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