The other site says: This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content. Sorry about that.
Clearly somebody thought the content was inappropriate. Feel sorry for people in Australia. They are cut off from a huge amount of content due to routine morally driven filtering. Even in the UK we are cut off from a lot of material. Much of it is probably illegally produced (involving doing horrible things to people) but it is still censorship. What you are doing is nothing like that. You should be able to file a counter-notice. Best Simon On 25/03/2011 23:03, "Alan Sondheim" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is what's been happening so far - > > > Re: Termination of my YouTube account: > > Update: I just filed a claim against them for the Viacom / sutra tape; the > other tape - I have no idea, since I can't access the site to see what > they're objecting to. > > - Alan > > > Here's the documentation: They haven't replied yet: > > > First, their email: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: YouTube Support <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM > Subject: Re: [#783740898] Account Inquiry > To: [email protected] > > > Hi asondheim, > > Thanks for your email. Your "asondheim" account has been suspended due to > repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Use and claims of copyright > infringement. Suspended accounts cannot be reinstated. Federal law > requires that we terminate accounts when there are repeated claims of > copyright infringement. > > Because you have had other videos rejected in the past, we are unable to > reinstate your account. Users with suspended or terminated accounts are > prohibited from creating new accounts or accessing YouTube?s community. In > order for your account to be reinstated, you will need to resolve at least > one of the following video removals. > > The following videos have been removed from your account: > > Penalty 1: "evasion of being sutra" formerly at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP0Np_s3Bj4 Removed due to a copyright > claim by Viacom International Inc. on 02/03/2007 > > Penalty 2: > "avatar sex hex dance for Anita Berber" formerly at > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e-HxYJm8A8 > Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 02/14/2011. > Please see http://www.youtube.com/t/terms and > http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines > > IMPORTANT: If you feel a content owner has misidentified your content as > infringing, you may be able to resolve one or more of these penalties by > filing a counter-notification. For more information, please visit our Help > Center article about counter-notifications at > http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=59826. > > Regards, > > > The YouTube Team > > > Original Message Follows: > ------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Subject: Account Inquiry > > no idea why my account was terminated. I haven't added to it for a couple > of years. there was no nudity on it. i never received notice. most of the > work was dancework. please inform. > > AutoDetectedBrowser: Google Chrome 10 > AutoDetectedOS: Linux > IssueType: accountdisabled > Language: en > username: asondheim > > MY REPLIES (There are four of them): > > no idea why my account was terminated. I haven't added to it for a couple > of years. there was no nudity on it. i never received notice. most of the > work was dancework. please inform. > > I've never had videos rejected in the past as far as I know - never. This > isn't making sense to me. > - Alan > > In terms of the Anita Berber piece, as far as I can tell, that was put up > 2007; you changed terms of Use in 2011, but I haven't put up anything in a > couple of years (check the account) - and as a result, I never saw these > terms. I'm an artist; I've been extremely careful about what I've put up; > I think I had something like 70+ videos on YouTube. For you to take them > all out, because of new regulations (why wasn't I told earlier about > something that happened four years ago)? seems inherently wrong. As far as > the Viacom ruling, I have no idea what that's about and am trying to track > that down. > > Please reconsider this; it's not making sense to me. > > This is making less and less sense. What on earth is wrong with Evasion of > Being? Viacom had nothing to do with this; it's a figure from Poser, > that's all. It came out of my modifications of motion capture equipment at > the virtual environments lab at West Virginia University. This is > senseless to me; please explain. What did Viacom say to you? - Thanks, > Alan (still trying to locate the other video) > > Finally, on the Anita Berber video - you say "against spam, spams, and > commercially deceptive content" - Where on earth is there any of this in > an artwork? I can't find the original video, but the piece isn't spam, nor > do I imitate commercial works. > > Again, please explain. > > ========================================================================= > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > Simon Biggs [email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ [email protected] http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
