Slashdot Mirror
Google Sends Repeat Infringers To Copyright School
maczealot writes "Google is launching a new 'Copyright School' for use as a re-education tool for offenders on YouTube. The apparent purpose being to head off additional legislation, lawsuits, regulation and other negative impacts to the site. They even have campy cartoon videos for this school."
Finally, a sensible approach to copyright infringement. Instead of suing everyone in sight into oblivion, they've decided to follow the model used by traffic police. Force violators to attend "school" and try to educate them about the law and the dangers of violating it, instead of the shoot first, ask questions later approach.
I'm sure this won't work for everyone, but hopefully it will save a good number of people from being bankrupted.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This limited time was 4 years so the authors and inventors could profit and then promote WHAT, boys and girls?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
To professor Eric Faden @ Bucknell University's video, A Fair(y) Use Tale
As their copyright school
Is force copyright owners who flag videos for no reason whatsoever to watch that as well.
"Hi kids, today's topic is copyright law and how we're allowed to copy anything we like because we're a multi-billion dollar company and can afford more lawyers than God, while you're just a schlep at a computer who's going to have their ass sued and thrown into jail.
By the way have you heard of Google books....that's right if you can't find it at a used book store, chances are we've copied it to put online.
So remember kids, don't infringe copyright. Let us do it for you, and enjoy the ads!"
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If this is anything like schools here are already, as soon as they show up, the doors will be locked and barred, they'll be run through the metal detectors, relieved of anything sharp or electronic, then shoveled into a cramped, hot room where they'll have to endure hours of someone talking at them and there will be no breaks to go to the bathroom. And after, you'll be fed a crappy lunch and told what a rotten person you are, and be given a letter to take home instructing everyone to love you less. Yeah, actually that sounds like what I'd expect from the pro-copyright crowd.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
you can outsource the "work" to China for about a dime.
Like when a certain company decides they have the right the republish every book? Where's the cute little cartoon for that lesson
I am a fan of YouTube poops but many companies can't stand their work getting parodied despite it being created by lifelong fans of the shows. WTLnetwork for example parodied Thomas the Tank Engine. but (s)HIT entertainment took it down. All this does is create a Streisand effect where users go to more liberal video hosts instead of going to re-education camps by repressive hosts.
I'm not really sure how effective it will be. The cartoon seemed more of a satire then educational. They should take a lesson from School House Rock on how to make educational cartoons that will be taken seriously.
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
So are they going to send MAFIAA members to school too, when they claim that videos are infringing when actually they are making fair use?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I reposted the campy videos to YouTube without permission, and then they sent me to Meta-Copyright School. :-(
Many people unknowingly confess to copyright violations in their You Tube postings.
They say things like: "I don't own this. It is owned by ViaNBCBS." That is like a total admission of guilt.
They need Copyright School to keep them away from civil liability!!
To the .torrent so I can watch it on my jail-broke iPad?
We have a campy cartoon, too.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Perhaps this school should be referred to as copyright re-education. We could even have a special program for the worst offenders where they get to go to some type of low-tech retreat where they learn how infringing copyright is detrimental to society. They could then complete their "re-education" at one of these "camps" and become a productive consumer generating add revenue again. This is a GREAT idae!!
... the character Lumpy in the Google video looks suspiciously similar to another cartoon character ... Bullwinkle.
I'm pretty sure that video isn't for kids. Given the nature of Happy Tree Friends... http://bit.ly/igdpxc
Google is in-effect mis-representing the Copyright Act by Educating alleged "offenders": if you read the Copyright Act, it has to do with re-performances and re-enactments and such in commercial use of the said tokens supposedly protected by the law of the Copyright Act.
If the material is used for non-commercial and non-profit purposes, then that is the exemption not spoken of: always look for the inverse that the law graces you into: that's the point, because the original sale discharges the prior owner or tenant from their interests, and a Conditional Non-Endorsement of all adhesion contracts that would derive administration and maintenance of the matter would yield a clear title of the property sold into said Torrens System of titler ownership in the registry of their jurisprudence.
This same technique and approach is about a Controlling Interest: such removes the equitable title into Admiralty Jursidction such as through Rule E(8), and the same obverse of the Copyright Act is the removal of liability for alleged violations of many other non-related matters such as Motor Vehicles unregistered to return to their original conduct of affairs relating to the fact that in all Statutes "All Roads are Open as a matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel."
If the Untied States of America is such a great country(confederation), then how-come it seems like nobody sells property without strings attached like how Copyright Act does? The roads are the same way, as soon as you abate the Federal improvements of that foidal tenure and the alleged "High Seas of Asphault" they pre-suppose the Several States have become in assent of that foreign principality in the District of Columbia.
I am unable to believe that the authors of that video had any expectation whatsoever of it being taken seriously. It is clearly a parody of the heavy-handed system and ridicules the current state of affairs.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Sweet. Can we voluntarily attend it just to remove the two strikes we've had on our account for 6 years? I'd like the option to post unlisted back.
Have you ever seen what happens when some megacorporation like, say, Google, copies something from some other megacorporation like, say, Oracle?
This. The litigation of which will probably outlive the comma and result in legal fees larger than the federal debt.
So, no, you can't make the blanket statement that corporations can just steal what they want because they have lawyers and money. Corporations have whole departments to prevent their employees from even inadvertently violating intellectual property rights of other corporations.
And good luck getting anything you wrote into a Hollywood studio. It's an entire industry that doesn't even allow you to share ideas except in a structured environment, to avoid having to defend itself against lawsuits from unimaginative dolts who come up with the same ideas everyone does (and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).
You get into a lot of trouble.
That' the law's purpose. That's why it exists. They made up a law to get people in trouble for doing harmless stuff.
That video taught me that.
I say we listen to the fine video and abolish such a law.
It is clearly evil and endangers people and sea otters by making them juggle piranhas while firing themselves from a cannon.
It also promotes property damage and spontaneous litigation.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
While they are at it, they can perhaps add a copyright school for politicians
Lesson 1.
What is Copyright? Copyright is an artificial construct, created so you can make something public while we all agree to treat it like something private, and as a reward for the public for doing so, this is for a limited time only. During this limited time, the creator has the opportunity to make money off his/her creation, after which they will have to create something new (if they haven't done so already) for which the clock has been reset to zero and starts ticking again.
Lesson 2.
What is Public Domain? The public domain consists of works that are no longer copyrighted. This is great, as it allows everyone free access to these works. There's no better way to promote culture than to make it free-as-in-beer to enjoy.
Lesson 3.
What is "Fair Use"? Even though we have granted certain exclusive rights to the creator during this limited time period, there are still certain situations where the Fair Use-rights trump the Copy-rights.
Lesson 4.
What about those poor artists? While everyone is always concerned about "the artists", research done in Europe, one project done at the behest of the European Union, has shown time and again that the vast majority (90%+) of existing soon-to-expire copyrights in musical recordings actually benefit the labels rather than the performing artists.
Lesson 5.
TBD.
Can someone with a youtube account please reupload the well-known "copying is not theft" song video as "in response to" to this silliness?
Indeed, a more correct version would be: only copy stuff that belongs to someone who can't afford as many lawyers as you. Or maybe: the company that has the most lawyers can get away with anything.
This could also be applied to other areas, for example: the country with the most powerful military can get away with anything. *hides*
[Opens video.]
[Sees Happy Tree Friends.]
[Closes video damn fast.]
Watching the occasional campy video at work, I can get away with. Watching something with a rep for being NSFW no matter what the content of the actual video? Not so much.
Except the example you cited is completely false. You sadly can't find those out-of-print book copies online. What Google did amounted to no more than ripping a private DVD collection, minus the criminal distribution act.
