"

 Your role as copyright enforcer 

You removed a video link I posted to the [Jimmy Rushing] entry, insinuating, but offering no evidence, that it the posted video violated copyright. Google determines what videos violate copyright on YouTube, and I fail to see why you are in a better position to know than Google is, unless you are the copyright holder. Google removes videos when a valid claim of copyright violation is made, and before that there is no assumption (and certainly no proof) that the video violates copyright. You have not demonstrated that you have special copyright expertise, and even that would not give you special knowledge about a given video. You merely draw you own conclusions, which override those of Google, and do as you wish. If I can't know if a video violates copyright, how can you know? And if you do not have such factual knowledge, why do you assume a violation, and the right to delete a link? Please explain any knowledge you have that the video in this instance violates copyright. If you do not have that factual knowledge, please explain why you have the right to act as if it does violate copyright. Do you know of any legal precedent for holding a person or entity liable for linking to a copyrighted item without knowledge that there is a copyright violation? According to the Digital Media Law Project, ""As long as you do not know that a work infringes someone's copyright, then you cannot be held liable for contributory infringement for directing users to that work."" The mere mention of the video being available from Rhino  which has now apparently allowed the video to go out of print  is not proof of copyright ownership. If one exists, the copyright might have been leased to Rhino, or there may be no copyright, or one that permits a YouTube posting. Thanks.   "