Name

Address
City
USA
Email

YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA

April 27, 2009

Dear YouTube representative,

I had over 900,000 video views, over 300 subscribers and over 2 and a half years
worth of videos. Last month, however, my account that is nearly three years old became
disabled. I could no longer access my account or see my own videos. My user name was
"joey368". This happened about 11:00PM on March 15th and I was not able to log on
throughout early evening. I understand about the rights holders claiming what is theirs.
However nobody should try to stop me from letting my imagination unfold and share my
creations with others. Would anybody from YouTube know how long it takes to make
over 150 videos? Does anybody even appreciate the great effort that one contributes onto
YouTube? Since I don’t have any of them anymore, apparently not. I would like to tell
my experience with my suspension to a person, rather than a computer, because I have a
feeling that more than one penalty against my account were misunderstandings. If it were
comprehensible that I made clear violations, I would not bother to try to lift my
suspension.

Now with Google taking over it may not be all right to have such an open
imagination, after all. I was proud of all my videos. I got a lot of which had views by the
tens of thousands and I had a good feeling I would keep them all and I just could not
afford to lose everything. I believe that YouTube lacks compassionate understanding, that
they do not hesitate before they would wipe out my entire library without even giving me
the chance to explain myself. I am certain that this is because that most of its staff online
are just computers. Now that is what I think is not right, and not the mature and
responsible thing to do. I do not believe that the law told YouTube to remove every
video. If those videos are important to them, it is like the law wants to rip they're hearts
out. In that case yes, I do find most of my videos important to me, because I feel honored
for what I have accomplished and received very positive feedback from my demographic.
 I do acknowledge the Community Guidelines. Regardless, let me tell you about
my situations. Because incase you have not noticed, God did not create law, man created
law. Enforcing laws as if they were real over the Internet just does not mix. That's for
sure. There are some rights holders that enforce these laws, and there are some that do
not. It was not easy to tell for me with a variety of videos that I uploaded. I know it’s not
up to YouTube to decide what right holders claim, but it had the power to disable my
account. Therefore, I feel I should address this to whom it may concern. I have nothing
personal against TV TOKYO or the WWE either because they just happened to have
stricter policies regarding their material. Additionally, I was not even informed on why
my account is suspended like I am supposed to know. I have the right to know. Neither do
I hold any grudges on YouTube. I found out after I sent a request to reopen my account. A
reply came by Robby, who I can tell is not a human, to show me my penalties.

Penalty 1:
"Undertaker's Falcon Punch" formerly at
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=VhxD5uKwh1Q
Removed due to a copyright claim by a third party on 08/18/2008

Nobody ever told me that this was a penalty. It never did say my account was not
in good standing afterwards. My friend who also has an account on YouTube told me that
the system for penalties has changed a few days after I got suspended, and that accounts
will now have two statuses instead of one. One was for violating rules, and one for
infringing copyright. Nonetheless, they also said that penalties expire in six months time,
therefore this penalty should not have counted. It was a thirty-five second video of a
match between Mark Calaway, also known as Undertaker and Adam Copeland, also
known as Edge with the audio of "Falcon Punch" included.

A similar video by “BrianBDemaine” got away with it, where Chris Jericho
(Chris Irvine) punched Shawn Michaels's (Michael Hickenbottom’s) wife at the same
event and it was uploaded around the same time as mine did.

Penalty 2:
"John Cena wins the World Heavyweight Championship" formerly at
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=oFvtIUmpfuw
Removed due to a copyright claim by a third party on 11/24/2008

Again, nobody informed me that this was a penalty. But I think it is the most
unprofessional claim that I have ever heard of. Out of the hundreds of thousands of WWE
videos, recent or archived on YouTube, the one that they chose to remove it a lighthearted
text-to-speech video. Not to be offensive, but is it that difficult for them to search
“WWE” in YouTube’s search bar and see what they can find to be virtually their
material? This video literally was a single image with a speech engine (ex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eEk2fVfUd0), and WWE is trying to tell me that
they would own videos like that? You would not call that being protective; you would call
that being cheap. John Cena is a multiple time champion. Whenever he is a champion, he
usually holds the title for a large period of time. I e-mailed the WWE
(permission@wwe.com) about this penalty. I asked why it’s worth it to claim a single
photo when they have several more photos of almost the same thing. Do they believe
these kinds of videos are going to cause them a financial downfall? This does not make
sense to me and my only logical explanation to why they would claim my video is just
because they can. But they could be unaware that they are possibly abusing the system.
The choice was theirs to avoid more violating videos and choose to remove mine.
There is no reason for me to stop investigating on the matter. They have not replied to my
message. If you do not believe me, look for this video.

You would agree that it is a very naive act of desperation. The CEO of the WWE,
Vince McMahon has been known to be very egotistical, and some decisions that he has
made are based on his own satisfaction (ex: He cancelled a house show in Alabama
because he did not like the city) but either by WWE or YouTube, I think I have been lied
to. If these were to be real penalties for me they should have informed me, which they did
not.
WWE, believe it or not, also has a YouTube account.
(http://www.YouTube.com/user/WWEFanNation) I was informed that this account has
been suspended more than once. If you can find out what for, I would like to know. I have
sent another e-mail to WWE about the issue at permission@wwe.com, but I did not get a
reply.

"Penalty" 3:
"Naruto Shippuden 4th season - "For You"" formerly at
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=DC3sZ_DX9Uc
Removed due to a copyright claim by TV TOKYO Corporation on 03/16/2009

This was the one that got it for me, however. I did see much of “Naruto
Shippuden” on YouTube. And it was being strongly tolerated with the videos being up for
weeks. My video was only the intro, which I do say is "blood-boiling" that they let this
happen. To my surprise, I did not expect it. TV TOKYO said that they were to remove the
episodes that were uploaded. They did not mention any intros or credits. I understand that
the proper way to watch a show is on television, or otherwise on the Internet. That’s how
the network gets profits. But the intro to the show? I believe they could claim this video,
so therefore they did. I am not jumping to any conclusions and I don’t see the worth in
watching a show just for the introduction part. There are other videos currently uploaded
that they have either ignored or did not notice, some of which include footage of the intro
and/or the closing credits. Naruto Shippuden hasn’t even aired in North America yet, and
might not ever. I find this as an excuse or a scapegoat for a penalty to ban users from
uploading any more. I even had this in my description.

Naruto Shippuden © Masashi Kishimoto / Studio Pierrot / TV TOKYO

Deviantart on one hand also features the DMCA’s guidelines for copyright. If I
were to upload a work of art related to this, I would have to add this in my description.
Whether it would be concept art, cosplay, fan fiction, flash, or even characters in abusive
situations.
 There is no address to which it may concern that I can contact to discuss this
penalty.

For that matter, is TV TOKYO aware that their episode footage can be scanned
into your system to prevent this footage from being online? If they do this, they would
prevent also prevent people from getting a penalty because nobody has seen it yet. But if
the rights holder doesn’t see it until it gets online, it’s taken down, and the user’s account
is at risk. Why give rights holders that option? Why exactly grant them the power to
consider if a user is a felon or not? Either way, both decisions involve taking the step of
uploading the video.

"Penalty" 4:
"New Get A Mac Ads for 2009!!" formerly at
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=kae2X1aevnk
Removed for violating our Terms of Use on 01/04/2009.

This was the only video where it notified me for a penalty. This was also a video
with a few images and a speech engine and by no means did it ever violate the Terms of
Service. No violence, sex, intent to kill, or racism. I was trying to inform viewers that
Apple’s “Get a Mac” marketing campaign starring Justin Long and John Hodgman is
mean spirited, mundane, “fanboyish”, and encourages social altercations. This campaign
has been running since it first aired during the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

This video seemed to have been flagged by the wrong kind of demographic. It had
a low rating, but I should not have my video removed just because many people disagree
with me. That is just not fair. According to what I know, YouTube relies on this as their
alibi most of the time. Why is this? And how do they know that the users that flag these
videos are telling the truth? Also, how come I cannot contest this issue like copyright? It
goes to show that YouTube believes that they are never wrong and don’t care about what
really matters to their members.

If it has to do with “spam”, then that’s a different issue. This video did not
advertise, or anything in that nature. Neither is it a federal offense in this case. But from
what I have been told is that YouTube believes that I am “cheating the system” by having
a title that is “not related” to the video. They think I am “taking shortcuts” towards getting
on a “Most Viewed” list. YouTube to me was just a video hosting website. The only 
people who were willing and curious to see my videos were the people who became 
intrigued by what they are looking for in a video. YouTube should not be a popularity 
contest and a method to become rich and famous, like Lucas Cruikshank and Chris 
Crocker. What makes them so special that they get sponsored and immune to law? I 
disagree that they should have made sponsors and give special channels to people because 
of who they are. This kind of elitism should not be tolerated. They need to get the same 
treatment like everybody else. If somebody wants to be a star, they need to deserve it. 
They need to train and practice for years and later go to a specialized school. In between, 
they must earn great talent, achievement, and respect out of each person that an individual 
must come across on his or her path in an entertainment career. Besides luxury, YouTube 
should never be considered a shortcut in that path. This video hosting site should not give 
birth to stardom. That just does not seem fair to the hard­working people who wished to 
be talented. Viewers need to realize that becoming what they want to be is harder than it
looks and YouTube should not have anything to do with it unless a user wants to upload
videos to show there talent. Now being famous does not mean you are the best and that
your life is perfect. It is somewhat a lifestyle. There are also users who are having bad
ratings and get humiliated like “ChristianU2uber” and “Pruane2Forever”.

I get the feeling that YouTube does not seem to care about these premature people
who are receiving unanimous criticism, even if their videos are on a “Most Viewed” list
and can be seen on the front page. I for one did not try to garner a lot of attention. I am
not the kind of person who takes shortcuts or tries to become a “celebrity” by making
videos on YouTube. Getting to share my videos gave me a sense of personal
accomplishment.

But about my video, this video barely had the intent to gather a humongous
amount of attention. It was a little over twelve months old and only had almost 20,000
views. So there was no chance that it would ever turn up on YouTube’s homepage. Not
only that, but I changed the title a little while before January 4th, the day the video was
removed and I got a notice. If YouTube can keep history of a video, you can see this for
yourself. Most of the time "Speakonia videos" have misleading titles and do get away
with it. This video was one of those videos.

This is an example of a Speakonia video, which also has a false-appearing title:

http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=RLthxqIhhe0

About spam in general, is it the most lenient misdemeanor in your Terms of

Service? What doesn't make sense to me is that this petty violation leads to the same
consequences as nudity or drug abuse. For any other misdemeanor, I have heard that not
only if you get a penalty on YouTube, but also you would get fined or punished in real
life. Such an instance was when a man was arrested for saying he dispatched workers to
poison Gerber baby food, and he wore a mask to hide his identity in his videos. This guy
now serves five years in prison for making threats, which is a violation to YouTube’s
Terms of Service, and lying about tainting their baby food.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3134933120080731?rpc=64

So if Penalty 4 was for having a misleading title, how serious is it

compared to the felony mentioned above? If it were a video that included any other
violation, it would be permanent in the eyes of the community. Those violations are
events that are part of the video footage, and somebody is bound to witness those events.
Having “misleading” titles, descriptions, or tags are fixable. Users are able to change
them anytime except for a time for maintenance. They do not directly relate to the video
and are not offensive to a viewer who witnesses this violation. A respectable notice for
this violation is to alert the video owner that he or she has an amount of time to change
the title to an appropriate name, with the expense of the upload date changing and the
video count to reset to zero, or a strike would count against the owner. I understand that
YouTube processes thousands of issues daily, however the bigger concern to me is the
effectiveness rather then the convenience, to answer these issues distinctively and
specifically.

According to “Robby”, I can get my account reinstated if one of these penalties is

lifted, right? Penalty 4 looks the most misunderstood to me. It only expressed my
opinions and that should not be a problem. It’s the First Amendment as a matter of fact. I
have the right to free speech.

I understand that the law is the law, and nobody is immune to it, but "it's
copyright infringement" is never the answer to all the problems about it. Authority should
not always win. Some owners also create a “fair use” policy. I have tried to be
cooperative. I've tried to be as law abiding as I could. But I deserve to be reinstated with
all my approved videos back online for the following reasons.

1, Because I happen to have gotten my account disabled in the easiest way

possible, and YouTube thinks what they do is perfect and assumes that there is only one
right way and one wrong way. And if they think you are doing the wrong way, then you
have to jump through treacherous hoops to convince them you did not do anything
wrong. And I do not believe you have to talk to a lawyer about a short video that does not
look remotely like those personnel of higher status would create. Let alone give him
thousands of dollars over it, just so I can get my account back, which I paid nothing
for. So give me one good reason why it's worth it.

Another tidbit to point out is that computers do not make sure if the claim is
correct under their policies. It should be a human's job to decide whether the "copyright
owner" is making the right call of claiming a video by getting a representative to watch
the video to tell. This would be a good answer for the rising percentage of
unemployment. Especially when YouTube’s headquarters is in one of the largest
collapsing states in the country. I would not worry about the company going in debt due
to these payments. YouTube is partners with Google after all.

2, because it's not right to neglect other people with about the same videos that do
not get warned or rejected. What makes them so special? I am positive that they do not
get permission. Deviantart’s website is full of art from artists who can upload anything
owned as long as they append a statement that “X” owns “Y”.

Yes, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is enforced in Deviantart as well as

YouTube, as mentioned earlier. It’s mandatory that the creator of art must state that the
creation they depict belongs to somebody else. The inspiration must have come from
somewhere. When a “Deviation” does not mention a proper copyright, and then is when
it gets removed. I am not comparing apples to oranges.

3, because I am in the middle of making videos that my subscribers are looking

forward to. How fair is it that I disappear abruptly after I made videos a few days ago that
some of my subscribers did not get a change to view? There were also several videos of
mine that were useful to other people. I had several projects I was working on
simultaneously, I was hoping that I would never have to end any of them, or for that
matter all of them at once.

I have told my experiences with my issues to several anonymous people;

assuming that one would lend me a hand or give me advice. They too agree that I deserve
to have all of my videos disabled, on account of the idea that “I am a criminal, I should
be punished. Because I am a criminal, I am always wrong and my opinions do not
matter.” I am not a criminal. I have not been arrested for what I have uploaded. As for the
rest of my library, the networks and companies have either gave me permission or they
created “Fair Use Policy”. With this policy, a person has a restricted but exceptional use
of content created by the rights holder to use for no permission necessary. Here are a few
instances where “Fair Use” went into effect.

• Dozens of my videos involved the video game Super Smash Bros. Brawl. A
feature in this game is the ability to take screenshots during game play and share
them with friends or submit them to Nintendo. I have not heard of a time where
Nintendo did claim copyright to a YouTube video.
• In more of my videos, I discovered a groundbreaking feature in the video game
Soulcalibur IV, created by Namco Bandai Games. They remove videos if there is
footage that is being shown before a game’s release date. It is against the law to
sell or buy a product before the day it is supposed to appear for retail.
• I have shared music from independent and emerging bands like “A Thousand
Shades of Cold”, “Adversary”, “Allyria”, and “Fall Of Envy” which have granted
me permission to share their music. Even mere days before March 15th, a band
called “Never Before” wanted to keep in touch with me.

One video, however, was rather a serious matter. I used to be a member of

IGN.com, a web site covering news regarding the latest video games. I was dissatisfied
with the forum’s community, so I planned on quitting my membership. However, there
was one user, who has been known for giving “Insider”, which are subscriptions for more
content on IGN to users for free at his expense. On February 11th 2008, this user gave me
a twelve-month subscription that costs twenty dollars annually, but “Insider” was already
activated on my account before I could refuse. I replied to him that I planned on leaving
IGN, and told him to cancel my “Insider” and get him a refund. He tried doing so; IGN
gave me a cancellation notice via e-mail, but did not actually cancel this subscription and
did not refund this user. He claims that IGN is not going to give him any more refunds
because he has sent too many requests to cancel them, so he left IGN. I still have this e-
mail message, but it now only appears as HTML coding. I was disappointed, because he
spent twenty dollars on a subscription that I did not use. Believing that I witnessed a
crime, I created a video on YouTube that was entitled “IGN Sucks”. It explained this
situation more thoroughly and why I could not do anything about it. I could not do
anything about it because I would have to have paid for the “Insider”, and I do not have
this former user’s personal information. In the video description was information in this
false cancellation notice that is no longer present in this e-mail. So if I could afford an
attorney and gather his information in the future, I could provide evidence to support my
claims and seek action against IGN. Now that my account is no longer accessible, I no
longer have that resource.

I also have uploaded videos that debunk rumors to be false about actress Hayden
Panettiere. In one video, I explain how the incident in regards to somebody urinating on
her and who people claim is her new boyfriend; professional boxer Wladimir
Klitschko, during a party was completely nonexistent. I am not a fan of celebrity gossip,
but without sharing my knowledge to people, they will believe in lies set by some
"reporters" who get paid an abundant amount of money for making up rumors that do not
match her personality. I think that those kinds of people deserve to lose their jobs.

As long as they have the credentials, they will continue to create their own stories,
and people will judge Panettiere as a careless, unintelligent celebrity, when I can
elaborate that she is not. I have been lied to as well as been lied about many times in my
life, and I hate it.

They are hurtful and they have ruined some of my relationships with people. For
everybody, there is one point in time where they have lied or will lie. In this case, these
people lie for amusement or jealousy. There are people out there that do not like other
people for some reason, and they believe they can get even with them by lying. Big lies
cause trouble, no matter to or from whom.

I am saying this because the information sent to me from the Terms Of Use
Inquiry is the exact same message over and over no matter what or how many times I
sent requests. I keep in mind what the “thank you” message says after I send the request:
 “The YouTube Team” would respond about twenty minutes prior to my requests,
only to sidestep them and send the same notice about my penalties, in the format that they
were presented to me on pages 2 and 3 of this letter. I know as a fact that YouTube knows
a few things that I don’t, guaranteed that they would contact me if they had any additional
information. I said before that Penalty 4 provides nothing specific, and the video would
have had to get disabled for some logical reason. I’m not stupid. Of course I can tell that
it is just an automated response. I should not have a computer to tell me what I did
wrong. I am a man. A computer is not a man, law enforcer, or any authority figure any
higher up than I am. A computer is not in charge of the roadways, the order in
courtrooms, or the delinquents at prisons. A computer only does what a person commands
it to do.

YouTube had to have been involved, since it is not about copyright. Support has
ignored my messages and refuses to inform me about the specifics of these cryptic
demeanors. Therefore, I have been lied to. It is all right for a corporation to not mention a
fact or statistic, but it’s lying to state that they say one thing, and then do something
completely different. The picture above is what I have sent in my last request. Be aware
that this letter is also available online. I revised it once or twice a week. I will resend as
many times as I need to until I know for a fact that I am at fault for my account’s
suspension.

I would like to ask one more question. What happens to the videos from the
suspended accounts? I have heard from help pages that they are completely gone. If that
is true, then YouTube certainly does not respect the privacy and rights of others. Most
people do not have enough memory on the computer or their SD cards to store numerous
videos, so they take the risk of deleting their videos after they upload them.
 I find this statement rather ironic.

So if somebody is there that can find me some real alternatives to get my account
back online without getting attorneys or the court involved, that would be great. I would
prefer to negotiate with an actual staff member. No offense, but these instantaneous “copy
and paste” messages do not answer my questions or help me solve my problems and only
cause me grief. I cannot afford to lose all of those videos and you would not either if you
were I. This account meant very much to me and I am happy for what I have achieved. I
humbly speculate that this suspension came from defective judgment, and at least one of
these penalties was a misconception. I also do not believe I deserve to be ignored for this
matter. Likewise, nobody wants to be face with a lawyer, and counter-notifications are
one thing that YouTube should try to discourage, rather than recommend to an individual.
So try to understand this quicker than I had to. Everything I have typed in this letter is not
a trick, a hoax, a lie nor an excuse, and I do not have consent of giving up for as long as
YouTube is in service. I also hope that I don’t get into any trouble by sending this letter,
for I had my thoughts, opinions, and ideas that I wanted to share. I appreciate that you
have taken a few moments to look over my letter and consider my proposals for YouTube
as well as the state of my account. But keep in mind to respond in an appropriate and
professional fashion, and preferably not an automated response.

Respectfully yours,
Joe Gvora