You can submit a DMCA counter notice for the media to put back up at the service provider. ChillingEffects.org has a web counter notice builder:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, El Destiny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > YouTube -- and now Flickr. (Which is owned by > Yahoo...) A bogus DMCA threat scared Yahoo! into > removing images from Flickr. > > http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/13/is-yahoo-flickr-dmca-policy-censorship/ > > Even though the uploader notified Flickr that the > image was wrongfully removed, Flickr never restored > it. And they also permanently deleted all the > comments users had left. > > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that > > govern this new user generated reality... > > Corporations are powerful. I think the services don't > feel they'll experience the same level of pressure > from their users. (And corporations also don't fear > any organized user backlash.) > > I'm just putting this out there: is there an easy way > to organize online users to send a simple, clear, and > direct message to hosting services (and the > corporations that threaten them)? > > > > > > --- Kent Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Right that's exactly the problem. > > > > We talk a lot about rights and such, but all of that > > is built on these > > crappy TOS agreements. Even if you own your own > > site, you're still at > > the mercy of the ISPs up the chain of command. > > > > Your speech is only as free as it's convenient to > > corporate structure > > that hosts it. > > > > Web 1.0 was more about setting up a static site, > > staking your little > > claim on the net and building traffic, etc. > > > > Web 2.0 changes the equation because the people are > > the value. > > YouTube is based on a $20 shareware script, the > > value came from the > > people there. Same with MySpace. > > > > But the legal structures and way of thinking have > > not caught up to > > this change. There's a million little fiefdoms. > > And your rights are > > different each site you go to. > > > > What I'd love to see is a set of principles that > > govern this new user > > generated reality that gives we the users basic > > rights wherever we go. > > > > That's a huge shift from where we are right now, and > > it will take a > > lot of work to get there. But I'm afraid if we > > don't tackle this > > area, the door for new voices that has been opened a > > crack will get > > slammed shut by the media monopolies. > > > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve > > Watkins" <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > Im not looking to put anybody off this sort of > > action, but I think the > > > arbitrary acceptable use policy stuff is an > > internet-wide problem. To > > > cover themselves, just about every hosting service > > Ive ever seen has > > > terms and conditions about what content is > > acceptable, and many of the > > > terms are vague. > > > > > > People certainly should draw attention to services > > which are > > > trigger-happy about removing stuff without good > > cause. Youtube are > > > likely to show up as an offender a lot because of > > their sheer size, > > > and as I sepculated earlier, they may be trying to > > save themselves > > > from copyright lawsuits, but doing it in a way > > that also removes some > > > legitimate content, and this is not good or nice > > to their users for > > > them to be so careless. I know Richard Bluestein > > called for a boycott > > > on youtube because he was banned and though it was > > due to being gay or > > > hosting gay content, whereas after some research I > > thought it was more > > > likely because some trailers he uploaded had lots > > of naked breasts, > > > and western society doesnt mind exploiting breasts > > for profit but the > > > mainstream has a nipple phobia. > > > > > > So anyway theoretically most services are flawed > > in the sense that > > > almost anybody could find their content falling > > foul of the terms & > > > conditions, even if their content is innocent > > enough, and as far as I > > > know the services dont even have an obligation to > > contact people who > > > are banned and explian exactly why. I think legal > > issues will stop > > > terms & conditions from changing that much, so the > > best we can hope > > > for is that in practice many services are careful, > > think of their > > > users, engage in dialogue and careful checking of > > material before > > > hitting the big red delete button. Whatever the > > reasons behind > > > youtubes removal of the content in this case, its > > certainly sloppy and > > > shows no sense of responsibility to users who > > upload legitimate videos. > > > > > > As for the grey area where content might actually > > be deemed offensive > > > or innapropriate, offends certain people, causes a > > stink and gets > > > banned, I guess those involved in any way with sex > > or porn side of > > > video have experience of this sort of thing. Even > > companies that > > > appear to have enlightened attitude towards such > > things, may change > > > policy at any time and suddenly crackdown on such > > content. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" > > <kd1s@> wrote: > > > > > > > > In light of YouTube/Google's treatment of Nick > > Gisburne I've removed > > > > all my videos on YouTube and also am in the > > process of removing my > > > > blogger page. To hell with YouTube and Google > > and their arbitrary > > > > acceptable use policies. > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Kent > > Nichols" > > > > <digitalfilmmaker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That really sucks man. > > > > > > > > > > I think the stuff we're working on with > > MySpace ties in directly > > with > > > > > situations like this -- site proclaming to be > > open and community > > > > > based, but are just fronts for corporate > > interests. > > > > > > > > > > And if you cross one of their arbitrary lines > > set fourth in their > > > > > constantly evolving Terms of Use they can > > cancel you, or filter > > > you out. > > > > > > > > > > I think that's the next fight -- establishing > > what is public > > space and > > > > > who "owns" it and what users rights are in > > this new user generated > > > > > reality. > > > > > > > > > > -Kent, askaninja.com > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gary > > Rosenzweig" <rosenz@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried to log on to our YouTube account > > today and got the message > > > > "Your > > > > > > account has now been permanently disabled." > > > > > > > > > > > > It was our Daily Vlog account, which is a > > 5-minute-per-day vlog > > > > from the > > > > > > office. Pure vlog -- just us talking about > > various topics. > > Couldn't > > > > > possibly > > > > > > be anything there they want to shut down, we > > don't even deal with > > > > > sensitive > > > > > > issues. Usually we talk about our lives, or > > what's going on in > > > > > entertainment > > > > > > or tech. And there certainly can't be any > > intellectual property > > > > issues, > > > > > > unless someone patented "having a > > conversation on a sofa" and I am > > > > > not aware > > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see for yourself what the daily vlog > > is about by > > checking it > > > > > out at > > > > > > http://thedailyvlog.com. You can see there > > is no reason why > > YouTube > > > > > would > > > > > > want it removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone else had this happen to them? I'm > > certainly > === message truncated === > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Get your own web address. > Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL >
