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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[halivar]

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

A decepticon.

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.

[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.

[superdave80]

Autobots are cars, Decepticons are planes!

Nerd license revoked!

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.

[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.

[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.

[Dekortage]

Chessboxing is next, of course.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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:In Fascist China...

[jav1231]

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

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

[StarfishOne]

Picard: there are _four_ rings! ;)

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...

[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...

[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

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.

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: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?

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: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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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!

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

[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

Fair Use and Parody

[DustoneGT]

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

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."

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: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.

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.

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: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: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.

Not exactly

[SteveFoerster]

Satire is covered by free speech.

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

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!

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...

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)

Public domain?

[kjetil_r]

Aren't the Olympic rings in the public domain, as they were created by Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937) ?

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.

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: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.