# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  RonPaul2008dotcom account closed by YouTube

## Thanehand

Went to go look at some of the latest videos from the campaign tonight (I've been a subscriber since the early days) and got surprised by an "account suspended" message.  So, the account is gone along with all of the hundreds of videos that have been there for years.  Great.  (Edit: Also noted on DailyPaul).

A load of crap, but does anyone know if there is a way we can help getting it re-activated?:




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[mod edit] here is the backup channel, be sure to subscribe:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaulcom

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

Suspended for . . . a vague claim with no credibility?

----------


## Thanehand

I imagine one (or more) of the networks bitched about the re-publishing of his video appearances.  Not to mention that the DMCA assumes guilty until proven innocent and allows the "rights holders" to essentially accuse anyone/everyone without repercussion.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

It seems like I've been seeing more and more videos disappear lately. Not just political ones, but music ones too.

----------


## Thanehand

Ah, someone else also mentioned this on DailyPaul.

----------


## sailingaway

If it is just for not paying, maybe they are giving the campaign a chance to pick it up. Someone else picked it up when the campaign let it lapse, as I understand it.

----------


## fearthereaperx

Doesn't mox news always send a counter-claim by pointing to the Fair Use Doctrine and then getting his account re-instated?

----------


## moonshineplease

I was just about to post a thread saying the Ron Paul Courageously speaks the truth video was removed from youtube. The video had around 3 million views. Then I saw on the Daily Paul about the Channel. Now that I think of it, that channel probably had a lot to do with me coming over to Dr. Paul's positions.

----------


## CyberTootie

Google's (YouTube's) Content ID policies side-step the DMCA.

Here's a true example. I upload a video that has some copyrighted material. So the content ID system of YouTube automatically flags the video as a work of the content producer as they've been set up a content owner account for their content. Content owners can set what happens to a video with this automatic flagging and change it on a per-video basis later. In this case, it is set to enable advertising on the video so the content owner can receive its revenue. But it's educational. Fair use allows for the use of a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work to teach a lesson. I can dispute this through YouTube, so I did. But it turns out my dispute goes to the content owner. They are the judge of your claim of fair use, misidentification, etc. And once the content owner denies your Content ID dispute, that is the end of it. There is no recourse.

http://productforums.google.com/foru...ns/er2PVL0uZWs
http://fairusetube.org/articles/20-f...ugh-the-cracks

Personally, I am done with Google and YouTube.

----------


## mport1

Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.

----------


## Barrex

I believe it is owned by same guy that owns RonPaul.com. (that was my impression when I was contacting them during money-bomb promotion)...


It will be interesting to see what happens.

----------


## odamn

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/04/youtu...l-apr-30-2012/

----------


## devil21

They're pulling out the big guns.  This is NOT COOL.  There's pretty much every Ron Paul video ever on that channel.

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/youtube    flood it

Press link    press@youtube.com

YouTube, LLC

901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA

Phone: +1 650-253-0000
Fax: +1 650-253-0001

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

looks like youtube will only have videos of cats... russians shooting guns.. and justin bieber type videos >.>

all great things will come to an end. facebook, youtube, USA, etc etc.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

To be honest, some of the grassroots supporters who create video file claims against the other Ron Paul grassroots accounts. It seems these supporters value their own video as if it is a commodity and get pissed when someone shares it via a secondary or alternative account that doesn't belong to the original source (their account).

I had a video someone created hosted on my account. It went viral with more than 30,000 views in less than a week. The video on his account had a few hundred views. He was upset and reported me to Youtube. I was asked to remove it in order for my account to be reinstated. I currently host hundreds of Paul video content. Of course I had to remove it and we lost the momentum and its potential to go viral. Seems some people are more interested in their personal recognition than the success of their message and the betterment of the campaign. No telling how far that viral movement could have gone. As it stands his uploaded version of the video has yet to surpass 2,000 views.

----------


## azxd

Has anyone tried contacting the owner of the account ?

AFAIK, you'll find him at http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul

----------


## JohnM

> Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.


Come the rEVOLution, there will be no more copyright!

----------


## G-Wohl

> Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.


As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.

We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.

We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.


It's only "ridiculous" to the crowd that thinks someone else's time, work and money belongs to them too, with no compensation.

----------


## CyberTootie

> ust because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.
> 
> We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.


The attempts to implement these protections are destroying our internet and civil liberties.

----------


## angelatc

> It's only "ridiculous" to the crowd that thinks someone else's time, work and money belongs to them too, with no compensation.


Original works should earn money,  but expecting an endless revenue stream once it's released into the wild comes at the cost of internet freedom. Congratulations.

----------


## notsure

Half of my subscribers now are terminated accounts.

----------


## fisharmor

> As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.
> 
> We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.
> 
> We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.


I await your lawsuit.

----------


## CJPrinter

> To be honest, some of the grassroots supporters who create video file claims against the other Ron Paul grassroots accounts. It seems these supporters value their own video as if it is a commodity and get pissed when someone shares it via a secondary or alternative account that doesn't belong to the original source (their account).
> 
> I had a video someone created hosted on my account. It went viral with more than 30,000 views in less than a week. The video on his account had a few hundred views. He was upset and reported me to Youtube. I was asked to remove it in order for my account to be reinstated. I currently host hundreds of Paul video content. Of course I had to remove it and we lost the momentum and its potential to go viral. Seems some people are more interested in their personal recognition than the success of their message and the betterment of the campaign. No telling how far that viral movement could have gone. As it stands his uploaded version of the video has yet to surpass 2,000 views.


Not just grassroots...

One of the BIG PAC's issued a take-down notice to a project I was involved with because our site looked too much like theirs. What SUCKS with this mindset is we are basically infighting. I can understand intellectual property when personal profit is involved, but when we are all aiming at the same goal and the only funds it affects are in line with it, this type of BS just hurts us all.

----------


## TheGrinch

> As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.
> 
> We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.
> 
> We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.


Umm, perhaps you should take a look at the Fair Use Doctrine.

If it's not for profit and is for educational purposes only, then you are supposed to be covered by that, otherwise it prevents the spread of information.

What a shame.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

> Not just grassroots...
> 
> One of the BIG PAC's issued a take-down notice to a project I was involved with because our site looked too much like theirs. What SUCKS with this mindset is we are basically infighting. I can understand intellectual property when personal profit is involved, but when we are all aiming at the same goal and the only funds it affects are in line with it, this type of BS just hurts us all.


Sorry to hear that. It really seems not only pointless but ridiculous.

----------


## angelatc

> Umm, perhaps you should take a look at the Fair Use Doctrine.
> 
> If it's not for profit and is for educational purposes only, then you are supposed to be covered by that, otherwise it prevents the spread of information.
> 
> What a shame.


The problem that I see is that it's hard to distinguish entertainment from education.  And even harder for YouTube to make the call.  For example, if I take a clip, host it on YouTube, then blog about it, it's pretty clear that I'm attempting to educate somebody about something.  But how does YouTube even know my commentary even exists?

----------


## azxd

> As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.
> 
> We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.
> 
> *We're supposed to be supporters of property rights*, people.


YES we are, but some seem to not grasp this aspect very well, and instead choose a more socialistic perspective of wanting things for free, while not understanding that ones freedom ends where anothers freedom begins.

----------


## azxd

> Original works should earn money,  but expecting an endless revenue stream once it's released into the wild comes at the cost of internet freedom. Congratulations.


What is your understanding of copyright laws, who they are designed to protect, and for how long ?

Would you be opposed to all information, anywhere having a charge placed upon it ?

That's what will happen IF people keep thinking they can stealing another individuals work, just because it is available.

----------


## jmdrake

Putting all of your videos in the YouTube basket, while convenient, is not strategically smart.  Anyone doing a video channel should have multiple accounts on different networks and upload his videos simultaneously to all of them.  That way if your YouTube account is shut down your Vimeo/Dailymotion etc still has the info.

Here's how:

----------


## azxd

> I await your lawsuit.


Don't you really mean you await the destruction and/or control of many things, because you think you deserve what someone else creates.possesses ?

Remember that you are willing to let additional measures restrict your ability, because you want to take from another 

Is it wrong to steal from another ?
Does this violate the principles of liberty ?

----------


## azxd

> Umm, perhaps you should take a look at the Fair Use Doctrine.
> 
> If it's not for profit and is for educational purposes only, then you are supposed to be covered by that, otherwise it prevents the spread of information.
> 
> What a shame.


The perfect socialist excuse ... Everything should be free, because someone might learn something.

Talk about a great way to stifle creativity.

----------


## 1stAmendguy

http://z6mag.com/politics/ron-paul-y...nt-168502.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.


+a zillion

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't you really mean you await the destruction and/or control of many things, because you think you deserve what someone else creates.possesses ?
> 
> Remember that you are willing to let additional measures restrict your ability, because you want to take from another 
> 
> Is it wrong to steal from another ?
> Does this violate the principles of liberty ?


How do you "possess" and idea?   That's where the whole IP thing breaks down.  It's one thing for someone to break into your home and try to steal your stuff.  It's another thing if your idea is spread across the planet, and you're trying to control what others do with it once it is in *their* possession.  Now *you* have to invade *their* home (computer hard disk whatever) and try to take possession of what you were no longer possessing.

Anyway, this is short sited.  There are other ways to make sure content creators are paid other than government force.  It just takes a bit of imagination.  I saw a video (on YouTube of course) where someone talked about the idea of content creators selling a bit of their screen real estate to advertisers.  (Wish I kept a link so I could post it).  Under that kind of scenario, it doesn't matter how many times people copy it.  In fact the more copies made the better.

----------


## Ivash

You can complain to the Youtube administration- but aside from that I am not sure what you can do.

----------


## jmdrake

> The perfect socialist excuse ... Everything should be free, because someone might learn something.
> 
> Talk about a great way to stifle creativity.


Which was more creative?  This?




or this?

----------


## azxd

> The problem that I see is that it's hard to distinguish entertainment from education.  And even harder for YouTube to make the call.  For example, if I take a clip, host it on YouTube, then blog about it, *it's pretty clear that I'm attempting to educate somebody* about something.  But how does YouTube even know my commentary even exists?


This mentality will be the demise of places like youtube.

Youtube is not an Internet police force, but they are held liable for what they allow on their website, and they do not have the ability to read minds.
Therefore they cannot determine your intent to educate someone.

Youtube is  no different than the ronpaulforums.

If the owner allows people to actively pursue a plan to overthrow the government, or plan anything that could harm another, the owner WILL be held liable for anything that happens.
They can also be held liable for not reporting said activity to proper authorities, and they can also be held liable for permenantly deleting such activity, if a subpeona is issued against the owner, and it can be shown that evidience has been removed.

Am I upset over the suspension of the account mentioned in the OP ?
Sure !!!
Has anyone contacted the campaign and asked why ?
I doubt it, but do enjoy the diversionary direction this thread is taking.

----------


## azxd

> Putting all of your videos in the YouTube basket, while convenient, is not strategically smart.  Anyone doing a video channel should have multiple accounts on different networks and upload his videos simultaneously to all of them.  That way if your YouTube account is shut down your Vimeo/Dailymotion etc still has the info.


If you want control ... create it, and host it yourself 

The majority of everything political could be scrubbed from all of these hosting sites, just by a complaint from C-SPAN, and one or two other news stations.

----------


## azxd

> Ho*w do you "possess" and idea? *  That's where the whole IP thing breaks down.  It's one thing for someone to break into your home and try to steal your stuff.  It's another thing if your idea is spread across the planet, and you're trying to control what others do with it once it is in *their* possession.  Now *you* have to invade *their* home (computer hard disk whatever) and try to take possession of what you were no longer possessing.
> 
> Anyway, this is short sited.  There are other ways to make sure content creators are paid other than government force.  It just takes a bit of imagination.  I saw a video (on YouTube of course) where someone talked about the idea of content creators selling a bit of their screen real estate to advertisers.  (Wish I kept a link so I could post it).  Under that kind of scenario, it doesn't matter how many times people copy it.  In fact the more copies made the better.


Possessing an idea is actually very simple ... Do not share it until you have legal safeguards in place.
During the process, you have people sign disclosure statements that safeguard what you are about to explain.

Research patent laws ... They are much more easy to understand than copyright laws, yet both work under the same principle.
Protection of an individuals or companies works for a period of time.

To not do this, is to freely give the idea away.

----------


## azxd

> Which was more creative?  This?


Sorry, not gonna watch either video ... Mainly because your argument is a diversion away from the aspect of how some try to justify theft.

----------


## AngelClark

Write about it for the Examiner

http://exm.nr/IEWu5Q - if you care to share, I guess we shouldn't be surprised, but ugh

----------


## TheGrinch

> The perfect socialist excuse ... Everything should be free, because someone might learn something.
> 
> Talk about a great way to stifle creativity.


A socialist excuse?

To spead information without profit?

Not to mention you're confusing idealism with reality.... My view does not change that the Fair Use Doctrine exists, and IMO, rightfully so. If you're not making money off of someone else's work and not inhibiting them from making money off of it, then I'm not sure why that's a problem or "socialist"?

----------


## jmdrake

> Sorry, not gonna watch either video ... Mainly because your argument is a diversion away from the aspect of how some try to justify theft.


