Youtube has restored the JREF account.
I’m going to have to disagree with Randi, though. Responding to a violation by automatically yanking the whole account is not appropriate and civilized behavior, especially when it can be resolved by an amicable communication. How about communicating first, and then yanking if someone is intransigent? The problem is that not everyone has the resources or the clout of the JREF, and there have been far too many cases of individuals getting shut down on entirely bogus complaints.
Yay anti censorship!
How are you even meant to listen to that guy with that stupid echo?
I’m just glad Mr. Randi is back on youTube. He da’ man.
Especially if all we had to watch was Sylvia Browne. I’d be happy to end my life at that point.
AHA! I thought it was weird! Turns out! I have some weird device on my machine that makes words impossible to understand under a variety of different effects! Wow, I take it back, now I just have to figure out how to turn it off. Learn something new every day.
Even though I agree, PZ, that it would be better to contact them before pulling the account, I still think it seems that Youtube acted decently, and I do believe people irrationally (key word, eh?) assumed that he was being censered by YT for his beliefs without knowing the full story.
(Please pardon my English, I am not native.)
Somehow I knew this must have been the case.
I’m afraid yanking the offending video immediately is required by the DMCA. However, yanking the account of a first “offender” is way overboard.
This is the sad story of YouTube. It is so unfortunate that it is so popular.
Apparently YouTube is down.
@8 my thoughts exactly. I had an offending video myself, which YT zapped (disabled), but they left my account alone and let me swap out the audio content of the targeted video to one that passed muster with respect to copyright. I picked a new song that worked as an adequate replacement and meshed harmoniously with the original video content. I’m surprised they didn’t just take down the targeted video over at JREF; Taking the whole channel down was overkill and not normal YT behavior.
youtube in working order, listening to “We Built this City” right now.
And the JREF should should have the resources to use the other part of the DMCA in that case – go after the ones with the false accusations.
“I’m afraid yanking the offending video immediately is required by the DMCA. However, yanking the account of a first “offender” is way overboard.”
Except that it appears that there were a large number of videos involved. If so then I have no problem with youtube’s actions.
I do think fair usage should be greatly expanded. Lets face it low fidelity playbacks of copyrighted music isn’t costing anyone anything.
I think YouTube should change their policy to suspend any accounts of anyone falsely and maliciously targeting accounts for suspension. Even if it was just a 30 day suspension or something.
Gruesome Rob
Won’t happen. JREF is a Voca Absurdis. They don’t use there “resources” to do anything other than be a voice. Then there’s the fact that going after someone would cut into Randi $1M hoard. So yeah, won’t happen.
AFAiK the DMCA doesn’t make many allowances for sites like youtube. I also found the suspension overtly harsh and mobilized a great many of my friends to ‘spread the word’. In all honesty, we can’t JUST blame Youtube, the problem lies in the DMCA and it’s severely in need of revision.
Regards,
Rhysz
“Inappropriately angry at YouTube”?!?
What the fuck? Seriously Mr. Randi, NO. We’ve seen DMCA abuses before with creationists, so forgive us for having been cynical. And their policy of taking down an ENTIRE ACCOUNT on a single video DMCA claim? I’m sorry, but I can see account suspensions after a warning, or for multiple offenses, but YouTube’s policies with regards to DMCA claims currently offer far too much power to people who wish to abuse it (coughVenomfangxcough).
It’s good to see this was just simple misunderstanding. It still highlights the bigger problem, which is why people went a little ape shit over it. Youtube responds the same way to an accidental, technical violation, as it does to a completely bogus, groundless abuse of its system. And I doubt many creationist douchebag types would bother attacking the JREF – look at the response! But for the many smaller fish out there, they don’t have a backup crew, and when their videos quietly disappear for no good reason, that can be the end of it.
well, there’s two problems here.
one is the selective way in which YT handles complaints, and it often results in overreaction against sketpics/atheists and leniency for everybody else
the second problems is the DMCA itself, which is nothing but a reactionary POS to make life miserable for everyone. no one ever had their home raided for underlaying their home-videos with copyrighted music and then showing it to everyone and their dog. and most youtube accounts are just that
“…there have been far too many cases of individuals getting shut down on entirely bogus complaints.”
And there have been far more people who have had their accounts *legitimately* yanked for copyright violations.
YouTube is doing exactly what they have to do in order to operate under the DMCA, without getting sued themselves. If you don’t like it, move to have the DMCA shit-canned (as you should).
To be honest, moreso than at YouTube, I’m angry at the likes of Thunderf00t, who didn’t have the cojones to actually take VenomFangX to court when he abused the DMCA. Prosecuting people who abuse the DMCA to suppress free speech IS A MUST.
Awfully vague stuff. I reckon we still don’t know what happened. But at least it’s back.
YouTube must act decisively. People post material that belongs to others. In so doing YouTube has legal liability. While they can take down that item when they find it, they also have a three strikes policy. If you keep posting someone elses property without rights to do so, they take your account out.
That actually seems fair to me.
Who exactly is this guy? looks like the American version of Osama Bin laden. Oh yeah, not I know – he’s the old man from the Jurassic Park movies
And whose fault is that? Youtube’s.
If youtube had a page for takedowns and suspensions perhaps with a scan of the complaint or a reference to the tos violation an email address for themselves, the suspended party, and the conplainant, there would not be such problems. Don’t tell me that they could not handle this. If they cannot, then they shouldn’t be in the business.
Exacerbating the problem ia that there is no way to contact youtube, furthering the appearance of an uncaring company with an agenda.
So, no I don’t care what the actual case was. It looked nefarious on the part of youtube.
On the subject of removed videos: The Family Guy Episode about atheism (and Star Trek) that PZ linked to a few days ago is currently removed from Hulu with this message:
Due to a legal matter, we’ve had to pull the episode “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” from the site temporarily. We’ll get the episode posted back up shortly, after the content owner has resolved the issue.
I can’t imagine it’s the Star Trek people. Anyone know what that’s about?
I’ve never liked JR. I’ve always seen him as snide and childish. I’m glad that Phil Plait has taken control of JREF.
The real problem is with the DMCA. It leaves providers like YouTube no choice but to take down the offending material immediately if they don’t want to be held complicit to any possible copyright infringement.
Now, I wish YouTube would grow some balls and say “bring in on”, but they don’t see it my way. And given that there is a LOT of copyright infringement on YouTube, I can see why. :)
The next question is: why do they do this automatically instead of having a person in the way? Cost – they probably get too many complaints to deal with.
The final question is: why don’t they sue the people who lodge false or abusive DMCA requests? Because they don’t see any need on their part.
So: the problem goes back to how do you stop DMCA abuse. How about making lodging false or abusive DMCA claims a criminal act, like, oh perjury? Then how about enforcing that side of the law?
Good on James Randi for his intellectual honesty.
If youtube had a page for takedowns and suspensions perhaps with a scan of the complaint or a reference to the tos violation an email address for themselves, the suspended party, and the conplainant, there would not be such problems. Don’t tell me that they could not handle this. If they cannot, then they shouldn’t be in the business.
==
I agree, privacy is overrated.
pgpwnit said @ #27
Here Here! Great way to say it. I long thought the old man a bit silly. Really, this is a man who dismisses ALL of homeopathy based on his participation in a single failed experinment.
Maybe under Plait the foundation will finally be about education and not a soapbox for Randi.
Well I dismiss “ALL” of homoepathy based on plain common sense. I haven’t attended a single failed experiment, and I don’t need to. Prove to us that homeopathy works — or even can work — as anything more than a placebo, and win yourself a Nobel Prize for Physics.
Erasmus:
http://www.zicam.com/products/research
just one example, more exist I’m sure.
YouTube is a private organisation. They can yank who the hell they like. If you don’t like it set up your own youtube clone and then see how long it is before you ban something.
[quote]Really, this is a man who dismisses ALL of homeopathy based on his participation in a single failed experiment.[/quote]
I’m quite certain Randi’s is not the only experiment showing homeopathy is just an over-expensive placebo full of false promises. Taking all into consideration, yeah, it’s probably all hogwash.
The homeopathy, that is (is hogwash).
I’m glad Randi’s back up. I agree, yanking his account was a bit overboard. A copyright violation only justifies pulling the material in question.
Wow
What kind of fool cites a link to an advertisement for homeopathic medicine as proof that it works?
It even has a real “scientific” study published in the “Internet Journal of Family Practice”. It must be true if it was published in the same online(giggle) journal that supports anti-ageing drinks and wrinkle creams.
You’ve won me over.
Homeopathy works!!!
Anonymous: I would recommend against using Zicam…
Anonymous@33:
Zinc gluconate is a mineral compound with some research showing it has benefits, when swallowed, on cold-like symptoms (although there is other research showing the first research had problems).
Zicam have produced research showing that a gel with zinc gluconate is effective at reducing cold symptoms.
