Editing Talk:Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally

== Coverage on this incident ==

Runkle of the Bailey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItSrtE-GHCc Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH1rzaMTvRE Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yFyaDRmR8 Part 3 [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 07:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

== $130 lock bypassed with can - Proven Industries video now back on YouTube ==

I don't know how long the [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YjzlmKz_MM8 $130 lock bypassed with can - Proven Industries] video was taken down by YouTube for, but the copyright strike has been removed and the video is back up on YouTube.

So the section of the article that states that the video has been taken down needs to be updated to say something along the lines of

"Proven Industries misused the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] to issue a bogus copyright strike on the [https://www.youtube.com/@McNallyOfficial/shorts @McNallyOfficial] channel, when McNally had fair use grounds to include a clip from their video to show a Proven Industries staff member say that there was no way for the lock to be quickly bypassed and also had fair use grounds to include a comment on their video that read: 'Let's introduce it to the @mcnallyoffical poke' and a reply by the provenlocks account that read: 'lol those guys like the cheap locks lol because they are easy and fast'."

Essentially the story here is that a YouTube viewer disputed Proven Industries claim that the lock could not be quickly bypassed, said they wanted to see McNally try the lock and Proven Industries claimed that he was unable to bypass locks of the sort of quality that they make. McNally took that as a personal challenge, so made a video showing how easy it was to shim their lock.

Instead of actually modifying the design of their lock to block this type of shim attack, Proven Industries chose to keep up their own video, that misinformed customers and attempt to silence McNally.

I'm not sure exactly where the law covering copyright (in the USA) and the DMCA says this. It might be section 512g, but I'm having problems finding a citiation for it. However anyone making a DMCA take down claim is required to specifically consider if the person who's content they are complaining about has fair use reason for using their work, or part of their work. There are a lot of companies that are now misusing the YouTube copyright claim system to issue bogus copyright claims on fair use videos.

(This was Proven Industries' first attempt to silence McNally. They then launched the lawsuit and put out publicity material claiming that McNally fakes his videos and said they were going to expose him as a liar in court. But I'm going off the exact topic now, which is that this video was taken down by a bogus copyright claim that has been overturned or withdrawn.)

If anyone knows how to work out when YouTube videos get taken down and then restored, it might be useful to have citations for that in the article. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] ([[User talk:Big Mac|talk]]) 16:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)