It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You Tube Free Speech Purge Accelerates, Infowarrior Channel Banned

page: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthMagnet
 


Again, any next generation content upload service needs to be peer to peer. Any service with a centralized service based architecture will be a target and will be taken over. Freedom of speech will only survive if it dosen't have bottlenecks where it can be cut off, so to speak.

Bittorrent, which has a multitude of legitimate and legal uses, shows the backbone of how this is done. The same basic architecture needs to be applied to an video upload service. It might not be as quick as youtube, in the begining, but it will be uncontrolable, and peer to peer means the more viral information gets the faster the downloads due to higher number of peers.




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 
You're too much of a gentleman to disagree further with me.

Thats why i LOVE YOU!!!! And i added the idiot word not you. You never would do that.

Now i''m not saying i KNOW for sure its the government, but theres a high probability. Anyway, thats my opinion, and you know, everyone has one.



Thank you for being so nice.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
reply to post by flightsuit
 


Yeah well BetterStream owes me money or the product I actually paid for! I bought an album from an independent artist to download on their website but their site is broken and the actual link for the download takes me back to the download page. What a con.


How is this company any better than YouTube?


Goathief, I've just sent you a personal message via U2U. As I said in the message, if you'll provide me with as much details as you can regarding this purchase, I'll forward the info to BetterStream's owner, and I'm quite confident he'll get everything handled to your satisfaction.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief

Originally posted by 1234567
Sounds bad. Did you contact them / make a complaint?


Of course, no reply yet unsurprisingly! I think the website is a con, beware of this when looking for youtube alternatives. I expect that the person in this thread who's posting about BetterStream is probably an affiliate or otherwise unaware of their scams. I wonder how much money they've pulled in from this as they run no advertising...

Just helping to deny some ignorance.


Hello again, I am probably BetterStream's biggest fan, and one of their first registered users, but I have no financial stake in the site. If you suspect that I'm some kind of shill, I'd urge you to check my profile here and look into my previous postings on ATS, as that will at least show that I've been around here for a while and have posted on a variety of topics.

I strongly suspect that your disappointing experience was due to a technical problem, as BetterStream is still in its infancy, and an ongoing work in progress. If you think about it, in the case of a digital purchase fulfilled via download, there would be no incentive to rip you off, because, other than paying for bandwidth, it doesn't cost a merchant anything to let you download what you've purchased. In an extreme, hypothetical example, I could imagine such a rip-off taking place if the downloadable product being sold did not actually exist, but I'm sure that in this case, that's not what's going on.

I just heard from BetterStream's owner, and he says he's contacted you directly about this. Feel free to contact me if I may be of assistance, but I am quite confident Ben will make things right as soon as you get back to him.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
has anyone emailed youtube to find out why this account has been suspended? sorry if this has already been asked / replied im logging of now


[edit on 15-5-2009 by theflashor]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by theflashor
has anyone emailed youtube to find out why this account has been suspended? sorry if this has already been asked / replied im logging of now


[edit on 15-5-2009 by theflashor]


YouTube hides their contact info behind many layers of "Help" pages and "Help" forms. They state right on their site that they don't wish to receive these sorts of questions, regard them as a nuisance, and will not respond. That's if you, the actual account-holder, are writing to ask why your account in particular was suspended. Under those circumstances, your chance of getting any reply, other than a form-letter detailing YouTube's Terms Of Service, is pretty much zero. If you're just a concerned citizen, asking why somebody other than yourself, such as Alex Jones, for example, had their account suspended, you are even less likely to receive a response.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I think that he has put a target on himself by calling out all the people he has been calling out, speaking out against youtube and google but still expects them to support his videos?
I'm actually surprised google hasn't blocked his site from coming up in searches.

It doesn't make sense to me, you can have your opinions but when you get personal and step on others toes I wouldn't expect them to support or promote me in anyway.
If you want to open your mouth in that kind of way, you have to be prepared to cut your ties.

I'm not saying if he's right or wrong, just that it makes sense to me that they wouldn't want him on their sites.

He should maybe just stay off youtube and just keep his videos on his site or use another means.

It doesn't seem like censorship to me, just maybe a passive aggressive way of google and youtube dealing with AJ's claims.
Little do they know this is just the fuel to his fire and as much as it may frustrate it, he's loving it for his cause.

Did he have any videos posted about Bilderberg?



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
again ... you are all arguing about this conspiracy with NO PROOF he was banned for no reason other than his speeches.

the end.

horrible conspiracy.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by TruthMagnet
 


Again, any next generation content upload service needs to be peer to peer. Any service with a centralized service based architecture will be a target and will be taken over. Freedom of speech will only survive if it dosen't have bottlenecks where it can be cut off, so to speak.

