• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

JREF on YouTube Disappeared?

technoextreme said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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! :(
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
shadron said:
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.
Click to expand...
He intentionally isn't a source of ad revenue for them. And admittedly his actions were borderline denial of service.
 
godless dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
dglas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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..
 
dglas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bruce Grubb said:
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.
Click to expand...
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..."

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.
 
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.
 
Sherman Bay said:
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..." 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bruce Grubb said:
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.
Click to expand...


Uh, not really.

Youtube could, if they wanted, have a policy of only posting videos of scat porn. It's entirely up to them.
 
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.
 
Perhaps YouTube is just trying to make the JREF stronger by diluting its video presence to homeopathic levels.
 
SirPhilip said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I used my super magic psychic telepathy powers to force youtube to suspend the account. Can I have my million dollars now?
 
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.
 
godless dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NiallM said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
NiallM said:
As the law stands, they are far better advised to respond by taking it down, and then investigate at their leisure.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I have to wonder if this has anything to do with a trend following the UN's proposed resolution.
 
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'
 
Sherman Bay said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Uh, not really.

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

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.
 
Bruce Grubb said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you have that backwards, at least in this case.

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.
 
Bruce Grubb said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
brodski said:
I was wondering how LFG would link this issue to Islam and anti-sematism.
Click to expand...

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.
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
cj.23 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Prometheus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bruce Grubb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom