Youtubes current CEO a feminazi and a corporatist?

This is speculation but i suspect alot of Youtubes current problems with copyright and FAIR USE VIOLATIONS stems from her backround. Time magazine said she was the most important person in advertising. Thats what caught my eye. you see She/google makes billions of advertisers,and they in turn pressure youtube to blanket take down content legally posted by content creators without even a fair hearing.

Corporatist facism showing through methinks? What say you ATS. Is it fair for them to break the law by not even allowing material used under fair use?

I will post her wikipedia page for anyone to peruse as well.

Susan Wojcicki

a reply to: yuppa

I have had something up on Youtube for more than 5 years that is totally not fair use. It was put up for my mom though. It breaks copywrite on 2 songs. Youtube warned me twice, but never took it down. Just my one experience, though.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: yuppa

I have had something up on Youtube for more than 5 years that is totally not fair use. It was put up for my mom though. It breaks copywrite on 2 songs. Youtube warned me twice, but never took it down. Just my one experience, though.

YOure very lucky then. They have been getting ban and strike happy on creators this year badly. It wouldnt be bad IF they actually fixed their reporting system but this is GOOGLE were talking about here.

I like making music mixes to listen to at work. I upload them to youtube for easy access. They all have copyright claims on them. One is blocked in Germany and France, another has an entire song muted out. The rest all have ads that get shown before them that, I'm guessing, the owners profit from. I've also uploaded a dub track I made from some multitrack recordings I found online, that video has no copyright complaints at all, but I'm unable to monetize that video if I were to choose to.

That's my experience with youtube's copyright policy, it seems pretty fair to me in my experience, considering I never sought any permission to use any of the music. I actually like the idea of an artist being paid for something of theirs I've used. (If that's how it works)

I also have a friend who's sold the license for a couple of videos he's made from youtube. His experience is a little less straightforward. He's had to keep track of who's actually posting and reposting the videos to make sure they've actually got permission to post it. It's kind of complicated because the people he sold the license to are also allowed to sell it and repost it.

a reply to: dug88

Whats boggling to me is the uneven policing or enforcement. theres stuff up that like yours is against the TnC but stuff legally put there under fair use is getting the banhammer. It sbecause th ecorporations ar egetting pressurred by Hollyweird and th eMPAA and RIAA.

They cant get anything through congress or senate and have now resorted to dirty pool.

Part of it might be that the songs I've been using are either old reggae songs, which from what I know, originally had no copyright until being bought up by larger music producers many years later and modern reggae music which is independently produced in a lot of different places in the world and seems, from what I can tell by the copyright claim, is managed by a company that protects licenses for independent musicians. They seem to allow that as fair usage of their work.

I'm pretty sure it's up to the individual copyright holder whether they want to allow the video to be there or not. Not YouTube. My friend with the licensed videos makes all his own complaints directly to youtube. According to him, he is actually not allowed to make too many claims at once or his account may be blocked. If anything's being pulled down it's the company that holds the copyright making them pull it down.

What is a feminazi? Something like Hanna Reitsch?

The youtube CEO is certainly nothing like that.

Youtube enforcing copyright law and takedown notices has nothing at all to do with the CEO being a 'feminazi' or not.

It's company policy to obey the law. And if they get a takedown notice on something that violates copyright law, they'll take it down.

I see absolutely nothing in her bio to suggest she might be a radical feminist.

originally posted by: Painterz
Youtube enforcing copyright law and takedown notices has nothing at all to do with the CEO being a 'feminazi' or not.

It's company policy to obey the law. And if they get a takedown notice on something that violates copyright law, they'll take it down.

I see absolutely nothing in her bio to suggest she might be a radical feminist.

I use feminazi as a diffrent meaning. My meaning a female who is as bad a sa nazi on others who have done nothing wrong to her and will toss them unde ra bus fo rher self interest.

ALso ALot an di mena alot of vids that have been legal under fair use have been taken down. They didnt even have copyright claims due to it was lawful.

originally posted by: vernichter
What is a feminazi? Something like Hanna Reitsch?

The youtube CEO is certainly nothing like that.

feminazi = any woman who tells rush Limbaugh to go f himself

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: vernichter
What is a feminazi? Something like Hanna Reitsch?

