Post: #1

Absolutely unbelievable. Remember Reggie Yates's Extreme UK hit piece on BBC3? RVF thread here, the part that features Roosh thanks to Collide here:




Then Roosh's response where he defended himself was uploaded to Youtube. Here's the Dailymotion link:




Now here comes the fun part. To quote Roosh:

Quote:I replied to the propaganda piece to clear my name through a Youtube video, using fair-use excerpts of the program. Three weeks later, an employee for the production company that produced the BBC program, Sundog Pictures, filed a DMCA takedown order against it. The video was removed from Youtube, effectively censoring my response.

Quote:The email left on the takedown notice was [email protected] A staff profile on the Sundog site reveals it to be Fabia Martin, a middle-aged woman who works as assistant producer, with no apparent training on copyright or legal issues. Further inspection of her LinkedIn profile suggests she’s a feminist spun from the same cloth as Reggie Yates, hinting towards a motive of leftist censorship instead of a genuine violation of copyright law.

The irony of the whole thing is that the production company had used parts of Roosh's Youtube videos without hesitation, yet when he used parts of the BBC3 programme, which was about himself, they file a DMCA takedown order against it.

Full commentary from Roosh:
Sundog Pictures & Fabia Martin Wrongfully Censor Our Video That Slams Their BBC Hit Piece

Post: #2

She's worked with EA Games and defines herself as a creative thinker.

WB.

Post: #3

WB but probably once only, would get the comfort text the morning after and then forget her.

Post: #4

You guys always focus on the important aspect of the story: if there's a young woman involved, WB or WNB?

At least they live up to their values (from their website):

"Our Story

We believe in the power of television, film, and digital to tell stories that matter, and bring new audiences to important subjects (and turn away from others). That’s why Johnny Webb and I founded Sundog Pictures in 2012.

And because the digital world is such a great way for storytellers to disrupt the way people think, act, share and engage, we wanted to create a different kind of production company; (one that censors everything that doesn't fit its worldview) One based on ‘social production’, where engagement and ‘shareability’ were hardwired into the way we tell our stories."

My comments in green. What did we expect from them? Joke of a company.

Post: #5

(01-11-2016 01:24 PM)marty Wrote:  And because the digital world is such a great way for storytellers to disrupt the way people think, act, share and engage, we wanted to create a different kind of production company; (one that censors everything that doesn't fit its worldview) One based on ‘social production’, where engagement and ‘shareability’ were hardwired into the way we tell our stories."

I love the arrogance of somebody who's clearly orbiting around the 115 IQ band believing it's their duty to "disrupt" and reshape anyone's thoughts. Implicit is the assumption that their own thoughts are not the result of other propagandists efforts to do the same. I mean, if you're going to have such a high opinion of your own intellect, at least bring something to the table besides self-righteous mental mediocrity.

Post: #6

It says more about Youtubes copyright policy than anything else. I have seen two of my favourite Youtube channels been hit with this and managed to get it lifted. However the process is daunting and may not be worth it.

Youtube made this a feature due to Viacom suing the fuck out of everybody. So whilst it is incredibly easy to get a takedown order on someone's content, reversing it is the opposite.

Post: #7

Yeah I'm not too pleased about it but this seems like a small battle overall. I learned an important lesson about giving a mainstream media company free content for their program.

Post: #8

(01-11-2016 02:46 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Yeah I'm not too pleased about it but this seems like a small battle overall. I learned an important lesson about giving a mainstream media company free content for their program.

You could hire some people off Fiverr and recreate the footage and just amp up their obvious fainting couch hysterics to ridiculous extremes. Find the most effeminate 'Reggie' you can and turn his gasping and gurning up to 11.

(01-11-2016 02:28 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  I love the arrogance of somebody who's clearly orbiting around the 115 IQ band believing it's their duty to "disrupt" and reshape anyone's thoughts... ...I mean, if you're going to have such a high opinion of your own intellect, at least bring something to the table besides self-righteous mental mediocrity.

That's all they have. It's obvious they never hated the actions of the Religious Moralists, they simply envied their social power. The SJW's are dreary, dim bulbs, and their time is rapidly-coming to an end, which is why it's vitally-mportant to keep a list.

Post: #9

(01-11-2016 02:46 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Yeah I'm not too pleased about it but this seems like a small battle overall. I learned an important lesson about giving a mainstream media company free content for their program.

Don't you want to make a video response about all this copyright nonsense and upload it to Youtube?