Bittorrent, which has a multitude of legitimate and legal uses, shows the backbone of how this is done. The same basic architecture needs to be applied to an video upload service. It might not be as quick as youtube, in the begining, but it will be uncontrolable, and peer to peer means the more viral information gets the faster the downloads due to higher number of peers.



Mindmelding,

For sure - this would be an ideal situation - however there are problems with this model.

I often find older files hard to find on Bittorrent - often because users have lost interest in serving up historical content.

Also - and this is the most important issue - Bittorrent cannot be run efficently through systems like TOR (and even TOR end nodes are comprimised) - so now you have individuals fearful of specific persecution in their own Country.

This is why a non-profit 3rd party - possibly hosted in a 2nd or 3rd world area - can often provide for an extra layer of protection against specific retribution on indiviual contributers.

Unless the individual users can be protected from liability - there will be little chance a broad range of controvertial (and sometimes even copyrited) material will be available for the masses.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthMagnet
 


I put bittorrent as an example. What I had in mind would be a new protocol where content was allocated throuout the system of users sort of like a massive raid array, with multiple redundancy, so it wasn't limited by seeding. As for tunneling and the like, that could be addressed, but the best way to deal with liability issues is packet encryption using high bit protocols.

And here's the hard truth: people would be pushed on to this system as a last resort, and of course some, a minority, would use it for crimes. Anonymity will allow that. But to stop developing alternatives because of this minority is to miss the problem which we already have, which is a progressive loss of free speech as the psychopathocracy goes after the internet. The awakening masses of this planet need a forum, one that is not limited by corporate control. If you look around you, everyone is being herded into corporate controlled sites, and with this will come the death of free speech on the greater internet, and the dumbing down of the population with official propaganda.

If people are to be free there has to be an effort to maintain freedom of content contribution over the internet, or we will all be huluized. Yes, it's a verb



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Some of that is outside my expertise - but as an old user of BBS's I think your idea would work.

Possibly even as a hybrid of your array and a third party hosting environment for extra redundancy.

Poor Avsim - can't believe they were soooo careless...

Let us not make the obvious mistakes for sure as we move our cause to the FREENET!




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
There are a number of these now, it might be as simple as a board deciding to promote one particular system to get it accepted.

freenetproject.org...


[edit on 16-5-2009 by SoulOrb]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
well maybe he should stop using copyrighted material in his videos or host them privately.

its that simple this really isnt a free speech issue when he is stealing from people like fox news and other content that he has not properly licensed. youtube is not a place for criminals or people that cant abide by the law. in fact the user is lucky they only got suspended and that he is not under arrest for violating the intellectual property laws. Criminals are scum and the fact anyone hear would support criminal activities shows how we need to clean up the internet even more then were doing now.

On the internet interpol used to only go after downloaders, its high time they started arresting people who use news sources in blogs forums etc etc. they have not payed for that content and linking to it or copy pasting it is a criminal act of theft. Its only a matter of time before we start cracking down on these fugitives who are causing newspapers to close all across america. If your not a patriot i know you will disagree with me but freedom of the press does not translate to some socialist ideal that once its in print its a shared commodity for all. Therefore all those who do not support the arrest of these individuals are in collusion to commit criminal conspiracy by reading it or not notify the appropriate authorities. failure to do so only shows support for a corrupt socialist regime we now find ourselves in.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 




well maybe he should stop using copyrighted material in his videos or host them privately.


If he's in violation of copyright law, it doesn't matter whether he hosts his videos himself or not. If somebody wanted to "shut him down" over it, they could - and it would be nobody but Alex Jones's own damn fault for the willful and flagrant violation of the law.

I still haven't looked into the case very deeply, because Alex Jones is a waste of time. However, if it could be shown that either through malicious intent or false-flagging campaigns, that Alex Jones was wrongfully expelled from YouTube - I would support a campaign to have him reinstated. I did support the reinstatement of VenomFangX, after all, when he was suspended pending cancellation due to false-flagging/DMCA campaigns by Muslims (after some rather racist and bigoted comments he made which justifiably raised their ire)

It has nothing to do with supporting the message. I think Alex Jones is a charlatan playing a very dangerous game that has the potential to seriously hurt those, and those around them, who take his words at face value. Yet that danger is a risk we must accept if we are to live in a free society. While YouTube is private property, and can censor who and what they wish with no pretext or justifiable cause, and I respect that right - I can also speak out against it on principal.