The youtube CEO is certainly nothing like that.

feminazi = any woman who tells rush Limbaugh to go f himself

Which is not what my definition of that is lol. She has hit male content creators harder than others though on youtube.

originally posted by: jimmyx
feminazi = any woman who tells rush Limbaugh to go f himself

Why don't you "follow the money" (as per your signature) in relation to feminism. You might be a little surprised at the result because it isn't just about promoting/supporting women's rights.

To be fair, this is what happens when a community becomes a business.

Compare the wild west version of the net from the early 90s with today's "Shopping Mall" version and all you see is sanitised, regulated puff.

There are still a few bits that are "free" but they are shrinking as everyone wants a piece of the monetary pie.

Youtube's actions are merely a result of wanting to maintain advertising revenue, just the same as some blog sites get rid of content their business partners don't like.

You can have the money or you can have the freedom, rarely both.


I dislike the term Feminazi, btw, misanthropist would be more honest and less likely to belittle the real issues that curtail women's freedoms and rights to be who they want to be.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
To be fair, this is what happens when a community becomes a business.

Compare the wild west version of the net from the early 90s with today's "Shopping Mall" version and all you see is sanitised, regulated puff.

There are still a few bits that are "free" but they are shrinking as everyone wants a piece of the monetary pie.

Youtube's actions are merely a result of wanting to maintain advertising revenue, just the same as some blog sites get rid of content their business partners don't like.

You can have the money or you can have the freedom, rarely both.


I dislike the term Feminazi, btw, misanthropist would be more honest and less likely to belittle the real issues that curtail women's freedoms and rights to be who they want to be.

IS it fair to make money off USER CREATED CONTENT like youtube does though? unpaid creators getting their vids monetized without receiving a dime. Yall went batcrap crazy over SO even suggesting something similiar with ads a few days ago. why not th e same reaction? because its not going to happen to them right?

Youtubes BREAKING th e fair use law by allowing these companies to remove and destroy creators. Its youtubes responsibility to investigate claims but they so far have not because they are to damn lazy. Time for a lawsuit by the ACLU for them destroying free speech.

a reply to: yuppa

As far as I understand it, youtube shares the revenue with creators...as for the rest, the arbitrary way they take the side of those objecting, well, that's a whole other issue.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: yuppa

As far as I understand it, youtube shares the revenue with creators...as for the rest, the arbitrary way they take the side of those objecting, well, that's a whole other issue.

They share it . its more like a stripper paying to dance actually. They TAKE half or you dont get money period. But they always take th ebig money because they are getting paid to do so.

Youtube make smoney off of creators who do not even monetize their videos too.

Material on YT (as is anywhere else) is taken down after they receive a formal DMCA complaint from an alleged copyright owner. This is the law. If it is the case , a person has the right to file a counter-complaint on the DMCA stating that they are the copyright owner or it is public domain.

There has been a growing trend on YouTube that if someone does not like the material a person loads up they file a complaint. Doesnt matter if it is justifiable or not , YT has to honor that complaint or risk lawsuits themselves.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Material on YT (as is anywhere else) is taken down after they receive a formal DMCA complaint from an alleged copyright owner. This is the law. If it is the case , a person has the right to file a counter-complaint on the DMCA stating that they are the copyright owner or it is public domain.

There has been a growing trend on YouTube that if someone does not like the material a person loads up they file a complaint. Doesnt matter if it is justifiable or not , YT has to honor that complaint or risk lawsuits themselves.

Actually youtube has to investigate if it violates the FAIR USE rule before they do so legally but they are skipping it for soem stupid reason.

a reply to: yuppa
They are under no legal obligation to do any research. After all it is not their file they are removing. So therefore , it is not up to them to prove the legality.It is and always has been up to the individual that posted .

With that being said , I think they should be morally obligated to inform that individual as to who and why the complaint was filed.

a reply to: Gothmog

"FROM YOutube
If your video was mistakenly removed because it was misidentified as infringing, or qualifies as a potential fair use, you may wish to submit a counter notification."

Its up to the CLAIMANT/copyright holders to SEE if its FAIR USE OR NOT. Ok that makes sense. SO most of th e takedowns ARE NOT BEING RESEARCHED BY THE CLAIMANTS. Youtube should then issue th e claimants strikes for false claims and harrassing people using their content UNDER FAIR USE.

The claimants are breaking federal law by issuing these Copyright claims and no one is punishing them.

As to Hosting copyrighted content. Yes they CAN be held liable. Jus t like torrent sites have been in th epast,and they know this and Bend to the RIAA,MPAA,and DMCA to avoid shut downs and copyright claims.