http://suzannahbtroy.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-youtube-banned-me-and-my-work-was.html
FYI the wikipedia page on me being censored was censored first cyber vandalized in a misogynist
attack and than deleted.....
but I am acknowledged on Wikipages on men -- Giuseppi Logan and NYPD Joe Sanchez and on a general page on censorship wiki I am still there.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2qkl8n/108-In-September-2009-the-account-of-artist-Suzannah-B-Troy-who-posted-videos Page 7-8 censorship under mayor Mike Bloomberg my youtubes removed for 28 hours until I got them back....
FYI the wikipedia page on me being censored was censored first cyber vandalized in a misogynist
attack and than deleted.....
but I am acknowledged on Wikipages on men -- Giuseppi Logan and NYPD Joe Sanchez and on a general page on censorship wiki I am still there.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2qkl8n/108-In-September-2009-the-account-of-artist-Suzannah-B-Troy-who-posted-videos Page 7-8 censorship under mayor Mike Bloomberg my youtubes removed for 28 hours until I got them back....
sia with pressuring Youtube to do this. [111] In February 2007, Viacom sent upwards of 100,000 DMCA takedown notices to the video-sharing site YouTube . Of the 100,000, notices approximately 60–70 non-infringing videos were removed under the auspices of copyright infringement. [11] On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a US$1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleging massive copyright infringement , alleging that users frequently uploaded copyrighted material to YouTube—enough to cause a hit in revenue for Viacom and a gain in advertisement revenue for YouTube. [12] The complaint contended that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom’s programming were made available on YouTube and that these clips had collectively been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. However, the suit was seen by some as hypocritical. They claim that Viacom, through various programming on subsidiary channels, was infringing the rights of many Youtube users by uploading their videos without permission or compensation. In July 2008, the case generated controversy when District Judge Louis Stanton ruled that YouTube was required to hand over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who had ever watched videos on the site. [13] Judge Stanton rejected Viacom's request for YouTube to hand over the source code of its search engine system, saying that the code was a trade secret . [14] Google and Viacom later agreed to allow Google to anonymize all the data before handing it over to Viacom. [15]
