Slashdot Mirror
At Universal's Request, YouTube Yanks News Podcast Over Music Snippet
Snaller writes "Tech News Today does what the name says — it's a podcast reporting on Tech news, Monday to Friday. They, like Slashdot, reported on the Megaupload vs. Universal copyright dispute. But during their coverage, they played a snippet of the music video and immediately Universal Music Group had the news podcast yanked from YouTube. Tech News Today has outlets other than YouTube, but should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?"
Shoot first, ask questions never, over things that are arguably as Fair Use as it gets. It will only get worse from here.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
The only way to make these kinds of problems go away is to make it illegal and punishable to claim copyright on something that you do not own the copyright for.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Should be really allow copyright abuse in such a manner that it is illegal to even report on something regarding copyrighted material. If so, as a society we should just start teaching our kids to immediately give their lunch money to the biggest meanest kid in the school before they can even ask.
I got here through a series of tubes
It's quite likely that large corporations like Universal, Viacom, etc. have access to pull things down from YouTube on copyright claims without Youtube's approval.
I assume Youtube assumed these organizations would use their power responsibly. Perhaps that assumption needs to be revisited.
What happened to it?
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
The biggest crime is that these videos are not posted in Ogg Theora format. What are we teaching our children?
It obviously doesn't have the right. It's fair use for the purpose of reporting news.
This is simple collateral damage when you use software to automatically flag copyright violations and then act on that software's flagging automatically too cause humans are simply too expensive to police it all manually. Happens all the time. All the usual slashdot tropes of printers which do torrents, grandmas that get notices, openoffice that gets removed from ftp servers, etc.
Youtube and your mail client's spamfilter have the same problem: false positives. Both use an automated system to flag violations of policy and in both cases it mostly works but never 100%. You cannot demand from youtube or the RIAA to flag it all manually, just like you can't really flag all your spam manually: if you do, either Youtube goes out of business cause their business model does not allow that many employees and still serve you videos for "free". Or the major labels go out of business since they have to hire people to police youtube and demand even more per song. I'm sure many /.ers would like this 2nd outcome but it's not really realistic or actually desirable either.
So Tech News should alert youtube to unblock their video and move on. Oh I forgot: better to post it to slashdot frontpage so Tech News can get a few thousand more hits! Genius! The RIAA is evil after all.
Now that big companies will just bludgeon people with lawsuits, is it possible to even defend oneself with the Fair Use doctrine? Note, I am talking about only those that are within Fair Use boundaries, which this case sounds like. I do movie reviews as a hobby, am I going to get hit with a suit for posting some screen captures now? Or quoting dialogue?
Forget the Corporate States of America, welcome to the Judicial State of America.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?
Should they? No. But the DMCA gives them the right (or at least the ability) to do so. It gives it to you, too. My understanding is that anyone can file a DMCA takedown notice.
I have often wondered what would happen if people started filing DMCA takedown notices by the millions on major websites against the big content producers. There doesn't seem to be any penalty for filing bogus notices.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
I'm a pacifist, but the carry on of Universal has pissed me off so much that it's time their weapons of mass deletion were used against them. DMCA the fuck back out of them! Hit them where it hurts them - in the pocket.
A short clip used for commentary in a 45 minute long podcast is clearly fair-use even by the most restrictive standards. Shame on UMG and Youtube.
The copyright status of the clip used is irrelevant. The situation is this: Media conglomerates have been given editorial control of Youtube, subject only to the ability of posters to retain high-priced legal counsel. They can and do use these powers to further their own agenda.
Thank you for your insightful comment, Universal astroturfer. I hope they're paying you well.
No sig? Sigh...
They did not have the copyright to it.
Leo Laporte makes fun of this happening, and it's happened before. He'll play a few seconds of some song while talking about something on TWiT, and joke on how that will get the show yanked from YouTube. It falls pretty clearly into the realm of fair use, I think YouTube has been knocked around so much by copyright lawsuits they just do whatever the big conglomerates say.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Why is this possible? Because bandwidth is cheap, because storage is cheap, and because there is little risk of legal costs. The US Government has said that as long as a service take down any content that they have been notified violates a copyright, the service is not subject to any legal action. This is good for free services such as Youtube because it eliminates the risk and allows them to accept videos without any filtering.
If one wishes, one can set up one's own video sharing service, pay for the bandwidth, and the legal liability associated with potentially violating copyright. No one is going to stop the setup of such a service, and such a service can be free to ignore takedown notices. It is simply not in the best interest of Youtube, the preeminent distributor of lame and random video, to so do.
Of course many would say why not make the copyright holders for frivolous take down notices. I would support that. But even that would require companies like Google to invest in legal action that may not generate a profit, or at least might generate a greater loss than complying with takedown notices. Also, if policing video got too expensive, then copyright holder might put real money into lobbying congress and buy even worse legislation. This is, after all, the congress that has put more earmarks that funnel tax payer money to their families and buddies than almost any other. And this after a pledge not to so do.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
How are we supposed to watch the video again, after Universial had it pulled? Your claim does have much plausibility - I too find it unlikely so many major artists would endorse Megaupload - but it can't be proven either way without looking at the video. Which, amusingly, is now only accessible by going to pirate websites to download it.
Given that the clip was used for journalistic purposes?
Or are we redefining what makes journalism? From Wikipedia: "Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues and trends to a broad audience in a timely fashion."
To send the same information to a broad audience requires a broadcast. Thus completing the definition. From printing newspaper to uploading video to Youtube to updating your Facebook wall for the benefit of your 5,000 "friends".
Just because you don't have a press pass doesn't make you any less a journalist than any News International keyboard monkey.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
If people are upset about Youtube yanking perfectly legitimate fair use videos, then STOP USING YOUTUBE.
They have the "right" to remove any video they feel like, without litigation, via 6F of their Terms of Service. http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms
Good luck getting a BitTorrent client installed on all users' machines, even on all those that can view YouTube. And good luck getting people to find your video that is distributed through BitTorrent. Have you an idea for a solution to these problems?
"transcode to YouTube" should have been "transcode like YouTube"
This wouldn't have happened, if they used a real ISP.
Youtube is a known quantity. If you put anything on youtube, you know that they will immediately fold upon receiving a DMCA notice, rather than contacting you and going through the counter-notice procedure. They are too big, or don't have the time, or maybe just not the will, to go through the whole thing. (And that's their right; they don't owe you hosting service.) Whatever their problem is, they definitely do have it, and have had it for a long time. They have a known vulnerability to DMCA exploits and the hole just isn't ever getting fixed.
Youtube is practically why the notice mechanism is often referred to as a guilty-until-proven-innocent policy. DMCA notices aren't really biased in that manner; it's youtube's policy that causes it to work out that way. It's a match made in hell. Use almost any other ISP and you'll find that fraudulent DMCA notices used for vandalism (which is what seems to have happened here), can be resisted.
Those who want consequences for bogus DMCA takedowns, I offer to you my words "fraudulent DMCA notices used for vandalism." If Tech News Today thinks they can demonstrate financial harm (how?) as a result of Universal's activities, maybe they have grounds for action.
And they get mad when we compare SOPA to Chinese censorship using the same tools.
Wonder if YouTube can be taken down by a mass submission of DMCA notices. A million notice march?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Copyright infringement isn't "theft"; it isn't "stealing". Nothing of material - as opposed to speculative - value has been denied the titular "owner". It's not piracy.
What is it? The closest historical analog might be squatting. Squatters don't pirate the land they occupy; they don't steal it. They don't displace the owner. The land is exactly where it's always been. All a squatter does is use or appropriate the land in a manner unacceptable to its owner, possibly - but not always - interfering with the owner's use of it. Ultimately it's more about ego, greed, and control than anything else. Intellectual property owners are the new land barons of the twenty-first century.
It's time we take back control of this dialog and call these behaviors what they really are. It's the land barons versus the squatters all over again.
Mass inter-communication will reshape politics in the years to come. When every person can become their own tv channel, exposed to the entire world, the ability to organize and change our world will radically change.
We don't want mass media companies to choke off our access. People should have a right to be able to post their material online, independent of vendors such as Google. This should be both an economic and a social right.
...and have the item put back up. Youtube would retain its "safe harbor" immunity and TNG would assume all liability. UMG would then have 30 days to file an infringement suit in Federal court or lose their right to do so. TNT can also file suit for DMCA abuse, or wait for UMG to sue and then file a DMCA abuse counterclaim.
In the absence of the DMCA UMG could still file a takedown notice (but would not have to follow any particular form or procedure). However, they also could still sue Youtube even if it obeyed the notice. They could also just sue without warning. (Yes, I've said all this before.)
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
They didn't "have it removed on copyright grounds". They called their private-company friends, and asked for somethat that isn't illegal -- for that friend to stop providing a particular product/service/client, just for fun. Welcome to business. "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone."
So yes, everyone has the right to do what they did.
The question you were to ask was this one: Why did they publish their content on youtube in the first place, when they could have published on their own controlled networks?
Welcome to having given up control over their content when they gave it to someone else. This is not a surprise.
