Extantdodo has been suspended again, the fourth time ive heard, so here is a tread just to keep track of wrongfully banned people by false claims made by bogosity proposers in general (will be mainly extantdodo probably).
Quote from: imorio on November 11, 2008, 03:56:53 PM
Extantdodo has been suspended again, the fourth time ive heard, so here is a tread just to keep track of wrongfully banned people by false claims made by bogosity proposers in general (will be mainly extantdodo probably).
Yeah, I saw that. Andromeda's Wake has a good video about it. He's linked to the YouTube support section and written a small blurb so people can send YouTube a message protesting Extantdodos suspension. Too often are good channels like Extantdodo are being banned or suspended unfairly because uneducated creationist r-tards are making baseless DMCA reports. It seems that this is the only way these people can win. Ironic that the self professed morally righteous would use such immoral tactics.
[yt]GCOg52DtwLc[/yt]
What the fuck, again?!
Why won't they leave them alone, already?
A false claim of copyright is a felony. He should be able to take legal action against each and every one of them. Maybe that'll send a message and they'll stop doing it out of self-interest.
The last one who filed copyright claims against ExtantDodo was Ken Ham.
Maybe we could put him to Kent Hovind in jail.
Edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more it bothers me.
The creationists always complain about being silenced, even though they are the ones doing the silencing.
Are they really so blinded as to not being able to see their own despicable, hypocritical behaviour?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 12, 2008, 06:59:44 AM
A false claim of copyright is a felony. He should be able to take legal action against each and every one of them. Maybe that'll send a message and they'll stop doing it out of self-interest.
That's the path
Thunderf00t (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t) went down with
VenomFangX (http://www.youtube.com/user/venomfangx?ob=4). Which worked wonderfully, unfortunately YouTube can be arseholes about giving out the information of who filed the claim. Thunderf00t got lucky with his counter claim. VFX admitted to filing the claims, or at least getting 'someone' to file on his behalf, and TF also got lucky in that a YT rep sent him a confirmation that the claimant was VFX.
Desertphile (http://www.youtube.com/user/desertphile?ob=4) also tried to take action against a false DMCA claim when he was suspended a few months ago, he had a lawyer ready to go and all. Unfortunately when he wrote to YouTube to find out who made the claim they said that would not give him that information without a subpoena. I think
Nick Gisburne (http://www.youtube.com/user/Gisburne2000) had the same issue when someone filed a false claim against his old account, though I'm not absolutely sure on that one.
Quote from: Tom S. Fox on November 12, 2008, 07:27:18 AMAre they really so blinded as to not being able to see their own despicable, hypocritical behaviour?
They know full well what they are doing. They a the used car salesmen of evangelists. They have no honour or morals. Not to put too fine a point on it but they are despicable human beings. Plain and simple.
Quote from: Textra1 on November 12, 2008, 08:06:26 AM
That's the path Thunderf00t (http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t) went down with VenomFangX (http://www.youtube.com/user/venomfangx?ob=4). Which worked wonderfully, unfortunately YouTube can be arseholes about giving out the information of who filed the claim.
They
have to, by law. They
cannot withhold the name and contact information of the claimant. James Young initially tried to hide the fact that he was the one who had Episode 1 taken down. Once YouTube confirmed it, he had to change his story.
QuoteUnfortunately when he wrote to YouTube to find out who made the claim they said that would not give him that information without a subpoena.
He should have tried again, threatening legal action if necessary. He probably just got someone ignorant of how it works. They
have to give him the information, on request, no subpoena necessary. I know I schooled YouTube on a lot of this with the James Young mess. Fortunately, I'd read the DMCA (unlike the politicians who voted for it).
You absolutely have these rights, but, like all rights, only if you're willing to stand up for them.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 12, 2008, 08:20:54 AM
They have to, by law. They cannot withhold the name and contact information of the claimant. James Young initially tried to hide the fact that he was the one who had Episode 1 taken down. Once YouTube confirmed it, he had to change his story.
He should have tried again, threatening legal action if necessary. He probably just got someone ignorant of how it works. They have to give him the information, on request, no subpoena necessary. I know I schooled YouTube on a lot of this with the James Young mess. Fortunately, I'd read the DMCA (unlike the politicians who voted for it).
That's good to know. Any time anyone on YT gets suspended because of a false DMCA I will advise them of this. These people need to learn that filing false DMCA's to censor people is a crime. Personally I'd love to have seen Thunderf00t nail VFX to the wall for his false claim, but TF is a gentleman and gave him an out.
