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: 8
51
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

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


I do not think that anyone feels that YouTube has to comply to any kind of fairness, other than an even brush when they do it.

I loved this webcam girl's video, it used to have the song Unblieveable in it. Now what record maker would enforce his copywrite on this beautiful girl, I have no idea, it was her own production, and she was listening to it at the time. Maybe she could have played it in the background.

Now, YouTube has had almost 2 million views on that video. And did they delete the video when there was copyright claim? Nope. However I posted a video one time and I used a very obscure song, and they deleted the whole video right away.

However note on this one, they disabled the sound track, they did not delete the video. I wonder why? Was it because it did not have 2 million views and a young sexy girl they could continue to flog for their advertising?

I am simply saying, it should be even. If they are closing accounts for copyright violation, then close everyone who violate copyright. So the fact they shut him down indicates a bigger club behind the scene, telling them what to do. However we will never know.

Again, your argument which I can see, is deflecting this to people trying to tell a private corporation to do. They are using the publicly funded Internet for their little business there, and they do very little to maintain the infrastructure of that Internet, and one could say it is a complicated system to understand at best.

However Google does own a major portion of its current value to leveraging the freely publicly funded system to grow as a corporation, and they derives a large income from that system with no legal requirements to pay for the infrastructure besides in their bandwidth costs, a small portion of the overall costs of the net. The least they could do is be evenly fair to all.

So, yes, they do have to be fair in their application, and if I was them I would be very careful how closely they align themselves to the governments mandates, because soon they might find themselves paying for a large portion of the web, it is only a matter of time, and when they need our help to speak up for their rights because they are being unfairly penalized for a large portion of the infrastructure, we might not be here to protect them.

Don't worry, it is on the books YouTube. The government factions are slowly taking out the competitors, and when there is no one left they are coming for you with a nice big invoice, which if you cannot pay, you will be out of business.

And who could have saved you, and spoke us for your rights, Alex Jones, that is who. And by the way, I know you are watching this thread, and this message is to you, you know who you are, I get a sense you following this thread, do the right thing, reinstate Alex.

As they say keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.





posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:46 AM
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?


Well Goathief, I never heard back from you, and BetterStream's owner just informed me that he's sent you six different messages without receiving a reply from you. Have you simply not checked your U2U messages, and not checked back with this thread?

Forgive me for saying so, but at this point, I can't help but wonder if you made the whole thing up, which would be a very weird thing to do.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulOrb

However note on this one, they disabled the sound track, they did not delete the video. I wonder why?



SoulOrb, was your video deleted prior to the soundtrack disappearing from the Webcam girl's video? 'Cause what you may be seeing is not so much unequal treatment, but the result of a change in YouTube's policy:

Historically, a copyright complaint was enough to get any video deleted, even if the complaint simply stemmed from a user "borrowing" a piece of popular music for their video's soundtrack.

Since that's something an awful lot of users have done and continue to do, and since the videos in question would not otherwise be infringing on anybody's copyright were it not for the borrowed music, YouTube recently implemented a new mechanism which scours their database looking for music that belongs to copyright holders who've requested that their material not be made freely available on YouTube in the form of various user's videos.

When YouTube's software finds what it believes to be an offending video, it deactivates the soundtrack and gives the uploader the option of deleting the video completely or of choosing from a growing list of YouTube-sanctioned pieces of music with which to replace the original soundtrack without worrying about copyright difficulties.

This is a far-from-perfect solution from the standpoint of users like me, because even if the piece of copyrighted music only plays for a few seconds in the video's original soundtrack, the entire soundtrack gets deleted, dialogue and all. Replacing it with the YouTube-approved music won't bring back the dialogue, so many videos are rendered meaningless by this process.

Still, it does represent some small improvement in that the videos are not deleted outright. Furthermore, having a video's soundtrack preemptively disabled is not nearly as disastrous for the user as receiving a DMCA takedown complaint, as it takes just three of those to get your account permanently suspended.

I'm not saying I'm super happy with YouTube's policies, mind you. I'm just trying to explain them, 'cause it sounds like they are affecting you, and you may possibly have been unaware of the recent changes.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Alex Jones didn't go anywhere! He's now under alexjonesmedia at youtube. I wouldn't be surprised if he did this himself to boost Cd sales.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
This wasn't done by Alex Jones to boost publicity. www.abovetopsecret.com... This thread explains his re-instatement and the legal issues.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 


But this is one aspect of youtube that has really irked me.

They can scream foul and get videos removed at will. But they are willing to allow a certain degree of blatant copyright infringements on their own website whenever they see fit.
It's almost like they're saying: "It's O.K. to post copyrighted material on our website but we are the final authority on dictating what should and shouldn't be removed".

Case in point... a year and a half ago I go out and purchase "Ghost Hunters" Seasons 1 and 2 on DVD at a media store in my hometown. I ended up shelling out 50-60 bucks to purchase copyrighted material because I was told I shouldn't download it because "It's illegal and wrong to download pirated material" (the words of a well-meaning family member).

Months later, I find that ALL the episodes are available for free on youtube and elsehwere on the internet. I contacted Jason Hawes (from the show) and other admin types on the TAPS group's public discussion forum. I was never replied to by anyone.. My questions were never answered.. The videos are still freely available on youtube and elsehwere on the internet.

The government seems to only mandates the fine text which becomes standard operating procedure across the entertainment industry on the internet and off. But copyright violations and infringements can never really be acted on by any public authority in this grey area when..

-people are posting copyrighted material anonymously over the internet for others to download.
-Millions of people all over the globe are downloading said copyrighted material for their personal use without anyone ever knowing who they are or what they've downloaded.
-Then those people post that content up again for other people to download, etc...etc..

Torrents are a really good example, here.

-ChriS



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
The main thing that determines which copyrighted material gets yanked from YouTube and which copyrighted material stays up there is whether or not the copyright holder has submitted a complaint regarding a particular video and/or whether or not YouTube's algorithms have matched a given video's content to copyrighted materials that the database is "aware" of.

If you see something on YouTube that's obviously infringing copyright, and it hasn't been taken down, it's 'cause the software hasn't caught it yet, and whoever owns the material hasn't complained yet.

Oh, one thing I should mention regarding BetterStream.com:

There is no censorship on that site.

If you try to upload child pornography or detailed instructions on how to manufacture bombs, that would probably be a problem. Constitutionally protected free speech, on the other hand? That's what BetterStream is all about.

Something to consider.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Well, if ATS keeps growing their media hosting channel, and much of the alternative news and info gets hosted here, I can think this might be one way of increasing the numbers of people waking up to the conspiracies!



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The problem for any viewer with a brain is, how do we separate the wheat from the chaff? For every intelligent, well-made video out there that presents a sound argument in a rational fashion, there are thousands of pieces of schlock that some amateur whipped together without thinking.

Or spell-checking.

Or learning the first thing about video editing.

Or having any concept of what constitutes critical thinking and what constitutes a logical fallacy.

Sigh.

People talk so much about who they suspect to be disinformation agents and what-not. Hah! There is no-longer a need for disinfo to discredit us, 'cause the Internet has now given a voice and a podium to every amateur out there who's got a ton of passion and no intelligence.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 


Thanks for that explanation, sounds interesting, makes sense for sure.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Hey, my pleasure, SoulOrb. I'm glad to help, if I'm able.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join