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 dont 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 its 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 Hickenbottoms) 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 YouTubes 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 its 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. Thats 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 dont 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 hasnt 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 DMCAs 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 doesnt see it until it gets online, its taken down, and the users 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 Apples 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 dont care about what really matters to their members. If it has to do with spam, then thats 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. YouTubetomewasjustavideohostingwebsite.Theonly peoplewhowerewillingandcurioustoseemyvideoswerethepeoplewhobecame intriguedbywhattheyarelookingforinavideo.YouTubeshouldnotbeapopularity contestandamethodtobecomerichandfamous,likeLucas CruikshankandChris Crocker.Whatmakesthemsospecialthattheygetsponsoredandimmunetolaw?I disagreethattheyshouldhavemadesponsorsandgivespecialchannelstopeoplebecause ofwhotheyare.Thiskindofelitismshouldnotbetolerated.Theyneedtogetthesame treatmentlikeeverybodyelse.Ifsomebodywantstobeastar,theyneedtodeserveit. Theyneedtotrainandpracticeforyearsandlatergotoaspecializedschool.Inbetween,

theymustearngreattalent,achievement,andrespectoutofeachpersonthatanindividual mustcomeacrossonhisorherpathinanentertainmentcareer.Besidesluxury,YouTube shouldneverbeconsideredashortcutinthatpath.Thisvideohostingsiteshouldnotgive birthtostardom.Thatjustdoesnotseemfairtothehardworkingpeoplewhowishedto betalented. 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 YouTubes 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 YouTubes 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. Its 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 YouTubes 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. Deviantarts 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. Its 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 games 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 forums 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 email 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 users 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 dont, 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. Im 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 its 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 accounts 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 dont 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