/cow/ - Lolcows (Merry Satanmas!)

Why did the videos get taken down?

>>186531

Some say it was weens flagging them, though I don't see why weens wouldn't want to help (?) Chris.

Definitely flagging though.

>>186533

Why doesn't the owner of the channel just file an appeal. This is all shit Chris put on the internet himself anyway, any flagging on the grounds of 'harassment' would be pretty much baseless.

>>186538

I think you have to dox yourself in order to counterclaim.

>>186542

So?

Who's going to leak the dox exactly? YouTube? They'd get sued.

Besides, we already know who runs the channel.

>>186538

Chris owns all the videos and my limited understanding of copyright law tells me that he could have them kept off YouTube if he wanted to, since they are being uploaded as-is with no remix, parody, or criticism.

Maybe one of the troll illuminati made him aware of this.

>>186547

You have to give the information to the copyright claimant, not to youtube.

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/abuse-of-youtubes-copyright.html

>>186551

That's if they have indeed been taken down due to Copyright Infringement. If they've been flagged for harassment or some other bullshit, it all goes through YouTube.

>>186529

>>186533

It's because of Y00t00be's LeEbinFlagging Policy.

It really pisses me off how Google is trying to turn Youtube into vimeo

Anyhow I trust that at least one of you has archived all the CWC stuff

>>186549

Chris really doesn't own anything. He may have appeared in all his videos, but his original account where he uploaded them to is gone.

The videos were flagged for "not-allowed" cocks, like bullying or porn. Chris himself really doesn't have the power to remove half a decade old low quality videos off himself from YouTube.

This is what I don't get though, was it Chris flagging the videos, or a bunch of people wanting to help Chris? Or even random people finding his videos and flagging them because they think it's inappropriate for YouTube?

>>186567

I sure hope not all people have this freedloading mindset you and I have.

>"Someone else must have archived them.

I was considering myself to archive all the videos a few weeks ago, but I didn't have the disk space and was sure someone who's know longer about Chris must have done it already.

I'm pretty sure some videos are just lost, what a shame.

It was Kirby that had them flagged. He is supremely butt hurt over the ban that got handed down. He thinks this is his ultimate revenge I guess.

>>186549

He'd have to prove that he owned them if it ever got down to removing them due to copyright infringement.

>>186573

Who the fuck is Kirby? Jack Kirby? Has Jack Kirby come back from the dead and gone rogue?

>>186581

Well, what are we waiting for? Let's download all those videos.

>>186570

>Chris really doesn't own anything. He may have appeared in all his videos, but his original account where he uploaded them to is gone.

Photographs belong to whoever made them, and I can't think of any reason why films wouldn't be the same.

>>186579

>He'd have to prove that he owned them if it ever got down to removing them due to copyright infringement.

No one has ever disputed that Chris made the videos himself, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Apart from the handful of videos where someone else held the camera, his ownership is largely indisputable.

Just because Chris is too stupid to know his rights doesn't mean he hasn't got them.

Did you save the smash brothers videos

>>186589

He'd still have to prove ownership if it ever came down to filing copyright claims and there's very little he could actually do to prove he made the videos, seeing as he most likely deleted the originals.

>>186596

Well, the CWCki says he made them, they were filmed on his PSEye, and there's no evidence to imply he didn't make them.

>>186573

>>186587

Caps? I want to believe that's filthy pedo did this, but this isn't Kiwi Farms. We need proof.

>>186600

>Well, the CWCki says he made them

Wikis can be changed. 'The wiki said it's so, so it must be so' isn't really proof of anything

>they were filmed on his PSEye

Could he prove it though?

>and there's no evidence to imply he didn't make them

Burden of proof is on the accuser. If Chris wanted to take down videos for infringing on his copyright, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he actually owns the videos in question.

>>186596

Even Chris wouldn't have a hard time proving that he owned those videos. Just think of all the times he shouts "14 Branchland Court!"

>>186529

So you're suggesting helping out Kiwis rebuild their autistic video store?

No fucking thanks, fuck off back there.

>>186602

>Wikis can be changed.

And also keep a record of all changes.

>Could he prove it though?

Well they were obviously shot in his room and he's in all of them, so yeah.

>Burden of proof is on the accuser.

Yeah, and all the evidence that does exist says he made them.

>>186549

The library was run by them.

>>186529

Why not just upload them on vimeo or something?

>>186602

Ownership of copyright is not a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's established through a preponderance of evidence standard, which wouldn't be hard to meet in this case.

So no, Chris would not have to reproduce the originals, his testimony, and yes, the wiki pages would be enough to prove that he owns the copyright. And yes, Wikis can be changed, but Wikis also have changelogs so you can see if the information was changed.

Also yes, Chris owns the copyrights to his videos because he "authored" them, there isn't any doubt about this, he recorded his expression in a fixed medium, even if he had Barbara or someone else hold the camera, he directed them to hold it a certain way, he wrote his lines, etc.

Trust me, I'm right about this. If I'm not, then I am completely fucked for my upcoming final in Copyright Law.

>>186573

hi kirby

>>186581

>try to download the full 21Gb archive with all videos in multiple formats

>direct link is slow as fuck

>8 hours later, I have 500MiB to go

>everything stops

>"Download Failed"

>I try to restart the download

>"Failed"

>It's in a .zip file so unless you have everything, you can't unzip it

Life is pain

Shiny Marshtomp ran the library and posted in the past about all the flagging

>>186607

Chris is the most famous lolcow ever, how would you not want want archives back?

>>186629

>>186589

This is an autistic manchild we are talking about, not some famous movie producer who has registered trademarks, copyrights ect ect.

YouTube will never ever remove any low quality video of Chris, if Chris requested them to do so. Chris doesn't even have any proof of making the original videos, he only appears in them, yet that doesn't mean anything to YouTube.

Chris does actually own the videos he made, but not on paper.

>>186699

Well it's kinda famous, in a way. They know about him and might have taken them down to keep it from becoming a story.

>>186699

You don't seem to understand copyright law. Simply making these things gives him ownership and all of the rights that go with it. There is no "on paper." He could send in a copyright violation notice and the videos would be taken down because he owns the videos.

Plus I'm pretty sure the laws on this are fucked in favor of copyright holders.

Of course he'll never do this. He's too stupid. But if he did do it, it would be well within his rights.

>>186705

Chris has no legitimacy at all.

I can pretend to be Chris and send a copyright claim, telling them that the videos shouldn't have been removed because I'm Chris and I own them. Like I said, he has no proof of ownership at all. YouTube doesn't recognize CWCVilleGuardian (Chris's YouTube Channel) to be the original owner, since he never uploaded them there.

What says all these Chris videos aren't parodies? There is no original to compare it to.

>>186705

There's what you can accomplish on paper and what you can accomplish just by spamming requests

It's pretty clear youtube caves to whoever bugs them enough

Webm them all and shove them on the wiki. The age of Jewtube can come to an end.

>>186729

this

>>186729

Would they display on the wiki?

It's certainly the safest option, seeing as weens and/or Chris can't get them taken down.

>>186720

Yes, but pretending to be Chris and removing a video is illegal. The videos are still his, even if he is an idiot. How can you take that away from him?

You also can't remove a video on the behalf of the person who made the video without any permission too, that's dumb.

>>186683

Get a tape hardrive. A lot of space and really cheap.

>>186758

>>186766

They're really just public domain nowadays, and you said that if they haven't been edited at all then it's still apparentally under Chris's control. But how can we know it isn't edited? There is no original video that Chris owns on YouTube, they might as well all have been edited in some way.

I'm pretty fucking sure someone at YouTube who handles these requests doesn't go out of his way to see if some tranny making GameStop hate videos actually owns a bunch of shitty low quality videos uploaded years ago under a different channel, which is even deleted if I'm not wrong.

>YouTube employee: Yup, this is CWC from Ruckersville, Virginia, and not that Brown-Striped Impostor pretending to be him.

