
My Web Series Was Suspended by YouTube Without Explanation - alexjmann
http://alexjmann.tumblr.com/post/40697476274/my-web-series-cwatf-was-suspended-by-youtube
======
rossjudson
You probably got hit with a number of DMCA takedown requests. You've filed a
counter-notice, which will put the content back up. But you have to wait until
that occurs, which could be a while.

You may not have done anything wrong, for this to occur. All it takes is
someone willing to _say_ that you infringed on their copyright.

I think you can sue the issuers of the takedowns, if they are fraudulent.

~~~
Karunamon
You can, but good luck. Filing a counternotice gets you the name (and I think
the IP address) of the person that filed the notice, but considering that #1
is just a form input box and #2 is useless for identificiation purposes...

This was likely the act of someone with an axe to grind, not any violation of
YouTube policies.

~~~
jacquesm
This is the counter notification section of youtube:

<http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_counter>

The final line reads:

> We may then reinstate the material in question at our discretion.

So it's a toss-up if they're actually going to do something but they _will_
reveal your information to the party that claimed infringement. That seems to
be a pretty lousy deal.

~~~
gknoy
Doesn't your account also get wrecked after you've received a certain number
of takedown requests, regardless of their validity?

~~~
mitchty
Yeah I believe it is up to 3. So basically 3 cries of wolf are enough to get
any youtube account closed.

Seems fair. /joke

------
mech4bg
People saying that the service is free and Google owes you nothing are missing
the point. If Google continues this practice and makes things worse, then
people will lose trust in them, move away from their services, and they will
suffer financially. This isn't about entitlement - this is about wanting a
service to be good, and giving feedback when it isn't. Also these services are
only nominally 'free' - Google makes plenty of money off you by you using
them.

I find it bizarre that people think you can't give feedback on a company's bad
behavior because their service is free.

~~~
mikecane
Google Play apps, books, and whatever else they sell there aren't free. They
are hurting their brand.

------
gesman
If your videos are acceptable to Vimeo (they have anal TOS but great technical
platform) then I recommend _at all_ times upload duplicates to Vimeo (and
someone else). Then register _your own_ URL shortener domain (such alex.je or
whatever) and send links to your video through your own shortlinks, such as:
alex.je/2013 Trusting your business to single platform provider - no matter
how big - is disastrous. With planning like above you'd be back in business in
no time by flipping redirect URLs to your videos at secondary provider.

~~~
alexjmann
Thanks. In terms of marketing the show, I've been pointing everyone to
CWATF.com/xxxxxx, so to get back up-and-running, I would just need to upload
the video files to a different video platform and re-embed per URL.

I do regret not backing up each video to another platform while I went. The
reason was because I wanted to aggregate all traffic to a single platform, in
the case that I started to run ads. I guess I could have uploaded them
privately on another platform, only to open up publicly should something like
this happen.

~~~
gesman
Great, so just reupload your greatest hits and most recent ones to Vimeo (or
whoever) and update redirects from CWATF.com. I think your competitors
complained to Google using the right terminology. I had similar experience
with Google.

The conclusion I saw for myself is to "use platform, but do not rely your
business to platform".

------
hcarvalhoalves
Good luck. Dealing with any Google service - and in particular, YouTube - is
like dealing with a robot, you don't manage to get in touch with any human
being. Their general policy is to automate everything and give zero user
support.

~~~
nitrogen
It's not just that; dealing with a robot should be easy and predictable.
You're dealing with a robot that is trying its best to obey the irrational
wishes of the content industry.

------
pasbesoin
I'll share my personal response. I suspect I'm not alone in this.

Google is incurring and running up against some real trust issues.

I haven't always agreed with their decisions, but even when I became
discouraged, I'd still glean information and news that showed or hinted at
concerned, ethical people behind the closed doors.

But... the continuing lack of a public, _human_ interface to their endeavors,
and the increasing... _unreliability_ of their products. (Well, their products
to us end users of their ostensible services, as opposed to us as products
delivered via their marketing and advertising mechanisms.)

I increasingly don't trust them.

And _this_ is going to be a serious problem for Google, in the long run. Once
you lose reliability and accountability, people start looking elsewhere.

Ok, this is a bit of a long reach, but look at Apple. Jobs was, ultimately if
somewhat capriciously, a primary source of Apple's accountability. And now
he's gone.

Even if people couldn't explain it and articulate it fully, they _felt_
concern that his passing potentially represented a significant shift.

The more and longer Google continues to refuse to acknowledge -- and address
-- the gaming of the IP/content/distribution systems, the more distrust
builds.

Even still, this "silence" is not consistent and company-wide. For example,
Google Fiber -- at least in its incarnation; I'm less certain about it's
continuing and evolving existence -- is a fairly strong statement (even if and
as also somewhat self-serving; this is a business, after all) about the
current state and needed direction of development and growth of connectivity.

But I don't know that this "under the radar" approach suffices. Back to the
original point of this thread: I don't trust that anything on YouTube is going
to be there, tomorrow.

The Web is failing as archive. More and more, the public is learning that it
is indeed transient.

If you want people to "live" there and to trust to your online services, this
may be a bad thing.

(Yes, I'm one isolated opinion, and I may be blowing smoke. But I'm disgusted
at the increasing constriction back towards an entrenched status quo -- or the
attempts at same.)

~~~
d2vid
I've been running into bad google experiences lately. I have a work email
address that uses google for domains, and my account was completely disabled
by google about a week ago with no response yet to my repeated contact
attempts. Their error message was not exactly comforting, it included the
following:

Google reserves the right to: Terminate your account at any time, for any
reason, with or without notice.

I don't particularly care about that particular gmail account, but it's
terrifying that they believe they have the right to do the exact same thing to
my personal gmail account, which I definitely DO care about. That seems
unethical, even if it's perhaps legal.

~~~
magicalist
Is there any company that doesn't reserve the right to terminate a free hosted
email account without notice?

If you want an SLA, you (almost always) have to pay for it. And if you pay for
Google Apps, you also get phone support...

In the meantime: IMAP backups. If that's too much of a pain, there are also a
ton of services (free or otherwise) which will do automatic backups for you,
though you should really ( _really_ ) make sure you trust them and their
security procedures before you hand off access to your primary email account
to them.

~~~
gcb0
data backups: this point is moot because, who cares about archived email?
that's like 1% of the pain of loosing an account. 99% of the problem is the
messages you will never be able to read.

Same with the youtube channel from OP. i'm 100% certain that the guy has all
his videos ready for re-upload. but who cares? He had worked hard promoting
that channel in several venues and acquiring an audience to THAT channel. That
is lost forever.

~~~
suhastech
That is the reason I wrote a Mac app to do just that. Atleast for emails as
the parent comment is suggesting.

More on the that: <http://thehorcrux.com/why-i-built-horcrux-app/>

</shamelessplug>

------
alexjmann
Thank you to everyone who chimed in on this conversation. Apparently, the
right person noticed. My suspended YouTube account has been reinstated. If you
want to check out the web series, now you can. <http://cwatf.com/>

~~~
anigbrowl
What was the explanation? Pardon my cynicism, but without furnishing even a
screenshot of the suspension notice I have no way to decide whether Youtube
was at fault or whether this is a marketing stunt. I find it hard to believe
you have never received a single warning about anything prior to them using
the nuclear option against you, given the well-documented existence of their
DMCA grievance process and suchlike.

~~~
alexjmann
I received the below email at 10:10pm yesterday (1/16/13), which was the first
time YouTube has communicated with me.

\--

Hi there,

After a review of your account, we have confirmed that your YouTube account is
not in violation of our Terms of Service. As such, we have unsuspended your
account. This means your account is once again active and operational.

If you forgot your password, please visit this link to reset it: (link)

Sincerely, The YouTube Team

\--

Certainly not a stunt. I don't even know how I'd go about suspending my own
YouTube account, which I was only able to access for the first time in over a
week after receiving this email.

~~~
anigbrowl
It sounds more like someone falsely claimed you had hacked the account or so,
if they shut it down with no communication at all.

------
denzil_correa
Does anyone else think that lack of accountability from content hosting
providers makes this game so unfair to people who use these services. For
example, if YouTube were legally accountable to provide a service would this
situation have occurred? I understand YouTube is free (itself a topic of
contention) but just because you are free, it doesn't give you a guilt free
pass to do anything you want.

~~~
Terretta
Jeff Atwood was having this problem, and finally hosted it with us at Vive.ly.
We're a commercial CDN that made Vive.ly as a side project "Dropbox for Video"
for small businesses or people who want to feel comfortable owning their
content, and we are big supporters of "fair use".

Atwood mentions his fair use issues here:

[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/but-you-did-not-
per...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/but-you-did-not-persuade-
me.html)

Granted, Vive.ly isn't free. There's a small cost for uploading, encoding, and
storing the video, but that's a one time charge, and there's a nominal cost
for bandwidth (we call it "minutes" to make it simple). But it's a wallet
system, so if you don't use it you aren't dinged every month, and you own the
content so you can run your own ads, name the site what you want or embed it
anywhere.

We've gone toe to toe with big content trying to do take-downs of fair use
content, and won. The DMCA doesn't have to be handled the way YouTube does it.

You can try it out through <http://www.getvively.com/> which explains the
platform or direct at <http://www.vive.ly/> which is the platform itself.

You can use the invite code "hd4yc" to try it out with 600 minutes of video
storage, and 12,000 minutes of delivery.

~~~
magicalist
You don't have to have a Content ID system, but you _have_ to take down the
content in the face of a correctly filled out takedown request, even if it's
plainly fair use.

You also have to "replace the removed material and cease disabling access to
it _not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the
counter notice_ , unless its designated agent first receives notice from the
person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such
person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber
from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service
provider’s system or network."[1] (emphasis added)

It would be interesting to hear about what you guys have found effective in
helping support fair use with vive.ly, but since the DMCA makes it essentially
zero cost to spam takedown notices, even if only to achieve a chilling effect,
the only tool you have (talking to the company posting the notice) is not very
effective. You certainly (AFAIK) have no legal leverage as a safe harbored
service provider.

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#g>

~~~
Terretta
> _You certainly (AFAIK) have no legal leverage as a safe harbored service
> provider._

This discredits your entire premise. We are a registered safe harbor service
provider.

I've been in video since 98, and we've been hosting customer video since 2001.
We've been to court over this, _on behalf of our customers_ , and won. We know
what we have to do and what we don't have to do. There's a lot of leeway for
the provider in the DMCA.

The big guys partly want to automate everything, and partly are simply
acknowledging they have a pirated content problem since anyone can upload
anonymously and free, so their practices are far more anti-fair-use than the
DMCA requires.

As a final note: you don't _have_ to take down a given piece of content. You
only "have" to take it down if you're afraid you'll lose on fair use and want
to cover your ass.

------
donniezazen
I strongly believe that we should start treating user data as a physical
object. A law should be passed that would restrict scope of online vendors.
Vendors should be free to stop providing services but not violently cut off
users and delete all his/her personal data.

~~~
conradfr
Well, if "stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a
crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars", I guess you have a
point.

------
rpledge
Why aren't you posting your content on the other services you mentioned
anyway?

~~~
alexjmann
In my experience producing web video content (especially if you plan on
eventually selling ads against it), it's best to aggregate it on one platform.
And traffic and visibility-wise, YouTube is the place to do it.

~~~
rpledge
I hate to see anyone build a business based on one platform. I haven't looked
at your content, but I'm pretty sure the biggest web video producer I know of
(Leo Laporte/TWiT.tv) would disagree with your comment. Gain audience any way
you can before trying to monetize.

------
meaty
That's the way of the cloud.

Its also why I won't put any or my data near it.

------
jmettes
I'm a bit worried now reading this post, since I want to run a webseries[1] on
YouTube too this year. Is there anything I can do to prevent this from
happening to me? YouTube would be the easiest way to get it out there, being
its own source of traffic in its own right. However, would Vimeo be a better
option here? Obviously I could also run it from the website directly (e.g.,
cloudfront), but free services are always good too... :-)

[1] <http://www.baznsnags.com>

~~~
JoshTriplett
Why just use one? Upload to YouTube for the traffic, and blip.tv or Vimeo for
the reliability. And whichever you do, try to get as many people as possible
visiting your site directly and not caring about the video host.

------
zopticity
You are probably doing something that triggered one of Youtube's automated
system to flag you as an abusive API user.

------
TheAmazingIdiot
When people while about getting 'removed from friends list' like Google,
YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, MSN networks...

If it is free, they can do this anytime they like. Your proper answer is to
set up your own server and do it yourself. I guess taking it public and
getting responses from individuals in that company is your response. Still
doesn't mean you shouldn't set up shop in your own right.

</rant=off>

~~~
FireBeyond
To be fair to the parent, he does have a point. You are in no way entitled to
the free use of such a service. It's great that it's provided and all, but in
the end, there may be some, or no, reason, that they want to pull the plug, on
you, on a subset, or the entire service.

"Entitled" blogs, rants and the like (and to be clear, this entry didn't
strike me as particularly entitled, but disappointed) are more the act of
petulant children.

~~~
jacquesm
I run an online service that has been going since 1998. There are lots of
instances of abusive behaviour there. We have a whole range of ways to deal
with these and we feel that as long as users operate within the terms of
service that they have a right to participate. Selectively withholding access
for capricious reasons would be discriminatory behaviour. On top of that you
never know how big a role your free service plays in someone else's life.
Banning users / deleting content is a decision that you should not take
lightly as a service provider.

------
wjhirsch
Hi Alex:

    
    
         Am I correct that the You Tube or Google user, like yourself, pays nothing for the service or space & is therefore receiving a gift? If that is true, than what alleged "right" does the gift donee have to continue receiving the gift?

love PB 01/16/2013 17:37

~~~
rexreed
It would seem to be more of a trade of services - provision of content to
Google which they then monetize in the form of advertising, and possibly share
with the content generator. Google then keeps the majority (or all in most
cases) of the ad revenues to cover their operating costs and profit, or shares
a small percentage with certain eligible producers. So, I don't see it as a
gift as much as an exchange of services that is balanced primarily to the
benefit of Google. Otherwise, why would Google do it? They're a business, not
a charity.

