Uploaded April 2009 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
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.
youtube.com/watch?v=51f_1l20hXs
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.
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:
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:
youtube.com/members?s=mv&t=a&g=6
Now watch this Saw5 video:
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.
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.
youtube.com/watch?v=51f_1l20hXs
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.
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:
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:
youtube.com/members?s=mv&t=a&g=6
Now watch this Saw5 video:
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.
![Blunty3000, Utubedrama, and Censorship: Part 2
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 2](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bjcsNRpa4jY/mqdefault.jpg)









