Video 4 Pt 1 A Paradox, and some Tough Questions For Youtube themaskedanalyst 2026-09-23 | Video 4 Pt 1 A Paradox, and some Tough Questions For Youtube
Credit Rating Agencies and the first Amendment themaskedanalyst 2009-10-29 | Part of the reason that we are in the economic mess that we are in is because credit ratings agencies gave wildly overly optimistic assessments of the soundness of corporations and their bonds, and investors relied on those ratings when they made their investment decisions. Enron was given high ratings just 4 days before they went bankrupt. The SEC and Congress want to regulate the Credit ratings agencies and investors are suing them for their incompetence. But the agencies have been able to stay out of hot water because their lawyers have made slick use of the First Amendment. Before watching this video, read this article from the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/under-attack-credit-rater_n_337712.html Then watch this video where Floyd Abrahms uses the First Amendment to defend the credit ratings agencies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njFqvTWhhX4
Bring Back Vogter2100 themaskedanalyst 2009-08-23 | Vogter2100 has received a 2-week suspension because someone was false-flagging his account! http://www.youtube.com/user/TheGuardian2100 Vogter explains why he is such a strong advocate for free speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUOstd87TRY Rhyz1 made a video entitled Creationist Chippendales that was flagged and removed from YouTube. Here is a mirrored copy of the video. The video was created by superimposing the faces of some prominent YouTube creationists onto a video template from Jib Jab. The purpose of this video was to raise awareness of a campaign by a number of prominent YouTubers—most of whom are atheists—to raise money for Doctors Without Boarders. Rhysz1 posted a link in the sidebar of the video to Doctors Without Boarders website and information on how to donate to the charity. Here are links to Rhysz1s channel and to a mirrored copy of his video. http://www.youtube.com/user/Rhysz1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ct7_CXGuXs Some will find this video funny, and some who have more delicate sensibilities will find it offensive. Those who find it offensive could do one of three things: 1)Stop watching the video and click away. 2)Post a comment on the video expressing their disgust. 3)Making a video of their own denouncing a video. Unfortunately, some clown or clowns chose option number four. Someone probably said to himself, I dont care if this video is drawing attention to a fund drive that will help Doctors Without Borders. I dont care if this video may help victims of an earthquake, or women who have been raped in war get psychological and medical counseling. I dont care if this video will help in the drive to raise money that could be used to help a five year old girl whose leg was blown off by a landline get a prosthetic leg. I have been offended by this video, and by God! Im going to flag it. And so they flagged it, and YouTube mindlessly removed it. Vogter2100 was furious about this video being removed to flagging and he made a video about it. He assumes that it was some Christian Fundamentalist behind the flagging campaign. I dont think we know for a fact that it was Creationists who did the flagging, but that would be a logical guess given the past history of some creationists falsely flagging and using the DMCA to try to censor atheists. Vogtor expressed his fury by cursing out the Fundies who he believe wrongfully flagged the Creationist Chippendale videos. His invective was directed specifically at the Fundies who he believed flagged the video and not at all Creationists. And YouTube suspended him when his video was wrongfully flagged. This was Vogters video got him suspended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74MWNWsfeGw About Doctors Without Boarders http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/?ref=main-menu About the charity fundraiser for Doctors without Borders http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FKsVKvF8I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ieTNpfdCvk TheShwaNerd talks about the suspension of his original account (Schwanerd) (Must-watch video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZk-Zw6hSNY EdibleNapalms alternate channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiveFreeOrEatNapalm To contact YouTube: editor@youtube.com service@youtube.com A video about an unofficial—but probably more effective—way of contacting YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pEzx7EVZnc
My Suspension and Kudos to the YouTube Copyright Department themaskedanalyst 2009-08-16 | 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: http://www.youtube.com/user/theninjasoulreaper http://www.youtube.com/user/vogter2100 http://www.youtube.com/user/gimmeabreakman http://www.youtube.com/user/dprjones http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t Thunderf00ts other channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/beautyintheuniverse Unfortunately, HappyCabbie's channel is temporarily set to private. http://www.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. http://www.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. http://www.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. http://www.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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBJ-oXj6QI0
Followup to President Obama, Apologize to Iran!: pt 2 themaskedanalyst 2009-07-15 | This is the second part of a followup to my video in which I suggest we sponsor 5000 poor Iranians a year to go on a Hajj. This is a peace offering intended as part of an apology for our role in overthrowing Mossadegh and putting the Shah back on the thrown. However, this offer comes with a twist that turns it from a rose of appeasement into a dagger aimed at the heart of the Iranian regime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-sL63xBZo8 ------------------------- The Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum have challenged the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad regime: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=2 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_discontented_clerics AP story detailing how hardline Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi is bolstering the Revolutionary Guards resolve to crush dissent: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_discontented_clerics Report in Al-Arabya in June that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was trying to form a collective leadership to replace Khameini: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/21/76567.html Very important story by Steve Schippert that discusses the potentially huge implications if Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is trying to get rid of the Khamenei regime. This is a must read: http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/regime-change-iran-movement-se Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek writes: http://www.newsweek.com/id/204225 There is one way religion could be used against Iran's leaders, but it would involve an unlikely scenario: were Iraq-based Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to issue a fatwa condemning Tehran in any way, it would be a seismic event, probably resulting in the regime's collapse. Remember, Sistani is Iranian, probably more revered in the entire Shia world than any other ayatollah, and he is opposed to the basic doctrine of velayat-e faqih that created the Islamic Republic of Iran. His own view is that clerics should not be involved in politics, which is why he has steered clear of any such role in Iraq. But he is unlikely to publicly criticize the Iranian regime. (He did, however, refuse to see Ahmadinejad when the latter visited Iraq in March 2008.) ------------------------------------------------------ For a transcript of this video see: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/VideoTranscripts/Followup%20to%20Obamas%20Iran%20speach.htm
Followup to President Obama, Apologize to Iran! :pt 1 themaskedanalyst 2009-07-15 | This is a followup to my video in which I suggest we sponsor 5000 poor Iranians a year to go on a Hajj. This is a peace offering intended as part of an apology for our role in overthrowing Mossadegh and putting the Shah back on the thrown. However, this offer comes with a twist that turns it from a rose of appeasement into a dagger aimed at the heart of the Iranian regime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-sL63xBZo8 ----------------------- Lamont v. Woods (Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 1991) http://openjurist.org/948/f2d/825 Here are the key passages from Lamont v. Wood that address this issue (citations omitted): In our view, domestic Establishment Clause jurisprudence has more than enough flexibility to accommodate any special circumstances created by the foreign situs of the expenditures, although the international dimension does, we believe, enter into the analysis. Whether governmental action violates the Establishment Clause depends on whether it has a secular purpose, whether its principal or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and whether it creates an excessive government entanglement with religion.. As Judge Sand observed, the ASHA program has the legitimate secular purpose of assisting foreign schools that teach American ideas and practices. The focus of the debate in this case is therefore on the primary-effect and excessive-entanglement questions. Because the former question will likely be critical on remand, we offer the following guidance for the district court. . . .While the analytical shortcut provided by the pervasively sectarian test may generally be appropriate, it should not be mechanically applied in every case. As the Supreme Court cautioned . . . every Establishment Clause challenge calls for "line-drawing," and "no fixed, per se rule can be framed": The Establishment Clause like the Due Process Clauses is not a precise, detailed provision in a legal code capable of ready application.... The line between permissible relationships and those barred by the Clause can no more be straight and unwavering than due process can be defined in a single stroke or phrase or test. The Clause erects a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship." Given the possible foreign policy ramifications of invalidating grants under the ASHA program, it would be particularly inappropriate to adopt a mechanical approach in this case . Therefore, in our view, once it has been determined that a particular ASHA grantee is pervasively sectarian, the government should be permitted to demonstrate some compelling reason why the usually unacceptable risk attendant on funding such an institution should, in the particular case, be borne. For example, the fact that a particular grantee is, as a practical matter, the only channel for aid, or that a given country has no secular educational system at all, may warrant overriding the usual Establishment Clause presumption. The court would then scrutinize the manner in which the institution may use its grant in an attempt to ascertain whether, in reality, the grant would have the principal or primary effect of advancing religion. ------------------------ Mullahs on a Bus: The Establishment Clause and U.S. Foreign Aid, JESSICA POWLEY HAYDEN, The Georgetown Law Journal, v.95:17 http://www.georgetownlawjournal.com/issues/pdf/95-1/hayden.pdf%5B1%5D.pdf (Note: this article won the Burton Award for Legal Achievement) http://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/releases/June.5.2007.html The key point from Haydens paper: If the court finds that the use of U.S. funds to promote a certain program infringes the Establishment Clause and would be unconstitutional within the United States, this need not mean it would automatically find the program unconstitutional. Instead, the court could employ a balancing analysis (much like that suggested in Lamont) to determine if the program should be upheld. First, the court should determine if there is a compelling national security interest. Second, assuming that the national security interest is compelling, the program should be narrowly tailored to serve that compelling government interest. ------------------------ For a transcript of this video see: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/VideoTranscripts/Followup%20to%20Obamas%20Iran%20speach.htm
President Obama, Apologize to Iran! themaskedanalyst 2009-06-27 | An Apology by President Obama could change U.S./Iranian relations and pave the way to new elections. The following link provides an overview of important contributions by Persian philosophers, scientists and mathemeticians. http://www.payvand.com/news/07/aug/1219.html The next two links lead to pages discussing Cyrus the Great and the first Charter of Human Rights. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php The following three links lead to pages about Abu Ali Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canon_of_Medicine http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/avicenna.html The following link leads to an article about mathematician Muhammad al Khwarizmi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi The following two links lead to articles about Omar Khayyam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khayam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam The next two links lead to information about the CIA supported coup against Mossadegh in 1953: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-intro.html Khamenei calls the election a Divine assessment. http://isaacs.new.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/14/2928268-supreme-leader-of-iran-makes-tactical-mistake-opens-door-for-american-intervention Over 39 million votes were counted in just over 12 hours, raising suspicions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31375293/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/page/2 Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for the Irans Guardian Council, has admitted the number of votes that were cast exceeded the number of voters in 50 cities. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98711§ionid=351020101 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I didnt mention anything from these two sources in my video, I highly recommend you read the following. The Significance of former President Rafsanjanis meeting with a representative of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most important Shiite leader in Iraq: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/06/23/sea-change An Open Letter to the Iranian Guard from a Romanian General who was in their shoes. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/26/an-open-letter-to-the-psdrn-ge ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A transcript of this video can be found here: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/VideoTranscripts/Obamas%20Iran%20speach.htm
The Video the Discovery Institute DMCAd themaskedanalyst 2009-06-15 | This video was made by DonExodus2 and falsely DMCAd by the Discovery Institute. DonExodus2 made Fair Use of clips from FOX news. FOX news would have the authority to DMCA this, but since the Discovery Institute does not own the copyright for this video, they had no right to DMCA it.DonExodus2 has indicated that he will sue DI under 512(f) of the DMCA. Go DonExodus!
Discovery Institute Caught Illegally Censoring Videos themaskedanalyst 2009-06-15 | This video was made by DonExodus2. Support DonExodus2 in his fight against DMCA abuse! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nL0T_ySG-U
Response to ZER01NE1NE On downloading videos themaskedanalyst 2009-06-14 | This is a response to ZER01NE1NE's video on downloading videos and YouTube's TOS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WpQCF2zJLo
Several videos worth watching themaskedanalyst 2009-06-06 | Fight the DMCAs and Subscribe to Straightd0pe by kittycatbrat84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-Rq6meJkc FALSE DMCA - Live ChatRoom NEW* NOW OPEN: Mods Needed by FacePalmedPlanet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh2u0JkHnf0 TheAmazingAtheist made a video two years ago about Brett Keane that I think is especially interesting in light of the fact that Brett is still denying the well-documented accusations that he had plagiarized a poem by Judy Burnett. Go to around 4:30 in TJs video and watch his story of how he caught Brett plagiarizing on a different occasion. Not Too Keane by theamazingatheist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnc2w53x-IU Brett Keane makes two phone calls to YouTube/Google complaining about his channel being falsely flagged. He also mentions that someone is using his name in filing false DMCAs. You decide how sincere he sounds in his desire for the DMCA filer to stop using his name when filing DMCAs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xztRF8Av2Jc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHbdwBlLl8 In his Awesome News video, Brett tells about finally being able to get a phone call through to YouTube. He told them about his false flagging problem and he was happy about getting one of his videos restored. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkQh37_Olyw Note that there is not a word in the video about him complaining about someone using his name to falsely DMCA straighd0pe and others. I wonder if he mentioned this to them. And I wonder if YouTube will restore straightd0pes videos because Brett told them not to honor DMCAs sent in his name. Also note that he mentioned that he had another channel that he would be using for drama. This channel is falseflaghelpme. Pay close attention starting at 2 Minutes 33 seconds into the video where he invites anyone who has been false flagged or false DMCAd to get in touch with him and he will host their videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/falseflaghelpme What a generous offer. I wonder if he will host straightd0pes videos that were falsely DMCAd in his name?
Filing lawsuits against those who file false DMCA complaints themaskedanalyst 2009-06-05 | This is a video response to Thinking of filing a false DMCA claim by dprjones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqcD1MIap6E http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 The DMCA complaint sent to Youtube must contain: (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section (1) that material or activity is infringing shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer. . . --------------------------------------- Under certain rare circumstances you may be able to file a lawsuit anonymously. So says the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: http://www.internetdefamationlawblog.com/2008/11/court-defines-t.html Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 06-1590-cv (2nd Cir. 2008) the Court found that a plaintiff may only sue anonymously if his need for anonymity outweighs both the prejudice to the opposing party and the publics interest in knowing the plaintiffs identity. It seems to me that you shouldnt have to give up your right to anonymity in Court in order to defend your right to speak anonymously on the internet. This is still unsettled law. I dont know whether a Court would rule that a YouTuber who has wrongfully had their video removed could sue a false DMCA filer anonymously. But it would be interesting to find out. Maybe it would interest a lawyer willing to work pro bono on a test case.
Please Spread This Message !! Cmon YT Community Lets Help Get This Out There themaskedanalyst 2009-06-05 | You may actually help someone by mirroring this vid.Freddy GrovesIn care of :King Features Weekly ServiceP.O. Box 536475Orlando Florida32853-6475columnreply@gmail.com Uploaded with permission of the creator and copyright holder, Tommyfromthebronx.Original video here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MVl91zU5Y4
Reply to Brett Keane themaskedanalyst 2009-05-31 | I hate to do this after Brett posted such a nice video about me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy3HFSARolg In the following video, Brett thanks straightd0pe for providing evidence that he didnt really dropped docs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW7txsJPI4Q Brett claims that the address he used belonged to the web hosting site that housed a trolls website. Unfortunately, this proof is inconclusive. When you look up a registrant doing a WhoIs search, you usually get the home or business address of the person who registered the site—not the address of the ISP that is hosting the site. http://www.internic.net/faqs/domain-names.html Will my name and contact information be publicly available? Information about who is responsible for domain names is publicly available to allow rapid resolution of technical problems and to permit enforcement of consumer protection, trademark, and other laws. The registrar will make this information available to the public on a "Whois" site. It is however possible to register a domain in the name of a third party, as long as they agree to accept responsibility -- ask your registrar for further details. http://whois.pairnic.com "WHOIS" is a program that allows you to look up information about a domain name. The following information is listed in WHOIS: * The name and address of the Registrant * Administrative, Technical, and Billing Contact information http://www.domainsbyproxy.com Did you know that for each domain name you register, anyone - anywhere, anytime - can find out your name, home address, phone number and email address? The law requires that the personal information you provide with every domain you register be made public in the "WHOIS" database. Your identity becomes instantly available - and vulnerable - to spammers, scammers, prying eyes and worse. But now there's a solution: Domains By Proxy®!
False flagging, Congress and Youtube (Reupload) themaskedanalyst 2009-05-21 | In this video I discuss the wrongful suspension and/or video deletion of several YouTubers and steps you can take to make YouTube act more responsibly. Here is the video of Congressional leaders asking for your input through YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avch-fRFmbw Whattheheck12fours channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/whattheheck12four Whattheheck12four talks about his account suspension: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUO-twK7bLg About 8 months ago, Thoughtblock stole five videos from Sheldonwh and reposted them to his channel. Sheldonwh sent YouTube a DMCA complaint demanding they take down Thoughtblocks videos. YouTube responded by suspending Sheldonwhs account. They punished the wrong guy. I discussed the incident in this video (Relevant portion starts around 9 minutes 35 seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypzdeL47h4 HappyCabbies video about the death threat made to Daryl Horner. Watch the video and you will see Horner describe what happened. YouTube screwed up by suspending the wrong person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iDYPlTjDFM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YouTube suspended dprjones for two weeks and censored his video when he exposed VenomFangXs charity bait-and-switch scheme. Here is a mirrored copy of the video that got dprjones suspended. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0V6pZJkVg And here is my video discussing this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDrG75Wvfug "20 questions for Frankretard"—the video that got dprjones suspended on May 20, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vPX8ax9KP4 Here is a copy of a video that announces dprjones suspension: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0r3gnfo0DI ----------------------------------- Pissing on an Electric Fence: (The first video by Cory Mr. Safetys video that was flagged) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6XiWdXHHvg Corys video entitled Pee was flagged and marked as over 18 when it was on his smpfilms channel. He reposted it on his new channel. Note that he did nothing more flagrant than pour a bottle of apple cider into the toilet and said a few very necessary and appropriate swear words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l6G7Z_zQII ---------------------------------- What can you do? 1)Sign, five-star, favorite, and feature this petition by starfedrogue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmml8DOfqh8 2)Write to your Representative and Senator if your account has been unjustly suspended. Im not going to advise you to make a new account, because signing up for a new account while you are suspended is a violation of TOS. However, if you do open up a new account, be sure to make a video reply to a solicitation for input from a member of Congress. Use the following two links to find videos from Representatives and Senators: http://www.youtube.com/user/househub http://www.youtube.com/user/senatehub 3)Google is coming under special scrutiny of the Justice Departments Antitrust Division http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/technology/companies/18antitrust.html?scp=2&sq=antitrust&st=cse The following link will provide information on contacting the AntiTrust Division of the Justice Department. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact.html ---------------------------------------- ------------------ A transcript for this video can be found here: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/VideoTranscripts/False%20Flagging%20on%20YouTube.htm
False Flagging and the YourTubeAdvocate Account themaskedanalyst 2009-05-01 | This is a response to the YourTubeAdvocate (known as 20) who posted a video entitled Why videos were remove. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BDVd3QOgng My correspondence with the YouTube copyright department. This is the worst example of corporate communication that I have ever seen. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Correspondence%20with%20Youtube%20Legal.htm My account was suspended for four months due to a totally bogus DMCA. I wrote to YouTube asking them to watch the video and this would PROVE that the DMCA was bogus. Watch the video starting around 2 and 35 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogf1QcbeUlU Does the following video by YouTube partner Charles Trippy fall within Community Guidelines? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIe4FUVBWIk Here is what the Guidelines say: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies or similar things intended to shock or disgust. Here is the video by dprjones exposing VenomFangX that was removed. Exactly why was he suspended for two weeks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0V6pZJkVg Here is YouTubes March 31, 2008 blog entry where they call YouTubes You Choose 08 platform the worlds largest town hall for political speech. http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=IRNhAzKFz_M Here are links to the White Houses YouTube channel, as well as links to the main channels for the House and the Senate. http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse http://www.youtube.com/user/househub http://www.youtube.com/senatehub The following video is MUST WATCH material. You will see that members of Congress want their constituents to communicate to them through YouTube. How can you post a video response or comments to them if YouTube has suspended your account? Is this not a form of disenfranchisement? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p83pNZdmhQ A transcript for this video can be found on my website: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/YourTubeAdvocate.htm --------------------------------------------------------------- Off Topic: Dynacatlovesme posted a comment on this video asking me to back up a claim that there is a right to speak anonymously on the internet. Below are links to two websites—the first is a link to my website where I explain this point in more detail. The second is by a copyright lawyer who happens to agree with me that there is a right to speak anonymously on the internet. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20First%20Amendment%20Right%20to%20Anonymous%20Speech.htm http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-is-this-masked-anti-dmca-activist.html See also the Electronic Frontier Foundations FAQ. Scroll down to the question: Do I have a right to blog anonymously? http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/overview
Mixcats DMCA themaskedanalyst 2009-04-29 | Mixcatcom apparently DMCAd a video by desertphile. dprjones mirrored the video that was DMCAd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ8GWIW4s7k Ironically, Mixcat made a video about Freedom of Speech being under attack on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGIR1avWWLY MixCat—I strongly suggest you read up on Fair Use and the purpose of copyright law. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm Mixcatcom's channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/mixcatcom desertphile's channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/desertphile UPDATE: I had posted a link to a copy of mixcat's video that was reposted by dprjones. *SOMEONE* has just filed a DMCA against that copy. If you click on the link, you will see that the video is gone and has been replaced by the message: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Peter Privitera . " Incidentally, mixcat identifies himself as "Pete". You do the math as to who is responsible for the second DMCA. And for the record, mixcat has received plenty of input from the YouTube community and he HAS to be aware that many members of the community believe the video falls within Fair Use. Assuming that he was indeed the person behind this second DMCA, he filed it DESPITE knowing that MANY believe he was wrong to file the first DMCA. Since the copy posted by dprjones has been DMCAd, I will now provide links to other copies of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ51ddOBrQU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBYA4pmOX-o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_rd7Jh6RdE
CNN The Censoring News Network??? themaskedanalyst 2009-04-21 | CNN DMCAd a video on YouTube, apparently to cover up some very unprofessional reporting by one of their reporters. Here is mirrored copy of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCOwIlfB7jI Posts on the Founding Bloggers website discussing this incident: http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/04/founding-bloggers-exclusive-our-footage-of-the-cnn-chicago-tea-party-throwdown http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/04/cnn-disappears-our-clip-a-follow-up The Founding Bloggers open letter to CNN: http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/04/an-open-letter-to-cnn Ben Sheffner is a copyright lawyer. He believes that the video fell within Fair Use. Here is his analysis: http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/cnn-makes-copyright-claim-on-video.html A number of important court cases tell us we have a right to speak anonymously on the internet. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20First%20Amendment%20Right%20to%20Anonymous%20Speech.htm Our Founding Fathers valued the right to speak anonymously http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20importance%20of%20Anonymity.htm John McCains election campaign was hit by some DMCAs. Waiting for 10 business days near election time in order to have videos restored is just too long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7b8Sgpx1sc More about the Diebold case: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Diebold%20v%20OPG.htm The purpose of copyright law: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm The Copyright Alliances web site: http://www.copyrightalliance.org The Copyright Alliance insists that Fair Use is not a right: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/content.php?id=11#23 The Copyright Alliances Board of Directors—notice that Time Warner, which owns CNN is on the board: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/content.php?id=44 Section 107 of the Copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright. Section 108(f)(4) of the Copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 Nothing in this section — in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107, A transcript for this video can be found on my website: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/CNNs%20DMCA.htm
How VenomFangX Can Shut Up Those Who Criticize His Fundraising on Youtube themaskedanalyst 2009-04-18 | My video is inspired by VenomFangXs video in which he donated $500 to charity and told atheists to shut up and stop criticizing him until after THEY make videos donating to charity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maW5mtLivbI Note at 1:55 159 he states Im hoping this video will silence you and your accusations. Note at 5:26 he states If you want to bring accusations against me, then by all means—donate more than me. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut. In the following video, VenomFangX says that he will give anything he makes over $500/month to the SickKids Hospital. Watch from 8:30 9:13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZY-S2oMywU#t=8m30s ------------------------------------------------- VIDEOS EXPOSING VFX Dprjones' video was probably the first to document VFXs charity bait-and-switch. Did YouTube reward him for exposing someone who was using their site to commit fraud? Of course not. They slapped him on the hand and removed his video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0V6pZJkVg LordHathor's videos exposing what appears to be very questionable (possibly even criminal) activity by VenomFangX on PayPal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5agvxVwbw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xw2MtKdj2I TerraRising's videos exposing VFXs behavior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oawMNBprpFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_cbn73VWKE Terrarising questioned how sincere VFX was in his sympathy for children with deformities. He pointed out the following video in which VenomFangX says amputees dont deserve their arms and God has no moral obligation to heal them. Watch 2:52 3:52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-eqMT5vqw#t=2m52s "Does God have a moral obligation to heal someone who has sinned against him? Absolutely not. So, why doesn't God heal amputees? Cause. They don't deserve their arms. We deserve to die. That's what the Bible teaches." VFX Admitted he deliberately and repeatedly lied about the DMCA he sent against thunderf00t http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4#t=1m59s And here, VFX notes that someone who lies is a liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-eqMT5vqw#t=3m52s "Have you ever told a lie? That makes you a liar." So, VFX says that he has lied repeatedly, and anyone who tells a lie is a liar. Drug Cartels build churches in impoverished Mexican villages to win over the local population: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20080405-1123-mexico-drugs-.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/archive/godfathercocaine.html ROBERTO ESCOBAR, Escobar's Brother: [through interpreter] They call him El Patron, "the boss," because in Colombia, people who own a company are called Patrones. And the poor people began to call him El Patron because he would bring two or three trucks to the poor barrios and he'd distribute food to people who didn't have any. NARRATOR: Escobar's image as a modern Robin Hood was born in the slums that surround Medellin. There is a place here known as Barrio Pablo Escobar. They still say masses for Escobar's soul in the church which he built here. Music from the steeple drifts over 200 homes which Escobar built for the poor. People here prefer to forget Escobar's violent reputation. RACHEL EHRENFELD, Author, "Evil Money": He built a soccer field and he sponsored a soccer team. He did a lot in order to help the poor. And he hired the local people in order to do construction, to run businesses for him, to teach in the local schools, which he built. He did a lot of good - much, much more than the local government - than the Colombian government did.
YouTube changes and You themaskedanalyst 2009-04-16 | Mr. Black of therealweeklynews made a video that puts the changes that YouTube is about to make into historical perspective. I highly recommend everyone watch it. If you agree with it, then act accordingly and act quickly. The original video by Mr. Black of therealweeklynews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V025E_b5I4g A mirrored copy on Dramatube.net: http://www.dramatube.net/video/the-death-of-you-tube BTW, I have nothing against YouTube doing what it needs to do to become profitable. By all means, if they can make good deals with Disney and other corporations they should go for it. But there is no need to further marginalize the average YouTuber in the process.
dprjones has been suspended themaskedanalyst 2009-04-14 | dprjones has received a two week suspension over a video he made about VenomFangXs bait-and-switch fundraiser for Sick Childrens hospital. HappyCabbie justified this suspension in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB3kB73PQX8 A message from dprjones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtWUFqd7UcQ A copy of a video that got dprjones suspended http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0V6pZJkVg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dprjones video exposing Peter Popoff, the faith healer who swindles the feeble out of their money and endangers the sick by asking them to throw away their medicine and put their faith in the Lord. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBCiPfqFeY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YouTube featured this video advertisement from their sponsor, Saw5, in late September or early October 2008 on their home page for a day or two. It encourages people to make mashups from Saw5s YouTube videos. In other words, it appears that this video was encouraging people to violate YouTubes TOS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlb3IB_lvE Note that the video has received over 3 million views and that Saw5 is in the top 25 Most Viewed sponsors of all time: http://www.youtube.com/members?s=mv&t=a&g=6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VenomFangX claimed that he wasnt the one who filed DMCAs against others. He claimed that it was a friend of his who filed a DMCA against Thunderf00t. Here is that friend, TogetherForPeace, telling the truth and exposing VenomFangXs lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vs4R6pG1qI VenomfangX apologizes to the internet for filing a false DMCA against Thunderf00t. Note: VenomFangX turned over the copyright of this video to thunderf00t. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4 Pay close attention to this part of his video where he admits to being a liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4#t=1m59s I accept that I deliberately and repeatedly lied to coverup my wrongdoings both in emails to Thunderf00t and in my videos. ____________________________________ Please Note: HappyCabbie made two related videos on this topic. He made the video on dprjones' suspension here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB3kB73PQX8 And he made a companion video stressing the fact that YouTube's policies differ significantly from what copyright law requires. In this video, he urged people to fight censorship on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKbnTSXo-uQ I recommend people watch both videos.
Only a Fool Fights In A Burning House themaskedanalyst 2009-04-09 | Watch this video by FfreeThinker about cozmikzens and nathanforsts unfair suspension due to flagging and votebot attacks. Pay attention not only to the video, but also to the comments. In particular, look at the comments by GodKillerAtheist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mDB6wjMma4 One of Nathanforsts channels was suspended, but he has another channel in which he made an important video about cozmikzens suspension: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrtik0h8b2Q Watch this video by therealweeklynews. He gives a teaser that YouTube is about to undergo changes that will be very bad for the average independent videomaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6fa8VER9OI Then watch his show on Saturday on VlogTV at 6 PM Eastern time. There may be some things you can do to help preserve your voice here on YouTube http://www.blogtv.com/People/realweeklynews And finally, if you have some time, this is one of the best episodes from the original Star Trek series: Only a fool fights in a burning house --Kang from the original Star Trek series episode, Day of the Dove http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUeB0zAm9Uw
Onisions Fair Use Analysis Is Full of Bologna themaskedanalyst 2009-04-08 | Onision DMCAd idiotech and antibu86s videos. Here is a copy of the video by antibu86 that Onision DMCA'd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkrZW3WWO0 Look at the comments posted on this video by Onision and CatCommunication: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isrcfjyHLS8 Onisions Fair Use Analysis: 1)Antibu took the heart of the video: 2)He downloaded the video illegally 3)Affordable permission was available for using the work. 4)Numerous copies were made. Onision allegedly also claimed that since he took down the video which antibu copied from, it is no longer published and that makes Antibus usage infringing. Question: If a woman gives birth to an ugly baby, can she unborn him by shoving him back up her birth canal? CatCommunication made the following point—which Onisien agreed with: Onision is a partner and makes money off his videos. Antibu86s posted portions of Onisiens video on his channel. People could watch Antibus video instead of Onisiens. Therefore, Onisien would be deprived of money. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Four Factor Fair Use Test can be seen here: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm From Campbell v. Acuff Rose: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. Note: citations have been omitted from the following passage from Campbell v. Acuff Rose: when, on the contrary, the second use is transformative, market substitution is at least less certain, and market harm may not be so readily inferred. Indeed, as to parody pure and simple, it is more likely that the new work will not affect the market for the original in a way cognizable under this factor, that is, by acting as a substitute for it ("supersed[ing] [its] objects"). . . . This is so because the parody and the original usually serve different market functions. . . We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not harm the market at all, but when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act. Because "parody may quite legitimately aim at garroting the original, destroying it commercially as well as artistically," . . . the role of the courts is to distinguish between "[b]iting criticism [that merely] suppresses demand [and] copyright infringement[, which] usurps it." ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Purpose of Copyright Law is to provide an environment that is conducive to the creation of new works. It does this in two ways: 1)It gives creators limited control over their works so that they can profit from them. 2)It gives creators the ability to create new works by building on the works of others. This is what Fair Use is all about. Note that the purpose of copyright law is not to give the creator control over his work. Giving the creator limited control over his works is but a means to the ends of creating an environment where new works will be produced. See my website for more details. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20Purpose%20of%20Copyright%20Law.htm
Youtube TOS pt 5 On Downloading videos and copying comments themaskedanalyst 2009-04-06 | This is the fifth (and possibly last) in a series of videos on YouTubes Terms of Service. This series is primarily in response to the YourTubeAdvocates (Number 20) videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51f_1l20hXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBab6u-VdYg My videos on TOS may also help explain why people were quick to jump on YouTube for the suspension of James Randi. Mr. Randi gently chastised some of us for getting on YouTubes case, and this series of videos gives a partial explanation of why many are unwilling to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngwTpkogeE Part of that suspicion stems from past actions of YouTube, and part of it comes from their lack of communication with us about these matters. They make it very difficult for the average YouTuber to communicate with them if their video has been wrongfully removed. It is against YouTube policy to download comments or videos: http://www.youtube.com/t/terms Note clauses 5B and 5C: 5B: You may access User Submissions for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the YouTube Website. You shall not copy or download any User Submission unless you see a download or similar link displayed by YouTube on the YouTube Website for that User Submission. 5C: User Comments are made available to you for your information and personal use solely as intended through the normal functionality of the YouTube Website. User Comments are made available "as is", and may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, downloaded, or otherwise exploited in any manner not intended by the normal functionality of the YouTube Website or otherwise as prohibited under this Agreement. However, many people are unaware of, or ignore the rule against downloading videos. They need to download videos of other users in order to use short clips to comment on them. This is especially important in extended debates—and it is the best way to quote someone to reveal that they are bullshitting you or committing fraud. It is also a necessity when producing video mashups. Incidentally, look at this video promoting the video Saw5. If you look at the page on YouTubes sponsors, you will see Saw5 as one of the top 20 YouTube sponsors of all time: http://www.youtube.com/members?s=mv&t=a&g=6 Now watch this Saw5 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlb3IB_lvE Note that the Saw5 video encourages you to make mashups from clips on YouTube. In other words, YouTubes sponsor was encouraging you to violate YouTubes Terms of Service. Also note that this video was viewed over 3 million times. How did it get this many views? Easy. YouTube featured it very prominently as a video advertisement in the top right corner of its home page for a day or two. It may also be necessary to download videos and save comments as evidence of harassing behavior. And finally, it may be important to save comments and videos as evidence for lawsuits.
Youtube TOS pt 4 On Harassment themaskedanalyst 2009-04-05 | This is the fourth in a series of videos on YouTubes Terms of Service. This series is primarily in response to the YourTubeAdvocates (Number 20) videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51f_1l20hXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBab6u-VdYg My videos on TOS may also help explain why people were quick to jump on YouTube for the suspension of James Randi. Mr. Randi gently chastised some of us for getting on YouTubes case, and this series of videos gives a partial explanation of why many are unwilling to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngwTpkogeE Part of that suspicion stems from past actions of YouTube, and part of it comes from their lack of communication with us about these matters. They make it very difficult for the average YouTuber to communicate with them if their video has been wrongfully removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines There is zero tolerance of predatory behaviour, stalking, threats, harassment, invading privacy or the revealing of other members' personal information. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube. YouTubes policy fails to distinguish between harassment for the greater good of the community and that used for evil. Example: A troll threatens to rape or kill another YouTube user. Someone finds out this trolls identity and posts it on YouTube. Should YouTube protect this trolls right to his anonymity? Example two. Peter Popoff is a scam artist who is a religious faith healer. He swindles money out of the ailing and feeble-minded. He is a menace to society who advises sick people to throw away their medicine. Dprjones has made several videos about Popoff, some of which he will undoubtedly consider harassing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBCiPfqFeY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9EtqCCR_Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf8VASzyYoY terrarising also made a video on this matter which Popoff might consider harassing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjDkN4smf0 Dprjones has explicitly stated he wants to put Popoff out of business and he has provided instructions in some of his videos in which he encourages people to use the weaknesses in Popoffs fund-raising scheme against him. If dprjones is successful in his campaign he may help preserve the weak-minded from being swindled out of their life savings and possibly even save lives. Should YouTube suspend his account? Or should they hail him as a community hero?
Youtube TOS pt 3 On Gratuitous Violence themaskedanalyst 2009-04-05 | This is the third in a series of videos on YouTubes Terms of Service. This series is primarily in response to the YourTubeAdvocates (Number 20) video No Graphic or Gratuitous Violence http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone being physically hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it. This is further explained in the Community Guideline Tips: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines#tips (Click on "Shocking and Disgusting".) The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes people do get hurt and its inevitable that these events may be documented on YouTube. However, its not okay to post violent or gory content thats primarily intended to be shocking, sensational or disrespectful. If a video is particularly graphic or disturbing, it should be balanced with additional context and information. For instance, including a clip from a slaughter house in a video on factory farming may be appropriate. However, stringing together unrelated and gruesome clips of animals being slaughtered in a video may be considered gratuitous if its purpose is to shock rather than illustrate. YouTube provides a valuable service that can help keep police brutality in check: http://www.totalinjury.com/news/articles/police-brutality/youtube-video.aspx http://gawker.com/366585/youtube-ends-police-brutality Police Brutality in Morocco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzUeqieegbo YouTube is also a tool that can be used to publicize the suppression used by brutal regimes. However, there is one prominent YouTube screwup worthy of note. Wael abbas is the winner of the prestigious International Center for Journalists Knight award for excellence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfWCX__kQ3k Here is a CNN report on the importance of Abbass work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBdglRJ9aZY Yet, Youtube suspended his account for posting videos of Egyptian police brutality: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/youtube-shuts-down-egyptian-anti-torture-activists-account http://rawstory.com/news/200/AntiTorture_Activist_kicked_off_Youtube_%5BVIDEO.MA%5D_1130.html "With what they are doing now, they are helping tyrants, they are helping torturers, they are helping dictatorships. This is not really helping people who are fighting for democracy in 3rd world countries. We thought that YouTube was our ally; it helped show the truth in countries like Burma, but with what they did now, it doesn't seem like that anymore." Wolf Blitzer reports on YouTubes closing down Wael Abbass account: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GstQihMWSHU ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Menassat.com is a news site focusing on events in the Middle East and North Africa. It is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands. http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/page/1063 THE ARTICLE THEY WROTE ABOUT YOUTUBE REGARDING ABBASS SUSPENSION IS A MUST READ!!!! PLEASE READ IT!!! http://www.menassat.com/?q=news-articles/2347-youtube-feeding-regional-crackdown-cyber-activists Since November 2006, YouTube has been officially owned by Google Inc. Its therefore safe to assume that both sites maintain a similar philosophy. The mission of Google, as stated on Googles official page, is to organize the world's information and make it universally useful and accessible. But how can people make universal use out of Googles products if its staff seemingly practices censorship? How can people find or have access to certain information if Google suspends user accounts without issuing a valid reason or prior notice? Is Googles YouTube really functioning to serve and apply its stated mission as best as possible? One cant help but ponder such questions, seeing as this is not the first time YouTube caves to state-sponsored censorship. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Youtube eventually relented after a widespread outcry and decided he could post his videos of police brutality on their site if he put it in the proper context. http://www.webtvwire.com/is-youtube-the-proper-forum-for-human-rights-abuse-videos-the-wael-abbas-case http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0316580920071203?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
Youtube TOS pt 2 On Hate Speech and Religion themaskedanalyst 2009-04-05 | This is the second in a series of videos on YouTubes Terms of Service. This series is primarily in response to the YourTubeAdvocates (Number 20) videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51f_1l20hXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBab6u-VdYg My videos on TOS may also help explain why people were quick to jump on YouTube for the suspension of James Randi. Mr. Randi gently chastised some of us for getting on YouTubes case, and this series of videos gives a partial explanation of why many are unwilling to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngwTpkogeE Part of that suspicion stems from past actions of YouTube, and part of it comes from their lack of communication with us about these matters. They make it very difficult for the average YouTuber to communicate with them if their video has been wrongfully removed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the community guidelines: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines we do not permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender . If you click on the link for Community Guideline tips you get further clarification: "Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. What is a religion: Is Scientology a religion? Many observers have concluded that Scientology is a cult or a bait and switch scheme that lures unsuspecting suckers in with promises of helping them achieve success and mastery while hiding the fact that their philosophy is based on a rather bizarre belief about the evil Galactic Lord Xenu. They dont reveal this core belief to recruits until they have been exposed to years of brainwashing and spent thousands of dollars on Scientology courses. What is to safeguard the accounts of Scientologys critics? How about those who say that those who follow of Islam worship a religion whose prophet is a pedophile. Should they be protected?
