Slashdot Mirror
Viacom Claims Copyright On Irrlicht Video
stinkytoe writes in with the news that Nikolaus Gebhardt, developer of the cross-platform game engine library Irrlicht, recently had one of his video tutorials taken off of YouTube. A thread on Irrlicht's forum contains a copy of the takedown notice. From Gebhardt's blog: "Viacom, the corporation behind MTV, DreamWorks and Paramount is now claiming they own the copyright on a video of an Irrlicht tutorial. Which is completely ridiculous, of course: The whole thing has been written by me and the Irrlicht team, even textures and skins and logos have been created by me, and an Irrlicht Engine user... simply filmed and published it on YouTube.com. Here is a screenshot of the tutorial, it's really just a 2D GUI rendered using the 3D engine, nothing special at all."
you have to break a few eggs
they don't care if there is a little collateral damage in this war against 'piracy'
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent...
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
This is complete and utter bullshit. As we have seen in other articles this only provides the media companies with the means to takedown *anything* posted on youtube or any other similar site for that matter for any reason whatsoever. Talk about Freedom of Speech and anti-trust* issues.
* -- If I don't like something that is said about my product online... I can simply have it taken down with the DMCA.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Since when are takedown notices supposed to be sent by search bots?
Most of us do not have a rectal-capital fountain, and so we can not afford to sue if this happens to us. Here's an even better idea, get rid of the DMCA and go back to the tried and true "innocent until proven guilty." The DMCA has always been a tool to help the largest players in the entertainment industry control their market.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I dissent.
This sort of problem is exactly one of the primary reasons the DMCA should never have happened in the first place, and should be repealed.
Any individual claiming to be a copyright holder can have anything removed from a server based on nothing more than mere assertion. The Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA leaves ISPs and server operators little choice. Once the takedown notice is presented, the ISP either deletes the material or responds that it believes in good faith that the takedown notice is in error. If they do neither, they risk criminal liability.
Note that nowhere is anyone required to verify the validity of the claimant's copyright, that the named material is at all related to the claimed copyright, or that the named material falls within the scope of Fair Use or not. It's either take it down or risk getting sued. The law requires that takedown notices be served in good faith, but there are no penalties prescribed for willful or negligent sending of erroneous notices (and lotsa luck finding a D.A. willing to prosecute).
This kind of unaccountable censorship was intended by the DMCA's authors. You should not have to provide papers that you are "allowed" to speak, and that's a principal reason why the DMCA needs to go away yesterday.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
In any case, a DMCA notice would probably not be considered purjury. The sender took no oath to be truthful when they sent the notice. However, they could land in hot water for harrassment. It would be tricky to prosecute, but if you could show a significant degree of error in Viacom's takedown procedures, you could get them slammed with an injunction against sending DMCA notices. At least until a judge is fully convinced that Viacom has corrected the errors.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Most people will be upset by my post subject, but it's a question that needs to be asked. What are the actual damages here? Viacom's not claiming ownership - they fucked up. If their fuck up causes damages, there is legal recourse for this. If this is the case, then the victim should seek those legal recourses. Or STFU.
Getting a few thousand Slashdotters all hot and bothered may feel good, but it's a purely masterbatory exercise. If the victims are that pissed off, they can sue. And don't give me that shit about "oh, how can poor tiny little us possibly prevail against the mighty Viacom?!??" IANAL, but it looks like it's a pretty open-and-shut case. The victi,s could do all of the legal work and filing themselves, and with a little extra work can probably find some lawyer to make it all nice and pretty pro bono. Unless the damages are significant, I'd be halfway surprised if Viacom even sends anyone to defend it. If the judge finds in the victim's favor they might try filing a complaint against the attorney that filed the DMCA takedown notice with the relevant bar association - Viacom's lawyers may have committed perjury. If the victims can find a prosecutor that thinks it's in their political interest to beat on Mighty Corporate Viacom vs. The Little Guy, then it's a nice high-publicity case for them.
Other than that, the rest of us feel badly for the victims and wish them the best (fuck Viacom and all that), but let's be real - it's not like we're going to stop watching South Park or anything.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
While you're right to put things in perspective as far as there being worse problems with the DMCA, this is indeed a blip on the radar, and the solution is not as simple as an email. According to the protocol stated in the email (and I presume by the law), the submitter is required to send a response with snail mail, not email, in order to argue a good faith belief that the content is non-infringing. So thanks to the DMCA, any copyright owner can send notice to any hosting provider that so-and-so is violating their intellectual property, and if the hosting provider doesn't want to become liable then it must react right away. Meanwhile, the submitter is penalized a few days while the mess gets cleared up. That can be just enough time for a major corporation to control a leak or a publicity disaster. It also provides a means to, in a limited way, DoS anyone you choose to.
Are such abuses of the DMCA prosecutable? In theory, probably. But it's not as if the owner of the Irrlicht video can afford to fight a corporation over this kind of thing - not that I'd recommend it anyway for something so small. The point is that this clause of the DMCA shifts the balance too far towards the copyright owners rather than, well, everyone else.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
"Quick guys, copyright your wedding videos and personal amateur porn before they do!"
That's somewhat of a problem, because they are automatically copyrighted when you make them. Even my lame post here is copyrighted. Permission-based culture indeed.
Ahahaha, your post is the best goddamn protest of Slashdot's lameness filter. I love it! Feed the computer its own stupid replies until it gives in.
Can you put the company in prison? Or just the guy who signed the statement?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.