NASA's Own Video of Curiosity Landing Crashes Into a DMCA Takedown

derekmead writes "NASA's livestream coverage of the Curiosity rover's landing on Mars was practically as flawless as the landing itself. But NASA couldn't prepare for everything. An hour or so after Curiosity's 1.31 a.m. EST landing in Gale Crater,the space agency's main YouTube channel had posted a 13-minute excerpt of the stream. Ten minutes later, the video was gone, replaced with the message: 'This video contains content from Scripps Local News, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. Sorry about that.' That is to say, a NASA-made video posted on NASA's official YouTube channel, documenting the landing of a $2.5 billion Mars rover mission paid for with public taxpayer money, was blocked by YouTube because of a copyright claim by a private news service."

Comments

Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[TXISDude]

This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true. Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay, and NASA being a government agency will not pursue it. This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues - and timely, not is days or weeks, but with the same SLA as the automated system. Right now, it is almost like the recording industry is calling the shots and everyone is guilty unless they prove they are not infringing. In the US, shouldn't the system be the other way around?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[MickyTheIdiot]

The problem is that YouTube is trying to comply with a flawed law. The law is flawed enough that real compliance is impossible, but they are trying to put in enough CYA anyway. When you have a law that is as flawed as the DMCA you are going to have problems. ...and those problems will generally be a mistake in favor of the corporation's who purchased the law. As Jim Neighbors says, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Eponymous Hero]

are you going to pay this human enough money to be educated, or can we expect the same shit to happen when a human doesn't realize that NASA's property is being claimed by some corporation? how long do you think before Average Joe screws up worse than the automated system leaving you with nothing else to blame? the real problem is with the way we treat digital property. stop trying to cut off hydra heads and go for the heart.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the fault of YouTube LLC's incompetent engineers. The site is a copyright infringement fest but for some reason it's always innocent bystanders who get hit by their stupid tagging algorithm.

To make things worse they have started asking people to use their Real Name (tm), which has resulted in a bunch of users canceling their G+ account.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[girlintraining]

This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true.

... as required by law.

Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay...

You must be referring to That Company Which Must Not Be Named, run by the Dark Lord [censored], and [pronoun] legions of [redacted] lawyers! Of course, it's so obvious! /snark His name is Cary Sherman, and he doesn't speak for the industry; He speaks for a very small portion of it which profits a great deal from the rest of it being forced into using its monopoly. Subtle difference.

This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues -

There is a human loop to fix these issues, but it's not in your ISP's office but your legislator's. And, as I understand it, they're paid a great deal of money to not care about you, as a not-a-corporation person, as opposed to a person person.

and timely, not is days or weeks, but with the same SLA as the automated system.

You want people who are capable of making decisions in nanoseconds? Look, I'm all for overclocking the human brain, but to date nobody has been able to figure out how to get into the BIOS, which means either it's not possible or (more horrifyingly) the secret of life, universe, and everything, was built by Compaq.

Right now, it is almost like the recording industry is calling the shots and everyone is guilty unless they prove they are not infringing.

They paid a lot of money to be able to due that, and you didn't. It's my understanding that the general public is okay with this, since they haven't stormed the castle and killed the royalty.

In the US, shouldn't the system be the other way around?

Why just here? Are we somehow more deserving of a harmonious and fair judiciary and incorruptable politicians and a transparent political process than other countries? I'm pretty sure those are universally good values that every citizen, in every country, wished they had.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can pay him alot. The trick is the funding, and the funding solution would actually solve the problem. Punative damages for false positives. An automatic system can't analyze fair use. It's simply looking for snipets. If we penalized the big content distributors for these automated shotgun takedown notices we could actually put the ownus back on the rights holder to enforce their rights and only their rights and not incentivize them to be nothing more than a content bully taking down content that even they don't own.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[autocannon]

It's my understanding that the general public is okay with this, since they haven't stormed the castle and killed the royalty.

So you're advocating that the only way for the laws to better reflect the "people" as opposed to corporations is for a civil uprising resulting in murder of the "ruling" class?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Lumpy]

There is an answer. Any false claim like this results in a $100,00 automatic fine that has 80% paid to the person who's video was taken down and 20% to youtube.

PUNISH people for DMCA take downs if they are false. Negative reinforcment works better than any other.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[TheCycoONE]

Hmm...

Youtube Founded: February 14th 2005.
DMCA effective: October 28th 1998.

I think there may be a problem with your argument.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[xs650]

You need to start someplace.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[girlintraining]

So you're advocating that the only way for the laws to better reflect the "people" as opposed to corporations is for a civil uprising resulting in murder of the "ruling" class?

When you make peaceful protest impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable. There is a massive power imbalance, and the police overwhelmingly support corporations. Protesters are routinely disappeared in this country, or held on phoney charges, etc. When US Bank had protesters out front, they literally hooked up the hoses and power sprayed away the sin for weeks at a go... in a public square... all to keep the protesters from having a place to congregate near their headquarters. The "routine cleaning" that went on for weeks stopped at the next city hall meeting, when they passed a resolution in secret forbidding protest in the public meeting area, paid for by US tax dollars, as in on public property. The next morning, the protesters showed up and were promptly shoved into a dozen police SWAT vans and taken away, held for weeks without charge. The entire affair was later revealed to have been supported by the Department of Homeland Security, who labeled the protesters potential domestic terrorists and persons of interest.

When you have this kind of overbearing police response at the request of a corporation, with full cooperation from all levels of government, what option do you realistically think the people have for peaceful recourse? The Constitution provided that "the right of the people to peacefully assemble shall not be infringed," not just because it's necessary to the efficient running of a democratic state, but because as long as people feel their concerns are being heard (even if nothing is done), they're very unlikely to become violent. People become violent when they're isolated.

Having places for public protest is essential to the national security of this country. Without it, people's anger and emotion builds until it finds a violent release. We're nearing the high-water mark of violence; Our society goes through cycles of violence on a 50 year mark. In 4 years, we hit that high water mark again. If we don't give activists the space they need to non-violently protest, then (statistically) there's a very high probability that we'll experience high levels of politically-motivated violence by individuals acting alone or in small groups. In short, our anti-terrorism initatives are leading to a perfect storm of conditions to create terrorism.

I don't want violence; I've seen more than enough to last me many lifetimes. But not everyone shares that view; Some people think a certain level of violence is acceptable and many of them work for the government. They're going to get a lot of people hurt and killed. There's a simple, proven method of avoiding this: Public meetings. That's something our police are dead-set on preventing.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[russotto]

Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.

No, it's worse than that. After you say "bullshit", the claimaint can say "not bullshit" -- then the provider has to (in order to retain safe harbor) take it down again until a court says otherwise. Basically an automatic injunction.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[shipofgold]

The flaw in the DMCA is that costs for filing a counter notice are not "easily" refundable from the entity filing a faulty takedown notice.

Make the media companies filing faulty takedown notices pay the attorney/other costs of the rightful owners for the restoring content the media companies incorrectly took down and we will see a lot less of this.

Perhaps the law should state that each takedown notice, and each counter claim requires an escrow amount that will go to the rightful owner after settling ownership. Loser pays the others' costs....

If you are sure you are the owner then nothing to worry about.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar thought to yours.

Thanks for saving me the "legwork".

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[pipatron]

Do you mean to say that the private corporation that owns Youtube can not freely remove content they don't see fit? How long must they keep the video on their website after having restored someone's files? Forever?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

takedown reversals should cost big bucks in fines.

that's another way to pay for Curiosity.

jr

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Sloppy]

Youtube MUST restore your video, else they will be guilty of a criminal act (under the DMCA).

That is wrong. You need to read DMCA again more carefully (in terms of what its procedures are describing, not the details of those procedures), and then also think about how youtube works, from human labor perspective.

DMCA or not, there are no conditions under which youtube is required to host someone's video. Counter-notices do not create any new hosting requirements for them that they previously wouldn't have had. Youtube could restore the video after getting a counter-notice from NASA, and then they would be absolved of liability to the TV station. But they certainly aren't required to host the video after a counter-notice.

Youtube, like any other host or ISP, is free to immediately "fold" after receiving a notice, without ever bothering to do all the expensive stuff like forwarding notices and dealing with counter-notices. DMCA just assumes that hosts would do such a thing, in the cause of customer service, since the people's whose content would be getting blocked, would presumably be paying the hosts and the hosts would want to continue to collect that money. But when users aren't customers, the forces that make hosts want to do that, are very weak.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument, regardless of it's correctness, does not support your first sentence.

DMCA is flawed. Better or not than what existed prior to it is irrelevant.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[fiannaFailMan]

Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay, and NASA being a government agency will not pursue it.

Quoth TFA: "NASA, which has a powerful presence on YouTube, likely contacted Google directly for help getting the video reinstated. But most YouTube uploaders don’t have that luxury."

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just punitive fine. What about lost revenue, legal fees, lost publicity because of lost views? let's fine them up to 5K-50K for each such lost view. And 3 strikes for repeat offenders (person. not corp, because a corp can dissolve and be re-formed under a new guise).

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

"You want people who are capable of making decisions in nanoseconds? Look, I'm all for overclocking the human brain, but to date nobody has been able to figure out how to get into the BIOS, which means either it's not possible or (more horrifyingly) the secret of life, universe, and everything, was built by Compaq."

I see someone else had a co-worker re-format a Compaq hard drive and lose the ability to get into the BIOS. Yeah, a firewall that no one could remember the password to.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me until the 50 year violence cycle thing. That violence ebbs and flows on a regular cycle is complete nonsense. Society is not some astrological phenomena.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Police officers overwhelmingly lobby AGAINST corporate interests through their unions. P.S. - you're a nutcase.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[genkernel]

Excellent post. (Posting to keep this in my slashdot history, I could save the link somewhere, but meh)

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[autocannon]

I don't dispute that peaceful protest is merely the first step on the road to violent uprising when the populace is not satisfied. In fact, I'm surprised more crazy individuals have not lashed out violently at the uber rich. What I do not see is the oppression reaching such extreme levels that a large percentage of the population is willing to risk theirs and their family's lives in an effort to right what they feel is so grievously wronged.

That said, to infer that the public is satisfied with laws and procedures in place with something merely because there has been no violent uprising where the poor American internet users have risen up to kill the Board of Directors at Paramount Pictures and fire-bombed their properties is rather silly. It detracts from the rest of your post.

I do however, agree that the general population is mostly ok with the DMCA stuff as is. It doesn't directly cost them money or time. Until it does, these types of laws will remain to be controlled by the parties that have the most interest and money.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[jamstar7]

Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.

Which is nothing more than the provisions the *AA wrote into it to cover their own asses and protect themselves if something misfired. The 'Safe Harbor' portion was designed to not knock out another corporation on the theory that the 'rights holder' may wanna do business with them someday, so absolve them of everything if they play ball, and once they do, you know you can trust them to deal 'fairly' with you in the future at the expense of their own customerrs.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[jamstar7]

It's my understanding that the general public is okay with this, since they haven't stormed the castle and killed the royalty.

So you're advocating that the only way for the laws to better reflect the "people" as opposed to corporations is for a civil uprising resulting in murder of the "ruling" class?

You need to start someplace.

Why not start with the lawyers? And their computers too?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Are you sure about that? I'm positive that the prevailing protesters intentionally set up their protests as to break the law and draw the attention of police. After all, what kind of story is "peaceful protest held, dissent expressed"? A much better story is "protesters arrested, pigs held responsible" when the protesters intentionally violate the law in order to generate a news story. After years of such stories, told by sympathetic journalists in a slanted and biased fashion, viewpoints such as yours can become common. Think about it: why did OWS intentionally set up their protests in public parks? It certainly wasn't out of any sort of commonality with the contemptible ordinary Americans from flyover territory. It was so that at some point, the police would be forced to come in and clean up all the feces, purely on public health grounds. Seriously, fuck Americans who want to walk their dogs in the park, or have their kids play? We've got something More Important[tm] to do.

There's a simple, proven method of avoiding this: Public meetings. That's something our police are dead-set on preventing.

Again: what country do you live in? Every major American city has public meetings, especially regarding the police. Heck, even those cesspools of corruption, Chicago and Detroit, have such public meetings. If you bother to attend you'll find a lot of people there much like yourself. You could even coordinate with them to attend distant public meetings and disrupt them. Just make sure to bring a journalist who shares your political views (and what journalist doesn't?) and you'll get a pre-made story of "police bad" just like in your hometown newspaper.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

No, this is what happens when the penalty for fraudulent misuse (even accidental)) is next to nothinsg.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[ffflala]

. Protesters are routinely disappeared in this country . . . .the protesters showed up and were promptly shoved into a dozen police SWAT vans and taken away, held for weeks without charge. The entire affair was later revealed to have been supported by the Department of Homeland Security, who labeled the protesters potential domestic terrorists and persons of interest.

Those two claims are astounding charges. They are incredibly serious claims, so serious that my initial suspicion is that you're exaggerating and/or making it up, OR that you got your information from someone else who was.

But hey, maybe you're not. Maybe it's true. Can you point to any reliable accounts for either of these two claims? Again, those two claims are (1) that protesters in the US are "routinely disappeared", or (2) that protesters in the US have been held for weeks without being charged for any crime.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Vapula]

Given that most false claims are from companies with big pockets, I'd say that a false claim (with is a felony, let's remind about it) should result in an automatic fine of 50,000.00$ (paid to state or federal) plus automatic damages of 10,000.00$ to both the ISP and the person who posted the video.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Bryansix]

I'm fairly certain those protestors at US Bank were moved because they were blocking the entrance. In fact I've seen the video of them blocking the entrance and even going inside and being nuisances. Nice try though. Better luck next time.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[girlintraining]

Those two claims are astounding charges. They are incredibly serious claims, so serious that my initial suspicion is that you're exaggerating and/or making it up, OR that you got your information from someone else who was.

My information is from someone who was a direct participant in the aforementioned action. I was provided camera footage, as well as web casts of the event and other "boots on the ground" media, as well as the dates, times, arresting agency, and number arrested. I was asked to investigate as an independent agent by two people who were regular participants in the protests, having been referred to me through a mutual friend.

The arresting agency maintained that a couple people who I have footage of being at the event and being led away in cuffs, were never arrested. They have no paperwork, no indication that they were ever in contact with the police that night. Those people haven't been seen or heard from since. They simply aren't on the grid anymore.

I provided my findings to those two people, who a few months later told me they couldn't get any traction on my findings with local press. I haven't been in touch with them since. I also found out after the fact that I wasn't the first, and probably won't be the last, to get this result. Most of the time, there is no hard identity confirmation and solid evidence of their arrest; Especially at smaller gatherings, there isn't anything but another person's word that the other was present. Cameras are often confinscated and destroyed (or erased). Only in larger crowds to police shy away from this tactic of confinscation.

Given the evidence, it's highly probable that US citizens have been arrested and then removed from society, temporarily or permanently, via an unknown process that eliminates any publicly-inspectable documentation of the person's contact with the government. Numerous published stories have confirmed this happens, though specifics are never given. It is often justified as being 'terrorism-related', and a cursory search of the web will point out Department of Homeland Security involvement in the Occupy protests, which considers them a domestic terror organization, and thus subject to the kind of rules and extrajudicial process mentioned earlier.

As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time. I won't even bother rebutting that -- do your own homework. You can start with arrests at the national caucus' of either party in the last 20 years, if you need a hint.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Scripts has at least admitted they MADE A MISTAKE on this.
Just got this email from back from Scripts:

Subject: RE: VERY DISAPPOINTED w Scripts take down of NASA video
To: "blanked"
From: Scripps Corporate Communications corpcomm@scripps.com
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:16:11 +0000

"We apologize for the temporary inconvenience experienced when trying to upload and view a NASA clip early Monday morning. We made a mistake. We reacted as quickly as possible to make the video viewable again, and we've adjusted our workflow processes to remedy the situation in the future."

The E.W. Scripps Company

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[BlueStrat]

takedown reversals should cost big bucks in fines.

that's another way to pay for Curiosity.

One always pays for curiosity.

Ask a cat.

Strat

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're advocating that the only way for the laws to better reflect the "people" as opposed to corporations is for a civil uprising resulting in murder of the "ruling" class?

When you make peaceful protest impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.

But peaceful protest is possible here. Make a script that issues takedown notices for each and every video on youtube. All of it. Claim copyright for the lot.Or at least, the most popular 5000 videos. When youtube has NO content left, perhaps they rethink how easily they accept claims.

Oh, if someone protest that they have copyright, just go ahead and agree. "Just joking..."

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

"there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues ... with the same SLA as the automated system"

You do realize that no human has tens-of-ms decision / reaction time right?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

My information is from someone who was a direct participant in the aforementioned action. I was provided camera footage, as well as web casts of the event and other "boots on the ground" media, as well as the dates, times, arresting agency, and number arrested.

The arresting agency maintained that a couple people who I have footage of being at the event and being led away in cuffs, were never arrested. They have no paperwork, no indication that they were ever in contact with the police that night. Those people haven't been seen or heard from since. They simply aren't on the grid anymore.

Given the evidence, it's highly probable that US citizens have been arrested and then removed from society, temporarily or permanently, via an unknown process that eliminates any publicly-inspectable documentation of the person's contact with the government. Numerous published stories have confirmed this happens, though specifics are never given.

You are a person citing no hard references claiming that "someone else" gave you camera footage of people you do not actually know being arrested who then are never heard from again, and that there is no paper trail to back it up. No one other than "strangers on the internet" have heard of these people. These people who have disappeared presumably have families, yet are not listed as missing by any agency, and there are no news stories of any missing people. No families standing around with signs looking for their children, brothers, parents, relatives, or friends. No verification of any kind.

You are either a few fruit loops short of a healthy breakfast, or you need to re-read the dictionary before using the word "evidence" again.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, not matter how great the landing was, NASA needed a HUGE advertisement boost in it's dwindling budget situation.

With all the hoopla and advertisement of the landing, in Apollo 13 style, the plain facts are this is the 3rd Mars landing (duh, if it failed, it was made too complex and their fault) and NASA's shrinking budget for 2+ billion dollar projects.

This copyright take down was a 50/50 I say.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

This would essentially mean you couldn't have an automated system, which is what everyone wants. It would have to be knowingly false too, because intent is key in many areas of the law.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[lahvak]

I think there should be some sort of credibility built into the system. For example, if more than 20% of your take-down notices are false, you loose credibility, and switch over to a regime where you actually have to prove the ownership befor the material will be taken down.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[nehumanuscrede]

If you want another example of how peaceful protests are pointless, try to organize one any where near where the ( insert elected official here ) will be speaking. You'll find yourself herded into a " Free Speech Zone " several blocks away where you are free to protest to your little hearts desire. Ignoring the zone and organizing a protest closer to your intended audience will see you arrested and carted off somewhere.

So yeah, while you get to protest, no one will even hear or see you doing it. Making the entire thing pointless to begin with.

In addition, it is not unheard of for the police to plant LE's in plain clothes within the protesting crowds to give the Riot Geared folks a reason to step in. In fact, the sooner they start the silliness, the sooner they get to clear the protesters out. Otherwise, they might be stuck there all day long waiting for something to happen.

With the only exception in recent memory being the huge backlash over SOPA, I can't think of any peaceful protests in this country that have made a difference about anything for quite a long time. When the peaceful versions of protest are finally regarded as a pointless exercise that will only serve to get you arrested, folks will start resorting to the non-peaceful variants. In this, I fully agree with girlintraining.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[yurtinus]

I think you need to add a few layers to your tinfoil hat...

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[yurtinus]

The point isn't to make somebody afraid to post a claim to protect their property - the point is to get rid of the automatic claiming systems and cut back the false positives.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, fuck Americans who want to walk their dogs in the park, or have their kids play? We've got something More Important[tm] to do.

Hahahahaha! That's ironic. Yes, the American public, distracted by bread and circuses, can't walk their dog in a park! Damn these people... trying to make change! Just leave my selfish, self-serving ass out of it! I want to walk my dog!

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[cheekyjohnson]

Or just get rid of DMCA take downs.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that there was nothing wrong with hosing down the protesters nor swat rounding them up

The protest is never peaceful if it blockades free entry or exit, it is the precursor to a riot. When law enforcement says move, move.

And, protesters are most certainly persons of interest.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[ffflala]

As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time. I won't even bother rebutting that -- do your own homework. You can start with arrests at the national caucus' of either party in the last 20 years, if you need a hint.

No, this actually doesn't happen "all the time." Rather, it's incredibly rare. It's also the sort of thing that goes up the appeals chain, and since I've already done considerable homework on it already, "do your own homework" isn't helpful.

Still, taking your claims as perhaps possibly credible, I've checked your "hint" about party caucuses, and have come up flat. Every source I've seen so far describing an arrest at either party's national caucus in the last 20 years also describes what the person was charged with. You're claiming that it's common for protestors to be detained for extended periods without being charged for any crime, but I've yet to come across a single mention of someone being held for weeks without being charged.

As for your first claim, please note that there's no way for anyone else to verify your own claims without more detail. So at this point, I, and anyone else who'd want to believe you, would have to simply take your claim at face value. Given the unusual gravity of what you're claiming --if that's true, it is a huge problem-- I'd really, really like to see something that can be independently verified. Do you have any more details at all, particularly anything that can be followed up on by others? Say for example, the names of the people who you claim have disappeared without a trace after seeing video footage of them being led away in cuffs?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA has never been effective, just defective...

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Lumpy]

"This would essentially mean you couldn't have an automated system, which is what everyone wants."

Who is this everybody you are talking about, because "everybody" I talk to does NOT want an automated system.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

"protestors at US Bank were moved because they were blocking the entrance"

Ok, but what about the customers who were prevented from closing their accounts, or even making withdrawals in person? They were told "get the fuck out, go to an ATM". And the cops were there to keep them out. Yes, customers of the bank!

Too damned funny - Captcha is "absurd"?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

takedown reversals should cost big bucks in fines.

that's another way to pay for Curiosity.

One always pays for curiosity.

Ask a cat.

Strat

(wipes Coke off computer screen)

Ok, yeah, but that won't work. The cats that know are all dead.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[coalrestall]

A false copyright claim is equal to copyright infringement, and as they have to sign off on it, there's no denying the willfulness of the infringement. Therefore statutory damages of $150,000 per work plus costs sounds fair to me.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

The arresting agency maintained that a couple people who I have footage of being at the event and being led away in cuffs, were never arrested. They have no paperwork, no indication that they were ever in contact with the police that night. Those people haven't been seen or heard from since. They simply aren't on the grid anymore.

Find out how long those people were associated with the protestors, and especially if they ever showed a proclivity to suggest illegal actions. Can you say 'Agent Provocateur?'

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Dan541]

There also needs to be severe legal consequences for the person who sings off on the take down order. Corporations should all be 100% immune from liability, it's the individual who does the action that must be held accountable.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[BlueStrat]

The cats that know are all dead.

---
"Now! From the people who brought you 'The Cat Whisperer'...

'The Cat Summoner!!'...

With Host Gilbert Gottfried!"
---

You know you'd watch.

Strat

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't Buzz Aldrin just punch that moon-denier again to resolve this? maybe several times? :)

amigaboy

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Goaway]

This is not true.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[SecuritySimian]

We're not at the point where people are shipped off to the nearest gulag in a boxcar for exercising a basic constitutional right. Why bother with the subterfuge when we have a much more efficient mechanism to silence people? The justice system is shockingly effective at destroying lives and careers-- just being accused is enough to disqualify you from many opportunities.

More than likely, the people you saw being carted off in restraints and disappearing from the grid are COINTELPRO-esque operators. Not saying that the FBI is involved, but it's pretty easy for local law enforcement and corporate entities to insert their own personnel into otherwise peaceful protests to attempt to turn the crowd into something worthy of a police response. We saw plenty of it as the Occupy movements wore on.

These external actors are the easiest to martyr to deliver the threat of adjudication to the rank and file protestor. Consider it really, really good theater.

-SS

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[StormReaver]

There is an answer.

First the requisite: IANAL.

With that out of the way, the SCO trial taught us that there is an answer already present in copyright law: Slander of Title.

If you think there are no penalties for falsely claiming ownership of a copyrighted work, try systematically going through YouTube and filing DMCA takedown notices against movie and music studio content, and see how fast you end up on the receiving end of a copyright lawsuit.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[cpu6502]

The DMCA law is not flawed. It is better than what we had before when an ISP could just yank your video & you had no way to get it restored. You just got screwed. ----- At least under DMCA you have a legally-protected right over your videos. The ISP must restore your video, else they lose their immunity and can be sued in a court of law.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Brenda Lee Ayala]

Is only fun and games untill litigation begins. If any content is illegal just remove it! saves all parties involved the stupidity factor. powerful companies should do what is correct at all times and if something is illegal just remove it show integrity . "Do good and dont look to who" dont just protect the elite. Protect us all. And dmca issues due to id theft are even more delicate,the identity of the victim or whether is a huge company or just a student! Honor the law! Dmca isnt understood by mainstream ppl like us until our personal portrait appears on an offending site,and you need to reach out for help and the dmca takedown drama

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[CHIT2ME]

I heard this video was on youtube, but, when I went to watch it I couldn't! This caused me great distress. At one point I even contemplated suicide! Are there any lawyers out there on /. willing to help me sue Scripps Local News for $1 billion in damages? I think that is more than fair! These scumbags will only stop their abuse if they have to pay monetary damages. I'm sure there are plenty of other "distressed" would be viewers out there who could do the same. Maybe we could file a class action suit in excess of $5 billion!!!!

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonimous please take down SLN!

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[BeanThere]

Calm down. The article itself says "Within hours, the problem was fixed". A stupid mistake, corrected quickly. Could you calm down for just long enough to explain what all your raging is about, exactly?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[lsatenstein]

This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true. Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay, and NASA being a government agency will not pursue it. This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues - and timely, not is days or weeks, but with the same SLA as the automated system. Right now, it is almost like the recording industry is calling the shots and everyone is guilty unless they prove they are not infringing. In the US, shouldn't the system be the other way around?

So, some organization has copyrighted NASA's one video. ONLY IN AMERICA:

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[betterprimate]

* Seattle/N30 * Washington A16 * Washington D.C. 2002 * Miami FTAA 2003 * ... All have cases of unlawful detainment.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[betterprimate]

First, apologies for not consolidating my two posts. This is a recent example: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/22/attorney_nato_3_activists_detained_on

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[ffflala]

Thanks for following up. On a personal note, I was at the Seattle/WTO riots; I was downtown when they first cleared the streets. Before and since I have seen a fair amount of police phalanxes in riot gear.

The point I'm continuing to make here, and which your democracy now link actually supports, is in rebuttal to your claim:

As far as being held for weeks without being charged of any crime... It happens all the time.

Rather, what actually happens "all the time" is that a person is arrested, and then either charged or released. Even the title itself makes this clear --"Attorney: "NATO 3" Activists Detained on Terror Charges in Chicago Are Victims of Police Entrapment." The attorney's claims describe arrestees being either charged or released. As for the two "vanished" people... well listen to arrestees' attorney Gelsomino herself. Like someone else's earlier response to you speculated:

And there is where they eventually arrested the nine people. They arrested two additional people down the street. Six of those people have since been released without charges. As you know, the NATO Three are facing very serious terrorism threatsâ"or terrorism charges. And the other two are who we now believe to be police informants . . . .But through our own investigation, we have been able to uncover evidence of these two informants.

And your naming a handful of protests certainly doesn't make your point. If protesters being arrested and held for weeks without charges happens "all the time", it should be easy to come up with at least one solid example. You have yet to. The two recent examples of held-without-charges that I'm aware of are in the context of military arrests, not protests: Bradley Manning and Jose Padilla. And remember, Padilla's case was so unusual that it went up to SCOTUS.

