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.

[$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.

[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.

[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

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: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.

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: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

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.

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?

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.