Account suspended after 'information within legal request was fraudulent'

[videoeditgr]

There is a saying in my native language.
You do not strike your fist naked on a knife.
This was what you did with youtube sort off.

If you want a chance, forget your channel right now.
Sit down and write an apology letter to Youtube
By admitting that you realise now the seriousness
Of what you did. It is their field, you play by their rules.
If one was going to give you a second chance
It wouldn,t be on a channel already being down for copyrights
BUT for a fresh start. From scratch i mean. If you are willing to doso,
Write an apology letter email twit spread the word
Ask for support and cross your fingers.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

A lot of that has to do with the claimant as all counter-notifications are sent to the claimant and they have to respond. If they don't respond in 30 days, you win. Until very recently, the claimant got all of the ad revenue no matter what, so it wasn't in their best interest to ever respond because they got to keep all of the money regardless. Now it's different, but they're usually not in any hurry.

That's for disputing and appealing copyright claims, not strikes. Counter notifications are for strikes and the claimant has 10-14 business days to respond.

 

[sd007]

That's for disputing and appealing copyright claims, not strikes. Counter notifications are for strikes and the claimant has 10-14 business days to respond.

Exactly, that’s why it’s weird how it got processed a month and a half later. You reckon it has anything to do with the other one being rejected?

 

[UKHypnotist]

@sd007 Your ID on the Official Help Forum: Shivam Desai; correct or not? If correct, why are you not telling the contributors there the entire truth, that you have indeed been terminated for a fraudulent filing? The other one wasn't rejected; it was seen through as being fraudulent.

In the interests of "history", I just went through the entire posting history for Shivam Desai on the official YouTube Help Forum.

He has been fighting a continuous battle to keep his channel alive in the face of constant copyright strikes (and channel terminations for copyright violations (which to date he has managed to overturn)), since at least September of 2012; making him a flagrant and unrepentant law-breaker, who is out to get over any way he can.

This is not an attack or a call-out; this is History speaking for itself.

 

[sd007]

What are you trying to get at? I said it was rejected as they thought I was filing fraudulent information. The confusing part is all my counter-notifs have provided the same information, and even the one I filed out with the one that got 'rejected' got processed a few days ago.

 

[UKHypnotist]

That was not a rejection; a rejection notice would have said that your counter-notification has been rejected by the claimant; not that YouTube Legal was concerned that some of the information in the notification was fraudulent. Certainly it would not have caused a channel termination, unless this was your third copyright strike.

Instead both the claimant and YouTube's Legal department saw that though you said you owned all rights to the video you were countering for, you could not have possibly owned said rights.

Then, you compounded that lie by saying that the video was created under the auspices of the Fair Use Doctrine, when it actually did not satisfy the four factors.

1. You were not reviewing or critiqueing this interview

2. The interview had had no transformational elements added to it to add to its value; indeed by reposting it, you undermined its value to the originating network

3. Only factor of Fair Use satisfied; you were not making money from it.

4. A simple sports interview has no true educational value, and your repost of same could not add such value.

So: two instances of perjury in the same counter-notification; and thus, the basis for your termination for filing a fraudulent legal form.

What I am getting at at the end of the day is this:

For the last six years nearly (and possibly longer; but this incarnation of the Help Forum only goes back to 2012), you have been posting unlicensed copyright media to YouTube. You've received repeated copyright strikes and channel terminations for these actions. But instead of realizing and accepting you were not only breaking YouTube's rules, but International Copyright Law as well and being sorry for it, you kept overturning the terminations and doing the same exact thing; hoping to slide by forever with your lazy media thievery.

Your rule breaking has caught up with you at last. I hope on your next media portal if you even decide to keep doing videos, you will have the grace and the common sense to create your own media instead of stealing the work of others for your own benefit without compensating those you stole from.

I hope that is clear enough for you!

 

[sd007]

'That was not a rejection; a rejection notice would have said that your counter-notification has been rejected by the claimant; not that YouTube Legal was concerned that some of the information in the notification was fraudulent. Certainly it would not have caused a channel termination, unless this was your third copyright strike.

Instead both the claimant and YouTube's Legal department saw that though you said you owned all rights to the video you were countering for, you could not have possibly owned said rights.'

Well that wasn't even my third copyright strike, it was wither my second or first (can't remember if they gave me one together as it was from the same claimant)

So there's a chance the claimant got in contact with the legal department regarding this issue?

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

So there's a chance the claimant got in contact with the legal department regarding this issue?

This is what I've been saying happened this whole time.

 

[sd007]

Does anybody know how to get in contact with the legal team / department directly?

 

[Wakanda]

This is what I've been saying happened this whole time.

The claimant can either sue and notify Youtube ,or do nothing,or challenge the counternotification by contacting Youtube. The third option is risky because they must be super certain the counternotification was fraudulent or something. This is where the counternotification status changes to ‘final review’ and May take 30 business days.

I think Youtube received compelling evidence from the claimant that the counternotification was fraudulent. They agreed and their final decision was penalize him for perjury.

It is also possible that in the past he filed false information in the counternotification and the claimant,being ignorant of their rights,just let it pass and he ‘won’ the battle. Too bad.[DOUBLEPOST=1530305898,1530305828][/DOUBLEPOST]

Does anybody know how to get in contact with the legal team / department directly?

How many times have you been told that you don’t get to contact them outside the webform?

It’s not like repeating the question severally changes that fact