I discovered this shocking piece of news

The YouTube account of the James Randi Educational Foundation has been suspended along with all their videos.

I suspect someone that he has attacked has raised an objection with YouTube and Google who own it have caved. If this is the case I suspect that this is the end of James Randi on YouTube

Once again a victory for ....

oops I better not say anymore or this site may be suspended as well. We must not needlessly insult and knock the views of those, who promote an alternative view of the universe from that of science as we know it

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

It might also be a technical glitch--those things happen--or someone guessed their password (that happens too!).

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

I've seen it in other clashes. These decisions can be overturned. It doesn't necessarily mean the end -- provided that Google YouTube erred.

YouTube user jamesrandifoundation

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Can any of you who last visited there remember any recent contentious content --and who might have gotten them booted so we know who to protest?

Gellar, most likely. He's pulled that stunt on at least one other skeptical society (forget which) last year over fraudulent copyright claims.

It was overturned after a week or so, but it seems youtube is still willing to yank first with the burden of proof being on the victim.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

BA Blog (he should know something about it): YouTube suspension of the JREF account

Entire entry:

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

In the meantime, a YouTube site-search: “jref” results 1 - 20 of about 874.

"YouTube have lost the plot" seems the sentiment of JREF fans.

__________________
*

The discussion on the James Randi Foundation site can be found here

I suspect the forces against Randi will win, since they tend to be "popular" especially with the media who like to highlight their so called successes.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

YouTube deserves to be slashdotted.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Here's what I'm hoping: some people made DMCA copyright claims against jref videos.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that making a claim under the DMCA involves the phrase, "under penalty of perjury" somewhere in there. I would love to see these people, who thought it would be fun to hassle Randi, brought up on criminal charges for making false claims.

Well, um...Sticks, wouldn't this man and his foundation disapprove of a certain affiliation of your own? I doubt he believes in a certain "carpenter" of around 3 AD.

Just some "food for thought."

Nothing further to be said.

__________________


My beautiful city (the view from my front window).

Maybe someone has offered a million dollars to anyone who can permanently get Randi off of YouTube.

__________________
Please pass the sweet potatoes.

A clarification:

Making a DMCA claim against a YouTube video does not necessarily involve "perjury," nor is it up to the "victim" to prove anything to YouTube. In facti, it is not up to YouTube to make any kind of determination of validity. The way it works is this:

A user (Party A) uploads a video to YouTube. YouTube can post the video without doing any kind of copyright verification themselves.

Someone else (Party B) files a DMCA complaint alleging the video violates their copyright. Again, YouTube is required to do no verification - they pull the video, but they are required to notify Party A of what happened and why.

Party A can then file a counter-claim. If they do so, YouTube must reactivate the video, and must notify Party B. Note, though, that this action puts a certain responsibility on Party A. If Party B had filed a lawsuit first, Party A could claim ignorance - that they did not know Party B had a copyright claim to the content. However, since YouTube notified Party A of the copyright claim and Party A counter-claimed, they can no longer claim ignorance - they will be expected to provide a legal justification for why Party B's copyright claim is false or doesn't apply.

If Party B still wants to assert copyright after Party A has counter-claimed, they can no longer go through YouTube - they have to actually file a copyright violation lawsuit in court. YouTube, I believe, is then expected to continue to allow the video until and unless they receive a court order to pull it.

Now, this has nothing to do with other violations of YouTube's ToS (explicit content, etc.), but I don't believe YouTube suspends entire accounts based on a DMCA claim against a particular video.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Does YouTube do things like this in response to libel or slander charges? That seems much more likely in JREF's case than copyright.

Buttercup, aside from the fact that neither Randi's nor Sticks' religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is not relevant to this discussion, this is exactly the sort of comment that is prohibited by the rule on partisan religious discussion because it calls for a value judgement. Please consider this part of the same warning Swift just delivered.

There is currently no released information on why youtube pulled the video, although it's a reasonable guess that a DMCA claim was used. But there are many possible candidates as to whodunnit, and why, that have nothing to do with religion.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

(I repeat the JREF President's words, for the fretters.)

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Am I missing something?...I just went to you tube and searched for "james randi" and then watched the Peter Popoff debunking with no trouble.

Am I missing something?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Maybe. Was the popoff clip mirrored by another user? Not all James Randi related content was removed. Only James Randi/JREF's official account, with the official content.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

I don't know...

How can I tell official from unofficial?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Check the heat-activated holographic authenticator sticker?


...oh, j/k. What he means is, look at the account the video was posted from and see if it was from JRef's account or someone else''s account.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything! 14% of people know that!"

Others may post clips of James Randi as well as JREF, but if it was action by certain parties to shut down JREF then expect those clips to be reported and pulled as well.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Can't remember off the top of my head if the official youtube account is named JREF or James Randi, but I think it's the former. There'll also be a link back to the JREF site at randi.org, and I think they set up an official JREF avatar on the official postings.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

I blame Geller for now, but as mentioned earlier there are a lot other people who wanted the acoount closed as well.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan
He who shall win loses, he who loses wins.
-the five doctors
http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2033134126.shtml

According to google: "more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims."

I really think we need to reevaluate copyright and patent law. The purpose of the laws is to enrich the public domain, and if the laws aren't accomplishing that, we should change them.

I really think we need to reevaluate copyright and patent law. The purpose of the laws is to enrich the public domain, and if the laws aren't accomplishing that, we should change them.
It's not just that it's not accomplishing that, it's that it's providing people with a punishment-free way to disrupt competitors and other innocent parties.

But, it's not like having your Youtube.com video taken offline for a few days is really the end of the world for anyone. Since, according to what I read above, they're required to let the owner know who filed the complaint, when the air is cleared you can easily point out the "perp", and in the end, it hurts them more than it hurts the one that was shut down.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything! 14% of people know that!"

It's not easy. Earlier I gave:

YouTube user jamesrandifoundation

The JREF Swift Blog (from about a year ago) says likewise:

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Enriching the public domain--and do forgive me if I'm wrong on this--sounds like an excuse for eliminating copyright laws. Everything I've read indicates that copyright laws exist to protect the author/artist. When (O blessed when!) I publish my book, copyright laws would prevent someone from selling it without giving me money for it. They would not protect the format, as it's hardly an original one, but my exact words would be protected and I would get paid. It wouldn't become public domain for a very long time, and by then, I doubt anyone will remember it.

This is not to say I don't think copyright law could stand a complete overhaul, this time without the participation of the fine people at Disney.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Let's take your book as an example. In a world without copyright, you might decide that it's not worth the effort to write it in the first place. In that world, the public would be poorer for having missed the opportunity to read your book (I'm assuming your book has some cultural cachet, ha ha).

So the question: does eliminating copyright enrich the public domain? In the scenario above, no.

Now the opposite situation: let's imagine a world with too-strict copyright law. In this world, even remotely similar works are in violation of the original author's copyright, and that copyright never expires and passes on to an estate. In 1967, Fred Saberhagen writes a short story entitled, Berzerker about machine intelligences that wander the galaxy in giant, spherical ships, extinguishing all life. The Death Star from Star Wars is a violation of Saberhagen's copyright. Perhaps Lucas decides that this and other hurdles are too much and Star Wars is never made. The Borg from Star Trek are certainly a violation. The Shadow from Babylon V are problematic. The point is, in this world, the public is poorer for having missed out on all those great stories.

The absence of copyright is a bad thing. Too much copyright is even worse. Just the right amount acts as an incentive to create and publish, and keeps the public domain enriched with new ideas which inspire even more new works. I think we've drifted a bit into "too much" territory.

However, I note that SeanF has pointed out that the issue with the jref videos has nothing at all to do with copyright. Oops!

As long as movies like Scary Move 27, Epic Move 13, etc. continue to show up, I have a hard time believe copyright laws are that strict. You have to remember, they're there to (try to) protect someone from having someone else make money off their hard work. But there's still plenty of room for homages, parodies, and "inspired bys". I mean, just look how many crime scene investigation shows are out there. Or all the "America's next top whatevers". You can't tell me there's a huge difference between those, yet there's not copyright cases flying around.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything! 14% of people know that!"