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."
They must have gotten carried away. Quick guys, copyright your wedding videos and personal amateur porn before they do!
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.
Apparently Viacom owns the rights to a few people eating dinner as well.
I give you, courtesy Wikipedia, the List of Assets owned by Viacom.
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.6).
"List of assets owned by Viacom." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Jan 2007, 23:34 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 6 Feb 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of _assets_owned_by_Viacom&oldid=103256937>.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There happens to be a 1972 album by Klaus Schulze that is also called Irrlicht which was originally released in 1972 and then re-released in 2006. Perhaps Viacom owns the rights to this album and their search bot mistakenly flagged the video as a copyrighted work.
As it is, they basically get to threaten anyone without any justification or consequence. It's getting absurd, really.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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 can attest to very similar situations as a service provider. We've dealt with member corporations of the RIAA sending us blanket takedown notices containing links to porn, and I don't think they do porn. Not yet anyways.
So apparently Viacom, DreamWorks and Paramount are sending legal spam, without verifying what they are actually sending out, and Google is taking them without verification on their part either. I guess DMCA procedures aren't good enough - censor now, ask questions later.
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
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
Per Groklaw - Slander of Title would apply to this, if you can show some sort of malice. If there were a pattern of the types of videos they 'erroneously' had taken down, it would go a long way towards establishing malice. However, if there is just a bunch of random crap thrown into the legitimate claims, then it's unlikely that you would be able to persue a Slander of Title claim very far.
They have obviously failed to check on the actual status of the Copyrights for the video, which would set them up for a negligence suit. Since it's a tutorial on using a companies software, you might sneak it in under 'Tortuous Interferance' - ie. their actions are causing harm to the company's business and are not related to competition by VIACOM itself. [irony]MS couldn't claim interfierance by Apple just because Apple sells an OS. If Apple were to blackmail/bribe software houses into not developing for MS, then there would be a legitimate suit.[/irony]
Of course if you want to be boring, you could go with
Depending on how many of the videos they asked to have taken down were not infringing on their copyrights, then this might be a prime target for a CAS against Viacom. That would rattle their chain - and might give the other big distributors a pause before they sent out mass takedown notices as well.
YouTube and Google are not supposed to demand proof. The DMCA is very specific: The party who believes their copyright has been infringed must send a signed statement stating that the copyright is theirs, under penalty of perjury. Once that has happened, the ISP must take down the content if they don't want to risk being held liable for having the content.
So if Viacom sent the DMCA request, then the beef of the actual copyright owner is with Viacom, not with the ISP.
paintball
A copy of a public domain work is public domain... for now
But there is pressure to change it so that any refixing in a medium of a work grants a new copyright duration, even if (or if-and-only-if, I'm not certain on that detail) the original work had passed into the public domain. You can't make copies of the new copy; you need to go to the wellspring (a copy with expired copyright) and make your copy from that.
Of course this means if a company keeps a stranglehold on their works using DRM so that no one can make a new copy without the original masters, they can just keep reissuing the work and retain perpetual copyright control. It would allow for the reduction of copyright duration and stop dragging all works along with Mickey Mouse, but at the expense of granting perpetual copyright to immortal corporations and estates, which should violate the Constitution in the US.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
IANAL
But this is what I would do:
Repost the video and send Viacom a Cease and Desist letter asking that they stop telling people that your copyrighted works are there's. Then, when they do it again, they cannot claim ignorance or that it was an oversight or whatever. Put up the video on a web site with an advertisement that pays you per page view, and claim that by lying to Google, they are causing you a loss of income.
So, essentially, they are lying about you, in writing, and it is negatively affecting you. Then you would probably have a better legal case. In addition, thanks to the RIAA and others like them, there is a great deal of negative coverage for people who engage in copyright infringement. So, now that it has been slashdotted, it could also damage your reputation...
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM