Uploaded June 2008 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
This video is in response to Alphacat's recent (and apparently unjust) suspension:
youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk
Check out this video by SeanBedlam talking about his video being suspended because someone DMCAd it. He says he was just talking into a camera. He did not use any copyrighted material at all. If you check the comments in the video, it appears the DMCA was sent in by Televiso San Angel, a Mexican broadcasting station.
youtube.com/watch?v=aKSZ0DaoHJM
Now AlphaCat has been suspended—apparently under circumstances similar to that which caused the takedown of SeanBedlam's video. Alphacat says that the DMCA that did him in was filed by Televiso San Angel—despite the fact that he was not using any material copyrighted by that company.
youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk
I suspect there is a troll out there who is filing DMCAs under the name of Televiso San Angel, and that this troll is not connected to that organization. Unfortunately, even though this DMCA appears to be totally fraudulent, Youtube dances like a marionette to the false DMCA filer's tune.
The law needs to change and Youtube needs to change its overzealous and unnecessarily draconian implementation of the DMCA.
For more on the DMCA and why it is unconstitutional, see:
themaskedanalyst.com
This video is in response to Alphacat's recent (and apparently unjust) suspension:
youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk
Check out this video by SeanBedlam talking about his video being suspended because someone DMCAd it. He says he was just talking into a camera. He did not use any copyrighted material at all. If you check the comments in the video, it appears the DMCA was sent in by Televiso San Angel, a Mexican broadcasting station.
youtube.com/watch?v=aKSZ0DaoHJM
Now AlphaCat has been suspended—apparently under circumstances similar to that which caused the takedown of SeanBedlam's video. Alphacat says that the DMCA that did him in was filed by Televiso San Angel—despite the fact that he was not using any material copyrighted by that company.
youtube.com/watch?v=wCp-Coghhrk
I suspect there is a troll out there who is filing DMCAs under the name of Televiso San Angel, and that this troll is not connected to that organization. Unfortunately, even though this DMCA appears to be totally fraudulent, Youtube dances like a marionette to the false DMCA filer's tune.
The law needs to change and Youtube needs to change its overzealous and unnecessarily draconian implementation of the DMCA.
For more on the DMCA and why it is unconstitutional, see:
themaskedanalyst.com









![Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 1
This video provides a detailed response to Blunty3000 and his support of the censorship of haters. The issue is not as simple as Blunty suggests, and legitimate free speech could be the inadvertent casualty of an anti-hater campaign. Such a campaign could also backfire and severely hurt Youtube.
Here is a link to Blunty3000s video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWG-zgaXH40
Bluntys blog where he discusses haters in general and Trevor Rieger in specific:
http://www.bluntmation.com/content/
Utubedramaqueens video, where Trevor describes why he thinks Youtube censored him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEojLdCxDQo
Information about Richard Nixons enemies list:
http://www.answers.com/topic/nixon-s-enemies-list
Michelle Malkins First They Came video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOb6Vh3qaAY
New York Times v. Sullivan—The seminal libel law case.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
The original passage from NYT v. Sullivan that I bent to fit this situation:
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount leads to a comparable self-censorship. Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [note 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. 530, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which steer far wider of the unlawful zone. Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
My video discussing the Nick Gisburne affair. Nick was originally told by Youtube that he was being censored for inappropriate content. Youtube later told him that he was being banned forever because of copyright infringement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By6aqz_79Uc
Youtubes bungling of the Gisburne affair earned it some really bad press. Watch Michelle Malkins video and pay close attention to the comments underneath it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/21/banned-by-youtube-iii/
This video by Ron, the Washington, D.C. copyright lawyer, discusses the Tur v. Youtube lawsuit. It is absolutely essential to watch this video for people to understand why Youtube should be careful not to get a reputation for censorship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk
Update: Trevors Utubedramaqueen account has been banished and he is now posting as Utubedramaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUEczUFCsg Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 1](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/eaB-boF_lMs/mqdefault.jpg)