QuoteYou absolutely have these rights, but, like all rights, only if you're willing to stand up for them.
That's true to a point. There is the affordability of justice to consider. YT may be counting on the fact that most people probably couldn't afford to proceed legally to get the claimants information out of them. Justice is an expensive proposition. Still, hopefully the threat of legal action is enough to get them playing fair.
Quote from: Textra1 on November 12, 2008, 08:39:26 AMThat's true to a point. There is the affordability of justice to consider. YT may be counting on the fact that most people probably couldn't afford to proceed legally to get the claimants information out of them. Justice is an expensive proposition. Still, hopefully the threat of legal action is enough to get them playing fair.
Despite JY's claims, I didn't spend a penny on a lawyer. I just read the law, understood my rights, and didn't shy away from standing up for them. It's amazing how much you can accomplish with just that.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 12, 2008, 09:46:38 AM
Despite JY's claims, I didn't spend a penny on a lawyer. I just read the law, understood my rights, and didn't shy away from standing up for them. It's amazing how much you can accomplish with just that.
Indeed, and if we encourage more people to do it perhaps we can put a dent in the crazies who think the DMCA is a censorship tool.
I think not sewing VFX was a good decision of TF, he's just a kid who doesnt know any better. People like Kent Hovind know their lying, and do it out of greed, they deserve to go down hard.
Youtube seems very quick to pull the trigger and suspend accounts without looking into things.
Quote from: BZ987654 on November 12, 2008, 02:51:11 PM
Youtube seems very quick to pull the trigger and suspend accounts without looking into things.
They do at that. Though there must be millions of YouTube accounts now. I wonder how many staff they have to looked into issues like that?
Quote from: Textra1 on November 12, 2008, 03:18:56 PM
They do at that. Though there must be millions of YouTube accounts now. I wonder how many staff they have to looked into issues like that?
They seem to not have enough
it's easier to ban everybody that they get a complaint about, and then deal with complaints about bans, becaus there are lots more ban requests than people appealing against a ban, espacially if its not permanently. And leaving a person banned for 2 months to long is better for them than leaving a person spreading video's they can get sued for for 2 months to long.
Quote from: BZ987654 on November 12, 2008, 03:27:12 PM
They seem to not have enough
That's always the case unfortunately. That's the standard business model these days for bigger companies. Have shit load of clients/customers and under staff your customer service section to save on staffing costs. Online games are the same. A person could watch an ice-age pass while waiting for GMs to respond to a customer service request. It's the same with the Telco's, electricity companies, etc. The only companies who have good customer service are the small ones who can't afford to lose a single customer. And as soon as they grow to big companies, they stop giving a crap about the individual customer. You just can't get good customer service anymore. They're relying on peoples general apathy. Most people can't be arsed with the hassle so they just give up and let the company get away with what ever they're doing. So long as people still have their bright and shiny objects to appeal to their nano-second attention spans they're happy. Give 'em iPhones and reality TV and you can do just about anything you want to them.
Quote from: BZ987654 on November 12, 2008, 02:51:11 PM
Youtube seems very quick to pull the trigger and suspend accounts without looking into things.
They have to by law. The DMCA requires a take-down of at least 9 business days while the copyright issue is examined.
Quote from: Textra1 on November 12, 2008, 03:40:28 PMThat's always the case unfortunately. That's the standard business model these days for bigger companies. Have shit load of clients/customers and under staff your customer service section to save on staffing costs.
Let's not forget that YouTube provides its service for free.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 12, 2008, 04:23:53 PM
They have to by law. The DMCA requires a take-down of at least 9 business days while the copyright issue is examined.
Do they have to suspend the account or just take down the video?
Quote from: BZ987654 on November 12, 2008, 08:03:17 PM
Do they have to suspend the account or just take down the video?
If it's one video, they take down the video. If it's a substantial amount of the user's videos, they have to suspend the user because of the likelihood of him uploading other "infringing" content.
It's TOTALLY stacked the deck towards the copyright holders, and almost completely blows away fair use.
maybe material for a small bogosity episode?
Quote from: imorio on November 13, 2008, 03:40:25 PM
maybe material for a small bogosity episode?
Perhaps, if I can find some good video material.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 13, 2008, 06:19:10 PM
Perhaps, if I can find some good video material.
There should be some, even though the best stuff may be currently unavailable.
Maybe a short one quoting and showing youtube's policy, laws on the matter and telling the extantdodo story with videos protesting his ban.
Part of the problem is how poorly YouTube is run. They have almost no real system for checking copyright claims, so almost anyone can take down videos if they claim to be a major company or corporation.