Zicam claim to be homeopathic. They’ve taken that as a marketing label. I don’t see that they claim, for example, that if you take a solution zinc gluconate, dilute it in water 100 times, and then drink it that it will have any effect on the cold symptoms.
Zinc gluconate may well be good against the common cold. If so, the mechanism will be found and explained. It will have something to do with the chemical composition of zinc gluconate, the cold virus, and the body’s immune system. Zicam know this – from their research paper:
Whatever the explanation, it won’t be some pseudo-scientific bullshit like homeopaths push.
Paul Davis #34:
“YouTube is a private organisation. They can yank who the hell they like”
And we can demand that, in order to keep our business, they have to make certain changes such as greater transparency/oversight for the process of handling copyright complaints and to have punishment for abusing the system they set up.
We aren’t suggesting the government step in so you cant use “private organization” as some sort of attempt to stop discussion.
Hmmm… We have lozenge, which is in the mouth, esophagus, and stomach that is supposed to inhibit the replication of rhino virus in the nose. Color me puzzled. Also, zinc gluconate would be a neutral molecule, since there are two gluconate-1 moieties per Zn+2 atom, with strong chelation. Color me even more puzzled.
Enzyte Bob’s evil twin?
Hornbeck
Damnit!! I checked out your site and you are yet another person that is more talented than me.
I may decide to hate you.
Then again, I may not.
I’ve got the next couple days off of the business and no illustration jobs to do, I’m drinking some really good wine out of a welch’s jelly jar, and I’m about to watch Barbarella. My life’s working out just fine.
Still…nice photos pal.
anonymous @ 33
In addition to the advertisement you cite, you should also take a look at this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/19/health/he-zinc19
This article discusses a study of a number of studies about using zinc to treat the common cold. Consider this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/19/health/he-zinc19
It essentially finds that there is good reason to question the efficacy of zinc in treating the common cold.
George
Robert #40 wrote:
Yes, Zicam is not homeopathic, since it contains actual ingredients. I’m a bit surprised that homeopaths haven’t sued it for misrepresentation. Though of course, if they did, they might have to explain who they know there isn’t also some homeopathic element in it as well, and of course they couldn’t know that, since you can’t measure ‘nothing’ — or notice that it’s missing.
Randi is well aware of the strength of the evidence against homeopathy. I’m not sure if AVSN is referring to the “single failed experiment” with Benveniste, or Randi’s attempted suicide with homeopathic tablets, or what. He’s done a lot of debunking of homeopathy. It’s so easy to debunk: no good experimental evidence, and it has zero scientific plausibility.
Homeopathy is one of those ‘canary in a cage’ forms of woo. If someone advocates it, then you can comfortably assume that their basic understanding of science has gone to join the choir invisible.
#31
Oh please don’t lump me in with the homeopathy crowd. It’s obviously BS. I just don’t like Randi. Never did. I really like Plait and I’m sure he agrees with Randi vis-a-vis homeopathy.
#31
Oh please don’t lump me in with the homeopathy crowd. It’s obviously BS. I just don’t like Randi. Never did. I really like Plait and I’m sure he agrees with Randi vis-a-vis homeopathy.
It does seem that YouTube went overboard in pulling more than the one video, and Randi is being gracious about the whole thing.
The copyright violation was clearly inadvertent, and if the person who owns the copyright is being cool about it, then maybe this is an issue of failing to ask permission of someone who they thought had given it, or presumed would give it. Or maybe YouTube’s policy doesn’t allow even for copyrighted material with permission, since the account suspension was apparently done without the knowledge of the copyright holder.
Whatever the case, it sounds like it’s pretty much over.
GAH! sorry about the triple post.
Looks like pgpwnit REALLY doesn’t want to be associated with homeopaths
Nanu Nanu…
It’s a phobia. Homeopathophobia
I’m ashamed that I know pagprawn’s nits from elsewhere, hence this post.
pgpwnit
read the post again
was not lumping you in with anyone
Newfie!
Don’t you cross me….DON’T YOU DARE!
if I were you, I wouldn’t hold my breath of Phil NOT dismissing homeopathy: look under H
Seems like the system worked – better than most.
>big exasperated sigh< Jadehawk and all, I do not advocate homeopathy. I've seen some of it work and I've seen some of it fail. I do believe more research is needed. GOOD IDEAS CAN (AND DO) COME FROM ANYWHERE. My dislike of JR is his sillyness, and his windbaggery. (yeah I know its not a word, but its descriptive.) 4/5th of his socalled eductional materiel is bunk itself. (IMHO) Get it? Got it? Good. Drop it. I'm gonna.
