JREF Suspended

[lost thought]

Just been to youtube to see if there where any new videos from james randi and what do I find.:-X
It would seem that youtube has decided to suspend the JREF account I suspect theists are behind this.>:-)

Links to youtube videos.

James Randi Foundation
This account is suspended>:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adUn_-4yoaQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adUn_-4yoaQ)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqmCuyviyX0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqmCuyviyX0)

[tkingdoll]

Both Jeff Wagg and Phil Plait of JREF have issued statements saying they're well aware of it and are looking into it. There have been a fair few (understandable) angry reactions to the suspension, but in absolute fairness to YouTube we have no idea why the action was taken and whether or not it was fair.

JREF has many enemies, if we're going to speculate I'd blame a disgruntled challenge applicant or someone JREF has tangled with legally before I'd blame 'theists' (who are not the Borg, one assumes).

But it could be that JREF have genuinely violated their terms of use, or it could be a mistake, or it could be malice. Until we hear from JREF (if they choose to tell us), we have no way of knowing.

[Trinoc]

From the second YouTube link ...


UPDATE: Received word from JREF about suspension:

"Sean: there were a few complaints about Oprah material and some from Dean Radin, as well. YouTube shut us down pending our resolution of these problems. I expect we'll be back up very soon...

James Randi."

[Admin]

Why don't the JREF just host their own videos?

[Mulder]

Why don't the JREF just host their own videos?

It uses a lot of bandwidth, which is expensive. Just my guess ...

[Admin]

I thought bandwidth these days was pretty much unrestricted.

Perhaps not.

[Trinoc]

I thought bandwidth these days was pretty much unrestricted.

Perhaps not.
Definitely not. Try putting something on the UKS web site that generates 100GB of traffic a day and watch the bills roll in.

[Admin]

It wouldn't cost me a penny. O0

If you have say, 50 Mpeg movies which are 10Mb each and they all get hit 1,000 times each every day then it only amounts to 15GB bandwidth a month.

Although most hosting companies put bandwidth limits on accounts, the actual bandwidth isn't really monitored - they're 'soft limits'.

Anyway, if you have a reasonable hosting account, you could easily host a series of videos without a problem. Most of them won't be getting hit 1,000 times a day, for example.

[Trinoc]

It wouldn't cost me a penny. O0

If you have say, 50 Mpeg movies which are 10Mb each and they all get hit 1,000 times each every day then it only amounts to 15GB bandwidth a month.
Ummm ... I make that 500GB a day!

[newatheist]

Why don't the JREF just host their own videos?
They can probably generate more views on youtube than their own website.

[Admin]

Ummm ... I make that 500GB a day!

That's only because you're using the correct calculation.

I use 'alternative calculations' and this makes me right. Science doesn't know everything!

I've been using UK billion 1x1012 rather than the US version 1x109 for a Gigabyte. ::)

This means I've made the same mistake somewhere else as well......:undecided: :-[

[Admin]

They can probably generate more views on youtube than their own website.

Not if the videos don't appear at all!

Actually, going from my (mis)calculation above, heavy hits on some videos would probably cause hosting issues.

I wonder if there's specialised hosting available for this sort of heavy bandwidth usage?

[Matt]

I wonder if there's specialised hosting available for this sort of heavy bandwidth usage?

Yes.

[Trinoc]

I wonder if there's specialised hosting available for this sort of heavy bandwidth usage?
A lot of podcasts seem to be hosted on libsyn.

[Trinoc]

It appears the YouTube accounts for Rational Response and Atheist Media have also been suspended. I'm starting to smell a conspiracy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/RationalResponse
http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMedia

[lost thought]

A lot of the youtube channels which usually deal with science or are anti-crearionist and athiest have claim to be hit by votbots which reduce the chance of someone not subscribed to them seeing thier videos this is why I suspect the work of thiest as the only motive seems to be to silence any one who upsets they're delusional world.

I think that the only free speach the thiest is in favour of is that they talk and we listen and shut up as they KNOW they are right, this is why you can not discuss with them.

[cjr23]

Just been to youtube to see if there where any new videos from james randi and what do I find.:-X
It would seem that youtube has decided to suspend the JREF account I suspect theists are behind this.>:-)



Are you much given to conspiracy theory? Given that Randi was peddling outrageous woo I think it's fortunate - see the JREF thread on this (I can't post URL's yet) why the loss of the Nazareth one is timely and probably for the best. :) I wonder how on earth Randi was tricked in ot that, it made his sound like a CT'er himself!

Shame about the other videos, but they will be back soon I expect -0 the same thing happened to the Dawkin's channel last year, and it was nothing to do with complaints etc, just a copyright issue needing sorting out.

cj x

[cjr23]

Both Jeff Wagg and Phil Plait of JREF have issued statements saying they're well aware of it and are looking into it. There have been a fair few (understandable) angry reactions to the suspension, but in absolute fairness to YouTube we have no idea why the action was taken and whether or not it was fair.

JREF has many enemies, if we're going to speculate I'd blame a disgruntled challenge applicant or someone JREF has tangled with legally before I'd blame 'theists' (who are not the Borg, one assumes).

But it could be that JREF have genuinely violated their terms of use, or it could be a mistake, or it could be malice. Until we hear from JREF (if they choose to tell us), we have no way of knowing.

Absolutely. I can think of a few loonies who might have done this, but almost certainly it is a copyright violation claim by someone. I would encourage people not to do anything (like post videos) that will antagonize the situation - I found over 300 videos mirrored to complain - why would this help relations between the JREF and YouTube? If you want to help the JREF, why not go to TAM London as well as the UK Sceptics Con? :)

cj x

[tkingdoll]

From what I know, it is a genuine (but not intentional) copyright violation - I think any organisation posting a lot of content is at risk of making a mistake.

Hopefully it'll be back soon.

[cjr23]

That is from experience what usually happens - an accidental copyright violation, usually minor, and YouTube pull everything. However usually it gets sorted pretty quickly.

I was absolutely delighted to see Randi posting regular video updates, though I like Phil's stuff too. :) I still have not seen the March 29th one!

cj x

[Mulder]

From what I know, it is a genuine (but not intentional) copyright violation - I think any organisation posting a lot of content is at risk of making a mistake.

Something I don't understand about YouTube is that lots of people post (awful) videos with soundtracks consisting of well-known published music. Isn't this copyright violation?

[Mongrel]

Something I don't understand about YouTube is that lots of people post (awful) videos with soundtracks consisting of well-known published music. Isn't this copyright violation?

They're not able to police everything, for the most part only the stuff that gets reported gets examined.

[Trinoc]

They're not able to police everything, for the most part only the stuff that gets reported gets examined.
Which makes it even more surprising, since the Copyright Mafia claim to have people constantly scouring the web for violations. Could it be that they quietly connive YouTube postings as free publicity for their music, while at the same time loudly complaining that every time someone downloads any music from a file sharing network they are deprived of the full price of a CD in profit?

[Mongrel]

Which makes it even more surprising, since the Copyright Mafia claim to have people constantly scouring the web for violations.
They can claim whatever they want, they're pretty crap though. Either going for the big targets (Napster, Pirate Bay etc) or the inexplicable (14 year olds and grannies). They pushed a lot of the policing of everyday stuff onto the ISPs, which is why you may receive a letter from them if you grab the latest films, as the data is easily recognised and it's quite easy to identify files.

Could it be that they quietly connive YouTube postings as free publicity for their music, while at the same time loudly complaining that every time someone downloads any music from a file sharing network they are deprived of the full price of a CD in profit?

Unlikely, the sheer scale of monitoring just You Tube is daunting so they foist the task on to YT to manage and take the blame. That's why items that are reported as violations are pulled so quickly and then investigated

[Trinoc]

They can claim whatever they want, they're pretty crap though. Either going for the big targets (Napster, Pirate Bay etc) or the inexplicable (14 year olds and grannies). They pushed a lot of the policing of everyday stuff onto the ISPs, which is why you may receive a letter from them if you grab the latest films, as the data is easily recognised and it's quite easy to identify files.
Most P2P traffic these days is encrypted, and you can set programs like utorrent to accept only encrypted connections, at the risk of missing some seeders that don't have the option. This takes the ISP out of the loop, as the packets don't look like anything special. This leaves only those prolenet ISPs (like Virgin) who allegedly assume you are doing something shady if you simply have a lot of continuous traffic of any sort (so what about legitimate downloads, streaming video or gaming?).

In order to identify a user, I think they actually have to join the P2P network, i.e. do what they claim is breaking the law themselves, and check which IP addresses send them valid data. Simply looking at the IP addresses on trackers is no help since they have random addresses added to put them off the scent. There are downloadable lists of IP addresses believed to be Copyright Mafia bots, so that P2P programs can refuse to connect to them.

[cjr23]

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/505-the-jref-youtube-account-is-back-online.html

Back online, and what I said. :)

cj x