TWiT Willfully Violates Federal Law with Funding from Gazelle

Leo Laporte willfully violates copyright every time he “covers” lives events. He takes streams broadcast by companies with explicit copyright warnings and re-streams them with “color commentary” over the top, making fun of the company in question.

To add insult to injury, he then sells his own ads on top of the third party’s copyrighted content with impunity!

This is what you can experience for yourself in the video above.

Scary weirdo, Jason C. Cleanthes
DERP

We don’t normally post about it, but this time, the moronic technical director Jason C. Cleanthes (EffenDumb) managed to fuck up the video switching and actually showed the copyright warning on the screen.

Leo’s audio was fucked up for most of the stream’s duration. A piercing high-pitched audio tone was constant throughout the illegal event as well. The video fared no better, with screen tearing throughout the screen capture and re-stream of a YouTube full-screen page.

EffenDunn is well on his way to being an off-site producer like Chad Johnson. Congratulations Jason C. Cleanthes!

55 thoughts on “TWiT Willfully Violates Federal Law with Funding from Gazelle”

    1. Hmmm..I never thought about this, but you are right. This is a copyright violation and is in NO WAY “Fair use.” You need to get permission of some sort to do this. What next? NFL football games?

      I wonder why they were not busted for this a while ago.

        » Quote comment

  1. Someone posted this on @leolaporte Twitter account a few min ago
    LMFAO

    Ran over here as quick as I could to watch the continuing sinking of the SS Twit and its Cpt LeoLafuck

      » Quote comment

  2. For him everything he is doing is fair use , except if others doing the same thing than it’s not. That he peppers the broadcast with his own ads makes it problematic for sure.
    Just blame the trolls who Photoshop the stream in real time.

      » Quote comment

  3. Who even watches this shit? Like I need Ron Richards’ fascinating insight when I could just watch the feed myself, or better yet find something more important to care about than the newest phone.

      » Quote comment

    1. Knoxharrington said:
      It’s not infringement because he does commentary on it, and treats is as live news coverage.

      The audio was a complete shit show.

      Twit live coverage would be okay if they were broadcasting live in-venue or got permission to rebroadcast the satellite feed directly the way other news outlets use. It’s very shady and doubt Leo would allow 5by5 for example to talk over a This week in tech as it could also be considered live news coverage.

        » Quote comment

      1. My Name Is Daniel said: Twit live coverage would be okay if they were broadcasting live in-venue or got permission to rebroadcast the satellite feed directly the way other news outlets use. It’s very shady and doubt Leo would allow 5by5 for example to talk over a This week in tech as it could also be considered live news coverage.

        I WOULD love to watch a TD commented version of TWiT (a la Mystery Science Theatre 3000) ….

        Let’s DO IT!!!!!

          » Quote comment

        1. JungleBunnyJim said: I WOULD love to watch a TD commented version of TWiT (a la Mystery Science Theatre 3000) ….

          Let’s DO IT!!!!!

          Haha ..Would be hilarious to do a MST3000 style show to TWiT’s live stream. Re-Broadcast their live stream while doing funny commentary.

            » Quote comment

        1. No, that’s Ben Thompson’s sack. That’s what she wants to think about (and all the other guests who are on when Thompson is on) because that guy doesn’t know when to stop talking.

          #BanBenThompsonFromTWiT

            » Quote comment

          1. Jimmy Jam said:
            Are you saying Ben Thompson is full of shit?
            http://imgur.com/B1YFqFG

            For some reason, that image pops up, then I get some shit about Imgur’s birthday, but anyway.

            I’m not saying he’s full of shit. He brought up some very good points during the Apple/FBI fiasco. He just needs to keep his answers short, and to the point. It sounds like to me he likes the sound of his own voice too much, just like Leo, and has a big ego, again, just like Leo.

            I’m surprised Leo lets him drone on as much as he does. Fuck, I’d rather hear from Ed Bot more, than Thompson.

              » Quote comment

  4. I think the problem with this article is that this site claims fair use every article, video and picture it posts. Then the idiots running this site have the chutzpah to criticize Leo’s fair use.

    Stupid article from stupid people

      » Quote comment

    1. CreamyCornCob said:
      I think the problem with this article is that this site claims fair use every article, video and picture it posts. Then the idiots running this site have the chutzpah to criticize Leo’s fair use.

      Stupid article from stupid people

      You dont have a clue what Fair Use means, do you?

      It is Fair Use to use a small part of a larger work for either commentary or parody purposes. To prove a point about something by “quoting” 1-2 minutes of a 3 hour video is Fair Use.

      To use 100% of someone else s creation and call it your own is also called “Stealing” not Fair Use.

      To comment over that stream is “remixing” someone elses property. Without express permission before the fact, this is again stealing.

        » Quote comment

    2. You are obviously a moron, and know nothing about fair use. I recommend you read this and focus on the factors of fair use. Leo’s use IS a violation, and would not hold up in a court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

      When you are done, ask yourself. Why don’t all networks just re-broadcast sports events, or political debates? How is TWiTs use any different?

        » Quote comment

      1. Diabetus by L. Ron Blubber said:
        You are obviously a moron, and know nothing about fair use. I recommendyou read thisand focus on the factors of fair use. Leo’s use IS a violation, and would not hold up in a court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

        When you are done, ask yourself. Why don’t all networks just re-broadcast sports events, or political debates? How is TWiTs use any different?

        Of course.

          » Quote comment

      2. Diabetus by L. Ron Blubber said:
        You are obviously a moron, and know nothing about fair use. I recommendyou read thisand focus on the factors of fair use. Leo’s use IS a violation, and would not hold up in a court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

        When you are done, ask yourself. Why don’t all networks just re-broadcast sports events, or political debates? How is TWiTs use any different?

        Exactly. For the first Republican debate last year, Fox had exclusive rights and closed down every live stream rebroadcasting it. Same principle.

          » Quote comment

    3. CreamyCornCob said:
      I think the problem with this article is that this site claims fair use every article, video and picture it posts. Then the idiots running this site have the chutzpah to criticize Leo’s fair use.

      Stupid article from stupid people

      Wrong. Fair use usually applies to non-profits and individuals, not corporations.

        » Quote comment

    4. I think the problem with your comment, CreamyCornCob, is that you defend Leo Laporte’s use of another’s work to make money off it.

      It would be perfectly fine and would have been fair use if he had limited his use to a commentary. Sadly he did not use it purely as a commentary he inserted advertising using his normal method i.e. doing a read, during the live-feed.

      This is not fair use. When members of Totaldrama.net publish video highlighting Leo Laporte they do not insert advertising suggesting people buy from, let’s say, for arguments sake, Gazelle. They merely publish the video with their commentary.

      The trouble is, even if you claim fair use, which it is in these cases Leo & TWiT will do their damnedest to have that video taken down claiming it is a breach of the Creative Commons license because he chose to change from a version that allowed derivatives to one that did not because he didn’t really want people using his video at all but wanted to claim the same claim he had always made (but without declaring that it CC 4.0 terms are so restrictive that they allow barely any use).

      Now Let’s go back to Samsung’s (and in the coming months Apple’s — since they use a similar notice concerning their live feeds), they are very explicit and up front that their video is not to be used for commercial gain and for PERSONAL USE only. Hmm sound very much like CC 4.0.

      Let’s think about TWiT TV, that’s a commercial entity, it’s not for personal use and was re-transmitting a feed and adding that advertising on for COMMERCIAL GAIN.

      Let’s just say, CreamyCornCob, you can take the CreamyCornCob and stick it deep within your backside from where your opinion obvious came from.

        » Quote comment

    5. Do you have a defence for using Gazelle as an advertiser too?

      They rob people in broad daylight. Just looked up a Galaxy Note 5 and they’re offering me $235, it’s easily worth twice that!

      Don’t say Gazelle is a business and needs to make a profit, they are ripping people off big time.

      But they are a ‘marquee’ advertiser on TWiT. I guess Leo is STUPID.

