Uploaded August 2009 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
My account was suspended sometime between July 23 and July 25 due to an obviously bogus DMCA. I wrote to YouTube on Aug. 3 showing them that the suspension was obviously bogus—it was sent by Jason Sherrelll—note the three ls in the last name. YouTube restored my Account on August 4, and on that they are to be commended.
Special thanks to theninjasoulreaper, voger2100, gimmeabreakman, happycabbie, dprjones, and thunderfoot/beautyintheuniverse:
youtube.com/user/theninjasoulreaper
youtube.com/user/vogter2100
youtube.com/user/gimmeabreakman
youtube.com/user/dprjones
youtube.com/user/thunderf00t
Thunderf00ts other channel:
youtube.com/user/beautyintheuniverse
Unfortunately, HappyCabbie's channel is temporarily set to private.
youtube.com/user/happycabbie
Also special thanks to YouTubes copyright department for acting so quickly upon receiving my notice that the DMCA filed against me was bogus. YouTubes copyright department has come a long way from when they treated me like dirt when my channel was previously suspended for an OBVIOUSLY bogus DMCA. It should have taken them no more than 5 minutes to realize the DMCA against me was bogus, yet it took them 4 months to restore my account. Here is a link to my correspondence with them in 2007. See how much they have improved since then.
themaskedanalyst.com/Correspondence%20with%20Youtube%20Legal.htm
YouTubes copyright department deserves praise, but they still have a long way to go in implementing the DMCA in the spirit in which Congress passed it. Note that the DMCA only expects a REASONABLY IMPLEMENTED policy that terminates accounts IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
Section 512 (i) (1) (A) of the DMCA:
The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —
(A)has adopted and reasonably implemented . . . a policy that provides for the termination IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES of subscribers and account . . . who are repeat infringers
The DMCA doesnt define who repeat infringers are, nor does it state what circumstances are appropriate for account suspension. But certainly Congress did not have in my suspension of accounts that were making OBVIOUS fair use of anothers material. Yes, the video in question has to be pulled to get DMCA protection, even when obvious fair use is involved. But account suspension is both unnecessary and unwarranted, especially in light of the fact that YouTube is the worlds largest townhall for political speech. Congressional Representatives specifically set up shop on YouTube with the request that their constituents be able to give them feedback through YouTube.
youtube.com/watch?v=avch-fRFmbw
Given this fact, YouTube should be more cautious about suspending accounts when what is probable fair use is involved. There is no excuse for them to keep someone like ediblenapalm.
youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ-oXj6QI0
My account was suspended sometime between July 23 and July 25 due to an obviously bogus DMCA. I wrote to YouTube on Aug. 3 showing them that the suspension was obviously bogus—it was sent by Jason Sherrelll—note the three ls in the last name. YouTube restored my Account on August 4, and on that they are to be commended.
Special thanks to theninjasoulreaper, voger2100, gimmeabreakman, happycabbie, dprjones, and thunderfoot/beautyintheuniverse:
youtube.com/user/theninjasoulreaper
youtube.com/user/vogter2100
youtube.com/user/gimmeabreakman
youtube.com/user/dprjones
youtube.com/user/thunderf00t
Thunderf00ts other channel:
youtube.com/user/beautyintheuniverse
Unfortunately, HappyCabbie's channel is temporarily set to private.
youtube.com/user/happycabbie
Also special thanks to YouTubes copyright department for acting so quickly upon receiving my notice that the DMCA filed against me was bogus. YouTubes copyright department has come a long way from when they treated me like dirt when my channel was previously suspended for an OBVIOUSLY bogus DMCA. It should have taken them no more than 5 minutes to realize the DMCA against me was bogus, yet it took them 4 months to restore my account. Here is a link to my correspondence with them in 2007. See how much they have improved since then.
themaskedanalyst.com/Correspondence%20with%20Youtube%20Legal.htm
YouTubes copyright department deserves praise, but they still have a long way to go in implementing the DMCA in the spirit in which Congress passed it. Note that the DMCA only expects a REASONABLY IMPLEMENTED policy that terminates accounts IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
Section 512 (i) (1) (A) of the DMCA:
The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —
(A)has adopted and reasonably implemented . . . a policy that provides for the termination IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES of subscribers and account . . . who are repeat infringers
The DMCA doesnt define who repeat infringers are, nor does it state what circumstances are appropriate for account suspension. But certainly Congress did not have in my suspension of accounts that were making OBVIOUS fair use of anothers material. Yes, the video in question has to be pulled to get DMCA protection, even when obvious fair use is involved. But account suspension is both unnecessary and unwarranted, especially in light of the fact that YouTube is the worlds largest townhall for political speech. Congressional Representatives specifically set up shop on YouTube with the request that their constituents be able to give them feedback through YouTube.
youtube.com/watch?v=avch-fRFmbw
Given this fact, YouTube should be more cautious about suspending accounts when what is probable fair use is involved. There is no excuse for them to keep someone like ediblenapalm.
youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ-oXj6QI0
