Slashdot Mirror
EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame"
netbuzz writes "Recognizing that public shame is a potent weapon, the Electronic Frontier Foundation today launched a new Web site — its Takedown Hall of Shame — that will shine an unflattering spotlight on those corporations and individuals who abuse copyright claims to stifle free speech. Among the early inductees are NPR, NBC, CBS, and Diebold."
I for one welcome our shameful overlords
How about the Church of Scientology? /b/tards started harassing them.
Their censorship is the entire reason the
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What happened to Video Professor? Should have made the list IMO:
Forget NBC. What about FOX News? With all the hate I see directed at them from Usenet posters and even our own White House, surely they must be enemy #1 when it comes to censorship.
What?
They don't censor free speech? Well su'prise su'prise su'prise.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think given the high volume of abuse by some of these people, wouldn't some sort of tally/grouping work better? Also, what exactly are the criteria being employed by the EFF here?
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
......and even hassled a benefactor in Australia to take down his mirror
My web domain.
I understand that they are trying to make a point about applying fair-use across the board. But you'd think they'd choose something other than NPR trying to mute gay bashes as an example. It's like trying to get bees with vinegar.
PS. here's the censored youtube clip incase you were wondering what was actually said.
Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?
Stand for Marriage Maine (SMM) created an ad criticizing same-sex marriage that excerpted a brief portion of an All Things Considered interview. Although the ad's use of the content was clearly necessary to its critical political message, NPR sent a takedown demand to YouTube resulting in the removal of the video. NPR failed to recognize that SMM's excerpting is simply another clear-cut example of a fair use in political speech -- the 21st century equivalent of an issue pamphlet.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
How many billions have been tied up with his threatened takedowns of everyone and their dog who ever looked at Linux?
Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?
*if* normal folk come across this, I'm sure big outfits will just spin the EFF as some anti-corporate evil pinko deal...
And the sheep will go for it, too.
kind of a choir preach type deal, no?
Sent from my PDP-11
I thought this is what Chilling Effects was for?
Or was the EFF unable to push the spotlight idea through the other partners they have for Chilling Effects (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Parent is trolling; Fox has an extensive history of censorship.
I think the GP was making the point that some 'evils' are greater than others.
Obviously though, if you want to choose the greatest evil, always go for the option with Cthulhu.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Consider NPR a private organization with a (very small) government subsidy. Does everything with a subsidy automatically become public domain?
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
A list of abusive, lying corporations that includes De Beers on it!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Warner Music, being the big pile of hate and control freaks they are, issued DMCA take down notices for videos on there own channel. The Slipknot video of PsychoSocial as the prime example. The local rock station would provide a link to the video, go to the link, and video removed by order of DMCA copyright infringement. As hosted under the Warner Music group channel, almost all the videos they had had the takedown notice. Why not just um, remove the video from the channel? I guess they needed to feed the lawyers
....and this is a waste of time. If these people had any shame we wouldn't be in the position we're in, legitimate customers wouldn't end up out of pocket and with an unusable product etc. etc. This is like trying to shame that obnoxious house mate your friend has that doesn't shower or shave and walks around their apartment naked in mixed company.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
...who used their own news wire to send out a pre-emptive takedown notice to basically the entire Internet.
I was very surprised to find that the unique email address that I registered with at the EFF seems to have been sold to another group.
It's all about the liberal agenda ... ... which is why the NPR is in there for sending a takedown that used a very small NPR clip in an ad against gay marriage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But Fox is not there?.. How come? Why are they so special? Certainly could've come after all those calling them "Faux", for just one example...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Anyone else worried about this turning into an infinite takedown notice loop the brings the whole internet to it's knees, as the corporations send takedown notices to take down the takedown notices which are then put up only to be followed up by more takedown notices for the takedown notices of the takedown notices, which of course will then have to be put... Can anyone stop this madness?
They get for free multi-billion dollar valued airwaves all over the country.
Neither NPR nor CPB actually have any spectrum, let alone get it for free. They produce programming which is licensed by other broadcasters. The radio stations themselves are generally operated by public education institutions (with the occasional private university or ad hoc community organization thrown in).
That '2%' you cite is more if you consider the taxes not collected from the 98 percent donated.
Are we going to claim ownership of anything produced by any 501c3 or any other tax exempt organization, too?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Its a crime (felony) to criticize food products in some states (Texas for example). Your basically fucked unless your name is Oprah and you got $1 mill laying around to defend yourself.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Which is impossible to answer. You're giving NPR the benefit of the doubt, but not others. Why? All these organizations might say, via their PR people, "we don't like this tactic, but we have to do it." How would you decide who is lying?
And it may well be that NPR would send goons to beat up their enemies if they thought they could get away with it. I doubt it. But how can we tell?
You cannot judge people by the intentions you think they may have. You must judge by actions.
forgot to click preview first
Instructions for filing a DMCA counter notification with YouTube are easy to find [google.com] and clear enough. You can even send it by e-mail.
The counter notification is sent to whomever submitted the original take down request. If they notify YouTube that they have filed for an injunction, then YouTube won't put back the materials. But if they don't file for an injunction, then YouTube may reinstate the materials.
Does YouTube typically decline to reinstate materials when no injunction has been filed? I don't know. Professor Wendy Seltzer has successfully gone up against the NFL [seltzer.org] with YouTube's counter-notification process. I'm pretty sure that the NFL has more monetary resources than she has.
If YouTube does decline to reinstate materials after receiving a counter-notification, they are acting more conservatively than the law requires them to act in order to avoid monetary liability. This wouldn't be a breakdown in the DMCA, but a problem with YouTube's own policies and procedures.
I doubt that most instances of materials being taken down permanently do not involve counter-notification. I suspect that the more typical case is that a person's posting to YouTube is removed because of a take down notice, but the poster never sends a counter-notification. I don't know why this would be the case. It might be that the posters are unaware of the counter-notification proceedings. Maybe they choose to minimize their risk of getting sued and thus deliberately abandon the effort. But, when there is a legitimate dispute regarding an alleged act of copyright infringement, someone has to champion the case that there is no infringement. If nobody (i.e., neither the service provider nor the poster) is willing to take responsibility for keeping the material posted, then there is nothing the law can do to prevent the material from being taken down.