You could always just re-upload the video from your hard drive. Just because YouTube does not restore it, does not mean you cannot, as long as the so called 'copyright owner' does not file a court order.
This is meaning less, their TOS will bypass this somehow. They are Google, they can afford better lawyers than you, justice is for the rich. If their decision didn't sit right with copyright laws who cares? They'll decide that they removed your video because their TOS allows it, not because it was a copyright issue. Took them a while? They're Youtube, "they did the best they could given the volume of traffic, blah blah blah".
This is meaning less, their TOS will bypass this somehow. They are Google, they can afford better lawyers than you, justice is for the rich. If their decision didn't sit right with copyright laws who cares? They decide that they removed your video because their TOS allows it, not because it was a copyright issue. Took them a while? They're Youtube, "they did the best they could given the volume of traffic, blah blah blah".
Oh and, it also says "at YouTube's sole discretion"
Meaning that they are the entity which decides whether or not the content will be restored. This is all part of the terms you agreed to when accessing their site.
@TheReasonWhyGuy You could always just re-upload the video from your hard drive. Just because YouTube does not restore it, does not mean you cannot, as long as the so called 'copyright owner' does not file a court order.
@gothatfunk Alright, however my original point involving what youtube can do still stands.
In their terms of service, you agree to them being the deciding entity over the reinstating of a video.
As for whether they are allowed to refuse a video being uploaded, if you seriously think you have some right to upload content onto their site, then you're deluded.
They provide a service, to attract people, to collect ad revenue, however they can refuse to allow access to any part of their service
@TheReasonWhyGuy with maximum respect, you are confused as to the point of this video. it has nothing at all to do with youtube having the right to determine what videos are uploaded. it is about youtube adjudicating a copyright dispute, which is a matter for the Courts.
a DMCA claim is a declaration of an intention to sue for breach of copyright. a counter claim (counter suit) asserts the user IS the one with copyright. its for Courts to decide who is right/wrong, private companies can't.
@gothatfunk "it is about youtube adjudicating a copyright dispute"
This is where your flaw is...
Youtube follows the dmca process until the end, and if after it's concluded, they decide to no longer provide the service, they reserve the right to not reinstate the video
It's effects appear like they are somehow acting as the judge, however they aren't.
Would you expect them to be required to keep a video on their site after a counter-claim?
@TheReasonWhyGuy the issue here is not reinstatement, per se. the issue is youtube/google deciding who owns copyright, where that copyright is in dispute. they are not in a position to know, nor decide.
to answer your Q directly, no, i would not expect them to be *required* to reinstate a video upon counter-claim.
if the original filer of the DMCA decided to pursue the suit, in spite of the counterclaim, then i could see a rationale for not reinstating. otherwise, its arbitrary.
Its a dick move on the part of google but how on earth is it illegal? Its their website, they can do what they like. If I make a sharing website it would not be illegal for me to dictate what could go up there either.
@AussiePolitics you are misunderstanding the point. youtube has a legal obligation to remain neutral in copyright disputes. what they are doing here is taking a decision to believe one party's claim over another (based on what?), rather than referring it to the Courts, where copyright claims are legally decided.
@gothatfunk what law says a private company cannot do what it wants with the content placed on its website? they're obviously paranoid about copyright court cases. this video is pure hyperbole, its just a joke to act as though google is doing anything illegal. sure its a bitch but they've done nothing illegal.
@AussiePolitics you seem to think this is about content removal. its not. its about copyright claims. youtube/google has no authority to decide copyright disputes. a copyright dispute is a lawsuit. tell me why you think a private company has the authority to adjudicate a lawsuit, please.
@gothatfunk actually google every every right to choose whatever gets put on their website and if they think something has been taken then they can do it. its a pain, but that's what private companies can do. videos like this may talk big about google "breaking" the law but it would be absolutely laughable if anyone ever actually tried to argue it in a real court
@rozeboosje You are the most fake ass bitch on here! I nicely show you that you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about and that you cant force a site to carry content it doesn't wish to and your reply to me is "you dont have a channel so you're blocked" and you run like the punk bitch you are. lol I dont really care cause you the most boring drone on youtube but still fuck you for being a fake ass bitch coward. :)
@JayOsWorld if the video is another channel, other than yours, you simply follow the usual DMCA form. however, you may have to prove you created 100% of the content on it at some future stage. if the video is no longer in your possession, that may be difficult. rozeboosje could give more info than me though.
@TheReasonWhyGuy you clearly don't know the law regarding DMCA claims. youtube is not a Court, and a Court is where copyright disputes are decided. youtube has no way of knowing all by itself whether one party owns content, or the other. for them to deny a person the right to claim copyright on their video is A FELONY. its a direct violation of copyright law. youtube has a legal obligation to remain neutral in copyright disputes, acceding to the authority of the Courts.
