Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
The IOC is about as protective of its brand as China is. Sad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
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.
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.
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.
simon
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!
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Aren't the Olympic rings in the public domain, as they were created by Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937) ?
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.
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.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Chessboxing is next, of course.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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...
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).
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.
The enemies of Democracy are