Slashdot Mirror
A Second Lessig Fair-Use Video Is Suppressed By WMG
Bios_Hakr points out an ironic use of the DMCA: for the second time, a video tutorial on fair use that Larry Lessig uploaded to YouTube has been muzzled. This time the sound has been pulled from the video; last time the video was taken off of YouTube. (Video and sound for the new "webside chat" can be experienced together on BlipTV.) Both times, Warner Music Group was the party holding copyright on a song that Lessig used in an unarguably fair-use manner. TechDirt is careful not to assume that an actual DMCA takedown notice was issued, on the likelihood that Google's automatic copyright-violation detectors did the deed. "The unintended consequences of asking tool providers [e.g., Google] to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later. They are silencing speech, on the threat that it might infringe on copyright. This is backwards. We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas — not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright."
Slashdot users, go away! The video is starting to stop! You are SLASHDOTTING IT!!
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it. There are no protections in the Constitution that says a newspaper can't create rules for printing editorials, or YouTube can't determe what can and can't be displayed.
.. start your own newspaper or video service. Or use Vimeo. I've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions.
Don't like it
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Isn't guaranteed by companies.
The contents of this post have been removed because they *might* harm some company's profit margin, and we know that in the USA, corporations are WAAAAY more important than people.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So, sue google, get a court order asking for just that.. force them to get the issue argued in court.
unless it's going to cost companies MORE to err on the side of caution than it's going to cost if they don't.. nothing will change.
Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown [...] The system is broken.
Seems to me the system is broken *IF* the video isn't restored and doesn't remain that way following the counternotice.
Seems to me the system is also broken if there actually was a DMCA notice from Warner and they fail to pay Lessig damages too.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It's like when the police question you while you're walking around taking pictures. Sure, you may be within your rights, and there may be no laws saying you can't walk around with a camera, but you know what? You're just trying to be difficult. And Lessig's just trying to be difficult. All that the police want is to sniff out the terrorists, and the terrorists are bad, right!? And so are music pirates. And you can't fault Warner for just wanting to protect their few dollars. Just remember, those who make waves are always up to no good.
*cough*
Are there any Youtube alternatives that don't take content down so easily? With HTML5 and the video tag I imagine it would be a lot easier now to create something like that.
Internet decentralization is good, and we need to take advantage of it and not put everything on Google's servers (and not put everything on Microsoft's servers, and not put everything on (insert freedom-loving startup based in Sealand here)'s servers) so that internet freedom doesn't rest on a single pedestal. Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JIp3yStpmg "webside chat"?
works with sound here (germany).... dunno what you mean, though its possible that the dmca counternotice was already done and accepted?
We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas — not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright."
I think it's quite obvious what's going on. The new sacred cows of America are not free speech, individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny, but corporate profits and dictating morals to others.
Sad, really. Well, there's still hope that maybe the US won't make Churchill into a liar when he said that America always does the right thing - after it tried everything else. But it's not looking good.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
... free broadcast (hosting, distribution)
... having people being forced to listen to your rant
... having people not disagreeing with you, or actively trying to mute you
Don't say that Google supressing videos like they want is a matter of free speech.
Mr. Lessig himself uses the full power of copyright law to protect his most current works despite preaching about how free is better. Perhaps if he actually practiced what he preached it would be different - but he doesn't.
Guess when his actions would cost him money it is OK to use the most restrictive copyright possible.
When they go to your OWN website and take down your own copyright material because it might infringe some non-specified third party's intellectual property, then you can complain about free speech and whatever.
No wait... that is already happening. Moving on.
Protip: Stop browsing youtube, find better sites such as vimeo.
I prefer living in a world.
The summary says, "...used in an unarguably fair-use manner," but the problem is that there are no definitions of fair use that can't be argued. There are guidelines, but the only way to determine that a use is fair is to argue it in a court and prevail. Sure there may be uses that are so clear cut that a reasonable person would agree that the use is fair, and prior case law helps guide decisions, but try asking a lawyer to confirm your use to be fair use, and you'll rarely get a clear answer.
I'm not saying this is not a case of fair use, but in having a system where the one way to be certain is to go to trial is going to lead to conservative behavior in users of content.
This is about fair use of copyrighted material, the threat and confusion created by DMCA, and the problems caused by automated take-downs.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
The presentation was not muzzled. YouTube merely stopped hosting it. He's welcome to distribute it himself in any way he sees fit.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Streisand Effect? Now, off to find a copy of that video...
