YouTube may or may not follow it's own stated guidelines in Fair Use.

This story came as a surprise and one that needs to be shared. I hope I chose the forum properly.

A number of people have been after me for months to start a YouTube channel and publish in a video/infographic form, some of what I make for the more in-depth threads and investigative stuff I work on. I've generally resisted. In no small part because the policies of the Google Empire seem to be arbitrary as much as they are publicly stated or reliable. It's a crap shoot, in my views and opinions, so I've gone without my own YouTube channel. Now I find this to remind me that not all concerns are without basis.

In 2011, a New Jersey YouTuber named John McKelzey had what he considered to be a completely legal video removed from YouTube because it violated the site's terms of use.

Last week, he learned that agreements between the Google-owned site and Universal Music Group may have destroyed any chance of reinstating his video on YouTube, no matter how legitimate his case may be.

Whoa?? What might he have done? Published a whole movie? Music Video? Album? To see the headline and reaction....you'd think his offense would be particularly extreme and over the top. After all, it was flagged immediately on YT.

The video was like nearly every other video that's shown up on McKelzey's YouTube channel over the past five years: a multimedia review of a hip-hop album that blends McKelzey's own take on the album with short, low-quality audio snippets, many of which last less than less than a minute. In the case of the deleted video, the album McKelzey reviewed was the 12" single for Eric B. and Rakim's iconic "Eric B. is President," a pressing that put the Long Island duo's "My Melody" on the back side.

No, it would appear he didn't do anything he hasn't already been doing for years. He makes a habit, as this reads, of posting low quality snippets of new videos released so he may review them and offer commentary in his own way. A sort of citizen review service, which is nice to see in my opinion. All the input we can get on things these days is, taken as a whole, helpful!

What was YouTube's position? Well... This is why I felt it worth sharing here. This is hard to believe but this is how it apparently read in a reply to him from Google (Parent Company of YouTube)

YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.

In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

Source / (Emphasis Mine)

Well, if that doesn't define and put into writing a text book example of conditional and selective enforcement of procedures or appeal processes? What does?? As I read that, they made deals for their own success which sold their Souls for proper and fair handling of disputes by those lowly users who come at a dime a dozen anyway....so in case of conflict, too bad folks. Whatever the Corp clients say is what the Corp clients get.

Is this as annoying to everyone else? I'm now rather glad I never have opened a thing on YouTube in my own efforts. It would have taken a piece of my day to remove it all after reading this story.

I agree

But show me a website that isn't CONTROLLED

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Nice find Rabbit! S&F.

Welcome to the Big Corporation's view on Internet and sites content...