How to get a semi embrassing YouTube video taken down?

[quincy]

Haha. You (and tranquility before you) certainly make clear your dislike of copyright laws.

I don’t disagree that copyright protection for the life of an author plus 70-years is too long and should be shortened. I also think that the affirmative defense of fair use of copyright-protected material should be applied more widely. And I think that small claims courts should be opened to copyright infringement actions.

But I do not make the laws. And I don’t believe that “abusing unjust laws” is a good way to change laws. And I am rather fond of many copyright holders.

 

[Just Blue]

Haha. You (and tranquility before you) certainly make clear your dislike of copyright laws.

I don’t disagree that copyright protection for the life of an author plus 70-years is too long and should be shortened. I also think that the affirmative defense of fair use of copyright-protected material should be applied more widely. And I think that small claims courts should be opened to copyright infringement actions.

But I do not make the laws. And I don’t believe that “abusing unjust laws” is a good way to change laws. And I am rather fond of many copyright holders.

Speaking of Tranq....Does anyone know why she stopped posting?

 

[quincy]

Speaking of Tranq....Does anyone know why she stopped posting?

He was experiencing some health problems.

 

[Just Blue]

He was experiencing some health problems.

Oh....


I always though Tranq was a woman....

 

[quincy]

Oh....


I always though Tranq was a woman....

No. He is a he.

 

[DisabledGeek89]

I also don't remember the email I used, it was in the one Google account for all of their property days. It was something I registered on mail.com or something. I just for the life of me can't remember.

 

[quincy]

I also don't remember the email I used, it was in the one Google account for all of their property days. It was something I registered on mail.com or something. I just for the life of me can't remember.

I again suggest you try to find friends who might have a record of your old email address and, if that fails, then try to work with Google to recover it.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

That was much better. I hate small timers and I hate hate HATE copyright owners

If someone uses youtune 'rules' on DCMA to mtake down a video they made, I'm glad

Make up your mind do you hate creators that produce the work or those that violate copyright rules.

 

[quincy]

Make up your mind do you hate creators that produce the work or those that violate copyright rules.

I believe xylene was applauding anyone who uses the DMCA takedown notice for an improper purpose.

The main problem with using the takedown notice to try to remove material that is NOT infringing on a copyright is that a person is submitting the notice under penalty of perjury.

Included in the notice must be the signature of the copyright holder (or someone authorized to act on his behalf) and contact information for the copyright holder, identification of the work claimed to be infringed and proof of ownership of the work, the work’s online location, a statement that the copyright holder has a good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted material is unauthorized, and that all information provided in the notice is accurate under penalty of perjury.

 

[xylene]

I believe xylene was applauding anyone who uses the DMCA takedown notice for an improper purpose.

The main problem with using the takedown notice to try to remove material that is NOT infringing on a copyright is that a person is submitting the notice under penalty of perjury.

Included in the notice must be the signature of the copyright holder (or someone authorized to act on his behalf) and contact information for the copyright holder, identification of the work claimed to be infringed and proof of ownership of the work, the work’s online location, a statement that the copyright holder has a good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted material is unauthorized, and that all information provided in the notice is accurate under penalty of perjury.

The op is not perjuring himself. He created the video.

 

[quincy]

The op is not perjuring himself. He created the video.

He would be lying about infringement to remove YouTube content. There has been no infringement.

 

[xylene]

He would be lying about infringement to remove YouTube content. There has been no infringement.

*I do not control this account"

That's not perjury.

The fact that he created it is immaterial to that fact, nor is how control of the account was lost.

 

[quincy]

*I do not control this account"

That's not perjury.

The fact that he created it is immaterial to that fact, nor is how control of the account was lost.

He would still have to state that he is both the copyright holder and the copyright infringer. The YouTube account is registered in his name. He just cannot remember how to access the account.

The bottom line for me is that the DMCA takedown notice should be used by a copyright holder to remove copyright-infringed material from its unauthorized place online. Any other use of the notice is improper.

 

[FlyingRon]

Q is correct. Actually, a DMCA takedown notice doesn't FORCE anything. It just allows YouTube (if promptly removing the material) to escape liability if they do so quickly.

Note that for the takedown request to be valid you have to (in good faith and under penalty of perjury) attest that:

1. You have the rights to the material (which the poster probably has)
2. That the presence on YouTube's servers is infringing (which it is not; he explicitly authorized google to use the material).

The license for google to use the material indeed terminates when he removes the videos from the site (catch-22). I'd contact them first asking to remove the videos or restore account access so he could. If that doesn't work a second letter asking them to be removed and revoking copyright. Only after that step, should he try a DMCA.

 

[xylene]

He would still have to state that he is both the copyright holder and the copyright infringer. The YouTube account is registered in his name. He just cannot remember how to access the account.

The bottom line for me is that the DMCA takedown notice should be used by a copyright holder to remove copyright-infringed material from its unauthorized place online. Any other use of the notice is improper.

YouTube is the infringer.

Because he no longer has access, they constructively control the account, even though that state of affairs is his own fault.

The idea that 'no one' has control over inaccessible accounts is preposterous. The same is true for the notion that account creators retain control of inaccessible accounts.