Youtube Censoring Legal?

An example - easy to find this material

From the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act of the DMCA

Takedown example

originally posted by: howtonhawky
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?

He’ll be getting paid through ad revenue.

Similar to what happens if it’s put on TV or radio.

Do you think this gal does not have the drive or the ambition to get paid from youtube?

FYI She loves monies and works all the angles.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Do you think this gal does not have the drive or the ambition to get paid from youtube?

FYI She loves monies and works all the angles.

She’ll be getting paid through ad revenue, too.

Similar to what happens if it’s put on TV or radio.

Both of those people are getting paid. Those are the official channels for both of them. So they get ad revenue from every view. I also wouldn't be surprised if they have contracts worked out with YouTube so they get a bigger cut than the kid down the street.

Also you claim that only YouTube is able to post a new album and get away with it but that's 100% not true. I bet Spotify gets new albums posted on there before YouTube.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Both of those people are getting paid. Those are the official channels for both of them. So they get ad revenue from every view. I also wouldn't be surprised if they have contracts worked out with YouTube so they get a bigger cut than the kid down the street.

Also you claim that only YouTube is able to post a new album and get away with it but that's 100% not true. I bet Spotify gets new albums posted on there before YouTube.

you would be surprised and you bet

now that is bringing the heat

wrong on all points

except yes they do have channels and are content providers but receive no monies for the creation of the content such as revenue of album sales or song sales such as the other example you wrongly implied that they post new music for download for free

a reply to: howtonhawky

except yes they do have channels and are content providers but receive no monies for the creation of the content such as revenue of album sales or song sales

Yes, they do. They get ad revenue.

You really don’t know anything about YouTube channels or copyright notices on there.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Do you think this gal does not have the drive or the ambition to get paid from youtube?

FYI She loves monies and works all the angles.

She’ll be getting paid through ad revenue, too.

Similar to what happens if it’s put on TV or radio.

at least you are functioning

the ad revenue is not the same as copyright infringment

now ask yourself why would they bother to hire peeps to officially post their music for free if they could get paid for sales in the first place????

answer is that youtube operates under a special clause or the like that allows them to steal from the music and movie industry without due coarse for compensation as every other site does.

this has all been covered in the yrs back inthe courts and at this point the artist will do their best to benefit in any way possible.

if you can't beat them join them

i know that much sounds familiar to everyone round here

a reply to: howtonhawky

You don't need to purchase songs on Spotify. I don't even think you can purchase songs on Spotify. Just like YouTube you can stream whatever you want for free and deal with the ads or you can sign up for a premium account and enjoy everything ad free.

a reply to: howtonhawky

the ad revenue is not the same as copyright infringment

Correct.

The copyright owners CHOOSE to either get ad revenue OR have the video removed.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Why do you refuse to read OCILLA? Everything YouTube, and other streaming sites, do falls well within the law.

How is what YouTube does any different than a site like Netflix or Hulu?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Because they’re trying to make YouTube out to be something it’s not.

All they need to do is make a YouTube channel and upload a copyrighted video and they’ll see the copyright notice and what action will be taken. But they won’t even bother doing that.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
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?

Considering that is the Official Video it means he is being paid. You know, since it's official and all.

*twirls finger next to temple*

Here you go.
Here's the page you get if you get a Copyright Notice and you click on "learn more".

Here's the main point of it...

Am I in trouble?
Probably not. In most cases, getting a Content ID claim isn't a bad thing for your YouTube channel. It just means, 'Hey, we found some content in your video that's owned by someone else'.

It's up to the copyright owners to decide whether or not others can reuse their original material. In many cases, copyright owners will allow their content to be used in YouTube videos in exchange for having ads run on those videos. These ads may play before the video or during it (if the video is longer than 10 minutes).

However, there are some actions copyright owners can take if they don't want their material reused:

Blocking a video: Sometimes, copyright owners may block your video, which means people won't be able to watch it. They can decide to block your video worldwide or just in certain countries.

Muting a video: If your video contains copyright-protected music, the owner may choose to mute it. This means that people can still watch your video, but they won't be able to hear the soundtrack.

Blocking certain platforms: Sometimes, copyright owners may restrict the devices, apps or websites where their content can appear. These restrictions won't change the availability of your video on YouTube.com.

In some cases, you can't monetise a video that is subject to a Content ID claim. Instead, the copyright owners can choose to monetise your video. But in other cases, for example if music is claimed in your video, you may be able to share the advertising revenue with the music's copyright owners.

since your best arguments are that i do not know anything then impress me and prove i am wrong.

the mods will then close the thread.

until then this is a conspiracy site

citing that youtube censors does not answer the points i have raised

citing that people get ad revenue do not address the points

citing that i am childish uneducated and at rock bottom does not address the points i have raised


what i am claiming is that i have been witness to the legal points at one time that showed that youtube is allowed to facilitate the stealing of copyrighted material beyond the terms in their user agreement

that the special clause or what have you that allows them to host such crimes is also binding in that they will not favor one belief or another.

their rules or fair use act or what have you has been designed around the two things i just mentioned.

in other words they can remove for things such as graphic material inappropriate age material and such but they can not remove users such as prager university simply cause they are conservative or other libral universities content as in days past such as highlighted in the wiki in the op that everyone likely failed to read.

If they were like other sites then they would have canned people like alex jones among others long ago.

now some of the new peeps at youtube recently went all kneejerk after the school shootings and did just that. They began to delete videos and accounts based on viewpoints rather than terms of use violations. The upper management of you tube stepped in and reversed the decision and reinstated much removed content.

They however are still attempting to find ways around their special status and will soon be flooded with much litigation.



For goodness sakes read the whole post and do not get caught up on one typo or one thing that does not make sense to you cause it is like a full coarse meal that goes well together as a whole.

i can agree that perhaps i was not your first choice to bring you this material but it is what it is a CONSPIRACY

and kudos if you made it this far

a reply to: howtonhawky

prove i am wrong.

I just did.

See above

originally posted by: howtonhawky
what i am claiming is that i have been witness to the legal points at one time that showed that youtube is allowed to facilitate the stealing of copyrighted material beyond the terms in their user agreement

ATS calls howtonhawky to the stand to present his evidence.

(no one should hold their breath however)

a reply to: howtonhawky

what i am claiming is that i have been witness to the legal points at one time that showed that youtube is allowed to facilitate the stealing of copyrighted material beyond the terms in their user agreement

Can you prove it?

I’m going to guess a big, hairy, no.

a reply to: TerryDon79

omg you provided rules for the content generators

am i wrong?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Can you prove it?

I’m going to guess a big, hairy, no.

YouTube pulled the video with his evidence down.