Oh, please! Thunderf00t has consistently produced a stinkpile of excellent videos, now you’re pissed at him for not undertaking a staggeringly expensive intercontinental lawsuit to put a barely pubescent creationist douchebag in his place? C’mon: be fair!
I think the fantastically humiliating VenomFangX apology video is probably the funniest thing I’ve seen in years. Much as I despise the feeble-minded, Hovind-parotting, intellectually dishonest toe-rag, I was torn betwen relishing the little shit squirming, and feeling sorry for him as he blushed his way through the prepared statement with his face puce with humiliation.
OK, I lied. I enjoyed every minute of it :)
Just because JR might be an unpleasant person does not mean that he is wrong. it doesn’t meant that he is right either.
I notice that he (and his fellows) is right a lot of the time
AVSN: I’m fairly sure you have never seen homeopathy work. People may have gotten better after taking some homeopathic treatment but that does not say much about whether it did that. Scientific studies have been extensively done and the conclusion is that homeopathic remedies do not work, it would be one thing to say more research needed to be done if this was a new topic but it has been studied over and over again.
Perhaps you are conflating herbal remedies and other perhaps less mainstream treatments with homeopathy? I looked at the product website you sent and agree with what has been said above, it appears that it is not homeopathic, and also the studies are not exactly stellar and convincing, along with other information already known about zinc.
#62
Exactly. Homeopathy is a treatment of kind. But it’s a very dilluted kind. It’s basically water. Herbal remedies, while suspect, can work…..but homeopathy cannot.
Good thing too, because it’s a shocking load of bollocks… “20th centesimal homeopathic potency of sulphur”, my fat arse. Honestly, what kind of credulous imbecile falls for that shit?
Homeopathy is literally so diluted it’s the same concentration as taking a grain of rice, crushing it into a powder, and dissolving it into a sphere of water the size of the solar system, and then repeating that process 200 times. That’s homeopathy.
You know what herbal medicine is? Aspirin. The root of a tree, natural herb, natural remedy, relieves pain and swelling with almost no side effects.
The thing about ‘herbal medicine’ and ‘alternative medicine’ is that when it works…it’s called medicine. Like aspirin.
And here I had just started my own lame little form of protest – highlighting and promoting the best atheists and skeptics I could find on youtube:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/04/youtube-atheist-coughlan666.html
Oh well, at least I discovered some very interesting youtubers, though not as many as I hoped to.
Exactly. Homeopathy is a treatment of kind. But it’s a very dilluted kind. It’s basically water. Herbal remedies, while suspect, can work…..but homeopathy cannot.
==
It’s not “basically water”. IT IS WATER. They dilute the shit to the fucking point where not even a single molecule of the original substance is likely to be left over.
Oh, please! Thunderf00t has consistently produced a stinkpile of excellent videos, now you’re pissed at him for not undertaking a staggeringly expensive intercontinental lawsuit to put a barely pubescent creationist douchebag in his place? C’mon: be fair!
==
Intercontinental lawsuit? Both he and VFX live in the United States.
And the EFF provides council to people who have been the victims of DMCA abuse.
PZ staying focused …looking out for the little guy/gal…
it just keeps getting better here.
TYPICAL ploy of a big pharma plant and/or sympathizer!! — LEAVE OUT what you DON’T UNDERSTAND like it DOESN’T MATTER because you DON’T UNDERSTAND it.
In THIS case, observing the above quote, we see the CHERRY-PICKING that goes on when so-called “SCIENTISTS” with CLOSED MINDS make mock of homeopathy…. of course conveniently forgetting to mention SUCCUSION, the KEY to TRUE homeopathic preparations!!!
Cruel, pointy-headed materialists! You would deny the hope of a dream of a ghost of a cure to the sick and hypochondriac, in favor of a cold, clinical NEGATIVITY that’s like DYING a little each day.
I think it may be a case of everyone thinking they’re a lawyer. The easy thing to do is go “oh no, if I don’t jump when told to do so, I’ll be in trouble” when in fact the law does not expect immediate action on things. First of all, if someone complains about a copyright violation, that complaint is a useless waste of time unless the complainant is the copyright holder. When a complaint is received you don’t have to jump up and respond – the first thing to do is to determine that the person making the complaint is indeed the copyright holder or authorized representative. If the party cannot provide proof, then there is no need to act. It’s a bit funny how the public in general seems to think they’re immediately liable for huge damages upon receipt of any complaint. “Playing it safe” and acting like a frightened school kid really isn’t the sensible way to go.
Oooo! OT catfight!
