Latest on My YouTube Account
Mark Bunker
Subject: DMCA Notice
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:33:41 -0700
From: se...@baytsp.com
To: xen...@hotmail.com
CC: and...@baytsp.com; elli...@baytsp.com; eve...@baytsp.com;
se...@baytsp.com
Mark Bunker,
After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that the
postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions will
not be issued for the notices sent.
Regards,
Sean Ray
Client Services
BayTSP, Inc.
408-341-2300 (Main)
408-341-2399 (Fax)
an...@anon.penet.fi
wrote:
Well that is such a bunch of BULLSHIT!
What are you going to do Mark?
Anyway the masses can help?
--
No good deed will go unpunished
cin...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:48:43 -0700, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >I received this email today:
>
> >Subject: DMCA Notice
> >Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:33:41 -0700
> >From: se...@baytsp.com
> >To: xen...@hotmail.com
> >se...@baytsp.com
>
> >Mark Bunker,
>
> >After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that the
> >postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions will
> >not be issued for the notices sent.
>
> >Regards,
> >Sean Ray
> >Client Services
> >BayTSP, Inc.
> >408-341-2300 (Main)
> >408-341-2399 (Fax)
> >se...@baytsp.com
> >www.baytsp.com
>
> Well that is such a bunch of BULLSHIT!
>
> What are you going to do Mark?
> Anyway the masses can help?
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont think so we could organize a pettition or call ourselfs and
explain the Situation but i dont think it will do anything. Mark have
you thought of using google video? It has a much higher max video
length
Jo
> Mark Bunker,
>
> After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that the
> postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions will
> not be issued for the notices sent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Ray
GEEZ. What's with the bad grammar? Clearing infringing? Perhaps
this guy is a PRE CLEAR. LOL Just kidding. He's clearly got clearing
on the brain.
Well, okay. So they threw the book at Mark. He violated their
copyright (he along with a kajillion others) but he's being made an
example of. So Vimeo it is. There are more than eight ways to skin a
cat, you know. YouTube might be the big boy on the playground but
it's a big playground.
Sorry about the kick in the pants, Mark. Could have just as easily
been any of us.
cin...@gmail.com
Well another video channel can be made! THEATAN VISION! for example
others can always post marks videos to it!
smith....@yahoo.com
I am not judging you at all.
Let me ask you this - based on the "rules" did you break them?
If so there is little they can do for you. I would not be "fair" to
others to let you slide.
I am not saying it IS fair, but that is there point of view on it.
Shawn the Bastard
> I received this email today:
>
> Subject: DMCA Notice
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:33:41 -0700
> From: se...@baytsp.com
> To: xen...@hotmail.com
> se...@baytsp.com
>
> Mark Bunker,
>
> After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that the
> postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions will
> not be issued for the notices sent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Ray
>
> Client Services
>
> BayTSP, Inc.
>
> 408-341-2300 (Main)
>
> 408-341-2399 (Fax)
>
> se...@baytsp.com
>
> www.baytsp.com
Well.... We can either powermessage this company.....
Might I reccomend DailyMotion and Veoh?
cin...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I still say google video!
Tralfamador
>
> After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that
> the postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions
> will not be issued for the notices sent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Ray
Yep.... I just got this also. They seem intractable.
Hi there,
Thanks for your email. We are only able to discuss specific content
removals with the user who posted the materials.
We take copyright issues very seriously and prohibit users from uploading
infringing material. We cooperate with copyright holders to identify and
promptly remove infringing content from the site. Our community guidelines
make it clear that users must own or have permission from the copyright
holders to post any videos. Videos that breach these rules are removed and
we disable all accounts belonging to repeat offenders.
Regards,
Pat
The YouTube Team
EvilZoe
didn't pull your second account.
I feel like YouTube dropped the ball when they didn't do something
about your second account if they were so rigid about killing your
first account due to copyright issues. And why did they bother to
tell you to take down the vids if they were going to outright ban the
account? That makes no sense to me. Is it just one strike you're
out? And what about all the other vids up there with similar
content? Why are they allowed to stay up?
Their position might be a lot stronger if there weren't a zillion
Colbert vids up on YouTube right now. They need to be consistent.
Since they didn't bother to do anything about that way back when you
opened the second account, and you abided by their rules with that
second account, they should have to eat it.
