• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

False Flagged & DMCA'd... now YouTube has suspended me.

arg-fallbackName="freedom0f5peech"/>
I've just been false flagged, yet again tonight, twice, on my new account.

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgr_jNCyWVw


.
 
arg-fallbackName="AndromedasWake"/>
Mirrored your video.

Let me know when you have a link to the second downed video, so I can update my video info.

YouTube have expressed very little interest in this entire topic - we are going to have to keep showing the censors that in the long run, their actions will only back fire. Viva free speech.
 
arg-fallbackName="TheFlyingBastard"/>
Got your video mirrored on a dedicated account.
Please DO post the links to the downloads here so we can upload them

As an aside, do you need proper hosting instead of megaupload or someshit? I've got a lot of room on my server.
 
arg-fallbackName="DeathofSpeech"/>
Pennies for Thoughts said:
I'm no lawyer either, but the comments you posted make sense from the civil law point of view. You might ask your lawyer about the slander/liable point of civil law, but if you're in the USA rather than Britain that might be difficult too.

I think Thunderf00t got to VenomFangX with the threat of criminal prosecution. Something moved VenomFangX to apologize because he doesn't seem like the type to admit he's wrong, as evidenced by his logic impaired videos. I'd recommend contacting Thunderf00t through YT to start a brain-picking session.

I also did a search for videos complaining of YT's behavior toward false DCMA claims and found quite a few videos. I don't know if they lead anywhere since I don't have time to view them, but it's nice that you have allies.

My biggest beef is with YT for being so spineless about false flagging and false DCMA filings. As it happens, one of my roomies works for YT. I brought this up to him and he said that YT's #1 priority is to avoid copyright infringement suits. This explains why they jump to take down the victims rather than the perpetrators. This is wrong way around. Those who file false DCMA claims need to be taken down.

Good deal...
I've been reading, among other things the text of the DMCA.
You might bring this to your roommate's attention
The DMCA requires a subpoena filed in a US federal court, meeting specifically defined standards before personal information can be released.
YouTube is breaking the law by allowing personal info to be handed out for the asking.
The subpoena must show cause and must identify the claimant. Legal identification not assertion.

How difficult is it really for YT to require that the claim be filed by electronic notary?
I use one frequently. It isn't as though they're hard to find. Mine comes to my door for $25.

Do they just not understand that left as-is one 13 year old script kiddie could face their entire site... destroy their credibility with their advertisers... and irreparably damage their viability?
 
arg-fallbackName="borrofburi"/>
DeathofSpeech said:
Pennies for Thoughts said:
I'm no lawyer either, but the comments you posted make sense from the civil law point of view. You might ask your lawyer about the slander/liable point of civil law, but if you're in the USA rather than Britain that might be difficult too.

I think Thunderf00t got to VenomFangX with the threat of criminal prosecution. Something moved VenomFangX to apologize because he doesn't seem like the type to admit he's wrong, as evidenced by his logic impaired videos. I'd recommend contacting Thunderf00t through YT to start a brain-picking session.

I also did a search for videos complaining of YT's behavior toward false DCMA claims and found quite a few videos. I don't know if they lead anywhere since I don't have time to view them, but it's nice that you have allies.

My biggest beef is with YT for being so spineless about false flagging and false DCMA filings. As it happens, one of my roomies works for YT. I brought this up to him and he said that YT's #1 priority is to avoid copyright infringement suits. This explains why they jump to take down the victims rather than the perpetrators. This is wrong way around. Those who file false DCMA claims need to be taken down.

Good deal...
I've been reading, among other things the text of the DMCA.
You might bring this to your roommate's attention
The DMCA requires a subpoena filed in a US federal court, meeting specifically defined standards before personal information can be released.
YouTube is breaking the law by allowing personal info to be handed out for the asking.
The subpoena must show cause and must identify the claimant. Legal identification not assertion.

How difficult is it really for YT to require that the claim be filed by electronic notary?
I use one frequently. It isn't as though they're hard to find. Mine comes to my door for $25.

Do they just not understand that left as-is one 13 year old script kiddie could face their entire site... destroy their credibility with their advertisers... and irreparably damage their viability?
I think they give out personal info so that they can get out of the situation and say "shit, don't sue us or even subpoena us, sue this guy".

Well, if some script kiddies *do* DMCA the entire site, maybe they'll change their mind...
 
arg-fallbackName="DeathofSpeech"/>
borrofburi said:
I think they give out personal info so that they can get out of the situation and say "shit, don't sue us or even subpoena us, sue this guy".

Well, if some script kiddies *do* DMCA the entire site, maybe they'll change their mind...

Well the language of the DMCA section err umm 512(C) this is from memory so I could be wrong....
Says that the OSP / ISP must protect the identity of its users and provides a requirement that they must not release personal info without a US federal court subpoena.
512 (H) then defines the required standard (must have contents) of the subpoena.

I can't see any other way to read this.
It does not look as if the DMCA is quite the evil piece of work that I keep hearing it is, then again the people who have been saying that it's evil may not have read it.

I have emails for several members of the media now. Going to see if I can get one of them to take a serious look.
 
Back
Top