Youtube TOS pt 1 Introduction themaskedanalyst 2009-04-05 | This is the first in a series of videos on YouTubes Terms of Service. This series is primarily in response to the YourTubeAdvocates (Number 20) videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51f_1l20hXs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBab6u-VdYg My videos on TOS may also help explain why people were quick to jump on YouTube for the suspension of James Randi. Mr. Randi gently chastised some of us for getting on YouTubes case, and this series of videos gives a partial explanation of why many are unwilling to give YouTube the benefit of the doubt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngwTpkogeE Part of that suspicion stems from past actions of YouTube, and part of it comes from their lack of communication with us about these matters. They make it very difficult for the average YouTuber to communicate with them if their video has been wrongfully removed. A report by The Tech online—MITs oldest and largest newspaper, notes an incident where a video showing police brutality by Oklahoma police was put up on YouTube, the city of Blackwell, Oklahoma filed a DMCA complaint, and YouTube removed the video. The article notes that YouTubes Terms of Service are also enforced in mysterious ways. What does a video involving a laser lighting matches and a video of a tornado destroying a home have in common? They were both removed for violating Youtubes Terms of Service. Corynne McSherry, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation stated that takedowns for TOS violations can be arbitrary and unexplained. She said: "In the Terms of Service, there isnt any kind of formal protection, or a formal procedure for users to get their data back except to send a letter to YouTube begging them to reconsider, " http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N37/youtomb.html
The Real Reason for James Randis Suspension themaskedanalyst 2009-04-02 | Why James Randi was suspended
Youtube have lost the plot - JREF account suspended themaskedanalyst 2009-03-30 | **************UPLOADED WITH PERMISSION FROM DPRJONES********* To complain to youtube follow this link; http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/static.py?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=account&selected=asked_to_login&ctx=account_asked_to_login_55755 Scroll to the very bottom and click on "new issue" Select "suspended account" from the options and express your opinion. The mediafire link is; http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=4d77967b07dff9ac8c9e7c56ba37815f99433de67f37e9e4
The Necessity of Fair Use and Why Using the DMCA To Remove Defamatory Videos Is Improper themaskedanalyst 2009-03-29 | Some people believe that copyright law should be used as a substitute for libel law. They claim that they have the right to DMCA any video that they believe is libeling them. To hell with all the other considerations of whether or not a video is within Fair Use. If its libelous—they contend—then this is sufficient to prove that the video falls outside of Fair Use. In this video I explain why substituting libel law for copyright law is a bad idea. It is also something that I doubt Congress ever intended. The following video exposes faith healer Peter Popoff as a fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBCiPfqFeY Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to enact copyright law. It does not explicitly state that Congress has the power to enact libel law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8 The Congress shall have power. . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries The 10th Amendment to the Constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. From a Wired magazine article about libel on the internet http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/07/autoadmit One idea gaining traction among legal thinkers would be DMCA-like legislation permitting victims of defamation to issue take-down notices, asking ISPs and websites to remove false and damaging user posts. If the service complies, it would be immune to any legal action. New York Times v. Sullivan http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html "That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive,"" NEAR v. STATE OF MINNESOTA http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=283&invol=697 In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this footing it yet stands. . . . Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness? Had "Sedition Acts," forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke? One 911 Truther comes to the realization that the movement is all Bullshit: http://extruther.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-resignation.html Five Guantanomo detainees admit with pride that they helped plan 911: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/10gitmo.html?_r=2&hp
Inmendhams suspension themaskedanalyst 2009-03-28 | Here I talk about the suspensions of Inmendham and VoicesInTheHead Update: Inmendham talks about the video that got him suspended. It was the video in which he explained his use of the term "Jewexican". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tDhEwp6q90 Update 2: I posted a comment on one of Gary's videos stating that I though his suspension was Bullshit! He removed that comment and blocked me. Evidently he doesn't like the fact that I mentioned that I thought he never should have filed his lawsuit. Talk about your ingrates.
Inmendhams Lawsuit and his Jewexican Comment themaskedanalyst 2009-03-28 | This is a response to a video by The SuicidalOptimist VoicesInTheHead (Johnny) and Naomiknight visited Inmendhams town and made a video of the outside of his house. It was certainly provocative, and Inmendham responded calling Johnny a Jewexican. Inmendham puts his remarks in context in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ5lJRbZtyk
Challenging naomiknights DMCA Abuse pt 4 themaskedanalyst 2009-03-24 | This is the fourth part in a four part video discussing NaomiKnights improper DMCA complaint against Amazing Muslim. Diebold used to be the biggest manufacturer of voting machines in the United States. Unfortunately, their electronic voting machines had more bugs in them than a roach motel. Internal memos discussing their faulty machines were posted on the internet and Diebold tried to cover this up through the DMCA. I discussed this in more detail in this video and on my website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LHxnwyMpc http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Diebold%20v%20OPG.htm The purpose of copyright law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtDQ6W_HAY http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php I explained the why Congress passed the DMCA and how the DMCA does the exact opposite of what Copyright Law was intended to do in this video response to Melsbasketcase: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsErUn7seu0 Copies of Amazing Muslims video that are hosted by DMCAabuse and dprjones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6wYHN-P588 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJx_HDVYeM The Four-Factor balancing test that Naomi should use is she wants to demonstrate that AmazingMuslims use of her video was not Fair Use: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
Challenging NaomiKnights DMCA abuse pt. 3 themaskedanalyst 2009-03-24 | This is the third part in a four part video discussing NaomiKnights improper DMCA complaint against Amazing Muslim. Diebold used to be the biggest manufacturer of voting machines in the United States. Unfortunately, their electronic voting machines had more bugs in them than a roach motel. Internal memos discussing their faulty machines were posted on the internet and Diebold tried to cover this up through the DMCA. I discussed this in more detail in this video and on my website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LHxnwyMpc http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Diebold%20v%20OPG.htm The purpose of copyright law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtDQ6W_HAY http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php I explained the why Congress passed the DMCA and how the DMCA does the exact opposite of what Copyright Law was intended to do in this video response to Melsbasketcase: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsErUn7seu0 Copies of Amazing Muslims video that are hosted by DMCAabuse and dprjones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6wYHN-P588 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJx_HDVYeM The Four-Factor balancing test that Naomi should use is she wants to demonstrate that AmazingMuslims use of her video was not Fair Use: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
Challenging NaomiKnights DMCA Abuse pt 2 themaskedanalyst 2009-03-24 | This is the Second part in a four part video discussing NaomiKnights improper DMCA complaint against Amazing Muslim. Diebold used to be the biggest manufacturer of voting machines in the United States. Unfortunately, their electronic voting machines had more bugs in them than a roach motel. Internal memos discussing their faulty machines were posted on the internet and Diebold tried to cover this up through the DMCA. I discussed this in more detail in this video and on my website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LHxnwyMpc http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Diebold%20v%20OPG.htm The purpose of copyright law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtDQ6W_HAY http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php I explained the why Congress passed the DMCA and how the DMCA does the exact opposite of what Copyright Law was intended to do in this video response to Melsbasketcase: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsErUn7seu0 Copies of Amazing Muslims video that are hosted by DMCAabuse and dprjones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6wYHN-P588 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJx_HDVYeM The Four-Factor balancing test that Naomi should use is she wants to demonstrate that AmazingMuslims use of her video was not Fair Use: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
Challenging NaomiKnights DMCA Abuse pt 1 themaskedanalyst 2009-03-24 | This is the First part in a four part video discussing NaomiKnights improper DMCA complaint against Amazing Muslim. Diebold used to be the biggest manufacturer of voting machines in the United States. Unfortunately, their electronic voting machines had more bugs in them than a roach motel. Internal memos discussing their faulty machines were posted on the internet and Diebold tried to cover this up through the DMCA. I discussed this in more detail in this video and on my website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LHxnwyMpc http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Diebold%20v%20OPG.htm The purpose of copyright law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtDQ6W_HAY http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php I explained the why Congress passed the DMCA and how the DMCA does the exact opposite of what Copyright Law was intended to do in this video response to Melsbasketcase: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsErUn7seu0 Copies of Amazing Muslims video that are hosted by DMCAabuse and dprjones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6wYHN-P588 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkJx_HDVYeM The Four-Factor balancing test that Naomi should use is she wants to demonstrate that AmazingMuslims use of her video was not Fair Use: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Fair%20Use.htm
Why the DMCA Was Passed: A Response to Melsbasketcases Copyright Question themaskedanalyst 2009-03-24 | This video is in response to Melsbasketcases video in which she asks whether Stephen King had to get permission to use song lyrics in his books and whether she MUST get permission to use other peoples material in her videos on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8lm43xGZOM The Purpose of Copyright Law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtDQ6W_HAY In Playbov Eneterprises v. Frena, (M.D. Fla. 1993), the Court determined that an internet Bulletin Board Service operator could be held liable for copyright infringement for material posted on his site EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WAS ANY COPYRIGHT INFRINGING MATERIAL ON HIS SITE!!!! http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Playboy_v_Frena.html There is irrefutable evidence of direct copyright infringement in this case. It does not matter that Defendant Frena may have been unaware of the copyright infringement. Intent to infringe is not needed to find copyright infringement. Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement, and thus even an innocent infringer is liable for infringement Section 107 of the copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 . . . the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright. Section 108 (f)(4) of the copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 (f) Nothing in this section — (4) in any way affects the RIGHT OF FAIR USE as provided by section 107 (I capitalized the key part for emphasis.)