It's called subcontracting. Let's assume that the government does not want people to do X. But it knows it can't legally outlaw it. For example, to listen to a political commenter they dislike (say Glenn Beck or John Stewart, depending on who's president.)
So instead they subcontract out the work to corporations. So they give people the right to sue a corporation for huge amounts of money if they insult gays, liberals, etc. / conservatives, religions, etc. (depending on Beck or Stewart)
Indirect enforcement is still enforcement. And that is what this is. This is a corporation doing some that the government wants, in order to avoid fines for failing to do it.
It doesn't matter that government is doing this indirectly. The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits. They are NOT doing it for their personal profit/political views/etc. etc. This makes their actions proxy for the government. Free Speech rules apply.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Lessig seems a bit stupid to have used ANYTHING that would give studios and other parties ability to use DCMA on his videos. Maybe next time, they will have the sense to not use copyrighted music.
if he's trying to communicate or just challenge the system. If it's the former, he should upload a video that can't be removed on the basis of copyright fair use or not. If it's the latter, well, he's made his point by being censored.
It's pretty bad when someone can cause you grief by filing a false DMCA notice on material they don't even own the copyright to
Yes, someone can cause you grief by committing perjury in a takedown notice. But then someone can also go to jail.
I've noticed that anytime there's a complaint about censorship, there's a number of "insightful" comments repeating that the hosting service has the legal right to do so, even though there was no case being made that the service (Youtube in this case) acted illegally or had no legal right to do so. How has it become so fashionable that whenever someone objects to censorship, so many people's knee jerk reaction is to defend that censorship based on legal grounds rather than take a stand to promote a free and open society?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a law that governs the relationship between the government and citizens. Freedom of speech is the principle that this law was designed to protect. If your support for freedom of speech goes only as far as the legal rights granted you, that's fine, but you don't need to reduce it to a legal argument, because it is not. Don't worry, we understand exactly what the First Amendment does and does not protect, but we also believe in the broader principle of free speech that is at the core of a free, open, and enlightened society.
Could YouTube legally pull a video because it showed (fill in your particular racial/religious group) in a favorable light, and their management didn't like that?
Music is not property. Video is not property. Words are not property.
Wikipedia states: "Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons." A limited exclusive right to reproduce a work is an intangible entity, and it is owned by a person. Therefore, copyrights are property. Your argument boils down to one of semantics: saying a work of authorship is owned is a recognized whole-for-part shorthand for saying that the copyright in that work is owned.
This is where the madness of modern "intellectual property" pundits has lead us.
As I see it, the problem with "intellectual property" isn't as much as the confusion among copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Just because copyrights, patents, and trademarks can cover the authorship, invention, and identification of the same work, and the exclusive rights associated with a work are licensed as a bundle, doesn't mean they're the same thing. Advocates of "intellectual property" downplay the fact that the various exclusive rights under the umbrella have different purposes and different scopes. For example, only copyright cares about provenance (the difference between copying and independent creation), and only patents expire.
Mandate deep packet inspection, block all video not coming from approved servers.
Then only the operators of "approved servers" have the privilege to speak. I don't know about Canada, but here in the United States, I don't see the federal government getting away with abridging freedom of speech or of the press in this way.
And so far they've never been found guilty of it because they've been able to stretch the meaning of "in good faith".
They haven't been found guilty of perjury yet. In Lenz v. Universal, on August 20, 2008, Judge Jeremy Fogel held that sending a takedown notice under OCILLA without giving the first thought to whether the use of a work is a fair use is misrepresentation:
Anonymous Coward, you appear to claim that a federal mandate for deep packet inspection and blocking of all encrypted packets would be lawful under the First and Fourth Amendments, and that anyone who disagrees must be unfamiliar with case law. What comparable case law are you thinking of?
They've been going out of their way in silencing videos left and right, so this wouldn't be the first. Some vids just aren't the same nor as funny when they murder the audio portion.
So if someone plants a big sign on your front lawn saying 'I hate blacks and jews' you are just going to leave it there out of concern for their free speech rights, right?
If I opened up my front lawn for people to express themselves via yard signs, then I would.
Now if had done that and you put a sign promoting racial tolerance and I took that one down, are you going to have something to say about me limiting the scope of discussion I'm providing or are you going to applaud my actions for being perfectly legal?
