Account suspended after 'information within legal request was fraudulent'

No wonder you didn't want to reveal the content of your counter-notice! You'd claimed to own the rights to a video for which it was obvious at first glance you could not possibly have owned.

You will receive no further answer from YouTube. You told a legal lie not once, but every time you've countered; if all of your counter-notices said the same thing. As those before me have said: you'll not get your channel back, and there is nothing you can add to what you've already told YouTube Legal which will change this.

Time to find another video portal; and this time, really make your own videos instead of stealing media from others. I strongly suggest that before you join another video portal, you read the pinned post in this forum section titled:

"The Responsibilities Of An Internet Broadcaster".
 
Last edited:
I claimed that I wasn’t making profit for it which I wasn’t, it’s a mistake and this is the first time it has happened. My channel has a lot of subs and views, can’t just give up on it. The user above said wait about 28-30 BUSINESS days, would appealing further back log the response? What about contacting the company that sent the claim by phone, possibly find out if they received the counter notification and notified YT...
 
sd007 said:
I claimed that I wasn’t making profit for it which I wasn’t, it’s a mistake and this is the first time it has happened. My channel has a lot of subs and views, can’t just give up on it. The user above said wait about 28-30 BUSINESS days, would appealing further back log the response? What about contacting the company that sent the claim by phone, possibly find out if they received the counter notification and notified YT...
Click to expand...
I said that before you confirmed your perjury!

The only mistakes made here, were your double lies. There is absolutely no appeal you could put forth now, which would swing the current decision back in your favour. Not making profit from the video doesn't cancel out the fact that you reposted media under the copyright of a major media network without permission or license, and then claimed that you owned it. Non-profit has never been a valid defence of copyright violation; which in some countries, is a criminal offence carrying both jail terms and heavy fines for those convicted of it.

This was no mistake; your channel's termination was fully justified and correct; and if this was your standard counter-notification technique, it should have happened long before this. You can try all of the additional measures you mentioned; in fact I encourage you to do so, just to prove it will not change anything.

In the end, you will have no choice; you will be forced to give up on your channel by YouTube's refusal to reinstate it.
 
Last edited:
Where did you get this 28-30 business days time frame from anyway? And do you know of anyone or a case where this has happened and the account has came back?
 
sd007 said:
Where did you get this 28-30 business days time frame from anyway? And do you know of anyone or a case where this has happened and the account has came back?
Click to expand...
I got the 28-30 business days from the longest time YouTube is recorded as taking to answer a standard channel termination appeal. And no; I don't know of one case where a termination for filing a fraudulent legal form has been overturned or appealed successfully, and the channel returned to the user.

I've seen literally dozens of these cases on the Official YouTube Help Forum; and not one "explanation" put forth by a user terminated for this reason has been accepted by YouTube to date. I suspect that like yourself, they tried to claim they owned content they actually did not in the cases of counter-notifications, for the most part. I've also seen a few cases where names or addresses were not the actual addresses or names of the defendants, and termination occurred for falsified contact information.

And in at least one case, someone filed a copyright takedown for media which although he did the final pre-upload edit, and had watermarked for his channel, he didn't own the base media rights for. This was someone who had created a Top 10 Moments video featuring clips of the TV Chef Gordon Ramsay. Another user stole the video and reuploaded it to his own channel, complete with the first channel's watermark left intact.

YouTube of course recognized major network media when it saw it, and immediately terminated the channel who tried to strike the other one for fraudulent filing. The now terminated channel owner attempted to beg YouTube to allow him to take back the strike, but YouTube's Legal Dept. didn't listen.

Very bad thing to tell legal lies to YouTube!
 
Last edited:
Did the users get an email back saying that they wouldn’t get their account back? Also, would it be worth contacting the claimant and explained this issue?
 
You can try contacting the claimant.

Everyone who came back and posted after explaining had tried the normal appeal process as well as the reply. All never received a reply to their email to the Legal Team, and the normal appeal referred them right back to the original email they needed to reply to; endless loop.

The claimant isn't the YouTube Copyright and Legal Team, and will have little influence on the final decision; but as I said, you can try.
 
sd007 said:
Did the users get an email back saying that they wouldn’t get their account back? Also, would it be worth contacting the claimant and explained this issue?
Click to expand...

I would love to hear how you would "explain this issue."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top