That's an intellectually dishonest and cowardly response.  You were the one that raised the issue of creativity.  I posted two videos raising the question of which was more creative, the news video or the remixed.  For that matter who "created" the original content?  The news company that recorded it, or the person who they were recording?  Ah...*you didn't think about that did you*?  If I go to a concert and video tape what's being the event and put it out for others to see I'm somehow "stealing" their creativity.  But if the news media records someone, with or without their consent, it's "news".  Back to the thread, and away from *your diversion*, who really owns Ron Paul's speeches?  Ron Paul or CNN/Fox etc?  Why should the news media be able to record and rebroadcast *without permission* the creative content of someone else (their speeches) but when a supporter of the person who actually originated the content re-uploads it for the express purpose of helping the creator fulfill the purpose of the contents creation, that's somehow "stealing"?

----------


## azxd

> A socialist excuse?
> 
> To spead information without profit?
> 
> Not to mention you're confusing idealism with reality.... My view does not change that the Fair Use Doctrine exists, and IMO, rightfully so. If you're not making money off of someone else's work and not inhibiting them from making money off of it, then I'm not sure why that's a problem or "socialist"?


Who are you to say you are not inhibiting anothers ability ?

----------


## jmdrake

> Possessing an idea is actually very simple ... Do not share it until you have legal safeguards in place.
> During the process, you have people sign disclosure statements that safeguard what you are about to explain.
> 
> Research patent laws ... They are much more easy to understand than copyright laws, yet both work under the same principle.
> Protection of an individuals or companies works for a period of time.
> 
> To not do this, is to freely give the idea away.


  Research patent law?  I *took* patent law!  Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they haven't read the same information you have.  But enough of your diversionary tactics.  Did CNN/Fox/MSNBC sign non-disclosure agreements with Ron Paul to protect his content?  Or did that just use it as part of the "public domain"?  If it's in the "public domain", then how can they claim copyright on it?  And if you don't know what "public domain" is, research it.    Oh, and what non-disclosure agreements did CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc have TV owners sign before they received their broadcast content?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Who are you to say you are not inhibiting anothers ability ?


Again, it's not about me. Go read the fair use doctrine. BTW, it is in place for far more important reasons than protecting youtube uploaders.

But to your point, if you can show that it's ihibiting their ability to profit from that content, then yes, that's why shows and music are removed frequently, but: 



> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as *criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching* (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement of copyright*. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
> 
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is *for nonprofit educational purposes;
> *
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> 
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> 
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
> ...

----------


## azxd

> That's an intellectually dishonest and cowardly response.  You were the one that raised the issue of creativity.  I posted two videos raising the question of which was more creative, the news video or the remixed.  For that matter who "created" the original content?  The news company that recorded it, or the person who they were recording?  Ah...*you didn't think about that did you*?  If I go to a concert and video tape what's being the event and put it out for others to see I'm somehow "stealing" their creativity.  But if the news media records someone, with or without their consent, it's "news".  Back to the thread, and away from *your diversion*, who really owns Ron Paul's speeches?  Ron Paul or CNN/Fox etc?  Why should the news media be able to record and rebroadcast *without permission* the creative content of someone else (their speeches) but when a supporter of the person who actually originated the content re-uploads it for the express purpose of helping the creator fulfill the purpose of the contents creation, that's somehow "stealing"?


Intellectually dishonest and cowardly ... YES, of course.

If you are prohibited from filming, and you do, you are stealing (althought technically it might be called something else) ... YES ?

If you record, and rebroadcast, by any method, without permission of the creator, you are stealing ... YES ?

Do you have the permission of interested parties to record their actions ?
If so, set up your camera in the House and Senate, and record what you wish.
If not ... The choices you make, might bring with them undesirable consequences.

Is it the intention of any broadcast media outlet to promote a particular candidate, or is it their intention to draw in a viewership, who might support their sponsors ?

USing different words,
Any major news agency could file a complaint with youtube, and have huge chunks of content removed, if they desire to do so.

----------


## azxd

> Research patent law?  I *took* patent law!  Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they haven't read the same information you have.  But enough of your diversionary tactics.  Did CNN/Fox/MSNBC sign non-disclosure agreements with Ron Paul to protect his content?  Or did that just use it as part of the "public domain"?  If it's in the "public domain", then how can they claim copyright on it?  And if you don't know what "public domain" is, research it.    Oh, and what non-disclosure agreements did CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc have TV owners sign before they received their broadcast content?