No Gnooze is bad news Or 100,000 Subscribers or Bust! themaskedanalyst 2009-03-04 | This is a video response to Marta Costellos video Big ideas!? #2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R74RO5H8mYUShe raises two questions in this video. First, how can news organizations survive when people now get their news for free on the internet? And second, how can HER gnooze channel continue when she is not making enough money from it to pay the rent.Now, none of us should expect that we will be able to make a living by making YouTube videos. But Marta is a trained journalist and her work is first rate. It is both informative and VERY entertaining. And she does great imitations (especially Bush and Obama.)If this were the Matrix, I would suggest Guns, lots of guns! But since it isnt, I can only suggest Subscribers, lots of subscribers!There is no good reason why she doesnt have 100,000 subscribers. Shes that good.Hence, I hereby kick off the 100,000 subscriber or bust campaign.I want each person watching my video to watch 3 of her videos.http://www.youtube.com/user/gnoozeMake sure you check out at least one of her older videos so you can catch her George Bush imitation.Then, if you like what you see—subscribe! And if you really like what you see, make a video encouraging YOUR subscribers to subscribe and make videos encouraging THEIR subscribers to subscribe. Lets help Marta get where she belongs—on the Most Subscribed list.http://www.youtube.com/members?s=ms&t=a&g=0&c=0&to=0&nb=0&p=4After all, no gnooze is bad news.
Follow-up to Is Sxephil a racist 2 themaskedanalyst 2009-03-02 | This is a followup on my previous video asking whether sxephil is a racist. Here is a link to my first video tonight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ofiaNh_KU And here is confederalsocialists video. Watch it! Otherwise, this video wont mean anything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq2WJMZvCSc And I received a pm from the youngwestii account stating: i lied about the whole thing Which brings up the question—has youngwestii been a troll all along, or is he a naïve victim of a hacker. And if youngwesti is truly a mastermind who sometimes plays the innocent, unsophisticated Youtuber and then hacks his own account in order to get others to think he is the hacking victim of sxephils followers, then why would he send me a pm admitting he was lying? I dont have the answers, but if I were sxephil I would still make a video denouncing WHOEVER was behind the pm for what was an obviously racist remark. *******UPDATE********************** confederalsocialist has removed his video. I didn't ask him to remove it. In fact, I sent him three pms begging him to restore it so that the historical record will remain intact. He refuses to restore it. He says that he now regrets his video because he called me a bad person in it and asked people to unsub from me. I told him that it is important to keep the historical record intact so he should put it back up anyway. If he wants to retract or correct parts of his video then he can do so through annotations. Still, he refuses to repost it. He now wants me to make HIS argument for him in the sidebar. He also wants me to post a link for him. This I will not do, especially since I refuse to visit his link my self for security reasons. I may be paranoid, but I don't know him, and as a general rule, I don't visit links by people I don't know. If anyone can persuade him to repost his video, I would be much obliged.
Is sxephil a racist? themaskedanalyst 2009-03-01 | Is Sxephil a racist? MeanBlackDude thinks he is, and he may be right. He certainly is insensitive. And I think a case that he is racist could be made from his Racism can be fun video from last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL5_2z5PC1I#t=2m00s Within the past two days, Youngwestii posted a video in which he claims he received a racist email from sxephil on May 20, 2008. The video from a day or two ago was removed. According to MeanBlackDude, SOMEONE—possibly a sxephil fan—hacked youngwestiis channel and removed his video and put up a porn video in its place. Youngwestii has reposted the video within the past 17 hours. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2QZSv0vt8w Who knows how long the video will remain on Youtube? If sxephil has friends on Youtubes staff, then it is always possible that youngwestiis video—or his channel-- could mysteriously disappear. Seeing how Youtube was quick to censor Thunderf00t when he made a video they didnt like, we can not discount the possibility that they could censor youngwestii as well. (Note to Youtube staff: I am not claiming you WILL do this, but your censorious actions in the past only sow the seeds of mistrust. Perhaps the mistrust is ill-founded and perhaps I am paranoid, but you have only yourselves to blame for fostering an environment where such mistrust thrives.) In case Youngwestiis video is pulled from Youtube, it is available on thedramatube. I highly recommend you watch it there, and read the commentary posted along with it by MeanBlackDude: http://dramatube.ning.com/video/sxephil-called-me-a-nigger-1 MeanBlackDude brought this situation to my attention in his video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6ESk7AkJik Notice Phil posted the following comment: ------------------------------Begin sxephil comment--------------------------------------------- Its funny how a photoshop'd picture can get people up in arms. Just me stating the obvious. I don't have to worry about a fallout of subscribers, because most of them are not stupid enough to believe that I would hate someone because of the color of their skin. Anyone who does hate for that reason, is an ignorant asshole. Westi is just the small guy, coming after the big guy. I did not write that message. If I let everyone that didn't like me or ripped on me, get to me, I'd go insane. ------------------End sxephil comment---------------------------------------------------------------------- See MeanBlackDude commenting further on the situation in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqTHGGE_oTY So, was the pm that was sent to Youngwestii's MySpace account authentic? There are several reasons to think it was: 1.It is in character with his Racism can be fun video. 2.Sxephil did not condemn the statements contained in the pm as racist. If I were in his position and if I were innocent, then I would post a comment condemning the statements within the pm as well as denying that I had anything to do with it. I would also make a video condemning the statements in the pm. 3.How the hell do you Photoshop a clickable link????? This is the biggest reason to think that the pm was genuine. If this were a court case and if sending that pm was illegal (which it wasnt) this would not be PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt that the email is genuine. But it would certainly be strong enough evidence to warrant an arrest and hold a trial. So sxephils reputation is now being tried in the court of public opinion. The only way to definitively PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the email was real would be to have a third party examine Youngwestiis account to see if the pm is still there.