You mean like Don't download this song?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I highly recommend that everyone use Russell and Lumpy as characters in their own videos, and upload them to YouTube. Could become a movement, y' know.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Interesting that the background at 3:42 is the OS X Panther default wallpaper, whose copyright is presumably owned by Apple...
My youtube account got banned for posting three short clips from TV shows over a span of 3 years. I had no idea there was a "three strikes your out" clause. Along with these, all my legit videos are gone and Youtube support ignores my pleas for account reactivation. One of them even had 1.5M views. It sucks! The clips I uploaded were from the same show and same network as other clips which remain online. Their enforcement is hardly evenhanded.
So sign me up for the reduction camp if It means I can get my legit videos back. Of course their "your account has been deactivated" help screen support button still go into a black hole for me.
What I've had to do to keep using my Gmail without having to move to a different gmail account has been difficult. Since Youtube is tied to google account, my main gmail account is banned from youtube. So I had to enable Youtube as a service for my apps domain, re-sign up from an account on my google apps domain, enabled multiple site logins, then add my gmail account into the apps domain account. Now I can use my old gmail and my new youtube account at the same time. This still sucks though... I've been punished.
Moral of the story... don't steal shit and put it on youtube like I did.
"Someday, son, people will be sent to re-education to brainwash them for things like not having papers, saying certain things, listening to certain music, or even driving to the store."
"Dad, that sounds like a horror movie. I don't think it will EVER come to that. I mean, people just wouldn't accept something so terrible!"
A copyright lesson from Google?!? The ultimate freeloader on the web, lunching on the work of everybody else!
I make original game video on my YouTube channel, even then I get my video's claimed by people like "IMG Media UK" (google them) weekly, basically they go around throwing DMCA on video they find just to have people subscribe to them. To the point videos that aren't disputed are removed from YT.
A few months ago another copyright troll (Kanobu Networks) tried doing this on a bunch of my videos that they ripped from my channel (Yes they ripped my video, re-posted it and claimed copyright on the original video). Frustrated with a lack of option to deal with this type of copyright troll, I looked around for other victims of Kanobu and had them protest on Kanobu's YT channel (since google does nothing to stop copyright trolls). Eventually Kanobu got so much negative comments that they stopped claiming copyright on other people's YT videos and apologized. Kanobu too was trying to get subscription to their channel.
(and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).
You're being unduly critical of the audience.
The reason Hollywood films are bland and derivative is because Hollywood makes blockbusters. A blockbuster might gross, say, $70 million. Now, that gross is from selling tickets at $7 a pop, meaning that they had to convince 10 million people to agree on what would be entertaining to watch.
If Hollywood was willing to make a movie that appealed to just one tenth the number of people, they could do far more novel stuff. But, they're in it for the money, and so they don't.
There are plenty of smaller studios that do interesting films, and occasionally those films catch on with a wider audience. The biggest for the smaller studios is that they don't have the connections and don't get the corporate welfare that the big Hollywood studios do.
I guess when Google ignores authors' rights and digitizes millions of books at a time, it's OK, but God forbid if someone downloads a few .mp3s. The duplicity is shocking. Just another example of a fucking corporation having more rights than the individual.
LOL "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2082940&cid=35823386 where skidborg admits to trolling others 1st & getting his jollies from it, like a sick troll does. Grow up, get help freak - You need it, because LMAO "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself ).
LOL "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2082940&cid=35823386 where skidborg admits to trolling others 1st & getting his jollies from it, like a sick troll does. Grow up, get help freak - You need it, because LMAO "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself ).
Admitting you don't own a song does not make it legal to copy it
However, as I understand it, good faith in identifying an underlying work's author does score brownie points for the "character of the use" factor if you are trying to build a fair use rationale for your transformative work.
DMCA claims that do not consider fair use are made in bad faith. Lenz v. Universal . But good luck finding the money to hire an attorney to convince a judge in a different district to agree.
