Connect with us

Tech

UNREAL: Steven Crowder Demonetized by YouTube For Original Parody

Crowder’s channel may be in jeopardy because he refused to submit to the absurd request of a large music publishing company.

Published

on

Steven Crowder Copyright Strike

Steven Crowder, the online news and entertainment personality famous for his “Louder with Crowder” show and stunts at left wing college campuses throughout the United States, has been punished by YouTube’s copyright system for a parody video he says was entirely original and held no copyrighted content.

In episode 459 of “Louder with Crowder”, a parody song was used that sounded similar to the song “Calling Dr. Love” by KISS. Warner Chappell, the legal arm of Warner Music Group, determined this constituted a copyright violation, and requested YouTube to take immediate action against Crowder.

Typically, if a video holds copyrighted music, the person who created the video will receive no compensation for the ads played during or before the video. This money instead goes to the copyright holder.

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

In this case, Crowder will receive no compensation from YouTube for the hour-long show he starred in and produced, which featured various right wing guests from around the world, including Paul Joseph Watson. Instead, Warner Chappell would be paid for Crowder’s work due to the copyrighted content.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

While many would consider it absurd for an hour long video’s profits to be handed over because of a three-minute song, the absurdity is compounded by the fact that Crowder did not use the song. His production team created an original track that shared similarities with the original.

In other words, Crowder’s video was demonetized because audio used in his show sounded similar to audio owned by the Warner Chappell.

Crowder then took the extraordinary step of appealing this decision, which if done frequently, can lead to the termination of a YouTube account.

Unfortunately for the online content producer, his appeal was immediately denied not by YouTube, but by Warner Chappell.

Because Warner Chappell denied his appeal, claiming they do indeed own the music in the video even though it is an originally produced track created by Crowder’s team, Crowder’s account is in jeopardy. YouTube is giving Crowder 7 days to reverse his appeal and allow all profits generated from the video to be garnished by Warner Chappell, otherwise, YouTube will delete his video and place a “copyright strike” on his account.

With only three copyright strikes, YouTube accounts can be placed in a limited state, or even terminated.

This creates an environment where YouTube content creators are expected to simply bow and submit to any large company or individual claiming copyright. YouTube itself does not mediate disputes, and instead allows the party alleging it has been injured to make all determinations.

This would be akin to allowing any person in civil court to act as plaintiff and judge: they claim they were wronged, and then immediately judge in their own favor.

Many YouTubers, including the iconic channel PewDiePie, have lamented YouTube’s copyright system.

In a video posted earlier this year, the YouTuber revealed how the copyright strike system can be used not only by large corporations to harass independent content creators, but also by individuals on YouTube as a tool to censor speech they disagree with.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending