‘Sayed Hasan’ channel censored for the umpteenth time
The only sure way to follow my work is to subscribe to the Newsletter.
Please write to Vimeo (legal@vimeo.com) to protest this decision, putting me in bcc if possible (contact@lecridespeuples.fr).
On February 28, 2020, Vimeo arbitrarily deleted my channel ‘Sayed Hasan‘ which, since the deletion of my Youtube channel in December 2017 (followed by my Facebook pages in May 2019), published my French subtitled videos —extracts from speeches from Hassan Nasrallah, Ali Khamenei, Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad, alternative anti-imperialist documentaries, Al-Mayadeen or Russian TV News Bulletins, etc. Thus, two years and two months of work, 400 videos posted and 600,000 views, which is not negligible in view of the fact that Vimeo is marginal vis-a-vis the giants Youtube or Facebook and their quasi-monopoly, went up in smoke.
This is not Vimeo’s first act of censorship. In June 2019, the Project Veritas account was banned following the publication of its exclusive investigation into Google’s ideological censorship, the first part of which I captioned.
And most recently, in April 2020, at the heart of the coronavirus pandemic, Vimeo censored a documentary denouncing the influence of lobbies on the World Health Organization (WHO).
The Vimeo platform, for which I had to pay an annual fee of 84$ to post my videos, therefore did not prove to be safer than Big Tech, on the contrary: while Youtube has a system of three warnings, largely biased anyway, Vimeo deleted everything without warning, simply informing me in these terms:
The reason invoked was grotesque, as no part of the Vimeo Guidelines mentions such a prohibition. The only rules that applied were the —classic and legitimate— Copyright and Fair Use, so I protested to Vimeo on March 9, pointing this out:
Vimeo’s response came the same day:
The absurdity and the contradiction were obvious: on the one hand, it was no longer the Vimeo Guidelines that were invoked, but the Terms of Service (note Vimeo’s hypocritical apologies for this ‘confusion’), which don’t make any mention of content from TV or the internet. On the other hand, the original pretext of theft or plagiarism is completely disconnected from the only questions relevant in this regard, namely respect of Copyright and Fair Use, to which long sections of the Vimeo Guidelines are devoted. But Vimeo manages to affirm that even by respecting these rules, my content could not be published because it would not be a 100% original creation, which is absurd, discriminatory and would empty the sections devoted to Fair Use of any interest. I reacted in these terms on March 23:
Vimeo refrained from answering for more than 2 weeks. It was only after Norman Finkelstein intervened on my behalf on April 6 that they deigned to answer him (the same day).
Vimeo then responded to the second follow-up email that I sent right away, transcribed below with their April 8 response.
I replied to this email empty of substance on April 8:
Of course, launching a lawsuit would require resources that I do not have, unless a lawyer or a Civil Liberties association agrees to do them at little cost. I nevertheless ask all those who can to write to Vimeo (legal@vimeo.com), putting me in Bcc if possible (contact@lecridespeuples.fr) to protest against this decision, and share this article widely. It should be noted that at least one lawsuit is currently underway in the United States against Vimeo for freedom of expression issues, a pastor having had his account deleted for having mentioned his renunciation of homosexuality and his journey to God.
This is neither the first nor the last time that I have to start from scratch after years of hard work, when they were bearing fruit. Faced with incessant censorship, which will increase as we approach the inevitable Liberation of Palestine, the only sure way to follow Resistance News is to subscribe to the Newsletter, which is also an important act of support. Please do so and invite your friends to do it.
Finally, those who can are invited to make a donation to help this volunteer work.
My videos in English are accessible on Dailymotion and are safeguarded in the Unz Review.
Everything having been said in two previous articles (Kafka 2.0: how political censorship is exercised on Youtube & Freedom of expression, Hassan Nasrallah and other victims of censorship on the Internet), I will conclude again with Norman Finkelstein’s statement of support when my Facebook page was deleted:
“It is a scandal that the speeches of Hassan Nasrallah are banned on Youtube. Whatever one thinks of his politics, it cannot be doubted that Nasrallah is among the shrewdest and most serious political observers in the world today. Israeli leaders carefully scrutinize Nasrallah’s every word. Why are the rest of us denied this right? One cannot help but wonder whether Nasrallah’s speeches are censored because he doesn’t fit the stereotype of the degenerate, ignorant, blowhard Arab leader. It appears that Western social media aren’t yet ready for an Arab leader of dignified mind and person.”
