RonPaul2008dotcom account closed by YouTube

[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, Fuck 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/njonline/online-political-ads-spark-copyright-battle-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/forum/#!category-topic/youtube/feedback--suggestions/er2PVL0uZWs
http://fairusetube.org/articles/20-falling-through-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 !