The only problem is that, thus far, there seems to be every indication that Alex Jones willfully violated copyright laws in such a way that the Fair Use Act could not cover him. He acknowledges it, but just doesn't care. Rather than owning up to his errors like a responsible adult - he throws a temper tantrum like some attention starved child. He seems to be playing the situation to suit his own ends, his own drama, regardless of the facts of the matter.

If he's not willing to put forth a serious effort, correct his mistakes when he makes them, and work towards a viable resolution - then I see absolutely no reason why I, or anyone else, should give a damn... because as it stands, this has nothing to do with free speech. He broke the law, he violated policy, and he's reaping the consequences.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
well maybe he should stop using copyrighted material in his videos or host them privately.

its that simple this really isnt a free speech issue when he is stealing from people like fox news and other content that he has not properly licensed.



It's called "fair use," and it's perfectly legal.



youtube is not a place for criminals or people that cant abide by the law.


Oh, yes it is!



in fact the user is lucky they only got suspended and that he is not under arrest for violating the intellectual property laws.


Wow. You really have no understanding of our laws or legal system, do you? Are you even aware of the difference between civil and criminal proceedings? People get sued for copyright infringement; they don't get arrested for it unless they're involved in piracy on a massive level.




Criminals are scum and the fact anyone hear would support criminal activities shows how we need to clean up the internet even more then were doing now.



You misspelled the word "here."

Furthermore, what, exactly, are you hoping to clean up? Would you prefer that the people here refrain from using the Internet for the perfectly lawful and constitutionally guaranteed practice of freely expressing our opinions?




On the internet interpol used to only go after downloaders, its high time they started arresting people who use news sources in blogs forums etc etc. they have not payed for that content



Again, it often meets the legal standard for "fair use," and is therefore not necessarily illegal.

Furthermore, are you smoking crack? If a blogger, or anybody on the Web steals content, they may have to face the fact that the persons or entities hosting their sites may shut them down when they receive a letter from the content owner's attorney, and they may possibly be sued in a civil proceeding. None of this would involve police officers arresting anybody, nor should it. Setting aside for a moment the fact that it would be overkill on a Draconian level, it would also represent a wildly irresponsible squandering of police resources.




and linking to it or copy pasting it is a criminal act of theft.


Wow. Your lack of knowledge in the field of jurisprudence is rivaled by your complete lack of understanding as to how the Internet works. "Copy pasting," as you put it, could constitute copyright violation. Linking to something is not the same as stealing it. I can link to anything I want to on my Web site, and if somebody doesn't want me linking to it, they shouldn't have put it on the Web in the first place. There is nothing illegal or unethical about posting a link to something that is freely available on a public Web site. Since you clearly don't understand this, and you clearly don't understand the law, and you very clearly have no respect whatsoever for free speech, I feel that you are qualified to be a US senator or congressman.




Its only a matter of time before we start cracking down on these fugitives who are causing newspapers to close all across america.



Who's "we?"




If your not a patriot i know you will disagree with me



You misspelled "you're." Furthermore, I am a patriot and I disagree with you.




but freedom of the press does not translate to some socialist ideal that once its in print its a shared commodity for all. Therefore all those who do not support the arrest of these individuals are in collusion to commit criminal conspiracy by reading it or not notify the appropriate authorities. failure to do so only shows support for a corrupt socialist regime we now find ourselves in.


So, in other words, "If you're not with us, you're against us," and merely expressing a dissenting point of view, or worse yet, simply failing to parrot your point of view loudly enough and with enough vigor, means a person is guilty of a criminal act?



Hmmm...

Where have we heard that before?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppayoutube is not a place for criminals or people that cant abide by the law. in fact the user is lucky they only got suspended and that he is not under arrest for violating the intellectual property laws. Criminals are scum and the fact anyone hear would support criminal activities shows how we need to clean up the internet even more then were doing now.


That content is passed across publicly funded networks. Now in Canada we have the right to use any material, period, movies whatever, in an educational manner. The whole world does not have the same laws as the USA, and even in this case it is a grey area, as in the material is being released on publicly released channels, funded by the public, usage is questionable at best, unless it is sliced and diced to change the content.

Its not as simple as you say, this is a free speech issue. It seems like you do not care if the message is changed by a politician in his advertising process, and funded by publidc campaign money. They are slicing and dicing, and they might be "criminals" according to your definition.