It would have been a much smarter PR move had they just listened to
their users. I suspect their policies are going to undergo an
overhaul after this past week of being deluged with emails, faxes, and
phone calls by people protesting.
Jo
and post them to the alternate video sources, and then we (plus
anonymous) can post them to our own YouTube accounts. Lots of people
repost videos without copyright on their own accounts. Mark doesn't
technically need HIS OWN account for his word to spread in the viral
video community.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Jeff, you need to read up more before you post a judgement like that.
Over th past week Mark's current account with YouTube was closed
because of something that occurred last year. When he opened up a new
one 3 months ago or so, everything was fine but most likely CoS got
pissed about the Beghe interview and looked for and found a way to get
it off youtube. Seems CoS pressured Youtube, or Google, who owns it,
to pull the account because in the fine print of the terms, if one was
sanctioned before for copyright infringement, they cannot have another
account at YouTube. In the past, Bunker was sanctoned for showing
clips of Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert / Colbert Report
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/the-book-of-stephen/
I believe it would take Stephen Cobert and Viacom together to get the
infringement DMCA notice retracted, but the DMCA, in reevaluating it's
decision, stuck to it's original position that infringement occurred.
Look, infringement is infringement and Mark is not denying he posted
clips. Mind you, he is one of the few ever sanctioned for what
thousands are doing every day with intellectual properties. The idea
of asking for a retraction recently was to be able to get the newest
account at YouTube reopened so the Jason Beghe interview teaser could
be put back up ASAP with the full interview to follow.
So Mark was not recently sanctioned. He asked for them to be
retracted and it was denied. The point is moot now, as the full
interview is up today on Veromi Viromi or whatever the name is. It's
youTube's loss.
Interestingly, I don't believe Mark was ever sanctioned for showing
the whole
Comedy Central "Trapped in the Closet" on YouTube, which generated
more than 700,000 views http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/1b895eff174209a4
Comedy Central is still making money off that un part because Mark and
the critics helped make it the most watched and talked about South
Park in years.
Mary
AnonymousNasty
I am sure Mark would tell you this that standing up to Co$ is fulltime
work..........so you herd of cats get busy.
$cientology Kill$
John Dorsay
> It was lame of YouTube to pass this buck onto Viacom, anway. Viacom
> didn't pull your second account.
>
> I feel like YouTube dropped the ball when they didn't do something
> about your second account if they were so rigid about killing your
> first account due to copyright issues. And why did they bother to
> tell you to take down the vids if they were going to outright ban the
> account? That makes no sense to me. Is it just one strike you're
> out? And what about all the other vids up there with similar
> content? Why are they allowed to stay up?
>
> Their position might be a lot stronger if there weren't a zillion
> Colbert vids up on YouTube right now. They need to be consistent.
As I understand copyright, failure to pursue any particular claim
does not prejudice any other claim. Even if Viacom ignores every
Colbert posting except WBM's, their claim against WBM is not
diminished in any way. If Viacom doesn't complain to Youtube about
other Colbett posters, Youtube has no obligation to act.
Conversely, if Viacom complains about WBM, then Youtube is obliged
to act.
This leads me to wonder why Viacom chose WBM from all the hundreds
of people who have posted Colbert clips (cue black helicopters).
IANAL, and I welcome corrections from sensible people if I am
mistaken about any of this.
John
Simkatu
YouTube and Google Video are both owned by the same company, namely
Google. If the video is deemed infringing by YouTube then rest
assured that Google Video will reach the same conclusion.
--
AJ Simkatu
Scientology.....It's what's for dinner!
Simkatu
> Interestingly, I don't believe Mark was ever sanctioned for showing
> the whole
> Comedy Central "Trapped in the Closet" on YouTube, which generated
> more than 700,000 viewshttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/1b895eff1...
>
> Comedy Central is still making money off that un part because Mark and
> the critics helped make it the most watched and talked about South
> Park in years.
> Mary
The creators of South Park have repeatedly stated that they do not
care if people redistribute episodes online. Their own website FAQ
says as much.
--
Simkatu
Scientology....It's what's for dinner!
cin...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
they are two different services though and the problem was with stuff
posted to youtube(Mark knows his mistake now). Videos posted to google
video would be a fresh start
cin...@gmail.com
It was probaly flaged by the culties john. there are videos taken down
almost everyday that break copywrite
R. Hill
<snip>
>>
>> This leads me to wonder why Viacom chose WBM from all the hundreds
>> of people who have posted Colbert clips (cue black helicopters).
