and if someone sues you and comes to an arbitration hearing? You don't shake their hand and say "pleasure to meet you." Like the bloodied shirt analogy, you've achieved a new sublevel of the idiotic hole you've dug yourself into.
 |
|