“Cruel, pointy-headed materialists! You would deny the hope of a dream of a ghost of a cure to the sick and hypochondriac, in favor of a cold, clinical NEGATIVITY that’s like DYING a little each day.”
I fell out of my chair and bruised my thigh when I read that one. How dare we sensible people object to thieves giving people in desperate circumstances false hope and robbing those people of their money?
MEOW! MEOW!
Off topic: There was a great exchange in tonight’s episode of Terminator. James Ellison is talking to John Henry, an AI entity, about the human brain:
JH: …but it’s flawed.
JE: How’s that?
JH: There’s nowhere to download it when you die.
JE: Not exactly, no.
JH: Your Bible solves this problem by introducing the concept of heaven.
JE: Yes.
JH: Billions of souls with no bodies.
JE: Okay…
JH: Yet all this [indicates computer equipment] is required simply to process the unique entity you call John Henry.
JE: Yes.
JH: It’s possible heaven has a hardware problem.
@#70…
You’re right, I did leave out the shaking =(
I chose to sacrifice rigorous accuracy in an effort to go for the quick rhetorical splash. In the future, I will endeavor to be more rigorous and correct when mocking other viewpoints.
Glad to hear that. Randi does a lot of good work, and I was hoping for a good resolution.
I disagree with PZ on this. I don’t think it is practical to expect YouTube to contact all violators. Are not the terms of use stated in the user agreement? Its a simple matter of what is practical for a company with, no doubt, countless account violations. I think YouTube acted appropriately.
I remember telling everyone that I sent in a nasty e-mail to the YouTube folks about all of this. Do I feel bad since we now know the reason was more legit than first thought?
Ans) Yes and No.
Yes, I do feel sunken somewhat over acting before knowing the full facts.
But, JREF wasn’t the only skeptical/atheist account Suspended. Rational Response was (and still is) Suspended, as was Atheist Media (also still Suspended). That’s three of them Suspended all of the same day. Can anyone blame us?
Not only that, but DMCA abuse is something YouTube has been known to cowtow to in the past.
I remember telling everyone that I sent in a nasty e-mail to the YouTube folks about all of this. Do I feel bad since we now know the reason was more legit than first thought?
Ans) Yes and No.
Yes, I do feel sunken somewhat over acting before knowing the full facts.
But, JREF wasn’t the only skeptical/atheist account Suspended. Rational Response was (and still is) Suspended, as was Atheist Media (also still Suspended). That’s three of them Suspended all of the same day. Can anyone blame us?
Not only that, but DMCA abuse is something YouTube has been known to cowtow to in the past.
#70: Your post intrigues me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
#70 misspelled his name. It is Woo-Peddle of the Gölpost-Shift Institute. The institution got its name from the famous typing class in which you learn a moderate use of capital letters (also known as ‘the golden goalposts’ or in medieval German Göld Gölpost of provoking a call for Poe).
Glad to see Randi back on YT.
I did write an email protesting the suspension of the JREF account. I’ve been a fan of James Randi since he debunked Uri Gellar on The Tonight Show back in 1972.
As for homeopathy — There have been dozens, if not hundreds of studies on the subject, going all the way back to Oliver Wendel Holmes. In fact, the seminal essay debunking homeopathy was written by Holmes.
I suggest any interested parties might want to read it, a copy is online here : http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html
If you have a look at a site such as the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) you will find this happening all to commonly with youtube. Yanking any accounts – done by a script and not a person – for so called violations is completley unacceptable. No tought it given to fair use laws. What if a someone new to the JREF came across their youtube site and saw it had been suspended for voilations? What would they then think of the organisation? How can they not be furious at this. As PZ mentioned, they have a lot of clout, and taking their video’s to another site would send a message to youtube that this kind of action is just not acceptable. Disappointing really.
As someone else has pointed out, there were multiple violations.
And, although I’m not privy to Youtube’s exact policy boundaries on these matters, the DMCA does require sites like youtube to : “adopt and reasonably implement… a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of… repeat infringers.”
So it doesn’t just require youtube to pull videos – the DMCA also has a clause about pulling accounts. Yes, I agree with PZ, it isn’t “appropriate and civilized behavior”. However, there’s no escape clause in the DMCA for behaving appropriate and civilized. Don’t like it? Get your congresscritters to support a change in the law.
I think (and always thought) that PZ jumped the shark on this issue. So did the folks in the JREF forums and in other places. The reaction to the suspension was immediately paranoid, hinting at the usual ‘Oh noes, someone is attacking us because we’re atheists” stuff.