The online intifada to which Hassan Nasrallah called continued. As he keeps saying since May 25, 2000, the time for victories has come, and the time for defeats is well and truly over: this is why his word is mercilessly hunted down —ironically, on Youtube, the Israeli channel i24 News is the main source still available for his speeches, all the others having been suppressed: the Zionists will even try to make a buck out of the rope to hang them! Repeated censorship is an eloquent sign of the importance of this work, and, far from discouraging me, it will only motivate me more.
An ominous prediction, especially with the Covid-19 pandemic and its huge toll on the United States
Sayed Hasan
Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.
“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah
My condolences. It’s not going to get any better. What you see here is the relentless pursuit of centralization of content by a very few offering convenience, monetization to lure one in, so they can also be snuffed at the click of a button.
All is not lost. The way to move forward is to decentralize and it has finally also hit the browser world, with no plugins, and ease of viewing without worrying about the overlord. The clumsiness has been finally resolved to a great extent.
[PS: One needs to remember the original mission of the Internet was to overcome censorship by press and media. Though it did have a little anarchist tendencies, the idea was to free access to content and the gatekeeper.]
I’m going to link a couple of websites here, hoping TheSaker is fine with it. I stand to gain nothing from it other than spreading awareness.
1. https://webtorrent.io the technology that will let you play video directly on the browser
2. https://instant.io/ where you upload your video that will give you a link back to post here or anywhere
3. https://webtorrent.io/intro gives details on how to enable it on a webpage. So, if TheSaker were to allow videos to play on his site (without occuring any bandwidth (due to download) or storage penalty), he’d include this script here.
4. One would submit an article with the links you get from (2) as a part of the post and that’s it.
It should be obvious to all that the powers that be will only allow us to see or hear articles conforming to the approved narrative. Censorship is not meant to protect us, but to protect the governments that rules us.
As a young man I traveled to the Breshnev’s USSR while working on a passenger liner. In my time interacting with ordinary Russians, it was apparent they had a public mind and a private mind. The public mind would agree with current government ideology within a public forum to protect themselves from the possibility of coming to the government’s attention. The private mind was what they really thought and would only be divulged to those they knew to be trusted or like minded.
Censorship may control our access to diverse ideas, but it cannot control what we think or how we apply our critical thinking. Our private mind is ours alone.
The zionist entity is afraid the words you translate will make even more “western” youth laugh out loud when “boomers”/press/politicians call them anti semitic for valuing the truth, many wear that as a badge of honor now.
I salute the creator of those videos one more time, God willing he will be rewarded for his efforts in heaven.
On a more down to earth topic, may i suggest Dtube, Bitchute,Veoh and liveleak as alternatives to those cowardly sites that censor you? I do see the value in fighting back tho and hope you dont give up until you get your channel back or they choose to ignore you completely.
Well, it looks like vimeo is controlled by zionazi gay interests with regard to the censorship of Hasan & Nasrallah. I had thought they were apolitical and only censored porn. As for the zionazi-gay smear outfit veritas, seriously, who cares. The owner moral grounding is as vacant as trump’s. See:
James O’Keefe, Now Even Creepier
https://fair.org/uncategorized/james-okeefe-now-even-creepier/
“The whistleblower, Izzy Santa, described the harassment plan in a note to one of Veritas‘ backers:
Today, James is meeting with a CNN correspondent today on his boat. She is doing a piece on the movement of young conservative filmmakers.
She doesn’t know she is getting on a boat but rather James’ office. James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her. He wants to gag CNN.
According to a written plan, the “equipment needed” for the stunt included “hidden cams on the boat,” a “tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine,” as well as a “condom jar, dildos, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs” and a blindfold.”
The guy is a freak who engages in illegal activity. He also dishonestly edits his hidden videos to portray people how he wants them to look, rather than who they are. He’s been successfully sued for this and has been prosecuted for his illegal behaviour. I don’t know what the reason vimeo dumped this veritas freakshow, but the legal ramifications of hosting an outfit that engages in illegal activity could be why. Since vimeo showed their zionazi-gay colors censoring Hasan & Nasrallah, censoring zionazi-gay gay asset o’keefe is unlikely to be political, but instead caution about hosting something that could possibly bite them on the arse legally.
In theory even being represented in court would be a third party issue of which it appears the host could apply the same reasoning and all you would have to show for it would be a negative balance on your bank book.
Unfortunately it appears that the powers that be have created a system where unless you are a defendant, you must represent yourself as a plaintiff. I have experienced this myself when approaching law firms in cases that are iron clad yet they refuse to proceed which leads me to believe that they are closer to cheerleaders for majority rule than anything wanting to pursue justice.
And this is just fine b/c one day I will have the resources to target the law and the iron clad cases never go away, they just get delayed.
So sorry for your loss at the platform level and finding someone in particular to blame, there are so many behind the scenes to blame but they only use pawns to test the waters and then hide once the going gets tough. Extinction is the best answer for them and some are admitting that that is the long term outcome, but not before sending all the pieces out to be slaughtered first.
Major US video sites and social media have been doing some crackdowns on dissent lately. SouthFront has also been banned from both YouTube and Facebook. I agree that we need to support the ‘de-centralization’ of the Internet — to reduce the power of these US monopolies — by promoting smaller alternatives. I’ve recently become aware of “diaspora”, a free and open-source social network technology that allows individuals and groups to start their own social networks. I have absolutely no desire to start one, but I thought I’d mention it in case anyone else is interested in reading about it or trying it out.
Here is its home page:
https://diasporafoundation.org/
Unfortunately Vimeo is right and you’re wrong.
Clause 5.2 Contact Restrictions says that you may not submit any content that
infringes any third party’s copyrights or other rights.
True, you have not violated these words as they are standardly interpreted. However, 13 lines later the clause says:
Please see the Vimeo Guidelines [link provided] for guidance on how we interpret these terms.
In those guidelines you find exactly the rules that you have violated.
Upload only videos you created yourself.
No rips of movies, music, television, or any other third party copyrighted material.
When challenging a Terms of Service Agreement you are obliged to read the fine print, the linked notes.
YouTube and Facebook engage in political censorship. We can’t tell from your example whether Vimeo does too. People can test this by uploading to Vimeo videos they themselves create that express the same politics as Nasrallah, et al.
When challenging an article you are obliged to read it in its entirety.
This very rule is quoted in the 4th email. But you forgot to quote the next sentence:
‘No rips of movies, music, television, or any other third party copyrighted material. Read more about Copyright and Fair Use’ [with a link to the sections about copyright and fair use].
These sections explain in detail how you can use pre-existing content. Thus, this rule is clearly put in the framework of Fair Use and Copyright, which makes perfect sense. If one was absolutely forbidden to use any kind of content he didn’t create 100%, there would be no meaning for these lengthy sections. And there would be no meaning for sentences such as ‘Fair use recognizes that while the primary purpose of copyright laws is to encourage artistic and cultural innovation, rigid application of copyrights would actually stifle that creativity. Society benefits when creators have the freedom to critique and comment on the works of their peers, or to remix and reuse artistic material in new and inventive ways.’ If translating a content for which you hold the Copyright holder’s permission is not law-abiding, I don’t know what is.
Also, if you read Vimeo’s second email, you’ll see that they don’t invoke the Guidelines but the Terms of Service, where there is no mention whatsoever of Internet or TV content. If the matter was clear they wouldn’t be so confused. Besides, the Terms of Service state that ‘You may only upload content that you have the right to upload and share.’, but Vimeo’s 2nd email says that ‘just having permission to upload (fair use, public domain) does not mean you created those videos yourself’. Meaning clearly that respecting Fair Use or Copyright rules is not enough. This whole ‘pure creator’ bullshit is nowhere to be found on their rules.
You say that ‘People can test this by uploading to Vimeo videos they themselves create that express the same politics as Nasrallah, et al.’ No need to do that. Just check Vimeo for full unedited popular movies, music clips, mainstream TV shows, cartoon, TV, anime, TV documentaries, etc., some of which have more than 1 million views. I am merely quoting the 4th email, but perhaps you didn’t read that far: why are they allowed, if not because of their political neutrality?
Agree.
I suspect the rules of Fair Use are similar for a video as they are for published material (e.g., books).
Fair Use guidelines are just that, guidelines, but they are pretty commonsensical.
One of the main ideas of Fair Use is that it is **desirable** for people to cite, comment on, etc. other people’s work. That is a primary way that knowledge is expanded and disseminated. But be sensible. You can only quote a portion of a work, not the whole thing! That is using too much of another’s work. Thus, creating a pastiche of video clips that function as documentation of commentary is clearly Fair Use: you are using small bits of others’ work and stringing them together with your own commentary. Translation rights are rights that may be already owned by someone else, so they, too, are valuable creative property and they are covered by Fair Use.
The University of Chicago Press’s Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS for short) is the editor’s bible and is considered to set the standards in the field.
The University of Chicago’s Fair Use Guidelines for use of material in works published by the UofC Press are here:
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/permissions.html
Note that the Guidelines state:
“These guidelines are media-neutral. In other words, use that is fair in print, by these guidelines, will be equally fair in electronic media, and will remain fair if a print product is reissued in electronic form. (See Types of Works Subject to Fair Use below for certain exceptions to this.)”
++++++++++++++++
I suppose “electronic form” here still means books in electronic form. But I think it can probably reasonably be extended to video. That would be a question for an entertainment industry lawyer.
I am so sorry for the loss of your work. Do you have copies stored elsewhere?
It is absolutely unconscionable that Vimeo thinks it can break its contract in this way, plus erase years of work.
. Because that is basically what it is, as far as I can see (**not a lawyer, though**).
Google and Facebook are “free.” They have terms of service, but one doesn’t pay for using their platforms. AFAIK. So they don’t have legal obligations to their users.
That seems not to be the case with Vimeo. If you paid for the use of the platform, I really don’t see how they can just breach the contract. They have legal obligations to you. Who is this Jason? Vimeo’s attorney?
Under which country/state law is the contract written?
They have destroyed your property by taking down your content. that is how I (**non-lawyer**) see it.
It is as if they came into your studio and smashed and poured paint on your work (which might consist of collages).
Also, do they even have legal standing to invoke fair use? Presumably if you violated a Fair Use rule, the person who would have standing to sue you would be the owner of the original work, not a third party such as Vimeo (could this be why they switch to a Terms of Service argument?). So ironically Vimeo refuses to communicate with a “third party” but is itself a third party interceding in a matter that would be a point of issue between the owner of the copyright and you (if there were an issue).
Since—as you say—Vimeo allows obvious violations of copyright to occur on their platform without interceding on the behalf of the copyright owners, this seems to be a clear indication that their intercession in this case is discriminatory against you.
If I could, I would sue the pants off these people for damages (destruction of property) and punishment (discriminatory practices)!!
Is there an entertainment industry lawyer out there who would do this pro bono, or for a percentage of the take?
I have donated $25 to get the ball rolling—wish it could be more, but I am an impecunious senior.
Katherine
Thanks for the good sense (spot on) & support. I should be able to find or re-edit the 400 videos, but it’d take looots of time. Yes, Vimeo tramples a paid contract, but Google or Fb are also accountable and have been sued many times; being free doesn’t really make it less outrageous, because the work & efforts are much more costly than any kind of money. The remark about Fair Use is logical, but they don’t invoke any such Copyright issue. They clearly state that they don’t care if I have an authorization from the legal owners. I wish I could sue them (I don’t know quite if it would be in a French or US court), but it’d be too costly. This Jason must be some kind of senior employee, it’s funny how they hide their name, like the hangman’s hood.
This is sickening, but free speech doesn’t exist. Private companies can do whatever they want with their platform. Each website has their own rules for people who want to post comments. China also cracks down on anyone who criticize their rule in arbitrary fashion with whatever excuse they can use. Free speech is just a concept, nothing more.
Appreciate how commenters provide users open source alternatives to mafia sites.
Keep the information coming regarding viable open source tools.
Time to start using and promoting Bitchute. I just signed up today.
YOUrcensoredTUBE is setting itself up for future infamy.
Bitchute uses the technologies mentioned in the first response. [https://webtorrent.io/faq – Who is using WebTorrent today?]
All they do is put a website, make you register etc etc and probably being British, they track you. As the first response also says in (3), it’s easy as a few lines of code for this site to host the video directly without incurring any storage or bandwidth penalty.
Happy to help if TheSaker needs any to do that. I looked the code for this website and seems doable.
Such a tiresome discussion with Vimeo.. a lesson (for me aspiring content creation) is to never to trust one’s hard work to centrally cloud services.
Vimeo: “…or to remix and reuse artistic material in new and inventive ways.’ ”
“If translating a content for which you hold the Copyright holder’s permission is not law-abiding, I don’t know what is.”
True but reading their replies, it seems they have made up their making sure I too will no longer mention them as Youtube alternative…,
Looks political…if only it was just a simple matter to have Vimeo agree in advance after let’s say a first warning about
1) a clear sign & proof that the Copyright holder has actually giving permission if not actually demanding to redistribute the work in any way you as a Vimeo subscriber see fit.
2) how we could just integrate the work in a “creative container” that holds the “artistic quality standard” of Vimeo up high enough.
For example
Create a Series “Covid Cat in lockdown watches French subtitled” *title of original video*.
A fake cat in front of a Vintage TV in some 1950’s or 1960’s interior, the video material just playing within this scenery. Video in a frame, creative.
Cats & Covid, popular search items on Youtube I guess… Maybe it works on Vimeo.
But I don’t think we are still at that point. Next video alternative?
Outrageous censorship! I love reading what he says but find I cannot find his blog entries on google anymore. It’s crazy that the world is becoming more closed. More power to you friend.
Using the tools of your enemy ….what’s to be expected ?