So your definition of 'free speech' involves you giving permission to the speechmaker? Not exactly free, is it? And how exactly does this differ from what corporations do?
It is correct to say that Warner issued the previous takedown notice, but it's not correct to say that they actually owned the copyright to any of the songs in the video. Warner's takedown notice was due to the Muppet version of the song "Mahna Mahna" which was published on a Muppet's Greatest Hits album released by Rhino (a Warner Subsidiary). However, Warner does not own the copyright to that recording of that song. They were just licensed to release it. The copyright is owned by the copyright holder of the original recording of that song, which is currently Disney by way of the Muppet's Holding Company. Warner almost certainly accidentally added this CD to their song database without checking the actual copyright status of it.
I had been hoping to see something come out of that, but I never saw any updates from Lessig about what happened in the long term (counter-notice or whatnot). If you look at his blog, the last update was here which reveals that it was "Mahna Mahna" which lead to the takedown notice. Given that the song was only licensed by Warner and not owned by them, I don't understand how they could issue a takedown notice without committing perjury.
i said i would not censor speech. youtube in this case did. do you see the difference?
not really sure why you want to direct this into a pro-/anti-corporatist discussion. someone was censored on youtube, and some people are saying this was not a good thing for youtube to do. what is your problem this?
We really (start to) live in an industrial feudalism like I always foretold.
With companies owning the “town”, and making the rules.
I guess it’s a natural result of two things:
1. Natural selection, life, and the law of the jungle resulting from it.
2. Groupings of humans becoming way too large (>50-100 people), and thereby making accountability and morale of the individuals to their communities go away and everyone becoming an anonymous face.
I guess if I would found a country, I’d make it illegal for a group to consist of more than 50 entities. (A entity could also be a group, to allow larger groupings. But the rules would make it so that these groups could not act as one to void the limitation.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Amazon's DMCA procedures are very deliberative. If you don't like youtube's enforcement policies, shop around! Host your file on S3, and post a video preview on youtube with a link to S3.
For example, Amazon's procedure requires an electronic or physical signature on the takedown notice and a statement made under _penalty of perjury_ that the notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf. This won't slow down a legitimate owner or agent much, but it will give you and Amazon a basis to sue if the takedown notice doesn't come from an owner or authorized agent. (Personally, I suspect that a fair number of takedown notices are not coming from people who have been properly authorized. People claim copyright on all sorts of things that aren't theirs to claim at all -- even large publishing businesses who ought to know better.)
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Since Google is the publisher for YouTube content, the decision to publish or not to publish is theirs. You can disagree with their decision, and you are free to start up your own video-publishing site and attempt to compete with them (and I have no doubt _somebody_ will come forward to host the Lessig video), but you can't make Google publish stuff they don't want to publish, just like you can't make the local paper print your letter to the editor if they decide not to.
However, if somebody else is using legal action or the threat thereof to manipulate what Google will or won't publish, then that would be a different thing entirely. In that case (assuming the video's use of whatever it uses is fair use as the summary suggests), that would be third-party censorship.
The wording in the summary (notably, "arguably") also makes me wonder on what grounds the video's use of the song is considered fair use. I'd like to see the reasoning there.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
The supreme court gave away one of the last vestiges of individual liberty by enshrining corporations as bodies with first amendment rights. Corporate profits are now more important than you are, so don't worry. Next they'll have 4th amendment rights - and have private armies - wait, those are called contractors in foreign wars...
My $0.05 (AUD - we don't have pennies any more)
I am predicting that we have approached a point where the second derivative with respect to time of the public's sentiment towards Google will be negative for a long time.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Filter error. Repossession. Nonsense to make the
whatchamacallit happy. Other noise. Funny joke.
The EFF expended $400k in Lenz.
In a common-law legal system like that of the United States, it costs real money to set a precedent. It costs far less to use this precedent.
And it still ends up costing thousands just to get the case started
Thousands that will end up back in the fair-user's pocket, especially if the case is as open and shut as advocates of takedown reform claim. From 17 USC 512(f): "Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -- (1) that material or activity is infringing [...] shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer".
Whoever modded my parent post down, please go look up Censorship in a dictionary. That is *not* what's happening here.
YouTube are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to keep keep any particular content available in perpetuity. Sure, they're being cowardly sods for giving in to claims of copyright infringement so quickly but that's another issue.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife