Human Rights Ecuador
Analysis of the human rights situation in Ecuador

Santiago Villa wins legal battle to Rafael Correa in Youtube

Also available in / También disponible en: Spanish

Video that reveals dark chapters correísta scheme and you can see it on this site

Santiago Villa beat dispute the president of Ecuador, quie n sums spent millions trying to censor the documentary purse “Rafael Correa, Portrait of a father of the nation”.


“As set out in the Copyright Act Digital Millennium, we have completed processing your appeal regarding your video. The content has been restored. Your account will not be penalized. Sincerely, YouTube Team “read the email I received on March 11, 2013. These few lines end a battle of nearly five months against the government of President Rafael Correa to distribute uncensored documentary: Rafael Correa, portrait of a founding father.

It is the latest episode in a struggle that began in the Colombian TV channels, then the channel United States, Latin TeVe, and finally in digital media content freely distributed. In December of 2012 promised that the content of the documentary will be distributed free of charge once recover investment and make a profit is achieved. This happened with the documentary in GenTV8 during the program Maria Elvira Salazar, which was broadcast throughout the United States. In January I hung up the content on YouTube, but was removed within hours.

Rights Ares The Spanish company, which claims to protect copyright on the Internet, but ultimately is a lobbying firm that charges money to intimidate the free distribution servers, so as to eliminate the content that annoy their customers, was hired by the Ecuadorian government to remove the YouTube documentary server. Ares Rights stated that I violate the copyrights of state television ECTV, because using the same images in the documentary.

With the advice of counsel and Colombian journalist Carlos Cortés, to introduce an appeal to YouTube, claiming that according to which Ares Rights should sue me and aYouTube in a court of the United States no later than fifteen days. I argued that the images were used as a journalistic appointment, and following the provisions of the Copyright Act Digital Millennium. Within a fortnight, climbed back YouTube content. It is available as a definitive, this link:

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>