YouTube Pulls AmmoLand’s Clip of ‘Under the Gun’ Director Admitting Felonies

 

Screen Shot 2016-06-12 at 8.53.51 AM

You’ve probably heard about the now discredited video, ‘Under the Gun’. You know, the deceptively edited production that Stephanie Soechtig (above) and failed network personality Katie Couric threw together. The errors of commission were bad enough that the EPIX channel decided to pull it from their lineup. Subsequently, AmmoLand broke the news last week that in producing their piece of agitprop, Soechtig revealed that they committed at least two felonies in purchasing and disposing of firearms. But Lip Services LLC, The LIP TV’s parent, apparently didn’t like AmmoLand’s take. They made a copyright infringement claim against AmmoLand via YouTube, who took down the incriminating clip . . .

Here the notice AmmoLand received:

Screen Shot 2016-06-07 at 7.39.43 PM

Only one problem: under the fair use provisions of the relevant copyright laws, AmmoLand was well within its rights to run the clip. Here’s The Lip TV’s full piece.

In the mean time, we’re not holding our breath waiting for the relevant controlling legal authorities to investigate and, one would assume, prosecute the producers of ‘Under the Gun’ who violated federal firearms laws. They’ve probably still got their hands full looking into the David Gregory case.

comments

  1. avatar Mikial says:

    I don’t have a YouTube channel and I don’t do Facebook. Why would anyone in their right mind support either of those miserable Liberal garbage sites? If I want to watch good pro-gun YT videos, I just bookmark the channel and see what they have every so often. No need to have a channel because I don’t really care about leaving comments.

    As for FB . . . there’s nothing there I am the least bit interested in. I don’t care what people had for lunch or when they trim their toenails.

    1. avatar change not always good says:

      Just an unrelated comment.
      New website look STINKS.
      page navigation – next , previous really crummy compared to the old, choose a page number at bottom of page.

      Stark and boring, STERILE.

      Oh, did I say I don’t the like New design?

      1. avatar gerald brennan says:

        Also, not to pile on but I think you actually want the feedback — comments ought to be ordered whichever way I want to see them. Newest first, oldest first, most popular. Also a way to up-vote comments.
        Thanks for the best gun site on the web.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          NO UPVOTE BUTTON!

          Upvoting will turn commenting into an ego trip of folks commenting just to get the votes.

          It’s a *bad* idea, let comments on TTAG stand on their own merits (or lack thereof)…

        2. avatar Warren says:

          Sounds like you want Reddit.

      2. avatar roger says:

        I’m done. You guys have finally made a website I dont want to read. How do I decide If I want to read an article with just a headline? Everything looks like an ad. Your redesign is awful. I’ll check back periodically to see if you’ve changed anything but I cant bare to look at this hash of a website as it is now.

        1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

          I have to say I agree with this – a page of headlines alone is terrible. I need to see some detail of the post to see if this is something I want to read more about, showing just the headlines allows you to put more posts on one screen, but from the reader side this just looks like a crowded page of posts that I have no idea whether or not they are interesting to me, and I am not going to click into them all to find out, I will just decline to even look at the page.

          I think you guys need to rethink this one.

        2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

          Good luck finding an equally informative sight.

          Good bye and have a nice day

          P.S. To TTAG, don’t feel the need to change anything based on comments like Roger’s. You can’t make everybody happy. The changes are fine.

        3. avatar StuckInChicago says:

          I won’t be leaving any time soon, but +1000 for the first paragraph of the article being displayed under the title on the front page. How will I know what I want to skip and read? That is a serious step backward in my mind…

        4. avatar Desert Dave says:

          Gosh, I kind of like the new look.

        5. avatar Lib lurker says:

          My 2 cents, I read on mobile ant this is much cleaner and seems easier to read

          I read most of the articles anyway and the headline is enough

          It looks good on mobile that way though I could imagine it is different full size

      3. avatar Coleman says:

        its not a clip, its a magazine! Why is that so hard to learn?

      4. avatar Kevin says:

        This site has gone full on Cheaperthandirt.com “they’re going to take our guns away!’ mode. It works nicely every four years.

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Because every two years, Democrats put forth another slate of candidates who do, in fact, want to take your guns away. They never stop working for it. Therefore, we on the gun rights side can never stop working against it.

  2. avatar Craig says:

    I think we can assume this will be the same result as the David Gregory 30-round AR mag in DC.
    They didn’t do anything wrong because they did it with the right intentions.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Craig, I’m thinking you’re right.

    2. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

      David Gregory only broke a DC law though, not a handful of federal laws, several of which were felonies. AND they have a confession on tape; seems like an open and shut case for a federal prosecutor looking to get their name out there…

    3. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I suspect it’s more like “they didn’t do anything wrong because they didn’t actually do any of it”. The purchases were almost certainly imaginary, to advance the narrative they’re pushing, which is why they’re having a hard time explaining where the pretend guns ended up. The “we gave the guns to the cops and they destroyed them” line doesn’t hold up to even the slightest examination, especially considering Arizona’s laws on the matter. Where’s the paper trail? Or did they just leave them on the hood of a police car outside of Dunkin’ Donuts with a note that said “Please destroy”?

      1. avatar jsf001 says:

        I suspect the same thing. Assuming that it’s not completely made up, I’d guess they had one of their anti gun buddies get the firearms, then filmed the “buying” of the firearms. After words the anti gun “seller” turned them in when they were done.

  3. avatar Alex waits says:

    YouTube is pretty terrible with DCMA claims.
    https://youtu.be/vjXNvLDkDTA

    1. DMCA take-down demands now have to include in their good faith belief that it is not fair use. A short clip used as example in criticism of the whole is classic fair use.

  4. avatar ted says:

    Liberals don’t prosecute other Liberals.

    That’s why Hillary gets to run her own personal mail server with classified info on it.

  5. avatar Dev says:

    YouTube generally clamps down without investigating fully. Ammoland needs to fight this.

  6. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

    Run the clip. You need to run it. TFB, Guns.com, every freakin’ gun blog under the sun needs to run it. Make the signal get out. This is what we’re up against, folks.

    Tom

  7. avatar Old law Prof says:

    I have copied it. This clip will never die and the more dffoft Lip TV spends chasing it around the internet, the more viral it will become. There is no stopping the truth.

  8. avatar Anonymous says:

    Stephanie Soechtig Is ridiculous. It’s like – look we broke the law and we were able to do this and that shouldn’t be possible. Madness.

    1. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

      We broke current laws, and we shouldn’t be able to do that, so we need new laws to keep us from breaking the old laws.

    2. avatar B says:

      The thing to do would be to prosecute them under existing gun laws just to prove to them how wrong they are.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        Enforcing gun laws is what they want, right? They don’t want people to be able to do what they did, right? That was the whole point, right? They should be overjoyed about getting prosecuted!

  9. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    Would it be safe to say that the people involved in this film are of a stereotypical financially elite liberal background, and further that they make no mention that the 911 attackers did not use guns?

  10. avatar Mikele says:

    Sorry didn’t know where to put this.
    The new format SUCKS! It is jittery, jumping around when I scroll. I now cannot see what I write because of this setup. I have to type blind and remove keyboard to see what I wrote. The old setup was very professional, this is like a high-school students attempt at design of a blog. Terrible.

  11. avatar Capn Jerry says:

    Wow this new format is TERRIBLE

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    This color scheme is like sitting in a sterile hospital waiting room under buzzing fluorescent lights. Dull yet painful and slightly nauseating.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Add on: Color That Site!
      All good now.

  13. avatar Joe-n-NC says:

    New site navigation is f*cked, once in an article no prior or next article navigation is available. I don’t get why this 2010 site tech is so difficult for you guys???

  14. avatar Anon says:

    It’s not hard guys, it’s CLICKS!

  15. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Full30 is a lot better than youtube as it is ALL 2A

  16. avatar peirsonb says:

    1) Clearly she’s never actually seen a “Bushmaster.” No one who has would use the word massive as the lead descriptor.

    2) It would really give them a coronary if they knew I’ve bought several long guns (damn pistol registry) out of the back of a car. Sold a couple that way too…

  17. avatar int19h says:

    YouTube is merely fulfilling their obligations under DMCA here. Since they provide the distribution channel, but don’t own the content, when someone claims an infringement under DMCA, they’re legally required to take it down (or else they are liable for the infringement). It doesn’t matter if it’s fair use etc – it’s not their argument to make.

    Note that the reply has a link for counter-notification. This is also a DMCA thing – it lets you tell them that you assert that you are not infringing on anyone’s copyright. Once you do so, they can legally reinstate the video, and the guy claiming infringement would then have to sue you directly if they want it taken down (i.e. YouTube would be out of that legal fight, and the video would stay up until the court says otherwise).

  18. avatar Kevin76 says:

    Unlike the David Gregory thing this was a federal matter. Congress could actually lean on law enforcement and hold hearings in a federal matter and unlike the New York legislature congress actually has some pro gun people in office. I’m thinking about writing my congressman and or senator.

    1. avatar Kevin76 says:

      Oops I forgot it was DC not NY

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email