YouTube Yanks Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure

RevWaldo writes "The International Olympic Committee filed a copyright infringement claim yesterday against YouTube for hosting video of a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese Consulate in Manhattan Thursday night. The video depicts demonstrators conducting a candlelight vigil and projecting a protest video onto the consulate building; the projection features recent footage of Tibetan monks being arrested and riffs on the Olympic logo of the five interlocking rings, turning them into handcuffs. YouTube dutifully yanked the video, but it can still be seen on Vimeo. (Be advised; there is some brief footage of bloody, injured monks.)"

Comments

I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Art Popp]

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

I think the telling point as to whether they cave to pressure from the IOC and China will be when their lawyers have a chance to review the footage and determine that there is nothing infringing going on, if they put the video back.

I'm setting a calendar event to go back and look for it in three days, and am ready to judge the G-folk harshly if they're unwilling to stick up for this obvious expression of free speech.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[penguinstorm]

My understanding is that's exactly what they do. Read Cringely.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html

Anyway, the IOC is a cabal, a Pentavirate and the Olympics have lost all credibility.

Can't wait till they come to my town in 2010 to screw the whole place up.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[$random_var]

All right, I'll bite: is China's authoritarian system which brutally suppresses free speech and competing ideas about government any better? Does the existence of a voluntary religion justify subjugating an "autonomous region"? And, to get a little philosophical on your ass, is a religion materially different from any other faith system (like nationalism), and if not, who gets to decide which faith systems the government will crush? Oh, the government you say?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[kdemetter]

Why isn't there a '-1, Complete Moron' ?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[lee1]

I think the judgment came in a long time ago. For example: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ .

Google has removed videos critical of the Pakistani government at that government's request, and has many more shameful examples of political cave-in under its belt.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

Wait, so... massacring people is more advanced than having an out-of-date religion?

Wouldn't it be better that the caste system be discarded AND China stop trying to be stank hos? Can't they both have faults? Just because you argue that they are "bad" does not make China "good".

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[whisper_jeff]

It won't be back up. If it does depict the five interlocking rings as the summary states then the IOC will aggressively attack it as infringing. The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever. This will be no different. It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings. Had the video not had that imagery, I'm certain it'd be fine (from the IOC standpoint, at least).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[erroneus]

Where did you get the idea that Tibet was anything other than a peaceful independent nation prior to China's invasion and take-over? As to primitive religious social structure? I think nothing could be more primitive than our own generally accepted belief in a single god and his son on earth born to a virgin. Would you mind backing your assertions up with examples and references?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Llywelyn]

Because, of course, the best response to people who hold religious views you disagree with is to brutally murder them. Do you realize how hard it is *not* to have Godwin's Law invoked in this conversation?

Oh, and I think you don't understand Tibetan Buddhism nearly as well as you evidently think you do.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[owlnation]

It's a shame you had to go too far in your post, because amongst the flamebait you do have a valid point.

Tibet was not by any stretch of the imagination a free, fair nor democratic society before the Chinese invaded. Many of Tibet's citizens are indeed wealthier, freer and healthier as a result of the invasion.

The Dalai Lamas have suppressed many things over the centuries and have protected their dictatorship bloodily. It's all about money and power. Even now, the current Dalai Lama preaches "simplicity," and the opportunity to buy his latest overpriced book on "simplicity."

A Free Tibet will be a great thing. But neither the Chinese nor the (self-appointed) Tibetan Government in Exile are in anyway truly interested in that.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[krazytekn0]

Just as far as chronology goes there are many more primitive religions that Christianity pretty much every major religion other than Islam is older than Christianity

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[AP31R0N]

Oooh I HATE the Colonel with his wee beady eyes and secret ingredient that makes you crave it fortnightly! /can't get to imdb to get the quote just right :(

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Eil]

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

I work for a web hosting company and thus have some exposure to this type of thing.

In a nutshell, you're entirely correct. Under the DMCA, providers are required by law to remove the "offending" material upon receipt of an infringement notice. If they don't, they become liable for infringement as well. No real proof of ownership is required, the author of the notice simply has to say it belongs to them. When we receive one of these, all we do is suspend the concerned account, forward the DMCA to the customer, and then our job is done.

The only thing that makes the DMCA bearable for us is the fact that we're off the hook if our customer decides to unsuspend the account and make the content available again after receiving the notice. From then on, it's a legal battle between the alleged copyright holder and the alleged infringer.

In this case (depending on how draconian YouTube/Google decides to feel today), the user can simply re-upload the video to YouTube and if the alleged copyright holder wants to battle it further, they have to use the legal system to get subpoenas, court orders, etc for further action. (But of course IANAL, so feel free to poke holes in my understanding of the DMCA here.)

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[macshit]

Just as far as chronology goes there are many more primitive religions that Christianity pretty much every major religion other than Islam is older than Christianity

Er, but he made no mention of "chronology", and "older than" is certainly not synonymous with "more primitive than".

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[bigstrat2003]

If I had to guess, I'd say this would be a perfectly acceptable use of the five interlocking rings: parody. IANAL, of course... but if what these guys did isn't protected, it damn well should be. The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[AvitarX]

Whatever youtube does is hardly the issue.

Actions like this by the IOC need to hurt (or at least make fear hurt) the sponsors of the events.

Here is a sample letter I am sending (I will customize it for each business I actually work with, listing what I will now longer be purchasing.

It is a rough draft, so if you use it, edit it.

I just wanted to let you know, that as a freedom loving citizen of the world, your sponsorship of the 2008 olympic games, and more importantly, proud display of association with the International Olympic Committee is going to prevent me from using your product until any of the following happens:

1) Your company issues an official statement condemning the abuses to freedom by the IOC (this includes, but is not limited to claiming copyright infringement on a critical video that used a clearly satirical alteration of their logo, blocking/allowing to be blocked free internet access to international journalists, and allowing people to be kicked out of their homes in tremendously huge quantities).

2) The IOC behaves better at the next Olympic games.

3) The IOC officially apologizes for the same reasons mentioned in item one.

I hope that my voice is one of many (though I fear I am but one of a few) and that your companies inconsiderate pursuite of a new market ends up costing both prophits and shareholders for years to come.

Woops, almost left my sig that includes my phone number from that email.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[caramelcarrot]

I'm under the impression that Amnesty International has in fact been using a similar 5 interlocking handcuffs logo as part of their highlighting of China's human rights abuses, if the IOC has any reasonable claim - why is Amnesty able to continue using it?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[bigstrat2003]

The Chinese government would do better by its citizens by massacring these bastards. ... I wish our society was as evolved.

Yes. Massacring people is an extremely enlightened and evolved thing to do. Idiot.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

The IOC will throw notices at any and all unlicensed uses of it's trademarks, regardless of legality or the context in which it stands. In the case of trademark protection, it is their safest bet to ensure that their world wide recognized logo does not lose its protections. If they did not go after each and every unlicensed use, it wouldn't take long at all for the logo to become unprotected.

YouTube, as per their apparent standards, will pull down any video that they get a complaint on, review it, and decide later what to do about it, as a means of limiting their liability. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.

So the two companies are just doing the dance that all companies do. Give it a few days to shake out and the legal pros over at youtube time to determine their liability, and if the risk of lawsuit is low enough, they'll put the video back up.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[mikelu]

A couple popular ones:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm

Etc., etc. Now, the fact that Tibet was formerly ruled by an oppressive, fanatical, and theocratic regime characterized by slavery doesn't make what China is doing now correct.

However, from the perspective of someone fighting for human rights, claiming that it was some sort of "peaceful paradise" can only undermine positive efforts.

Acknowledge that life in pre-China Tibet was absolutely terrible for the average person, acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.

Propping up what is understood by anyone knowledgeable about Tibet as a myth only hurts efforts to improve human rights and religious freedom in China.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same Youtube that yanks videos merely for being critical of the behavior of Mohammed, while leaving Jihadi snuff films up to this day despite numerous complaints.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[gnick]

It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel.

I'm intrigued about this Tibet/China angel you mention. Angels, although prominent in many traditions and beliefs, aren't that popular in most Tibetan or Chinese cultures (I think - IANA religious scholar). Perhaps that's why this angel has done such a lousy job taking care of the monks.

On a more serious note, I think you nailed it. You put the rings anywhere or on anything and you can expect to be hammered by the IOC. And, at least in the US, the IOC will win. I haven't watched the video, but from the description it sounds like a simple edit would get the IOC to back off.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[CougMerrik]

So basically, all you have to do to shut Youtube down is start filing copyright complaints against any popular or interesting video, however baseless they may be? Cool.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Phreakiture]

Pentavirate

Pardon the nitpick . . . I don't think that word is right. It appeared in a comedy film as a word-geek riff on secret societies and conspiracy theories. The word itself is wrong (which is the joke) because it is a build-up on triumvirate, latin for "three men". Penta, however, is a Greek prefix for 5. I think you are looking for something more like "quintumvirate".

I'll shut up now.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[tambo]

The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever.

They don't have that right. That's the point of parody.

Jerry Falwell certainly didn't want his image used by Hustler Magazine, but he didn't have the power to stop them.

- David Stein

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

There are two different logos shown in the video, one being the 5 rings as handcuffs in black and white, which should be protected under fair use. But at the beginning of the projection, there is a full color illustration of the IOC's trademark 5-rings.

Now, if someone where to clip out that 1/2 a second of frames and re-post the video, I would be hard pressed to defend the IOC's actions.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[compro01]

Because suing Amnesty International would be PR suicide?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Mostly true statements. However, this is false:

. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.

They are required to accurately represent the business to the shareholders. But if they said "Google/YouTube will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second", then they would have to live by that standard. I don't know what the rules on changing the nature of the company are, but stockholder value does not have to be the overriding concern. In fact, in some cases it cannot be (see the Microsoft offer to Yahoo!).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[blind biker]

Many of Tibet's citizens are indeed wealthier, freer and healthier as a result of the invasion.

And many are a bit more dead-er.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Bryansix]

Satire is covered by free speech. They are not claiming to be the IOC; they are claiming the IOC to be misguided at best and evil at worst.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Z00L00K]

Considering all the mess that IOC and some national Olympic committees has been involved with I no longer have any interest in the Olympic games.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

profits, not prophits

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nomadic]

IANAL, of course... but if what these guys did isn't protected, it damn well should be. The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

Well IAAL and it clearly is protected speech, and YouTube should grow a backbone.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Wavicle]

The problem with getting "The Story" on pre-1950 Tibet is that most of the information comes from two groups: The Chinese who wish to paint it as a caste system where the Lama caste mercilously ruled over the population with an iron fist; and the Tibet government in exile who want to paint the Chinese as an oppressive government mercilously ruling over the population with an iron fist.

The closest thing I have found to an independent review is this skeptoid article.

And for laughs, and an opinion not tilted by propaganda from either side, but maybe a little biased, is this Penn & Teller B*llsh*t bit.

The responses to the above from the Free Tibet crowd tend to go something like "But *THIS* Dalai Lama was a good one! He would have ruled with justice and compassion." Well, okay, maybe he really would. But history has shown us pretty conclusively that absolute monarchies tend to have more wicked than wonderful rulers.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[AvitarX]

yeah, didn't spell check yet.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[mbius]

The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

Hear hear.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[BobMcD]

Why isn't there a '-1, Complete Moron' ?

Because there is a 'Reply' button that works quite well...

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[jonfr]

What I don't understand why Google is just killing every video that get a copyright claim. In this case, for example I am pretty sure that OIC didn't take the video or own the sad copyright. Fair use also applies if the video did use some clips from other videos.

The original author of the video in question should file a counter notice and then sue OIC into the ground.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

Okay, so it was a bit of an over simplification.

Corporations exist, in part, to limit the liability of the investors.

Corporation's management is beholden to its owners.

The vast majority of share holders have a strong interest in not losing their investment.

If the corporation's management fails to move the company in the direction the investors desire, it could be actionable.

And from each state and country there are different laws that apply a wide range of specifics.

So all in all my statement may have been a bit too blunt, perhaps I should have said "Limiting their liability is something that is very much in their best interested to do." or "Failing to limiting their could result in legal repercussions." or any number of other phrasings that all have relatively the same meaning.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[JohnBailey]

Jerry Falwell certainly didn't want his image used by Hustler Magazine, but he didn't have the power to stop them. - David Stein

And unless his image was a registered trademark, that would be one reason why. Although the reason given was that it was parody rather than slander, and was not seen as being intended to be seen as anything else. He did get compensated for emotional trauma or something, which was fair enough. A trademark must be enforced to remain valid. Failure to do so counts against the assertion that the trade mark is unique to a company or organisation. Three interlocking circles for Disney, or five interlocking circles for the Olympic organisation.. no difference. Had the video not had this specific parody of the logo, then they would not have a valid complaint, and would have basically pulled a Streisand. The smart thing for the film makers to do is to edit the footage, remove the Olympic logo, and resubmit. So long as they have permission from the owners of the copyright of any third party video footage, nobody can object. If they could put a subtitle with something like "Olympic logo removed for trademark violation reasons" then they could very possibly have a nice dig at the Olympic committee too.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[SimonGhent]

The IOC will throw notices at any and all unlicensed uses of it's trademarks, regardless of legality or the context in which it stands.

Well, the Guardian's cartoonist Martin Rowson has managed to get away with it in a cartoon attacking China's human rights record.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2008/jul/30/china.human.rights/

I would imagine that pretty much every UK quality paper has published something similar over the past week or so.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just about the politics of an upper/lower class system. Nor is it about "how democratic" Tibet is/was. Western countries are not perfect in this regard either. Why would you expect pre-Chinese Tibet to be a Utopia anyways?

How about the fact that the Chinese government seems to have no respect for Tibetan culture and identity?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Rick Bentley]

The use of the Olympic rings trade mark was clearly a parody and therefore should be covered by fair use. No reasonable person would get the impression that the people with the video were the owners of the trade mark.

It shouldn't take 3 days to figure that out, the whole clip is only a few minutes.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Z00L00K]

For the same reason that there is no "+1 Troll" alternative. - But sometimes it could have been interesting.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

/shrug

Who's to say that the IOC has even noticed it? Who's to say they haven't already received a complaint and decided to disregard it? Who's to say that the IOC didn't look at it and say 'that is clearly satire' and decide not to pursue it?

I'm not a member of the IOC, so I can't speak to what or when they choose to enforce their trademark over. What I can say is that they do seem to be quite resolute in protecting their trademark.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call your car? An "autokinetikon" or a "suimobil"?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[shliddle]

First of all, if this were merely about the interlocked rings it would not be a copyright issue, it would be a trademark issue. In that case, the IOC still has no standing because trademark infringement only occurs when a reasonable person would confuse the use of trademark as being represented by the IOC. Even if that were found to be true in this case, they would need to go after the person who made the handcuffs, not to what amounts to be a 4th party. (1st - IOC, 2nd - Protester, 3rd - Videographer, 4th - YouTube.) If someone created a mock-up of a McDonalds hamburger and put that next to images of slaughtered cows as a protest, and I video taped it and posted it to YouTube, the idea that McDonadls has any leverage with YouTube is ridiculous.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Z00L00K]

The current Dalai Lama is a product of being in opposition, and therefore has a completely different perspective than if he had been in the isolated position that he would have had if Tibet wasn't invaded.

Not that the invasion was right either. Religion and government really doesn't mix well in the long run. There are too many examples of that.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Ngarrang]

I stopped caring about the Olympics when Curling made the cut for official status. Just how many obscure sports can we add to an already overly-burdened event.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Stooshie]

All companies are required to limit their liability. Shareholders can take managers to court if they willfully reduce the value of the company's shares.

Keeping copyrighted material on your site, knowing you will be sued and almost certainly lose would surely come under the term willful.

Saying something like:

... [we] will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second ...

That could also come under the term willful.

Also, companies can make any statement to their customers they like. They don't have to live by them. Their only nod they make to the customer is via the marketplace and a few trading standards costraints. If the customer stops buying, they change what they are doing.

a

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[sandysnowbeard]

Google is a company, a corporation whose end goal is implicity to turn a profit. Even given its humble, do-gooder beginnings, it's important not to be blinded by our fan-boy love.

I don't know Google's rationale, but it may be that they consider it a greater good to block the occasional video than to have the youtube service blocked for the other 99.9% of viewers in a certain country.

I think Google finds itself in ambiguous situations many times, and it's far easier for us to criticize them to actually consider their position and realize just how unclear it is what the 'right' choice is to make.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[CaptainZapp]

Although not quite comparable my hometown of Zurich was under siege during the Football European Championship.

As I described it to a friend: Imagine there's a three week G8 summit in town, where you are forced to drink Carslberg beer.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[halivar]

What do you call your car? An "autokinetikon" or a "suimobil"?

A decepticon.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

they'd probably take you more seriously if you knew how to spell

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take that, Youtube! I will no longer be buying any of your videos!!!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[FreedomToThink]

That is exactly what they do.
Viacom had caused the Scientology critic channel XenuTV (and subsequently XenuTV1, as it was run by the same person) to be shut down with a DMCA notice over a Colbert clip (that as part of a critique on a different site, using youtube to host the footage, was fair use)

Nothing could be done until finally Mark Bunker, the channel owner, finally filed a DMCA counter notice. Once done the plaintive has 14 days (iirk) to follow up with a suit, or the complaint is dropped.

This resulted in the restoration of BOTH of the channels Mark bunker ran.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

and the gold medal in the nerd competition goes to...

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MojoRilla]

Faldwell sued for libel, not slander.

Faldwell didn't win on the libel charge, but did win $150,000 for emotional distress.

Larry Flynt took the case to the Supreme Court and won. The court ruled that the parody was protected speech under the first amendment.

In terms of your other assertion, that trademark allows absolute control of images like the Olympic rings, that is not true. US trademark law has a provision called the fair use defense, where trademarks can be used to criticize or analyze. This doctrine allows this video to be posted on YouTube though it contains many of Disney's trademarks and copyrights.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

companies = company's
pursuite = pursuit
prophits = profits

and if profits are damaged, shareholders are damaged by definition.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Das Modell]

Modded flamebait for pointing out an indisputable fact? Only on Slashdot.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerry Falwell's face is not a trademark. I'm not sure you're allowed to use registered trademarks, even in parody -- most parodies alter the name so as to still be recognizable, but to avoid being perceived as direct infringement.

As for the IOC, they lost all respect from me when, after allowing dozens of organizations to use the word "Olympics" which has been around a couple thousand years, the selectively sued "The Gay Olympics" into changing their name to "The Gay Games". In other words, being associated with "The Special Olympics" doesn't damage the IOC's reputation, but being associated with "The Gay Olympics" does, because obviously, every competitor in the Olympics is straight!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

All right, I'll bite: is China's authoritarian system which brutally suppresses free speech and competing ideas about government any better?

Considering that the average lifespan in Tibet has increased pretty dramatically since the Chinese took over from the lamas, then yes, it is better.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

It was a little bit worse than having an "out-of-date religion", you know. That's a pretty lame strawman argument.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[neiby]

Since when is Buddhism out of date? The world would be a FAR better place if the Christians, Jews and Muslims were magically converted to Buddhism, especially if it were one of the more secular flavors of Buddhism. In many cases, it's more of a philosophy toward life than a religion.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[pacinpm]

I am more interested in why those people protesting on video never show their faces. They are in the land of free after all. What they are afraid of?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to let you know, that as a freedom loving citizen of the world

You "citizens of the world" really worry the fire out of me. What the hell does that mean anyway? Is this emergent moniker a new take on the whole "world citizen" ridiculousness of times past, or something different all together? IMHO it sounds like some snarky BS.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

Considering that the average lifespan in Tibet has increased pretty dramatically since the Chinese took over from the lamas, then yes, it is better.

Says who, exactly? The very same Chinese government that took over?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.

What evidence do we have that that is true other than the word of the Chinese government that is currently running the place?

I've heard this said a couple of times in this thread and just wonder if there is any independent evidence that really suggests that it's true. Film of Tibetan children smiling and waving Chinese flags does not count.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, of course, the best response to people who hold religious views you disagree with is to brutally murder them. Do you realize how hard it is *not* to have Godwin's Law invoked in this conversation?

The Holocaust wasn't about religion, if that's what you're talking about. It was aimed at people with Hebrew blood. Look at the Nuremberg Laws or read Mein Kampf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Decepticons are generally flying machines. Autobots are the cars.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[superdave80]

Autobots are cars, Decepticons are planes!

Nerd license revoked!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

But if they said "Google/YouTube will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second",

then everybody would sell their stock into the toilet.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If the corporation's management fails to move the company in the direction the investors desire, it could be actionable.

Again, this part is false. It is only actionable if the investors were made to invest under false pretenses. A company could say that it cared more about rights than liability or profit, and live up to that, perfectly legally. It has nothing to do with your phrasing, and everything to do with the end result.

And you are right, I'm basing this on US law, as evidenced in Supreme Court rulings involving a Deleware corporation. The fact that it was the US Supreme Court makes me believe it was a federal issue.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

But that's all it is. Christianity accepted slavery, caste systems, all sorts of horrors. But guess what? Now you have liberal democracies in predominantly Christian countries. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a violent takeover was necessary to liberalize Tibet.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why none of you, basement dwellers, go ask the REAL Tibetan people if they want the Chinese out?
I mean the REAL Tibetans, which were under slavery just because they didn't belong to the monk caste, until the Chinese Red Army got in and kicked the skinheads dressed in orange all the way over the Himalayas to India.
See, medium class shop owners in Lhasa burning cars and "exiled" monks burning themselves, don't constitute, IMHO, the whole Tibetan people. I been in Lhasa 2 weeks ago and the poor people, Yaki workers, farmers, etc. They seem quite happy with Chinese rule.
So, if Napoleon and his pigs want to get back to rule the farm and piss on the other animals, they will have to fight their way through the Chinese Army, and I don't think that gonna be easy... And by the way, I am American, and don't like China commies either. I just don't think that is fair to push down the throat of some nice people some dirty theocracy because Hollywood fags think that is right.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

Since when is Buddhism out of date?

The original flamey post was referring to certain aspects of the pre-Chinese takeover Tibet culture. They had a caste system and some kind of brutal practices. My response is, so what? That doesn't excuse the Chinese actions - a culture can be made more liberal without a full invasion.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

A trademark's purpose is to allow someone selling Coca-Cola to prevent someone else from selling "I can't believe it's not Coca-Cola" and benefiting from the former's good name and marketing efforts unjustly via consumer confusion.

It is not trademark infringement to use a company's trademark to specifically identify that company's product in the context of criticism of that company's actions. Parody or not. I can opine that Microsoft is evil or Windows XP is crap without any fear that I am infringing their trademark doing it.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[infolib]

Acknowledge that life in pre-China Tibet was absolutely terrible for the average person, acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.

I know very little about Tibet, but I suspect you could make the exact same argument about pre-1950 China. Not that it's been all singing and dancing along the way, mind you, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were quite bad as I understand.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[OrangeTide]

Considering that the average lifespan in Tibet has increased pretty dramatically since the Chinese took over from the lamas, then yes, it is better.

That could just be natural progress. I'm certain if Tibet bordered Canada that the same lifespan improvement would have occurred, without a forcefully interfering with a culture's religion and government.

It's not like Tibetans are superstitious to the point of being harmful to themselves like some cultural groups. So there does not appear to be a reason to suppress their religious structure except to eliminate it as a type of government.

I'll push forward a theory here. I believe China tries the homogenize regional governments so that they are simply administrative arms of a national government. And excessive variation on their organizational structure is probably considered inefficient or maybe even dangerous. Most Westerners are used to strong local governments, and those of us who live in countries where we had to figured out some way to coexist with aboriginal peoples are also used to areas where authority of small cultural groups exceeds that of the local government and the federal government has a "hands-off" approach. This is not how things work in China.

ps - I'm assuming this "lifespan improvement" statistic is true, because it seems reasonable enough.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Shareholders can take managers to court if they willfully reduce the value of the company's shares.

It depends on why. Yahoo! reduced the value of their shares by refusing Microsoft's offer. The board is supposed to run the company, which is seens as more than total market value (or market value per share.) There is also a web of relationships, etc. If the managers willfully move against the companies best interest it is actionable, but just because most companies value stock price, doesn't mean all do. Microsoft withheld dividends, valuing a warchest. If American Apparel (assuming it is publically traded) started making t-shirts in Indonesia, even if the stock price went up, shareholders could sue. Because they invested in a company defined first and foremost by a mission statement to revitalize inner cities.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to learn how to spell before sending that... Jesus... Do you actually READ anything at all - I mean - OTHER than your own work? When you see words spelt correctly in books and newspapers, do you just ignore the correct spelling and carry on making your own up as you go along? (Obviously you do...)

"and that your COMPANIES (company's) inconsiderate PURSUITE (pursuit) of a new market ends up costing both PROPHITS (profits) and shareholders for years to come."

How embarrassing is that?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[interiot]

but he didn't have the power to stop them

There's a LARGE IMPORTANT difference between a takedown notice and arguing a case before court.

YouTube won't evaluate whether a takedown notice is likely to be legally valid in the long-term... as long as someone says that they swear under penalty of perjury that the takedown notice is valid, then YouTube will comply immediately. YouTube's role is not to judge the eventual legality of takedown notices, nor should it be.

Once in court, of course, issues get closely scrutinized by the two sides.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

What I don't understand why Google is just killing every video that get a copyright claim.

Because the DMCA says that if they don't, they'd be responsible for contributory infringement. The DMCA procedure immunizes them from liability.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[interiot]

Mostly. The "unsuspend their account" is really a counter-notification, and it works on all websites. The thing that's intended to stop misuse of the DMCA is that takedown notifications and counter-notifications are done under penalty of perjury, and that if the accused believes they're in the right, that the default state before a court hearing is that the content stays up (because of the three steps 1) takedown notice, 2) counter-notice, 3) accuser files a lawsuit, #1 and #2 are very quick, so if it's ultimately headed to #3, the content is only taken offline for the brief time between #1 and #2).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[dgatwood]

A DMCA takedown notice can't legally be used to go after trademark infringement anyway. The DMCA is about copyrights, not trademarks. Legally speaking, YouTube opens themselves up to civil liability for honoring a takedown notice that does not represent a copyright claim. Now maybe their terms of use protect against that liability, but if I were them, I'd be looking over those terms of use right now....

Personally, I think it would be strangely appropriate to use Arnaud's Bugler's Dream (ideally, John Williams's variant thereof since it is somewhat more bombastic) in a parody fashion superimposed over the massacre. That would warrant a DMCA claim.... If you're going to get a DMCA claim, you might as well go for the big one.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

The only Tibetan that I know is far too young to remember life pre-invasion. She got the hell out of there (that she could leave at all was a story of pure luck).

But none of that matters. The Chinese did not invade and annex Tibet because they were concerned about human rights, so whether Tibetans are better or worse off is really irrelevant.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Dekortage]

Chessboxing is next, of course.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nuttycom]

That skeptoid article is interesting, but the lack of references means that it just adds to the confusion.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

May be people should ask Dalai to split his duty. Elect some bright people to be political leader and himself remaining the spiritual leader. Most of this fellow exile citizens got fed up. Our honorable Dalai traveled decades and acted like a king among foreign leaders. Could he accomplish anything solid? Not that I am aware of. No independence, no autonomous region, nothing.

Should we bring him to the negotiation table to strike some deal for his fellow Tibetans. Or kick his ass if he failed.

Look, turning the 'News for geeks' area into Chinese Bashing ground is not my taste. But since it arrives here so often.
1) I request Slashdot to make an ICON for chinese bashing.
2) Keep kicking Dalai's ass real hard until he come up with some agreement.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[ystar]

The current Dalai Lama is not responsible for the conditions of Tibet prior to the chinese invasion, he was only a student. No one, including myself, has any insight on whether he would have maintained the status quo or enacted sweeping reforms were China not involved.

Most important to note however, is that he is not currently seeking Tibetan independence. He himself has acknowledged that independence is impractical. He's acknowledged that the whole leadership system is in need of change, and would like to see either a female Dalai Lama or two or none succeed him.

Instead he wants Tibet's autonomy under China, with religious freedom. Penn and Teller don't seem to be interested in constructing a balanced and reasoned argument, even mixing the independent US funding of anticommunist resistance way back from the 60s into the argument. WTF?? Most of the money received by the Dalai Lama goes to the schools and charities in the area. He even gave his Nobel Prize money away. According to his own words, he only retains what is needed for his modest clothing and food, and what is needed for his surrounding staff. These folks (including the man himself) fly coach everywhere.

If you need sources, check two PBS documentaries for direct quotes on video that overlap most of these well established stances, '10 questions for the Dalai Lama' and 'women of tibet, a quiet revolution', plus the NPR broadcasts covering the Dalai Lama's responses during the tibetan unrests, all online and archived at NPR.org.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Doing so would involve stating under penalty of perjury that you own the rights to something in each video. I wouldn't recommend it.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

If any one of you know the Roleplay gaming (and collector card game) Legend of the Five Rings, you know that the IOC will act to remove anything that looks like their symbol.

The logo they used represented the five rings and they sued for infrigement. Completely mad if you ask me...

Today, the Legend of the Five Rings logo is different.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about money and power. Even now, the current Dalai Lama preaches "simplicity," and the opportunity to buy his latest overpriced book on "simplicity."

Yeah, they hand out Nobel Peace Prizes all the time to guys out schilling books. Or maybe some people believe he is genuinely interested in helping.

A Free Tibet will be a great thing. But neither the Chinese nor the (self-appointed) Tibetan Government in Exile are in anyway truly interested in that.

Are you referring to the democratically elected representatives of the Tibetan community in exile? In other words, elected by every Tibetan who CAN vote? http://www.tibet.net/

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Faylone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Decepticons There are a few in there that are cars.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

So, if marketing a new fork of Linux that had the MS Window's logo and boot screen as your own version of Linux is clearly a violation (as it sounds like we would both agree that it is). Why would it not be a violation that shows the IOC's 5-ring trademark prior to a few minute long video?

The Olympics are in China right now, China has a history of human rights violations, and the IOC has been working with their government for some time now to arrange for the games. Using the original and unaltered logo on this video, when the combination of the IOC, China, and human rights are of timely and geographical relevance, could and likely IS intended to cause consumer confusion as to the ownership of the video and the human rights violations occurring in China.

They are using the IOC's trademark to imply that the IOC is in part responsible for those human rights violations. Which, accuracy aside, is an infringement of the IOC's trademark.

The later satirical use of the 5-rings as hand-cuffs logo, I believe is covered under fair use, but the initial display of the IOC's trademark sure looks like a clear cut case of infringement.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

You think this is cute?

If Dalai could use a little brain and not listening to the drunken advisers he would have gone along with the Olympics and gained politically 10x more than he is right now. If, in fact, he could mobilize every Tibetans to carry a torch and run along the mountain. It sends a big voice to Beijing that he has the Mandate of the people. The voices sound like big thunder and the Beijing govt can have nothing to stop them. And he could distance himself from the Beijing govt and in the same time using the multi-million dollar propaganda machine to working in his favor.

Now look what he has done. A stupid riot where monks were caught doing devil on camera.

Well, don't have to say more, lets put Dalai back to the temple and pray. Let someone else to bring the Tibetans fast forward as the other Chinese citizens is heading.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[LionMage]

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

It's hard to see, though, where the copyright claim comes in. The Olympic logo is trademarked, but copyright law doesn't apply, so it's not clear to me how a DMCA notice could be served, since the DMCA strictly deals with copyright and not trademark law. Maybe if the video in question uses elements from Olympic theme music. But even then, the SCOTUS has ruled that satire is a completely and absolutely protected form of speech, and this protest video surely qualifies -- even to the point of modifying the Olympic logo to turn the interlocking rings into handcuffs.

I think the telling point as to whether they cave to pressure from the IOC and China will be when their lawyers have a chance to review the footage and determine that there is nothing infringing going on, if they put the video back.

But it's not really up to Google's or YouTube's lawyers to do this. The people who posted the video in the first place have to file a DMCA counter-claim, either claiming that they do in fact own the copyright to the work in question, or that the people issuing the take-down notice themselves do not own the copyright to the work in question, or that the people issuing the take-down notice do not otherwise have the right to issue a take-down notice.

The DMCA has provisions to sanction those who issue false take-down notices. Specifically, filing a false notice opens one up to being sued for damages by the party affected by the take-down. Now, apparently a copyright holder doesn't have to take fair use into account when filing a take-down notice, but they open themselves up to all kinds of liability if the other party can make a valid fair use defense.

Standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimers apply.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[torkus]

Companies are required to accurately STATE their liability/risk/performance/etc. to shareholders. In a public company the board of directors has the ultimate ability to remove the CEO and change business direction.

A company has the "duty" to shareholders to protect and advance their investment. If every company functioned around limiting their liability as the primary business goal then nothing would get done. No one would take risk. Yes, shareholders can sue senior management if they think inappropriate actions are being taken. In the end though if you don't have a majority of the board and/or voting stock you don't have much to say. The exception is illegal activity. e.g. a director who knowingly gives business to an inferior company for a kickback which results in financial loss for the company. You can't seriously expect to sue every manager when, in hindsight, the decision they made turned out to not be the best one.

As for your willful argument: One could argue that holding out and protecting consumers' (customers!) first ammendment rights is a BETTER business decision than turning into the nazi (chinese?) media police. Willfull yes. Willfully detrimental to the business's long-term goals? Perhaps not. Good luck there.

And finally... A company can not simply make any statements that they like. 'a few trading standards constraints' is like calling the US national deficit pocket change. A company can not make a statement that's known to be factually false without expecting (rightfully imho) to be sued into oblivion over it.

And i've got a P.S. - "If the customer stops buying, they change what they are doing." No!?!? If you're the MAFIAA you simply fight for new laws and sue people till you turn blue to perpetuate your out-dated business model. Ok, so that one was a bit troll-ish but still accurate after all :)

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

Again, this part is false. It is only actionable if the investors were made to invest under false pretenses.

Exactly why I said "could be actionable". Google's Investor Relations puts their #1 priority as long term financial gains. The "Don't Be Evil" motto is only in place because the existing management feels that by following that creed they will experience better long term profits.

IF, YouTube, and by extension Google, told the IOC to piss off (as I believe someone in this thread has recommended), it could lead to the IOC attempting to leverage Google out of a position to profit off of the Olympics, it could also strain the highly profitable relationship Google is attempting to court with China. Losing out on the ability to index Olympics related imagery and the market of China could have huge ramifications for Google's long term profits, and thus, long term share performance.

Taking actions to get Google locked out of the Chinese market could very well be actionable, even if it was due to a "don't be evil" decision on behalf of the senior management. IANAL, and I wouldn't want to be the one arguing for either side, but there is a very strong tie between almost all publicly traded corporations and stock value performance.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just the Chinese govt, just talk a Chinese dude and tell him "Free Tibet" and see the reaction! Its amazing how badly you piss them by suggesting they are doing something wrong. The seem to think its a part of China, even though its been an independent country and has been forcefully occupied by the Chinese.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[torkus]

Agree (tho IANAL).

When did ANY use of a logo - even circumstantial - suddenly become an infringement? It's insane. Retarded lawyers (no offense) and even stupider judges have used/allowed nonsense, obscure, and unrelated copyright/patent law to get courts to essentially enforce their own PR campaigns.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

Using the original and unaltered logo on this video, when the combination of the IOC, China, and human rights are of timely and geographical relevance, could and likely IS intended to cause consumer confusion as to the ownership of the video and the human rights violations occurring in China.

I don't think any reasonable observer would come to the conclusion that the IOC is sponsoring the video. That is the confusion that trademark protection is designed to avoid.

They are using the IOC's trademark to imply that the IOC is in part responsible for those human rights violations. Which, accuracy aside, is an infringement of the IOC's trademark.

I would suggest that the IOC is as complicit with the Chinese human rights record as the Vatican was with Hitler's. Whether that is a level that garners outrage or not is something that is indeed worthy of debate, but orthogonal to the issue here.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[stainlesssteelpat]

While it is quite possibly more about the copyright attatched to the five interlocking rings. It should be noted that here in Oz there is something of a furore over a missing advert on the TV network thats showing our Games coverage. Channel 7 had booked and accepted payment (made solely from public donations) for a free tibet advert to be shown before and after the olympic closing ceremony. They later claimed that no such ad had been booked, which changed very quickly to we didn't have time once the reciepts and scheduling documents were provided to the network and its rivals. There have been several other 'reasons' supplied by channel 7 for the missing ad now. However, the organisation getup.org.au has been a bit of a thorn in the side of politics lately, and as a grassroots activism endeavour it has been highly successful if not a bit far on the left, with some dubious links to the labour party.

Guess my point is, don't put it past the IOC to have this pulled for its content both political and copyright. IMHO if they can get a major aussie network to break a contract, it's going to be no different for youtube.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call your car? An "autokinetikon" or a "suimobil"?

I believe that a suimobil is what a lawyer drives.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call your car? An "autokinetikon" or a "suimobil"?

Mine is called a "Taurus".

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[advocate_one]

curling is a traditional winter sport and was in the inaugural winter olympics: snowboarding, freestyle aerials and freestyle moguls are all recent so they should be the ones to be dropped IMNSHO... (basically because I consider them to be stupid where people get marks for ridiculously named stunts...)

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as "correct" in the game of politics. A country or a government must defend its people's best interests. Is American's invasion to Iraq correct? It's the same type of thing. But at least Chinese government freed many Tibetans from slavery. If you ever met one of them (I happened to meet some), you will know how grateful they are about the communist's ruling.

Don't let people such as Dalai Lama fool you. Like the civil war in U.S., they just missed their privileges. They used to be able to do whatever they want to slaves, like peeling off slaves' skins alive at will and using their skulls as wine containers. I am actually glad the Chinese government stopped this. It's at least the lessor of two evils. If you go as an average Tibetan, not the old slave owner, you'll see what they prefer.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[dwater]

Wow. I can't believe it. Someone actually 'has a clue'.

Amazing. Kudos to you, and Brian Dunning.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking about culture and identity, huh?

I guess the people who know most about Tibetant culture and identity, are the Chinese people. We lived with Tibetants for more than 1000 years (before and after they have a *culture*), we know who they are, where they are from, and probably where they are going to.

I challenge you to identify one Tibetant *culture* that stops to exist post-1950.

We don't try to eliminate their culture, because the Chinese culture dominates and defines the history of East Asia. Note that China, not Tibet, is one of the 4 ancient civilizations, with 5,000 years of history. Tibet emerged in the last 1,000 years or so as a *people*. Most of the time in the 1000 year history after Tibetants gain their *culture* and *identity*, they are ruled under Chinese dynasties.

Chinese people simply have gotten used to the Tibetants. Why would Tibets *culture* poses any threat to Chinese culture? In other words, why would Chinese culture feel the threat from Tibet, if it has been insignificant in this long long history?

In 1950, there were only 2 million Tibetants, right now there are 6 million Tibetants. I guess this is because the Chinese people massacred Tibetant people very badly.

The fact is, Dalai Lama and his officials(aristocrats of the Tibetant society) lost their privilleges after the Commies came into Tibet in 1950. They didn't have any problem working things out with the KMT guys (now in Taiwan), but they can't work with the communists so they fled.

They (the aristocrats and probably Dalai himself) can't go back to China now, not only because the Chinese government hates them, but also because the Tibetant guys who is making a good living under current political system(government officials, religion leaders, etc) don't want Dalai to come back. Well, if Dalai comes back, his followers are going to take over these positions.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[penguinstorm]

Jokes on you. That's not a "Car" it's a "Ford"

The two are not even remotely similar.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[PFAK]

I'm planning on leaving Vancouver for the 2 weeks during the Olympics. I hate the fact that it's coming here in the first place, and that the rest of the province didn't get to vote on the referendum that's going to cost us tax payers billions of dollars.

Where do you plan on going? ;-)

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that does put some burden on the posters. I assumed they make the proper DMCA counter claim (since it looks pretty obviously like they made it themselves) and attempt to re-post their video. That's when we'll learn something about Google. Do they:

        1) take it down and continue to make new lame excuses like channel 7 (posted elsewhere in this thread)
        2) tell the IOC to get a court order or piss off.
        3) tell the video posters exactly what Google's lawyers said was infringing/libelous/anti-trademark/etc so they can repost it on good legal footing.

I'm hoping #2 or #3

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[ClemensW]

That's exactly the way DMCA is meant to work: Remove now, evidence will be presented later (or not at all)...

And that's what IOC's lawyers are singing:
(to the tune of "YMCA" by the Village People)

Youtube, take this video down.
We said, Youtube, this vid will not be shown.
We said, Youtube, it infringes our IP.
We just say so and it's begone.

We will screw you with the D-M-C-A
We will screw you with the D-M-C-A

We have every right
to make you remove that
because it makes us look bad

We will screw you with the D-M-C-A
We will screw you with the D-M-C-A

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the gold medal in Self-Righteous Posturing goes to...

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[halivar]

The Stunticons were race cars. I got the black one. He's cool. We rob banks and steal energon cubes together.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[LionMage]

Hate to reply to myself, but I guess I need to correct a couple things I said.

First, I meant to say "parody" and not "satire." It seems that there is a legal distinction between the two, and parody is considered a more protected fair use than satire.

Also, it seems that logos can in fact be copyrighted. The current "5 interlocking rings" logo design was first widely used in 1920, so you'd think that the copyright would have expired by now.

The Wikipedia article isn't exactly enlightening, either:

The Olympic Movement is very protective of its symbols; among other things, it claims an exclusive copyright on any arrangement of five rings, irrespective of alignment, color or lack thereof, as well as to any use of the word Olympic. They have taken action against numerous groups seen to have violated this trademark[...]

This article is confusing because it uses "copyright" and "trademark" seemingly interchangeably. If you follow the link to the article about Legend of the Five Rings, a card game published by Wizards of the Coast, you find out that WotC ran afoul of the United States Olympic Committee because "a special Act of the U.S. Congress gave them the exclusive rights to any symbol consisting of five interlocking rings." So it seems that the IOC isn't the only rights holder here, and that special laws were enacted to grant perpetual rights to any variation of the logo that might be conceived.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Omestes]

I agree with your analysis, sadly... This is how the world works, and how we became a nation of whores.

When money/profits are more important than ethics (or basic humanity), we really don't have much going for us anymore. When debates like this are even within the realms of comprehension, it is a sad, sad, reflection on us.

I'll accept the -1 flamebait with pride for this.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you down if I could, douchebag.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[statusbar]

For me it was when they not only included beach volleyball but included maximum bikini size for the women playing beach volleyball....

The Olympics haven't had much to do with athletes for a long time. It is just big business.. Except for the athletes...

--jeffk++

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[kramer2718]

This illustrates a big problem with our system. Someone files an unjust lawsuit. The risk/reward ratio is deemed to high to fight it and you have an automatic chilling affect.

In this case, perhaps Google doesn't get a huge amount of ad revenue from protest videos, so they don't want to fight this case ... or maybe no single video generates enough revenue to justify fighting a copyright infringement case.

What needs to happen is that Judges need to start awarding punitive damages to defendants when the plaintiffs case is judged to be frivolous or an attempt to control legitimate legal behavior.

This same technique could reduce the malpractice burden for medical professionals.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[lgw]

so whether Tibetans are better or worse off is really irrelevant.

No, it's never irrelevant. In fact, it's the one useful measurement of the "goodness" of a government. Of course, freedom and personal dignity factor into "better off" along with econimics, but is there any measure by which an average citizen is not better off than before?

I don't know the answer to that question, but China's motivations are completely irrelevant to the quality of life in Tibet. Cetainly there are better forms of government than Chinese communism, but there are also worse forms.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Hoi Polloi]

But without the Olympics how will nations and cities spend themselves into the poorhouse to create a venue for advertising and propaganda?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm sure they are in a rush to pull pro-China videos on copyright grounds.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

In fact, it's the one useful measurement of the "goodness" of a government.

The fact that, today, 58 years after invasion, Tibetans are better off is of very little value in making that decision. Would they have been even better off as a free, independent country after 58 years? Maybe or maybe not, but we'll never know because China conquered and annexed the country.

Cetainly there are better forms of government than Chinese communism, but there are also worse forms.

And the people of Tibet have completely lost the ability to choose which form of government they have.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

Do you have any evidence that this is not so?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

So you'd rather let people keep suffering and dying because they'll fix it sooner or later if you just leave them alone?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings.

It is nice to know that despite of all the conflict China and Tibet share an angel watching over them.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

That could just be natural progress.

The average lifespan was, as usually quoted, 36 years. Think about that for a little bit.

It's not like Tibetans are superstitious to the point of being harmful to themselves like some cultural groups.

36 years.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[2short]

"It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint"

I'm going to guess you're right, since that's what the law explicitly requires them to do.

Now if the original poster submits a proper declaration asserting they have the legal right to post the material, YouTube puts it back up, and the IOC has to sue the original poster.

The DMCA did have some good bits, like this. Google doesn't have to have their lawyers review the clip; they don't need to take a side. It's between the two parties that say they have the rights to the material.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[neil-ngc]

Might want to spellcheck that before sending it off. People with a poor grasp of the English language are generally not taken very seriously.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MadJeff451]

If I recall correctly (also from memory):

Dad: Oooh I hate the Colonel with his wee beady eyes and that smart look on his face that says "ohh, you gonna buy my chicken!"

Charlie: Dad, how can you hate The Colonel?

Dad: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly smarta$$!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[2short]

"But history has shown us pretty conclusively that absolute monarchies tend to have more wicked than wonderful rulers."

How do they compare to rule by totalitarian foreign invaders?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Holi]

Actually they won't do anything unless Students for a Free Tibet file a counter claim. YouTube by US law has to take down the video, only after they receive a counter claim will they reinstate the video as they will have fulfilled their requirements under the DMCA. If they receive no counter claim they would be stupid to reinstate the video as they could be held liable for damages.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

Ehh, I don't think it's that bad most of the time. I do think Corporations have enjoyed a bit more lax regulation that I would have liked over the last 12 years, but all in all, the contribution to society on average is likely worth it. I wouldn't mind seeing more accountability on behalf of management and share owners for criminal acts taken by the corporation entity though, tossing a couple controlling interest investors into jail for a month or two might give other major investors pause when debating between the right/legal choice and the most profitable and likely illegal choice.

Is the system perfect? No. Is it better than nothing? Yeah.

And I can't concur with your statement "we really don't have much going for us anymore." As that would imply that we at one point did. But if you flip back through history, the mythical golden years never really seam to materialize. There was always something bad going on, and looking back longingly at a 'simpler time' is usually nothing more than wishful thinking and selective memories.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nomadic]

In this case, perhaps Google doesn't get a huge amount of ad revenue from protest videos, so they don't want to fight this case ... or maybe no single video generates enough revenue to justify fighting a copyright infringement case.

You'd think Google would have the resources to fight high-profile cases though.

What needs to happen is that Judges need to start awarding punitive damages to defendants when the plaintiffs case is judged to be frivolous or an attempt to control legitimate legal behavior.

Actually a lot of states already do this.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Exactly why I said "could be actionable".

Okay, your statement is void of all meaning in that case. "Eating ice cream could be actionable" if in eating the ice cream I do not fix the fence whose malrepair created an attractive nusceince that caused a child to drown. So you're right, if the company says it will do X, and doesn't do X, that is actionable. And in this case X does equal "maximize long-term financial gains". But the way you stated it you implied it is an inherit obligation of all companies, which is not the case.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[penguinstorm]

You could, if you weren't an anonymous coward.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

Well, if my choices are leave them alone or let an authoritarian regime invade so that maybe 50 years later their lives might improve... well, I'd leave them alone.

And that is without getting into the issues of sovereignty.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Asic Eng]

Anyway, the IOC is a cabal, a Pentavirate and the Olympics have lost all credibility.

Well, while the moral corruption of the IOC is not in itself surprising, it is nevertheless astonishing that they'll still manage to find a new low to sink to ...

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Omestes]

I fully agree, the norm is generally not terrible, though I often think that our corporate structure leads to full on nastiness by its nature. Not just the accountability bit, but the emphasis on pure profit, no matter the other (less substantial) costs. I'm pretty sure it is a necessary evil though, or at least better than current alternatives. Like all things, a dose of vigilance, and (as stated) increased accountability generally checks most ills.

And I can't concur with your statement "we really don't have much going for us anymore."

Point taken, and not disputed. We're probably, if nothing else, a little better off these days than in the past. Leagues ahead of where we were during the Industrial Revolution, at least.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Wavicle]

The current Dalai Lama is not responsible for the conditions of Tibet prior to the chinese invasion, he was only a student.

He wasn't? So you're saying he isn't the reincarnation of Thubten Gyatso, the 13th Dalai Lama?

He was 25 years old when he left and he was the reincarnation of the guy before him. Many of the prior Dalai Lamas had no issue being leaders at the point, why does this one get a pass? The reason, I believe, is because if we don't give him a pass to all the evils going on while he was the monarch of Tibet it completely undermines his humanitarian mission he claims to be on now.

He's acknowledged that the whole leadership system is in need of change, and would like to see either a female Dalai Lama or two or none succeed him.

A female Lama? Two Lamas? Seriously? He does remember that he is one of many male reincarnations, right? Sorry, but this is looks to me like pandering to the west. It runs strongly counter to their theology.

Penn and Teller don't seem to be interested in constructing a balanced and reasoned argument

Nobody, including myself and even Penn and Teller, claim that their argument is balanced. Penn is an outspoken Atheist and blames religion for a lot of the world's evil. Their argument, however unbalanced, is reasoned. The Serfs in Tibet were overwhelmingly slaves - in the 20th century! Calling the whole Tibetan theocracy a load of crap is pretty solid.

I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama talks a lot about love, peace, tolerance and education. But a couple things seem quite sure: 1) He didn't learn those things from the Gelug school of Buddhism; and 2) He didn't talk so much until government funding for his guerilla activities dried up.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[greyhueofdoubt]

I am just a layman, but I was under the impression that in the U.S., libel and slander both fall under the legal category of defamation (unlike places like the U.K. where they are separate).

If you have a background in this field, could you elaborate on the differences between libel/slander vs defamation?

-b

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I just copy this?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Asic Eng]

"spelt" is a type of wheat.

How embarrassing is that?

Meh. Could be worse.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Schemat1c]

Jokes on you. That's not a "Car" it's a "Ford"

The two are not even remotely similar.

Ahh brand loyalty, how robotic of you.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Your Pal Dave]

Don't forget that the USOC has special trademark protection granted by Congress in 1978 that goes way beyond the normal protection that any other entity gets.

Here's an interesting Article about how the USOC is harassing an Olympic National Park ranger who wrote a book entitled "Best of the Olympic Peninsula."

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[acecamaro666]

Didn't Stephen Colbert show the rings on his chest in a fake picture of himself last week?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[zblack_eagle]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Australia the olympics is big business for the athletes. Get a gold medal and you get heaps of money for product endorsement. Sports that make it onto TV are pretty much all professional these days

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Stooshie]

Companies can make any claim they want and only if someone challenges them, via trading standards, do they have to remove the claim from adverts/packets. They can remove it without any publicity. Just renew the packaging a little, quietly remove the false claim and add something like "brand new recipe". People don't notice and there is very little penalty for the company and it doesn't even have to go to court (at least in UK anyway).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[rtechie]

All companies are required to limit their liability.

No, they're not. Companies are not required to limit their liability AT ALL because there is no conceivable way to enforce such a rule. How could a company act to reduce ALL possible liability if you can sue over literally anything?

Most companies DO try to limit their liability as much as possible. That's the whole point of "Limited Liability Corporations". But there is no specific legal requirement to do so. If you think there is, please cite a statute.

Shareholders can take managers to court if they willfully reduce the value of the company's shares.

Yes, "willfully reduce". As in they're deliberately trying the destroy the company, usually through fraud and embezzlement. Shareholder lawsuits without evidence of fraud ALWAYS fail, and even with evidence, they USUALLY fail. You have to prove INTENT (they have to me malicious, not incompetent) which is very difficult.

Saying something like: ... [we] will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second ...

That could also come under the term willful.

No, it wouldn't. See above. Hell, if they said "We're going to invest all the company's money in crack cocaine." even though that's completely illegal they STILL probably wouldn't have a case because management is being honest.

Shareholders complain to the board which then fires the managers. They don't sue because it's almost always a waste of time and money.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[dash2]

The many real Tibetan people who I met in India, who had fled over the border to India often at great personal risk, did indeed want the Chinese out.

I am not an expert on Tibet, but I have read Seven Years in Tibet and from the account Heinrich Harrer gives it does not appear that the Tibetan peasants were slaves. Pre-invasion Tibet had many faults but as others have pointed out, that does not justify invading them, nor does it mean that they should not now be independent.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

Of course, a) they were already under a pretty damn oppressive regime, and b) it certainly didn't take fifty years for things to improve.

Stop it with the strawmen already.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[LaskoVortex]

That could just be natural progress.

The average lifespan was, as usually quoted, 36 years. Think about that for a little bit.

This is what happens when the infant mortality rate is significant--You get skewed lifespan statistics which suggests everyone gets killed in their 30's. Infant mortality rates have probably improved all over the world since then and/or Tibetans have been having less children. You could get the same skewed life-expectancy statistics if people all of a sudden started having a lot of babies and the infant mortality rate didn't change a bit (nor did the average age of death of people who lived one year, etc). One statistic can paint any picture you want if you use it right.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[OrangeTide]

by "natural progress" I mean that lifespans lengthen. My point was that perhaps just about any nation, not just China, could have had the same positive impact on lifespans. And the example I cited (Canada) would have avoided trampling on religious freedom and cultural heritage.

I really do believe that 70+ years average lifespan is a standard that should be a goal for every nation.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[dash2]

Go to the websites GP referenced - in particular the case.edu one - and you'll find the answer you are looking for.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[vimm]

+1 stank hos

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to run a spell-check on that...

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[ystar]

He was 25 years old when he left and he was the reincarnation of the guy before him. Many of the prior Dalai Lamas had no issue being leaders at the point, why does this one get a pass? The reason, I believe, is because if we don't give him a pass to all the evils going on while he was the monarch of Tibet it completely undermines his humanitarian mission he claims to be on now.

As a practicing Buddhist, I wholly discount the literal vessel-to-vessel concept of 'reincarnation' espoused by the west and I've found plenty of canon-based support for this position that is in agreement with the Tibetan interpretation of Samsara, especially within the context of the Dalai Lama's lineage. I don't blame western journalism for missing the subtleties due to the contradictions inherent in the different sources, but your "same person in a different body" argument is frivolous mysticism and not the current position of the Royal House.

Thus, he is absolutely not responsible or accountable for the actions of previous Lamas, just as our current pope, prime ministers, and presidents are not responsible for the actions taken by the previous occupants of the positions.

He took the throne in name only at 15, but did not finish school until age 25, when he escaped from Tibet under threat of assassination. I posit that for a man to orchestrate and see to success a social revolution in the span of a year or two, while in the process of political appeals to both China and the world at large for assistance and while his people were being massacred, is unreasonable. The actions the office and administration did take were based on ending active violence against the people of Tibet. Social reform was occurring during this time as well, primarily in organized women's demonstrations and movements.

He gets a pass.

A female Lama? Two Lamas? Seriously? He does remember that he is one of many male reincarnations, right? Sorry, but this is looks to me like pandering to the west. It runs strongly counter to their theology.

He's always wanted the institution to end, as it was intended to serve the people and not hinder them, and he has been on record proposing this termination since the 1960s. According to the Royal House, the continuation of the lineage, and in what form, is ultimately to be decided upon by a popular vote (despite the challenges of doing so when one's people is in exile). People don't always vote for their own best interests, and his radical positions have been asserted in order to coax them toward an unorthodox solution to a long history of social problems.

Calling the whole Tibetan theocracy a load of crap is pretty solid. ....He didn't talk so much until government funding for his guerilla activities dried up.

Quit with the straw man argument. I'm NOT defending the historical Tibetan monarchy. I do not support the reinstitution of it. Neither does Tenzin Gyatso. My argument relates to the legitimacy and correctness of his political opinions and positions. He has been making these arguments since prior to his own exile (see Seventeen Point agreement, '59, '61, '65 UN resolutions related to Tibet, etc). There is no link you can draw between any transfer of funds and his stated positions, neither chronological nor substantive.

These "guerilla activities" are empty accusations. 250 resistance fighters were trained in Colorado as a contingency, prior to the Dalai Lama leaving Tibet (and prior to him gaining power as leader of the people) but the USA never planned to actively support military operations to liberate Tibet. The Dalai Lama also did not support or condone a liberation by force. The only "guerilla" activity he was engaged in were working with the gatesmen and boarder guards that secured his disguised escape into India through the mountain passes. This did not involve any subversive or militarized plans, and was limited to a small and trusted circle

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[caitsith01]

Keeping copyrighted material on your site, knowing you will be sued and almost certainly lose would surely come under the term willful.

By the same token, removing user-supplied content on the basis of frivolous threats of legal action by corrupt and malevolent third parties might also be regarded as being contrary to the best interests of the company. This would:

1. reduce the willingness of users to post content in future
2. reduce the range of content currently available
3. encourage and invite future frivolous threats of legal action
4. reduce traffic to the site and thus advertising revenue (all the people who would have watched this video)

There would be a strong argument that YouTube is acting in the best interests of the company as a whole (which is the actual test, not simply "what the shareholders want") by telling the IOC and friends to shove it.

Also, companies can make any statement to their customers they like. They don't have to live by them. Their only nod they make to the customer is via the marketplace and a few trading standards costraints. If the customer stops buying, they change what they are doing.

Completely incorrect. Making representations to customers or potential customers which you know or suspect are false can create legal liability depending on the circumstances.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[caitsith01]

IAAL too (albeit non-American), but my understanding is there is a difference between saying something is "protected speech" and saying that a private entity cannot choose not to publish it in its absolute discretion.

"Protected" is a prohibition, not a positive right - no-one can stop you from saying certain things, but by the same token you can't force others to listen to you or carry your message.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[jaxtherat]

No, I think the point is we have an active international community now (as opposed to 50 years ago), and if Tibet was left alone, that aforementioned international community would help/prod them to modernise in a slightly less forceful way.

Think of it as mentoring someone to better themselves at their own pace and discretion, as opposed to being forcefully kept as part of an empire they have little in common with, and being forced to do it China's way, which isn't the best way to do things in the first place.

Chinese domestic politics and policies remind me too much of Soviet Russia: Russia was fine to live in IF you embraced the Party's idea of the norm, but the moment you tried to step out of that norm (wanted to practice religion, read certain western books, listen to the Beatles, wear blue denim, embrace your non-Russian cultural identity) whammo! Off to Siberia/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan for you...

China seems to be trying too hard to fit the square peg of Tibet into the round hole of 'the Chinese way'.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MightyYar]

No straw man intended. It may not have been 50 years, but it was certainly several decades - the cultural revolution was no fun for anybody. The Chinese only disassembled the former regime because it was an obstacle. Human rights had very little to do with it.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[crossmr]

Yeah because there is nothing funny about a triple sow cow.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nomadic]

"Protected" is a prohibition, not a positive right - no-one can stop you from saying certain things, but by the same token you can't force others to listen to you or carry your message.

Well the issue here is if the speech is "protected," which I believe it is, then YouTube gets the benefit of that protection; they are not liable for trademark infringement or whatever legal cause of action the IOC claims to have. Yes, it's their network and they can refuse to carry whatever they want, but it's pretty cowardly. The IOC's legal threats are baseless.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Shakrai]

Considering that the average lifespan in Tibet has increased pretty dramatically since the Chinese took over from the lamas, then yes, it is better.

So we can conquer countries if we improve the life expectancy after we do so? Hmm, I bet a lot of those countries with oil under them could stand to benefit from American medicine......

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[jrumney]

The DMCA applies to copyright, not trademark infringement. If the IOC has used the DMCA here, they deserve to be slapped down big time.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[MojoRilla]

IANAL....

From Nolo, slander is spoken defamation, while libel is written (or broadcast) defamation.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[caitsith01]

"Protected" is a prohibition, not a positive right - no-one can stop you from saying certain things, but by the same token you can't force others to listen to you or carry your message.

Well the issue here is if the speech is "protected," which I believe it is, then YouTube gets the benefit of that protection; they are not liable for trademark infringement or whatever legal cause of action the IOC claims to have. Yes, it's their network and they can refuse to carry whatever they want, but it's pretty cowardly. The IOC's legal threats are baseless.

Ah, I misunderstood the point slightly. Yes, that would follow.

Legal issues aside, it is pathetic how eager these companies are to appease one of the worst regimes in the world (and China too).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[zobier]

I believe that's ipsomobile.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[jrumney]

The transformation from a feudal system to a more modern political system began under the previous Dalai Lama in the early 1930's. He sent envoys to Japan to study their transformation in the 19th century. But the Japanese democracy had already deteriorated by then to a military dictatorship with only a facade of democracy, so it is not clear what that transformation would have ended up looking like if the British and Chinese had not invaded in the 1940's.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[russotto]

If they did not go after each and every unlicensed use, it wouldn't take long at all for the logo to become unprotected.

This is not so. The Olympic logo is protected by statute and by treaty; it cannot become generic.

However, at least in the US, it is given the same protection as a trademark. Which means that DMCA claims against it are spurious, and that uses which would not infringe trademark (which would include political commentary about the organization represented) are not prohibited.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[russotto]

There's four steps
1) takedown notice
2) counter-notice
3) notice of intent to sue (counter-counter-notice)
4) lawsuit

The time between 3 and 4 can be arbitrarily long, and the material remains taken-down in the interim. It's basically an automatic temporary restraining order.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Hal_Porter]

It won't be back up. If it does depict the five interlocking rings as the summary states then the IOC will aggressively attack it as infringing. The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever. This will be no different. It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings. Had the video not had that imagery, I'm certain it'd be fine (from the IOC standpoint, at least).

But parody is protected under the First Amendment and is a fair use defense to copyright infringement. There's clearly an issue if the procedure is to pull the video first and only then allow people to appeal - that's close to prior restraint.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Hamoohead]

Apparently, you won't have to wait that long.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Free the Cowards]

Yeah, pretty much.

Attempts to force countries to become kind and loving and happy don't usually work too well. There are a couple of counterexamples (West Germany and Japan after WWII are two) but generally they required utterly destroying the infrastructure and massacring the population beforehand. In places where you're unwilling or unable to do that (like Iraq), such attempts just piss people off and make them hate you.

That said, the whole Tibet thing seems kind of overblown. It's hardly the first, or the last, time that one country attacked and conquered another with the intent of annexing it. And in this case it was a backwards, mean place which wasn't even recognized by most countries, and with a somewhat short and uncertain history of independence from the country which eventually took it back.

It would have been better if China had left Tibet alone, but on the other hand it seems that there are worse things happening in Africa practically every day and nobody gives a shit.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[spyowl]

Under the DMCA, providers are required by law to remove the "offending" material upon receipt of an infringement notice. If they don't, they become liable for infringement as well. No real proof of ownership is required, the author of the notice simply has to say it belongs to them.

Don't forget that the claim in the DMCA notice by the copyright holder is made under the penalty of perjury. In other words, assuming this was a DMCA request, if IOC claimed to have copyright on X and they don't they have just perjured themselves. Although, I don't know what processes exist to prevent DMCA abuses, or who checks the validity of all notices sent, and most importantly, who does anything when the claims in them are false. AFAIK, most DMCA notices are never forwarded to the alleged violators, they are just executed and thrown away by providers. Maybe we do need copyright cops after all, just for a different purpose than the entertainment industry has in mind.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[kjots]

What do you call your car?

"My car". Duh!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[YourExperiment]

Hold on... you mean this isn't a story about some Americans on YouTube freeing a video about Tibet?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

costing prophits ! LOL, those damn messiahs again.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[JosKarith]

2010 olympics huh? I'll have to watch out for those ones - where are they held by the way..?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[dbcad7]

The questions are...
... Is being a Tibetan under Chinese rule worse than being Chinese under Chinese rule ?
... Is being a Tibetan under previous Tibetan rule worse than now ?
... Would a new Tibetan ruled Tibet be self sustaining and better ?
... What is really behind westerners wanting to "free Tibet" ? .. what is to be gained ? ..

I really don't think most people have thought anything through, beyond this idealist vision of freedom fighting for "the cause".. If it happens it just might suck.. but hey they'd be free.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

Well, it would be nice if we could ferry countries across the globe into favourable locations, but as it is, China was the only option available.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Goaway]

Well, I pretty much agree with all that, except:

It would have been better if China had left Tibet alone

I do think they were better off under Chinese rule than under lama rule. It may not be a good situation, but it is a better situation.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweeeeeet!!!!!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Naznarreb]

There's really nothing wrong with mixing your etymologies. Check out this list for a dozen or so mulatto words that you probably use daily.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Free the Cowards]

Right, but this assumes that things never would have changed there otherwise, which I doubt. Most countries in that part of the world have changed radically in the past 58 years, I doubt Tibet would have been any different.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Autobots are cars, Decepticons are planes!

Nerd license revoked!

Caring about a gay ass commercial isn't "nerdy", it's just "lame".

Thanks for playing, loser.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[LMariachi]

If they did not go after each and every unlicensed use, it wouldn't take long at all for the logo to become unprotected.

Not true. Trademark infringment isn't simply any use whatsoever of a trademarked logo, it's using the logo in the context of selling something, or implying the approval of the trademark holder. (Otherwise the IOC would be going after people posting their "My summer in Beijing" home videos that happen to show the Olympics logo on a pennant in the background, and as far as I know they're not doing that.)

The crucial question, as far as IP law is concerned, is whether a reasonable person could mistake a specific appearance of a trademarked logo to indicate that the trademark holder has produced or endorsed the product, service, or expression of opinion using the logo. No "reasonable person" would think that the IOC is projecting "Free Tibet" videos on the sides of buildings, using their own logo as handcuffs. This is why specific court-ordered injunctions should be required to remedy IP violations, rather than giving legally dubious unilateral DMCA assertions the force of law.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[LMariachi]

Most companies DO try to limit their liability as much as possible. That's the whole point of "Limited Liability Corporations".

No it isn't. The liability being limited in an LLC is the personal liability of the investors, so that if the company goes broke its creditors can't come after the partners' homes and other personal assets.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if it were only the 5-rings handcuffs, I wouldn't see the value in the take down, but at the start of the video they show the actual 5-rings trade mark. The goal of using the logo is to sell an idea, to cause consumer confusion, and to link the IOC trademark to the human rights violations occurring in China.

With the actual IOC logo at the start of the video, it is a trademark violation. If it were just the handcuffs logo, it would be fine.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[LMariachi]

I really don't think anyone with a lick of sense would infer endorsement from the presence of even the unaltered logo. Yes, the goal is to promote (not "sell") an idea and to imply IOC complicity with -- or at least willful ignorance of -- Chinese human rights abuses. But consumer confusion is the aspect trademark law cares about, and I'm just not seeing it here.

Of course, you (and the IOC) may reasonably disagree with my assessment; you're not saying anything utterly demented in doing so. But when two parties disagree on a legal matter, they're supposed to take it to court for an impartial judgement. DMCA takedown notices effectively do an end run around that jurisprudence. That amounts to legalized privately-exercised prior restraint (aka "bullying.")

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Phreakiture]

What do you call your car? An "autokinetikon" or a "suimobil"?

I call it a car.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[torkus]

And there's one big difference. Something in the US that i actually agree with too.

If you sold a product/service based on an untrue claim you can (and will if the $ is big enough for the vultures, erm lawyers) be sued for damages. Heck, companies have been sucessfully sued for millions, even billions for falsely representing securities and investments.

This is why every time you hear an add on the radio or see one on TV there's some sort of disclaimer or explanation. "Number one car!!" says the add. Then in a quiet, hushed voice speaking quickly 'sales based on xyz data for cars in it's class with equal standard equipment for under $15k that come in purple, green and teal'. So they can't outright lie - they just have to stretch the truth!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[RingDev]

I would agree with you on all counts. A knowledgeable person would come to the same conclusion. But a person with out such a familiarity with the IOC, could be lead to believe that the logo is some how associated with the free-Tibet movement.

Just as if someone were to replace the loading screen and logo on their Linux build with the Microsoft Windows splash and logo. Anyone with familiarity with the current situation would be able to immediately identify the satire, but anyone with out such knowledge could easily be lead to believe that Microsoft was indeed producing a new brand of Linux.

If Apple Inc can sue Apple Corp on the grounds that they use an apple as their logo, I'm pretty sure the IOC could get a lawsuit off the ground here.

As for the DMCA, I agree whole heartedly. While I do think there should be some fast acting tool available to intellectual property right holders, the grossly over powered nature of DMCA take down notices combined with the utter lack of oversight leaves them ripe for abuse. Going to the other end of the spectrum forces the holders to go through the court system which could take weeks if not months, and at the end of the day would only profit the lawyers. Some form of middle ground must be found to curb the abuse while not burdening the state and further enriching the lawyers.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[nsayer]

No, but I am not the one making an assertion that it is. Like poker, the rule is: you're the one who raised the pot, so you're the first one to show down.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[rtechie]

That's the textbook definition of LLC. Corporations also try to limit their liability through legislation. That's why it's near-impossible to successfully sue corporations over criminal matters, they've shifted the corporate liablity (the board hires assassins to kill union organizers) to individual employees (that manager was "acting on his own").

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's been 3 days and they came through.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/017231

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Rick Bentley]

So ... what happened? Is it up or down on Youtube?

Or did everyone wander off and forget about this already?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thumbs up for Google. They delivered on schedule.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/017231

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

they yanked it for political reasons or for their logo? That seems a little messed up if it's just the logo, that could potentially mean that if you take a home video and M&M's are featured in the Background that Mars could order you to pull the video?

Re:So...

[oahazmatt]

The IOC is very protective of their logo. If I remember correctly, the card game "Legend of the Five Rings" had to change their logo because the IOC threatened legal action over a passing similarity.

Re:So...

[von_rick]

They call themselves the IOC but can't be good sports themselves. The irony!

Re:So...

[oahazmatt]

Actually, after a little more research, the Olympic Committee (at least in the US) has an exclusive right granted to it by Congress, which restricts others from using logos that are five interconnecting rings. I'm not sure if this was extended to outside the US.

So, if the video is using a parody of the logo, it's probably more for the use of the logo than the content. Plus I can't imagine the IOC wants to be associated with the atrocities alluded to.

Re:So...

[von_rick]

This means that any chemical compound with five connecting benzene rings will have to be put out of production as their chemical structures represent the Olympics logo.

Re:So...

[pha7boy]

I think it was because it showed the logo. But I can't imagine how a decent lawyer could not have argued that is is being used under "Fair Use."

Re:So...

[gnick]

they yanked it for political reasons or for their logo? That seems a little messed up if it's just the logo...

You would rather have them pull a protest video off for political reasons? The IOC is nuts about defending those rings and when they've gone to the mat to defend them, they win. It's a little bizarre, but I much prefer that to the idea that they would pull this video to effect political sway.

Re:So...

[cparker15]

I can't imagine the IOC wants to be associated with the atrocities alluded to.

And yet, by hosting the Olympics in China, they are anyway. If that is the case, they should've thought harder about their choice of venue.

Re:So...

[alexgieg]

And yet, by hosting the Olympics in China, they are anyway.

Actually, I'd say the IOC is associated with atrocities for a long time:

Winter 1936: Nazi-Germany
Summer 1936: Nazi-Germany
Summer 1980: Soviet Union
Winter 1984: Communist Yugoslavia

In addition to the above cases, weren't for WW2 and these instances would also have happened:

Winter 1940: Theocratic-Totalitarian Imperial Japan
Summer 1940: Theocratic-Totalitarian Imperial Japan
Winter 1944: Fascist Italy (1939 vote)

All in all, "Summer 2008: China" is far from an exception. Simply put, the IOC doesn't care, never cared, and probably won't start caring anytime soon, if ever.

In Fascist China...

[Anonymous Coward]

...IOC YANKS YOU!

Re:In Fascist China...

[jav1231]

That's just bad...and I laughed which makes it worse!

Copyright?

[lymond01]

Was the original video on YouTube from a new station or someone's handicam? I can see copyright infringement from the former, of course (though fair use comes into play -- but I'm not sure fair use exists anymore), but not if it's a personal recording. I'll assume the former.

Re:Copyright?

[Oidhche]

Indeed. The video looks like original work to me. There are some excerpts that are probably copyrighted, but their inclusion is without a doubt fair use. Who the hell could think that it infringes copyright? Sheesh. Next time, they'll call our home-made videos 'copyright infringements'.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[eldavojohn]

The video depicts demonstrators conducting a candlelight vigil and projecting a protest video onto the consulate building; the projection features recent footage of Tibetan monks being arrested and riffs on the Olympic logo of the five interlocking rings, turning them into handcuffs.

People, please! This is the Olympics. The Olympics--let's not bicker and argue about who's been brutally repressing who for hundreds and hundreds of years!

On a side note, I used to enjoy this band from Minnesota called The Olympic Hopefuls who are now known as The Hopefuls due to some legal business and the fact that the IOC is full of lawyers. And you're surprised a video criticizing the Olympics is taken down on the internet?

Ah the IOC

[jav1231]

The IOC is about as protective of its brand as China is. Sad.

Re:Ah the IOC

[Smidge207]

I disagree. If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, as you imply with the above poorly-worded comment, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved. The video is a commentary on this: it implies that awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit. That being said, I fail to see how this video would not be considered fair use of the copyright (not to mention that I also find it hard to believe that the rings are copyrighted, rather than trademarked.) I suppose it's not worth the video producers' time to fight it.

Re:Ah the IOC

[jav1231]

Dude, you totally misunderstood my statement. I agree, the IOC should have NEVER awarded the games to China. My point was they seem as intent on keeping a good front as China.

Re:Ah the IOC

[AP31R0N]

Yeah, would be have let Nazi Germany host the Olympics?

Re:Ah the IOC

[AP31R0N]

Why? Why?! Why the hell can't i type? And why can't /. have an edit button like almost every other forum in the world?

The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the rings

[CodeBuster]

The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the Olympic rings logo, it has nothing to do with supporting or opposing the right of people to protest their condition or the conditions endured by others around the world. The problem is that if they allow this use of the rings then it will encourage others to do the same without first asking permission until the eventual loss of control over the symbols and logos associated with the games occurs. The IOC cannot allow this to occur for the good of the Olympic games and the preservation of the spirit of peaceful international competition. They might have been a bit more tactful in their response, but this decision, despite the controversy, was correct.

Copyright Protection

[whisper_jeff]

The IOC has always been one of the most aggressive organizations in protecting their "five rings" copyright. ANYTHING depicting five interlocking rings will get them into action. Thus, this doesn't surprise me - had the video not had the five rings, I suspect the IOC wouldn't have been motivated to action...

Re:Copyright Protection

[Anonymous Coward]

just to nit pick but aren't the rings trademarked, not copyrighted?

Re:Copyright Protection

[StarfishOne]

Picard: there are _four_ rings! ;)

Re:Copyright Protection

[whisper_jeff]

I _believe_ (though could be wrong) that they actually have both for the five interlocking rings. I might be mis-remembering, however.

But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[Banner]

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Of course videos that are against Jihad MUST be taken down as well.

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[pembo13]

Why not? If the issue at hand is copyright? There is no double standard... not that I agree with all this copyright, but don't make it seem like a double standard. Or are you suggesting that when it's American's being killed, YouTube should have a special policy for that?

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[Colonel Korn]

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Of course videos that are against Jihad MUST be taken down as well.

+1 Insightful

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

+1 Funny? -1 WTF?

I just don't know.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[mxs]

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Of course videos that are against Jihad MUST be taken down as well.

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

Blah Blah Blah. This is not about the people at Youtube, it's about copyright laws and the DMCA. They didn't take these videos down of their own accord (and neither would they take those others down unless they were against the terms of use or there was a legal requirement to).

The DMCA has long been abused to suppress free speech. Everybody knows it. Nobody cares.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[PJCRP]

Don't you know? The Jihadists have an excellent legal team...

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[Da Fokka]

Could you be more specific? Which videos against jihad were taken down? I am going out on a limb and assume that you do realise that the jihad and China's reign over Tibet have nothing to do with each other. A search on the keyword 'jihad' yields many results from many perspectives. Surely there are many video's of afghans and iraqi being torn apart by coalition weapons. So tell me, where do you see this supposed bias?

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[RingDev]

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

Anyone who claims that another party "hates freedom" based on nothing more than an uninformed opinion deserves to be culled from the heard. It's just idiotic rhetoric that serves no purpose but to instill fear/anger in the minds of those lemmings to dim to realize there are other people in the world besides themselves.

Right up there with statements like "Obama hates America", "Liberals want higher gas prices", and "Republicans want another terrorist attack". Freaking retarded.

-Rick

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[SuperBanana]

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

It inflames and "reminds" the american public, particularly the youth. What better way to inspire a 18 year old kid to join the Marines, than to show him a video of a bunch of "towelheads" celebrating blowing up a humvee?

Also, those clips probably generate a ton of hits from both the fans and the haters, in terms of linkage, and comment activity- and thus ad revenue.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[Sloppy]

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Your mission is to infiltrate the jihadists and slip Coca Cola logos into their videos.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[compro01]

I'm wondering how the hell they're pulling copyright into this. If anything, the rings would be a trademark, barring some stupid special legal status for this.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

But Obama does hate America. I mean, he is 'black' after all.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[Rob the Bold]

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

If they're your videos of Jihadists and recruiting efforts, then just send Youtube a DMCA notice and they'll take them down for you.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine...

[VindictivePantz]

Exactly.

If they want to get the message out, remove the rings alltogether, thus removing the basis for the takedown request.

and what's exactly being infringed?

[pxuongl]

go abusing the system!

Its in the name

[ryen]

Maybe they shouldn't have named the video "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony". Its possible they just flagged the video purely on the name and not content.

Redirect

[Chief_Wiggum]

"Free Tibet" now redirects to a Rick Roll. Take that, China!

This is pretty clear cut

[Arccot]

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

How about accurately titling your video next time? I don't think trying to scam people looking for the opening ceremonies into viewing propaganda for your cause is the best way to get sympathy.

Re:This is pretty clear cut

[fishbowl]

> it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

Titles are immune from copyright protection.

Re:This is pretty clear cut

[Arccot]

> it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

Titles are immune from copyright protection.

Video content isn't. The video title claims the video to be a copyright infringing record of the opening ceremonies.

Re:This is pretty clear cut

[iminplaya]

It's not about censorship, it's about copyright...

Copyright is censorship...by corporate proxy

Re:This is pretty clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

Which tells perfectly us how f**ed up the current copyright system is.

Re:This is pretty clear cut

[choicefun]

They are automatically removing any video titled, "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." Some people have been retitling by replacing 'O' with '0' ect. This had nothing to do with a protest.

Ambiguous title

[slobber]

At first I read it as "YouTube Yanks [as in Americans] Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure". Needless to say, I was really confused until I read the description...

Re:Ambiguous title

[Frigga's Ring]

I did the same thing... Those yanks over at Youtube have finally freed that Tibet video? Good for them! Maybe they'll help the actual country next.

Re:Ambiguous title

[Anonymous Coward]

Yanks [as in Americans] is one of the stupider things i've heard today :) That was not the intent of the word "Yanks" and I can't see many people thinking that it was the intent. Yanks == 'pull abruptly'

Name change: CensorTube.com

[ThisIsAnonymous]

Might be time for a name change... Too bad the domain CensorTube.com is already taken. Of course, YankTube.com was taken as well...wait, that's not right.

I'm surprised anyone here cares

[godfra]

It's the Olympics guys :( You know.. PE!!

Ah man. You've changed.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[jav1231]

Except that this isn't protecting a brand in the marketplace, though arguably Youtube "profits." I'm not sure this would hold up in court. The protesters aren't gaining anything monetarily. If satire is protected why shouldn't protesting?

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[g0bshiTe]

I guess we should all be thankful the *AA lawyers aren't the Legal Athletes that the Olympics have.

Is satire infringement?

[wisty]

How can it be copy-write infringement if the work is intended to satirize or criticizes the IOC? The intention of copy-write is to stop people stealing creative works. The intention of trade mark laws (which may be more relevant) is to stop people passing themselves off as another company. You can't use Mickey Mouse in a cartoon (that's passing yourself off as an "official" Disney cartoon producer), but you use Mickey Mouse in a satire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy

Google = YouTube

[Evildonald]

Whatever happened to "Don't do evil?" With their track record, Google should change their motto to "Don't do evil, except if it involves China".

Re:Google = YouTube

[mrbah]

The whole "don't be evil" thing was an internal witticism, not an actual corporate stance. Google is a publicly traded company -- it's not about being good or evil, it's about making money for the shareholders.

Perhaps "try not to break too many laws if possible" would make a better mantra for this lot.

Re:Google = YouTube

[sm62704]

The motto wasn't "don't do evil", it was "don't BE evil". I would argue that doing evil makes one evil, but perhaps they disagree with me.

Re:Google = YouTube

[Evildonald]

I think it would be possible for non-evil people with the best of intentions to perform an evil act. Additionally, an evil person locked in a room by themself would find it very hard to do an evil act. I admit I got their motto wrong, but don't DO evil would certainly be a better catch-all then don't BE evil.

Re:Google = YouTube

[sm62704]

Not just a better catch-all, but a better philosopy imo.

victims of tibetians

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, why not show some photos of innocent Han and Hui victims killed by those Tibetian and monks? Don't tell me they did not kill. They KILLED.

Re:victims of tibetians

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, go ahead and put those up. No one is saying you shouldn't be able to.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[mr_mischief]

These people aren't trying to identify anything else as the Olympics. They're trying to say the IOC is complicit with suppression and torture. The Olympic rings are being used to identify who they're supposed to identify, so there's no trademark issue.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[thegdorf]

I disagree. If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved. The video is a commentary on this: it implies that awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit. That being said, I fail to see how this video would not be considered fair use of the copyright (not to mention that I also find it hard to believe that the rings are copyrighted, rather than trademarked.) I suppose it's not worth the video producers' time to fight it.

In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

More like -1, idiot.

Or do you not know anything about Tibetan Buddhism and are just making this up out of your own misguided sense of religious hatred?

Re:In response to your sig...

[asdir]

Not to justify what the Chinese government does and not to say that a new Tibetan government could be a democratic one adhering to human rights, but the previous leadership in Tibet indeed was more than just a tad theocratic and therefore not democratic at all. However, Wikipedia will tell you that it is debated how bad the caste system really was. Still, as I said, that is besides the point since it was before 1950. And as a German I'd like to say: I would not want to be judged by my country's history pre 1950 either. :-S

Re:In response to your sig...

[hostyle]

Don't mention the war!

Re:In response to your sig...

[asdir]

You misunderstood: I meant "prejudged as a person by stereotypes based on historic events". THAT is what the Simpsons, Jon Stewart and actually a few German comedians make their jokes about. But suppose you met me in person and I told you I am a German. Would you really jump to the conclusion that I am one of those types comedians make fun of? Or would you want me to jump to the conclusion that you must be a conservative christian gun-lover, because you are from the US (You are from the US, right?). And that's not even a historic stereotype. See, you would not like it. And for the same reason I would not and for the same reason I think no one should call the Tibetans theocratic or undemocratic or inhuman before there is any evidence to support that.

Re:In response to your sig...

[LWATCDR]

Yes it was pre-1950 but there was never a democratic government in Tibet. If China pulled out tomorrow what would happen in Tibet? One has to wonder. I remember when Germany was reunified. At first there was great joy and then everybody stopped and looked and thought... Good grief now what do we do! It was a huge mess. Imagine the same thing but without West Germany to help!
West Germany had a common heritage with East Germany to say the least and had decades of democratic government, freedom, economic reform, and economic growth. That was a best case scenario and it was still a long and complicated process.

Re:In response to your sig...

[sm62704]

Indeeed. I know little of Tibetian Bhuddism, but I spent a year in Thailand while in the USAF, and Thailand is a Bhuddhist country.

The Bhuddhists worship life itself. I dont see how even an athiest could have a problem with that.

Re:In response to your sig...

[NotBornYesterday]

GP - The parent's post is an oversimplified and narrow-minded load of crap. Almost nobody I speak to on the topic (and I travel widely in the US, or at least I used to ... ) holds those views. While everyone I know holds Nazism in contempt (as you apparently do), I can't recall the last time I met someone who couldn't differentiate between German citizens, and Nazis & Hitler supporters.

Parent - Pop culture humor is just that - pop culture humor, and should not be taken as more than that. Living your life by the teachings of of prime time TV is the surest way to get the US judged by the rest of the world in a similarly narrow and unkind light. German != (Nazi) && American != (Homer Simpson, GWB, etc.)

It seems to me that judging a whole people (Germans, US, or Jews) by a stereotype is a tad Nazi-ish in itself.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Surt]

Off topic? How much more on topic could the parent get? Please nuke in meta moderation.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Llywelyn]

I'd probably also point out Shinto as well. Shinto was the state religion of Japan and the "divine right of the ruler" was used as a mechanism of state control back in World War II. That doesn't mean it's adherents today advocate a return to the Pre WWII government with all that such entails, or that the actions taken under such a mantle would be condoned by modern shinto practitioners today.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Surt]

I don't think I misunderstood your claim. And while I, personally, might not prejudge you, I can assure you that yes, many USians on the street will prejudge you in exactly the way I described. The point of my post describing the TV appearances of this prejudice was to clarify that the prejudice is SO COMMON in the thinking of Americans that it frequently makes it into mainstream television.

Re:In response to your sig...

[rufus t firefly]

Don't mention the war!

Obligatory video.

Or maybe Mr Burns.

Yeah, it's off-topic, but at least it's entertaining.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Stooshie]

Why not, you started it. ;-)

Re:In response to your sig...

[Surt]

As I clarified in another post, I don't claim to hold those views, I claim that they are widespread. So widespread, in fact, that they show up frequently as pop-culture references. Would you claim that Islamaphobia is not widespread in America based on all the pop culture references to it?

Re:In response to your sig...

[NotBornYesterday]

I wouldn't claim anything based on pop culture. That's part of my point. Pop culture around here promotes the use of memes like "In Soviet Russia, (insert something here) YOU!" That doesn't mean that we actually believe the joke. It means that the reference is understood by many.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Goaway]

I know little of Tibetian Bhuddism

But apparently that is not something you'll let stop you from having opinions on it?

"The Buddhists" are not some coherent group. And just because a religion teaches righteous behavior, that is no guarantee that those ideals will actually be followed. Power corrupts, and just because you're supposed to be a Buddhist does not make you immune to that.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Surt]

Right, at a minimum, common pop-culture references represent a common thought. At best, that means that it is common to think it is funny to make fun of Germans for rolling over for the nazis. Which proves my point, even if that is the ONLY reason it comes up in popular culture.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bhuddism practised by Tibetants is very different from the 'main stream' Bhuddism practised in East Asia (i.e. the Zen masters). The main stream Bhuddism has more than 1 billiion followers in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Thailand) and the Tibetant Bhuddism (called the Lama Regligion) is only practised by Tibetants and Mongolians (like several million?). In fact the title 'Dalai Lama' was given by a Mongolian tribe leader to a Tibetant monk some 700 years ago.

I was really shocked when a guy asked me whether Dalai Lama is the 'Pope' of Bhuddism in China. Man, they can't teach average Americans in this way!

I told him there is no 'Pope' in Bhuddism, and the 'Lama Religion' is only practised by a small amount of people, and is famous for its barbaric/voodooistic rituals.

And Dalai Lama is not even the biggest guy in town in Lama Religion. There is another high monk called 'Banzan', who is equal to Dalai in terms of rank in the religion. He and Dalai are teacher and student to each other, depending on which one is younger (you know they re-incarnate so this happens). The current Dalai Lama is the 14th one, and the current Banzan is the 10th one. Part of the reason there are more Dalais in the history than Banzans is that Dalai is more involved in the political affairs in Tibet's history, thus this guy re-incarnates faster (like assassinated, dethroned by the Emperor, etc.)

Re:In response to your sig...

[tgd]

Well I suppose on those lines, as an American I'd like to say: I would not want to be judged by my country's history post 2000 either. :-S

Re:In response to your sig...

[sm62704]

But apparently that is not something you'll let stop you from having opinions on it?

Why does that seem apparent? I'm ignorant of Tibetians, and gave no opinion of Tibetian Bhuddism, but I'm not ignorant of Thai Bhuddists.

And just because a religion teaches righteous behavior, that is no guarantee that those ideals will actually be followed

That's true, but the Bhuddists I knew did in fact follow those ideals, although I'm sure there were a lot who didn't; I just didn't witness it. I wrote a K5 diary entry about one particular encounter with a devout Bhuddist.

As to power corrupting, I'm not sure if that's accurate. I think power attracts the corruptable. That said, Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athiests at slashdot combined. People often do use religion for their own gain, even if they don't believe iin its teachings.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, at a minimum, common pop-culture references represent a common thought. At best, that means that it is common to think it is funny to make fun of Germans for rolling over for the nazis. Which proves my point, even if that is the ONLY reason it comes up in popular culture.

You're right. The Germans didn't roll over for the Nazis. They elected them! They may not have know just how far the National Socialists were going to take things, but the Nazis were pretty up front about just taking advantage of the system so that they could do away with it as soon as they took control and make some sweeping changes.

But we forgive you, we elected GWB and then failed to stop him from making an even bigger mess of the Middle East.

Gotta go A/C for this one, but it's true.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the Germans didn't roll over for the Nazis. They elected them in a fair democratic system. They just failed to pay proper attention when the Nazis announced before being elected that they intended to disband the democratic system, install their own "superior" system, and radically change Germany.

Re:In response to your sig...

[kdemetter]

I'm pretty sure there are very few Germans alive today who voted for the Nazis.

Say you had to be 18 to vote , and lets start counting from 1933 . So people born before 1915.

So you can only be talking about people who are at least 93 years old at the moment. Who may not necessarily have voted for the Nazis.

So you are going to base your entire judgement of the German people now , on those few people ?

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, from what I gather the Tibetans are more mystical. I think one could be a "real" Buddhist and still absolutely be an atheist and be entirely consistent with the scientific method in terms of beliefs. Not so with Tibetan Buddhism as there's a mystical component they seem to have added in.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Goaway]

The usual figure given for the average lifespan of a Tibetan, pre-Chinese-takeover, is 36 years. What does that suggest to you?

Re:In response to your sig...

[sm62704]

It suggests a high rate of infant mortality, poor neonatal care, high risk of accident among the young, and likely high incidence of disease.

What the actual reasons for short average lifespan I have no idea.

Re:In response to your sig...

[NotBornYesterday]

The Simpsons and pop culture also support the idea that we all find it funny when someone gets kicked in the balls.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Surt]

Are you seriously going to try to argue that most people don't find that hilarious? Or was that a meta-joke? :-)

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted this is offtopic from the original Youtube issue, which is completely separate. But I've been listening to the debates regarding China vs Tibet for years and its ridiculous how people gloss over history and the point, to only focus only on the last few decades. I'm not a historian and granted the stories passed down over the millenniums are "written" by the victors. I do like interesting stories and war-torn territories over such a large land-mass gets romanticized a lot.

To start off, yes I'm a Chinese in America, though I never held much for tradition.

1. China as a 4,000+ year historic territory has gone through an ungodly number of revisions for various reasons including conquest and depending who was the victor of "China", which territories was included during those periods. But the most important point is that ethnically/heritage, the Han Chinese was the population and sometimes ruling power of the territory. This includes Taiwan, Vietnam, the Southeast Peninsula, up to Mongol, debatably Japan, and I'm not quite sure how far west, but large portion of what is Asia and west to India if not parts of it. So yes, for better or worse, current "China" has a tenuous claim to most of Asia as their territory, and though I cannot attest to their current or future aspiration, I can only surmise that they plan on "reclaiming" all the territory like they did in recent history with Taiwan and Tibet at both their leisure, international tolerated "acceptance", and ability to do so economically and militarily. I suppose you can argue that Rome does not have a current claim over Europe and northern Africa.

2. There is history to China's involvement with Tibet within the last 2,000 years.

3. Blood-marriage between the ruling power of "Tibet" with direct relative of the ruling power of "China". I believe in old European feudal system, such marriages are used for ties of alliances, support, and unification. The currently formed countries in Europe come to mind.

4. In an retroactively-ironic twist, Tibet expanded into territory then China and historically unaccepted by such territories, and in turn China reclaimed the territories.

4. Later, the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of "China" and "Tibet" and formed a unified territory under Mongol rule. It was then replaced by non-Mongol rule, by presumably Han Chinese rule. Tibet eventually replaces Chinese rule and accepts a local power.

5. At some point an ironic opposite peaceful Buddhist religion and historically bad Tibetan controlling power formed.

6. The ruling power with Mongol influence was eventually toppled by the local populace with the aid of China and whether the populace wanted it, we won't know, became part of that Chinese Dynasty.

7. European encroachment into Asia as seen in India, Tibet, China, and the penisula. China defends Tibet as their territory.

8. The then Dalai Lama, who with obvious tenuous claim to leadership to Tibet with the claim as the immortal leader/ruler of Tibet, declares independence from China. Further international governmental movements still acknowledge China's claim or attempt to Tibet without any known (by me) unacceptance.

9. So my point is the more current "invasion" would be construed by "China" as reinforcement of their territory and putting down of dissidents to their rule.

10. Whether or not the putting down of dissidents, or violent method is acceptable or right or if it even happened, though I suppose it's general acceptance some degree of it happened, we have to acknowledge that they deem it as an effective manner and different cultures do things differently. How much the international community tolerates may impact them to either change their ways or face repercussions, as we've seen with various International ventures into other sovereignties' business. *coughs* Iraq (lightly touching on it). Or is that greed...or hubris. Would that be any more right? If Iraq had won and they had maintained their original status quo. That wo

Re:In response to your sig...

[Smauler]

German != (Nazi) && American != (Homer Simpson, GWB, etc.)

Erm, these aren't even in the same league. The Nazi party died over 60 years ago (in Germany at least). Americans voted in GWB a few years ago, and choose to watch Homer Simpson every night. I'd say looking at who people vote for and what they watch at least gives you some idea about them, although obviously it would be moronic to claim all Americans like them. I don't see many Germans voting for the Nazi party or watching "The Hitlers" (cue Simpsons music) now. It is, to be honest, offensive when you compare them since it implies that Germans given half the chance would welcome Hitler back with open arms.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Shakrai]

They may not have know just how far the National Socialists were going to take things

Yeah, if only one of those National Socialists had written some sort of book outlining everything that they intended to do once they obtained power.

But we forgive you, we elected GWB and then failed to stop him from making an even bigger mess of the Middle East.

Eh, for all his faults GWB didn't scapegoat an entire race and murder ten or twenty million people.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Shakrai]

The usual figure given for the average lifespan of a Tibetan, pre-Chinese-takeover, is 36 years. What does that suggest to you?

I see, so the Chinese were helping them? I didn't know there was a 'Han Burden' to go along with the 'White Man Burden'

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

That still leaves you

- Impeachment
- Waco
- Los Angeles Riots
- Nixon
- FDR massacring the japanese
- Contra-Iran
- Japanese 'internment' camps
- Bush 1 Iraq War
- Clinton bombing Iraq
- Race Riots
- Trail of Tears
- All the dictators the US put into power

versus post 2000:

- Bush 2 Iraq War
- Patriot Act
- You'd probably expect Katrina here, but I'm sorry, natural disasters are not the president's fault, and the state government failed to respond.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will open the world biggest opium farm there on the first day.

Re:In response to your sig...

[Goaway]

Well, yes, that is pretty much exactly how the Chinese feel about Tibet, you know.

Re:In response to your sig...

[millennial]

"More like -1, idiot.

Or do you not know anything about Tibetan Buddhism and are just making this up out of your own misguided sense of religious hatred?"

Hey, it's not your fault that you know nothing about the history of Tibet and the actions of the ruling class of Lamas.

ShieldW0lf's description, though distasteful in its conclusion, is accurate.

Re:In response to your sig...

[NotBornYesterday]

The nuts reference was several things. 1) I didn't have time for a detailed and thoughtful post, so I wrote what came to mind. 2) Yes, partly, it was a meta-joke. I laugh as much as anyone when I see someone kicked in the balls, especially if it a cartoon person on the Simpsons, even though some inner part of me cringes even when a cartoon character gets it (been there in real life, which leads me to ... ) 3) Actual ball-kicking isn't really funny, at least for the recipient, thus my point about not taking the Simpsons as an indicator of actual truth.

Or something like that. ;)

Re:In response to your sig...

[NotBornYesterday]

Please don't take offense; I wasn't trying to equate the the Simpsons with Hitler.* I referenced them because he referenced them is his post. I felt he was relying on poorly founded generalizations, and was trying to point out that stereotypes fail.

* Your joking reference to "The Hitlers" is simultaneously hilarious and chilling, BTW. (Visualize a Homer-shaped Hitler with mustache, comb-over and stern gaze goose-stepping into a [insert hilarious sight gag here] and going "D'oh!" in a German accent.) Of course, Homer is a well-intentioned goof and lovable, therefore the perfect character. Hitler rounds out the 20th century's triumvirate of evil, along with Stalin and possibly Mao, and therefore doesn't really seem worthy of a hit prime time comedy series. ;)

Re:In response to your sig...

[Shakrai]

Of course if any Westerner started to use "we were helping them" as an excuse for our past aggressions we'd probably be labeled a racist.

I find it ironic that a major part of Chinese thinking revolves around the "unequal treaties" and their own history of abuse at the hands of colonial powers while they are essentially doing the same thing in Tibet. Guess oppressing weaker nations is ok as long as you are the one doing the oppression and not the one being oppressed?

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that if they allow this use of the rings then it will encourage others to do the same without first asking permission until the eventual loss of control over the symbols and logos associated with the games occurs. The IOC cannot allow this to occur for the good of the Olympic games and the preservation of the spirit of peaceful international competition.

The IOC cannot allow this to occur for the good of their bank accounts.

It's like you said, the IOC is about international competition.
They are a business first.

the IOC now owns Tibetan monk protests? hah!

[swschrad]

if there are no Five Linked Rings, or the words approximating Old, Limp Pigs used, there is no violation

Abominations and Copyright

[b4upoo]

The attacks upon monks in Tibet as well as the general lack of human rights in China are a moral abomination that over ride notions of copyright. There is a thing called natural law and every human being has a deep moral obligation to stand up for the oppressed regardless of circumstances.
            If anything America and all other nations should be deeply ashamed of allowing any commerce at all with China including Olympics or other sporting events. Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[jav1231]

Agreed.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[couchslug]

"There is a thing called natural law"

I wouldn't be invoking "natural" law, since in nature it's more common for the strong to eat, kill, or shunt aside the weak. Humans may want their emotion-based preferences to be "natural" but Nature hasn't shown any interest.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

There is a thing called natural law and every human being has a deep moral obligation to stand up for the oppressed regardless of circumstances.

There is such a thing as natural law, but morals have nothing to do with it. To call something a natural law is to say that a given action/circumstance always has certain consequences/effects, by its very nature. Essentially, natural laws are self-enforcing and cannot be broken by any human action. This would include such things as the laws of physics, the principle of rational self-interest, the law of supply and demand, etc.

Morality, and by extension moral obligations, are by their nature highly subjective things, and thus not a matter of natural law.

These offenses you speak of are carried out by China's government, whereas any trade we may have with China is really with China's people. This is an important distinction. If anything we should be encouraging commerce and communication with the people of China, while undermining any claim to legitimacy or authority China's government may attempt to assert over them.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[Rob Kaper]

Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.

Or persecutes people period. But I disagree with cutting the phone lines. Isolating the bad guys has never worked over the course of history. Engaging them might be tedious and without immediate or noticable results, but isolation is guaranteed to accomplish nada.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let us not have commerce with the United States as well because of the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, or the Immigrant Detention Centers all around the USA, where people are held without right to an attorney or bail... And talking about "persecuting people over religion", what do you think of the US government arresting that Mormon fundamentalist sect in Texas? Isn't that some sort of Religious persecution as well?

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting hard lines with the US right now.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[alexborges]

This "natural law" does not appeal to me at all. Specially since its variable and everyone may have their own.

I fully support your statement otherwise: China should not be welcome to our party if it wont play ball.

Re: Abominations and Copyright

[XchristX]

If anything America and all other nations should be deeply ashamed of allowing any commerce at all with China including Olympics or other sporting events. Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.

Then you'll have to cut relations with every Muslim country from Pakistan to Palestine. Appealing, but impractical.

Im asking youtube execs from here :

[unity100]

should i yank my own videos on youtube or not ?

decide, users' wish against chinese government's whish.

noone should even need to tell you which one you should choose, you idiots. dont let your lawyers run your service. lawyers do not increase popularity of a web service. they decrease it.

The Olympic logo is special

[bloobloo]

I'm not making a value judgement here. It is protected much more strongly than most other symbols. Only the Red Cross & Red Crescent have more stringent rules.

In the UK we have the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995.

Some countries have signed up to the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol.

In the US, you have 36 USC 220506.

Re:The Olympic logo is special

[speedtux]

That doesn't apply here. The "olympic" symbols are protected as trademarks:

if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competitionâ"

According to US law, you should be able to use them to criticize the olympic games, satirize them, or as part of political protest.

The IOC has no grounds on which to demand removal. I hope this will go to court and their hypocrisy will get exposed.

Re:The Olympic logo is special

[bloobloo]

I think you could argue that putting the rings in a video is "promoting a theatrical exhibition".

Admittedly I'm only relying on wikipedia, but apparently in the US trademark system:

"Fair use may be asserted on two grounds, either that the alleged infringer is using the mark to accurately describe an aspect of its products, or that the alleged infringer is using the mark to identify the mark owner."

I don't believe that this would apply for a video. When talking about MS Windows for example, the name is a trademark and so it is used to identify the mark owner. I don't believe the rings are being used to identify the IOC.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[saintsfan]

yeah, if the IOC loses some control over its brand then athletes all over the world won't want to compete to represent their countries anymore! please

The Beijing Olympics logo says it all...

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Just see how China came up with the logo...

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/7229/isnichwahrdepekingolympao6.jpg

Ok, so that's not how they came up with the logo, but it sure highlights their horrendous human rights record and killing of 1 Million Tibetans in the past ~50 years.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[Tuoqui]

Well they've held the olympics in some places with pretty bad human rights records before...

Though all the original poster has to do if this is a bona fide DMCA notice is to file a counter notice with YouTube and then YouTube is obligated to put the content back up. From that point on the IOC has to step up and sue over the copyright infringement because if they file another DMCA notice they'd be breaking the law.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[cfulmer]

Pfft. The requirement that you police other people's use of your logo does not mean that you have to police every single use. There is fair use of trademarks, and this use seems to be flatly in the middle of that. Anybody viewing the video is absolutely not going to think that it came from the IOC.

Protected Satire

[Nom du Keyboard]

Changing the Olympic logo into handcuffs, while certainly offensive to some, is clearly protected political satire akin to flag burning. YouTube should be ashamed, and the posters of the video should counter-file that their video is protected fair use.

Re:Protected Satire

[speedtux]

No, the IOC should be ashamed. YouTube did what they had to: when they get a complaint, they have to take it down; it's not for YouTube to decide whether the complaint is valid.

Re:Protected Satire

[sp332]

Satire is not protected in the US. Parody is, but I don't think this counts...

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[hrieke]

The word Olympics is a super-trademark.
Basically it means that no-one else can use it.

No, it's not really clear cut

[langelgjm]

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

I imagine they're objecting to the image of the five colored rings that's shown in the video for a second or two. And if that's the case, this is a total abuse of a copyright infringement claim.

First, you'd think that showing the rings for a time that's probably less than 2% of the entire clip would qualify as fair use. Secondly, there's an issue of free speech. Are we no longer allowed to identify organizations by their logos?

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Arccot]

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

I imagine they're objecting to the image of the five colored rings that's shown in the video for a second or two. And if that's the case, this is a total abuse of a copyright infringement claim.

Perhaps. But I believe this is a case of the IOC taking a look at the title, and submitting the removal request based on the that. The video submitter is claiming to be infringing copyright on the ceremonies by the very title. They probably didn't even look at the video, since they have 10,000 others to remove.

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Jason Levine]

In their mind, they have copyright control over the word "Olympics" as well as any arrangement of 5 rings. This is a completely false claim, of course, as you can't copyright a word and you can't copyright something as vague as "any combination of 5 rings no matter the color, arrangement, or interlocking status." Still, they have used their clout to bully many businesses and organizations into complying with the IOC's Imagined Oppressive Copyright.

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

its probably the use of the rings more than the word "Olympics" (even though the title of the video is what probably drew attention to it from the IOC). The Olympic committee is notorious for vigorously enforcing its trademark on 5 interlocking rings, like when they forced the CCG, Lord of the Rings to change the logo on the cards back.

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[choicefun]

The have copyright over the "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony" Hence the automatic removal. Ah der...

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yes they do! well, not exactly, and this is from memory, but the USOC has some control in the U.S. I believe you can only use "olympic" in your business name if you are in a certain part of Washington state (since you're near some mountain range called the Olympic mountains...)

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

Apparently they do. When Vancouver was awarded the 2010 games, they threatened to sue things like "Mt Olympus Pizza" (actual example) into oblivion lest they refuse to change their 'infringing' name. Incidentally, Mt. Olympus Pizza did refuse, but the city strong armed them to avoid the IOC throwing a hissy fit.

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

Apparently they do. (Trademark that is.)

I can't find any sources but I remember a few cases where the IOC went after companies with "Olympic" in their name and got them to change it. And we're talking places like restaurants and non-sports retail.

Countries gladly roll over for the IOC. I can't figure out how a small committee of people with no accountability to anyone, riddled with obvious corruption, and having the obvious goal of racking up the money for themselves whatever the cost can get people to willingly give up their rights and countries to give up their sovereignty. Is there some kind of mental disorder involved?

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. "Olympics of the Mind" was sued because of the use of the word Olympics. They had to change to "Odyssey of the Mind"

Re:No, it's not really clear cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, official olympic organizations seem all too eager to attack anything with "olympic" in the name. Remember Vancouver's Olympic Pizza?

Olympic trademark battle snares small businesses

Google

[sexconker]

Bending over backwards for the Chinese since 2004.
Or whenever it was. I'm not looking it up.

Re:Google

[ryen]

Bending over backwards for the Chinese since 2004. Or whenever it was. I'm not looking it up.

Google it, shouldn't take that long..

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the VISA

[Nom du Keyboard]

The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the Olympic rings logo, it has nothing to do with supporting or opposing the right of people to protest their condition or the conditions endured by others around the world.

But it's fine to put them on Visa cards and checks. I think the latter diminishes the value of the symbol much more than the former!

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[Sloppy]

What you're saying would make sense if the "offending" video actually misused a trademark to cause confusion in the marketplace. It doesn't. The video uses the trademark critically and satirically. Nobody is viewing this video thinking it's some kind of "Official Olympics Product."

It was a totally bullshit pull-request. I don't blame youtube (much) for being a mindless machine and automatically pulling the video, but I hope the video's copyright holder files the appropriate counter-notice and youtube does the right thing when they get it.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[jandersen]

I personally don't agree with the Tibet protests - I think they are way off the mark in the same way the exile Cubans' propaganda is. I mean, the ones in exile are the ones who lost power and huge possessions when China threw them out - of course they are pissed off about it, but I suspect their views are not the most neutral, even though they are the loudest.

But in this case I think the IOC are wrong - using the Olympic rings this is satire, as far as I can see, which is normally legal; or am I wrong?

Hope the maker of the video fights back

[Lonewolf666]

If I understand current US copyright law (DCMA, cough) correctly, the IOC can demand that YouTube yanks the clip now. But at least in theory, they do so under penalty of perjury.

The person who put it up can file a counterclaim and say that he believes the video does not infringe any copyright. I think fair use might cover this use of the Olympic Rings, and I'd really like to see the EFF getting behind a lawsuit in such a case.

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely--at least in US copyright law, if the use of the image makes an intellectual/political statement, it's fair game.

For example, the book "The Wind Done Gone" was a re-telling of "Gone with the Wind" from the black character's perspective--the copyright holder of "Gone With The Wind" filed infringement charges and lost, because the entire point of the use of the "Gone with the Wind" concept was to draw attention to issues within the original concept.

The same thing is happening here, the use of the Olympic logo, modified into 5 interlocking handcuffs is a political statement about the IOC's acceptance of the Chinese treatment of Tibet.

If I have my history correct--the Olympic idea is to bring nations together in the name of fair competition. By holding the Olympics in China, the IOC, inadvertently or not, makes the statement that they are willing to overlook the Chinese actions against Tibet, in order to please an oppressive and increasingly powerful Chinese government.

Hence, it is not longer about the "Games" it is about money, politics, and nationalism.

One way to prevent this is to build a permanant Olympic compound in Athens, Greece (as the birth place of the Olympic games--at least Greece), and hold all games there from here on out.

Sure, Greece would reap all the monetary benefits from the games, but who cares--that's not the point of the games--at least were told that's not the point!

angry1541@yahoo.com

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[Kjella]

If I understand current US copyright law (DCMA, cough) correctly, the IOC can demand that YouTube yanks the clip now. But at least in theory, they do so under penalty of perjury.

Yes, but it's got very little to do with perjury. The only thing the IOC states under perjury is that they own the rights to the logo. The claim that the clip in question violates the IOCs copyright is not under perjury, but there's a damages clause for making fraudulent claims. Basic process:

1. Copyright holder sends C&D
2. ISP takes down content, forwards to user
3. User files counternotice
4. ISP restores content
5. Copyright holder sues user

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[nsayer]

I'd really like to see the EFF getting behind a lawsuit in such a case.

There'd be no suit. The poster of the video should engage in the DMCA counter-claim procedure with YouTube, which should result in the video's restoration. Since the originator of the complaint should know damn well that they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing before a judge, it's likely to end right there.

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[nsayer]

Of course in this case, it is 99.999% likely that step 5 will be omitted.

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[1u3hr]

The claim that the clip in question violates the IOCs copyright....

Is rubbish. You can't "copyright" 5 circles. Maybe "trademark". And I believe most countries have enacted special laws to protect the Olympic names and synbols. But again, it's not "copyright".

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[Kjella]

Is rubbish. You can't "copyright" 5 circles. Maybe "trademark"

Well, the DMCA doesn't deal with anything but copyright, I think for trademark you techically have to get a legal injunction. The courts seem to look very friendly on trademark icons though...

Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back

[Philip Shaw]

If the logo was copyrightable, then it would be in the public domain by now anyway

Copyright != trademark

[tepples]

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

No, but IOC has exclusive rights more or less equivalent to a famous trademark on "Olympics", "Olympic", "Olympian", "Olympiad", the rings, etc.

Re:Copyright != trademark

[thedonger]

What about PPG Industries Olympic paint? They even use a torch for the "I."

Re:Copyright != trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

IOC has exclusive rights more or less equivalent to a famous trademark on "Olympics", "Olympic", "Olympian", "Olympiad", the rings, etc.

So why did they use a DMCA complaint to get it removed?

They must believe that it's a copyright violation, because they swore, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder.

The notice doesn't mention trademark at all, so I'm not sure why you believe that's relevant.

Re:Copyright != trademark

[tepples]

They must believe that it's a copyright violation

It's possible that they believe wrong. The use of the term "intellectual property" has confused people as to the difference between copyright and patent and between copyright and trademark.

because they swore, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder.

It's possible that they committed perjury, knowingly or not. They might be confused, as above, or they might feel that amateurs lack the finances to sue the IOC or its national committees.

Seriously...

[Nathrael]

Seriously, as sad as it might be, is anyone here truly surprised by this?

Fair Use and Parody

[DustoneGT]

Parody and criticism is fair use under copyright law. Look it up.

Interested in copyright?

[DSwitz]

If anyone is interested in some serious copyright reading, check out Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. Given the current state of copyright issues in the U.S. I would not be at all surprised if YouTube did not put the video back.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[siddesu]

What is so special about the Olympics?

Is it the fact that a very private mafia-like committee are running it? Or the fact that their modus operandi is bribe? Or their tolerance (bordering on ass-kissing) of cash-rich oppressive regimes? Or the commercialization of sport they re-invented to the level where, for example, the advantage of the swimsuit is more important than the skill of the swimmer?

The Olympics have become such a blatant PR act, they are a pain to watch. And a shame to participate in or support.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[CodeBuster]

awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit.

So why not simply ban the Chinese and other countries that are widely disliked from the Olympics? Oh wait, then it really wouldn't be an international competition anymore, but rather the "Democracy Games" or the "Freedom Games" hosted by Dubya and his posse. The Olympics must engage with all nations, even those which are widely reviled, in the hopes that by including them in the spirit of peaceful international competition we will speed reforms and promote the spread of peace and the Olympic ideals. If we allow the entire movement to collapse because of our differences then what good will that do for us? There was also a bit of history involved in the choice of Beijing for the games in that the Chinese, by appearing at the 1984 Los Angeles games when the Soviet Union and many other countries had threatened to boycott, helped to prevent the games from collapsing permanently and giving voice to those who said that the peaceful international competition, with the games as its symbol, was an anachronism that had outlived its purpose. If China had honored the boycott and the Olympics had smothered then what good would that have done for the world? The government of China still has a long way to go in the areas of freedom and human rights, but they will not be very inclined to listen to the rest of us if we exclude them from every major international event. Even now, great international attention has been brought to the human rights record of China and plight of the people of Tibet which would not have occurred had the games not been awarded to China, so that in and of itself is a form of progress.

You mean the money...

[YesIAmAScript]

Not the good of the games and the spirit of peaceful international competition.

If they lose control over the symbols, they won't be able to charge out the wazoo to use them in advertising.

So both philosophies are flawed....

[FatSean]

But only one side invaded a sovereign nation in enforce their will upon it. That invader is by default the 'bad guy'

Sorry, that's just how it goes.

Re:So both philosophies are flawed....

[hldn]

But only one side invaded a sovereign nation in enforce their will upon it. That invader is by default the 'bad guy'

Sorry, that's just how it goes.

hmm that sounds terribly familiar.

Re:So both philosophies are flawed....

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean when the United States of America invaded the Confederate States of America?

Re:So both philosophies are flawed....

[Anonymous Coward]

one side invaded a sovereign nation in enforce their will upon it. That invader is by default the 'bad guy'

That statement would make the US the 'bad guy' for sure, seeing as how we've invaded damn near every country on the planet at one time or another. Even if you only count the ones that didn't attack us first we've still got quite a list:

Iraq (twice)
Afghanistan
Vietnam
Cuba
Mexico
Korea
Cambodia
just to start with.

You also need to include all the countries we have sent our 'peace' keeping, armed to the teeth military troops.

Look at the history of our military machine over the last 100 years, combined with our economic strong-arm tactics and 'religious' zealots and it will become quite clear why most of the world hates us.

Re:So both philosophies are flawed....

[arekusu_ou]

Granted this is offtopic from the original Youtube issue, which is completely separate. But I've been listening to the debates regarding China vs Tibet for years and its ridiculous how people gloss over history and the point, to only focus only on the last few decades. I'm not a historian and granted the stories passed down over the millenniums are "written" by the victors. I do like interesting stories and war-torn territories over such a large land-mass gets romanticized a lot.

To start off, yes I'm a Chinese in America, though I never held much for tradition.

1. China as a 4,000+ year historic territory has gone through an ungodly number of revisions for various reasons including conquest and depending who was the victor of "China", which territories was included during those periods. But the most important point is that ethnically/heritage, the Han Chinese was the population and sometimes ruling power of the territory. This includes Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, the Southeast Peninsula, up to Mongol, debatably Japan, and I'm not quite sure how far west, but large portion of what is Asia and west to India if not parts of it. So yes, for better or worse, current "China" has a tenuous claim to most of Asia as their territory, and though I cannot attest to their current or future aspiration, I can only surmise that they plan on "reclaiming" all the territory like they did in recent history with Taiwan and Tibet at both their leisure, international tolerated "acceptance", and ability to do so economically and militarily. I suppose you can argue that Rome does not have a current claim over Europe and northern Africa.

2. There is history to China's involvement with Tibet within the last 2,000 years.

3. Blood-marriage between the ruling power of "Tibet" with direct relative of the ruling power of "China". I believe in old European feudal system, such marriages are used for ties of alliances, support, and unification. The currently formed countries in Europe come to mind.

4. In an retroactively-ironic twist, Tibet expanded into territory then China and historically unaccepted by such territories, and in turn China reclaimed the territories.

4. Later, the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of "China" and "Tibet" and formed a unified territory under Mongol rule. It was then replaced by non-Mongol rule, by presumably Han Chinese rule. Tibet eventually replaces Chinese rule and accepts a local power.

5. At some point an ironic opposite peaceful Buddhist religion and historically bad Tibetan controlling power formed.

6. The ruling power with Mongol influence was eventually toppled by the local populace with the aid of China and whether the populace wanted it, we won't know, became part of that Chinese Dynasty.

7. European encroachment into Asia as seen in India, Tibet, China, and the penisula. China defends Tibet as their territory.

8. The then Dalai Lama, who with obvious tenuous claim to leadership to Tibet with the claim as the immortal leader/ruler of Tibet, declares independence from China. Further international governmental movements still acknowledge China's claim or attempt to Tibet without any known (by me) unacceptance.

9. So my point is the more current "invasion" would be construed by "China" as reinforcement of their territory and putting down of dissidents to their rule.

10. Whether or not the putting down of dissidents, or violent method is acceptable or right or if it even happened, though I suppose it's general acceptance some degree of it happened, we have to acknowledge that they deem it as an effective manner and different cultures do things differently. How much the international community tolerates may impact them to either change their ways or face repercussions, as we've seen with various International ventures into other sovereignties' business. *coughs* Iraq (lightly touching on it). Or is that greed...or hubris. Would that be any more right? If Iraq had won and they had maintained their original status quo.

Ironic

[Illbay]

The Communist Chinese government (for the IOC is for now their cats-paw) using the concept of "intellectual property" to quash negative publicity.

Well, Comrade Lenin DID say that the capitalists would "sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

Re:Great Firewall of America

[YesIAmAScript]

This wasn't the US government, it was Google. You can still see it on Vimeo. And if they edit out the alleged copyright infringement, they can put the video back up. Additionally, any news source can air this without fear, as news is generally held to have a rather broad exception to copyright laws.

If it were really censorship, the news sources would be the primary targets to stop, not one that is actually relatively immune.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[The Second Horseman]

It's not the IOC trademark - it's not even rings. It's handcuffs. Take a look at the "Reporters Without Borders" press freedom site. That's basically the image. There's no danger of dilution or confusion - it's mocking them. And if there's anything that those pompous, self-important gasbags and sleazeballs don't like, it's being made fun of. Bleah. The IOC and the Chinese government deserve each other.

Dear IOC,

[seanonymous]

As long as you're yanking things, will you please yank Silverlight from NBC? The use of the color silver no doubt infringes on some IOC trademark somewhere.

Please?

International Omission Committee

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell? They refuse to take any measure against the chinese and founded that on them not being a political institution. Now they play Chinas watchdog and tell a US site to take down something that is completely legitimate under non-chinese law. Screw the olympics this is all a big joke and some of these bastards will get rich through this. Unbe-fuckin-lievable.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[jav1231]

They've done it in the past. Despite their "we must be neutral" stance, they boycotted South Africa for one. And I believe made several other political statements in the past. As for hoping by competing in the Olympics these nations will just come around, it isn't working too well for capitalism. The U.S. thought that by doing business with China we could ease them towards democracy. That's working well...

Fair Use

[immcintosh]

If ever in the history of humanity there has been a clear cut case of fair use, this would be it. Expect the video back up shortly if anybody decides to file a fair use counterclaim (or whatever the process is on YouTube). In any case, I would expect absolutely nothing less out of the cesspool of corruption that is the IOC.

This gets me to thinking though. Wouldn't it make sense for YouTube to provide the opportunity to attach a fair use argument to any uploaded clip IN ADVANCE? That way when sillyness like this goes on, all YouTube has to do is look at the attached claim, and judge it then. Saves a lot of people some trouble in cases of genuinely non-infringing use.

Really?

[Lafeek]

http://www.rsf.org/

It's just me, or the Olympic rings are depicted here?

Re:Really?

[The Second Horseman]

No - those are handcuffs, the chains are there, and there's no colors. Clearly, while it's meant to evoke the idea of the Olympic rings, it's different. It's certainly significantly different in intent (it would never be mistaken as an actual IOC logo) and it's significantly different in design. Google likes to bend over for China and the Church of Scientology - they don't want hassles from the latter, and they stand to make a lot of money from the former as long as they stick to their "Don't be evil could just mean amoral" corporate slogan.

This story originally appeared on Gothamist

[RevWaldo]

http://gothamist.com/2008/08/11/youtube_bows_to_olympic_committee_p.php

Just to give credit where it is due. (Gothamist is cited in the Firehose.)

Cheers!

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[Jason Levine]

The problem is that if they allow this use of the rings then it will encourage others to do the same without first asking permission until the eventual loss of control over the symbols and logos associated with the games occurs.

What you are describing is a Trademark issue. What the IOC used to get the video yanked was a Copyright claim. Basically, they claimed that the video infringed on their copyright because five rings were shown. You can not Copyright something like this and even if you could, there is the issue of Fair Use. If the IOC claimed that the video was a Trademark infringement then they would be on sturdier legal ground (whether or not we liked the video being yanked).

This has little to nothing to do with Tibet, either. The IOC apparently thinks that they have a copyright claim on any mention of the word "Olympic" or any five rings (regardless of arrangement, color, or interlocking status). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_symbols#Criticism for some examples. Again, while it would still be repugnant, they would have a better claim if they argued Trademark instead of Copyright. Of course, they probably know that claiming that a card game called Legend of the Five Rings infringes on the Olympic Games logo would get them laughed out of court.

Now we know you're lying

[Bastard of Subhumani]

THAT is what the Simpsons, Jon Stewart and actually a few German comedians

Right ... these would be the same guys that like to eat great Britsh recipes while drinking fantastic American beer?

Free Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one tiring of how much politics is getting mixed up with these Olympics?

The Olympics is a sporting event, a grand global event during which we put aside conflict and come together in sportsmanship.

What is happening in Tibet may be tragedy, but the discussion of Tibet has no place in a discussion of Olympics. Anyone who thinks they can hijack an event bred to harbor peace to sway the world in their conflict disrespects peace itself.

We can bicker about Tibet next month.

Bloody Monks...

[AmishElvis]

...would be a good name for a band.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[LWATCDR]

Dude the Olympic ideal died a long time ago. It is all about who will make millions selling sneakers.
Sorry but that is what it has turned into.
And in this case it is also to show off to the world that China is a new wealthy world power. So yes I feel that it is totally legit to bring up China's political issues.
Trust me if it was in the US and people wanted to protest by blocking the marathon their would be people on Slashdot screaming about Freedom of Speech.
As much as I like the Olympics coming to the US maybe they should just make it always in Athens.
Or maybe they should pick the poorest country with a good history of Human rights and then all the rich nations chip in to build the infrastructure and give that nation a shot in the arm.
Maybe that would bring back the spirit.

Boycott IOC and the Olympics

[dskoll]

The Olympics is nothing more than a jingoistic parade by corrupt officials and drug-laden athletes. Any pretense otherwise has long since been thrown out the window.

We should just terminate the Olympics. Let it die. China's just using it to improve its image. I'm ashamed to say that Canada (where I live) will be hosting the 2010 Olympics; I wish our country had the backbone to stand up to the crooks at the IOC and tell them to go to hell.

This was a good post, not "flamebait"

[M1rth]

Youtube's not just tilted in relation to China/IOC's shenanigans here, they've regularly shown bias in what they'll delete on the pro/anti-George Bush, pro/anti-Islam, pro/anti-terrorism, and pro/anti-$cientology fronts.

Hell, they even give random people grief whenever some jumped-up 2-bit shyster attached to a media company comes calling.

If the post on the Pakistani government's stuff is "5, interesting" there's no way the following post deserves "-1, Flamebait" except that someone with an axe to grind decided to abuse the mod system early.

Grandfathered parties

[tepples]

What about PPG Industries Olympic paint?

Pre-XV Olympiad users of Olympic trademarks, such as PPG, appear to be grandfathered in, per 36 USC 380:

However, any person who actually used the emblem in subsection (a)(2) of this section, or the words, or any combination thereof, in subsection (a)(4) of this section for any lawful purpose prior to September 21, 1950, shall not be prohibited by this section from continuing such lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services. In addition, any person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, any other trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsections (a)(3) and (4) of this section for any lawful purpose prior to September 21, 1950 shall not be prohibited by this section from continuing such lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.

They even use a torch for the "I."

But not interlocking rings, and definitely not Lisa Simpson giving a lewd act.

Shame that wasn't the actual course of events

[sethstorm]

Of course, if the IOC didn't whore themselves out in 1984, this would have been the correct outcome.

Copyright?

[Stooshie]

... The International Olympic Committee filed a copyright infringement claim ...

The video showed five white rings on a black background. The olympic rings have 4 specifically coloured rings and one black ring on a white background for a very particular reason

Surely you can't copyright 5 rings. Like one post said earlier, any chemical made of 5 benzene rings or even 5 sugar rings would violate the copyright.

Mod Parent Up!

[Maxo-Texas]

Mod Parent Up!~

This is one of the best and most informative posts I've ever read on the situation.

The skeptoid article should be required reading for anyone who wants to get involved in this issue on either side.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[NotBornYesterday]

Banning the Chinese athletes from the games is a far cry from awarding or withholding the honor of hosting the Olympics.

Re:Great Firewall of America

[ryen]

See? The United States censors just as much information as China. Us working Americans are all slaves, wake up and realize it.

This was an act of private entities (the IOC, Google), not from the US Gov't.

China is an authoritarian state suppressing its people through media, speech, protest crack-downs, mobility, and any other means to keep Mao's dream in power.

The correct quote is:

[AstroPHX]

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentavirate?

Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate "The Colonel"?

Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass!

-Source IMDB

/ I thought the last line was "...crave for it nightly..."

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[philspear]

You think that's bad, you haven't talked to Zeus. He's had mount Olympus for years, and the IOC is constantly sending him cease and desist letters.

It's not up to them

[MattW]

I know it's fun to beat a dead horse, but it isn't YouTube's job to police content. They are acting as a service provider. Anyone can send a DMCA takedown request to YouTube; youtube has to comply to risk liability. It is up to the uploader to file a counterclaim, at which point youtube must restore it, and it is up to the filer to pursue the counterclaimant if they so desire.

Not exactly

[SteveFoerster]

Satire is covered by free speech.

No, parody is covered by fair use, and that's not the same thing.

Re:Not exactly

[ravenshrike]

True, satire is a specific form of parody.

Re:Not exactly

[Romberg]

I thot satire was a french filosofer.

the IOC is evil

[speedtux]

Communication and understanding through friendly international sports competitions is a good idea.

But the IOC has subverted it all. Between insane competitiveness, corporate sponsorships, and political forces, the Olympics is simply a huge public relations and propaganda event.

The best thing you can do is tune out and participate in sports yourself. And you'll do a lot more for international understanding and cooperation if you personally participate in international events than if you cheer for the Olympics.

Oh, are the Olympics on again?

[florescent_beige]

In 1976 my brother and I literally camped in front of the TV for two weeks to watch the Montreal Olympics. It was the most exciting thing I'd ever seen (and I wanted to marry Nadia Comaneci).

Thirty years later I'll admit maybe I've changed more than the Olympics but I can't get into it anymore. It's a forum for political wankery and sports personality market development. Other countries are allowed in for no other reason than to give the US and the other big countries someone to beat. That may seem unkind, but it's the inevitable consequence of the focus on nationalism at the games. Some people say there should be no national identification at the games, and while it'll never happen, it would be better.

The games seem to me now on par with the Academy Awards, an exercise in marketing and self-promotion for political units and soon-to-be millionaire sports personalities. The big countries that host the games brought the concept of self promotion to the games, which inevitably leads to politics which inevitably leads to protests. They brought this on themselves.

Free Tibet!

Re:Oh, are the Olympics on again?

[jmorris42]

> Some people say there should be no national identification at the games, and while
> it'll never happen, it would be better.

That isn't the problem. It is the myth of amateur sport the modern (but not ancient) Olymics are built around. It was a scam from day one. It was OK when the Soviets would pick out young children and train them (and drug them) for years. Now we do it. We send children / young adults off to training camps for years where they are fed and clothed by the US Olympic Committee. Yet the atheletes themselves can't earn a single dollar for themselves, they are indentured servants of the US Olympic committee. They wear corporate logos though, and the money from that is what pays their room and board and the salaries of their coaches. Just like college sports the coaches can make all they can rake in but the atheletes themselves will get sacked for accepting the smallest gift. The atheletes only hope is to win gold at something the public cares about, retire and THEN they can cash in on endorsements.

It would be better if we just allowed the atheletes to be free actors. But the Olymipic committee will no more give up tehir monopoly on all that corporate sponsor cash than the colleges will give up theirs. But in a sane world the 'experiment' in allowing the Dream Team to represent the US in Olympic basketball would be the rule rather than the exception. Olympic boxing would have the current Heavyweight Champion competing. Of course that would show the whole thing up as rather redundent.

Re:Oh, are the Olympics on again?

[Bent Mind]

It is the myth of amateur sport the modern (but not ancient) Olymics are built around. ... Yet the atheletes themselves can't earn a single dollar for themselves, they are indentured servants of the US Olympic committee.

Um, they changed that rule a long time ago.

The first Olympics to officially accept professional athletes was 1988 in selected sports and 1992 in the remainder.

Professional sports Olympic Games

Traditionally composed of amateur players, a 1989 rule change by FIBA allowed USA Basketball to field teams with professional players. The "Dream Team" won the gold medal at the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain.

United States men's national basketball team

Re:Oh, are the Olympics on again?

[magus_melchior]

It comes down to money and power, unfortunately; the two vices of man that are so often the roots of their misbehavior.

IOC officials will tell us all that they picked Beijing because they wanted the largest audience possible. What they won't tell us is that a huge portion of the Chinese population won't have the means to see the Games live or on the television -- I'm guessing they're still too poor to own a television. Maybe they've set up a newsreel theater-like rig in rural areas or in Sichuan province (when porcine fly by their own strength), but with live broadcasts, I don't know.

"Don't boycott us," they beg, "you'll ruin the Olympic spirit. What you guys did in 1980 was just horrible." Cry me a goddamned river. They picked two of the worst authoritarian regimes in modern history in 1936 and 1980, and they're begging us to watch the third regime whose idea of freedom is doing only what they tell you to do? If they cater to evil in the hope of doing good, they should never play the victim!

Of course, if they do manage to get the largest audience ever in Olympic history, that means that their sponsors will have marketed to the largest audience ever. The moment they started taking money from corporations who don't give a rat's ass about human rights (1984), that's when the Olympics was transformed from a respectable competition among athletes to an extended media circus and theater show, where instead of clowns, tigers, elephants, and monkeys, you have Kobe Bryant, Michael Phelps, and Katie Hoff. I still wonder what kind of idiotic ad company would have athletes, whose nutritionists agonize over their diets, sponsor a fried chicken sandwich as if it were equivalent to the gold medals they are training for.

Let's not forget also that being able to control where the money flows grants tremendous power, especially when the IOC's current leadership is depending on the good name its previous leaders established. Let's also not forget the cracker-jack job that they do in maintaining fairness, like when they let a pro-Soviet PHB steal the basketball gold medal in 1972, or when they look the other way when underage gymnasts from China compete. If they don't want scandal and controversy, they should not invite them by letting politicians walk all over them.

In Soviet Russia - Moscow-80

[mi]

I was young, but I remember West boycotting the 1980 Olympics in the USSR — Russia's suppression of democracy in Czechoslovakia (military), Hungary (military), and Poland (political) were still fresh, as was the USSR's decision to, once again, prohibit its citizens a move to another country.. I could not really understand things then, but I'm disgusted, that the rest of "the Western Civilization" has deteriorated over the years down to the levels of the IOC...

Oh, and the 2014 Winter Olympics will be in Sochi — only a few miles away from Georgia. Is not Putin the coolest? He sure is, and now he is hot too...

Commence the "troll" moderations, and "insightful" responses on how the US is just as bad...

Re:In Soviet Russia - Moscow-80

[alexborges]

Its not "just as" bad.

But it sure as hell is no divine entity that has all the moral authority in the world to speak or impose democratic values: there is no good god of anything, my friend, at all.

There is people, who are just evolved monkeys and make huge mistakes all the time, and make cruel disgusting acts all the time, and are capable of love and understanding and art just as well all over the world (yeah, even in "soviet russia").

I dont know why some people always want to see things black or white.

Re:In Soviet Russia - Moscow-80

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know why some people always want to see things black or white.

The funny thing is: the OP didn't. *You* brought in the "not a divine entity" stuff. Geez, you can't complain about your *own* strawman.

Re:In Soviet Russia - Moscow-80

[alexborges]

"Commence the "troll" moderations, and "insightful" responses on how the US is just as bad..."

Really?

This is why I like Vimeo so much.

[MsGeek]

Vimeo has very restrictive terms about actually owning your content. However, once you have satisfied their requirements for original content, Vimeo is very protective of the First Amendment rights of its content creators. Vimeo was the safe refuge for Wise Beard Man and his Scientology critic videos.

Vimeo is also technically superior to YouTube, GoogleVideo, Revver, Ning, and any other .FLV sites. Sound is better. Picture is clearer and less blocky. They can handle video that is higher definition than 480p.

http://www.vimeo.com/ . I don't know anyone there, I don't own their stock, I don't work for them. However, they are the superior solution and Deserve To Win. (tm)

Re:This is why I like Vimeo so much.

[geekd]

This got fixed recently, after user complaints:

"Submissions
Except as otherwise provided herein, any and all comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, videos, content, data and other information that you transmit to Connected Ventures through the Vimeo Technology (each, a "Submission") shall remain your sole and exclusive property, and you shall be solely responsible for your Submission and the consequences of posting or publishing it"

Vimeo kicks youtube's butt for audio/video quality and ease of use. They just require you to have actually made the content you are uploading, no TV show rips, etc. I think think this is a great policy.

-geekd

Re:This is why I like Vimeo so much.

[skerit]

I'm part of this group (called Kipdola) consisting out of actors who make videos as a hobby. To liven up our stories we like to add a bit of background music, put a bit of the Dune soundtrack under exciting bits and all. This, of course, results in our videos being a copyright violation. To legalise them we would have to pay up to thousands of euros license fees. Our national RIAA counterpart (With the evil-sounding name of "Sabam") told us we'd be better, and cheaper, of by hiring a composer to make the music ourselves. Come on! It's just a hobby, our content is up on youtube, but by the book it's still "illegal". I'd like to do this without having to worry about license fees and such!

Re:This is why I like Vimeo so much.

[Iamthefallen]

Find someone who makes music as a hobby?

Free Tibet just makes you cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it? My sympathy goes to all those whose are brainwashed by western media.

Videos

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao
http://www.tinyurl.com/tibetvideo08
http://www.tinyurl.com/tibetvideo

Download and spread!

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I like the Olympics coming to the US maybe they should just make it always in Athens.

If you were going to do that, shouldn't you hold it in Olympia instead?

"(Be advised; there is some ... bloody"

[tjstork]

How interesting it is that we have warnings about violent content on slashdot when the lion's share of we readers play plenty of first person shoot-em-ups.

Re:"(Be advised; there is some ... bloody"

[east coast]

What's interesting is that you don't see the different between reality and a simulation.

While there certainly are those who bloodlust, the majority of us do not think for one second of killing someone in a video game as real. I don't aim my H&K-91 in COD4 at [DMZ]Turkeyburger and think of actually killing the dweeb sitting behind his keyboard. At the same time I don't take personal offense at [DMZ]Turkeyburger killing me. It's a frigging game!

Real violence, on the other hand, causes a ripple throughout society of negative waves. It fosters other violence, it leaves people to grieve the victim and strips away the victims basic human rights. And some people are, Thank God, still sensitive to this. That's why it's not normal to put a few slugs into someone who slows down the check out line at the A&P or slice someone's throat because they're an easy target. These sensitive feelings translate into what we call morals.

For a very small number of people this line becomes blurred and they take the competitive and violent nature of the video game into real life. We call these people psychopaths. It's my humble opinion that these people were just looking for an excuse for their lack of morals to begin with but more and more it seems that they don't even look for an excuse.

So real violence does mostly bring about an emotional response. Video game violence normally doesn't. That's the nature of people today. Also consider that you've conveniently just slotted everyone reading these articles into the same little box. From your post we must all be gamers who don't mind a little bit of the old ultraviolence. While I agree that this is probably a norm for around here I think it's far from an absolute truth.

Re:"(Be advised; there is some ... bloody"

[Philip Shaw]

But we (mostly) don't play FPSs ar work, whereas we are more likely to be reading /. there. The violent content may get someone into trouble, so it is worth a warning.

There is also the difference between simulation and reality, but that has already been mentioned by the sibling post.

If the posters are from the USA...

[DragonTHC]

They have a right to free speech, which this is.

However, google does not have to allow anything on their site.

google is not bound by any free speech doctrine. There are no laws stating they have to host anything.

They can remove whatever they want at their sole discretion.

They simply did this because there are no enemies, only customers.

Public domain?

[kjetil_r]

Aren't the Olympic rings in the public domain, as they were created by Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937) ?

Who owns the copywrite?

[interstellar_donkey]

So, we're to assume that the IOC owns the copywrite on tortured monks? Wow. They're more powerful than I thought.

Slashdot loves Teh Googel

[Anonymous Coward]

And Slashdot, for one, will still welcome their Google overlords.

They are obviously the "DUNT BE TEH EVEL!!!11!!!" If they can make Balmer allegedly throw chairs around, they are obviously the good guys, no matter how much evil they do.

That's called an end-run.

[sethstorm]

However, google does not have to allow anything on their site.
google is not bound by any free speech doctrine. There are no laws stating they have to host anything.
They can remove whatever they want at their sole discretion.

Nothing better to kill such a measure when you have 1) the "private entity end run" and 2) the lack of a Fairness Doctrine.

(conservative moderators incoming in 3...2...1...)

Working YouTube Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a YouTube link that worked when this reply was posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao

Score from the latest event is...

[d474]

Copyrights: 1
Human Rights: 0

Re:Great Firewall of America

[Rob Kaper]

Additionally, any news source can air this without fear, as news is generally held to have a rather broad exception to copyright laws.

Which is one of the reasons I am considering to get a press card. Here in Holland it's not too expensive and it seems like it is a good step to safeguard my freedom of speech. I actually would recommend it to anyone who regularly writes (blogs?) about any serious topics.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a very dark heart. I pity you.

Good luck with that

[nacturation]

I think they're drafting up Loony Letter #37 for you:

"Thank you for your letter. While we too are concerned that there are many countries which don't yet have the same freedoms we enjoy, we view the Olympic games as the best way to reach a large audience and, through our participation, to help effect change.

I hope that we can count on you to work with us to bring about the better world you speak of. I would like to remind you of the many charitable organizations that we've been proud to contribute to. Your continued consumption of our products ensures that those slobs^H^H^H^H^Hdestitute individuals continue to get the care they need.

Sincerely,

Lester Nessman
Director of Public Relations"
 

Re:Good luck with that

[Asic Eng]

I think they're drafting up Loony Letter #37 for you

Bah. If enough people care about this then the smart companies will take notice. It's all about the money - people being angry about them, likely costs them money. If there is just one person complaining then they'll send the loony letter - if there are thousands who are complaining, then they'll call up their IOC sales rep and ask them what the fuck they are doing. For the IOC it's the same - it's all about money - too many unhappy sponsors and they start to care. A site like slashdot could easily generate enough email traffic for the sponsors to notice.

invader == bad guy?

[slew]

But only one side invaded a sovereign nation in enforce their will upon it. That invader is by default the 'bad guy'

Britain invaded China (a sovereign nation) and basically enforced their will upon it during the first opium war. Does that make Britian (the invader) by default the 'bad guy'? Then Portugal took advantage of the situation and upgraded their claims on Macau, are they vultures?

Britain and France then invaded China again during the second opium war. Does that make them double 'bad guys'? Then Russia and the US took advantage of this second opium war and also took advantage (although they didn't actually invade), are they vultures?

Maybe we can wind this back all the way to Ghengis Khan and say that it's all payback? Yeah, I didn't think that would fly either...

Sorry, that's just how it goes.

I don't think so, the winners write the history books, right? Thus they decide who the bad guy is... (of course different history books are written/read by different peoples in different countries).

Re:invader == bad guy?

[liquiddark]

Not that I know much about the core argument, but just on your own points, none of your proposed bad guys have maintained a forceful presence on the invaded turf. That basically removes them from the discussion as far as I can tell.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[mitgib]

The word Olympics is a super-trademark.
Basically it means that no-one else can use it.

Special Olympics certainly aren't.
But then I do see this in that artical, so you may very well be corrent

In 1988, the Special Olympics was recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It is the only sports organization authorized by the IOC to use the name Olympics in its title.

I propose a name change!

[Anonymous Coward]

FreedomTube!

As in, "can I stick this in your FreedomTube?"

Not the "West", Just Jimmy Carter

[tjstork]

The West did not boycott the 1980 Olympics. Rather, the USA did under President Jimmy Carter. This was an entirely unpopular decision within the USA, and even his right wing political opponent, Ronald Reagan, condemned it.

The US Army Does

[tjstork]

What's interesting is that you don't see the different between reality and a simulation.

Surprisingly, simulations do actually lower the bar to people using violence. There's plenty of evidence to show this. Simulations provide experience and they help you, mentally, to cross the bridge to doing something from not doing something by getting you used to the idea that in some circumstances the simulation is permissable. Indeed, its increasingly common to use simulations to help people overcome phobias. Shrinks use VR stuff to help people get past fears of everything from heights to snakes.

I don't aim my H&K-91 in COD4 at [DMZ]Turkeyburger and think of actually killing the dweeb sitting behind his keyboard. At the same time I don't take personal offense at [DMZ]Turkeyburger killing me. It's a frigging game!

No, but, if you had an H&K-91 in your hand, and, you felt the situation were appropriate, you could in fact be more likely to pull the trigger, while, without your simulation training, you might not pull the trigger at all.

In the old, old days, the US Army used round targets to train shooters. It was found after World War I and into World War II that one of the biggest problems an infantry man had was that, he or she wouldn't fire back at the enemy. It turns out that actually a fairly significant portion of the soldiers would not actually shoot another person, even when they were being shot at themselves. So, to get soldiers used to the idea of shooting other people, among other things, targets shaped like people were introduced, to help future soldiers overcome the idea of shooting someone. This actually led to a measurable effect on the amount of soldiers shooting. So, obviously, even if the simulation change of a paper target type can make a difference, one might think a more immersive simulation would too.

Re:The US Army Does

[east coast]

Even you mention a bridge between the concept. You, yourself, have already made your own original post a moot point. Oh well, glad we could talk our way through this one.

BTW: I do own a H&K-91 and no, I've never considered using it on a person in a real life situation.

Re:The US Army Does

[Chris Burke]

Surprisingly, simulations do actually lower the bar to people using violence. There's plenty of evidence to show this.

Yes, when said simulations are used to train soldiers with the express and explicitly stated intent that they are practicing to repeat the simulated behaviors on live humans. You are already a soldier in boot camp, having signed up for a job in the business of waging actual war against actual people, before you sit in front of a simulator. You are explicitly told that the purpose of the simulation is to lower the bar to using violence on your enemy. The whole point is for you to be making the connection between the simulation and reality, and you know this as you participate in the simulation. You know this is what your instructor, your army, and your country wants you to do.

There is no evidence that shows that simulations lower the bar to using violence when there is no explicit connection being made between the simulation and reality. There is no evidence that shows that simulations unintentionally lower the bar to violence.

So until GTA comes with a father-figure type who comes home with you and says "Now son, you're doing this to learn how to be a violent thug in real life! Good job, son! Way to show those pigs; that's how you'll do it next Thursday when we rob the liquor store!", there is no relevant comparison between military trainers and video game entertainment.

This actually led to a measurable effect on the amount of soldiers shooting. So, obviously, even if the simulation change of a paper target type can make a difference, one might think a more immersive simulation would too.

And yet there was still a significant number of soldiers who didn't fire, and still are. It went from less than 50% to more than 50% but still isn't above 70%.

So when you're explicitly telling the soldier that when they are practicing in the simulator, they should be imagining repeating those actions in real life, because that's what you want them to do and they are willing accomplices in accepting that conditioning, the conditioning still doesn't take in many cases. Yet I'm supposed to believe that it is thus obvious that said conditioning takes place in civilians, with no intent to do anything but enjoy a game, on accident? Yeah, right.

It's back on Youtube again

[randyest]

Although Vimeo is superior in every way (except possibly user-base size,) if you're so inclined you may wish to vote it up on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao so push the issue and see how ugly the IOC (and China, I guess) will get.

Re:It's back on Youtube again

[choicefun]

I bet it stays up for....ever since it is not titled, "Beijing Olympic Opening Ceremony" this time.

Why Copyright?

[gilgongo]

Can anyone explain why an unauthorised body using the five rings logo (which is surely a device long out of copyright anyway) would possibly damage the Olympic "brand"? If all it takes is for somebody to use a logo in the wrong way, what does that say about the strength of the idea behind it?

If we are reduced to having to treat the Olympics like Nike, Coke or Kleenex, does that not conclusively prove the ideal of noble competition amongst amateurs is dead? Might it in fact be a vehicle for ego, profit, propaganda and lies instead? The IOC sure are making it appear like that.

(To paraphrase Burroughs) The IOC are perpetrating the last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.

But, but, but... this is Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't criticize Google on here can we? Doesn't Google's mission statement say to do no evil? If they say it, we gotta believe them, right? You are so gonna get flammed. :-P

Here is my position: Fuck Google, Fuck YouTube, Fuck the IOC. But not with my dick. Use your own pallid worm for that.

I personally am sick of oppressive corporations and oppressive governments teaming up against us and then watching sheeple on here try to rationalize those actions as really being good for us.

I say, folks should try freedom for a change. They might like it. If not, some government, or religion, or corporation will be happy to take them back and tell them what to think.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, FU.
If you ever bring these "olympics" back here in Greece I'll simply freak out.

You made this pile of crap, you keep it.

IOC Does Tattoo Removal

[Anonymous Coward]

All those silly athletes with the tattoo of the rings on them. They are walking copyright infringers. Hope nobody takes a photo of one of them and puts it on a website, the IOC will surely get them to take it down.

Nothing to do with Tibet.. no.. not at all.

Mod parent insightful

[Jabbrwokk]

Good analysis.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame on the IOC for filing a false copyright complaint. If this was a DMCA complaint and it was filed falsely and in bad faith then the IOC faces a large fine from the Federal government, correct?

black and gray - not "black and white"

[mi]

I dont know why some people always want to see things black or white.

Not sure about "some people", but I see USSR and other Communist regimes regimes as black, and the rest as gray (darker or lighter).

US is usually right (and righteous), Commies are always wrong.

For example, there is no misdeed committed by the US within the last 150 years, that USSR or China have not trumped (by far!) within the last 60.

Not because individual people are better, rather simply because the governmental and societal structures are superior...

Re:black and gray - not "black and white"

[alexborges]

Even if I agree with almost every single word you say here, and certaintly with your final stance, I think you have not taken the time to understand how did the soviet regime evolve, and what could be rescued (and was rescued to the point of positively affecting life even in america) from the socialist ideals.

Id recommend, from an anglo-centric perspective, the biography of the great G. K. Chesterton, a social-liberal of the early XX century that youve certaintly heard of and probably read (the "Father Brown" books). Id also recommend freud and marcusse while we are at it.

I agree with you: occident and liberal democracy is superior than anything else the world has come up with.

But that doesnt mean the "other side" is not also gray: I think it is in many ways.

Re:black and gray - not "black and white"

[alexborges]

And hell, while we are on our best seller list: Ginsberg, Burroughs and the beatnicks in general.

And some listening to the beatles might help as well.

Re:black and gray - not "black and white"

[mi]

I was born and grew up in USSR (Ukraine). I strongly doubt, any Western author can teach me much about that country. As for its contribution to the West's own development — nothing exceeds the main one: an example of what not to do .

But that doesnt mean the "other side" is not also gray: I think it is in many ways.

"Black" and pure evil. Even if my own childhood was not so bad in my perspective, my parents, I later learned, were threatened with losing their "parental rights", if they refused to snitch on their friends... The KGB-man threatening them later became a "big shot" in Russia and is, likely, collecting a huge personalized pension from Putin's Russia now.

invader == bad guy

[Chris Burke]

Britain invaded China (a sovereign nation) and basically enforced their will upon it during the first opium war. Does that make Britian (the invader) by default the 'bad guy'? Then Portugal took advantage of the situation and upgraded their claims on Macau, are they vultures?

Yes they were and yes they were.

Britain and France then invaded China again during the second opium war. Does that make them double 'bad guys'? Then Russia and the US took advantage of this second opium war and also took advantage (although they didn't actually invade), are they vultures?

Yes they were and yes they were.

Maybe we can wind this back all the way to Ghengis Khan and say that it's all payback? Yeah, I didn't think that would fly either...

You could say that it's payback, but "I'm getting payback" is not an affirmative defense against being the "bad guy".

I don't think so, the winners write the history books, right? Thus they decide who the bad guy is... (of course different history books are written/read by different peoples in different countries).

Well, I think the colonial powers "won" the colonial conflicts, and it was certainly history books written by them and their ancestors that I read. Yet still, we tend to view those colonial exploits as "bad".

But speaking of history -- notice above where you used the present tense, and I used the past tense? Britain, without a doubt, was the "bad guy" in their subjugation of China (and many other places). However, with the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule, Britain had officially abandoned all of their holdings. Their subjugation of China is now the past, it is now history. They were the bad guys, but aren't any longer.

When China relinquishes their claim to Tibet and allows that country self-determination, then and only then can we talk about the Chinese occupation of Tibet as though it was history. Until then, they are the bad guys.

Re:invader == bad guy

[Anonymous Coward]

When China relinquishes their claim to Tibet and allows that country self-determination, then and only then can we talk about the Chinese occupation of Tibet as though it was history. Until then, they are the bad guys.

I guess we'll have to wait for UK to relinquish their claim to the Falkland Islands and Northern Ireland, Israel to relinquish their claim to the Golan heights, Jerusalem and West-bank, and the US to relinquish their claim to California and Texas and parts of the South to the Conferderacy. And I don't want to even get into Cyprus, Kashmir, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Quebec, or the various parts of Africa.

Of course then there is the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and the UK for which France and the UK are probably reserved a special ring in hell for as it appears to be largely responsible for the mess in the middle east and was likely responsible for the first world war. Yeah that was the past, but we are still paying for it today.

Note that very few international entities actually favor self-determination as a guiding principle (unless it suits their particular cause) most entities (like the UN) instead recognize arbitrary constructs also known as "territorial integrity" divisions instead. For example, under current events, what are the thoughts about Georgia? I'd argue that the UN and NATO are really the ultimate "bad-guys" under this definition for supporting territorial integrity over self determination of Ossetia and Abkhazia to rejoin Russia.

Re:invader == bad guy

[Chris Burke]

I guess we'll have to wait for UK to relinquish their claim to the Falkland Islands and Northern Ireland, Israel to relinquish their claim to the Golan heights, Jerusalem and West-bank, and the US to relinquish their claim to California and Texas and parts of the South to the Conferderacy. And I don't want to even get into Cyprus, Kashmir, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Quebec, or the various parts of Africa.

Uh Texas fought for their independence first, and then joined the union voluntarily; really you'd be more right to say we have to wait for all the former Europeans to give the Americas back to the natives. But I don't really want to quibble over history, so I'll just say that my general response is "Yes."

None of that frees China from being the bad guy in the Tibet-China issue.

other restictions

[Anonymous Coward]

look the ioc restrictive copyright means RTE in Ireland can't broadcast its programs outside of Ireland on the net etc, as usual lest their precious copyright is broken, so a person in the uk can't listen to the irish morning news

http://www.rte.ie/sport/olympics2008/audiovideo_faq.html

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the VISA

[Boogaroo]

That is official use. It's licenced. This line of thinking is a red herring.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the VISA

[Yuan-Lung]

But it's fine to put them on Visa cards and checks. I think the latter diminishes the value of the symbol much more than the former!


I am pretty sure VISA is paying for the use. On the other hand, the makers of the video probably did not.

LOL

[tjstork]

BTW: I do own a H&K-91 and no, I've never considered using it on a person in a real life situation.

Then what's the point of having it?

Re:LOL

[east coast]

Target shooting? There are over 90 million firearms owners in the US. There is somewhere in the area of 15-20 thousand shootings of other people each year. Are you saying the rest of us are doing something wrong in your eyes?

Re:LOL

[kd5zex]

I believe he was implying using the H&K against a imminent threat on you or yours life and / or welfare.

Crappy Video

[walterbyrd]

Just a bunch of random images thrown at you. The only thing anybody could learn from the video is that monks were hurt, and some people are protesting about "free Tibet."

IOC has no copyright on video

[Anonymous Coward]

People are confusing copyright and trademarks here.

The IOC could request Youtube to remove the video if the IOC held copyright on it. The IOC does not hold copyright on it, since they didn't produce it or own it.

The IOC could also request that items using their trademark be removed if the trademark creates brand confusion, but the video does not use their trademark in any such way. It displays the Olympic banner to indentify the relevant party of the subject matter, which is very legal and appropriate use, and not to pretend that this was created or owned by the IOC.

Unless the IOC specifically claimed (under threat of perjury) that they hold copyright on the video because they made it, Youtube had no business yanking it. Use of a trademark is completely orthogonal to copyright infringement and to takedown notices under the DMCA.

WRONG! OWNED

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright claim was for "PART OF THE AUDIO OR TOTAL AUDIO" not tittle.

Youtube...

[Spc01]

As i said already youtube will erase anything and everything that they get a complain on. A 13 old boy can mail them that this and this video is copyright protected and they'll erase it. So now my question remains: - Why are people still using youtube ? People should know that youtube will erase theirs video one way or another so why waste time and try to upload an video when all your hard work is lost? People should stop using boring youtube and move to another more respected video site .. this way youtube will loose it's users and video content. This will be the best punishment for youtube and they'll have to learn it the hard way that they don't have the right to delete a video just because someone doesn't like or want it. Youtube has dissapointed me and so i recommend all users to move away from youtube.

The IOC has a special trademark by statute.

[Anonymous Coward]

> What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

No, they have a trademark. And not just any trademark, but a very special one written into law that mentions the Olympic [TM] trademark very specifically and which grants it additional rights (see 36 USC 380).

Seriously, other than a small exemption for small, local businesses in the northwest (where there's a local mountain range they might be named after), the IOC [TM] essentially controls everything relating to those damned five rings.

That said, I'm not sure why the DMCA gets pressed into service over trademark disputes, but I don't think the IOC [TM] actually cares. They're very possessive and very commercial.

Which is why I hate the Olympics [TM] with a passion.

Disclaimer: I have (and want) nothing to do with the International Olympic Committee [TM], the International Paralympic Committee [TM], the Pan-American Sports Organization [TM], or the corporation, my mention of the trademarks is covered by nominative fair use, and I am not affiliated with Cornell (which I linked to just to in order to reference the statute), so I am not doing this for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

texas lonestar

[lonestarstate]

I think the poster probably meant that if you took a vote in texas today, I'd lay money we'd all be outahere ;^)

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

SFT announces Free Tibet 2008 Television
Posted August 11, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Students for a Free Tibet has a new online video channel broadcasting from London throughout the worldwide uprising for Tibetan freedom during the Beijing Olympics: Free Tibet 2008 Television, or FT08.TV.

With all the Olympic actions for Tibet taking place and particularly the incredible success of the 'opening' banner action outside Beijing's 'Bird's Nest' stadium on Aug. 6th and subsequent media storm here in the UK, it took some time to get FT08.TV ready for prime time.

But with the dedicated help of lots of people, SFT's new video channel is up and running, and filled with lots of must-see on-demand content, including inspiring Tibet activist video-profiles, action reports, video-blogs, and more.

We're also airing a nightly Windhorse Report live from London with SFT leaders Tenzin Dorjee and Han Shan â" a roundup of reports from Beijing and around the world during the Olympics, with breaking news about protests, call-in interviews with news-making activists, episodes of SFT-TV (the efforts of SFT's global grassroots), and info and analysis about the situation on the ground in Tibet.

There will be more and more compelling content to watch every day and we'll be improving the channel/website as we go (after all, this is but one small facet of our Olympic efforts right now). But please come check it out: surf around the many videos on the channel, or watch the stream (click on "Streaming Now" in the upper left-hand corner). Last but not least, you're invited to submit video... check out the channel for more on what we're looking for.

Please help spread the word about FT08.TVâ" join the facebook group, blog about it, embed the videos, spam your address book â" and of course, keep watching.

And don't forget to visit SFT's Olympics Campaign website: www.FreeTibet2008.org and SFT's blog: www.blog.studentsforafreetibet.org for more news and analysis from the frontlines of the current global effort to make Olympic history for Tibet.

Note: many thanks to Nathan Dorjee, Shannon Service, Andi Mignolo, Alex Fountain, Thupten Nyima, Kala Mendoza, and many others for helping to make FT08.TV happen at this critical time.

More to the point

[caitsith01]

Doesn't the principle that all people have a right to self-determination tell us that we should favour a repressive and backwards Tibetan government over a repressive and backwards Chinese government in Tibet?

All of these people citing how bad things apparently were in Tibet pre-occupation also seem to forget that invading other people's countries to forcibly and undemocratically "improve" them as you see fit went out the door with the death of colonialism.

You don't get to decide that, fuckwit

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm concerned invading nations, sovereign or not, and enforcing your will upon them can be justified. It all depends on what your will is. At the tiny patch of earth where I live for example, Germany once invaded our sovereign nation. This was a bad thing. It might have been a good thing, if the Nazi's had pushed for more democracy and freedom of expression for example, but they decided to instead go murder Jews and oppress everyone. Then the Canadians came and invaded the sovereign nation of Germany, and I thank them for it still.
A lot of systems you find in the world will turn out to be flawed, but not all of them equally so. Countries with better systems are subject to the moral imperative to spread these systems in so far as they are capable of bearing the economic costs. Sometimes this is best done with the sword.

Re:You don't get to decide that, fuckwit

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush supporter, eh?

If you follow the Olympics around the world

[MrKaos]

you will find a trail of legislation put in place to "protect" people attending the Olympics which are just thin excuses to trample civil rights. The legislations are imposed with no sunset clauses that expire them after the Olympics and are usually quite harsh.

When Australia hosted the Olympics I remember that amongst other legislation introduced, the army was now allowed to point and fire their weapons at Australian citizens with immunity to legal ramifications. The Olympic Charter was a farce leading up to this Olympics and China has made an absolute mockery of it. I truly pity England getting the Olympic games and will be looking at the changes to their legal framework with great interest.

Nope, and they never will be!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, the rings are a trademark of the IOC. Those don't expire like copyrights do.

Secondly, 36 USC 380 gives special status to that trademark specifically (the Red Cross also has a trademark like that, but I don't remember if anyone else has one).

I don't know what lawyers call them (statutory trademarks?) but I personally call them "super trademarks" because they confer extra rights.

Anyhow, a lot of people are confusing copyrights and trademarks here. I don't know why they're using a DMCA notice for what (most likely) they think is trademark infringement (and it isn't; I believe it to be "nominative fair use"). It's possible that they think from the title alone that there's copyrighted footage in there (something they're very zealous about), but they obviously aren't putting any thought into their takedown notices.

Most likely, they've hired some lawyers who just trawl the internet looking for words like 'Olympic' [TM] and sending out notices as needed.

Which is just one of the reasons I personally hate the Olympics [TM].

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

Well they won't like this then...

[jkfwe]

I just found this anti IOC video on indymedia: http://www.youtube.com/v/otmBut12YKU ROFL! It'll probably be taken down by the time I hit preview tho, maybe someone should rip it and upload it to Vimeo quickly :-/ Offtopic: can anyone recommend a flash video ripper, I've googled around a bit but the site names are all screaming spyware at me (kinda like when you search for registry cleaner!)

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[jandersen]

Thank you, that's very kind.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

[Bent Mind]

If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved.

While my personal opinion of the IOC is quite low (They are nothing more than a combination of WWF-style profitable sports organisation and Hello-Kitty-style trademark without a product), I do think that China hosting the Olympics was a good thing.

First, the Olympics should be an avenue for athletes to compete without politicians and political ideals getting in the way. The Olympics should primarily be about the athletes, not the politics of the host country.

Second, as a side effect of hosting a popular international event, the culture, and thus the politics, of the host country are showcased to the world. This is a good thing. If the country has problems, suddenly everyone is talking about them. If there are issues with the country, everyone is debating them. In China's case, the country stops being that place over in Asia with cheap labour and bad government. Instead, it becomes China, with real problems and real people, and tried solutions that the world plainly sees now despite China wanting to keep their mistakes and problems hidden. Personally, I've learned a great deal about China since the Olympics were awarded, and so have a lot of other people.

New Youtube link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx2vBljYBOc&fmt=18

It's back

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted August 08, 2008, so it's not a re-post.
http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx2vBljYBOc

Are you intentionally avoiding the point?

[OrangeTide]

The point is the way China handles the situation is not the ONLY way to handle it, nor the best. You can't defend China by pointing out lifespans and Tibet's physical isolation. Because those two facts simply are not related to treatment of Tibetan leaders by the Chinese government.

I think there would have to be some sort of connection made between pulling apart a local system of government to extend lifespans. But I don't see a reasonable explanation for that.

Although in all seriousness, I don't really care that much. I'm not Tibetan, Buddhist, or Chinese. Nor do I live anywhere near that part of the world.

All I can say is that I am not surprised that there is resistance to China's ham-fisted approach.

Re:Are you intentionally avoiding the point?

[Goaway]

You can't defend China

I am not. I am trying to point out that the western popular conception of Tibet is quite skewed by lamaist propaganda.

Before you can criticize something, you need to actually understand it. And if you actually want to affect someone by your criticism, you first have to understand and respect their view on the subject.

That was Hitler's argument.

[FatSean]

You lose automatically.

Yeah.

[FatSean]

You mean when the United States of America invaded the Confederate States of America?

Given how things turned out...most of the Confederacy is a bunch of under-achieving states that wouldn't have highways if Federal Taxes weren't redistributed from the coastal states. The North fought hard to keep a bunch of loser slave-owning bible-thumpers in our country. They repaid us by continuing to hate on black people, hate on the liberal ideals that keep them in electricity, and hating on the idea of giving other groups freedoms that the majority enjoys. Oh yeah, don't forget the war-mongering and refusal to sign up to fight said war.

That was a bad move on our part.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I like the Olympics coming to the US maybe they should just make it always in Athens.

This is an excellent idea. Not only is that a nice tradition but it seems really wasteful to keep building Olympic venues in new places. Let's just build a nice one and be done with it.

Or maybe they should pick the poorest country with a good history of Human rights and then all the rich nations chip in to build the infrastructure and give that nation a shot in the arm.
Maybe that would bring back the spirit.

No offense but that sounds more like the spirit of the Special Olympics. The spirit of the Olympics is about excellence and competition, not pity or even compassion.

Trademark is not covered by DMCA

[pruss]

IANAL, but DMCA is about copyright, not trademark. If that's right, then even if there were a real trademark violation, they can't file a DMCA notice on the basis of trademark on the rings.

answer receieved

[OrangeTide]

been nice not having a discussion with you then.