From what the JREF itself has said, the problem appears to have been an automatic system responseto material that was detected as being copyright. The threshold was reached within the context of the JREF channel – not just one simple video.
As Randi says, YT acted entirely appropriately and correctly.
As an atheist and as musch of a rationalist as I can be, I’ve been somewhat dismayed at seeing so many people jump to conclusions based on a complete lack of evidence.
PZ should hold his hands up on this one and admit that he was wrong.
Completely seconded! Never mind that Thundie has been able to churn out excellent video after excellent video. His handling of VFX’s DMCA abuse accusation is a prime example of how he feels the intertubez should be administrated. Not just by law but mostly by a ‘fairness test’. I know Thundie enlisted some friends for legal advice, and I assure you they are very capable.
In the end he decided that VFX squirming on the tubez would be best for all concerned. Let’s be honest VFX is one of the best advocates for atheism on Youtube right now. His vids are constantly, and with great succes, being debunked. Moreover, his vids usually have responses that link to people like Thunderf00t. If you like we could call this layman’s (although I wouldn’t aply that term to Thundie or Andromedaswake) peer-review. VFX has devolved so far down the chain that even xians are making videos requesting him to shut up. Verily, VFX is our dream come true, an unapologetic punchingbag of endless stupidity.
Regards,
Rhysz
I don’t think all homeopathy is useless. At least, not if the problem is thirst.
Creationists abusing the system is a common problem.
Creationists may game the system, but that is a separate issue. They didn’t in this case, and PZ looks foolish as a result.
I guess he feels it too. He jumped to a conclusion. He did so without data. That is exactly the type of behaviour that he himself derides.
Remember too that probably the biggest battle that was fought by creationists at YT was the one against the Rational Response Squad. Remember that CSE most emphatically lost that battle – at some cost to themselves. The other creationist organisations will have taken note of that.
PZ is so so wrong on this and has damaged himself. He could restore some of his name by holding his hands up and admitting to an error instead of trying to deflect to James Randi.
Yawn. Nialler, you trolls are sooooo boring and sooooo wrong. Yawn.
If you need further information on why he is wrong, check out his initial comments when the account was suspended:
“The reason for this particular event is irrelevant, given YouTube’s history of bowing to the demands of creationists and other kooks.”
Firstly, the close proximity of the words “reason” and “irrelevant” does his claim to be a rational person no favours. Reason and reasons are always, but always relevant in any rational discussion. Always.
Secondly, there is an element of paranois in saying that YouTube bow to the demands of anyone. They bow to the demands of copyright law and they let the protagonists sort it out between them. This is a prudent defensive policy. They are in a no win and potentially very expensive loss situation if they dig they heels in on behalf of a poster if they defend a potential copyright issue and keep the video in question up.
It’s a no-brainer from their perspective.
As other have pointed out, YouTube doesn’t yank accounts for only a single violation. There is a policy at YouTube called “3 Strikes” where an account can be closed on the third violation.
>>Yanking any accounts – done by a script and not a person – for so called violations is completley unacceptable. No tought it given to fair use laws<< There is no such thing as a "fair use" law. "Fair Use" is a defensive argument to a charge of copyright infringement. Ready up on your copyright law. YouTube, as a private sector company, exposes itself to liability if it doesn't react to copyright claims per the DMCA Safe Harbor provision.
Nialler, he’s been wrong before and will be wrong again, but he is gracious enough to allow us to correct his mistakes (or make asses of ourselves) here in the threads. Anyone who reads his post will now see your commentary and your correctness, so pat yourself on the back.
It has not been said enough here, or strongly enough. The problem is not YouTube. The problem is DMCA. DMCA is a law evil and against the public interest. It was passed by representatives ignorant of the real issues. It was pushed through by massive amounts of money spent by a small group of RIAA executives who care nothing about music, deceny or “fairness” and whose only concern is their own short term profit.
Fuck DMCA and the RIAA.
Cheers for Randi and YouTube
Weird. Some of you people need to actually meet James Randi — he’s a smart and charming fellow, and I think a charismatic leader like that actually helps advance the cause.
Another misunderstanding: Randi is an atheist personally, but the JREF is NOT an atheist organization. They avoid getting tangled up in that particular battle. I doubt that many jumped to the conclusion that it was the theist/atheist conflict that made him a casualty, since he’s not part of it. But he does have enemies who’d love to bring him down.
And no, I stand by my position. YouTube is in the wrong. There are civilized ways to handle copyright violations, especially unintentional cases like this one, and they do not involve kneejerk deletion of whole accounts upon receiving reports (and I don’t give a damn if the DMCA says they must — the DMCA is evil, and needs to be opposed). Give people a warning…even 24 hours would be adequate. Be specific and remove individual videos. Demand accountablity from the accusers — people who have a pattern of making false accusations of violations ought to face serious penalties…like removal of their accounts. It’s not happening.
PZ, I’ve had plenty of contact with James Randi and value those contacts.
None of this is about him personally, and his personal charm doesn’t merit him any different attention than any other person.
It’s about DMCA, and it is about the provisions of that act. Everyone hates the thing, but while it is in place, people must abide by its provisions. In particular, concerns such as YouTube – which depend on uploaded content – are most certainly obliged to follow its strictures.
The act states that failure to act on a DMCA claim makes to content provider liable to action from the copyright holder. YouTube *must* take down any potentially actionable material immediately it comes to their attention. It’s an obligation on their part. Failure to comply makes them complicit in the copyright breach and amenable to very severe financial penalty.
Whatever. You don’t have all of the facts of the thing; James Randi does. You don’t have all of the exchanges; he does. Yet you claim that he is wrong.
I don’t need to be told what JREF is; I’ve followed their work for many years and have contributed to it on occasion.
I *can* agree that the people who file scurrilous notices under DMCA should be pursued – and the act specifies that they can be – but I don’t have any clue why you suggest that. Randi made it perfectly and very explicitly clear that this was not the case in this episode. He made it resolutely clear that their was no false claim and that every party acted in the best of faith.
Nialler,
I think PZ is just explaining the problems with take down orders in general, they are being abused and need to be reformed.
But the specific issue is that youtube took down the whole site not just the specific material. Randi, nor you have explained why that is OK. Why was the whole account clobbered? It isn’t OK because then youtube gets a false sense that its actions were acceptable.
I think that answer is in Randi’s message.
It appears that a number of videos were potentially exposing YT to action under DMCA.
It’s not YouTube’s role to examine each of them; due diligience lies with the poster. If there are a bunch of videos with possible problems in an account, then it makes sense for YouTube to tell the channel owner to sort them out, and to limit their exposure by suspending the account.
PZ has made strong claims about YouTube and how they manage their content.
The real issue is that there are people who are prepared to abuse the DMCA processes, and that YouTube has no way of fighting them.
PZ’sclaims could be injurious to YouTube’s business and to the jobs of the people employed there. They’re pretty reckless claims.
Finally, think of this: he accusses them (without benefit of supporting evidence) of kow-towing to creationists. That implies a bias. He needs to look at the data closely and what lies underneath it. If we take two groups, one of whom can prove that 2+2=4, and the other, which holds it as an article of faith that 2+2=5, then the former group will likely view the latter group’s videos as too risible to be bothered about. It will always be the 2+2=5ers who are the ones who make the complaints, and consequently may occasionally have a complaint acted upon. The reuslting takedowns will appear to be favoured on one side, but that is a form of confirmation bias.
I’m not a fan of all of YouTube’s policies, but they are entitled to defend themselves from suit as they see fit, and PZ has made potentially damaging claims against them, and they have been resoundingly disproved in this case.
“It’s not YouTube’s role to examine each of them; due diligience lies with the poster. If there are a bunch of videos with possible problems in an account, then it makes sense for YouTube to tell the channel owner to sort them out, and to limit their exposure by suspending the account.”
I meant that the other way around, of course.
If YT ignore a potential copyright infringement that they are aware of, then they could be screwed. Once they identify one, they must, by law, take it down.
People only dislike JR when they have something to lose by his pointing out of woowoo, pixie dust and BS. That goes for homeopathy, acupuncture, aura reading, telepathy, dousing…the list is long. Long and tortuous.
He’s taken the viewpoint that there is no harmless woo – that it’s taking money, time and resources away from people who need them to people who don’t deserve it, in some cases a lot of resources from those who really don’t have it to spare to those who really don’t deserve it on false promises, which quite probably should be a crime but isn’t (such as donations to a preacher causing them to lose their home).
YT over-reacts because it feels it has to, but more than that has a broken system inspite of itself – it has left the door open to massive “voter fraud” by having automagical systems that are trivial to fix (votebots and spambots) which are actively abused as we speak and YT does little or nothing about it.
Is it surprising that a massive over-reaction to somebody likely to be targetted for abuse by creationist cowards genders a massive outraged response from people angry at YT, even if (somewhat) incorrectly? No, not really.
