> They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.

Without specific knowledge of whatever was removed, this is unfair speculation. As far as I know, Prasad's podcasts, videos, Twitter account, etc. are all still public.

This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content.

▲

anigbrowl 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Simply not true.

Howard’s entire channel has now been deleted by YouTube, which cited copyright infringement.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't know YouTube's content review policies, and neither of us know the details of this case, but that is consistent with what they do when someone is a obvious repeat offender.

You can't just say "simply not true" when you have no idea what happened.

	▲	anigbrowl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You: This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content. Article: Youtube, [..] cited copyright infringement

▲

NewJazz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The information is available for now....

I never said the copyright claim is invalid. A court would need to decide on matters of fair use.

The article specifically said this regarding the content:

Creating the channel, Howard told Guardian in an interview, had been an attempt to “preserve” what these individuals had said during the early years of the pandemic, including comments that Howard said exaggerated the dangers of the Covid vaccine to children and – in some cases – minimized the risk of Covid infection, among other issues.

“These videos were nothing more than collections of what other doctors said during the pandemic, including doctors who are extremely influential and who are now the medical establishment,” he said.

▲

timr 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The information is available for now....

OK, so you're speculating.

And quoting Howard (the guy violating the copyright) is irrelevant. It's not a trick to defend your copyright. If he set up a channel of nothing but old Simpsons clips to "preserve" them, YouTube would take those down, too.

▲

NewJazz 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, all archivers speculate that the original source of information will at some point become unavailable. On a long time horizon, they have often been correct.

▲

timr 3 days ago | parent [-]

OK, so you're speculating.

▲

ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.

Not all speculation is of equal value.

▲

timr 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.

That's called: I'm stating a current fact, and you're imagining a future that doesn't exist.

	▲	ceejayoz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, you're speculating that the parent poster can't prove it with their time machine. That is a reasonable form of speculation. As was the parent poster's speculation.