Youtube Boycott themaskedanalyst 2008-12-19 | I am checking out until at least December 22 in protest of YouTubes policy to algorithmically demote videos containing profanity. Here is YouTubes blog entry announcing their new policy:http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=AEX3_7h40mkI explain why YouTubes policy is a bad idea and why I am boycotting Youtube in these two videos.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBbIAL948t4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9iq2A5SGCEThe odds of this boycott working are small, but it seems like the right thing to do. I would feel like a scab crossing a picket line if I didnt honor the blackout. I hope you will join me.
Re Youtube Profanity themaskedanalyst 2008-12-18 | This is a response to Greg Solomons video Youtube Profanity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVHorckXMrc Greg will not join the YouTube boycott scheduled from Dec. 19 - 21 and he discourages others from joining the boycott as well. Despite Gregs well-spoken video, I will join the boycott. I explain why in this video, and I ask Greg to do what he can to convince those running YouTube that their policy to algorithmically suppress videos that contain profanity is a bad idea. YouTubes blog entry announcing their new policy: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=AEX3_7h40mk Fox News Likes YouTube Censorship? by LiberalViewer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQ2a6cVRB4 Why YouTube Should Not Censor Profanity by themaskedanalyst http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBbIAL948t4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Is YouTube sanitizing the site by suppressing videos of police brutality off the Most Viewed and Most Commented pages? BLATANT YOUTUBE CENSORSHIP by NufffRespect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVXPEGHdDlg YouTube Blackout/Censorship Solution by theestranger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-VzL1A6cJk "Silence is Golden - Cussout v. Blackout" by rozeboosje http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpZ2ukkqQcs Re: YouTube Profanity by Leafdude http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9PQfdqDxSQ
Why YouTube Should Not Censor Profanity themaskedanalyst 2008-12-08 | YouTube recently announced a policy to algorithmically demote videos containing profanity so that they wont appear on the Most Viewed and Most Discussed list. Here is their blog entry announcing the new policy http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=AEX3_7h40mk Both VioletKitty411 and Jezuzfreek777 have applauded this policy. My video takes the opposite view. YouTube needs Censorship by jezuzfreek777 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaVFuIcPf-A The Freedom of Speech by VioletKitty411 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejxrvGqz-E Rozeboosjes video in which he points out that Youtubes policy sends the wrong message to children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79CWlB_p5Bs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An article about the Hurricane that hit Burma and the murderous thug regime that lords it over the people: http://www.slate.com/id/2191196 Millions still suffer in Burma due to blocked aid 1 month on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o3TYaWIHuE [Channel 4 News] Efforts to get aid past Burma junta http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km4MbSlA1dE (Fuck Burmese Junta) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6adIBWNek4 An average guy tells the Burmese Junta that they are really fucking up by refusing aid to their country to help their people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Giw6u1QoZ-k
John McCain, the DMCA and the Law of Unintended Consequences themaskedanalyst 2008-10-27 | John McCains campaign has been hit by the DMCA. They have had some videos removed by Youtube, despite the fact that they fell within Fair Use. And they are pissed. McCains General Council, Trevor Potter, raises some good points in his letter to YouTube, but his proposed solution is elitist and unacceptable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation discusses YouTubes takedown of some of John McCains videos due to DMCA complaints: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/mccain-campaign-feels-dmca-sting The letter written to YouTube by Trevor Potter, General Council for the McCain Presidential campaign: http://www.eff.org/files/McCain%20YouTube%20copyright%20letter%2010.13.08.pdf The Electronic Frontier Foundation discusses Youtubes reponse to Trevor Potters letter. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/youtube-responds-mccain-campaigns-letter Here is YouTubes response: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/files/youtube-letter-20080514.pdf An interesting article from Law.com on what this all means: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425301216 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following video discusses an incident where Youtube removed a video about Viacom in response to a DMCA complaint. Youtube posted a notice stating, This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMoUKNIGEMk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I explain in greater detail on my website why the DMCA is unconstitutional. http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm I release this video into the public domain. I encourage you to copy it, to upload it to your channel, and to promote it. I especially encourage you to submit letters to the McCain and Obama encouraging them to consider issues raised in this video. A transcript for this video can be found here: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/John%20McCain%20the%20DMCA%20and%20the%20Law%20of%20Unintended%20Consequences.htm
John McCain hit by the DMCA!!!!! themaskedanalyst 2008-10-16 | John McCains campaign has been hit by the DMCA!!! McCain Campaign Feels DMCA Sting http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/mccain-campaign-feels-dmca-sting Letter written by http://www.eff.org/files/McCain%20YouTube%20copyright%20letter%2010.13.08.pdf We recognize that Youtube has said it adheres to the notice-and-takedown procedures established by the DMCA. But nothing in the DMCA requires a host like Youtube to comply automatically with takedown notices, while blinding itself to their legal merit (or, as here, their lack therof). The DMCA provides hosts with a safe harbor from liability for infringement—but there is no need for a safe harbor where, as here, there is no infringement in the first instance. See id. §107 (a fair use is not an infringement of copyright). YouTube Responds to McCain Campaign's Letter http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/youtube-responds-mccain-campaigns-letter Why the DMCA is blatantly unconstitutional: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/The%20DMCA%20is%20Uncontstitutional.htm In this video, I asked what Youtube would do if someone sent false DMCAs to try to get Hilary Clintons, Barack Obamas, or John McCains account suspended. http://youtube.com/watch?v=KBzLtfrLMag
My Verdict on VenomFangXs Apology themaskedanalyst 2008-10-09 | Here is VenomFangXs apology video. Please watch it, rate it, favorite it, comment on it, and post a video response to it. Then if you have time, make a video asking your subscribers to do the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4 You can read about Michael Crook—VenomFangXs predecessor in DMCA infamy, here: http://www.themaskedanalyst.com/Michael%20Crook.htm And here is Michael Crooks apology video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i76PEIdtJm8 Just for fun, watch VenomFangX tell Thunderf00t that he (Thunderf00t) has nothing to threaten him with. Watch him use his joker persona to accuse Thunderf00t of blackmail. This is a fun video to watch, and this video, with his apology video makes a great double feature. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCAyvSG9F4A Now, watch Togehterforpeace provide evidence that VenomFangX was lying when he said he got a friend to file the DMCAs for him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vs4R6pG1qI
Lets Make VenomFangXs DMCA Apology Video Viral themaskedanalyst 2008-10-09 | Here is VenomFangXs apology video. Please watch it, rate it, favorite it, comment on it, and post a video response to it. Then if you have time, make a video asking your subscribers to do the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4
Re: YTA 14:2 Collaboration themaskedanalyst 2008-09-28 | The DMCA is being used as a tool for censorship and a tool for illegally getting the name and address of other Youtube users. Youtubes actions, heavily influenced by the mandates of the DMCA, jeopardizes the safety of the Youtube community. The least that Youtube could do is alert its users of the potential danger of unwittingly revealing their location to an enemy when filing a counternotice. Youtube should also inform users that they have a legal obligation to inform users that they must consider Fair Use before filing a DMCA complaint. (NOTE: I AM NOT A LAWYER, SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE READ AS LEGAL ADVICE.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Youtubes March 31, 2008 Blog entry saying: We often describe our You Choose '08 platform as "the world's largest town hall" for political discussion. http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=IRNhAzKFz_M I discuss bogus DMCAs issued under the name of the Zizzle Corporation and Viacom in more detail in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypzdeL47h4 Youtubes DMCA notification procedure: http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy Note that there is not one word on this page about Fair Use or about a users legal obligation to consider Fair Use issues before filing a DMCA. Youtube should state that users have a legal obligation to consider Fair Use issues before sending a DMCA complaint. In fact, Youtube should post a link to the recent decision in Lenz v. Universal Music Corporation in which the Judge says exactly that. http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdf in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the laws, the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright. 17.U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
Kurtilein3, Please dont file more complaints for a while. themaskedanalyst 2008-09-25 | Kurtilein3 has filed one complaint to Youtube to try to get VenomFangX's account suspended, and he has pledged to file a complaint a day until the account is suspended or until he gets tired. I am asking that he refrain from filing another complaint for a week or two.