You're the claimed expert ... You tell me what kind of agreements they have with their affiliates and the viewing audience.
Also, explain how the scrambled digital signals play into this ... Thanks !!

----------


## TheGrinch

> USing different words,
> Any major news agency could file a complaint with youtube, and have huge chunks of content removed, if they desire to do so.


And that is the right of a business to remove content upon request, I won't argue with you on that point... But I think you're way off base about what is copywright infringement and what's not, highlighted by my post above, in addition to your proclamatino that using a clip from a news broadcast or speech for the purpose of criticism (not profit) somehow stifles creativity. It doesn't and is protected BY LAW.

----------


## azxd

> Again, it's not about me. Go read the fair use doctrine. BTW, it is in place for far more important reasons than protecting youtube uploaders.
> 
> But to your point, *if you can show that it's ihibiting their ability to profit from that content, then yes, that's why shows and music are removed frequently*, but:


And this is probably why most agencies continuously display their trademark logos ... One negative comment, and they can claim their content is diminishing viewership and sponsorship.

----------


## azxd

> And that is the right of a business to remove content upon request, I won't argue with you on that point... But I think you're way off base about what is copywright infringement and what's not, highlighted by my post above, in addition to your proclamatino that using a clip from a news broadcast or speech for the purpose of criticism (not profit) somehow stifles creativity. It doesn't and is protected BY LAW.


Trademark logos ... The perfect circumvention 

As for stifling creativity ... If theft continues, creativity will be stifled, and only those who wish to give away their creativity will exist.

----------


## TheGrinch

> And this is probably why most agencies continuously display their trademark logos ... One negative comment, and they can claim their content is diminishing viewership and sponsorship.


I don't think so man...  Criticism is protected. They could really only make that claim if they were rebroadcasting or selling DVDs of content that someone had on youtube. If the person who copied it is not profitting from it however, my understanding is that criticism (even if detrimental to the company) is still protected.

Actually, you see this all the time in documentaries (use for criticism/education), and it is how they get away with it, even for profit in many cases.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

I just hope all of the videos were saved... anyone who posts has to be smart enough to keep them around in a harddrive.

----------


## Tudo

I purchased a url that I have my web people snagging all of those videos as well as music videos that I enjoy. So far we've grabbed about 1500 video's and I expect to grab more than 10,000 when it's over. My hosting account will never disappear.

----------


## CJPrinter

> I purchased a url that I have my web people snagging all of those videos as well as music videos that I enjoy. So far we've grabbed about 1500 video's and I expect to grab more than 10,000 when it's over. My hosting account will never disappear.


But will it get upwards of *two billion* views per day?

----------


## Mahkato

Hey, pro-copyright & pro-patent people, read this book: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/genera...ainstfinal.htm

----------


## Tudo

> But will it get upwards of *two billion* views per day?



Alas, no but I'll still be able to access it whenever I want without any interference from youtube, the government or anyone. Unless I issue a password it won't even appear on the net. But it's there.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> It's only "ridiculous" to the crowd that thinks someone else's time, work and money belongs to them too, with no compensation.


Then you should be against public domain content....stuff that was once copyrighted and the copyright protection expired.

----------


## Lishy

I'm sure the channel will be back, right?

----------


## devil21

Hi, can we maybe get back to trying to get Google/YT to restore the channel instead of arguing over IP?

----------


## Barrex

> Hi, can we maybe get back to trying to get Google/YT to restore the channel instead of arguing over IP?


But that would mean we actually do something....Not the way we do things around here.........



Do I really need to write that I was joking? Really?

----------


## devil21

I started a topic in the YT feedback forum in the link I posted on page 2.  More views and replies and phone calls would help pressure them.  Anybody know what Alex Jones did when YT started deleting his channels containing his *own* copywritten material?

----------


## abruzz0

> I was just about to post a thread saying the Ron Paul Courageously speaks the truth video was removed from youtube. The video had around 3 million views. Then I saw on the Daily Paul about the Channel. Now that I think of it, that channel probably had a lot to do with me coming over to Dr. Paul's positions.


Good thing I have that video downloaded to my hard drive.  That video is amazing.