The artists haven't *denied* involvement... Seriously, if it *was* manipulation, wouldn't the artists be quick to refute their involvement?
But they're already dead, it's just a matter of time
Is it just me or is Google just screwing up left and right lately? They can't seem to keep Android on the straight and narrow (or rather put end user interests above carrier interests). Youtube is an endless series of debacles. Google Plus, well do we even need to go into that one? The Google book scanning thing is just weird, most folks aren't sure whether to root for Google or not on that one. I'm not sure if their fiber initiative in that city in Kansas is going anywhere or not, I know they were hiring for it earlier this year, but that's all.
Google got to the top by trading on the idea that they had the users' best interests at heart. Now, I'm not claiming that that was ever actual reality, but it was the perception many had of reality. That seems to be evaporating rapidly for them. You'd think they'd be interested in trying to keep that perception alive instead of screwing up in a headline grabbing manner each and every week like clockwork.
Sad to see it ending so soon.
Check your premises.
and if you think that the balance on copyright on the net is too far on the side of copyright holders, then you really need to PUT DOWN THAT CRACKPIPE.
yes, there will occasionally be absurdities and over-reaches like this, but none of this masks the reality that the last decade or so has been an absolute bonanza of piracy - look at your own stash - and that companies like youtube have made billions by taking a mostly "see no evil" approach to it.
so, is the episode in this story a bit stupid? yes, of course. but in the wider scheme of things, it is still rampant piracy that is the problem, not the occasional over-reach by those trying to set things right.
...should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?
Seriously, this question shouldn't be asked, even rhetorically. The answer is so obvious it isn't even debatable. Due process was invented for a very good reason, and we allow it to be circumvented at our extreme peril.
Every US citizen on Slashdot should be contacting his or her appropriate representatives, as often and as loudly as necessary, and raising a stink over this issue. The discussion here is good for getting the word out, but all the fine prose and witty thoughts expressed on Slashdot don't mean jack shit in the outside world - it's time to take this matter up with those who count on your votes to keep them riding the gravy train. Industry may buy elections for politicians, but if we don't allow our votes and our voices to be bought then things will have to change.
If outrages such as this aren't challenged in any meaningful way, they'll only become even more commonplace, to the point where we'll just bend over and 'take it' every day without even realizing what's going on. This continuing erosion of rights and concentration of power has to stop, or we'll soon be living on a totalitarian continent.
Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, not American, but when this stuff comes up in my country I DO write letters and take the time to get others engaged.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Don't' you see YouTube proudly wearing the sheriff's golden star?
You old commie muckraker! jklolwtfbbq
Groups of people are still people with the same rights they always had even if they were not in a group.
then groups of people should be taxed at the same rate as people are.
Go out and buy shit instead of stealing it online.
You know, if I ever decide to commit a crime, then I'm going to author a little bit of music and record it and play it during the crime. I understand the copyright is automatic, but I'll go ahead and put a notice on the CD. That way if I'm ever caught, I'll sue the folks with the security cameras for violating my copyrights. If I can get them to destroy the evidence then I'll have a better chance of getting off, and if not then I'll at least have the proceeds from the infringement suit.
On further thought, I'll do the same if I ever run for office, but perhaps I repeat myself. That way if my opponents ever try to use what I've said against me then I'll be able to force them to quit. I'll also post slogans with copyrights so they'll have to destroy the video as well as the audio.
~Loyal
(c) Opposition 2011
I aim to misbehave.
This isn't too much of a shock for me. I've had files hosted at file hosting services taken down by DMCA requests filed by companies with nothing to do with the content.
Also, if it is dubbed work, then doesn't it become even less likely that Universal owns the rights to it?
This is something I care really strongly about, so I am going to go ahead and make a post.
The following things have been going on for quite a while:
1) Take-down of YouTube videos which contain only a small portion of a sample of a song.
2) The re-use of samples stolen from other songs, used by the major record companies in many popular songs.
The second, has been going on for more than a couple of decades.
One of the world's most famous examples of this, has been called the "Amen Break". It's basically a drum beat which was taken from a song long ago and been re-used in numerous, top-chart electronic dance music and rap songs, as well as commercials. A good video regarding the history of the "Amen Break" can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
The production of music or a song can be viewed as a morphed compilation of previous works. When musicians produce music, they want to create something which is different, but yet close enough to something else so that listeners are not alienated. Create something that is too close to something else or resembles something that sounds like it was done last decade, people find it boring. Create something that is too different, people don't understand it.