>>
>> IANAL, and I welcome corrections from sensible people if I am
>> mistaken about any of this.
>>
>> John
>
> It was probaly flaged by the culties john. there are videos taken down
> almost everyday that break copywrite
The question is the timing. A few hours following Tory's own suspension.
And months after Youtube already acted on the DCMA complaint -- his new
account had no other materials than his own. And a few hours prior to
having the Jason Beghe's interview posted. It's puzzling.
--
"I started thinking, and I got carried away"
- Dan Garvin, former scientologist
"We simply do as [L. Ron Hubbard] says"
- Dennis Clarke, scientologist
phil scott
Youtube simply drove a chunk of its high end talent and viewer base
off to competing channels...a trace amount but none the less thousands
who simply begin using or developing other options... in competition
with you tube.
I had this conversation with Oracle corp attorneys when they were
hosting a cult operation against me...I advised them that the expose
would drive some of their business to the fledgeling start up at the
time SAP... and that did happen and for the reasons stated.. and
published in the EU press, fear of cult infiltration of the
software.... SAP now has a large percentage of the worlds high end
data base business.... cost to Oracle corp not just billions but much
of its espionage capability exposed, and its client base working to
find other options.
youtube is dominant in the video channels today....it will loose its
dominance if it chokes off controversial discussion ...thats true
regardless and genuine or bogus pretexts.....and not just limited to
this scn expose but more broadly... these are simply the realities of
life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efeHG3HQUMs&feature=user
Phil Scott
phil scott
precisely correct.
cin...@gmail.com
No alot of his videos are still up. All anon needs in the sauce and we
can get them out there!
cin...@gmail.com
Sorry I mean Yes not no!
phil scott
> On Apr 21, 4:42 pm, cina...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:31 pm, Shawn the Bastard <ThatBastardSh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 4:48 pm, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I received this email today:
>
> > > > Subject: DMCA Notice
> > > > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:33:41 -0700
> > > > From: se...@baytsp.com
> > > > To: xen...@hotmail.com
> > > > CC: andr...@baytsp.com; ellio...@baytsp.com; eve...@baytsp.com;
> > > > se...@baytsp.com
>
> > > > Mark Bunker,
>
> > > > After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that the
> > > > postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions will
> > > > not be issued for the notices sent.
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Sean Ray
>
> > > > Client Services
>
> > > > BayTSP, Inc.
>
>
> > > > 408... (Fax)
>
> > > > se...@baytsp.com
>
> > > >www.baytsp.com
>
> > > Well.... We can either powermessage this company.....
>
> > > Might I reccomend DailyMotion and Veoh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I still say google video!
>
> YouTube and Google Video are both owned by the same company, namely
> Google. If the video is deemed infringing by YouTube then rest
> assured that Google Video will reach the same conclusion.
>
> --
> AJ Simkatu
>
> - Show quoted text -
correct... so what will happen now is Mark will simply use other
channels, others with Utube accounts will post his stuff with mention
of the other channels...and traffic will move accordingly. Other
venues will be hosting the more interesting content and getting that
business... when the casual innertubes get wind of this crap they will
begin using the other venues as well..... then you tube and google
stock holders can ask why the hell business is off at ensuing stock
holders meetings.
Cult of scientology ads on these will decline in effectiveness because
of the increased outrage ..and because of declining traffic on the
censored channels.
The criminal cult of scientolgy has a long history of taking down
virtually everyone or anything it touches...its staff, its public, its
businesses and spin offs as its USBX bank for instance joint ventured
with the CIA's Carlyle group, creating what the financial press
called the single most virulent threat to world banking structure,
(Feb 10 issue of the SF chronicle, business page 1).... etc.
Viacom and google have chosen to put the knee pads on kiss scns ass
also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efeHG3HQUMs&feature=user
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
Out_Of_The_Dark
Well, that explains it! I don't usually watch the show and have rarely
visited the site. Thanks
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
we have studied copyright law extensively at the arscc...there is such
as fair use excerpts permitted by law, especially when in the public
interest such as exposing a fraud...and not for profit. notice i
said fair use ecerpts not the entire piece.... and that is subject to
a jurys decision.
in the case of a private companies policy, they can declare any rules
they like and preclude even fair use if they want..and that is what
they did.... so now a big chunk of this emerging anonymous traffic
will move to other venues...acting like vacuum to draw away youtube
business.... its a natural phenomena. it is unavoidable, it is like
the tides.
i wish youtube the best as it decimates its most interesting and
valuable content in order to cater to the criminal cult...thats
hot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efeHG3HQUMs&feature=user
Phil Scott
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
this free web to fax service
https://faxzero.com/
My letter to them
---
Dear Sean Ray,
You are asked to reconsider your position regarding the possible
infringement of Stephen Colbert clips posted by Mark Bunker on his
youtube channel XenuTV. You stated in your letter to him that his
videos were “were clearing infringing”. The contributors to the Daily
Show, specifically Jon Stewart, and Stephen Cobert, make it perfectly
clear they want views to share clips of their show with others,
specifically on YouTube. If they don’t have the authority to grant
permission, then you need to address that with them. Or it could be
you are acting without the authority of the copyright holders. I’m
willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were acting in
good faith however I request that you give me exact details on the
criteria you used to determine the nature of the infringement in the
case of Mark Bunker. Also please provide all documentation proving
you have authority to act on behalf of the copyright holders of "The
Daily Show".
I thank you for your time and hope you have an inspirational day.
IGEP
----
On Apr 21, 1:48 pm, "Mark Bunker" <markb...@cox.net> wrote:
> I received this email today:
>
> Subject: DMCA Notice
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:33:41 -0700
> From: se...@baytsp.com
> To: xen...@hotmail.com
> CC: and...@baytsp.com; elli...@baytsp.com; eve...@baytsp.com;
> se...@baytsp.com
>
> MarkBunker,
>
> After reviewing the Comedy Central clips it has been determined that the
> postings on your YouTube channel were clearing infringing. Retractions will
> not be issued for the notices sent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Ray
>
> Client Services
>
> BayTSP, Inc.
>
Fear Not
It wasn't a DCMA complaint lodged against you.
It was a Massive DCMA complaint aimed at YouTube.
http://www.news.com/Viacom-sues-Google-over-YouTube-clips/2100-1030_3-6166668.html
So ask yourself..
Why have they not cancelled all the other accounts with snippets up?
Why did they single you out?
Fear Not
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
https://faxzero.com/
I'd also be interested to know how long these clips were, since there
are provisions for fair use in copyright law. the way this guy is
acting, journalists can't report on current events for fear of
copyright infringement.
My response
-------------------------
Dear Sean Ray,
You are asked to reconsider your position regarding the possible
infringement of Stephen Colbert clips posted by Mark Bunker on his
youtube channel XenuTV. You stated in your letter to him that his
videos were “were clearing infringing”. The contributors to the Daily
Show, specifically Jon Stewart, and Stephen Cobert, make it perfectly
clear they want views to share clips of their show with others,
specifically on YouTube. If they don’t have the authority to grant
permission, then you need to address that with them. Or it could be
you are acting without the authority of the copyright holders. I’m
willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were acting in
good faith however I request that you give me exact details on the
criteria you used to determine the nature of the infringement in the
case of Mark Bunker.
I thank you for your time and hope you have an inspirational day.
-------
On Apr 21, 1:48 pm, "Mark Bunker" <markbun...@cox.net> wrote:
> I received this email today:
>
> Subject: DMCA Notice
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:33:41 -0700
> From: se...@baytsp.com
> To: xen...@hotmail.com
> CC: andr...@baytsp.com; ellio...@baytsp.com; eve...@baytsp.com;
> se...@baytsp.com
>
> Mark Bunker,
>
Eldon
Yeah, and it is pretty flaky that Scientology could complain about a
violation of Viacom's copyright and get away with it. But let's not
forget that Viacom sued YouTube for zillions of dollars not long after
Google bought the company. So they're highly sensitive about anything
that concerns Viacom.
Something similar happened last year when someone posted a France 3
program about Landmark Education with English subtitles. It was yanked
from YouTube, DailyMotion and a couple of other places. Supposedly
that was because the hidden camera part infringed Landmark's training
manual for Forum leaders. France 3 made no complaint whatsoever. Soon
thereafter, Landmark shut down in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous