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."
.. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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: