Slashdot Mirror
Viacom Yields to YouTuber Who DMCA Counterclaimed
Jason the Weatherman writes "Two weeks ago Viacom charged Christopher Knight with copyright infringement for posting on YouTube a clip from Web Junk 2.0 on VH1 that featured Knight's zany school board commercial. Two days ago YouTube reported to Knight that his clip was back up and that his account wouldn't be punished. What happened? Knight filed a DMCA counter-notification claim with YouTube: something that happens 'all too rarely' according to Fred von Lohmann at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From the article: 'Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That's the biggest problem we've encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube]. Most people have no idea that right exists.'"
As many know, I am anti-copyright to begin with, but I wonder why Knight isn't setting up to sue VH1 for "stealing" "his" content and rebroadcasting it.
Not only did they take his content, but they also attempted to defend his content via the (fraudulent) DMCA and call it their own.
Might as well go David vs. Goliath in this case, and settle the score with VH1 for the fully penalty of the law.
Most people have no idea that right exists.
Actually, most people don't have copyrights over the material that gets pulled off.
If you make your own little film & a company releases snippets of it on their station with commentary (exactly what happened here), they should be protected just as you would be if you took 30 seconds worth of film from a Tom Cruise movie and over dubbed it with hilarious Scientology remarks at opportune times. Not only did they take his content, but they also attempted to defend his content via the (fraudulent) DMCA and call it their own. I think you should really read up on this. He can counter sue for the damages incurred from them demanding he take it down, maybe even cover his time and any legal fees he had but nothing more than that. And it would be awful hard for him to define a missing video on his YouTube site in terms of dollars.
My work here is dung.
So we can't exactly sit down with a cup of coffee and 'read' over the DMCA to understand our own rights. Of course, the big companies can! This works to the advantage of the big corporations because we don't know our own rights!
The world would be a much different place if the users were informed as to their rights. Either the company is required to provide you your rights or some kind of repercussion if the company really is indeed involved in frivolous takedowns. Charge a company $100,000 every time someone catches and successfully prosecutes an invalid claim and companies would be more concerned with their OWN 'right'... to stay in the black!
The follow-up question is did you get that somebody's information, and did you follow up w/ a DMCA abuse lawsuit? To place their takedown notice, they had to sign that under penalty of perjury that they own the content. Obviously they couldn't for your self-portrait. So, you could follow up like the EFF is going after Uri Geller. Folks need to do a lot more of that; a few significant judgements against DMCA abusers plus fees & court costs could go a long way.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Is there any idea of how many invalid/illegitimate DCMA takedown notices there are? I'd still safely wager most are assertions of legitimate copyright. If the scattershot effect is really bad, then I think fining millions of dollars per fraudulent takedown notice ought to be built into the legislation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Has Viacom (as a corporation) actually learned anything from this exchange? Probably not. They'll go on sending out questionable DMCA violations because most people will roll over and let Viacom have their way with no fight.
I'd much rather have seen him drag Viacom into court and cost them a lot of money -- because that's all that corporations seem to understand these days. Said loss of money would cause them to at least devote 5 seconds of some human's brain time to the question of "is sending out this DMCA takedown going to land us in court and cause us to lose a ton of money" before sending out future DMCA takedowns.
And that, in my opinion, would have been very good thing.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't think it's so much that nobody knows counter notices exist, it's that most people infringing are truly infringing.
Well, *I* think that most people are just reluctant to open themselves up to the possibility of having to defend that assertion in court. Easier to just let it be taken down (and email it to the people you really want to see it.)
There's also the amorphous nature of fair use and youtube's defacto 'place to post vids' status. If I'm writing a blog entry on a cinematic technique, say the use of a rack focus, I can absolutely put up a clip that shows that technique. But someone trolling youtube might not realize that's why it's there. And indeed, absent that educational component it might indeed be infringing. So how sure am I that the clip will be found non-infringing? Which context will be judged?
That said, it'd be amusing if joeuser@aol.com submits a counter notice about his upload (some awesome video he "found") and then gets sued to high hell since it's "under penalty of perjury" that he asserts there's been a mistake.
That said, I'd love to see someone actually sued over issuing a take-down notice on what is clearly fair use.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Whenever YouTube takes someone's content down, they should let them know that they can file a counter-claim if they believe they are not infringing. They should give them a link like you did. Problem solved.
Why on Earth would they want to do a thing like that? Every claim and counter-claim costs time and hence money, you don't want to encourage people to make counter-claims.
And you certainly don't want to be piggy-in-the-middle between the RIAA/MPAA and joeuser@aol.com