Actually, I think almost anyone could take your post and use it for a good example to illustrate mass brainwashing and acceptance of authority without questions, you seem to be a victim of mind manipulation. Just because someone posts a copyright notice on there, does not mean it REALLY is copyright, there are many tort laws at the root of law that are grey areas, and you need to start standing up for your fellow man instead of calling them criminals, where they are just people standing up for the rights you are not educating yourself on. Nor does a person become a criminal because they choose to have it proved in court that they are using the laws improperly, or censored for that matter.







[edit on 19-5-2009 by SoulOrb]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Well said, SoulOrb. If anybody ever asks me where all the real Americans went, I'll say they're in Nova Scotia!



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Youtube Restores The Alex Jones Channel




"Youtube has restored the official Alex Jones Youtube channel after legal counter claims were filed against the original claims of copyright violation.

The Infowars team had to write up legal papers and file counter claims in federal court, which eventually prompted the complainant to back down.
The Google owned company reversed it’s decision to pull the channel and resurrected it, along with the backup channel The Infowarrior, which was also restricted last week.

Youtube revealed that a second copyright violation was filed, however this also turned out to be a fake, with no supporting evidence, no doubt filed by a person who simply dislikes Alex Jones and Infowars.

The channel’s deletion seemed terminal, but thanks to the efforts of thousands of viewers and Infowars readers, who have called Youtube to complain about the censorship, the company was prompted to listen to our counter claims.

However, having earned this success, we must now better prepare for the inevitable attacks that will follow. There is no doubt that there are people out there who desperately want to see important sources of information eliminated from Youtube, and there is no doubt that the Alex Jones Channel will come under fire in the future.
We would therefore like to announce “Operation Evacuation” - There are over 2000 vitally important videos that, for the moment, are confined to what may now be a compromised vessel.
We encourage readers to take whichever they feel are the most important videos from The Alex Jones Channel, and mirror them all over Youtube!”



w0000000t!!! w000t!!!! w0000000t!!!!

THIS IS A VICTORY PEOPLE!!!!!



We are POWERFUL in numbers - let us NEVER FORGET!!!!


“If there is hope, it lies in the proles…But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning!”

- Winston Smith (1984)


Let us all continue to STRIVE for the GLORIOUS TOMORROW!!!



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit

Originally posted by tigpoppa
It's called "fair use," and it's perfectly legal.



youtube is not a place for criminals or people that cant abide by the law.


Oh, yes it is!



I am still laughing when I read this, you are so right. And this is the shame, people are not even educated on civil versus criminal proceedings. I think in some countries they are very restricted, and just take a certain thing for granted, there is one authority not many.

A few years ago I was renting a room and the landlord, Chinese, had rented it to someone else for a certain month, and did not tell me. Two days before she asks when I am moving, and I said, Moving? Anyway, I had to move and ended up owing them $100 or something, which I eventually paid. Anyway she said, "you pay $100 or I call police". I said , you go right ahead and do that, and I will pay you in a few months from this date to make a point. She did call, and well they educated her for me, I waited a few months and paid her after she stopped calling me endlessly. I am not always a perfect guy that way, I get resistive sometimes. :-) On topic.

Anyway I assumed then that basically in China I think that the Police handle everything. Everything is criminal if perceived to be criminal by the person on the scene, best not owe the money to his cousin, and she had an expectation that they would arrest me for this civil matter. Kind of a crazy concept here, but I am sure it matters in many places.

YouTube loves Alex Jones. He has made so much money from him. So it must be someone really big pulling his strings. Heck YouTube would have porn I am sure if they would let it. There are some videos there that are freaking awesome.

I am kind of tired anyway of all the conspiracy stuff, :-). I think we should go watch some real content on YouTube. You know, the honest to goodness stuff, the good old ideal kind of videos, that countries like America and Canada was built on, where free speech is rampant for all, well almost all, except Alex Jones and a few others.

Why, lets live it up, as long as we got some beer on Friday night and our old lady is friendly in the sack once or twice, we can drink away our sorrows and get back to it Monday morning, working for the man. Just make sure I got me some beer when I get home.

Note. You must be old enough to click to watch this video, I mean you need to be at least 18 to watch this video, or if you do click well don't tell anyone.





[edit on 20-5-2009 by SoulOrb]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 1234567
 



"Freedom of speech" protects you against the Government. It does not say that private entities have to grant you the right to say or do anything you want to.

Youtube is not owned by the US Govt (that we know of...yet) - and therefore has the right to ban anyone they so choose.

AJ has the right to say what he wants, but youtube has the right to shut him up (in their own media)

"Rights" go both ways, and i believe too many activists forget that too often.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join