Telus' YouTube Censorship
On June 1 2007, Telus had several videos fraudulently remove from YouTube that they had no possible copyright claim on. It was a case of corporate censorship referred to as copy fraud: TELUS Censorship strikes again. Michael Geist wrote about it in his blog, the Tyee picked up on the story as did CKNW. Interesting to note that they lied in their initial application and claimed TELUS Idol was called TELUS VOIP and was an original work about TELUS' voice over Internet protocol. Not. Canada Post did the same thing.
Exhibit "A" of document 27 is Matt Wilcox's fraudulent copyright claim to YouTube. Notice that she claims various private video clips of rallies and picket lines contained "Unauthorized use of copyrighted terms." and was "Inappropriately tagged" because it involved a TELUS picket line. She also claims two songs written and performed by members of the picket line contained "Unauthorized use of the CEO's name." You have got to be kidding. If she represented Stalin would she ban Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book The Gulag Archipelago because it contained unauthorized use of the President's name? That is nothing more than cold heartless censorship. It is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and a conscious successful use of perjury to commit fraud.
Update: Motion for Summery Judgement
Well we certainly have gone back and forth in this litigation over the past two and a half years. We're up to 50 filed documents. The last time we went before the judge, they were directed by the judge to file a Motion for Summery Judgement which they have. Document 51 is their motion. It was number 48 but they made a mistake and refilled it as number 51. 49 was their proposed order but they resubmitted it as 50.8 Documents 50, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, 50.6, and 50.7 are their supporting affidavits.
Interesting to note that their proposed order is an admission of guilt. It only lists 11 of 23 videos they had taken off. Interesting to note that their fake Canadian Copyright Registration is not of Telus Idol and is dated 2009 when they made the copyright claim back in 2007. Interesting to note that instead of submitting copies of the video clips they want to remain off YouTube, they took the CKNW radio interview I submitted and had it transcribed instead. This is a copy of my response and accompanying exhibit along with an exert from Jeff Morris' affidavit. Soon it will be all over but the tears.
Hot off the Press
After I complained about the fact that the Plaintiff had not submitted the actual video clips I posted of Telus Idol they claim copyright to, they just did - document 53. Now the court can watch the exerts from Telus Idol and A) Know of an assuredly Ronald Lopez committed perjury when he claimed they were about voice over internet protocol and B) Know first hand whether or not Telus Idol, being full of plagiarized works, is indeed copyrighted. TELUS does not own Shania Twain's song Up, Avril Lavigne's song Skaterboy, or The Tragically Hip's song New Orleans Is Sinking . If Judge Walker says yes, then we know that even the good old US of A has fallen to corporate greed.
The Plaintiff just made several more submissions. I always thought a Motion for Summery Judgement meant they file it and I file a response. Yet they keep filing over and over again. In retrospect, it seems that whenever I file something that seems to hit a sensitive nerve they go frantic and response with several 27 page affidavits. Well here's their latest submission: 56, 57, 57.1, 57.2, 57.3, 57.4, 57.5, 58 They seem to be objecting to my submission of Darren's Poster he made using pictures of Shaw's CEO he took off Shaw's website. They claim it's irrelevant. In one way they're right. If Darren is suing someone for stealing it doesn't matter if Darren has made a lifetime of stealing. However, I feel it is relevant for two reasons. Natural justice says if he does something he doesn't have the right to sue someone else for doing the same thing. It also establishes a past practice of using pictures in the public domain.
The other item they seem to take issue with is my Memorandum clarifying Jurisdiction. I got this feeling that they waned to litigate things other than just what has been posted on YouTube so I said hold the door and submitted document 55 and 55.1. Their new lawyer from the same firm wasn't at the hearing on my Motion to Dismiss and my Motion to Strike. I thought they were going to try and pull a fast one and indeed I was right. They've submitted encyclopedias of case law about Motions to Strike objecting. However, the fact is Mr. Lopez said in his Opposition to my Motion to Strike that my motion was a nonstarter because TELUS' complaint only dealt with videos posted on YouTube. I read that out at the hearing and said maybe we can walk away with a consent order on my motion to strike because that is what I was asking. That if I agree to Jurisdiction in a Foreign court, the only matter for litigation would be the issue of what videos stay off YouTube and what videos go back on YouTube.
The judge asked me what I was reading from and I gave him the reference. I reiterated my concern and the judge said videos posted on YouTube was all that was on the table. I said I was a bit more relieved hearing that from a judge as opposed to just from the other party's lawyer but would feel better if I had it in writing. He then said I had it in writing since it was in Mr. Lopez' opposition brief. It was on that condition I agreed to jurisdiction.
I'm sure the other party is going to rely on several volumes of irrelevant case law. However, in B.C. where I reside, contract law states that contracts are legally binding in court and that would include verbal contracts and agreements. I'm sure that U.S. courts recognize the validity of contract law. Not to mention written statements by their own lawyer in their own opposition brief. I certainly hope we don't get scammed again because I am really getting angry with all the lies and broken promises.
Document 59 is my response to their second set of submissions on the motion with exhibit cc, exhibit dd, exhibit ee and a sample order.
More simply put, Document 51 and 56 is their submission in support of their motion while document 52 and 59 is my response opposed.
Case Law
Diehl v. Crook EFF Sues Michael Crook for Bogus DMCA Claims
The San Francisco Chronicle posts embarrassing 49ers Training Video
Court Awards TELUS' Motion
Judge Walker's limp fish Decision
This means Telus Idol can't be reposted on Youtube. This mean 11 of the 23 videos TELUS had removed from YouTube will not be reposted on YouTube. It also fails to provide any recourse for TELUS' initial fraudulent removal of the other 12 videos they had no possible copyright claim on. It also fails to provide any consequence to TELUS' and Matt Wilcox' perjury in their initial claim to all 23 videos and for lying in their court application claiming TELUS Idol was about voice over internet protocol. It is a scam. No fake Canadian copyright certificate gives TELUS the copyright to Shania Twain, Avril Lavign of the Tragically Hip's music. It is clear there is no justice in the US of A either. The censorship continues..
TELUS Sales Kick off Video or TELUS Idol?