        » Quote comment

  5. It is fair use. There is no loss in revenue experienced. There is a arguable case that twit increases samsungs revenues through its coverage. You sue for damages. There aren’t any here. It falls under the fourth one.

    This is the reason twit and other companies haven’t been sued for this.

      » Quote comment

    1. Fauxjournalist said:
      It is fair use. There is no loss in revenue experienced. There is a arguable case that twit increases samsungsrevenues through its coverage. You sue for damages. There aren’t any here. It falls under the fourth one.

      This is the reason twit and other companies haven’t been sued for this.

      You are so wrong. The Samsung broadcast was for non-business, personal use only. This clearly is copyright infringement, especially since soup filled it with ads.

      Can NFL games be streamed on the web by other sport sites? By your logic rebroadcasting an NFL game would boost ticket sales, right? It might, but it is still rebroadcasting without permission, a felony.

      But TWIT and similar sites have such a low audience it’s not worth Samsung’s time to sue them so soup will skate through this.

        » Quote comment

      1. holden said: Can NFL games bestreamed on the web by other sport sites?By your logic rebroadcastingan NFL gamewould boost ticket sales, right?It might, but it is still rebroadcasting without permission, a felony.

        This guy made a valid point but he is wrong. There are special rules for sports. In fact, you can’t even do your own play by play for sports with no audio or video from the live feed. The actual game events are protected.

          » Quote comment

        1. What do you mean there are special rules for sports? Okay then what about the Grammies. Are there special rules for that too? How about the presidential debates? How about any live event broadcast on TV? Can other networks just rebroadcast that?

          Oh and by the way, I don’t see any other podcast or tech network rebroadcasting these like TWiT is doing. Why is that?

            » Quote comment

        2. Oh and Creamy knob gobbler, when you’re done reasoning about this issue and have come to your senses, ask your self this. Is Leo doing this for his reputed audience, or just to make money?

            » Quote comment

        3. CreamyCornCob said: This guy made a valid point but he is wrong. There are special rules for sports. In fact, you can’t even do your own play by play for sports with no audio or video from the live feed. The actual game events are protected.

          What the hell are you talking about?

            » Quote comment

      2. It’s not the same thing. These events are not commercial ventures themselves. They are advertisements. There is no lost revenue you can sue for.

        If someone restreams something you pay to access, or has advertising revenue that makes it free, they have clear lost revenue they can sue for.

          » Quote comment

  6. Why would you want to watch TWiT’s rebroadcasting over any event anyway? They shit talk mostly over it, even making dumb comments about what colour Tim Cook’s shirt is, how pathetic and nit picky.

      » Quote comment

    1. Fuck you, how do you like that? said:
      Why would you want to watch TWiT’s rebroadcasting over any event anyway? They shit talk mostly over it, even making dumb comments about what colour Tim Cook’s shirt is, how pathetic and nit picky.

      Shit talk is very accurate. you cannot hear any of of Samsungs presentation. Leo and other jackasses mumbling over everyone. Yet another shit twit production.

        » Quote comment

      1. Leo says all of the time, if you don’t want to hear them talking over a keynote, people are free to listen to the raw version. I don’t mind them talking over it. But when TWiT talks over a keynote, it’s pretty cringe worthy. I watch Giant Bomb talking over the E3 press conferences. The difference is though, GB’s coverage is funny, and entertaining.

          » Quote comment

  7. Getting your tech news from a guy like Leo is like watching a retarded baby eating soup with a fork.

    That being said, this is not fair use.

    Leo is clearly stealing content and placing his own ads.

    Lets say I were to take any COMPLETE show in it’s entirety from the TWiT network and overlay my own commentary and place my own ads to boot.

    Is that fair use?

    No. It is not. Leo would shit a brick if someone did that.

    So fuck you Leo. You are scum.

      » Quote comment

    1. Yeah, I remember Leo saying once (TWiT Cottage days) people are free to distribute their content, as long as they don’t claim it’s theirs, or put any water marks etc on it. Can’t remember what his stance was on ads, or if mentioned about it. But you know they wouldn’t be happy about it if that happened today.

        » Quote comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *