Slashdot Mirror
Dodgey DMCA Use May Lead To 'YouTube Veto Power'
BillGatesLoveChild writes "Bob Cringely reports that an interview potentially embarrassing to Steve Jobs was taken off YouTube. The interview was from Cringely's 1990s show Triumph of the Nerds. YouTube said it responded to a DMCA complaint made by NBD Television Ltd in London. Trouble is, NBD is not the copyright holder. They have nothing at all to do with the show and don't even sell it. PBS, who made and holds the copyright said they knew nothing of the complaint. Cringely tried to contact NBD Television Ltd who wouldn't respond. Neither would Youtube, who only speaks by form letter. 'Why did NBD Television make the complaint? Why did YouTube blindly enforce it? Is Steve Jobs behind this, or is it just another media company misusing the DMCA, at that, not even with their own copyrighted material? Why should a London-based company be able to issue DMCA takedowns, yet not be liable when they abuse the law?'"
You just answered your own question. Someone got them to issue an invalid takedown notice because they can't get in trouble for doing so like any USA company that wasn't Oregon PBS could.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So basically any anti-US group in another country could have fun filing DMCA takedowns on anything politically related in the US? Imagine they could have great fun with election season.
You'd be committing perjury with every one you sent. And you can bet the government would be much more likely to prosecute individuals pointing out their own stupidity/corruption than they would corporations actually exploiting the law.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Yep. Of course, the company the notice is filed against is not obliged to respond, so if they *know* they're not breaking the DMCA then they can safely ignore the notice. If there's any doubt, however, it's best to act since if you receive a notice but ignore it you lose on all the protection clauses of the DMCA.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
I was aware that British copyrights were enforceable--I was not aware that they were enforceable under the specific laws of the US. Seems to me that they would have to send a takedown notice under the Berne convention rather than under the DMCA.
Lack of obligation for the content holders to check.
... look at the collateral damage being done just from Viacom's efforts alone. Lots of stuff that isn't even owned by Viacom is being taken down because Viacom is incapable/unwilling to verify their takedown requests. They cheerfully admit that a significant percentage of their notices are in error, and when it turns out that somebody else gets hurt, so sad too bad. Viacom (and anyone else that decides to issue one of those things) should be required to be goddamn sure it's their content being misused: if not, then they are the ones misusing the law and there should be consequences. Should my rights under the law have to be violated so that someone else can protect theirs? I don't think that's right, but that is what is happening.
... and Congress knew what it was doing when it did it. The only purpose being served by this section of the DMCA (well, of the DMCA in its entirety, really) is to line the pockets of IP attorneys. The rest of us aren't getting much from it.
Obligation? Come on, with the rapid-fire way these suits have to be managed for sites like Youtube, you want them to be obligated to verify the complaint? No chance in Hell. Smaller companies would never have the resources to do this. Youtube would have failed long before the Google purchase.
I think you misunderstood him. "Content holder" probably refers to the person claiming to own the copyright (in this case, the London-based firm), not the company disseminating the information (YouTube.) And he's right
This is a case of the law giving way too much Power to the People
The fact that there's a viable weapon if you want something taken down for a short time.
That's fair, but managing copyright is a difficult problem. I'd say this portion of the DMCA got a lot of things right, overall.
Yes, copyright is a thorny problem indeed. The problem comes in when you set up a law that is just sooooo easy to abuse, that can wreak havoc when it invariably is, and when there is zero penalty for abuse. Whenever you remove accountability from any system operated by human beings abuse will occur, with as much certainty as the Sun rising tomorrow. It's human nature and nothing will ever change that, so good law should be written to accommodate that fact. For that reason alone, the DMCA is not a good law.
Put it this way, what is the big complaint the copyright holders (some of them) have with information sharing, either peer-to-peer or a more centralized operation like YouTube? Well, I'll tell you: it's the fact that their legal rights are being infringed with no accountability for those who are doing it. So yes, the DMCA has given rightsholders a weapon, but like the Internet itself it is indiscriminate. Worse, because of the carelessness and irresponsibility of those wielding that weapon, it is having negative effects far beyond its stated purpose.
Congress was far too trusting.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Never tick off the incumbent who could just write new laws to throw YOUR ass in jail.
[