JREF on YouTube Disappeared?

[H3LL]

All the videos on the JREF YouTube Channel have disappeared.

Why is that?

Or is it me?

Thanks.

[cj.23]

Not just you "This account is suspended." is what I am getting

cj x

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Anybody have any info on why this has happened? :confused:

[cj.23]

and "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." on both UK and US Youtube sites??? Shame as I have not yet seen the 26th March video and want to see if Randi discussed the errors in the Nazareth one... :( Hopefully will be back up soon just a technical glitch?

cj x

[cj.23]

Anybody have any info on why this has happened? :confused:

It happened to some official Dawkins videos last year, I think its just while they establish you are the copyright holder? Dunno, can have a look se what happened then. It was all quickly resolved anyway.

cj x

[Cleon]

The JREF is aware of the issue, and they're working on it. YouTube has been less than forthcoming.

[Darat]

I'm sure it couldn't possibly be anyone trying to harm the JREF....

[Cleon]

I'm sure it couldn't possibly be anyone trying to harm the JREF....

Because nobody ever does that. :D

[CryoTank]

Someone barely screams out the words "copyright infringement" and YouTube happily complies by suspending channels and removing videos without investigating the claims.
I'm not at all surprised at this :(

EDIT: see Thunderf00t vs. VenomFangX

[shadron]

Someone barely screams out the words "copyright infringement" and YouTube happily complies by suspending channels and removing videos without investigating the claims.
I'm not at all surprised at this :(

EDIT: see Thunderf00t vs. VenomFangX

Yeah, yeah. Then there are others (atheists, mainly, as far as I've heard) who complain about other YouTubers grabbing their intentionally copyrighted videos and using them to create parodies, and YouTube does nothing about it. Everyone has their moments, it seems.

Granted, the pre-Google YouTube seems to have had a Christian leaning.

Granted, Google's YouTube is much more commercially slanted, and so has laid off the old one's biases, to some extent.

Granted, the USG laws aren't as explicit as they might be, on the one hand, and on the other carry draconian punishments such that YouTube cannot afford to ignore taking action, even when based on obviously flawed claims.

Still, you'd think they could be more responsive to their customers and their media suppliers.

[CryoTank]

Yeah, yeah. Then there are others (atheists, mainly, as far as I've heard) who complain about other YouTubers grabbing their intentionally copyrighted videos and using them to create parodies, and YouTube does nothing about it. Everyone has their moments, it seems.

Granted, the pre-Google YouTube seems to have had a Christian leaning.

Granted, Google's YouTube is much more commercially slanted, and so has laid off the old one's biases, to some extent.

Granted, the USG laws aren't as explicit as they might be, on the one hand, and on the other carry draconian punishments such that YouTube cannot afford to ignore taking action, even when based on obviously flawed claims.

Still, you'd think they could be more responsive to their customers and their media suppliers.

You'd think...

I was just pointing out one case I could quickly think of. YouTube, I hope, did not act this way just because it was the JREF channel, I'm sure the entire spectrum of belief and/or opinion gets a taste of this at one point or another.
I'm guessing that suspending accounts on an whim is just their way of safeguarding against potential legal issues. Shoot first, then ask questions.

[Azrael 5]

I'm sure jim Callahan will try claim credit for this...eventually :D

Meanwhile a petition gathers pace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Cn_gjevik

Oh the irony is that video has had half as many hits as The Prof's propaganda one-in an afternoon!!! :D

[Questioninggeller]

People can contact youtube and ask for the James Randi Foundation to be restored here (http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/static.py?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=account&selected=asked_to_login&ctx=account_asked_to_login_55755). A large outcry in support might speed up the restoration.

[normdoering]

I'm sure jim Callahan will try claim credit for this...eventually :D

Meanwhile a petition gathers pace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Cn_gjevik

Oh the irony is that video has had half as many hits as The Prof's propaganda one-in an afternoon!!! :D

I'll do a little to help that cause:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/03/this-is-madness.html

[godless dave]

Someone barely screams out the words "copyright infringement" and YouTube happily complies by suspending channels and removing videos without investigating the claims.


They will do the same thing if someone claims they are offended by a video.

[zeno2712]

Complaint duly submitted.

[cj.23]

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14915&start=25

Ah, it seems in that case there was an actual copyright violation, simply and peacefully resolved. I expect this has happened here - it can be as minor as use of a piece of music, or a quotation, and the copyright holder complains. Pretty certain it will all be sorted soon - don't start imagining evil anti-JREF conspiracies when quite normal organizational incompetence at the YT end probably explains it all! :)

cj x

[cjovalle]

Ah, it seems in that case there was an actual copyright violation, simply and peacefully resolved. I expect this has happened here - it can be as minor as use of a piece of music, or a quotation, and the copyright holder complains. Pretty certain it will all be sorted soon - don't start imagining evil anti-JREF conspiracies when quite normal organizational incompetence at the YT end probably explains it all! :)

cj x

Not necessarily.
Violation is not necessary for content removal, merely the allegation of infringement. However, alleged infringement does not mean that an account will necessarily be suspended. Generally the content is removed.

[Puppycow]

Read about this here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33229_YouTube_Bans_James_Randi

I sent a complaint to youtube FWIW.

[arthwollipot]

Wait, we don't even know why the account is suspended. Don't you think it's a little premature to be complaining about unfair suspension when we don't even know whether it was unfair or not?

Personally I have no doubt that there has been no problem and the account will be reactivated, but I really think that we should wait until we know why before jumping aboard with complaints.

[qwints]

No talking down the angry populist mob, arthwollipot, lest you become its next target.

[arthwollipot]

I just didn't think that such a knee-jerk reaction was appropriate for a bunch of critical thinkers. I mean it doesn't appear to have even occurred to them that YouTube may actually have a legitimate reason for temporarily suspending the JREF account. Myself, I can think of several possibilities, including the idea that the account was hacked and someone other than the JREF used the account to post inappropriate content. It may be some nutbar Christian who issued a complaint to YouTube about something Randi said and YouTube closed the account pending investigation. There are potentially lots of legitimate reasons for the account to be suspended. We. Just. Don't. Know. Yet.

Both Jeff (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/496-problem-with-youtube.html) and Phil (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/30/youtube-suspension-of-the-jref-account/) have posted that the problem is being investigated and we'll know more soon. Let's exercise just a little patience, eh?

[Wildy]

arthwollipot

From what I understand Youtube haven't been doing a good job regarding DMCA claims and some people believe that they are not very consistent in their banning/suspension policies.

I believe that Thunderf00t was suspended by Youtube for doing, erm... I don't actually know what he did wrong, he was just suspended.

[Azrael 5]

You cna't beat a good protest! Down with YouTube,smash up the Spinning Jenny ;)

[shadron]

From what I understand Youtube haven't been doing a good job regarding DMCA claims and some people believe that they are not very consistent in their banning/suspension policies.

I believe that Thunderf00t was suspended by Youtube for doing, erm... I don't actually know what he did wrong, he was just suspended.

Don't you think it is somewhat silly to be posting when you don't know what the facts are? Do your fingers simply demand the exercise?

Thunderf00t has sent many complaints through the normal youtube channel for complaints about votebots attacking his videos, and has never gotten any response. This time he decided to send a message directly to the director of ads under the theory that they can ignore the publishers and the customers, but they can't ignore their revenue source. He timed it for late Friday two weeks ago, and then he dropped a video about how to do it on his channel. Lots of thunderf00t's subscribers picked up the cue and sent email to youtube's ads channel. Youtude responded by Saturday night, removing the video and suspending his channel. Ever ready, thunderf00t sent out another video about it to be mirrored by a host of friends. By Sunday, youtube, with their channel for ads jammed with messages, reinstated thunderf00t's channel, effectively shouting, "Uncle!". He released a video asking everyone to cool it - they'd demonstrated that there really was a youtube management behind the curtain, and that they did pay attention under certain conditions. It didn't have anything to do with DCMA except inasmuch as youtube reacts, as it must, to DCMA claims, but is slow to fix the resulting errors, just as it is to fixing votebot problems.

You can find the videos on thunderf00t's channel. I understand there was a pretty heavy reaction by youtubers to the Randi channel shutdown, too.

[H3LL]

WTF

Rational Response Squad suspended too.

What's going on?

.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Probably a round of DMCA notices

[zeno2712]

I politely asked what the reason was...but I don't really expect an answer.

[technoextreme]

EDIT: see Thunderf00t vs. VenomFangX
I think every single video except for one has copyrighted material that isn't his.
Don't you think it is somewhat silly to be posting when you don't know what the facts are? Do your fingers simply demand the exercise?

Thunderf00t has sent many complaints through the normal youtube channel for complaints about votebots attacking his videos, and has never gotten any response. This time he decided to send a message directly to the director of ads under the theory that they can ignore the publishers and the customers, but they can't ignore their revenue source. He timed it for late Friday two weeks ago, and then he dropped a video about how to do it on his channel. Lots of thunderf00t's subscribers picked up the cue and sent email to youtube's ads channel. Youtude responded by Saturday night, removing the video and suspending his channel. Ever ready, thunderf00t sent out another video about it to be mirrored by a host of friends. By Sunday, youtube, with their channel for ads jammed with messages, reinstated thunderf00t's channel, effectively shouting, "Uncle!". He released a video asking everyone to cool it - they'd demonstrated that there really was a youtube management behind the curtain, and that they did pay attention under certain conditions. It didn't have anything to do with DCMA except inasmuch as youtube reacts, as it must, to DCMA claims, but is slow to fix the resulting errors, just as it is to fixing votebot problems.

You can find the videos on thunderf00t's channel. I understand there was a pretty heavy reaction by youtubers to the Randi channel shutdown, too.
Actually Thunderfoot isn't a revenue source for them. If you ever notice there are never any ads on any channel who isn't a sponsor because of the copyright reasons.

[arthurchappell]

Crazy to shut down the youtubes - hope they get reinstated ASaP

[cj.23]

WTF

Rational Response Squad suspended too.

What's going on?

.


The RRS have been suspended for months?

cj x

[cj.23]

Wait, we don't even know why the account is suspended. Don't you think it's a little premature to be complaining about unfair suspension when we don't even know whether it was unfair or not?

Personally I have no doubt that there has been no problem and the account will be reactivated, but I really think that we should wait until we know why before jumping aboard with complaints.


Yeah, as I said, no conspiracy, will get sorted. I have seen it happen before on other forums.

cj x

[H3LL]

The RRS have been suspended for months?

cj x

I didn't know that. It's not a channel I visit frequently so wouldn't normally notice.

Thanks.

[CryoTank]

Both Jeff and Phil have posted that the problem is being investigated and we'll know more soon. Let's exercise just a little patience, eh?

Actually, you're quite right there. It is a bit too early to make specific claims about what really happened, we (including me) are merely speculating.

cheers

[NelC]

Don't you think it is somewhat silly to be posting when you don't know what the facts are? Do your fingers simply demand the exercise?

Well, that's one thing to complain about: the complete absence of facts. If there's a legitimate reason for YouTube to take down JREF's videos, then they should publish the reason, then JREF can address that. Without a rationale, then angry responses are all YouTube should expect.

[brodski]

Read about this here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33229_YouTube_Bans_James_Randi


I was wondering how LFG would link this issue to Islam and anti-sematism.

[SirPhilip]

It's quite outrageous and rather disturbing considering Facebook and Youtube feature Islamic groups that guarantee death threats if criticism is applied in any of them. Apparently Hitchens (?) is on it:

v7Cn_gjevik

[CryoTank]

Well, that's one thing to complain about: the complete absence of facts. If there's a legitimate reason for YouTube to take down JREF's videos, then they should publish the reason, then JREF can address that. Without a rationale, then angry responses are all YouTube should expect.

YouTube isn't exactly known for giving any reasons for their doing, so I don't blame anyone. I too mirrored the video from dprjones, maybe too rashly, I admit, as we don't really know what's going on.

btw: In an earlier post I wrote
EDIT: see Thunderf00t vs. VenomFangX

This was not really related to this issue (wrongful DMCA complaint filed by VFX), dunno what made me post this. Thunderf00ts account was suspended later, right, and shadron nicely summarised that incident.

[CryoTank]

Hitchens? Nah, that's YouTube User dprjones. He is British too so maybe that got you confused ;)

[qwints]

From the videos I've seen, it's extremely unlikely that there was a legitimate copyright complaint. Unless Randi started posting videos with copyrighted music, the most likely possibility is an organized campaign to flag the videos as inappropriate. That said, we shouldn't get angry at Youtube unless they fail to resolve the problem.

[shadron]

Actually Thunderfoot isn't a revenue source for them. If you ever notice there are never any ads on any channel who isn't a sponsor because of the copyright reasons.

Never said he was (at least intentionally). Youtube maintains a channel for its ads customers to communicate through; according to their video it goes directly to their director of ads (she has a fancier title than that). That is the channel I was referring to as the revenue channel; the channel through which they field complaints from their paying customers as opposed to us herding animals.

[wexer9]

Complaint sent to YouTube.

Also, I tried to see if there were any copies of Randi's videos on the web, but I couldn't find any! :(

[godless dave]

I just didn't think that such a knee-jerk reaction was appropriate for a bunch of critical thinkers. I mean it doesn't appear to have even occurred to them that YouTube may actually have a legitimate reason for temporarily suspending the JREF account.

They may indeed, but why haven't the told the JREF what the reason was? Even if the suspension was justified, the way they handled it was messed up, which seems to be typical for them.

gogreen18 (http://www.youtube.com/user/gogreen18) is another user who had her account suspended, then later reinstated. They said she was hosting "banned" vidoes, but never explained why they were banned. She re-posted them and never heard any more about it.

[Tim Harrod]

I note that YouTube is a subsidiary of Google, where Randi was an honored guest less than two years ago as part of their "Authors@Google" series. A video of that, at least, is watchable on Google Video.

Perhaps, instead of going through YouTube's online form, our complaints would be better directed a little closer to the top?

[technoextreme]

Never said he was (at least intentionally). Youtube maintains a channel for its ads customers to communicate through; according to their video it goes directly to their director of ads (she has a fancier title than that). That is the channel I was referring to as the revenue channel; the channel through which they field complaints from their paying customers as opposed to us herding animals.
He intentionally isn't a source of ad revenue for them. And admittedly his actions were borderline denial of service.

[arthwollipot]

They may indeed, but why haven't the told the JREF what the reason was? Even if the suspension was justified, the way they handled it was messed up, which seems to be typical for them.I got the impression from Phil's post on Bad Astronomy that they had told the JREF the reason, and that the JREF was working to get the problem resolved. Of course, that was my interpretation of a post that was awfully non-specific, so I could be wrong.

[rjh01]

From Jeff Wagg http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/496-problem-with-youtube.html

[dglas]

I have no idea why everyone is so upset. YouTube is privately owned and has no responsibility to the JREF, not for services, not for explanations and not for any considerations whatsoever.

The phrase "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind.

[SirPhilip]

I have no idea why everyone is so upset. YouTube is privately owned and has no responsibility to the JREF, not for services, not for explanations and not for any considerations whatsoever. The phrase "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind. The issue is: nothing remotely publically unconstructive or senselessly offensive is released by it, contrast this to petabytes of content on Youtube servers that are, it begs explanation to their policies. Conversely if you write the most thoughtful and intellectually useful posts here, you stand a chance of being ousted and not welcome for using words most sixth grade teachers wouldn't bother to chastise..

[Bruce Grubb]

I have no idea why everyone is so upset. YouTube is privately owned and has no responsibility to the JREF, not for services, not for explanations and not for any considerations whatsoever.

The phrase "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind.

Youtube is subject to little things called the 1st amendment and the laws of this country. THe door on private own companies swings BOTH ways.

[Sherman Bay]

Youtube is subject to little things called the 1st amendment and the laws of this country. THe door on private own companies swings BOTH ways.Sorry, you need to read the language of the 1st Amendment. It restricts the actions of government, not private industry. "Congress shall make no law..." (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1)

That doesn't mean I support YouTube's actions in the slightest, and they certainly seem petty, but I would like to hear all sides of the story before passing judgement.

[WildCat]

I knew that last video of Randi and Jeff Wagg dancing around the office completely nude except for strategically placed socks would get them in trouble.

[SirPhilip]

Sorry, you need to read the language of the 1st Amendment. It restricts the actions of government, not private industry. "Congress shall make no law..." (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1) That doesn't mean I support YouTube's actions in the slightest, and they certainly seem petty, but I would like to hear all sides of the story before passing judgement. Which is another subject this should raise: if you control an organization that encompasses an astronomical public audience (100milion users), it is no longer a question of policy, but public fairness. In this case, Youtube censored one of the most social relevant and respectable educational foundations that exist. This could easily be news on CNN if the right measures are taken.

[godless dave]

Youtube is subject to little things called the 1st amendment and the laws of this country. THe door on private own companies swings BOTH ways.


Uh, not really.

Youtube could, if they wanted, have a policy of only posting videos of scat porn. It's entirely up to them.

[qwints]

There are civil rights issues, but I don't think any are implicated here. Youtube, as an American company, can't discriminate based on race, religion, gender or national origin. But they're certainly free to do whatever they want on a case by case basis. That doesn't mean that they should be immune from criticism for their decisions, just that there's no legal remedy for the JREF.

[Prometheus]

Perhaps YouTube is just trying to make the JREF stronger by diluting its video presence to homeopathic levels.

[NiallM]

Which is another subject this should raise: if you control an organization that encompasses an astronomical public audience (100milion users), it is no longer a question of policy, but public fairness. In this case, Youtube censored one of the most social relevant and respectable educational foundations that exist. This could easily be news on CNN if the right measures are taken.

They are perfectlly free to remove any video that they see fit to remove on any pretext or on no pretext whatever.

The first amendment doesn't apply to them at all, and nor do they have any moral imperative to play fair. Their only guiding principles are what works for them in a business sense. The comment about "one of the most social relevant and respectable educational foundations that exist" is subjective and they may or may not have their own view on that: my suspicion is that they got a slew of complaints and they did the precautionary thing. The problem with DMCA takedowns is that they become liable if they are tardy in responding to a notice to takedown. As the law stands, they are far better advised to respond by taking it down, and then investigate at their leisure.

The only control in all of this is that it is actually illegal (as has been shown in previous JREF DMCA cases) to make an unjustified demand for take-down.

My hope is that teh JREF channel is opened soon and that they then consider punitive legal proceedings against the instigators of the suspension. YouTube is in a position where they cannot predict the result of a court case regarding a DCMA claim; it is prudent of them to default to a position which protects them.

Think of it this way: if they didn't listen to take-down notices on principle until forced to by the courts, it's very possible that there would in short order be no such thing as YouTube.

[qwints]

Perhaps YouTube is just trying to make the JREF stronger by diluting its video presence to homeopathic levels.

This post if full of WIN.

[godless dave]

The question isn't whether Youtube has the legal right to remove whatever videos they want. The question is what we think of their actions. Youtube is free to act like douchebags, we are free to call them douchebags, and the JREF is free to find another video hosting service.

[NiallM]

The question isn't whether Youtube has the legal right to remove whatever videos they want. The question is what we think of their actions. Youtube is free to act like douchebags, we are free to call them douchebags, and the JREF is free to find another video hosting service.

It does actually matter, though.

JREF needs their own materials to be as accessible as possible, and YouTube is by far the premier server of free-to-view video on the internet.

We can call YouTube "douchebags" all we want, but we need to at least to be capable of understanding their motives and their specific reasons for the ban before shouting "yar, boo, sucks" at them.

We don't know why the account was suspended - and it is not up to youtube to tell us. You'd be pretty pissed off if they suspended you and made the reason clear. Yes, they make it clear in some cases, but they're usually pretty clear cut.

They're not obliged to carry JREF videos and they are not obliged to tell third parties why the account was suspended. In the meantime, they operate in a legal minefield where every takedown notice that they ignore could lead to serious financial misery on their part.

They're obliged by simple financial prudence to be careful about the content they carry.

It's worth waiting to see what emerges. The reticence from JREF itself on the issue is of significance.

I repeat: if YouTube was to act in a cavalier manner in the face of alleged copyright issues we simply wouldn't have the service available. It wouldn't survive a year. I have to trust that they behave in a responsible manner and let other people make the decisions as to what can be shown.

[KodeBlue]

I used my super magic psychic telepathy powers to force youtube to suspend the account. Can I have my million dollars now?

[godless dave]

Based on the experiences of other Youtube members who had videos pulled, it's not always about copyright, nor do they always tell first parties why they were suspended.

I don't expect Youtube to tell us why the JREF account was suspended, but I do expect them to tell JREF. It sounds like they took their sweet time doing that.

Regarding the legal minefield, Google has a lot of lobbying power. Everyone, apart from the media industry and the politicians who work for them, agrees the DMCA takedown process is seriously flawed. Google could do more to lobby to get it reformed while still complying with it in its present form.

[NiallM]

Based on the experiences of other Youtube members who had videos pulled, it's not always about copyright, nor do they always tell first parties why they were suspended.

I don't expect Youtube to tell us why the JREF account was suspended, but I do expect them to tell JREF. It sounds like they took their sweet time doing that.

Regarding the legal minefield, Google has a lot of lobbying power. Everyone, apart from the media industry and the politicians who work for them, agrees the DMCA takedown process is seriously flawed. Google could do more to lobby to get it reformed while still complying with it in its present form.

The vast majority of takedowns are for the same reason. It's easy to see why they would isse boilerplte explanations to the party. Let us face it; a huge amount of copyright infringement takes place there. My guess is that their default reaction to a notice of copyright infringement is to defend themsleves and take the video(s) down. Their business survives on the conceit that they do not infringe copyright, after all. Added to that, I doubt that they have the staff equipped to test the law in every claimed case of infringement. YouTube is not an educational foundation; that is not their intent. They carry as much video material as is permissible under the laws concerning copyright and decency. There are millions upon millions of videos on YouTube. Do you honestly think that they should become the first point of arbitration on what will pass copyright muster in multiple jurisdictions?

Should they have someone with a stopwatxh recording the amount of copyright footage used and applying a fair use law when the original copyright may be recorded in the Falkland Islands, while the complainant is in the South Korean Republic?

I know what I'd do in that case; I'd pull the video and force the person who posted it to defend themselves. I've still got millions ov videos to show.

And why should they lobby? They have no interest in lobbying to change the law. It's the people who post videos who have an interest in lobbying. If YouTube becomes aggressive in lobbying for change, they'll be opposed by far more powerful lobbyists anyway. Their business model works and they have no overpowering need to change it.

They're not a human rights group. They're a video service on the internet.

[wexer9]

Perhaps YouTube is just trying to make the JREF stronger by diluting its video presence to homeopathic levels.
This post just won the thread.

[godless dave]

The vast majority of takedowns are for the same reason. It's easy to see why they would isse boilerplte explanations to the party. Let us face it; a huge amount of copyright infringement takes place there. My guess is that their default reaction to a notice of copyright infringement is to defend themsleves and take the video(s) down. Their business survives on the conceit that they do not infringe copyright, after all. Added to that, I doubt that they have the staff equipped to test the law in every claimed case of infringement. YouTube is not an educational foundation; that is not their intent. They carry as much video material as is permissible under the laws concerning copyright and decency. There are millions upon millions of videos on YouTube. Do you honestly think that they should become the first point of arbitration on what will pass copyright muster in multiple jurisdictions?

Should they have someone with a stopwatxh recording the amount of copyright footage used and applying a fair use law when the original copyright may be recorded in the Falkland Islands, while the complainant is in the South Korean Republic?

I know what I'd do in that case; I'd pull the video and force the person who posted it to defend themselves. I've still got millions ov videos to show.

And why should they lobby? They have no interest in lobbying to change the law. It's the people who post videos who have an interest in lobbying. If YouTube becomes aggressive in lobbying for change, they'll be opposed by far more powerful lobbyists anyway. Their business model works and they have no overpowering need to change it.

They're not a human rights group. They're a video service on the internet.


Did you even read my post? I did not suggest they do anything of the sort. All I suggested was that when they receive a takedown letter, they notify the person whose video they are removing and tell them why they are removing it. Currently they do not do this.

I also suggested they lobby the government to reform the DMCA takedown process. I did not suggest they try to test out the limits of the law.

[arthwollipot]

You know what I reckon? I reckon it was some assbag fundamentalist who raised an objection to Randi's Jesus video (didn't he say Nazareth didn't exist or something?), and YouTube automatically closed it down pending an investigation. Once they've discussed the subject with the JREF I expect we'll see the channel restored as before. Probably another few days or so.

[SirPhilip]

You know what I reckon? I reckon it was some assbag fundamentalist who raised an objection to Randi's Jesus video (didn't he say Nazareth didn't exist or something?), and YouTube automatically closed it down pending an investigation. Once they've discussed the subject with the JREF I expect we'll see the channel restored as before. Probably another few days or so. It was very likely something on the order of religious discrimination - or they managed to associate Randi with purposely unconstructive Youtube efforts such as the Blasphemy Challenge which attempted to start a public war. :grouphug3:

[SirPhilip]

As the law stands, they are far better advised to respond by taking it down, and then investigate at their leisure. Agree. It could backfire enormously if it got mainstream news - censoring an educational foundation due to religious discrimination, a hot button topic.

Think of it this way: if they didn't listen to take-down notices on principle until forced to by the courts, it's very possible that there would in short order be no such thing as YouTube. I have to wonder if this has anything to do with a trend following the UN's proposed resolution (http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/).

[Mr Clingford]

In the description to the vid linked to on the first page of this thread we read
'The explanation for the suspension, as given by James Randi is;

"Sean: there were a few complaints about Oprah material and some from Dean Radin, as well. YouTube shut us down pending our resolution of these problems. I expect we'll be back up very soon...

James Randi."

Thank you'

[Graham Ross]

From my experience with YouTube, those who shout loudest get the most attention.

[Bruce Grubb]

Sorry, you need to read the language of the 1st Amendment. It restricts the actions of government, not private industry. "Congress shall make no law..."[/url]

That doesn't mean I support YouTube's actions in the slightest, and they certainly seem petty, but I would like to hear all sides of the story before passing judgment.

The way the DMCA is being used violates the 1st Amendment as well as the 4th, 5th (Due Process), and 6th (facing one's accuser).

I should mention that the Supreme Court has ruled that despite the term government used in the various amendments this does not exclude private companies. Violations of the 14th and 15 amendments cases in point even before they were expanded by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court has ruled several time that the 1st amendment CAN apply to private companies--see Marsh v Alabama (1946) as the first example of this.

Finally, remember the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) in the state of California where Youtube has their headquarters expanded the 1st amendment to private companies given certain requirements--these requirements seem to be 1) it must have an open access public forum (which Youtube is) and 2) it must use ads to entice people to use it (which Youtube does).

[Bruce Grubb]

Uh, not really.

Youtube could, if they wanted, have a policy of only posting videos of scat porn. It's entirely up to them.

BZZZ WRONG. Both federal and state obscenity laws would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they did something that stupid as the Supreme Court has ruled obscenity is NOT protected under the 1st amendment while pornography is. See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996) and United States v. Matthews, 11 F. Supp. 2d 656 (D. Md. 1998) as why this would be insanely stupid to do.

[Sherman Bay]

I should mention that the Supreme Court has ruled that despite the term government used in the various amendments this does not exclude private companies. Violations of the 14th and 15 amendments cases in point even before they were expanded by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court has ruled several time that the 1st amendment CAN apply to private companies--see Marsh v Alabama (1946) as the first example of this.I think you have that backwards, at least in this case.

Marsh v. Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama)

Marsh ruled that a trespassing law could not be used to prohibit speech on private property, although the Court left some wiggle room for future applications by saying that it applied a "balancing test" between rights and free speech was not absolute.

If a law was passed that said that a certain action on YouTube was illegal, and YouTube used that law to justify removal of material, then Marsh might apply to force YouTube to restore it.

At this stage, we don't know why YouTube did what they did, so this is only a theoretical point. Although I can certainly see the Internet as analogous to a 1946 sidewalk pamphleteer, and Google as the company town owner.

And IANAL, I just play one on the Internet.

[NiallM]

The way the DMCA is being used violates the 1st Amendment as well as the 4th, 5th (Due Process), and 6th (facing one's accuser).

I should mention that the Supreme Court has ruled that despite the term government used in the various amendments this does not exclude private companies. Violations of the 14th and 15 amendments cases in point even before they were expanded by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court has ruled several time that the 1st amendment CAN apply to private companies--see Marsh v Alabama (1946) as the first example of this.

Finally, remember the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) in the state of California where Youtube has their headquarters expanded the 1st amendment to private companies given certain requirements--these requirements seem to be 1) it must have an open access public forum (which Youtube is) and 2) it must use ads to entice people to use it (which Youtube does).

So YouTube would be entirely protected if they host libelous or other material and they have no responsibility at all if someone breaches copyright? You're seriously saying that.

[Puppycow]

I was wondering how LFG would link this issue to Islam and anti-sematism.

That's not the only aspect of that blog. He also slams the ID/creationist crowd a lot too. Although most of his readers are probably there for the right-wing politics rather than the skepticism.

[cj.23]

You know what I reckon? I reckon it was some assbag fundamentalist who raised an objection to Randi's Jesus video (didn't he say Nazareth didn't exist or something?), and YouTube automatically closed it down pending an investigation.

lol!

If it was an objection on Nazareth it was more likely to come from one of the five archaeologists who have excavated at Nazareth and who condemned Saims book in a recent journal article in a response to his response to Professor Ken Dark's tearing it a part, the Israeli Antiquities Authority or someone who actually knows something about archeology and objected to Randi promoting woo? :D

I think the conspiracy theory response to this whole thing has been hilarious, as the claims the JREF was targeted have come fast and quick from all over the web, with loads of people being accused, but sadly no one taking responsibility. The voices of reason, Arthwollipot, Mr Clingford and the actual staff have almost been drowned out in the general paranoia!

Look, it's because the JREF hosted a clip or something from a secondary source and that source has queried the use of their copyright. Is this not obvious? All will be restored soon, and bombarding YouTube with angry videos and petulant emails is not going to help Darat, Jeff, Lisa, Phil, Randi and whoever else works for the JREF one bit.

Really folks, where is your scepticism? Next someone it will tell me it was the Bilderbergers with the Trilateral Commission who used the Servants of Cthulhu to get the Boy Sprouts to use the Sugababes to take it down, on behalf of the Secret Master PAt Robertson. Or sumfink! :)

It's a balls up, a copyright thing, and will get resolved of that I am sure. I have been saying so since the beginning, simply cos it happens all the time, and is a no blame scenario. Really people, mellow!

cj x :relieved:

[Cuddles]

Look, it's because the JREF hosted a clip or something from a secondary source and that source has queried the use of their copyright. Is this not obvious?

While this is certainly the most likely explanation, I think it's going a bit far to label the possibility it was something else as paranoia. Randi does have enemies and has faced numerous legal cases. It's not all that improbable that someone, either one of the usual suspects or someone new, took offense at something he said and decided to complain to YouTube about it. Copyright issuse may be the most common complaints to YouTube, but they're certainly not the only ones.

As you say, angry letters are rather unlikely to help matters. However, it's hardly unskeptical to speculate about possible causes. It would only be unskeptical to continue doing so once the evidence has been made available.

[Prometheus]

My understanding is that YouTube's ordinary response to allegations of copyright infringement is to takedown only the questionable video(s), not suspend an entire account. Seems to me there must be something more going on here.

[TX50]

My understanding is that YouTube's ordinary response to allegations of copyright infringement is to takedown only the questionable video(s), not suspend an entire account. Seems to me there must be something more going on here.

As they've done before with Randi videos that had scenes from the Oprah
Winfred show in them. The rabid speculation and petulance in this thread is
a scream, though.

[godless dave]

BZZZ WRONG. Both federal and state obscenity laws would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they did something that stupid as the Supreme Court has ruled obscenity is NOT protected under the 1st amendment while pornography is.

You're missing my point. Youtube could exclude all videos except scat porn and they would not be violating the First Amendment.

The legality of scat porn is another issue entirely.

[Jaxe]

It was the Bilderbergers with the Trilateral Commission who used the Servants of Cthulhu to get the Boy Sprouts to use the Sugababes to take it down, on behalf of the Secret Master Pat Robertson.

[Cleon]

It was the Bilderbergers with the Trilateral Commission who used the Servants of Cthulhu to get the Boy Sprouts to use the Sugababes to take it down, on behalf of the Secret Master Pat Robertson.

Dude. Don't bogart.

[NiallM]

Did you even read my post? I did not suggest they do anything of the sort. All I suggested was that when they receive a takedown letter, they notify the person whose video they are removing and tell them why they are removing it. Currently they do not do this.

I also suggested they lobby the government to reform the DMCA takedown process. I did not suggest they try to test out the limits of the law.

I read your post, but consider things from YT's point of view. They are trying to make money, and I have no doubt that judging the merits of takedown claims is not something that they want ro spend a lot of money on - particularly when there are courts to judge the validitiy of those claims. Prudence suggest that when they recieve a properly attested claim they first take down the video/close the channel (if there are claims against multiple videos), and examine the claim at their leisure. My guess is that that they don't have many staff allocated to that function.

The next issue becomes the quantity of take-downs requested. I can imagine that you appreciate that an enormous amount of videos posted are protected by copyright, and that there are plenty of bots posting them. That's the nature of the 'net. Why, in a situation where a huge amount of legitimate take-down claims are made, should YT personally contact the person who posted the offending video? That's extra work, and they are recieving no revenue directly from people who post videos.

Far easier to take it down and wait for a complaint from the poster. Perhaps send a boilerplate emeil just for form.

YT are in a position where they handle huge volumes of posted content and have to take down a huge volume. To send individual tailored e-mails for every case would likely be ruinously expensive. It would also invite replies and a lengthy correspondence when many of the cases are simply no-brainers.

I can see why a service such as YT would default to a fail-safe position of taking videos down, closing the channel and then allowing the poster to defend its originality. Without such a posture, they would not be able to make any money and would not be available.

I notice that there has been movement in that JR has indicated that there were indeed some problems which may be due to copyright. That sort of blasts a hole in the unfounded and paranoid speculations that have abounded here and in Pharyngula.

[Bruce Grubb]

So YouTube would be entirely protected if they host libelous or other material and they have no responsibility at all if someone breaches copyright? You're seriously saying that.

Excluded middle fallacy.

47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) (c) expressly states “that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) , and Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 have all reaffirmed this immunity with regards to libel.

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act modified 47 U.S.C. § 230 by setting forth requirements for safe harbor immunity. The Io Group Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc suit reaffirmed this safe harbor provision.

In fact Judge Howard R. Lloyd's ruling creates a big headache for Viacom's case as he stated if a provider makes a reasonable effort to enforce copyright they are immune under DMCA Title II as this is in the state in which Youtube has its headquarters. So Judge Louis Stanton over in New York has got the added fun of deciding if Howard R. Lloyd's decision has any bearing on his case.

[Bruce Grubb]

Why, in a situation where a huge amount of legitimate take-down claims are made, should YT personally contact the person who posted the offending video? That's extra work, and they are recieving no revenue directly from people who post videos

The key word there is legitimate. As the Stephanie Lenz vs Universal Music Publishing Group case PROVES not all take down notices are legitimate. This case REQUIRES the owner of copyrighted material to consider fair use in their take down notices. Since AIs are not the sharpest knives in the drawer I doubt their use can fulfill this requirement.

[arthwollipot]

Splendid Elles tells me (http://splendidelles.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/the-jref-its-back/) that the channel is back online.

[Michael C]

Yes, the channel is back. Does anybody know why it was suspended? Have any videos been removed?

[Morrigan]

There's a news post about it:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/505-the-jref-youtube-account-is-back-online.html

[Mr Clingford]

There's a news post about it:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/505-the-jref-youtube-account-is-back-online.htmlThanks for that.

"It's all a conspiracy, I tell you. Oh, may be not."

[cjovalle]

Complainants were in their rights, certainly- but that doesn't make them or their actions correct. Given that JREF's videos tend to be commentary and criticism, I think that these particular takedown notices might be good candidates for the Chilling Effects site. I can't post URLs yet, but Google the name.

[rjh01]

Complainants were in their rights, certainly- but that doesn't make them or their actions correct. Given that JREF's videos tend to be commentary and criticism, I think that these particular takedown notices might be good candidates for the Chilling Effects site. I can't post URLs yet, but Google the name.

Here are some links
http://www.chillingeffects.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_Effects_(group)

[FFed]

Opie & Anthony and Li'l Jimmy Norton are always having problems with youtube doing the same thing to their videos. Seems like they get one complaint and they yank all their videos. And youtube isn't exactly friendly or fast when it comes to restoring them.

[Bruce Grubb]

The only thing is that we don't know if any of these videos might have been allowed under Fair Use doctrine. Problem is Fair use doctrine is such a pain to deal with these days.

[H3LL]

Randi speaks:

zngwTpkogeE

.

[Foolmewunz]

Randi speaks:

zngwTpkogeE

.


Oh, yeah... They got to him, man! That's what it is!


Sheesh! I guess we'll need to go find some other grist for the paranoia mill if we're going to continue preparing our Four Nut Loaf.

[NiallM]

Oh dear. So this wasn't part of an anti-atheist agenda, as some people thought. Lots of people jumped to conclusions on this (PZ Myers being one).

I'm glad that all is well again and that Randi went public to state that YT acted entirely appropriately and correctly.

One caveat, though: when JREF saw what was happening, they should really have reassured users much earlier that there was no conspiracy in place and that the issue was a real one.

[rjh01]

I still do not understand. It sounds as if there were too many videos that breached copyright. I would have thought that should there be one video youtube thought breached copyright they would inform the owners or take it down themselves. So it would be very difficult to have too many videos that breached copyright on youtube.

[chillzero]

One caveat, though: when JREF saw what was happening, they should really have reassured users much earlier that there was no conspiracy in place and that the issue was a real one.

A little difficult to do when they were given no information initially, don't you think?

[cj.23]

A little difficult to do when they were given no information initially, don't you think?

Absolutely. I think the JREF acted very sensibly, I was just amused by the number of people who saw a conspiracy in what seemed to me to be, well what it transpired to be. :) Still that was not because I am particularly perceptive or knowledgeable about YouTube, or that I am immune to automatic feelings of paranoia - it's just that as I kep pointing out excactly the same thing has happened many times before, recently to the RichardDAwkins channel, and every time I see the embarassing sight of people worrying about non-existent fundie conspiracies. If my experience of fundies if anything to go by, they don't generally give a **** about us, with a few exception and they try to convert not attack us. However I may be wrong! There are always exceptions... and the JREF does have real enemies, unlike some organisations!

cj x

[Cuddles]

I still do not understand. It sounds as if there were too many videos that breached copyright. I would have thought that should there be one video youtube thought breached copyright they would inform the owners or take it down themselves. So it would be very difficult to have too many videos that breached copyright on youtube.

As has already been explained, YouTube do not police the videos, they rely on people reporting them.

[Sherman Bay]

I think Randi is too soft on YouTube. IMHO, their policies are unneccesarily harsh, for these reasons: A mere unverified complaint is sufficient to remove a video permanently unless challenged, and A mere complaint about only one video is sufficient to suspend an entire account permanently unless challenged.While I don't dispute any web site's right to remove something that is in clear violation of the law, or even discontinue showing it until matters are cleared up, it is not reasonable or customer-friendly to do it in this heavy-handed manner.

[steenkh]

I think Randi is too soft on YouTube.
He needs to be soft on them: if they are angered they can just remove the lot and bring it back.

[Sherman Bay]

He needs to be soft on them: if they are angered they can just remove the lot and bring it back.Maybe that's why they get away with this stuff; everyone is tiptoeing softly when they should be hopping mad. It's very one-sided.

I don't see why YouTube is so great anyway. You can host incredible amounts of data (no, 200 short videos is not big enough to be incredible) for next to nothing; bandwidth is cheap and both are getting cheaper. If YouTube won't host it, put it on a privately-owned site and get more control.

[NiallM]

A little difficult to do when they were given no information initially, don't you think?

But at the stage when they did get information it might have been an idea to announce that there was in reality a problem with the content and that it was being worked with YouTube instead of allowing YouTube to continue to field lots of blame.

[Prometheus]

I think Randi is too soft on YouTube. IMHO, their policies are unneccesarily harsh, for these reasons: A mere unverified complaint is sufficient to remove a video permanently unless challenged, and A mere complaint about only one video is sufficient to suspend an entire account permanently unless challenged.While I don't dispute any web site's right to remove something that is in clear violation of the law, or even discontinue showing it until matters are cleared up, it is not reasonable or customer-friendly to do it in this heavy-handed manner.

How is it not customer friendly? You're aware that YouTube's customers are not the people who are uploading videos or watching those uploaded by others, aren't you?

[NiallM]

I'll say it: I think that YouTube is a bloody fantastic service. It's free to view, it offers nice links to similar material; it is a really good archive of stuff that you thought you'd never see or hear again.

I love it. I think that it's superb and should be applauded.

It's also free.

As a user of the place, I have absolutely no right to demand that they change the way they do things; they entirely have the right to manage their business whatever way they want.

If that means that they err on the side of caution when a potential copyright issue emereges, then so be it. That is their right - and possibly their duty according to the applicable legislation and the duties they bear to their investors.

Lotso of people seem to be treating them as if they were a pariah because of their perceived bias, yet nobody has at any stage demonstrated this bias, and in the case of JREF, James Randi has explicitly said that everything was fine about the temporary suspension.

Remember that if JREF wants a guaranteed host for videos, they will have to pay for the redunundant storage and bandwidth that hosting permanently available video demands. The JREF gets a great deal from YouTube, and all it has to do is to follow the terms and conditions and to tolerate the occasional spat when someone makes a complaint.

This whole thing has led to ludicrous claims about YouTube and has generated a huge slew of criticism where none was merited. Some commentators have been so indiscrete as to challenge YouTube even before the facts became know. Sceptical commentators commenting when they had no facts; ironic. They've even stuck to their position. The JREF kept quiet all through this, when maybe they would hace served both YouTube and the sceptical community better by making it clear as soon as they knew that there were genuine reasons for the suspension.

This whole incident has shown the sceptical organisations can mess up and that they can infer gross conclusions on little evidence just like the worst of the woo-guys can.

[Michael C]

I also think YouTube is a great service. The advantage of putting videos there instead of just hosting them on a private server is the network effect. An unknown person can put a video on YouTube and it may end up being seen by tens of thousands of people. I'm sure the JREF videos get more exposure by being on YouTube than they would if they were just hosted on the JREF site.

[Sherman Bay]

How is it not customer friendly? You're aware that YouTube's customers are not the people who are uploading videos or watching those uploaded by others, aren't you?They're not? I upload videos. I watch Youtube videos. So do many of my friends. Isn't that what it was designed for?

[Prometheus]

They're not? I upload videos. I watch Youtube videos. So do many of my friends. Isn't that what it was designed for?

How much do you pay them?

[Sherman Bay]

How much do you pay them?Why is that important to know? Should services have no scruples if they are free? Should they treat customers as dirt if they aren't paying customers? Since they make more advertising dollars with more customers, why should they take an attitude that drives customers away?

[Prometheus]

Why is that important to know? Should services have no scruples if they are free? Should they treat customers as dirt if they aren't paying customers? Since they make more advertising dollars with more customers, why should they take an attitude that drives customers away?

The point is that users are not YouTube's customers. Advertisers are their customers. Certainly if they were to drive away all their users, they would no longer be of use to the advertisers, but that's not what this is about. They're trying to strike a balance between providing their customers with the most lucrative potential audience for their advertisements, while limiting costs/risks. Also, the advertising industry has come a long, long way from merely equating audience size with advertising value. YouTube's customers are looking at how well the service targets certain audience demographics. It's entirely possible that the sorts of users being driven away by this policy are not useful to their advertisers in the first place.

[TheStig]

I think Randi is too soft on YouTube. IMHO, their policies are unneccesarily harsh, for these reasons: A mere unverified complaint is sufficient to remove a video permanently unless challenged, and A mere complaint about only one video is sufficient to suspend an entire account permanently unless challenged.While I don't dispute any web site's right to remove something that is in clear violation of the law, or even discontinue showing it until matters are cleared up, it is not reasonable or customer-friendly to do it in this heavy-handed manner.

This is exactly correct. A series of unsubstasiated claims can get an entire channel removed and the user banned for life, and in order to fight a DMCA notice a user who posted anonymously would have to provide contact information to the person who made the claim.

Scientology has used this to take down critical videos and attempt to identify the people responsible. They simply claim copyright on videos that they do not own, and when the user refuses to provide their name and address (out of fear of being targeted by the cult) the videos stay down. When the user has enough videos removed they are no longer able to post, even if they start another account. Of course, making false DMCA claims is punishable by charges of perjury, but of the 4000 videos removed en masse by Scientology, many of which have been restored, not one perjury accusation has made it to court.

YouTube seem content to remove videos to comply with the laws, but doesn't seem willing to protect their producers from identification by a process of invalid and fraudulent claims.

[Prometheus]

This is exactly correct. A series of unsubstasiated claims can get an entire channel removed and the user banned for life, and in order to fight a DMCA notice a user who posted anonymously would have to provide contact information to the person who made the claim.

Scientology has used this to take down critical videos and attempt to identify the people responsible. They simply claim copyright on videos that they do not own, and when the user refuses to provide their name and address (out of fear of being targeted by the cult) the videos stay down. When the user has enough videos removed they are no longer able to post, even if they start another account. Of course, making false DMCA claims is punishable by charges of perjury, but of the 4000 videos removed en masse by Scientology, many of which have been restored, not one perjury accusation has made it to court.

YouTube seem content to remove videos to comply with the laws, but doesn't seem willing to protect their producers from identification by a process of invalid and fraudulent claims.

That still seems to me to be a problem with the law, not with YouTube's attempts to stay in business despite the law. Why on earth should users be justified in expecting the company to come to their defense against abusers of the law? That could cost them millions of dollars, and gain them virtually nothing.

[Sherman Bay]

The point is that users are not YouTube's customers. Advertisers are their customers. Certainly if they were to drive away all their users, they would no longer be of use to the advertisers, but that's not what this is about. Yes, it is. Such tactics drive away their customer base, and that's exactly what this is about.

They want the most advertisers and the most viewers. Perhaps they feel they are striking a balance, but I don't, and I am one of the viewers and one of the posters. I avoid YouTube in many cases and post my videos elsewhere sometimes because I don't wish to abide by their policies. Meanwhile, millions of other users may be making the same decision.

[Prometheus]

Yes, it is. Such tactics drive away their customer base, and that's exactly what this is about.

They want the most advertisers and the most viewers. Perhaps they feel they are striking a balance, but I don't, and I am one of the viewers and one of the posters.
They're still in business, though, aren't they? And their "customer base" is made up entirely of advertisers who pay them for advertising space. Can you show any evidence that any significant number of advertisers has stopped doing business with YouTube because of this policy? The users who upload and/or view videos are not customers; in fact, it would be more honest to call them 'usees' since that's really what they are. They're being used to provide free labor which the company uses to provide a product they can sell to advertisers.


I avoid YouTube in many cases and post my videos elsewhere sometimes because I don't wish to abide by their policies. Meanwhile, millions of other users may be making the same decision.

:rolleyes: I'm sure your occasional absence has them wondering where their next meal will come from:

* YouTube was the number one video site on the Internet as of January - with 67.5 million unique users in the U.S., according to Nielsen NetRatings.
* The site also was the 6th largest Internet destination overall, Nielsen determined.
* People watch hundreds of millions of videos a day on the service.
* Every minute, 10 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube.
* Of the 9.5 billion online videos watched in the U.S. in November last year, 2.9 billion of those were watched on YouTube, according to Comscore.

http://www.emw.net.au/blog/marketing/social-media/interesting-youtube-usage-facts/

[TsarBomba]

Youtube is subject to little things called the 1st amendment and the laws of this country. THe door on private own companies swings BOTH ways.

The laws of this country--absolutely.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--only as it protects Youtube. The only thing that the First Amendment does is prohibit the government from infringing on freedom of speech. The First Amendment has no applicability over similar actions by private individuals or companies, unless they are acting as government agents or surrogates, which Youtube clearly is not.