There is no way Chris has any more power to bring down videos of his than any random person with what we know about him, unless he has some sort of proof, a random person being in the video doesn't mean anything to YouTube, especially if it's even hard to tell if it's the same person making the claim (Chris as a tranny is his YouTube avatar, by the way). Only videos he could have removed were the ones since the Lego house in McDonalds video.

>>186793

>They're really just public domain nowadays

This is absolutely not how copyright works, at all.

He absolutely owns them.

It is obvious to everybody that he owns them.

The fact that he is too stupid to know his rights absolutely does not mean that he hasn't got them.

>unless he has some sort of proof

Like all the documentation of his ownership & identity collected by spergs over the years and made publicly available on the Internet?

>>186796

He really doesn't own anything, nobody in power of removing those videos will ever acknowledge CWCvilleGuardian to be the owner.

Nobody would ever take Chris seriously unless he takes it all to court to have these videos removed entirely from YouTube, and there's always a loophole somewhere to keep them up.

The termination of the archive was all just flagging, no copyright claims by Chris or anybody.

>>186797

Yes, we've already established that it's not a copyright claim that got this stuff pulled. That's irrelevant because the discussion is about whether or not Chris owns the videos, and the fact is that he does and he could have them taken down if he wasn't a hopeless idiot.

http://www.copyrightalliance.org/2012/03/in-plain-english-a-quick-guide-to-dmca-takedown-notices

I'm no expert, but it sure looks like Chris could do this pretty easily! If it was challenged in court, there are mountains of evidence proving that yes, he did make all of those videos of himself.

Copyright exists the moment a work is created and persists for decades after death. Chris owns his videos and you'd have to be stupid to think otherwise.

>>186793

>>186797

>>186699

And this is what it looks like when you post from Mount Stupid.

Never post from Mount Stupid.

>>186903

He does own Sonichu. He created it.

Sonichu itself is a copyright violation, but that doesn't mean it's public domain.

You are stupid and don't know anything at all about copyright.

>>186819

I always use null's address when dealing with youtube.

Btw, how complete is that archive? I ripped almost the entire cwcville library a couple months ago if we need it.

>>186924

Convert it to webms.

The era of Jewtube is over.

>>186912

If it's a copyright violation he doesn't own it. It's un-copyrightable

>>186926

One of the Ys games was officially released with a script taken from a fan translation. Even though the translation was unauthorized and wholly derived from the original script, it still had to be paid for because it belonged to the people who made it.

Chris owns every part of Sonichu that isn't from someone else's work, including all the original characters and the actual storylines.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiis-_-j9TJAhXKaz4KHXGCD_UQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNErOJUhndXC80Xa44aSyxlWC5nwdQ&sig2=VGNWN3do6gwAzqJbZoY4Fw

Similarly, JK Rowling doesn't own Harry Potter fanfiction and Castlevania isn't public domain just because it has Dracula in it.

>>186928

While translations can be copyrighted, the translation is still a derivative work of the original game. Theoretically, XSEED could have used the translation without a license, much like how a movie studio could use the script treatment a writer sends in for a movie sequel without paying for it because only the author of a copyright has the right to create derivative works. They could, but it looks terrible if they actually did that in both cases and it would cause a shitstorm.

>>186950

>Theoretically, XSEED could have used the translation without a license, much like how a movie studio could use the script treatment a writer sends in for a movie sequel without paying for it

Gonna need a source. I can't actually find anything on the copyright status of fanfiction, which is what Sonichu is. I can't see any reason why it would be public domain, since it is an original work.

>>186903

Copyrights are vested in people and companies, not youtube accounts.

Also

>implying youtube actually looks at and reads DMCAs and checks to see if the person filing the DMCA actually owns the Copyright.

The fines and penalties are meant to prevent false claims from being filed. Youtube would only look at the original claim if a counter DMCA notification was sent.

>>186903

>>186912

If Sonichu wasn't clearly derived from sonic, then yes, that pic would mean that Chis owned Sonichu. Copyright is a common law right, once you use your creativity to create something, you own the copyright.

>>186926

Is correct in this case though. Chris can't copyright Sonichu's design. Sega could, although that might be debatable because there are elements derived from Creatures Inc's copyrights as well.

This case is a good read, http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040728200516564

It deals with similar issues, the Sqrat in this case was derived from a piece of clip art, but both parties were able to obtain ownership in the original clip art.

So it would take a little bit of extra work, but why not simply edit the videos together into year-by-year compilations? Add a disclaimer at the beginning that all videos were publicly uploaded and the channels they were on have long been deleted, put the videos themselves inside a frame to protect from copyright claims (because technically the video has been altered) add narration over every video, cut between videos with a detailed retelling of the events of that year, and release them for every year or couple years, depending on the amount of cocks.

I feel like if you do that everything would be in the clear legally, and it would add a ton of value to the cocks.

Assuming there isn't some reason I'm completely wrong here, if no one else is willing to I might do this myself.

>>186951

Anderson v. Stallone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/legalaspects_ukraine/copyright/cases/anderson_v_stallone.html

But that's only for the Oath in Felghana. Sonichu is a slightly different story.

Chris owns his stories. he doesn't own the Sonichu design.

>>186956

>So it would take a little bit of extra work, but why not simply edit the videos together into year-by-year compilations? Add a disclaimer at the beginning that all videos were publicly uploaded and the channels they were on have long been deleted, put the videos themselves inside a frame to protect from copyright claims (because technically the video has been altered)

That's all useless bullshit that shits his pants and does nothing for you legally.

>add narration over every video, cut between videos with a detailed retelling of the events of that year, and release them for every year or couple years, depending on the amount of cocks

Now you're making transformative changes that put you in fair use territory

>>186903

You are way too stupid to be a Kiwi, god

>>186959

>no part of Anderson's treatment is entitled to copyright protection as his work is pervaded by the characters of the first three Rocky movies that are afforded copyright protection.

Does this mean all fanfiction is effectively owned by the creator of the source material?

Does this mean XSEED owned that translation from the beginning?

Why aren't the original aspects of an infringing work copyrighted?

>he doesn't own the Sonichu design.

I was wondering about this, actually. If Nintendo and Sega got together and made a character named "Sonichu" that looks exactly like Chris's character design, would that infringe on any of his rights? Does he own any aspect of the character Sonichu? How about Rosechu? Simonla?

>>186581

>21GB

>remotely dangerous to anything but data caps from jewish ISPs

>>186596

>>186602

>He'd still have to prove ownership

>Burden of proof is on the claimant

Top kek

This is youtube. You don't have to prove shit unless you're the receiver of a copyright claim.

And even then the claimant can just say "fuck you" and deny the appeal. OF course, you can file a new appeal but youtube makes sure if you do a second appeal and get denied, your account can be banned or penalized for it. Goodbye any adrevenue or partnership you may have had.

>>186793

>he has no idea how copyright works

You can thank the jews at Disney for making sure copyright lasts for the life of the owner plus something like 85 years with the ability to renew indefinitely.

>>186903

>being this retarded

>having no clue how things work in the real world

>sticking to your lack of intelligence this long

Chris is allowed to copyright anything he wants. If Nintendo or Sega challenged him for the copyright to Sonichu he would lose, but he owns it until that happens. He even sent in request to the patent office and had it approved. It exists on the books.

Not to mention YouTube is chicken shit anyways and will respect ANY copyright claim, but he does have certified patent documentation from the Virginia state library.

>>187027

For a derivative work to have a copyright, it needs to do two things: 1.) It can't infringe on another Copyright, and 2) it has to have some substantial originality.

The infringement issue depends on how pervasive the infringement is. If the infringement is de minimus, then you can copyright the original elements added. If the infringement is pervasive, then you're fucked.

So if you wrote fanfiction about you and Harry Potter fighting Lord Voldemort and your bullies at your high school, the overall plot and characters would be too similar to the original, and the infringement would be pervasive, so you'd be fucked. However, if you wrote about your original character Donut Steel having their own separate magical adventures at Hogwarts, the copyright infringement would not be pervasive throughout the work, because even though you called it Hogwarts, the idea of a magical school where Wizards learn magic is just that, an uncopyrightable idea.

>Does this mean XSEED owned that translation from the beginning?

Essentially yes. They could have used it and the translator couldn't do shit about it.

>Why aren't the original aspects of an infringing work copyrighted?

Because of how previous courts have ruled on cases involving unauthorized derivative works. The general idea is that if we don't protect the right of the author to create derivative works, Copyright itself becomes meaningless, because then you could have "non-infringing" copies that are almost identical to the original.

>If Nintendo and Sega got together and made a character named "Sonichu" that looks exactly like Chris's character design, would that infringe on any of his rights?

There is only one right that Chris might have, and he personally fucked that up. Cartoon Character's names cannot be copyrighted, however, they can be trademarked. But Chris hasn't defended his trademark when others have violated it, so he's essentially lost it. So Nintendo could put in something like a fusion ball in smash and have Pikachu and Sonic fuse, become Sonichu, and Chris would have no legal recourse. His other character designs are also derived from Sega's characters, so those could also be copied. He might actually have a case for their actual characterizations if they weren't walking stock characters.

>>187037

The copyright was approved by state courts. This means something until it is revoked by another court for being infringing. Unless Nintendo of America sues CWC, that won't happen. Chris owns Sonichu. Deal with it.

>>187038

A copyright registration only provides a presumption of validity. The Copyright office does not do a good job determining if something should have a copyright. The PTO does a pretty poor job with patents too, Smuckers patented the PB&J for a while.

While Sega could sue for a declaration of non-infringement, the reality is that they could do whatever they want without worry, and get any potential suits settled during summary judgment.

>>187037

>The general idea is that if we don't protect the right of the author to create derivative works, Copyright itself becomes meaningless, because then you could have "non-infringing" copies that are almost identical to the original.

I get that, but why aren't the original aspects owned by the creator of the infringing work? I guess what I want to know is, can JK Rowling use Donut Steele in her next book without the permission of the fanfic author? If so, does that make Donut Steele public domain? If not, why doesn't that extend to the storyline? Assuming that the storyline has some elements of originality (the aforementioned beating-up-bullies plotline isn't a core aspect of any Harry Potter work, as far as I can remember), who owns it?

>Essentially yes. They could have used it and the translator couldn't do shit about it.

That's kind of fucked up tbh

>But Chris hasn't defended his trademark when others have violated it

Does the defense have to be in court, or do his YouTube rants qualify when his autism and ignorance are considered?

>>187050

>I get that, but why aren't the original aspects owned by the creator of the infringing work?

Because usually in the cases where the derivative work is infringing, the original aspects are so tied into the infringing work that there's nothing left to protect. Look at Sonichu's design, Once you take away the elements that belong to Sonic and Pikachu, what's left?

>I guess what I want to know is, can JK Rowling use Donut Steele in her next book without the permission of the fanfic author?

Permission would be needed if Donut Steel was a protected derivative work, because Donut Steel is the fanfiction writer's original expression that doesn't rely on Rowling's original copyright. If Donut Steel was Harry Potter's best friend who gave himself an identical scar as an act of solidarity and likes his favorite foods, then Rowling wouldn't need permission, because so much of the character would be tied to her original expression.

>If so, does that make Donut Steele public domain?

No, it means that the fanfiction writer cannot get copyright protection in Donut Steel. If Rowling created Donut Steel in a work, then Donut Steel would be under her Copyright. There are only three ways that creative expression can end up in the public domain: 1. when the Copyright expires 2. Works by the government, and model codes that are adopted into law and 3. if the author expressly dedicated the work into the public domain by granting a creative commons license.

Nothing is ever shoved into the public domain as a penalty.

If not, why doesn't that extend to the storyline? Assuming that the storyline has some elements of originality (the aforementioned beating-up-bullies plotline isn't a core aspect of any Harry Potter work, as far as I can remember), who owns it?

If the elements of Rowling's books are so intertwined with the story that once you remove them, the story becomes a meaningless wreck, the it's unprotectable, and Rowling could copy the story without worry.

If the plot and storyline could stand on it's own without Rowling's protected expression, then her expression does not pervade the work, and it's the author's own original expression.

>That's kind of fucked up tbh

Yes it is fucked up. This is a good read on it if you want to learn more: http://www.scribd.com/doc/282442486/Understanding-the-Law-of-Spec-Scripts-and-Derivative-Works#scribd

>Does the defense have to be in court, or do his YouTube rants qualify when his autism and ignorance are considered?

You have to send out a cease and desist letter at the very least. Youtube rants don't qualify.

>>187053

>No, it means that the fanfiction writer cannot get copyright protection in Donut Steel. If Rowling created Donut Steel in a work, then Donut Steel would be under her Copyright.

So Donut Steele belongs to no one, not even the public domain, upon first creation, and belongs to Rowling as soon as she uses him in a book? Even if Rowling's version of Donut Steele is completely indistinguishable from the original author's? In other words, after the copyright on HP expires, Donut Steele will still be Rowling's property (or the property of her estate, anyway) until the copyright on him expires several years later?

That's even more fucked up.

>You have to send out a cease and desist letter at the very least. Youtube rants don't qualify.

What qualifies as a cease and desist letter? He has sent emails demanding that people stop infringing on his copyrights.

>>187059

Yes, that's right, and it can be extremely fucked up.

>What qualifies as a cease and desist letter? He has sent emails demanding that people stop infringing on his copyrights.

I'm fairly certain it would have to be about his trademark, but maybe you could argue that its about his sonichu intellectual property in general, including his trademark. But those letters would possibly count. But also, Sonichu.net leads to the cwcki, so RIP in Peace Chris's common law trademark.

Didn't liquid Chris do the same thing?

I had fun with CWC, then he stopped producing good stuff after the asperchu saga, and it became depressing when bob died. I still chuckle when I see a funny update like when he became a tranny, or the pepper spray vid… but there nothing left. He stopped falling for trolls….He's just sad now.

I have mixed feelings on CWC library. On one hand I feel he should be allowed to move forward. I feel his time as a lolcow shouldn't be constantly brought up when he tries to do something else. At the same time, I feel like his story should be allowed to be told in its entirety. It is the perfect cautionary tale of unwarrented self important.

I wish CWC would just embrace his embarrassing past, make a living being a speaker about the caution of believing everything online. But we're all going to hell in a handbasket

>>187082

Chris is still a fool and he's still falling for trolls.

He is incapable of moving on our doing something else. This is who he is.

>>186987

>>187033

>ur stoopid

I still have the feeling you're misunderstanding me.

>>186912

Chris can take me to court for copyright violation?

I can't use Sonichu? Amazing

>>187171

You are misunderstanding hugely how copyright laws work

Even Kiwispergs can understand the very basics, god

>>187176

You don't see Chris still has copyright over nothing.

Who says Chris owns his own videos? Did you know I was filming in almost all of his videos? These videos belong to me.

Who says Chris created Sonichu? That .jpeg of Sonichu with the poorly written Copyright sign was done by me, Chris just changed my name to his!

>>187180

Let's continue and pretend you didn't just realize I was right.

What I said in >>187179 how is this wrong? How does that not make me the owner of the videos Chris appears in? Well?

>>187183

With your logic the same can be said to literally everything

>>187185

Then in what way does Chris own them? This goes both ways, why does Chris own it? Because he appears in it?

>>187187

Because the videos are an expression of Chris's creativity. He doesn't have to be the one holding the camera, as long as he's the one authoring the expression by choosing the scene, "writing" the "script" and so on, he's the one who owns the copyright.

Unless you can prove that Chris is a monkey who dances in your palms and did everything according to your direction, you're a fucking retard.

>>187194

Funny images? Really?

>>187239

But that's wrong.

>He doesn't have to be the one holding the camera, as long as he's the one authoring the expression by choosing the scene, "writing" the "script" and so on, he's the one who owns the copyright.

You are really taking Chris's work too seriously, a lot of people here do.

Unless

So there is an "unless" now?

>>187257

>Once again CWC autists are prepared to leap through mental hoops to rationalize just about any aspect of trolling. Can't you guys just admit this is for the lulz and not act like you're in some kind of cult.

What does this have to do with anything? You seem to have some problems that have nothing to do with this thread.

>There is no way you as a third party could, say, make Sonichu merchandise for sale

Just to be sure, can I claim all the Sonichu pictures online are mine? Why would they be considered Chris and not mine? Now, please, instead of replying " cuz he drew it!!!" think about how anyone can say he created Sonichu and it would be as believable as Chris saying he did.

>but he drew a copyright sign with his name next to it!!!

>But your rights count for next to shit on Youtube who will happily delete your account on the say so of a random third party if they feel like it.

>next to shit on Youtube

>random third party

So, Chris or somebody who isn't Chris can get the videos removed for copyright infringement?

This is what I have been saying, YouTube doesn't recognize Chris as the original owner of the videos. If he reports the videos for copyright infringement and they get taken down it wouldn't be because the original owner says so. And we are talking about years old low-quality videos that were originally uploaded through Chris's Youtube accounts that are now deleted, so Chris doesn't even have any proof now to present to YouTube of ever owning the videos, but hey, that doesn't matter.

>>187264

Go to Youtube, find some random parodies/youtube poops/whatever that is using Chris' videos and report them for violating your copyrights, pretend you are Chris. And then tell us what happened.

The fact you take this so godamn seriously makes me cringe

>>187289

You cringe because I'm taking this conversation here seriously? What?

What is supposed to happen if I did?

>>187323

You won't be able to take them down because you are not Chris, the original creator of those videos

I can't take down your shitty Minecraft videos because I am not you, the original creator of those videos

>>187264

Jesus Christ dude just stop already. Accept reality and stop looking for autism loopholes.

>>187264

Are you actually a lolcow?

Are you A-Log?

Hi A-Log

The judge for Chris's last case ordered the police to have the videos removed. Chris agreed.

First of all, to everybody here, stop the memeing and try to think.

>>187410

I don't see how I would be A-Log since I don't hate Chris, same goes for you >>187406. I have nothing against Chris.

>>187364

>>187395

I won't be able to bring them down with my YouTube channel but Chris will because he created them? I can't pretend I'm Chris online and get YouTube to get them down? What is this autism which makes you think YouTube acknowledges Chris?

>>187432

Do you have some proof?

>>187464

Do you have proof you are not Chris derailing this thread? :^)

>>187467

Yes.

I am not.

:^)

>>187521

Let me know when you have it all downloaded, mate. I just wanna know that someone out there has the stuff permanently archived.

>>187523

It's better that a lot of people have it than just one.

I'd download it myself but I'm running low on hard drive space, and 21 GB of autism isn't how I want to use what I've got left.

>>187544

Think you could set up a torrent for it when it's finished? I hear that file size makes downloading the ZIP near-impossible on chrome.

I don't think I want to download EVERY video on the CWCville library (theres several boring ones of just chris talking). What vids should I download to make some sort of "The Essential CWC" folder? All I have right now is the one where he calls Tito a NIGGER and the GOD AND THE BEAR one.

Marvin's working on some torrents. The thread contains CWC vids from January to June 2009. It's certainly a start.

https://kiwifar.ms/threads/damage-control-thecwcvillelibrary-is-down-missing-cocks-general.15073/page-9

This is a TXT file, so you'll have to download it and then open the file with a torrent client.

>>187624

See. You guys don't have to download anything.

Marvin the biggest CWC troll autist has everything, EVERYTHING

>>187674

He definitely convinced Chris to make some of those videos, and has them hoarded.

>>187674

He's the curator of the Great Library of Alexandria, Virginia. Of course he has everything.

>>187674

Yeah, I'm a lot less worried about "losing parts of history now". The other anons were right about kiwis being autistic enough that some already had/now have everything. Nevertheless, I still saved a few of my favorite vids.

I just wish I had that vid where Chris dresses up as Grimace as says that "Grimace was autistic, too".

>>187779

I never got the rivalry between the two. They julay the same cows.

Are there any archives up of the Sonichu Videobooks?

>>186529

>https://archive.org/details/yt-TheCWCvilleLibrary

Is there a similar archive for the Deagle Nation War Library?