I can always afford more lawyers than someone who is committing a federal crime.
http://www.youtube.com/user/russel/
Well, no, I'm telling you what happened to the studios in the 80s that got us to where we are today where no Major studio makes anything other than a blockbuster.
They stopped listening to the artists and started listening, intently and without question, to the focus groups.
And as a result every one of their movies clocks that 10% penetration, and many go to 20% or more, and if Jimmy Cameron wants to film his next turd in 4-D Shittovision he'll probably pull another $billion from the trough. They don't give a flying fuck that the movies are all artistically stagnant and fail to represent society. They're making bank. Money over mind, and they're dead deleriously happy about it.
Smaller studios, "indies," aren't what one generally means by "Hollywood," although I could have made that clear.
What it's going to take is someone with some artistic talent who also knows where the audience buttons are, and can marry them and make a really good film that also makes the loot fly. There have been some near misses, but on second iteration it turned out the dude just got lucky and really didn't know what he was doing (I'm looking at you, Shyamalan).
Because once it's created, making an extra copy doesn't cost anything.
Or rather, it costs the electricity of performing the copy operation, but that cost isn't borne by the creator, it's borne by the source of the copy, who (e.g.) in a peer-to-peer file sharing system volunteers that electricity to the recipient. On youtube, they have Google volunteering the electricity (so they can sell ads, of course).
So in the way people most often obtain copies in violation of copyright, they are not doing anything that hurts the rights holder, and the people who bears a cost does so willingly. "No one was aggressed against" seems like an intuitive and natural moral standard, which is lived by in this scenario.
Rocky and Bullwinkle for that cartoon?
I stand by what I wrote. At what point in time does someone own the rights to said copyrighted material, and at what time is it not considered non-commercial use?
Radio stations have rights like that, and they TRANSMIT that material without paying royalties from a re-compiled form derived from a publicly-available format they most-likely bought or gifted them for promotional purposes. Nobody payed or compensated any station or person for HEARING the transmitted copyright material, nor hearing any pre-recorded re-exhibited live material, so at what time is this differentiated between commercial profit and non-commercial non-profit?
The truth is: they aren't willing to elaborate on the unwritten exemptions that are ALL OVER THE COPYRIGHT ACT. Assumptions are the accepted practice, and to discuss such would remove the potential unchallenged revenue of prosecuting and documenting people as alleged "criminals" into a baby-sitter system to extend government intervention and services. The Copyright Act in this regard is making just as much money on the fines rather than valid sales. Look at BluRay when they attempted to integrate the Judiciary Department's 1-sided refinment of interpreting the Legislature's enactment.
The whole thing stinks, like America on a grill.
it needs some balance. The material originally advertised for the italian version of a similar initiative said more or less that every downloading for free is illegal, see http://stop.zona-m.net/2011/02/google-schools-the-police-and-the-ministry-of-youth-dont-get-lost/
[Click anon shortened link]
[Sees start of Happy Tree Friends]
[Nauseated as soon as point becomes evident]
[Click DISLIKE button]
"This feature is not available right now. Please try again later."
Not to mention that comments are disabled on the video.
Yeah. And all te googlers bonus depends on social networky success this year. ROTFL.
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Quick and sure-fire way of avoiding copyright problems: your video of a cat on a skateboard does not need background music.
Youtube might be a bearable experience if I could actually hear the activity in the video, rather than being subjected to thrash metal or whatever.
The video posted in the summary is quite suitable for the most part. There's not a loose eyeball, drop of blood, splintered bone, or bit of brain matter to be seen anywhere.
The video sucks doubly for that reason...
I dont live in USA, I dont live in Europe. Copyright means nothing here, nothing to me, nothing to our goverment. I will copy everything I can, and I will make sure that everybody I know dont buy anything either if he/she can copy it. And Google, you know were you can shove your Copyright School too. If you aint sheep, resist. Copy everything, bring down the RIAA, the MPAA, and their solid gold Hummers. I will not make anybody millionaire while millions starve. Warez for ever, socialism for ever.
News from a future newspaper: “A man was stopped yesterday at the boarder of Italy and France, his computer was scanned and pirated material was found, mostly Adobe software and songs by Beatles. The man was arrested at the spot”
From a poem to a drug, from an piece of software to a music record and from a film to a book, everything that’s famous and profitable, owns much of its economic value to the manipulation of the Multitudes. People haven’t asked to know what the Coca-Cola logo looks like, neither have they asked for the melody of “Like a Virgin”. Education, Media and Propaganda teach all that the hard way; by either hammering it on our brains or by speculating over our thirst, our hunger, our need for communication and fun and most of all, over our loneliness and despair. In the days of Internet, what can be copied can be also shared. When it comes to content, we can give everything to everyone at once.
Around this realisation, a new social class is awakening. This is not a working class but a class of Producers. Producers are pirates and hackers by default; they recycle the images, the sounds and the concepts of the World. Some of it they invent but most they borrow from others.
Because information occupies a physical part of our bodies, because it is literary “installed” on our brain and can’t be erased at wish, people have the right to own what is projected on them: They have the right to own themselves! Because this is a global World based on inequality and profit, because the contents of a song, a movie or a book are points of advantage in a vicious fight for survival, any global citizen has the moral right to appropriate a digital copy of a song, a movie or a book. Because software is an international language, the secrets of the World are now written in Adobe and Microsoft: we should try hack them. Finally, because poverty is the field of experimentation for all global medicine, no patents should apply.
Today, every man with a computer is a Producer and a Pirate. We all live in the Internet, this is our new country, the only territory that makes sense to defend and protect . The land of the Internet is one of information. Men should be able to use this land freely, corporations should pay for use - a company is definitely not a person.
Internet is now producing “Internets”, situations that exist not only online but also in real space, governed by what is happening online. This is the time for the foundation of an global Movement of Piracy. The freedom of infringing copyright, the freedom of sharing information and drugs: these are our new “Commons”. They are Global Rights and as such, Authorities will not allow them without a battle. But this will be a strange battle because this is the first time the Multitudes disrespect the Law instinctively and on a global scale.
Today, an army of teenagers is copying, the adults are copying and even the senior citizens, people from the Left and from the Right are copying. Everyone with a computer is copying something; like a novel Goddess Athena, Information wants to break free from the head of Technology and it assists us on our enterprise.
Pirates of the Internet Unite!
Miltos Manetas, 2009 (Piracy Manifesto)
where everyone can hear it , or i put on a monster magnet cd REAL loud with my window open, will i be sent to copyright reform school cos my neighbours now know that i really, really like monster magnet ?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Isn't it obvious that the person who does the work should be compensated for it, even if once the work is done it costs nothing or next to nothing to make extra copies?
That sounds a lot like the (normative rather than descriptive) Labor Theory of Value. I don't subscribe to it. Or rather, I subscribe to compensating the people who provide me the electricity I need to copy "their" file (volunteering, advertisement, ...), and compensating the ISP who provides the infrastructure that enables us, etc. But I don't think I have an inherent right to other people's money whenever I do something difficult or labor-intensive, just because it requires labor.
I *do* believe in old-fashioned Locke-ish property right (actually more Henry George-ish, but let's not get into land value taxation and rents right now). I'm not 100% certain about what the right set of rights is, with respect to ideas and creative expressions, although I do lean heavily towards the Free Software Foundation's views. I don't think that our current system of copyrights is the right set of rights (including various forms of the right to exclude) for people to have.
I am quite convinced, however, that what makes good economic sense (in my words that means "maximizes social welfare", or eqv "is consistent with the principle of utilitarianism") doesn't always have an intuitive, natural moral appeal to people.