Stephen Heins writes on Facebook:
This latest unseemly attack on “Planet of the Humans” reveals the environmentalist methodology: Name-calling, scarcity of counter-argument facts, the exaggeration of harm, and the abuse of the legal system with large buckets of tax-free Green Machine Money.
The four-second clip subject to the copyright right claim comes 37 minutes into the documentary, in a sequence titled “How Solar Panels & Wind Turbines Are Made.” The footage shows a mining operation for rare earth metals, which are used in wind turbine manufacture. Gibbs says he incorporated the footage under “fair use,” an exception to copyright law that allows news reporters, producers and documentary filmmakers limited access to copyrighted material to illustrate points.
It’s unclear who asserted the copyright violation, though Moore’s rep suspects a person who runs an environmental foundation that, in turn, is funded by a group with ties to an environmentalist criticized in the documentary. YouTube notifies content creators automatically after a copyright infringement claim has been lodged. The creator then has an opportunity to “contact claimant” to resolve the matter or to dispute the claim through YouTube. A representative for Moore and Gibbs confirmed that the filmmakers have formally disputed the copyright infringement claim through YouTube.
Reference, this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/26/michael-moore-film-planet-of-the-humans-removed-from-youtube
This is a frivolous complaint, under any countries laws. It should be dismissed, but it will take a little while.
Then the next one will take it off YouTube for another couple of weeks.
Then the next…
It will eventual be old news before the complaints run out.
Maybe Moore c would use this as the basis of his next documentary on how any criticism of The Science is stifled.
I wonder if it is on LBRY? They try and keep all the vids that others have booted.
Maybe so, but it has its own website:
https://planetofthehumans.com/
Thanks Sy 🙂
Hey you betcha Megs!
🙂
Excellent! Nothing provides free publicity and notoriety like a banning, especially one that looks as cynical and frivolous as this one! Are you sure Moore himself isn’t behind this marketing coup?
YouTube has applied a 21st century method for burning the books.
Now let me think.
Who was the last bloke who did that?
Jack if you open the full Guardian article you will find a link to Toby Smith’s full 6 minutes and 42 seconds of video, “rare Earthenware project”, a play on words as there is a potter making earthenware pots from the sludge. It’s good footage with excellent visuals and data. At the end of the video you’ll see a potter throwing pots from the radioactive sludge. He is wearing gloves and a mask but I’m not sure, being a potter myself that I’d be happy to work with such materials.
Toby Smith said he hasn’t watched Planet of the Humans, he has been sucked in by the leftist rhetoric. Shame really, I would have thought that they were on the same page and he’d be happy to see a couple of seconds (4) of his film out there.
I assume that the Guardian linking the full film means he gave them permission.
All depends on how radioactive it is, and what type of radiation it is.
He might even mix in enough non-radioactive clay to reduce the piece he is working on to safe limits.
You are right Mark, he would have had to add other materials to make it ‘plastic’ (as in clay plasticity) so that he could form the pot. This was an artsy leftist statement.
But the point of my comment was that the full video is available for all to see in the article above yet the Planet of the Humans is being proposed to be taken down over 4 seconds of Toby Smith’s video.
Fortunately I had written a transcript of the full video beginning to end. It is available online. Here is the link.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/26/climate-action-business-model-part-2/
Or you could go to the website:
https://planetofthehumans.com/
Paradoxically it takes a case of gross censorship like this to show what a powerful tool for public education the internet is. Before the internet, the media companies controlled the news, and there was no room for opinions that dissented from what the ruling elites wanted people to believe.
Want an example? Sure. Ronald Reagan’s mental capacities were severely limited during his second term. Everyone In the Washington press corps knew this, but politely ignored it, as if the President’s cognitive capacities were just a personal health issue that were not the public’s business.
Here’s another one. By 1985 epidemiologists had determined that HIV was a blood borne virus, that was easily spread by anal sex but almost never by vaginal sex. It is likely that there was not even one case of female to male sexual transmission of HIV in the United States. (Magic Johnson was almost certainly lying about how he contracted the virus.) Nevertheless, the media insisted on calling AIDS a sexually transmitted disease (which it was), while jealously guarding the secret that a heterosexually spread AIDS epidemic in North American was an impossibility.
My point is, the internet, chaotic and often corrupt as it is, is a huge improvement over the state of public debate before it existed.
Well… to be honest…
Fake News.
I assume that the Guardian, being the Elite Know It Alls that they are, are attempting to talk this up as absolute proof that Moore is WRONG.
However if you follow enough YouTube content creators you would know this happens all the time. From what I gather this is a Copyright Claim. These happen all the time and are often run from bots who troll through posted videos looking for matches to ‘their property’. The ‘owner’ puts in a ‘Claim’ against the ‘Creator’, the video gets taken down, and the Creator either bends the knee, edits the video to make the clip shorter, or remove music (music is normally the biggest claim so I am told), or other trickery, OR, tells YouTube that they know how fair use actually works and they are going to fight it.
What normally happens is the video is back up in a couple of days, often with zero change. It is considered by some as being lawfare because in those couple of days the video is not getting views and hence the creator is missing out on that sweet ad revenue. (YouTube can provide enough income that creators can and do use it as their full time job.)
Another option is to just say ‘sod it’ and have the video demonetised and – open to correction here – the creator gets zero ad revenue but the ‘owner’ does. Some creators are happy to work like that if they feel they really want to present their video the way they want and/or if they think they can still make money via other donation methods.
There is also a Copyright Strike. This is more serious. The subtle differences I are not really in a position to fully explain but this is where the ‘owner’ claims the creator is deliberately attempting to make money off something that clearly belongs to the ‘owner’. Get Copyright Strikes and you lose your channel. YouTube bans you as a creator. Game Over. However, since Strikes can destroy creators there is also a clause where a false copyright strike will get YOUR channel taken down. I am paraphrasing greatly but the intention is that Strikes are not something you throw around casually and if you do make one, you need to make sure you have ALL your ducks in a row. Cry Wolf and there had better be a wolf, or YOU get shot.
This is not to say that Copyright Strikes are not used – crudely – as lawfare. Read up on Naughty Dog, Sony, and Last of Us 2 where Sony and Naughty Dog very crudely went after a large amount of YouTubers in a ham fisted attempt to stop discussion about their upcoming game release. Most of it was done through a shell company, apparently, but still overt lawfare that has led to a very vocal fan backlash.
(gasp! Those toxic fans refusing to buy the things WE decide are good for them. Also see ‘Synder Cut’ if you want to see the ‘establishment’ getting salty because the consumer dares discuss what they actually want to spend their money on.)
ANYWAY, short answer? Fake News. Moore’s movie will be back up, maybe with minor edit, maybe not, within about 48 hours.
(also – Toxic Fans for beginners:
Media and Big Studios: This new movie is AMAZING and everyone should go see it
Fans: Didn’t like it.
Media and Big Studios: Manbabies!!! You don’t count.
Fans: Actually I really prefer the earlier movies. The stories were better and I liked the characters more. Why can’t we have more movies like that anymore.
Media and Big Studios: You are Toxic Fans! Also Hate Women! You are a vocal minority that is out of touch with mainstream and need to stop spoiling movies for other people with your out of date views.
Fans: Fine. Won’t spend money or buy your merch.
Different and Pragmatic Movie Studio: Hey, we can listen. We can change our ways and make movies you actually want to pay to go see. Win/Win, right?
Media and Big Studios: Stop pandering to the toxic fans! They need to watch the content WE make for them and they need to stop complaining and do as they are told!
This REALLY happens. The Media is honestly salty because the studio listened to fan backlash after the first Sonic the Hedgehog trailer, delayed the release date and re-did the animation for the blue speedball to he looked more like fan expectations. The Main Stream Media believed this was WRONG as the fans have no right to complain and pandering to them only gives them voice.)
I’m sure Moore can get round the “copyright” issue if he had to. Replace the sequence with actors speaking the same words, and with a comment telling viewers that they weren’t allowed to show the original footage. I’m sure that would be even more intriguing.
I like ferdberple’s idea: Stamp a big red CENSORED over the “offending” section.
Youtube is also removing other good contributions because of blind censorship, or maybe that’s what they call Artificial Intelligence.
Case in point are video’s by L.A. lung specialist Dr. Seheult on his Medram Youtube channel that happen to mention HCQ. He doesn’t approve it, he simply discusses it critically but Youtube tied itself to the WHO so only 97% consensus allowed. Seheult calls it Academic Censorship.
A big red “CENSORED” stamped over the offending 4 seconds would be more effective than trying to fix it up.
was Moore wrong about re the hopelessness of wind and solar to run a modern world
========
He was right. Solar and wind produce enough power to build another solar and wind over their lifetime without any excess. Without the excess, how do we power anything outside of factories to make solar and wind?
Fossil fuels produce considerably more energy than it takes to dig them out of the ground. It is this excess that powers the modern world.
Eventually, as fossil fuels become harder to find, we will reach a point where fossil fuels take as much energy to dig up as they produce. At that point in time they will be like solar and wind; unsuitable to run the modern world.
There is no need to pass regulations or taxes or subsidies to make this happen. In the long run none of these are effective against the market. They simply make the economy less efficient.
Ferd:
Turbines don’t produce enough power to even reproduce themselves once over. Solar cells require pure silicon wafers which require high amperage arc-furnace heat. Depending on the purity, up to 3 cycles of purification are required. The toxic waste products, like hydrogen fluoride gas, take steps to deal with, not itemized here in this short communiqué. Wind farms are best situated in open ocean (unfortunately, in bird migration lanes, which birds need the extra wind to keep them aloft on their journeys). The ocean placed turbines require high quality high manganese-steel alloy to resist corrosion, and Mn is very expensive and needs to be specially mined, mainly in developing countries under abject conditions.
The video has not gone away
Click on https://www.altcensored.com