YouTube

[Leisher]

Removes hugely popular conservative channel.

Why?

“This account has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted,” explains YouTube, in a notice posted to channel’s page.

That makes sense.

In an email, Jacobson said that he never received notice of the claims prior to the channel's removal on Thursday. On Friday the publisher received notification from YouTube that the copyright claims were filed by the Modern Languages Association (MLA) based on audio posted of a recent MLA vote on a resolution to boycott Israeli universities. The boycott resolution at the MLA Delegate Assembly failed.

"Clearly this was a politically motivated move," he told FoxNews.com. "I never received any request or complaint from MLA. These were perfectly legitimate fair use excerpts with great news value."

Remember when Google, owners of YouTube, was censoring things for the Chinese government until they got called on it? I'm sure that wouldn't happen here in the U.S., right?

[TPRJones]

This is not politically motivated by YouTube. It may or may not be politically motivated by the MLA, but YouTube has nothing to do with that part. This is just how YouTube works. You can have up to three open complaints against you at any time, get a fourth complaint and your account is automatically shut down. If they made more than three claims at once then that immediately shuts down his channel.

He has 30 days to deny the claims. Then MLA will have 30 days to revoke the claims or not. If they revoke the claims then his name is cleared. If they do not then each claim is a permanent strike and three strikes gets your account permabanned.

If he's never had strikes before then this is just the first step as he is given time to review the claims. Regardless, this is just how YouTube has been working for years so no political motivations required.

“It’s very frustrating, it’s very scary, to have 8 years of content removed without a chance to defend yourself,” he told FoxNews.com

Yeah, welcome to the life of a YouTuber. There's thousands of videos out there about how shitty this system is.

EDIT: Oh, and fair use has nothing to do with this. Fair use doesn't exist until a situation goes to trial and a judge rules that the case is fair use; until then those words are meaningless.

[TheCatt]

EDIT: Oh, and fair use has nothing to do with this. Fair use doesn't exist until a situation goes to trial and a judge rules that the case is fair use; until then those words are meaningless.

I dont understand your statement, it absolutely has meaning beforehand and has been determined as right by the courts.

[Leisher]

This is not politically motivated by YouTube.

This is purely speculation. You have absolutely ZERO evidence to back that claim, and I have ZERO evidence the other way. I was just more clear that my statement was speculation.

There's thousands of videos out there about how shitty this system is.

Based on your description, they are 100% correct. That is complete shit. This is guilty until proven innocent, and worse, it immediately stops any earning power you had or ability to bring in new viewers.

Seems to me with even the slightest effort by YouTube/Google staffers they could fix this system to something that's more equal for both parties.

[TPRJones]

Based on your description, they are 100% correct. That is complete shit. This is guilty until proven innocent, and worse, it immediately stops any earning power you had or ability to bring in new viewers.

I completely agree. It's 100% automated, 100% horse shit, and 100% geared towards the copyright holders in every way. It's up to the YouTube artists to take the copyright holders to court for improper take-downs under the DMCA. Welcome to the shitty copyright laws of the digital age that not only allow YouTube to do it this way but in fact pretty much require it. Copyright claims are always presumed to be 100% true until proven wrong, and people throw those claims around like spitballs in middle school because there are currently no penalties to filing false claims so why not use it to get rid of critical videos you don't like?

This is not politically motivated by YouTube.

This is purely speculation. You have absolutely ZERO evidence to back that claim

I disagree. See above where I explain how the system works. If YouTube took zero action the end result of the multiple claims by the MLA is exactly what has occurred. The shut down of the account is completely not-political because it is an automated process that doesn't require YouTube to do anything at all.

Now that's not to say that someone there might not be happy about it, or that they may drag their heals in making the final determination in the appeal process. Maybe there's political motivations floating around; we can't know. But it is tangibly provable that no politically motivated action by YouTube was required for the take down because no action was required by YouTube for the take down.

[TPRJones]

EDIT: Oh, and fair use has nothing to do with this. Fair use doesn't exist until a situation goes to trial and a judge rules that the case is fair use; until then those words are meaningless.

I dont understand your statement, it absolutely has meaning beforehand and has been determined as right by the courts.

Well, that depends on where you live. The Ninth Circuit has held that fair use is a right, but that's the only one. The rest of the circuits have fallen back on the ruling by the Supreme Court that fair use is purely an affirmative defense.

Since neither of us lives in the Ninth, then for us it is not a right at this time.

[TheCatt]

Ah.

[Leisher]

YouTube to unleash 10,000+ new SS viewers to ensure you're posting appropriate content.

[GORDON]

Best India outsourcing job evar.