Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video
Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York. The video shows protesters gathering outside the building at night and projecting images of the Olympic symbol, 'tank man,' Tibetan riot footage and clips of victims of the Chinese police crackdown in Tibet. After receiving the request, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked if it really planned to pursue a claim. The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'"
for the first person to post a link to the video so that I don't have to look for it myself!
'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.' AKA 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect their image.'
I'll take what I can get. You act like one of these choices is a bad thing!
And it's so terribly inconvenient that they deserve praise for it?
Lowered Expectations.
Personally I give Google kudos for doing this. If it were any other company they wouldn't have done anything and would have stated that they will not repost it unless a counter DMCA is issued. I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese. The Chinese are horrible and sure they can make a pretty show but they have total disregard for human rights.
If this were Microsoft or Yahoo (and yahoo has pandered to the Chinese many many times) they would have waited for a counter DMCA or just ignore it and let another site deal with it.
So good job not being evil
*Cheers*
and I swear the Chinese's pretty little show doesn't change anything.
What's the difference? Surely it doesn't matter what the the actual reason internally in YouTube is, if the consequence is a strengthening of free speech?
That's not Picasso, that's Kandinsky!
So Google is not so much doing the right thing, but making the tough decision whether to go along with old, obnoxious powerful men who will soon be history, or to keep alongside its demographic.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
There's another explanation, which is that a lot of symbols surrounding the Olympics are trademarked. And, in the US, trademark law requires that you take steps to protect your trademark, or you risk losing some or all of your rights to it. It's debatable how much that has to do with this case, since at least one of the Olympic symbols (the interlocking rings) is protected by a special statute that falls outside normal rules for this sort of thing, but it could be a factor.
It's not that much of a dictatorship. The people get to vote on which CP member gets in. It's a bit like the US really, but with one less party.
Nope. If they selectively challenge DMCA notices (especially if they only challenge trivial ones), they're merely defining the boundaries of free expression, not protecting it.
ResidntGeek
It's a bit like the US really
Except in the US you can criticize the party in power without being arrested and hauled away by the cops.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Google shouldn't have removed the video in the first place. At least, that's what I refused to do when I received an obviously invalid DMCA request for one of my own customers site.
DMCA requests are being sent out like spam. And when I say spam, I mean that they're being sent out by automated scripts with no human supervision whatsoever. And in many documented cases, DMCA requests are being sent out by people who know damn well the DMCA doesn't apply -- but they just want to have some embarrassing materials taken down as quickly as possible.
So if a human looks at it, like a Google employee must have obviously done to tell the IOC about it, and says 'no', it's obviously an invalid DMCA request, then the video shouldn't be removed -- or if it was removed already -- it should be posted back right away -- before the IOC is even contacted.
Now I realize Google is being sued by copyright holders for not being quick enough to respond to them, but we need to sue Google on the other side of the issue to make sure they don't go too far in complying with the legal threats of these automated DMCA requests. If we don't do this, we'll certainly lose our rights to immediate free speech, and *immediate* free speech is important -- or at least it's gaining more importance every single day -- since sites like YouTube often beat out other traditional outlets in getting fresh same-day footage of armed conflicts, rigged elections, and bloody protests.
People who live in glass countries shouldn't throw bricks. In the US you don't have to critize anybody to be arrested and hauled away by the cops [illinoistimes.com].
What's your point? Governmental officials abuse their power? Nobody would deny that. The difference between the US and China is that we have a free press that can investigate those abuses of power and bring them to light. In China they can't even get answers as to why their schools collapsed and killed thousands of their children during the recent earthquakes.
Remember that Democracy is the worst form of Government ever -- except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As to the free press issue, American reporters go to jail over politics, too [cnn.com]
No, American reporters go to jail for refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. Bit of a difference there. I would argue that we need a press shield law on the Federal level (my state has one) but there's still a difference between going to jail for contempt of court and being whisked away for investigating Governmental abuses or corruption.
the right to free speech is supposed to be the right to not speak as well
Actually, no, there is no right not to speak if you are subpoenaed to testify. You have a right against self-incrimination but if you are offered immunity (i.e: nothing you say can be used against you) then you don't have the right to refuse to testify. This is based on hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.