It’s just more fuel for the fire that YT needs to fix it’s broken systems, but sadly the travesty that is the DMCA is the bigger evil. Some would contend it’s entire purpose is to act as a vehicle for pre-emptive strikes much like patent portfolios, not a defence, since that is exactly what it is used for.
PZ, you have a point – but, in the spirit of “communicating first” you yourself should not have spoken as a reactionary, with the backlash of never using YT again. Maybe finding out what happened, then acting, is the better attitude to take.
I don’t think PZ acted presumptuously on this. It does seem queer that the JREF, Rational Response, and Atheist Media would all have their accounts closed on the same day. Religious fanatics have intentionally abused Youtube’s automated DMCA in the past to censor people they don’t agree with (for a marvellous example of this backfiring, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4 .) It seems that the current youtube policies are ripe for abuse, and this is a problem.
Some facts, please. The RRS account was suspended a couple of weeks ago – not on the same day – and was done so at their request (at least according to them).
As has become quite clear the JREF suspension was absolutely fair. If you need a clue to why I’m saying this, then ask James Ransi himself. I’ve no idea about the ATheist Media thing, but you’re already on two strikes.
It’s all too easy to claim a bias when nobody seems to be providing facts.
Above all else, if certain people are abusing the system that is not evidence of YouTube bias. As has been pointed out ad nauseam they have to take copyright seriously. They will take down psoted material and suspend accounts ifcomplaints are raised. If one “side” complains more than the other, then that may look like YouTube is biassed when all they are doing is acting responsibly and prudently in their own interests.
PZ has acted badly in this affair in not tempering his comments. I’d expect more from a scientist.
Youtube is entirely justified in removing content and even entire accounts when claims of theft are being lobbied towards any channel or organization. Frankly, I am surprised at the number of people who expect anything else. We are talking about a major corporation, in this case Viacom, accusing google of illegally hosting their material. It makes much more sense on Googles end to remove the content and review the material later than to continue to host content that could likely fall under unfair use and eventually get around to it will reviewing the absurd amounts of content they get daily. I don’t really see where so many people get this idea that youtube somehow owes us something when they are the ones providing us with free video hosting.
Told you so.
The vast majority of content on youtube is not made by youtube/google. They use our content to sell advertising. I’m sorry, but youtube holding every right and treating it’s users with disdain is not fair or right. Yanking accounts for supposed breaches of copyright – which isn’t actually decided by a person but by their Video ID system – is just too much. If their Video ID system spots a potential violation then it should be flagged so that someone at youtube can check it for fair use, and contact the copyright holder and user who uploaded the video.
How many times does it have to be pointed out that users have an obligation to ensure that their posted material meets all applicable laws. YouTube couldn’t possibly spend their resources on staff who have both time and the legal expertise to check every video flagged.
Their system is very sumple: you post a video if it is flagged for potential problems it is removed and it’s up to you to defend its legality. Simple. If they leave up material which does prove to have been in breach of copyright, then they may well be liable for any damages to the copyright holder which accrued between the perior after it was flagged and the period when it was taken down.
It’s not rocket surgery, this stuff.
YouTube has wero obligations to you as a user posting videos for free. They *do* have obligations to any potential copyright holders out there. And they *do* have obligations under copyright law.
You, as a person psoting video material, *do* have an obligation to YouTube to observe all the conditions of use and to not expose them to legal sanction.
Given that (as I discovered today) one of their fights is with idiots who post videos for children and who insert profane language in them) they must be fighting battles on fronts that you and I aren’t aware of. It is stupid to think that they would take on the role of abritrer for every video that is flagged.
That would potentially make them a second defendant in a court case. Why expose yourself to that sisl when you weren’t even paid a fee by the other defendant?
You say that “youtube holding every right and treating it’s users with disdain is not fair or right”, but that’s not true. YouTube does not treat its users with disdain. Remember that there are two sets of users (which have some overlap): there are those who post material and from whom they demand that they not expose YouTube to legal action, and there are those illions of other users who use the service passively, enjoying lots of free material. I, for one, really appreciate the service it provides, and I frequently menader from suggested link to suggested link, finding all the way music that I’d forgotten about.
I love the service provided by YT and am extremely grateful for it. I think that atheist community could take a step back and look at what they provide and find it in themselves to agree.
200 videos from the JREF is a lot of material (not incredible, as pointed out already), but the potential audience *is* incredible. PZ has already conceded its merits by posting a very nice YT video since the JREF suspension.
JREF and other organisations need to be on YT, and they need to be grateful for what is a free and very powerful service to their organisations. I know that Randi appreciates it.