----------


## deadfish

> To be honest, some of the grassroots supporters who create video file claims against the other Ron Paul grassroots accounts. It seems these supporters value their own video as if it is a commodity and get pissed when someone shares it via a secondary or alternative account that doesn't belong to the original source (their account).
> 
> I had a video someone created hosted on my account. It went viral with more than 30,000 views in less than a week. The video on his account had a few hundred views. He was upset and reported me to Youtube. I was asked to remove it in order for my account to be reinstated. I currently host hundreds of Paul video content. Of course I had to remove it and we lost the momentum and its potential to go viral. Seems some people are more interested in their personal recognition than the success of their message and the betterment of the campaign. No telling how far that viral movement could have gone. As it stands his uploaded version of the video has yet to surpass 2,000 views.


Did you ask the original uploaded for permission to repost his/her video? Regardless of the copyright laws, that's just common courtesy. If the original uploader says no, then don't do it. Again, just common courtesy. I feel that our copyright laws are skewed to enrich the elite, but shouldn't necessarily be abolished completely.

If I was in the same shoes as the person whose video you re-posted, I would have done the same thing. Because, $#@! You, that's why. Show some courtesy and ASK and RESPECT the answer.

----------


## TiagoBarbosa

I seen a lot of RP videos being taken off by complaints of CNBC and another name that i forgot, but it was a personal name, not a company, so probably they were the ones that reported the videos on the channel and the channel, anyway, its a dam shame that this happens, but now Google has everything connected, so you know...they can do whatever they want, pretty much.

----------


## jmdrake

> Intellectually dishonest and cowardly ... YES, of course.


Didn't think you'd be candid enough to admit that.  Cool.  So now address the point.  You brought up what does or does not lead to creativity.  So which video was more creative?  The sterile news media reporting, or the YouTube remix of it?  And why should the news media profit off of the content created by the person they were filming?  In the end the YouTube remix made the actual original content creator famous and he managed to profit off of it.

It is good, by the way, that you brought up the issue of encouraging creativity.  Because that is the impetus of copyright and patent law *not property rights*.  Go back and read the history of it if you don't believe me.  And consider this.  With real property (real estate) or personal property (cars, jewelry etc) you can pass it on successively from one generation to another indefinitely.  Can you do that with patents?  No.  Patents run out after 20 years.  Many inventors can't even pass their patent "intellectual property" off to their own kids, let along to successive generations.  The term of a copyright?  Life of the author + 70 years.  (A straight 120 years for corporate owned copyrights).  Okay, you can pass that on to a few generations, but it's not going to be like the "old country manor that has belonged to family X for centuries".  

And guess what?  If you "publish" a patent before filing for it *the government will not grant you the patent because your invention is already in the public domain*!  Why?  Because patent actually works on social contract theory.  The government grants a patent in the hopes that the information will eventually be made available to all.  But if the inventor jumps the gun and makes the invention known prior to applying for the patent, the government has not incentive to grant the patent.  Now find an equivalent argument for real or personal property.




> If you are prohibited from filming, and you do, you are stealing (althought technically it might be called something else) ... YES ?


Stealing what and from who?  Anyway, the answer to your question is ..... NO!  




> If you record, and rebroadcast, by any method, without permission of the creator, you are stealing ... YES ?


The "creator" of a speech is the person who wrote it.  It's not the news media that rebroadcast the speech.  So with regards to Ron Paul's speeches, the only person who can object to them being rebroadcast is (or should be) Ron Paul.  




> Do you have the permission of interested parties to record their actions ?
> If so, set up your camera in the House and Senate, and record what you wish.
> If not ... The choices you make, might bring with them undesirable consequences.


We the people own the House and Senate.  They do not have permission to conduct business in secret.  But regardless, your argument is stupid because it's not the members of the House and Senate who are complaining.




> Is it the intention of any broadcast media outlet to promote a particular candidate, or is it their intention to draw in a viewership, who might support their sponsors ?


It doesn't matter.  The media outlet didn't create the content.




> USing different words,
> Any major news agency could file a complaint with youtube, and have huge chunks of content removed, if they desire to do so.


Except public domain content cannot be owned by definition.  If the news media is recording and playing speeches of others than if anybody is stealing it's the news outlet.  But if they can record and rebroadcast such speeches because it's in the public domain (and that is the reason they can do so) then they don't have a right to request such content be taken down.  Now if the person rebroadcasting the speech is showing the news media commentary then perhaps you have an argument.  But again it's not an argument based on property rights.  It's an argument based on social contract.  And the social contract in these United States includes fair use, even if you a) don't wish to acknowledge that or b) don't understand it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Research patent law?  I *took* patent law!  Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they haven't read the same information you have.  But enough of your diversionary tactics.  Did CNN/Fox/MSNBC sign non-disclosure agreements with Ron Paul to protect his content?  Or did that just use it as part of the "public domain"?  If it's in the "public domain", then how can they claim copyright on it?  And if you don't know what "public domain" is, research it.    Oh, and what non-disclosure agreements did CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc have TV owners sign before they received their broadcast content?





> You're the claimed expert ... You tell me what kind of agreements they have with their affiliates and the viewing audience.
> Also, explain how the scrambled digital signals play into this ... Thanks !!


Are we still talking about public domain content (political speeches) or are you talking about the latest pay-per-view movie/sporting event etc?  Those are entirely two different animals.  Here's the bottom line.  You can't take public domain content, repackage it, sell it, then claim someone violated your copyright.  And not everything is even copyrightable.

----------


## jmdrake

Here is a balanced treatment of the question on copyright of political speech.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonl...attle-20081112

Note that none of the companies that asked YouTube to take down McCain content made any of the traditional copyright arguments (we're losing money or a potential market) but rather they made the dubious claim that use of their content would somehow be construed as a "candidate endorsement".  Yes, they really think we are that stupid.

----------


## Gravik

Damnit. Some of the best RP videos removed.....


Seriously f*ck the DMCA or whatever the hell they are.

----------


## nbruno322

What a scam, people should stop using youtube and instead opt for similar services based in countries that dont have gestapo like enforcement of copyright laws.  Check out the list here, people should really start using these sites instead of youtube.  I recommend the Russian, Swedish, Chinese, Armenian, or any other site based in a country that isn't going to be bullied.

http://worldwidevideosites.blogspot.com/

----------


## Kluge

That really sucks. I'm a subscriber of his and he's had many excellent videos.

That said, if I haven't mentioned it, Matt Collins tried to have Kludge's YouTube account shut down because he had a copy of the "Truffle Shuffle" video. Dicks are everywhere.

----------


## Lishy

So do we know if it's being sorted out or not?

----------


## mport1

For anybody who still believes in the notion of intellectual "property," please read some Stephan Kinsella.  I can't see anybody still agreeing with the concept after giving him a serious read.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> The perfect socialist excuse ... Everything should be free, because someone might learn something.
> 
> Talk about a great way to stifle creativity.


These are actually libertarians using a libertarian argument against intellectual property. I'm laughing at you trying to defend your views on this topic. Please go on.

----------


## Thanehand

The account is still down.  And, this hasn't been confirmed yet, but it looks like CNBC may have been one of the copyright claimants (not surprising).

----------


## papitosabe

> Google's (YouTube's) Content ID policies side-step the DMCA.
> 
> Here's a true example. I upload a video that has some copyrighted material. So the content ID system of YouTube automatically flags the video as a work of the content producer as they've been set up a content owner account for their content. Content owners can set what happens to a video with this automatic flagging and change it on a per-video basis later. In this case, it is set to enable advertising on the video so the content owner can receive its revenue. But it's educational. Fair use allows for the use of a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work to teach a lesson. I can dispute this through YouTube, so I did. But it turns out my dispute goes to the content owner. They are the judge of your claim of fair use, misidentification, etc. And once the content owner denies your Content ID dispute, that is the end of it. There is no recourse.
> 
> http://productforums.google.com/foru...ns/er2PVL0uZWs
> http://fairusetube.org/articles/20-f...ugh-the-cracks
> 
> Personally, I am done with Google and YouTube.


i get where you are coming from, but I would say it would be fair to use it if you go ahead and let them make their money on it (since they do own it) and you still get your educational piece... free market... one can say oh, its educational, which in your case is true...but others could abuse that, and do alot of educational type videos, just to get people to subscribe to their channel, and have videos on that same channel that are being monetized...so its not fair they would get free advertising to their channel, on material that was taken from someone else... i prob could of simplified that somehow...hope that made sense...

i agree, kind of with google and youtube, although I use youtube alot, I wish there was something as user friendly that we could all use..

----------


## Barrex

> The account is still down.  And, this hasn't been confirmed yet, but it looks like CNBC may have been one of the copyright claimants (not surprising).


This is for sure : Someone was making that claim like he is from CNBC...and in name xxx xxxxx person.

You can check it on youtube.

----------


## AgentOrange

> For anybody who still believes in the notion of intellectual "property," please read some Stephan Kinsella.  I can't see anybody still agreeing with the concept after giving him a serious read.


I agree. I think most of us are so gung-ho on intellectual property, because that is what we were brainwashed, er taught, was so important in government schools (I know that was the case for me.) But after doing some studying, I believe that the ideal of intellectual property is a scam. The idea of being able to prevent others from stealing ideas is crazy, and unworkable.

As for those who think that there would be no creativity if there were no copyright/patent laws.....there are myriad examples to disprove this.  Granted this is a "dry"(ie boring) area to read up on, but its well worth it. I think many people who are now fervent copyright/patent supporters will change their mind after examining the arguments against copyright/patent law (just as I did.)

----------


## jointhefightforfreedom

WTF is all i can think to say right now !

----------


## r3volution

another thread ruined with an IP argument

----------


## jct74

here is the backup channel, be sure to subscribe:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaulcom

it's not a backup channel in the sense that videos on the removed channel are backed up, but it is run by the same person and it looks like he is continuing where he left off with the other channel

----------


## Thanehand

> here is the backup channel, be sure to subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaulcom  it's not a backup channel in the sense that videos on the removed channel are backed up, but it is run by the same person and it looks like he is continuing where he left off with the other channel


Thanks jct74.  It's nice to have that, but as someone else already mentioned in this thread, the old account is vitally important.  It documented so much of 2007/2008 and the media bias against RP as well as contained general information and video clips showing Ron's positions and consistency in defending liberty and freedom.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of links to those videos on the net and they are all dead now.

----------


## Barrex

> here is the backup channel, be sure to subscribe:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaulcom
> 
> it's not a backup channel in the sense that videos on the removed channel are backed up, but it is run by the same person and it looks like he is continuing where he left off with the other channel





> Thanks jct74.  It's nice to have that, but as someone else already mentioned in this thread, the old account is vitally important.  It documented so much of 2007/2008 and the media bias against RP as well as contained general information and video clips showing Ron's positions and consistency in defending liberty and freedom.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of links to those videos on the net and they are all dead now.



Correct. I another aspect is that that aco$#@! had over 100,000 subscribers.

----------


## Kluge

> Thanks jct74.  It's nice to have that, but as someone else already mentioned in this thread, the old account is vitally important.  It documented so much of 2007/2008 and the media bias against RP as well as contained general information and video clips showing Ron's positions and consistency in defending liberty and freedom.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of links to those videos on the net and they are all dead now.


It's actually history that's been flushed down the toilet. All the comments, arguments, etc are gone.

----------


## JasonM

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Just in case anyone was curious. You can't just copyright bomb the Romney videos in retaliation.

----------


## qh4dotcom

The channel is back...some new videos just got uploaded

http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom/videos

----------


## ChristopherShelley

Twilight f ing zone.

----------


## Crotale

> As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.
> 
> We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.
> 
> We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.


We're supposed to be against government enforced monopolies, people.

You don't own your thoughts.

----------


## Crotale

> Research patent law?  I *took* patent law!  Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they haven't read the same information you have.  But enough of your diversionary tactics.  Did CNN/Fox/MSNBC sign non-disclosure agreements with Ron Paul to protect his content?  Or did that just use it as part of the "public domain"?  If it's in the "public domain", then how can they claim copyright on it?  And if you don't know what "public domain" is, research it.    Oh, and what non-disclosure agreements did CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc have TV owners sign before they received their broadcast content?


Y'know. I regret repping your last post. I wish I had saved it for this one. Cracking post.

----------


## affa

> Google's (YouTube's) Content ID policies side-step the DMCA.
> 
> Here's a true example. I upload a video that has some copyrighted material. So the content ID system of YouTube automatically flags the video as a work of the content producer as they've been set up a content owner account for their content. Content owners can set what happens to a video with this automatic flagging and change it on a per-video basis later. In this case, it is set to enable advertising on the video so the content owner can receive its revenue. But it's educational. Fair use allows for the use of a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work to teach a lesson. I can dispute this through YouTube, so I did. But it turns out my dispute goes to the content owner. They are the judge of your claim of fair use, misidentification, etc. And once the content owner denies your Content ID dispute, that is the end of it. There is no recourse.
> 
> http://productforums.google.com/foru...ns/er2PVL0uZWs
> http://fairusetube.org/articles/20-f...ugh-the-cracks
> 
> Personally, I am done with Google and YouTube.


that policy makes me sick to my stomach.  so terrible.

----------


## affa

> As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.
> 
> We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.
> 
> We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.


I make my living on the creation and distribution of so-called 'intellectual property' as well... and couldn't disagree with you more.  If your product is good, you'll be supported.  Obtrusive and intrusive DRM systems,  draconian copyright laws, and a rejection of fair use doctrine is not the answer.

----------

