Well today Corky posted a video addressing the points I made in this blog post. http://happycabbie.blogspot.com/2012/05/alex-jones-and-copyright.html
The original video had embedding turned off. So I had to replace it. If he were to enable embedding I would be more than happy to post his video here. With his videos earning money he is only shooting himself in the foot by disabling embeds. You will find no ads on my copy here.
Well let me answer the questions that Corky asked. Based upon the questions that Corky asked, it is clear to me that he did not read the blog nor did he watch the two videos embedded on there. Irregardless, I have no problem answering questions that I already answered.
To correct Corky, Alex Jones did not say that people were claiming copyright on his videos, then flagging his videos down and then reposting pirated versions and making money off that. What Alex Jones said was that a company called Bent Pixel was claiming copyright on his videos for interviewing Joe Rogan. Now Alex Jones did in fact get some of the details wrong, which is why I offered to help by writing that blog post, although I doubt he would ever read it. Alex Jones' issue is over invalid content ID matches. His videos are still up, and despite what Alex Jones said, his channel is not and never was in danger of being shut down over this.
YouTube handles Content ID matches differently than copyright. With a copyright strike your channel is at risk of termination as this is part of the DMCA law. YouTube by law must terminate accounts deemed to be repeat infringers of copyright. If they refuse to do so, they risk losing their safe harbor protection as a internet service provider.
Content ID was set up by YouTube to help content creators monetize their content when it is used by the YouTube community. This not only includes cases of fair use such as mashups but also includes piracy. Just about every major music and television studio as well as several large YouTube partners are part of Content ID. In the previous blog, linked up at the top, Margaret Stewart former head of User Experience for YouTube gave a lecture at TEDTalks about how Content ID works.
Now Content ID is not perfect. For example it can result in false claims. Just yesterday I got such a claim on one of my videos. I filled out the dispute form and had it resolved. However, there are companies such as Rumblefish which are famous for ignoring the dispute forms and in my opinion YouTube should cancel their contract until they can demonstrate that they can handle dispute forms in a timely manner.
Now when a Content ID match is made one of three things can happen, depending on the wishes of the copyright owner. The video can simply be tracked, the video can be monetized, or the video can be blocked in certain countries or even world wide. Germany for example gets a lot of videos blocked because the music royalites are different there than in the rest of the world. The one downside to a content ID match is that it restricts you to a 15 minute time limit for video uploads. Your options are to delete the video or to fill out the dispute form.
Now let's address Corky's situation with another user SpiteBravo. Despite Corky's wishes for it to be otherwise, I do not know who SpiteBravo is. I only know the identity of one of Corky's trolls and that is AtheistIsland, and even in that case all I know about this person is what other channels this user has. For the record I also know the same about one of Corky's supporters. A channel called CorkyIsWinning was created to host videos that were flagged down most of them attacking me. This person tried in the past to create an archive channel but apparently was bullied off by Corky's trolls. At least that is what I was told.
Now the user SpiteBravo has claimed that he purchased the copyrights from Corky, yet has provided no documentation proving this. As such I remain unconvinced. However, Corky has also not been completely honest either. He has claimed that SpiteBravo is profiting from the channel yet has not been able to document this. If you were to go to the SpiteBravo channel you will not see any video with ads on it, except for one that has a content ID match on it. In that case the ad revenue goes to the music owner not SpiteBravo.
Now regarding the case where Corky talks about himself being flagged down. Well the reason he gets flagged down so much is because of his past of doc dropping and threats. His last channel of course was terminated for leaving a comment on someone's video that was reported as harassment. The comment that did him in was when he said, "Lot's of news stories these days about victims of bullies putting an end to the bullying once and for all with lethal consequences for the bullies. Take note."
However his current channel was taken down a few days ago due to bogus DMCAs. This happened at the same time that Brett Keane and Jdubs was taken down so I suspect that one user took them all down. When I contacted YouTube's copyright department about my name being used in bogus DMCA claims it is obvious that they investigated the other claims sent from the same user. No other explanation fits for Corky's channel being reinstated, as it was too soon for YouTube to have processed any counter-notices. Those usually take 2-3 weeks to process. So as it stands right now Corky's channel is in the clear. You are welcome Corky.
So what are Corky's options. Well he could file DMCAs on the video, I honestly have no clue why he claims he is unable to. However SpiteBravo could just as easily file a counter-notice and have the videos reinstated in 2-3 weeks. Of course by law SpiteBravo would have to furnish his or her docs but sadly there is no requirement on YouTube's end to verify that the docs are accurate in order to reinstate the video. In order to keep the videos down you would have to file court papers in the federal district court where SpiteBravo resides. This would involve not only several hundred dollars, but also travel expenses. The court costs could also be even greater if you decided to try and fight more than one counter-notice. See the video I made towards HungryBear regarding this issue
Another options you could have is to try and flag the videos for violating the Terms of Service but in order to do that you would have to concede that your own words violate the Terms of Service as SpiteBravo's videos are simply excerpts from your own videos.
So what options does Corky have? My best advice would be to try filing a impersonation report. You can do that by going to the safety center at the bottom of any YouTube page. Regarding AdSense, as you know you are allowed one AdSense account per lifetime. Creating a second AdSense account after you had been banned is a violation. Most likely what will happen is once your account comes close to reaching $100 they will review your account before issuing a payment and then shut you down. http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=57153#q3
The next point I would like to bring up is your statement that I have not done enough to keep your details private. Let's review. First when I discovered that your license plate was on Encyclopedia Dramatica I went and got it edited off. I wound up getting banned from ED as a result. Second, one of your trolls NickBravoExposed posted a video giving out the city that you live in and the number to the police department. You can see our comment exchange here. http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=eM_u_Vwz33M I am not responsible for the conduct of your trolls. I am responsible for my conduct and I believe I have gone out of my way many times to try and help you and to keep your personal information off of the internet.
The final point I want to address is Corky's often repeated claim that I am a bully. I have to admit I do grow weary of this claim of his, especially when he refuses to cite evidence. Corky who exactly have I bullied? Please inform me of this list of yours.
