RonPaul2008dotcom account closed by YouTube

[Thanehand]

Went to go look at some of the latest videos from the campaign tonight (I've been a subscriber since the early days) and got surprised by an "account suspended" message. So, the account is gone along with all of the hundreds of videos that have been there for years. Great. (Edit: Also noted on DailyPaul).

A load of crap, but does anyone know if there is a way we can help getting it re-activated?:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[mod edit] here is the backup channel, be sure to subscribe:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaulcom

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Suspended for . . . a vague claim with no credibility?

[Thanehand]

I imagine one (or more) of the networks bitched about the re-publishing of his video appearances. Not to mention that the DMCA assumes guilty until proven innocent and allows the "rights holders" to essentially accuse anyone/everyone without repercussion.

[Tyler_Durden]

It seems like I've been seeing more and more videos disappear lately. Not just political ones, but music ones too.

[Thanehand]

Ah, someone else also mentioned this on DailyPaul.

[sailingaway]

If it is just for not paying, maybe they are giving the campaign a chance to pick it up. Someone else picked it up when the campaign let it lapse, as I understand it.

[fearthereaperx]

Doesn't mox news always send a counter-claim by pointing to the Fair Use Doctrine and then getting his account re-instated?

[moonshineplease]

I was just about to post a thread saying the Ron Paul Courageously speaks the truth video was removed from youtube. The video had around 3 million views. Then I saw on the Daily Paul about the Channel. Now that I think of it, that channel probably had a lot to do with me coming over to Dr. Paul's positions.

[CyberTootie]

Google's (YouTube's) Content ID policies side-step the DMCA.

Here's a true example. I upload a video that has some copyrighted material. So the content ID system of YouTube automatically flags the video as a work of the content producer as they've been set up a content owner account for their content. Content owners can set what happens to a video with this automatic flagging and change it on a per-video basis later. In this case, it is set to enable advertising on the video so the content owner can receive its revenue. But it's educational. Fair use allows for the use of a reasonable portion of a copyrighted work to teach a lesson. I can dispute this through YouTube, so I did. But it turns out my dispute goes to the content owner. They are the judge of your claim of fair use, misidentification, etc. And once the content owner denies your Content ID dispute, that is the end of it. There is no recourse.

http://productforums.google.com/foru...ns/er2PVL0uZWs
http://fairusetube.org/articles/20-f...ugh-the-cracks

Personally, I am done with Google and YouTube.

[mport1]

Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.

[Barrex]

I believe it is owned by same guy that owns RonPaul.com. (that was my impression when I was contacting them during money-bomb promotion)...


It will be interesting to see what happens.

[odamn]

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/04/youtu...l-apr-30-2012/

[devil21]

They're pulling out the big guns. This is NOT COOL. There's pretty much every Ron Paul video ever on that channel.

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/youtube flood it

Press link press@youtube.com

YouTube, LLC

901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA

Phone: +1 650-253-0000
Fax: +1 650-253-0001

[alucard13mmfmj]

looks like youtube will only have videos of cats... russians shooting guns.. and justin bieber type videos >.>

all great things will come to an end. facebook, youtube, USA, etc etc.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

To be honest, some of the grassroots supporters who create video file claims against the other Ron Paul grassroots accounts. It seems these supporters value their own video as if it is a commodity and get pissed when someone shares it via a secondary or alternative account that doesn't belong to the original source (their account).

I had a video someone created hosted on my account. It went viral with more than 30,000 views in less than a week. The video on his account had a few hundred views. He was upset and reported me to Youtube. I was asked to remove it in order for my account to be reinstated. I currently host hundreds of Paul video content. Of course I had to remove it and we lost the momentum and its potential to go viral. Seems some people are more interested in their personal recognition than the success of their message and the betterment of the campaign. No telling how far that viral movement could have gone. As it stands his uploaded version of the video has yet to surpass 2,000 views.

[azxd]

Has anyone tried contacting the owner of the account ?

AFAIK, you'll find him at http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul

[JohnM]

Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.

Come the rEVOLution, there will be no more copyright!

[G-Wohl]

Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.

As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.

We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.

We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Yet another reason why the concept of "Intellectual Property" is ridiculous.

It's only "ridiculous" to the crowd that thinks someone else's time, work and money belongs to them too, with no compensation.

[CyberTootie]

ust because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.

We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.

The attempts to implement these protections are destroying our internet and civil liberties.

[angelatc]

It's only "ridiculous" to the crowd that thinks someone else's time, work and money belongs to them too, with no compensation.

Original works should earn money, but expecting an endless revenue stream once it's released into the wild comes at the cost of internet freedom. Congratulations.

[notsure]

Half of my subscribers now are terminated accounts.

[fisharmor]

As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.

We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.

We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.

I await your lawsuit.

[CJPrinter]

To be honest, some of the grassroots supporters who create video file claims against the other Ron Paul grassroots accounts. It seems these supporters value their own video as if it is a commodity and get pissed when someone shares it via a secondary or alternative account that doesn't belong to the original source (their account).

I had a video someone created hosted on my account. It went viral with more than 30,000 views in less than a week. The video on his account had a few hundred views. He was upset and reported me to Youtube. I was asked to remove it in order for my account to be reinstated. I currently host hundreds of Paul video content. Of course I had to remove it and we lost the momentum and its potential to go viral. Seems some people are more interested in their personal recognition than the success of their message and the betterment of the campaign. No telling how far that viral movement could have gone. As it stands his uploaded version of the video has yet to surpass 2,000 views.

Not just grassroots...

One of the BIG PAC's issued a take-down notice to a project I was involved with because our site looked too much like theirs. What SUCKS with this mindset is we are basically infighting. I can understand intellectual property when personal profit is involved, but when we are all aiming at the same goal and the only funds it affects are in line with it, this type of BS just hurts us all.

[TheGrinch]

As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.

We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.

We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.

Umm, perhaps you should take a look at the Fair Use Doctrine.

If it's not for profit and is for educational purposes only, then you are supposed to be covered by that, otherwise it prevents the spread of information.

What a shame.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Not just grassroots...

One of the BIG PAC's issued a take-down notice to a project I was involved with because our site looked too much like theirs. What SUCKS with this mindset is we are basically infighting. I can understand intellectual property when personal profit is involved, but when we are all aiming at the same goal and the only funds it affects are in line with it, this type of BS just hurts us all.

Sorry to hear that. It really seems not only pointless but ridiculous.

[angelatc]

Umm, perhaps you should take a look at the Fair Use Doctrine.

If it's not for profit and is for educational purposes only, then you are supposed to be covered by that, otherwise it prevents the spread of information.

What a shame.

The problem that I see is that it's hard to distinguish entertainment from education. And even harder for YouTube to make the call. For example, if I take a clip, host it on YouTube, then blog about it, it's pretty clear that I'm attempting to educate somebody about something. But how does YouTube even know my commentary even exists?

[azxd]

As somebody who makes his living on the creation and distribution of intellectual property, this assertion is highly offensive to me and rather ridiculous.

We all use the product of our minds to make our living. Just because some of those products are more easily resembled in the physical world than others doesn't mean that they are any less deserving of being protected from theft or unprotected reproduction.

We're supposed to be supporters of property rights, people.

YES we are, but some seem to not grasp this aspect very well, and instead choose a more socialistic perspective of wanting things for free, while not understanding that ones freedom ends where anothers freedom begins.

[azxd]

Original works should earn money, but expecting an endless revenue stream once it's released into the wild comes at the cost of internet freedom. Congratulations.

What is your understanding of copyright laws, who they are designed to protect, and for how long ?

Would you be opposed to all information, anywhere having a charge placed upon it ?

That's what will happen IF people keep thinking they can stealing another individuals work, just because it is available.

[jmdrake]

Putting all of your videos in the YouTube basket, while convenient, is not strategically smart. Anyone doing a video channel should have multiple accounts on different networks and upload his videos simultaneously to all of them. That way if your YouTube account is shut down your Vimeo/Dailymotion etc still has the info.

Here's how: