Youtube Censoring Legal?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
ok How does youtube not get charged with copyright infringment and such yet it's users can and do.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with the Constitution, that's covered under United States criminal/civil statues.

And to answer your question, maybe because they are paying the person's whose IP it happens to be or the persons in question have not filed a greivance.

you can think the growth of apple ewetube googal for such


why does youtube not have any competition???????????

1. There IS NO SPECIAL DEAL with the government. Period.
2. YouTube is run by a private company and can "censor" anything they want.
3. The First Amendment enjoins the GOVERNMENT, and ONLY the government from making any laws infringing the freedom of speech. Period.
4. YouTube is subject to copyright law, which means they are required to remove copyrighted material when informed.
5. Copyright Law and the First Amendment are two ENTIRELY different issues.
6. There is quite a bit of copyrighted material on YouTube that has not been taken down--yet.
7. Some copyright holders may feel their material present on YouTube is to their advantage.
8. Although many people think YouTube SHOULD be subject to the First Amendment, IT IS NOT.
9. YouTube is NOT doing anything illegal.

The persistence of people believing mythology is real here is just astounding. OP needs to educate himself. He is spouting utter and complete nonsense. He has no case. He doesn't even understand the case he is trying to make. "Deny Ignorance" is not happening here.

a reply to: schuyler

it is ok with me that you are wrong

i will not hold it against you

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: howtonhawky
ok How does youtube not get charged with copyright infringment and such yet it's users can and do.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with the Constitution, that's covered under United States criminal/civil statues.

And to answer your question, maybe because they are paying the person's whose IP it happens to be or the persons in question have not filed a greivance.

lolol
maybe?????
nope
just more the constitution does not cover citizens mess

it is old now

WE THE PEOPLE

originally posted by: howtonhawky
maybe?????
nope

You would know since you spoke to all of them I'm sure. Probably somewhere between not reading the Constitution and then posting about it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

it is very comical to read such on here

all this is beside the points i have made

it is illegal for them to facilitate crimes and your excuse that no one has reported them is very lacking in both thought and substance

if you are bored and think you have the answers then try to tackle the points i have made in the last 4-5 post in this thread.

if you let common sense guide you and give the benefit of doubt to me without falling back on the conclusion that i do not know anything then you just may learn something.

btw i try to apply the same to everyone's post but you all ignore the huge elephant in the room

my only conclusion is that i do hope yall are monetized for such overlooking of truth and facts

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a
all this is beside the points i have made

Your points? You made some besides going 'yeah-too!'?

it is illegal for them to facilitate crimes and your excuse that no one has reported them is very lacking in both thought and substance

It kinda is the substance. I'm sure some brilliant Constitutional scholar such as yourself is salivating over the chance to ramrod YouTube and take some of their billions in a ground breaking legal case where you demonstrate how private industry falls under the First Amendment.

if you are bored...

I am bored. Know why? You bore me. You're not even creative in your rebuttals.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: schuyler

it is ok with me that you are wrong i will not hold it against you

.

Your responses are not substantive. You have no argument. You're acting like you're 12 years old. My argument above is REALITY. You are living in some sort of dream world, and your credibility here is just about rock bottom. /thread

a reply to: howtonhawky

3) DMCA Enforcement: TAN endeavors to comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (hereinafter "DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws. TAN will respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users. TAN will also terminate the accounts of repeat offenders. If TAN removes or disables access to comply with the DMCA, TAN will make a good-faith attempt to contact the owner, author, or administrator of each affected posts so that they may make a counter notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of the DMCA. For more information about our DMCA policy and how to file a DMCA takedown notice, please see our DMCA Policy Page.

That is ATS' policy in regards to posting copyrighted material. Sounds pretty much like what YouTube's policy is as well. Did ATS go to court and have the government give them "special status."

The fact of the matter is that Title II of the DMCA specifically addresses this issue. Titled the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, it specifies that any online service provider (OSP) is free from liability if one of their users posts copyrighted material so long as they remove it as soon as they are notified of its existence.

That is why services like Napster and Limewire ran in to legal trouble. Everything on their servers was copyrighted material. They knew this yet they didn't remove any of it. When Napster became a subscription service and started paying royalties to the copyright holders they were no longer in violation of the law.

So by removing videos that are flagged with copyright violations YouTube is very much adhering to the law. But feel free to read through OCILLA and point out what part YouTube is violating.

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

a reply to: Xcalibur254

it just keeps getting thick

why not let the real legal experts explain why they have a youtube button instead of just compiling a vast video library of their own. Otherthannot wanting too or other personal answers it is illegal.

It would make much monies.

Again why does youtube have no other competition that operate just as they do?

Yes their are some video sharing places out their but they can not touch the amount of content that youtube does.

this is why i come here cause their are some heads as hard as mine.

a reply to: howtonhawky

repeat after me :

" you-tube is a corporation with no requirement for ' free speech ' "

And that was the music industry complaining and using the legal system. They can do the same if they feel the need.

US record labels win court battle against LimeWire

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: schuyler

it is ok with me that you are wrong i will not hold it against you

.

Your responses are not substantive. You have no argument. You're acting like you're 12 years old. My argument above is REALITY. You are living in some sort of dream world, and your credibility here is just about rock bottom. /thread

look most of what you posted is true and i did not give you credit for the unneeded beside the point content you provided.

your post did not answer the core of my responses such as how does youtube post copyrighted material that is illegal to post on any sight other than youtube.

I admit that this is a subject where one has to dig deep to see the truth but you are not trying to see my point you are posting the widely and wrongly held views of this conspiracy.

again good job but there is much more too the story that you are not addressing.

instead of tackling the subject you try to fall back on my shortcomings as if that will make your points more valid.

youtube operates beyond the law

a reply to: howtonhawky

So you refuse to read the OCILLA and show us why YouTube is in violation of it?

At one point the motto of this this site was Deny Ignorance.

People post copyrighted material here all the time. It is general under fair use provisions.

You might investigate the rules...

a reply to: howtonhawky

how does youtube post copyrighted material

YouTube doesn’t. The person with the channel does.

As for it being illegal? Nope.

If you post copyrighted things (say music) you get a “Copyright Notice”. That notice can be one of a few things. The video has been removed or it remains on YouTube, but with ads. If it remains, the ad revenue either gets split or all of it goes to the copyright owner/s.

So no, not illegal. Very legal actually.

a reply to: TerryDon79

youtube facilitates through storage the posting of material very much covered under copyright laws

there is no other site that can post for public viewing a new release of an album without getting sued.

trying to say that because youtube removes certain content that somehow removes guilt for the other millions of copyright infringements is just plain short sided

they are not protected by the content generators as you claim

Do you reallythink this guy does not want to get paid?

Do you think he does not have the clout to sue if he had due recourse?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Try making a channel and uploading copyrighted material. You’ll get a notice. It doesn’t display that there’s a notice for the viewers though, so the viewers wouldn’t know.

I think that’s your problem. You’re only seeing from a viewers point, not “behind the scenes”.