""...Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the Content provider, member or user, the removed Content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at YouTube's sole discretion....""
You see, people often don't pay enough attention to the word "may".
First off rozeboosje is a punk coward. He posted this video on his account and I wrote "No offense but this appears to be cut and paste wanna be lawyer amateur hour. Have you read the youtube /google TOS? They have a TON of loop holes to hide behind ! Seriously you're dealing with a billion dollar company not some kids with a lemonade stand" and he writes back "LOL - unavailable channel? Blocked." ... So because I dont have a channel he can be a censoring douche coward.
@BusinessEdgeRadio no one is obliged to entertain or preserve your comments on their videos. anyway, if you knew a thing, you'd know Rozey has helped MANY youtubers sort out DMCA disputes. no, he's not a lawyer, but so the fuck what? he knows the DMCA laws as well as any layman, and has numerous videos discussing the laws and youtube user's rights regarding their videos on this site. before you jump to unimformed conclusions, GET INFORMED.
@gothatfunk I know rozey is a punk coward who acts like he's Mr rational until someone calls him out on his ignorance then he blocks and censors just like VFX . His bitch ass is trying to say the law can force youtube to carry content on its site it doesn't wish to and that's bullshit. Maybe you should GET INFORMED!
@BusinessEdgeRadio no, he is not saying that. your comprehension is lacking. no one is saying you can force youtube to carry content they don't want. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DMCA CLAIMS. forfucksake. get a clue.
this has not happened to me personally, but this practice is not only illegal, but a direct snub to smaller users of this site. it needs to be ceased before it takes hold as overall policy.
you should sue them!!
FrankTheMouse 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You could always just re-upload the video from your hard drive. Just because YouTube does not restore it, does not mean you cannot, as long as the so called 'copyright owner' does not file a court order.
Killedkennyagain 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is meaning less, their TOS will bypass this somehow. They are Google, they can afford better lawyers than you, justice is for the rich. If their decision didn't sit right with copyright laws who cares? They'll decide that they removed your video because their TOS allows it, not because it was a copyright issue. Took them a while? They're Youtube, "they did the best they could given the volume of traffic, blah blah blah".
TruthBeyond 6 months ago
This is meaning less, their TOS will bypass this somehow. They are Google, they can afford better lawyers than you, justice is for the rich. If their decision didn't sit right with copyright laws who cares? They decide that they removed your video because their TOS allows it, not because it was a copyright issue. Took them a while? They're Youtube, "they did the best they could given the volume of traffic, blah blah blah".
TruthBeyond 6 months ago
Just a heads up. Google is the law!
BiodegradeableMan 6 months ago
Oh and, it also says "at YouTube's sole discretion"
Meaning that they are the entity which decides whether or not the content will be restored. This is all part of the terms you agreed to when accessing their site.
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy You could always just re-upload the video from your hard drive. Just because YouTube does not restore it, does not mean you cannot, as long as the so called 'copyright owner' does not file a court order.
Killedkennyagain 6 months ago
@Killedkennyagain "You could always just re-upload the video from your hard drive. Just because YouTube does not restore it"
EXACTLY :)
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy except you can't. removed videos are NOT re-uppable unless you alter them in some way. i can attest to this personally.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk Alright, however my original point involving what youtube can do still stands.
In their terms of service, you agree to them being the deciding entity over the reinstating of a video.
As for whether they are allowed to refuse a video being uploaded, if you seriously think you have some right to upload content onto their site, then you're deluded.
They provide a service, to attract people, to collect ad revenue, however they can refuse to allow access to any part of their service
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy with maximum respect, you are confused as to the point of this video. it has nothing at all to do with youtube having the right to determine what videos are uploaded. it is about youtube adjudicating a copyright dispute, which is a matter for the Courts.
a DMCA claim is a declaration of an intention to sue for breach of copyright. a counter claim (counter suit) asserts the user IS the one with copyright. its for Courts to decide who is right/wrong, private companies can't.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk "it is about youtube adjudicating a copyright dispute"
This is where your flaw is...
Youtube follows the dmca process until the end, and if after it's concluded, they decide to no longer provide the service, they reserve the right to not reinstate the video
It's effects appear like they are somehow acting as the judge, however they aren't.
Would you expect them to be required to keep a video on their site after a counter-claim?
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy the issue here is not reinstatement, per se. the issue is youtube/google deciding who owns copyright, where that copyright is in dispute. they are not in a position to know, nor decide.
to answer your Q directly, no, i would not expect them to be *required* to reinstate a video upon counter-claim.
if the original filer of the DMCA decided to pursue the suit, in spite of the counterclaim, then i could see a rationale for not reinstating. otherwise, its arbitrary.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk "the issue is youtube/google deciding who owns copyright"
Except that's the point you're ignoring.
Whether they decide to reinstate it or not has nothing to do with the dmca process, since it's spelled out in their tos.
"otherwise, its arbitrary."
You still seem to ignore their tos, please read it.
It's towards the end of the dmca section in their tos.
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
Its a dick move on the part of google but how on earth is it illegal? Its their website, they can do what they like. If I make a sharing website it would not be illegal for me to dictate what could go up there either.
AussiePolitics 6 months ago
@AussiePolitics you are misunderstanding the point. youtube has a legal obligation to remain neutral in copyright disputes. what they are doing here is taking a decision to believe one party's claim over another (based on what?), rather than referring it to the Courts, where copyright claims are legally decided.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk what law says a private company cannot do what it wants with the content placed on its website? they're obviously paranoid about copyright court cases. this video is pure hyperbole, its just a joke to act as though google is doing anything illegal. sure its a bitch but they've done nothing illegal.
AussiePolitics 6 months ago
@AussiePolitics you seem to think this is about content removal. its not. its about copyright claims. youtube/google has no authority to decide copyright disputes. a copyright dispute is a lawsuit. tell me why you think a private company has the authority to adjudicate a lawsuit, please.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk actually google every every right to choose whatever gets put on their website and if they think something has been taken then they can do it. its a pain, but that's what private companies can do. videos like this may talk big about google "breaking" the law but it would be absolutely laughable if anyone ever actually tried to argue it in a real court
AussiePolitics 6 months ago
Thanks for mirroring.
rozeboosje 6 months ago
@rozeboosje You are the most fake ass bitch on here! I nicely show you that you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about and that you cant force a site to carry content it doesn't wish to and your reply to me is "you dont have a channel so you're blocked" and you run like the punk bitch you are. lol I dont really care cause you the most boring drone on youtube but still fuck you for being a fake ass bitch coward. :)
BusinessEdgeRadio 6 months ago
@JayOsWorld if the video is another channel, other than yours, you simply follow the usual DMCA form. however, you may have to prove you created 100% of the content on it at some future stage. if the video is no longer in your possession, that may be difficult. rozeboosje could give more info than me though.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
As if Google would really give a fuck about users like you and I.
KreatorRage 6 months ago
Actually they do have the right, when you make a youtube account, they present you with the ability to read the contract which you are agreeing to.
User agreements like this are a way for them to exchange access to their site's uploading feature, for some control over the uploaded content
People who pretend they have rights they can use against youtube are fooling themselves.
You do not have 'RIGHTS' to post content to the youtube servers, those are PRIVILEGES provided by youtube.
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy you clearly don't know the law regarding DMCA claims. youtube is not a Court, and a Court is where copyright disputes are decided. youtube has no way of knowing all by itself whether one party owns content, or the other. for them to deny a person the right to claim copyright on their video is A FELONY. its a direct violation of copyright law. youtube has a legal obligation to remain neutral in copyright disputes, acceding to the authority of the Courts.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk "...regarding DMCA claims"
Really?
Did you read the youtube policy regarding dmca?
""...Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the Content provider, member or user, the removed Content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at YouTube's sole discretion....""
You see, people often don't pay enough attention to the word "may".
The reserve the rights in their TOS.
TheReasonWhyGuy 6 months ago
@TheReasonWhyGuy Thank you! I'm sick of these wanna be lawyers like rosepunk talking out their ass!
BusinessEdgeRadio 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First off rozeboosje is a punk coward. He posted this video on his account and I wrote "No offense but this appears to be cut and paste wanna be lawyer amateur hour. Have you read the youtube /google TOS? They have a TON of loop holes to hide behind ! Seriously you're dealing with a billion dollar company not some kids with a lemonade stand" and he writes back "LOL - unavailable channel? Blocked." ... So because I dont have a channel he can be a censoring douche coward.
BusinessEdgeRadio 6 months ago
@BusinessEdgeRadio no one is obliged to entertain or preserve your comments on their videos. anyway, if you knew a thing, you'd know Rozey has helped MANY youtubers sort out DMCA disputes. no, he's not a lawyer, but so the fuck what? he knows the DMCA laws as well as any layman, and has numerous videos discussing the laws and youtube user's rights regarding their videos on this site. before you jump to unimformed conclusions, GET INFORMED.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
@gothatfunk I know rozey is a punk coward who acts like he's Mr rational until someone calls him out on his ignorance then he blocks and censors just like VFX . His bitch ass is trying to say the law can force youtube to carry content on its site it doesn't wish to and that's bullshit. Maybe you should GET INFORMED!
BusinessEdgeRadio 6 months ago
@BusinessEdgeRadio no, he is not saying that. your comprehension is lacking. no one is saying you can force youtube to carry content they don't want. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DMCA CLAIMS. forfucksake. get a clue.
gothatfunk 6 months ago
this has not happened to me personally, but this practice is not only illegal, but a direct snub to smaller users of this site. it needs to be ceased before it takes hold as overall policy.
bewarethefunk69 6 months ago 6