The fact that record companies are running around on YouTube, silencing anything which even slightly resembles something they may own a copyright to, is completely hypocritical and is a slap in the face to the trade they claim to care so much about. Things are reaching a point where an independent musician cannot drop in a vocal or a simple beat that has been used before in order to connect to and express a new message to people. This is, simply put, sad. If left unchecked, and if it continues in the direction it is currently heading, it will systematically dismantle the processes used for the individual to create the very things which make us tick: Music, art, creativity and expression. Eventually, you could be in a world where higher powers have complete control (one could argue that there is some control right now as it is) over how you dance, what is considered art and what is considered the correct message to listen to. (Why do so many people covet and protect the ideas of "get money", "get hoes", and "get drunk"?)
When you inhibit the ability for musicians other than your own to create new works of music, and you have the power and the resources to bend your own rules (own countless samples and beats, and steal from others) to create anything you want, you establish a monopoly not just on tangible items such as music, movies, literature and characters, but cultural progression as well.
One of the first videos I published onto YouTube was an instructional video on how to mix two songs together. I didn't even play the two songs in their entirety. Each song I maybe played 1:00-1:30 seconds of each, most of the time the songs being mixed together (theoretically creating a new song). My voice was dubbed over the entire time, and the playback of the actual music wasn't really the best. Within a week it was ripped down off YouTube. To make matters worse, the record company that claimed copyright infringement, I could not find any evidence that they owned the songs in question after eight hours of scouring the Internet. I never went back to YouTube, it just left a bad taste in my mouth.
YouTube is such a great example because it has already shown us in such a short period of time how far the record companies will go to abuse their power. It has served as a "legal sandbox" if you will. They aren't just targeting the individual posting up the latest release, with a caption saying "Click here to download the 320 mp3!", they are stretching the truth in order to silence every individual garnering up the courage post something. The YouTube community has become a platform where artists fear expressing themselves, as they do not know what exactly will happen.
The copyright e
Google needs to make clear guidelines for yanking items protected by copyright. I suggest a three strikes and you're out rule. When a copyright owner, say Universal in this example, sends in a request to have content pulled, they must agree to certain terms. The key term being that if they are caught abusing the system three times or more, then they automatically forfeit the right to utilize the system again. Meaning, you try and abuse our system, and you've just given your entire library of copyrights away to the YouTube community. Everyday users of software can be snagged into bullshit terms because of a click contract, why not do it to a company?
As it stands, there's every incentive for these companies to abuse the system. Threatening people with lawyers is the new form of extortion, and it's legal.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
If they are not the copy right holder, the law suit should be enough to lose your whole company over.
Literally billions That is the only thing that would protect us.
Put that provision in the law.
I agree that eMule Kad Network has proven the concept of DHT search. But how would comments, recommendations (people who like this video will like those videos as well), etc. work in DHT, without letting someone spam the crap out of the network like in the Gnutella days? And again, how would a client get onto end users' computers? YouTube took off because everyone already had web browsers that could play FLV, and those that couldn't (iPhone) could play HTML5 video. I don't especially understand what you mean by "more of the same".
Youtube is not a "public forum" as some people seem to think. Do I think it's bad policy for Google to handle the site in this matter, caving to corporate interests so easily with no defense of fair use? Absolutely. But Google doesn't "owe" you a forum for public expression, and has every right to manage their site as they see fit. Your videos may bring the traffic, but they own the servers and pay the bills, and therefore get to make the rules. Just because you shop at the local grocery store doesn't give you the right to drop a soapbox down in the produce department and make a speech.
So, say it with me now: It is not good to rely on Youtube as your sole means of publishing video on the internet! Granted, these guys were apparently smart in that regard, and had other venues for publishing their work. Many (possibly most) of Youtube's users are not smart in this regard. I would suspect that the majority of Youtube's users post their video on Youtube exclusively. Which means the longevity of your video relies exclusively on the whim of Google. This is a Bad Thing. I don't care if their slogan is "Don't Be Evil", anyone can have a slogan and not live up to it. If you vest everything in a single entity, that's a single point of failure. I would hope that on slashdot of all places, we'd have enough network admins to recognize the flaw in that thinking.
you can post a link if G+/twitter etc.
If it becomes common practice to build such a search function on top of G+/twitter etc., can't such posts be yanked from G+/twitter etc. at the request of a copyright owner who doesn't want news reports about parodies of its work to be seen?
at some point computers did not have web browsers, and later web browsers did not have flash.
But by the time home Internet connections' bandwidth became sufficient for video, the vast majority did have Flash.
In general I find it kind of stupid how avidly YouTube is removing music videos per request. Or actually, how music companies demand them to be removed. I mean, it's not like you could buy MVs legally from anywhere. Maybe they're shown on TV for a couple of weeks, but it's nice if they can still bring enjoyment even after that period.