My larger point is this: I probably agree with many of your concerns about the erosion of rights for peaceful protest. But making extreme claims that are unfounded, unsupported, and unlikely only undermines your effectiveness. Spouting disinformation erodes your credibility, which in turns makes it that much easier for people to dismiss your valid concerns. Have a problem with increased use of anti-terror laws? Great, so do I. Claim that the state is disappearing people and arbitrarily holding people for weeks without charges? Well that's where you lost me. Misinformation --intentional or otherwise-- does not help.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[betterprimate]

Firstly, I wasn't the original OP. I, too, was hoping she would elaborate.

I was giving support to her statement of unlawful detainment. If she knows someone who went off-grid or has insight to such occurrences, I'm all ears too.

You made great points. You were in the right in asking for a response. She, the OP, however, made several claims that can't be easily ignored.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[ffflala]

Ah whoops, my bad.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[doccus]

You had a lot of replies on your comment, which is really stupid, as you said it all just right, and anything else is window dressing.. I only wish that the people who *should* read this, did...

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Curiosity Mars descending in high resolution Video

http://huntall.com/curiosity-mars-descending-in-high-resolution-video

shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[swschrad]

sauve for the goose is sauve for the gander.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

This. There needs to start being a penalty for false accusations, or they might as well accuse everyone at all times, because hey, what's there to lose?

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes. A quote from the famous "Opera Sauvage"

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Sauce, shurely?

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods, delete parent comment. He has a long history of disagreeing with slashdot groupthink and sucks at everything.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[uvajed_ekil]

Hmm, if I had a few more connections, things would be about to get very inconvenient at Scripps. Wouldn't it be a shame if the FBI raided them and shut them down completely for a few days in order to gather evidence? And you wouldn't want to be their tax attorney when the IRS comes knocking next season. When are we going to treat fraudulent takedown notices as the criminal activity they are?

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[azalin]

Well there already is. Nasa will probably not pursue this, but they could very well sue for damages. On the other hand they really could use the funding

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[budgenator]

Actually I was thinking along the same lines, IANAL but it occurred to me that Copyright law gives entities the right to control the copying of a work, a false take-down notice infringes on the copyright holder's right to control the distribution of a work, and since NASA is a US government agency it does not hold the copyright but passes it to the public domain, or to "We The People". Perhaps we should fine a good shyster and have him file a class action against scripts for infringing on the copyright of "We The People", a quarter of a million dollars times 300 million people, should get their attention.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[azalin]

And thereby raking in lots of money for them through advertisement or at least page views. Being slashdotted isn't that bad anymore, if you aren't some small company with limited data. I would rather spread the news: "Local newspaper claims ownership of mars landing" sounds like a nice headline for other newspapers

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Nemyst]

Visit their site with NoScript and AdBlock then.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[cpu6502]

>>> http://www.scripps.com/ nobody will see this though because i have such shitty karma. i suck at everything.

(wipes away tears). "Anakin..... you're breaking my heart."
Here's your pity fuck. I mean + 1 insightful.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[shentino]

Because the lobbyists that shoved this crap through congress knew damn well that they wanted to abuse it, so they deliberately left themselves a loophole.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say shorting their stock NYSE:SSP would be more effective

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[azalin]

wget piped to dev/null is your friend, even though there are better ways for "intensive viewing" this one comes with almost every linux distro and works on windows to...

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[X0563511]

Can the government actually sue for damages like that? That seems the kind of precedent to be wary of.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh if only that was possible. It would be great.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there are no penalties, enough of us should start claiming copyright on these offenders work on the internet too.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Twinbee]

Congrats on your first +5!

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Megane]

Just spread the word that they've made a large donation to the Romney campaign, and the IRS will come calling soon enough.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Dan East]

Their site is down. Is this purely from a slashdot effect? Wonder if someone from Anonymous picked up on this? It seems their site is more of a corporate type site than an end-user site, so this probably doesn't effect them much one way or another.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Khyber]

Yep, they can, and they have! Start at Title 17 USC, Section 101.

Or just go read here - http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#311

What must be seen is whether the government would have any copyright over the creation of this NASA video. Since NASA is a Federal level agency, it's very possible that it does.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should fine a good shyster

I'm all for fining shysters.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Attila Dimedici]

Perhaps we should fine a good shyster

Well, I suppose we could start with fines and see if they work.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Scarletdown]

Yep, they can, and they have! Start at Title 17 USC, Section 101.

Or just go read here - http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#311

What must be seen is whether the government would have any copyright over the creation of this NASA video. Since NASA is a Federal level agency, it's very possible that it does.

Isn't any media put out by any U.S. government entity, aka done on the taxpayers' dime, public domain, provided it is not classified or otherwise sensitive information?

I do recall seeing in the above article, that the footage is in fact public domain due to being taxpayer funded.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Charles Carreon is quite the Internet lawyer.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Khyber]

It was still produced with the work of a Federal Agency (and let me tell you, half of that tech MOST CERTAINLY is not in the public domain, either, despite being funded with taxpayer money.)

We may have the rights to it, but only the government will likely be able to sue if this takendown were malicious in nature, as it affected all of us. The government would sue on our behalf in a full class-action, and the case would be titled "The People of the United States of America vs. Scripps."

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

There IS a penalty for false accusations. You're committing perjury if you claim DMCA violation and no violation exists.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Kirth]

There is, in theory. Because falsely stating you own the copyright where you don't is just plain _fraud_. The problem is, the party really having the copyright (NASA in that case) needs to initiate a lawsuit against the fraudster.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

When laws apply to the rich, with the end result being to benefit the poor.

Good luck with that one.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours

[cbiltcliffe]

No you're not. Reread the section.

You're committing perjury if you claim to represent a rights owner whose rights are "allegedly" infringed. If no violation exists, it's not perjury. Even if the rights owner doesn't actually own the rights to the work in question, it's still not perjury.

There is a $500 fine for this

[scorp1us]

There is a provision that for fraudulent DMCA take-down that there is a penalty of $500. We should increase this to $50,000 immediately to prevent future abuses.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[BMOC]

I'd really hate to be Youtube in such a situation. They'd essentially be damned either way.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[mr_lizard13]

$500 for private individuals. 10% of global turnover for incorporated companies. Seems fair.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be better for the claims simply to be made on penalty of perjury, so people who make abusive claims can be prosecuted. Counter-claims must already be made with such a statement.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[klingens]

This is especially warranted since this is not the first time these Scripps people did this: http://www.fidosysop.org/4460/04/scripps-local-news-removing-nasa-videos-from-youtube/
Last April, Scripps did the same thing with the video of space shuttle Discovery's last voyage to the Smithsonian.
One time is an accident, 2 times is malice and should be acted upon

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[TheGratefulNet]

"smithers, fetch my change purse."

"all I have with me today is a $100k bill. can you make change?"

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Dan667]

or they should have to prove it is theirs before it is taken down. Innocent until proven guilty is the world we should want to live in.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, it is complete and utter bullshit that the penalty for such a thing is so terribly low.

Even $20k would be better. $500 is even cheap for someone in work! (given they aren't in financial ruin already thanks to the banking system wrecking EVERYTHING)

Such a shame nothing will happen here. Not even black helicopters and sky ninjas from the government or anything.
Just a "woops we can't be responsible for youtubes system, we undone it, thank you come again"
NASA should ban them from showing any NASA content for 10 years, see how they like that.
Oh wait, nobody will care because the world is so thick and only care about reality TV or what celebrity died this year. I hate the world sometimes.
I guess we can hope NASA find aliens in the next 10 years. Take THAT future-Scripps!

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Isca]

No, not really. They would force the accuser to pay the fee. I don't know about 50k, but 5k should do the trick. There should be some cheap outsourced labor somewhere who can add a small amount of intelligence to tell if the video really is what the script thinks it is for the copyright holders. And if some of that fee was returned to the person who had it removed then we'd have incentive to go after it each time.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my understanding that so long as the notice is sent 'in good faith' it's not fraudulent. Meaning, if the news organisation believed it was protecting its property then the claim isn't fraudulent - just an oversight.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Pieroxy]

They basically have two choices:

- Keep shutting down all youtube videos that anyone asks for them to shut down. This is bad as we can see.
- Not shut down on a simple notice and then be found responsible for ALL copyrighted content on their server. This is worse as we can imagine.

The decision is very simple: bad is better than worse.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[s73v3r]

The fine wouldn't be for YouTube. It'd be for the piles of shit that are abusing the copyright system.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[s73v3r]

Why do you assume its a fraudulent take-down?

How the fuck would Scripps Media have a valid copyright claim in the least over something from NASA's livestream?

And no, your example would NOT be justified.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[uvajed_ekil]

If the penalties for infringement are going to continue to be ridiculous, the penalties for blatant, fraudulent abuse should be at least as ridiculous to discourage this sort of thing.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[palindrome]

"No need for change - it'll cover the other 199 bulk accusations you made that were equally unfounded."

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[ArhcAngel]

OR...hire a legal clerk to vet just the video the automated process flags as infringement before it is forwarded to the ISP.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[preaction]

The law, in its magnanimity, does not discriminate. Can't give one fine to one person and another fine to another (corporate) person.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[palindrome]

I can see that.

"Oh, sorry, I thought that was our footage of the Mars landing. We had a crew there too. Simple misunderstanding, as I'm sure you can understand."

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[SvnLyrBrto]

Forget fines. DMCA takedown demands are supposedly filed "under penalty of perjury". Last I heard, perjury is a prosecutable offense. Force all DMCA takedowns to be filed in the name of a specific responsible individual. And start tossing those individuals in prison for these fraudulent takedowns. *Then* I'll be impressed.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[azalin]

A company is not a person. It is subject to a couple of different rules already.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one very important event in human history. Not because of what it represents, but the way it's witnessed by everyone on the planet.

$500 or $50,000 is all it's worth?

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[cpu6502]

Of course you can. It's called punative damages. It's why if I spilled hot coffee on you, I'd have to pay your hospital bills, but if the corporate thing called McDonalds' spills hot coffee, they have to pay your hospital bills + millions in punative damages (so they stop selling 200 degree coffee).

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Pieroxy]

OR...hire a legal clerk to vet just the video the automated process flags as infringement before it is forwarded to the ISP.

But that's not a solution that would be in Google's hands.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Khashishi]

Wow, that legal clerk would be in for some long overtime.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Lumpy]

Ok, 10% of total income. if you made $25,000 last year your file is $2,500.

If you made $125,000,000,000 last year as megacorp2000... your fine is 12,500,000,000

Payable to the person that had their media taken down. Person who pays the fine also pays the Taxes on the fine as well.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[azalin]

It wouldn't hurt them to get a few people to double check take down notices for the largest channels. But I agree that the law is biased toward the accuser and there should be a lot more pain involved for false accusations.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[cpu6502]

>>>I'd really hate to be Youtube in such a situation. They'd essentially be damned either way.

Under the DMCA statute Youtube/websites/ISPs have immunity so long as they follow the takedown & restore process. i.e. Take it down when they receive a request. And restore it when the owner replies, "This does not infringe copyright."

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Bengie]

We should increase this to $50,000 immediately to prevent future abuses.

$50k is a bout much for smaller companies and nothing for large companies.

10% of gross yearly revenue post-tax and post deductions sounds much better to me, and the fine is non-tax-deductible.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Bengie]

Can't give one fine to one person and another fine to another (corporate) person.

I can and it does. Ever see Texas execute the heads of a company because said company caused people to die?

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Immerman]

That's all well and good - but you have to jump through some really interesting hoops to assert "good faith" in claiming infringement on the original source of an independent video that you were given redistribution rights to. The only way I could see there being anything resembling a legitimate assertion is if the infringement claim was issued by an automated system, in which case I would personally claim that good faith should be defined as "a claim that a human could reasonably expect to be declared valid". If some corporation can't be bothered to involve human judgement in its infringement claims, why should the target of those claims be the only one to suffer?

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[tgd]

Why do you assume its a fraudulent take-down?

How the fuck would Scripps Media have a valid copyright claim in the least over something from NASA's livestream?

And no, your example would NOT be justified.

Your opinion of the law, as you may or may not realize, has absolutely no bearing on the law, unless you happen to be a Supreme Court judge.

Slashdot is famous for its knee-jerk reactions. This one happens to be one -- as the article said, the takedown was a result of Google's automated scanning, not some nefarious bad guy lurking at Scripps *and* it'd already been fixed before the article was even posted! And in just as many cases, people get all hot and bothered over something like this and it turns out it was a valid DMCA takedown. In those cases, the fact is that the law is the law. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending its not is just being ignorant. If you don't like the law, change the law. Don't be a moron about it.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

You kow that's not how it ended, right? McDonald's got the damages lowered in the appeal, the woman ended up bancrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Chowderbags]

Funny then that corporations don't get sent to prison when they commit felonies. Maybe the law is applied a bit more equally to some than to others.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[cptdondo]

If each claim had to be accompanied by a $500 bond, to be forfeited in case the clam was false, the abuses would stop. The amount is irrelevant; the work required to post the bond would eliminate robo-claiming. It's illegal to robosign mortgages now; how about making it illegal to robosign all legal claims?

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[91degrees]

Where do you get this from? I've never hear this before?

But even if there is, fraud requires intent to deceive for pecuniary advantage. It also requires that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt intent to do so.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation is legally treated as a person whenever such treatment would benefit the corporation. In all other cases, the distinction between corporation and person remains intact.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Okay, Joe the janitor has filed 7,000 DMCA takedown notices this month ... whoops, 6,999 of them were wrong. Looks like Joe is going to be spending a lot of time in prison. Looks like human resources is going to need to find a new Joe. Unless we can come up with something analogous to prison for a corporation, this won't work.

Although ... what if you started fining/prosecuting the legal staff that prepared those legal declarations? But that would just replace Joe the janitor in my above description with Pamela the paralegal.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[jamstar7]

Not even close. 'Safe Harbor' means 'do what they tell you and you can't be sued for it', not even by the guy whose video got taken down illegally.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[nahdude812]

Maybe there should be a 3 strikes rule for infringement. The third time you infringe someone's rights by posting a bogus takedown request, you lose your right to request any additional takedowns.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[ffflala]

Forget fines. DMCA takedown demands are supposedly filed "under penalty of perjury". Last I heard, perjury is a prosecutable offense.

That's not how the DMCA is written. The language you must be referring to is 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), and after describing other elements of a DMCA takedown notification reads as follows:

"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

I added the italics to make the division clear. The first part of that sentence is not under penalty of perjury. Perjury penalties only apply to the statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the (alleged) owner. This means it would only be perjury if, for example, the person/organization who filed the takedown notice in Scripps's name wasn't authorized by Scripps to do file DMCA takedown notices. Perjury has never applied to whether the notification itself was accurate.

So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Travelsonic]

Stop dancing around the issue, trying to shift the goalposts, and answer the fucking question. This is about scripps trying to claim copyright over a NASA BROADCASTED FEED, NASA BEING A GOVERNMENT agency that doesn't have ccopyright over [most?] of its videos, etc.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

For the takedown demand, the 'under penalty of perjury' applies to the claim that [b]the person filing[/b] the demand [b]is authorized to act for the copyright holder[/b] of the work that allegedly is being infringed.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[twmcneil]

A fine only applies if someone complains, you get caught, are judged and proven guilty after a preponderance of the evidence and you have exhausted all of your appeals. That could be years, decades even.

How about we require every take-down request be accompanied by a $500.00 bond in order to be valid. Then we might see fewer automated take-down notices.

Leaving the timely refund of said bond in the hands of our efficient and competent government employees would just be be for the giggles.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Bigbutt]

Not that I'm saying this is true, but what if NASA contracted through Scripps or has a standing contract that all media goes through Scripps for publication management? Everyone wants a smaller government so "outsourcing" their video work doesn't seem far fetched. NASA did outsource their IT function (at least at HQ) so if you did IT type work, you were a contractor and not a public servant.

[John]

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it does. Otherwise the penalty wouldn't be an absolute dollar amount which discriminates against the poor.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[ccguy]

Maybe there should be a 3 strikes rule for infringement. The third time you infringe someone's rights by posting a bogus takedown request, you lose your right to request any additional takedowns.

As well as your internet connection of course.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a terrible idea. It would also make copyright infringement a simple matter of exhausting your victim's budget before the legal process determined that his claims had merit.

Plus, how do you expect a starving artist to scrape together $500 each time some hack news website uses one of his copyrighted photographs? Sure he'll get it back, but in the meantime, he has to eat and put gas in his car.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Cederic]

Scripps is authorised to act for NASA? Because they're the copyright holder of the work that was allegedly being infringed.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have change for a button?

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[matthewv789]

Except... " the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed". Well the owner of the exclusive right is NASA (US Government = we the people), NOT Scripps. So Scripps was indeed guilty of perjury by claiming to be the owner of that right, or someone authorized to act on behalf of NASA. (The "alleged infringement' would speak to whether the use is fair or not; it should not, in my opinion, speak to whether the claimant incorrectly claims to be the owner of someone else's work.)

I do think this is, and should be, a punishable offense and the sooner these companies are punished for each instance of this kind of behavior the better, because they sure are abusing it and are hurting real people, and society, in the process.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[Ciggy]

I can think of two ways of imprisoning a corporation:

1. (1) When in prison a person is unable to continue their normal day-to-day activities; an imprisoned corporation is barred from trading.
2. (2) A corporation is run by its directors/officers who manage it on behalf of the shareholders; it is their decisions that affect the course of the corporation. To imprison the corporation, the managers/officers of the corporation should spend time in prison in lieu of the corporation itself and during their time there be barred from acting on behalf of the corporation.

Unfortunately, option (1) leads to too much fallout with the actual workers of the corporation, thus (2) is a better option. Aiding and abetting a criminal is no excuse for not being fined, so aiding and abetting the corporation to commit criminal acts should see the aiders and abettors duly punished.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[tgd]

Stop dancing around the issue, trying to shift the goalposts, and answer the fucking question.

This is about scripps trying to claim copyright over a NASA BROADCASTED FEED, NASA BEING A GOVERNMENT agency that doesn't have ccopyright over [most?] of its videos, etc.

I'm sorry rational thought is such a struggle for you.

If you don't want to read the article, I can try to summarize it. "Scripps didn't claim a copyright over NASA's video". But Slashdot likes to get whipped up over DMCA articles, factual or otherwise.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this

[deblau]

Takedowns already are filed in the name of a specific individual, usually the attorney for the accuser. All of this information is given to the person whose content was removed, so they can file a counter-notice.

After the counter-notice is filed, the service provider must restore the content between 10-14 business days, no more and no less. Failure to restore the content opens up the service provider to a lawsuit from the person whose content was removed. The only way to prevent the content going back up is if the accuser actually goes to court and requests a restraining order.

I have no idea where the $500 figure came from. The law says that anyone who knowingly and materially misrepresents that the material was infringing is liable for all court costs and attorney fees of the alleged infringer. This can be a lot more than $500.

The law is quite clear on all of these points. To everyone commenting here out of ignorance of the law, go RTFL. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512, especially subsections (c) (f) and (g).

Blame atheists

[gmuslera]

They send ships to heaven while forgetting that here is the legal hell.

And nothing will come of it

[Overzeetop]

...since it's a civil issue and the US Gov't won't bother to pursue it.

It's a shame we can't get together, as taxpayers, and sue on behalf of the gov't.

Re:And nothing will come of it

[Anonymous Coward]

All government actions are described as being on behalf of the citizens (despite the reality of the actions), so all you're doing is trying to create an endless loop of motivation. Sure, it should be as deadly to an AI as a paradox, but the entire law industry is like an army of Wheatleys.

Re:And nothing will come of it

[budgenator]

The release from NASA is public domain, when Scripps claimed exclusive rights they deprived "We the People" of our property without valuable consideration, so have at it.

Re:WORKING AS INTENDED !!

[Baseclass]

No I wouldn't, all my content is published under Creative Commons.

Scrpps Media Company

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Ohio is boring and all but if they want the attention: http://www.scripps.com/heritage/contact-us

what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a taxpayer-funded public-domain NASA video should be flagged "cannot DMCA", unless YouTube somehow doesn't think NASA is credible and/or responsible enough to allow this.

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[Pieroxy]

Seems like a taxpayer-funded public-domain NASA video should be flagged "cannot DMCA", unless YouTube somehow doesn't think NASA is credible and/or responsible enough to allow this.

What makes you think NASA is any more responsible than anyone else?

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[SJHillman]

Then corporations will get the same flag because, hey, they must be credible with all those lawyers and money. Then when a corporation does steal your stuff (which happens disturbingly often), you're SOL.

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[PPH]

So flag it "No Copyright/Do Not DMCA".

It would be better for NASA to just copyright their stuff and then license it for all educational/informational use. That would keep others from grabbing it and taking credit/applying their own copyright somewhere down the road.

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[azalin]

Well, how about a "double check before take-down". Put large channels (yes even corporate ones) on a double check list. Then review the claims by a human (paid by cooperation who don't want to be taken down instantly) and fine the hell out of anybody making false claims.

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[X0563511]

That it's NASA, and not ShitStain99's random upload channel?

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag?

[X0563511]

NASA is government. The government cannot copyright materials (for some good reasons).

awesome publicity for public awareness

[v1]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal thing. This is more of a corporate thing, and when it's the coprs vs the people, it works the other way around, "guilty until proven innocent". (and then "guilty again after you prove your innocence, rinse and repeat")

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures. Heck, I'd like to see them do what the **RA like to do. NASA file a counterclaim and get it back, Scripps file another notice, repeat that a few times and watch Youtube auto-suspend NASA's youtube account for three abuse claims. (doesn't matter if they are reversed, three claims is all it takes) That would generate some AWESOME publicity!

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.

I just cannot see that happening. While it is within the realm of possibility, Occam's razor would suggest otherwise.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

It's be awesome up to the point where someone realized that they were being asshats on purpose and the cooler heads would realize that hyperbolic abuse claims to make a talking point about legislation is fairly trollish and not worth considering.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

It seems more-likely that Scripps contracted with Youtube to automatically have any content removed that has an "audio signature" which matches Scripps own uploaded videos. In other words, no people involved.

I've heard radio host Alex Jones complain about this. Some corporation (CBS Radio if I recall correctly) has contracted a DJ for their national news starting in 2011. However they claim ownership of ALL recordings by that DJ, both present and past. So youtube is automatically removing all videos of said DJ, including interviews on Jones' show from ten years ago. There's no person involved... just a computer doing automatic filtering & automatic takedowns.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that is a wonderful Myopic view you have through those rose colored glasses.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Nemyst]

TFA says that the process isn't exactly as you describe:

According to the DMCA, if a user disputes a claim from a copyright holder, YouTube should make a video available again, at least until the copyright holder files a second claim to take the disputed video offline again. Instead, YouTube requires the alleged violator to submit a signed counter-claim, under penalty of perjury. (There’s no such penalty for those claiming violations to begin with.) YouTube forwards the claim to the supposed copyright owner and waits ten days for a response. “If we do not receive such notification, we may reinstate the material,” says YouTube, emphasis mine.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Hatta]

Nobody is "guilty" here. All that NASA (or anybody else) needs to do is reply to the DMCA takedown request with this response: "This material does not infringe upon anybody's copyright."

The organization who misrepresented their ownership of the file is guilty of perjury. The chances of those criminals being punished are negligible. Is that not a problem?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Urza9814]

And once again you guys blow it all out of proportion. Nobody is "guilty" here. All that NASA (or anybody else) needs to do is reply to the DMCA takedown request with this response: "This material does not infringe upon anybody's copyright."

The video has been removed and replaced with a message that it was removed due to copyright infringement. That sounds like 'guilty' to me. That's like saying that a criminal isn't proven guilty because they still have an appeal left. Sure, the decision could be reversed, but that decision still exists.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Khashishi]

Bwahaha. I can totally see Scripps doing this on purpose, but not for the reason you stated. The only awareness that Scripps is interested in raising is the existence of Scripps Local News, which I never heard of until now.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is full of it, the original claim is very much submitted under penalty of perjury. The fact that the US has extremely lax standards and let's the original lawyers look the other way instead of checking what they churn out is a different issue.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pixelpusher220]

The DMCA's "It has to be taken down right now!" policy

without any ability to stop the takedown prior to its execution is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Charged with a 'criminal act and prosecuted' is better because you can get the damn case thrown out 'with prejudice' and get your expenses paid when the person claiming copyright is 'wrong'.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[whoever57]

Youtube would yank your video and you had no way to get it restored. At least now under the DMCA you have the legally-protected right to get your video put back up.

Nope. You have no right to have your content restored. The law does not compel Youtube to restore anything -- it merely provides Youtube with a safe harbor against being sued if Youtube does restore the content.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[FatAlb3rt]

Cool - how about we play the game, just in different terms? Anyone is allowed to kick you in the nuts. But after said kick, you have the option to say "hey, I don't like being kicked in the nuts, please don't do that again." From that point forward, that person is no longer allowed to kick you again, unless they want a fight on their hands. Sounds fair, right?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[gnasher719]

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.

If the NASA plays hardball, this "Scripps Local News" will be majorly f***ed. Slashdotters are complaining all the time about the DMCA act. However, sending a DMCA notice when you don't own the copyright and when you are not representing the copyright holder is a criminal offense.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[billstewart]

If Youtube were doing takedowns by hand, they would have had the sense not to delete a NASA video during the landing.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the sense that you are reading that as "we might reinstate the material." May in that context means "we are allowed to do so."

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

And, if you get kicked in the nuts three times or more, even if every time you asked not to be kicked again, Google castrates you. Yep, totally fair.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you're claim is true or not, but using as an example a man who believes reptilian shape shifting aliens have taken over all world governments, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that we faked the moon landings? That takes some cojones.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[TheSpoom]

Heck, I'd like to see them do what the **RA like to do. NASA file a counterclaim and get it back, Scripps file another notice, repeat that a few times and watch Youtube auto-suspend NASA's youtube account for three abuse claims. (doesn't matter if they are reversed, three claims is all it takes) That would generate some AWESOME publicity!

That's not the way the DMCA works. After the posting party sends a properly-worded counterclaim, the next step of the party claiming the copyright violation is to file a lawsuit. They can't just file another DMCA claim.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[SniperJoe]

I think Hanlon's / Heinlein's Razor is more apropos to this situation.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[davester666]

Now if this was a DMCA takedown notice, then NASA could possibly get it back in 15 days...but by using a separate, private agreement with Youtube that gives permission for a wide variety of corporations to claim anything as being 'theirs' with no method of recourse for the actual owner to fight it, is Youtube's failure.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[N0Man74]

I've heard similar stories. I remember seeing a story about a couple of guys who made a YouTube video. This Tonight Show decided to replay this video during their ending credits. Apparently an automated system detected the original YouTube video as matching the content from the NBC footage, and was automatically taken down.

It's absurdity...

And that is without even considering that detecting a small segment of the NBC broadcast is considered infringement would be considered infringement (and not fair use), while NBC broadcasting the complete video created by someone else was not.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

Well the article is wrong then. (Not the first time a reporter demonstrated his/her lack of technical understanding.) Here is how it works:

(1) Author/creator submits DMCA Takedown Request
(2)(a) The "victim" realized he was wrong and does nothing so item remains offline.
(2)(b) Or they say the takedown notice is BS and submits a restore request: "This items does not violate copyright. I own it."
(3) The item is then restored. Legally the time is 10 days but many ISPs (including youtube) restore immediately.
(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

...so where do we complain?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool - how about we play the game, just in different terms? Anyone is allowed to kick you in the nuts. But after said kick, you have the option to say "hey, I don't like being kicked in the nuts, please don't do that again." From that point forward, that person is no longer allowed to kick you again, unless they want a fight on their hands. Sounds fair, right?

I believe those are already the rules in meatspace. I mean what's preventing your nuts from being kicked in?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit? For all I care he can believe the moon is made out of cheese. If a man can't otherwise lawfully put out content that he owns (i.e. a radio show) without having to deal with false claims of infringement and red tape, to me that's a problem worth addressing.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

>>>You have no right to have your content restored. The law does not compel Youtube to restore anything --

If they don't restore your video, then they can be named in a criminal lawsuit for violating the DMC Act. And they will be punished. So YES the law does compel youtube to restore your video.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell are you talking about how it was on Youtube 'before' the DMCA was around.

Quoting from a post down below:

Youtube Founded: February 14th 2005.
DMCA effective: October 28th 1998.

You could still submit counterclaims back in the early days of youtube, it was just more of a hassle than it is now.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pclminion]

What the hell are you talking about? The DMCA went into effect in 1998. YouTube was created in 2005. There is no such thing as "what we had before."

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[CanHasDIY]

...so where do we complain?

According to some stuff I just made up, apparently EA is now handling all DMCA takedown complaints.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[platypussrex]

So you are sitting in your kitchen eating some food you just purchased at a store. Suddenly some guys in black suits burst through the window, knock you to the floor, and take the food, leaving behind a message stating that someone else claimed it looked just like the food they bought, so it must have been theirs. And you are claiming it's all OK because you can go down town to an office, fill out a report, and in a couple of weeks they will return your supper to you. Sheesh

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

While your comment is indeed +5 Insightful. It is also off topic since no company filed a complaint, the video was caught by a over zealous automated system.

It was indeed a company that filed the complaint, their name is right there in the message that the video is blocked by.... That they let a over zealous automated system file complaints on their behalf does not absolve them from being responsible.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

Due to CLAIMED copyright infringement. That's no different then when you get arrested by the police for a CLAIMED act of murder. You are still presumed innocent by the jury and the judge when you go to trial.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

the penalty of perjury is for both sides of the claim- you can recover cost and damages in some situations. The rest of that is within the law as intended excep that the ISP has 14 days to get the content back online, the ten days is the cut off on when they need to start restoring it. That is unless the person claiming infringement declares they are seeking a court action o restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service providerâ(TM)s system or network in which case it remains offline.

The statutory recovery of damages and costs requires someone to knowingly make a false or misrepresenting claim. This sort of encourages the automated systems where they can claim ignorance and make it near impossible to show knowingly intent. However, I'm not sure that a common law action for negligence couldn't force them to take a more active role in issuing these notices with a knowing person making them. Certainly a company can be held liable for damages if they fail to properly supervise employees and they harm someone in any way. An automated program or an employee using an automated program should not be an exception to this.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[petermgreen]

(2)(c) while the person filing the infringement notice was in the wrong so was the uploader (e.g. neither of them holds the copyright), the item remains offline
(2)(d) the uploader belives they are in the right but they are too afraid of lawsuits to assert that right, the item remains offline

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

They don't have to take it down right now. That's only the provision that absolves the provider from liability for it being on their network or for taking it down. The provider has the ability to keep it up until the courts say take it down.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[v1]

That's not the way the DMCA works. After the posting party sends a properly-worded counterclaim, the next step of the party claiming the copyright violation is to file a lawsuit. They can't just file another DMCA claim.

I understand that's how it's supposed to work, but quite a few people have found it worked for them as I described. Within days (or sometimes hours) of getting their videos reinstated, they'd get another takedown on the same video from the same source. And when you get your 3rd, youtube will suspend your account. You'd expect they'd ignore repeat takedowns, and you'd expect they'd un-tick the three-strikes counter when a counterclaim was filed, but they don't and they don't. At least sometimes. Maybe it's improved recently.

I just reviewed some more recent information and it looks like that in at least some cases they temp suspend you now and send you a "copyright quiz" to fill out. If you pass, you get your account back. If not, you have to wait a few days to retake the quiz. They weren't specific about three strikes, but some accounts can be suspended immediately without even a second incident if they consider the violation bad enough. They also appear to ban other accounts with the same email address on them, so don't use a shared email account (such as family) or you may become collateral damage from the banhammer.

There doesn't appear to be any clear spelled out hard rules anywhere. They're probably trying to keep their options open. If they put it in writing, then their enforcement/interpretation will be disputed.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Hatta]

That's even worse. That's an end run around the protections provided by the DMCA.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

I think he is talking about reality on how it works, not what the law says.

I had something similar to this happen with Verizon as my ISP. I came home one day to find my internet down. After calling the support, it turned out because I was reported fo violating someone's copyright for downloading copyrighted materials 3 times. Well, it wasn't me who did it and after demanding more information and the verizon tech telling me it was emailed and me explaining that doesn't mean shit when I can't connect to check the email, it was disclosed that all 3 complaints was registered to Verizon within 2 seconds of each other for downloading star trek. Something I didn't do and have no idea how I got accused of it outside of bringing a client computer home the night before and removing the virus and malware contained on it.

I'm betting what he is saying is that the same incorrect claim can be made any number of times incorrectly resulting in account suspension via Google's policy.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[ghostdoc]

While your comment is indeed +5 Insightful. It is also off topic since no company filed a complaint, the video was caught by a over zealous automated system.

It was indeed a company that filed the complaint, their name is right there in the message that the video is blocked by.... That they let a over zealous automated system file complaints on their behalf does not absolve them from being responsible.

Interesting question actually. Not sure that's been tested in law yet.
People doing things as a consequence of their employment are representing a company and the company is responsible.
Officers of a company are vicariously liable for the things that their employees do.
But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it?
IANAL, just a business student (in another country), so if there's anyone out there who does know, I'd be interested...

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[TheSpoom]

Sounds like a good class action against YouTube / Google to me.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[jamstar7]

Due to CLAIMED copyright infringement. That's no different then when you get arrested by the police for a CLAIMED act of murder. You are still presumed innocent by the jury and the judge when you go to trial.

Except the cops won't arrest you for a 'claimed act of murder' unless there were:

1. a real provable murder.
2. evidence that you committed said provable murder sufficient to get a grand jury to hand down an indictment.
3. sufficient evidence that would lead a prosecutor to believe they would win a conviction based on said evidence.

There is no 'Round up the usual suspects!' hue and cry raised every time a body hits the pavement. That's not how the system works here in the US. The automated 'system' in place at Youtube is flakey and generates false positives. This is one. But at the end of the day, I love the fact that a government entity got bit in the ass by it in favor of a corporation. Too bad it was NASA.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[CodeHxr]

... Legally the time is 10 days but many ISPs (including youtube) restore immediately.

Being slightly pedantic here, but Youtube is an ISP??

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Sqr(twg)]

How does this work? A DMCA notice requires somebody to certify under penalty of perjury that he represents the copyright holder. Perjury is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. In a system where scentences are served consecutively, such a script could easily get you sent to prison for the rest of your life.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pixelpusher220]

Incorrect, under the DMCA if they want Safe Harbors, no they have to take it down upon receipt of the DMCA Request.

While they 'could' leave it up, they open themselves up to massive liability if they don't. Hence, they take it down immediately.

DMCA Text

512 (C)
(1) A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, ... for infringement of copyright ... if the service provider-
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[ffflala]

The organization who misrepresented their ownership of the file is guilty of perjury. The chances of those criminals being punished are negligible. Is that not a problem?

It's not perjury, and they're not criminals. Perjury is making a false or misleading statement while under oath, and there is no oath here.

While frustrating and indicative of a systemic problem, their false representation of copyright ownership is not really a crime, either. If anything, it is a civil, non-criminal offense, and should properly be dealt with civil damages --fines or similar punishment-- rather than jail time. Not every legal wrong is a crime.

However I will agree with you that, if they did file a false DMCA takedown notice, and if they do escape any sort of punishment ($$$) for doing so, it is a major problem.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[The_Noid]

The wording of the DMCA is very sneaky here. They only have to make sure they represent the owner of the work that they claim the target work is infringing upon.
So of I make a video of a flower, then my lawyer can send take down requests to any video, even if that video has no flowers in it, as long as my lawyer only claims that he is representing me and thinks the target video infringes my video.
Only if another lawyer, that is not my lawyer, claims he is representing me and thinks that the target video is infringing my video, then the perjury bit comes into action.

Of course IANAL and I might have misunderstood the law because I don't speak legalese.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

>>>The DMCA's "It has to be taken down right now!" policy without any ability to stop the takedown prior to its execution is fundamentally unconstitutional.

It is no more unconstitutional then when the police arrest you immediately for a murder or theft & toss you in jail. It is routine in legal matters for innocent people to have their freedoms *momentarily* abridged. In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You are describing how things are supposed to work. GPP and TFA are describing how things actually work.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Annymouse Cowherd]

Youtube doesn't require an actual takedown notice, just a few clicks in ContentID.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[durrr]

What do I have to do to get automated takedown acess? There's a few million videos I don't like.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The penalty must be near-zero. There are people with YouTube channels who bash Islam. Islamists issue DCMA takedowns flatly lying they own it. The reason is the real ownee's response is to counter-claim, easy enough, but they must submit their legal name and address, which is why the Islamists want it. The penalty for them is much less than the street justice penalty they want to hand out.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. Representing yourself as the lawyer for an involved party when you are not actually the lawyer for the involved party is the criminal offense, according to the DMCA. There is no punishment for abuse of takedowns, even false ones, even ones that are obviously incorrect, even if it is fair use, period. There is no even-handedness applied with DMCA. Under the DMCA, everybody who has to post anything faces a potential lawsuit, and they have to bet that the legal system will recognize their use as fair use or parody. Most people don't have the time or resources to do that, so they just cave and allow their accounts to be suspended or deleted.

The DMCA is a major win for the content industry, because they can spam everybody for anything without any repercussions and can claim ridiculous losses due to piracy and illegal uploads without having proof, and individuals (who typically are the people who upload videos, although that isn't true in this case) don't grasp the details of copyright law or the legal and financial resources to defend themselves. It is a bad law.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

One important difference is the lack of a giant horde of automatic nut-kicking robots patrolling the streets at all times. I'm sure this is a temporary oversight, though.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[grahammm]

(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3

Could the actual copyright owner (NASA in this case) not initiate a prosecution for perjury against the person/organisation who submitted the original takedown notice.? Not only that but claim damages from them as well.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it would, considering NASA is a branch of government, they get to pull the strings and the next thing you know, YouTube reinstate the video and flag NASA's channel with a special 'no copyright strikes permitted' flag, because this is the government they are taking on. YouTube would sweat buckets when the government is breathing down their necks!

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Kev Vance]

It's not perjury, and they're not criminals. Perjury is making a false or misleading statement while under oath, and there is no oath here.

17 U.S.C. (512(c)(3)(A)(vi)):

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

But IANAL. So why isn't this perjury?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[grahammm]

Interesting question actually. Not sure that's been tested in law yet.
People doing things as a consequence of their employment are representing a company and the company is responsible.
Officers of a company are vicariously liable for the things that their employees do.
But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it?
IANAL, just a business student (in another country), so if there's anyone out there who does know, I'd be interested...

One would expect so. Otherwise the banks and other financial institutions would be repudiating stock market trades made by their automated systems but which they later wished had not been made.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

If we do not receive such notification, we may reinstate the material,” says YouTube, emphasis mine.

I wonder if this is should read like this:

If we do not receive such notification, we are allowed to reinstate the material,” says YouTube, emphasis mine.

Or like this:

If we do not receive such notification, we might reinstate the material,” says YouTube, emphasis mine.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

(2)(e) The uploader is now severely punished* for what may have been an honest mistake, where as if the person who submitted the take down notice had done the courteous thing of trying to get in contact with the uploader first, such things may have been avoided.

*Just as an example, in instances where the hosting company has a policy of terminating accounts based on the account holder receiving DMCA notices. *cough*godaddy*cough*

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[ffflala]

Copying from another post of mine ITT:

"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

I added the italics to make the division clear. The first part of that sentence is not under penalty of perjury. Perjury penalties only apply to the statement that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the (alleged) owner. This means it would only be perjury if, for example, the person/organization who filed the takedown notice in Scripps's name wasn't authorized by Scripps to do file DMCA takedown notices. AFAICT, operjury has never applied to whether the notification itself was accurate.

So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[slippyblade]

I can only HOPE that a company is held responsible for the actions of software it uses. Otherwise there is literally nothing to keep a company from simply writing software to perform their dark, evil, and malicious acts and simply saying, "It was the computer, oops!"

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[ffflala]

To make that even more clear: in the context of DMCA takedown notices, it's only perjury if you lie (or are "mistaken") about who you are and who you represent. It's not perjury if you lie or "mistakenly" file an inaccurate takedown notice.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Ed Bugg]

It's not perjury, and they're not criminals. Perjury is making a false or misleading statement while under oath, and there is no oath here.

17 U.S.C. (512(c)(3)(A)(vi)):

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

But IANAL. So why isn't this perjury?

Because the under penalty of perjury statement corresponds to being authorized to act on behalf of the person claiming infringement. Nothing about what they were submitting was true, only that they have the authorization to submit complaints.

So under the DMCA, if I see that you uploaded someplace a Disney video, I can't say "I represent Disney and you need to take it down". Someone authorized by Disney has to submit the claim.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

The message did not say it was a DMCA take down, only that it was blocked on copyright grounds. When the DMCA is invoked, they say so.

This was the result of YouTube's Content ID. Scripps is a media partner with Google. All of their uploads are "protected" by the Content ID system. NASA released the video to the news outlets, Scripps published it on YouTube before NASA did. When NASA did upload it, it was already in the system from the Scripps upload and was automacticlly flagged.

No DMCA claim was filed, it was all automatic. Maybe the Scripps employee the posted it could have tagged the video to prevent this, I don't know.

The problem is a result of Google trying to police copyright, not with a company filing a complaint. If Google relied on complaints instead of trying to be proactive, these types of mistakes wouldn't happen. And yes this has happened with Scripps and NASA before.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Travelsonic]

[citation needed]

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, either, but look closely at the sentence structure there:

The only part of that section that falls under penalty of perjury is, effectively, the part where the lawyers claim to represent someone with an exclusive right (in this case, Scripps). Nevermind that the allegations of infringement are false, and that the exclusive right that their client owns isn't to the material in question. As long as they allege that a right of their client's was infringed, they're in the clear.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution:

Any organization that misrepresents ownership in a takedown request is automatically fined $100,000. No settlements, no loopholes. $100,000. Every time. Half the money goes to the actual owner of the content to compensate them and the other half goes to fund a government agency whose mandate is to study and report to congress on incidences of abuse of the DMCA.

Companies will think twice before automating this stuff.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pixelpusher220]

It is routine in legal matters for innocent people to have their freedoms *momentarily* abridged. In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.

No it's not, for CIVIL offenses. Murder generally requires a 'warrant' for your arrest. Hence it's already been through checks and balances. No such thing exists for DMCA.

That said, nice touch jumping straight to murder for what is a civil offense. How about Jay Walking? Should you have to pay the fine 'immediately' and then ask for your money back 'in a few days'?

Since 'nobody' is going to 'die' for a simple post of a video, it seems quite reasonable for the Plaintiff to make the request and have the poster be able to respond yes or no before taking it down.

As you said "It's just a few days" that the Plaintiff has their rights 'momentarily abridged'. No big deal right? Or is freedom of speech not important to you?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Surt]

They are perfectly safe because a real perjury claim requires willful intent to deceive. The author/user of such a script will just claim to have made an error. You can't accidentally commit perjury, you have to intend to deceive the courts.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Surt]

https://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy
Have at it.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[ThreeHeadedMonkey]

But is a company responsible for the actions of software claiming to represent it?

IANAL either but I see two logical cases here:

1. The company has in some way granted that software to act as the copyright owner, at which point they are responsible for the claims it makes (up to a point possibly - there may be some exemption for evident malfunctions)

2. The system does not have the authority to file DMCA claims, making it not responsible for any bad claims by rendering all and any claims invalid.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sjames]

Silly citizen, prison is for peons!

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Surt]

Perjury requires willful deception of the court. The company in question would surely suggest this was accidental. And their suggestion would be perfectly legitimate since their system was automated.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sjames]

If your burglar alarm makes too many false alarm calls to 911, you will be sanctioned. Legally, you are responsible for the behavior of your automated system.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, it's not perjury. Providing false information is only perjury if it is "concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding." This isn't part of a judicial proceeding.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[whoever57]

If they don't restore your video, then they can be named in a criminal lawsuit for violating the DMC Act. And they will be punished. So YES the law does compel youtube to restore your video.

Actually, NO. 512(g) does not say this. It says that the ISP cannot be used for replacing content if they follow the procedure, but if they don't follow the procedure, they lose immunity from being sued. What it does not do is create a cause of action if the ISP does not follow the procedure for a counter-notice (it does not have a clause that says the ISP can be sued under the DMCA for not replacing material subject to a counter notice)

Imagine that you have a contract with the ISP to post some material. In this case, if the ISP failed to comply with the counter-notice procedure, you could sue them for a contract violation. But you don't have a contract that compels Youtube to post any material for you, so you are SOL if Youtube won't replace material subject to a counter-notice.

IANAL, etc.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Scarletdown]

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.

If the NASA plays hardball, this "Scripps Local News" will be majorly f***ed. Slashdotters are complaining all the time about the DMCA act. However, sending a DMCA notice when you don't own the copyright and when you are not representing the copyright holder is a criminal offense.

Looks like it's pretty much to the "water under the bridge" point now. From the article...

On Monday afternoon, a spokesperson for E.W. Scripps Company, owner of the news service, emailed Motherboard a statement apologizing for the accidental takedown. “We apologize for the temporary inconvenience experienced when trying to upload and view a NASA clip early Monday morning," wrote Michele Roberts. "We made a mistake. We reacted as quickly as possible to make the video viewable again

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Scarletdown]

...so where do we complain?

Complaints? That's next door. This is "Being Hit On the Head" lessons in here.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[amorsen]

Otherwise the banks and other financial institutions would be repudiating stock market trades made by their automated systems but which they later wished had not been made.

This happens quite regularly. Not every day, because it is still quite labour intensive and problematic for the exchanges to roll back transactions, but it does happen.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. They provide a service over the Internet. Just because the service they provide isn't *access* to the Internet doesn't mean they aren't an ISP.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Scarletdown]

...so where do we complain?

According to some stuff I just made up, apparently EA is now handling all DMCA takedown complaints.

Okay, to quote the Grim Reaper in Episode 5 of The Grim Reaper Show, "That's fucking hilarious."

"All out of fucks to give" is now entering my arsenal of comebacks.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There are people with YouTube channels who bash Islam. Islamists issue DCMA takedowns flatly lying they own it. The reason is the real ownee's response is to counter-claim, easy enough, but they must submit their legal name and address, which is why the Islamists want it.

Considering how there are tons and tons of such videos all over youtube that haven't been DMCA'd it sounds like you are just repeating typical jihadwatch-style delusional paranoia. But you are welcome to provide a cite to prove me wrong.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Sketchly]

Just in case this does actually work, I'd like to claim that I just bought a Big Mac, a Burger King Double Rodeo, and all the potential variations of pizza available from Domino's. And whatever Roger over the road is eating - I can't quite make it out from here but it looks like it might be nice.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Weatherlawyer]

I have no problem with that.
If someone said something nasty about me, I'd want their testicle in a jar. If they were saying it anonymously I'd want even more bits, hands, tongues, noses -that sort of thing.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, who fucken need DJs anyways. Good thing too!

Keyword: parting

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Definately.

Keyword: deterred

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[shutdown -p now]

Do you have any references or something else documenting this happening?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[JWSmythe]

    That's one of those distinctions that's always bothered me. I've worked for ISPs for years. I've never handled end user residential accounts. For most people, I can't tell them ISP, or they'll start asking me if I can make their home connection faster.

    I'm really tired of explaining most nuances anyways. I usually dumb it down to "I do big computer stuff, and no, I won't fix your computer."

   

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[yurtinus]

I suspect it is not an actual "DMCA notice," it's simply a notice of infringement which YouTube is voluntarily responding to.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know if you are claim is true or not"

Fixed that for you!

Oh - not what you meant? THEN LEARN FUCKING ENGLISH.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cheekyjohnson]

This process is a LOT better than what we had before.

But I don't think it's better than a situation where websites aren't liable and DMCA takedown notices just don't exist. They're abused too often, and there is never any punishment. Even if there were punishments, I don't care for guilty until proven innocent. Ask a court to order the material be removed if you want it gone that badly.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they can be sued, but you won't win that lawsuit. YouTube is under no legal obligation to provide you with its service. It clearly says as much in its TOS. The DMCA doesn't force YouTube to host a video any more than it forces me to host your cat videos on my personal web site. Companies have absolute authority to refuse to do business with you. If someone at YouTube decides they don't like you or your videos, they can remove them and ban you and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

There is no way you're going to get any sort of damages due to YouTube removing your video, since their TOS absolves them of any responsibility for such damages. The service is provided as-is, and you should not put any stock or faith in the quality or continuity of the service you receive; if YouTube ends up costing you money it's your fault for relying on a free service. YouTube's response is going to be "sorry dude, but shit happens... buy a service with a warranty if you don't like what you get from us for free."

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be. If I create a killbot and turn it loose in a city, then I would expect to be held responsible. It's acting as my agent following my instructions per my design. There may be some wiggle room with manslaughter VS homicide if a programming error causes it to go over its preset kill limit, but I'd still be responsible in some capacity.

But, IANAL either... I'm just optimistic enough they haven't corrupted the legal system to the point that one can shirk responsibility by automating processes. I.e. if it's not legal to do it once manually, it should be even less legally to do it automatically a thousand times.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cheekyjohnson]

In the case of DMCA it's just a few days.

That's funny, because copyright infringement itself seems like a petty thing. Why don't they hold themselves back instead of making you wait a "few days"?

But harming people is okay as long as you claim you only harmed them a little.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

That's what I said.

There is more to it then that one section too.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

Youtube Provides a Service on the Internet. So yes they are an Internet Service Provider. Just not as you are used to using the term.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[The Rizz]

May in that context means "we are allowed to do so."

In that context it also means "we are allowed not to do so"

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

Not exactly.

If youtube is not following the DMCA then they are not protected from liability or damages in the DMCA.

The problem is you have to file suit to take care of it. You can get your expenses back, but you (or someone) will still need to front it.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

I was thinking about this too. The law sort of implies that it is an advantage to go about it recklessly instead of knowingly in order to avoid that issue. When a company can essentially say- opps my bad, we made a mistake after a challenge has been issues, I'm thinking they aren't supervising the process well enough and it might be time for a negligence claim against them. An action like that would be outside the DMCA as it pertains to their supervision and hiring people qualified to enforce their DMCA policies not the DMCA itself.

Any lawyers out there want to look into this or comment further? I saw a construction company lose a significant lawsuit because they allowed someone not certified to operate a backhoe rip a waterline up and the site supervisor didn't know who to contact making the problem worse then it could have been. The gushing water eroded an embankment causing it to slide into a ravine and damaging the foundation of a couple buildings in the process.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal thing. This is more of a corporate thing, and when it's the coprs vs the people, it works the other way around, "guilty until proven innocent". (and then "guilty again after you prove your innocence, rinse and repeat")

And this is why there needs to be EXTREMELY SEVERE penalties for issuing false copyright claims. Robot take-downs need to be similarly made illegal.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Smallpond]

In this case Scripps took down a NASA-owned video, so sounds like the second half applies.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't DMCA. YouTube offers "preferred" content owners automated detection of content, with automated takedown or applying forced advertising to the content, with diversion of revenues to the claimed content owner.

This "going way beyond DMCA" is one of the reasons why YouTube are still going despite rampant copyright infringement, and why megaupload (despite abiding by DMCA to the letter) are defunct.

A similar sort of thing has happened to me. I had a funny video, which a local TV channel ran on their show (without permission). They then posted their show on YouTube. As a preferred customer, YouTube took their clip and used it as a reference for an "infringing material" search; unsurprsingly, as my video was the source, it triggered a match, and the revenue on my video was seized. I also got a warning that I was at risk of losing ALL my advertising revenue irrevocably, if I continued to upload "infringing" material.

I appealed the match, but all this meant was that YouTube simply ask the purported "owner" for a manual match. They claimed that they had watched both videos and agreed that they matched, and that was all YouTube wanted. As far as YT were concerned, the appeal had been lost, and the decision was final.

So, I made a DMCA claim on YouTube against the TV channel. Nothing happened. Zip. Nada. In the end, I removed the video, as I'd rather no one got the advertising revenue from my work, than someone who had copied it from me in the first place.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

They provide a service over the internet. A VPS hosting company would also be an ISP. What used to be referred to as an ISP is now an IAP.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly how corporations work.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Parent modded Troll? All I'm seeing is INFORMATION about the takedown process, and no more opinionated FUD than any comment modded Informative or Insightful on this article.

Posted AC because we apparently can't trust Mods today, and with my luck it'd end up as Funny

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is responsible for the actions of the software...high-frequency trading for example?!

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Thta's how the law is supposed to work, but obviously you have not experienced the police in some of the places I've lived. Hell, they'd execute you on the spot and possibly send your relatives a floral arrangement later if you were innocent.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pixelpusher220]

If you're point is that, technically, they could leave it up and open themselves up to massive liability, yes 'technically' they 'could' do that.

In no definition of 'reality' would that *ever* happen.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Dan541]

Perjury is making a false or misleading statement while under oath,

Which is exactly what makes them criminals.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

Well, that's exactly how they do these things in government, you don't have to purchase insurance, but you will be penalized if you don't. And yes, in the real world, i8t means that people will do whatever is requested in order to avoid the liability.

But there is another out too. Like the service provider knowing the claimed infringement is not infringement at all thereby not having the threat of liability. Something that should have happened with this NASA video in the first place.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[davester666]

Um, no. You have NO recourse. YouTube is under no obligation to host your video.

And I believe YouTube only loses DMCA 'protection' if they don't follow the rules listed for it, which they do.

But in addition to that, they also give various large corporations pretty much unfettered permission to remove and/or claim as their own any video uploaded to YouTube. So I'm sure in court, YouTube would just punt and say 'this other MegaCorp said they own this video, and we aren't empowered to decide who owns what. This in-duh-vidual needs to sue MegaCorp if he wants his video back.' Win, lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

However they claim ownership of ALL recordings

^^^ Person involved. Computers only do what they're told to do. Some person deliberately made that decision, by negligence if nothing else.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

Well, yes, youtube can be held liable for damages caused by the removal of the content. You are correct in that they are not obligated to host the videos but when they do host it, they have to have a valid reason to single just you out for refusal after doing it.

And I believe YouTube only loses DMCA 'protection' if they don't follow the rules listed for it, which they do.

They lose it when they do not follow the dmca which seems to be what they are doing. It appears they are determining ownership and rights for content through their own automated system. This is outside the DMCA if the copyright holder doesn't direct them to act. This could be something obvious like a complete or partial movie or it could be a take down notice.

But in addition to that, they also give various large corporations pretty much unfettered permission to remove and/or claim as their own any video uploaded to YouTube. So I'm sure in court, YouTube would just punt and say 'this other MegaCorp said they own this video, and we aren't empowered to decide who owns what. This in-duh-vidual needs to sue MegaCorp if he wants his video back.' Win, lather, rinse, repeat.

They can't really do that. if mega corp filed a dmca take down notice, they have to notify the alleged infringer, who can file a counter claim, youtube would have to wait ten days from he counter claim while they notify mega corp and see if mega corp declares they are filing a court action. If mega corp doesn't give notice, they have to restore the content with 4 days or they loose all protections from liability for removing it.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Ciggy]

Not forgetting that all those viruses and worms that have infected machines with Windows as the OS were just automated systems.

Either those who created these automated systems (viruses and worms) are liable or not. If YouTube's automated takedown system's writers are not liable, then neither are the viruses and worm writers. If the viruse and worm writers are liable, then so must the writers of the automated systems at YouTube (which, presumably being under contract to YouTube, means YouTube must be liable).

From an accounting point of view, companies are legal entities with property rights and property rights include the making good when that property causes harm to another; if a company's property (eg an automated system) harms another, then that company is required to make good the harm. If that harm is caused by the company's automated system being fed incorrect information by some other entity, then it is up to the company to deal with that other entity regarding that false information, but they themselves are still responsible for the harm caused.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Ciggy]

...and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

The exclusive right [on the video] belongs to NASA, not Scripps. So for Scripps to claim that they have the exclusive right they are guilty of Copyright infringement as a minimum; unless NASA has authorized Scripps to act on their behalf, Scripps is surely committing perjury in claiming that they are permitted to act over the alleged infringement when having the DCMA takedown notice issued in their name?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Ciggy]

Do the YouTube TOS contain any reference to absolving them from libelling you on behalf of another?

This video contains content from Scripps Local News, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. Sorry about that

The implication of that statement is that the video posted contained material copyrighted by Scripps - in fact it is much clearer: it is stating that [some] material contained in the video is owned by Scripps and that the video poster should not have posted the video. However, the truth is that all the material in the video is owned, and copyrighted, by the video's poster (NASA) and none of it by Scripps. So YouTube have published a false statement that is harming the reputation of the poster of the video - that sounds very much like libel [caveat lector] to me.

They may have published the statement not knowing it was false information (but surely they are required to have due diligence to ensure that it is not misleading and false information that they are publishing - a case of negligence at least), but it is false information that has been published and it is more than likely liable to harm the reputation of the video poster in the eyes of someone who comes across it - this latter may not return and find the video replaced (if at all) and so believe the false published information. The minimum requirement should be a published apology, something like:

This video was claimed to contain content by Scripps Local News (who had blocked it on copyright grounds).
However, this is false and we apologise for the libellous statement made about XXX, the poster of the video.

that all users to YouTube would get next time they connected. A permanent link to all these apologies should also be required noting the details of the videos blocked (it would make interesting reading to see who makes the most false takedown requests).

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not well known but Google has a secret compound full of "nuts". Yes, it's disgusting. No, they have to keep them to comply with the law.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[MysteriousPreacher]

Although automated, do you know if the operator's acceptance that the tool will be wrong in x percent of cases, or such an understanding to be reasonably expected, could constitute wilful action?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[mcgrew]

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.

It would be even more entertaining to see Scripps Local News bankrupted and its CEO in prison. NASA should sue.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not using the DMCA. It is a private agreement between Google and other large media corporations.

In theory, all YouTube has to do is comply with the DMCA and it's on safe legal grounds. However, large media corporations (e.g. Viacom) tried to sue it into oblivion. Rather than handle a continuous stream of frivolous and barratrous lawsuits from the entire media industry, Google decided to sit down at a table with them and deal.

The result is Content ID, Google's private way of automatically handling with perceived copyright infringement. The media industry gets control over anything similar to what they claim as theirs. Nobody gets to challenge what they claim is theirs. This is what they wanted in the first place, and the DMCA isn't even involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youtube#Content_ID

Sadly, there's nothing illegal about this. Google didn't promise you could host any video of yours on YouTube, just the ones it wants to host for you. Google don't want to host porn. Google don't want to host gore. Google don't want to host content that their media friends claim to own. If you don't like it... pay for your own video hosting, or use some other site that offers free video hosting, like liveleak or vimeo.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[ghostdoc]

Pretty much my thinking too. But the law is not necessarily logical (or concerned with justice but that's another discussion).

Given that the software is probably:
- written by an outsource company in a foreign jurisdiction, and no-one from the 'owning' company has ever examined the code to check that it does what the developer said it does
- running on a transient set of virtual servers rented (and indeed only existing) by the minute from a commercial hosting provider in a foreign jurisdiction
- subject to change at any time without notice by another outsource support provider operating from a foreign jurisdiction

then what gives it the authority to act as a copyright holder in the USA and issue a DMCA notice?

how do you grant a piece of software the authority to act as a copyright holder?
 

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

So your video of yourself jamming on your guitar is taken-off youtube for 10 days. Ooooo. You've really been harmed (not). The alternative before DMCA was your video taken-off permanently, and there's no way to get it reactivated. You want to go back to those dark days?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

>>>(2)(c) while the person filing the infringement notice was in the wrong so was the uploader (e.g. neither of them holds the copyright), the item remains offline

Youtube/websites/ISPs are forbidden from acting as judges. They are not allowed to decide "the user is not the copyright owner" and leave it offline. At that point they lose their immunity and can be sued in a court of law. (And yes I would sue them if it happened to me, because I love a fight.)

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

"and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

read that again.

These jokers do NOT have an "excluseive right to that which is allegedly infringed" therefore it is STILL perjury. So unless the complaining party was authorized by NASA to act on their behalf, there needs to be a suit.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cpu6502]

What you should have done, instead of wasting time on slashdot, was hired the best lawyer you could find and sued both Youtube and the local tv station for copyright infringement.

$150,000 fine for every instance. You would have won. (And $150,000 is a lot more scratch then whatever you earn on youtube ad-rewards).

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Surt]

I guess that would be up to a lawyer to argue. I think it would probably be a tough case to bring though, as I'm sure the defense could/would claim that they don't intend for it to be flawed, and make every effort to correct it. Even if I were personally a member of the jury, I'd probably buy the claim that enforcing these copyrights requires an automated tool, and that the existence of the law implies the acceptability of these tools.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[MysteriousPreacher]

True. Thanks - good reply.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

I really wish NASA would sue YouTube over this.

Sadly, their budget is too small to waste on things like this.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

this other MegaCorp said they own this video, and we aren't empowered to decide who owns what.

By acting on it, they have decided.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

In a system where scentences are served consecutively, such a script could easily get you sent to prison for the rest of your life.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

While I dislike what they are saying, I am very chilled that they could actually be silenced in that manner. I greatly dislike the Republican party, and I would hate to think that they'd be able to silence me simply by claiming ownership of something I said.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

I would say that the person authorizing the script should be held responsible and liable for the output of the script.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

And YouTube should be held liable for that. I don't buy this bullshit, "They are under no obligation to host your video!" excuse. They should NOT be able to take down videos willy nilly in bad faith.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

Dude, you had an obviously clear-cut case of infringement, both from YouTube and the original TV station.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[s73v3r]

Sadly, there's nothing illegal about this. Google didn't promise you could host any video of yours on YouTube, just the ones it wants to host for you. Google don't want to host porn. Google don't want to host gore. Google don't want to host content that their media friends claim to own. If you don't like it... pay for your own video hosting, or use some other site that offers free video hosting, like liveleak or vimeo.

This is a fucking cop-out excuse, and I am fucking tired of seeing it. There is no fucking reason why they should be able to take down videos willy-nilly with no fucking reason other than someone claims to own it, especially in the instance where that is not true.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative before DMCA was your video taken-off permanently, and there's no way to get it reactivated. You want to go back to those dark days?

Really? Because I thought the alternative was that infringement had to be proven in court before any sort of action could be performed against you. In which case, you're damn right I want to go back to those "dark days", because the only people for whom those would be "dark days" would be the MPAA/RIAA and their shills.

If I have the wrong understanding, please enlighten me. Otherwise we will assume that you are simply another MPAA/RIAA shill.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Surt]

I actually think they are quite clearly liable. The damages done by the false claims of their script are real and certainly pursuable. It just isn't perjury, specifically.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[yurtinus]

It's their business and they certainly are allowed to take down videos willy nilly. Liability only applies if there was a breach in contract, which I think there would be a very hard case to prove. However, they absolutely should get bad press for it - there are video hosting competitors. It's not like this is a local utility or ISP where you don't have options. Enough bad press and loss of business to competitors will cause them to rethink their policies.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there is sufficient case material yet to say how the law would treat that, though I hope it would be like an employee.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I almost forgot... corporations are people, too

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

How does this work? A DMCA notice requires somebody to certify under penalty of perjury that he represents the copyright holder. Perjury is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. In a system where scentences are served consecutively, such a script could easily get you sent to prison for the rest of your life.

That word [sic] doesn't mean what you think it means.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

Do you have any references or something else documenting this happening?

For you and all the other lazy people out there...

Google search:
fatwa

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It just means you are uneducated.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

Not only that... the "court" won't know about it, unless you sue.

Chances of winning THAT suit, without a lawyer, next to zero.
So, next problem, coming up with money for that lawyer.

Then, damages... are the damages more than the lawyer?

Yeah. Exactly.

You gotta love a country built on capitalism. That is... if you
are a rich capitalist.

Everyone else can just go fuck themselves.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

I appealed the match, but all this meant was that YouTube simply ask the purported "owner" for a manual match. They claimed that they had watched both videos and agreed that they matched, and that was all YouTube wanted. As far as YT were concerned, the appeal had been lost, and the decision was final.

So, I made a DMCA claim on YouTube against the TV channel. Nothing happened. Zip. Nada. In the end, I removed the video, as I'd rather no one got the advertising revenue from my work, than someone who had copied it from me in the first place.

But why didn't you sue them? /s

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

I understand that's how it's supposed to work, but quite a few people have found it worked for them as I described. Within days (or sometimes hours) of getting their videos reinstated, they'd get another takedown on the same video from the same source. And when you get your 3rd, youtube will suspend your account. You'd expect they'd ignore repeat takedowns, and you'd expect they'd un-tick the three-strikes counter when a counterclaim was filed, but they don't and they don't. At least sometimes. Maybe it's improved recently.

I just reviewed some more recent information and it looks like that in at least some cases they temp suspend you now and send you a "copyright quiz" to fill out. If you pass, you get your account back. If not, you have to wait a few days to retake the quiz. They weren't specific about three strikes, but some accounts can be suspended immediately without even a second incident if they consider the violation bad enough. They also appear to ban other accounts with the same email address on them, so don't use a shared email account (such as family) or you may become collateral damage from the banhammer.

There doesn't appear to be any clear spelled out hard rules anywhere. They're probably trying to keep their options open. If they put it in writing, then their enforcement/interpretation will be disputed.

And just because,... what is insult without injury...? YT will seize all profits
from ALL videos you own, if you continue to violate TOS. Even if you are
NOT violating the TOS. And not just the video in question.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

Sounds like a good class action against YouTube / Google to me.

Now that'd be interesting. How do you plan to arrange that class?

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

(4) At that point the alleged copyright owner can file a lawsuit against the alleged violator. The ISP has immunity since it followed steps 1-3

Could the actual copyright owner (NASA in this case) not initiate a prosecution for perjury against the person/organisation who submitted the original takedown notice.? Not only that but claim damages from them as well.

To what end?

Do you know what damages means?

NASA is owned by the government. Who is gonna do the suing?

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

the penalty of perjury is for both sides of the claim- you can recover cost and damages in some situations.

Perjury is a court thing. There is no court here.

You cannot be held accountable for an affirmation that you did not sign nor was
not witnessed to "utter".

They use the word perjury cause most street-people have heard that word when
watching their daily judge shows and "thinks it means they can end up in court, sued".
Which "normal" people cannot afford. So they lay down. (Lie down?)

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

So if you're upset that no one has ever been charged with perjury for filing an inaccurate DMCA takedown notice, you should at least know that it's not because those organizations/people are above the law. Instead, it's because that's simply not what the law actually says.

Thank you for your post. I wish posts could be promoted to the top. Would solve a lot of going around.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[shutdown -p now]

I know what a fatwa is. And one of the things it's not is a DMCA takedown notice. So I have to reiterate the question: do you have any references or other evidence supporting your original claim that "Islamists issue DCMA takedowns" in response to "people with YouTube channels who bash Islam".

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

Except the cops won't arrest you for a 'claimed act of murder' unless there were:

1. a real provable murder.
2. evidence that you committed said provable murder sufficient to get a grand jury to hand down an indictment.
3. sufficient evidence that would lead a prosecutor to believe they would win a conviction based on said evidence.
 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Wow, that was a good one.

Evidence! Lol. Wow. I got a tear in my eye.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[AlienIntelligence]

I know what a fatwa is. And one of the things it's not is a DMCA takedown notice. So I have to reiterate the question: do you have any references or other evidence supporting your original claim that "Islamists issue DCMA takedowns" in response to "people with YouTube channels who bash Islam".

I'm in America, do you have any proof they don't?

Yeah. Gotcha.

-AI

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[shutdown -p now]

I'm in America, do you have any proof they don't?

The general rule of thumb is that people making a non-obvious claim are the ones to provide evidence for it.

Thing is, I'm actually rather against Islam myself (or really anti-religion in general, just seeing Islam as the most dangerous and aggressive of the bunch at the moment), and so I do happen to frequent such YouTube channels as you describe - even if most of it is mindless drivel rehashing the same propaganda points without understanding what the actual dangers are, occasionally you do glean useful data points there. And here's the thing - I run into a lot of videos dating back from several years ago, and with really high view count etc. In other words, they do stand out a lot. Heck, just look at the couple first pages of search results for "islam evil" on YouTube. If someone was really aggressively using DMCA to suppress such videos, I'd expect to see only those with upload dates of a couple months at all, not three years.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[sumdumass]

sigh.. both the accuser who issues the DMCA take down and and the accused infringer who files a counter claim to the take down notice. It goes both ways.

I understand what perjury is, what
i didn't understand was how to make my comment clear enough for everyone to understand. The GP described the process for filing a counter claim stating the requirement to sign the counter claim. He then claimed there was no such clause for someone to allege infringement. There is exactly that to be in accordance with the DMCA..

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[lsatenstein]

It seems more-likely that Scripps contracted with Youtube to automatically have any content removed that has an "audio signature" which matches Scripps own uploaded videos. In other words, no people involved.

I've heard radio host Alex Jones complain about this. Some corporation (CBS Radio if I recall correctly) has contracted a DJ for their national news starting in 2011. However they claim ownership of ALL recordings by that DJ, both present and past. So youtube is automatically removing all videos of said DJ, including interviews on Jones' show from ten years ago. There's no person involved... just a computer doing automatic filtering & automatic takedowns.

How can you say no human is involved, just a program. Who wrote the program. Should you sue the programmer or the program architect for mischief, or stupidity in not putting in adequate checks and conditions

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[cbiltcliffe]

Except the cops won't arrest you for a 'claimed act of murder' unless there were:

1. a real provable murder.

Really?

With no body, you can't prove the "victim" didn't run away to South America, yet they still arrest someone and charge they with murder. Where's the "real provable murder" in this case?
There are plenty of others, too.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought your mother for $5 direct. Sadly, she's not the size of most whores nor built as well.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try driving around with a bumpersticker that reads "God is made up, Jesus is a lie" on your car, and see how often your car gets damaged.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Thing is, I'm actually rather against Islam myself (or really anti-religion in general, just seeing Islam as the most dangerous and aggressive of the bunch at the moment)

How strong is that dislike for religion?
Do you agree with churches having an active voice in society (see link 1 below)?
Do you agree with the legally-enforced marginalization of Christian viewpoints on family values (see links 2-6)?
Do you believe in conspiracy theories involving Jews or Opus Dei?
Does Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's religion bother you?
Do you support the right of a valedictorian to pray?

I found your comments well-balanced, except for this one. I would like to know your opinion on this matter.

If you find 6 links to be too much, please read at least links 1 and 2. I guarantee you will find them informative.

==Links==
===Church-state balance===
1. "Why Church and State Must Be Separate" by Benedict XVI, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

===Legally-enforced marginalization of Christianity===
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
3. "Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case", http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
4. "Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling"
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html
5. "Defining Religious Liberty Down", http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-defining-religious-liberty-down.html
6. "Controversy over Heaven" http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/controversy-over-heaven

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[shutdown -p now]

Do you agree with churches having an active voice in society (see link 1 below)?

Insofar as it is represented by their membership exercising their right to vote, I'm okay with that. Of course, it doesn't mean I won't call out religious bigots when they gang up to promote despicable things (like Prop 8 in California). It's their legal right - and I will defend the political system that enables it - but not everything that is legal is ethical.

Do you agree with the legally-enforced marginalization of Christian viewpoints on family values (see links 2-6)?

It's not reasonable to treat these as a single group - they are different cases with different implications - so I'll go one by one.

I believe in near absolute freedom of speech - in particular, I strongly dislike the notion of "hate speech" - so I don't agree with the guy being arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin. He's a bigot, of course, but he has a right to speak out.

I also disagree with the foster couple case. This is a very arbitrary basis for rejection, and is such a ridiculous slippery slope - I mean, what next, rejecting them because they vote for the wrong guy? In any case they'd send the kid to school, and I would expect schools to do the necessary explanations. If the parents want to counter-balance them at home it's their right, but the kids have the right to hear it from the other side, too. So in that sense I don't support their right to be sole guardians on opinions their kids receive. So long as that's provided for, they have the same right to be foster parents as any other couple.

I can't judge on adoption agency case without knowing the overall environment in UK - i.e. how many regular agencies, which don't discriminate on that basis, are there?

As a side note, generally speaking, I believe that people should be free to do or not do business with anyone else subject only to their whim. However, I also believe that at times pervasive discrimination makes it necessary to force private businesses to serve customers belonging to some strongly discriminated group. At the same time, it's a temporary limitation of freedom intended solely to achieve a certain objective important to society - in this case, provide equal, or at least broadly comparable, treatment to a minority group. Once that objective is generally achieved, such restrictions should be rescinded. And by "generally achieved" I don't mean universal acceptance, but rather broad enough that a member of that group can easily find someone who will provide for his needs. I.e. if only one out of a hundred shops in the area refuse to service gays/blacks/etc, I don't see it as sufficient grounds for the state to intervene. But if, say, a quarter of them do that, that's a different thing.

Do you believe in conspiracy theories involving Jews or Opus Dei?

I don't believe in conspiracy theories involving Jews in general, since that's an ethnicity/religion, not an organization. It's absurd to believe that all Jews somehow conspire with all other Jews. I'm certainly willing to consider conspiracy theories involving Israel (what was Stuxnet if not one?), or certain prominent Jewish organizations with a strong hierarchy and well-defined goals (like ADL in USA).

Opus Dei, on the other hand, is an organization, with hierarchy and purpose - so yes, it could reasonably be involved in undercover projects. That its membership is secret is somewhat worrying, and their general aura of secrecy around their activities does not lend them much trust. At the same time, it's what makes it hard to verify any rumors regarding them, so I have to assume that those are just rumors unless and until they actually are substantiated. I would be inclined to distrust them on a general basis due to the long history of secret societies and conspiracies instigated by Roman Catholic church to date (Jesuits etc).

Does Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's religion

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Anonymous Coward]

Nasa should put a clause in their terms of re-use: if any organization or individual makes use of NASA content they are FORBIDDEN from uploading the NASA portion to any site that uses automatic dmca take down notices. Then next time this issue comes up NASA dmca's them AND SUES for breach of contract.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Do you agree with homeschooling and school choice? I do. See article 26, item 3 at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

I.e. if only one out of a hundred shops in the area refuse to service gays/blacks/etc, I don't see it as sufficient grounds for the state to intervene. But if, say, a quarter of them do that, that's a different thing.

There is a huge difference between discriminating by behavior ("we only give kids to married foster couples") and discriminating by race or gender ("whites only").

And if sexual behavior discrimination must be forbidden, then I would use different criteria than yours.

I would monitor not the "percentage of discrimination", but the _size_ of the companies that discriminate. Individuals and tiny companies would not be restricted. There must also be exemptions for religious institutions - forcing a Christian seminary to ordain active homosexuals as priests would be preposterous.

Opus Dei, on the other hand, is an organization, with hierarchy and purpose - so yes, it could reasonably be involved in undercover projects. That its membership is secret is somewhat worrying, and their general aura of secrecy around their activities does not lend them much trust. At the same time, it's what makes it hard to verify any rumors regarding them, so I have to assume that those are just rumors unless and until they actually are substantiated.

This is simply not true. There is a large difference between discreetness and secrecy. It is true that Opus Dei does not publicize a list of their members; but neither does any religious organization that I know. It is also true that Opus Dei members are generally discreet, don't wear Opus Dei t-shirts, etc. Opus Dei schools do not have "Opus Dei" in their name - but they generally link to Opus Dei in their homepage, and mention Opus Dei in their "about" page. See for example http://www.unav.es/servicio/informacion/mission.
And if you ask a member , he/she will tell it. So when Joe enters Opus Dei, it takes only a few days for his friends to know about it; then, if he is famous, his Wikipedia page will immediately include it. This is hardly "secret".
Second, the Opus Dei teaching is the same as regular Catholic teaching. And the particular "charisma" of Opus Dei is open for all to see: books are available for a small price, and many are available for free over the Internet. See http://www.escrivaworks.org/
Third, Opus Dei is apolitical; and the rare Opus Dei members in political positions are often in centrist or center-left parties.

After Bush, the religion of any American president bothers me. I don't know which will be the next one claiming God spoke to him and told him to do such and such. That said, Santorum bothers me more than Romney in that regard, as I consider him more likely to "hear voices" - his politics seems to be guided by religion much more so than I feel comfortable.

But Catholicism is an extremely stable religion. It is not like the opposition to abortion was invented last year; in fact, the Church prides itself in NOT changing any essential teaching for 2000 years. So you KNOW what a faithful Catholic thinks about social issues (abortion, pornography, etc.); he is not going to "hear voices" and change his mind.

If you mean as a part of valediction, then that depends on whether it's a public or a private school. In a public school, no, since they are not supposed to promote religion, and valediction is effectively a part of the official ceremony rather than a purely personal address. A private school can, of course, set its own rules in that regard.

The 1st Amendment says _Congress shall make no law_ respecting an establishment of religion. So:
1) If the Federal Congress mandated

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[shutdown -p now]

Do you agree with homeschooling and school choice?

Generally speaking, yes, provided that there are means to ensure that kids are taught certain things (and a scientific discussion on homosexuality, as well as a secular course of history of religions, should be a part of that).

Again, this isn't an absolute. If, in practice, most cases of homeschooling are done for the purpose of preventing kids from accessing those things, to such an extent that it has a prominent effect on the society, I think it can and should be regulated more stringently or banned outright, until such time as situation improves. The situation in US in that regard strikes me as rather unhealthy, so I would support restriction on homeschooling here.

There is a huge difference between discriminating by behavior ("we only give kids to married foster couples") and discriminating by race or gender ("whites only").

It is only a meaningful difference when behavior in question is relevant to the matter at hand. Which one's sexual orientation, or practice thereof, is not.

And if sexual behavior discrimination must be forbidden, then I would use different criteria than yours. I would monitor not the "percentage of discrimination", but the _size_ of the companies that discriminate. Individuals and tiny companies would not be restricted.

The absolute size is not always a good criteria, because even a small business can hold undue influence in a small area. Furthermore, in some cases you see an area served only by small businesses, but there being many of them. If most of them effectively collude to deny service, it is going to cause significant harm. Deep South in Jim Crow era is a prominent example of that.

There must also be exemptions for religious institutions - forcing a Christian seminary to ordain active homosexuals as priests would be preposterous.

There doesn't need to be any exceptions for religious institutions, because that opens a whole new can of worm of having to define "religion" in law. Rather, just distinguish between publicly provided services, and private membership in an organization, more or less like we already do. Membership can be restricted arbitrarily, but services may not. The church, then, is just an organization with private membership as far as law is concerned.

But Catholicism is an extremely stable religion. It is not like the opposition to abortion was invented last year; in fact, the Church prides itself in NOT changing any essential teaching for 2000 years. So you KNOW what a faithful Catholic thinks about social issues (abortion, pornography, etc.); he is not going to "hear voices" and change his mind.

Catholicism is not a stable religion "for 2000 years" - if it were, we wouldn't see any differences between it and various Orthodox churches, for example. And, just to remind, the Great Schism happened because Catholics were the one to change their symbol of faith from what was previously accepted by ecumenical councils.

Anyway, Christianity in general has this prominent notion of "personal revelation", that is pervasive in that religion. Pretty much every time I tried arguing matters of faith with a Christian (of various denominations - Orthodox, Catholic and a couple of evangelicals so far), using rational arguments, their final cop out is that I'll know that they're right, any logic notwithstanding, when "Jesus tells me". So this has nothing to do with church dogma. Evangelicals also have dogmas, but they are not all encompassing. And even if they were, it still begs the question of what happens when a "revelation" gives some commandment that is not in an obvious way overriding the dogma. After all, Catholic Church, for example, teaches that a war may be just - so I don't see why Santorum would be any less amenable to voices in his head telling him to invade Iran (say, to protect the Jews) than Bush was from the same vo

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pixelpusher220]

But there is another out too. Like the service provider knowing the claimed infringement is not infringement at all thereby not having the threat of liability.

Please show me in the statute where this 'I know better' clause is.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[pixelpusher220]

So your video of yourself jamming on your guitar is taken-off youtube for 10 days. Ooooo. You've really been harmed (not).

Actually I have. I OWN the copyright on that. I am getting revenue from Youtube based on views. If my copyright is so unimportant to you, why is following a corporations copyright more important?

How about I am not allowed to make a movie using Mickey Mouse? I *should* be able to do so, except Disney has a habit of buying legislation every time MM is about to go in to the public domain LIKE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT SHOULD.

Or are you against the Constitution too? Given your lip service to free speech it wouldn't surprise me much.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[Weatherlawyer]

A bit like the Police Party in Quartzsite you mean.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[doccus]

Yup, my cat just "accidentally" killed a mouse. She felt "bad" about it. Mouse is still dead. And my cat has better morals than the majority of corporations.. especially those that feel justified in using automatic takedown notices.. They do NOT care about the impact of their corporate decisions, on the average joe, as long as it helps the bottom line...

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[doccus]

You are correct, and this started after Google acquired YT..Remember "do no evil" HAH!

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[doccus]

So all these rants are for NADA? At least Scripps did the right thing....

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[doccus]

So this is the solution.. if you ever have news corporations hijack your clip and do a DMCA claim afterwards.. simply go to the cops and insist on charges (but make sure you are accompanied by a lawyer so they don't arrest you instead, especially if you are .. er.. 'dark skinned')

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[doccus]

Er.. You Tube is not an ISP..

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness

[yurtinus]

Hey, I never said it was right - just that it wasn't illegal.

Copyright violations

[girlintraining]

That's the problem with the copyright filters at Youtube and elsewhere: Copyright is based on the production of a work, not the work itself. So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. So the content might be "Curiousity rover team hugging", which can't be copyrighted, but the production of it is. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

Which is a problem in a digital environment: How can you tell whether something came from the original (public domain) source, or the re-broadcaster? YouTube's auto-filters obviously can't. There's no way to tell original from copy; And guess who gets sued if they don't block when they could have? Which underscores another problem with copyright law: Presumed guilt. DMCA notices force providers to take down potentially infringing content. Not actually infringing, potentially-infringing. It's a presumption of guilt; Your innocence must then be established later. And with technology like this, how can a judge, or even yourself, tell the difference between the original 101110101000101110100011 and the copied 101110101000101110100011?

Re:Copyright violations

[MickyTheIdiot]

I don't think this is technically right. I could be wrong, but I think NASA doesn't make this footage public domain for the very reason copyleft exists and you bring up in your comment. They don't want people claiming copyright of their work.

Re:Copyright violations

[Trepidity]

So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive.

This area isn't actually that clear. You probably cannot rebroadcast the version that has NBC's logo on it, but not because this footage has been re-copyrighted by the addition of the logo. Rather, it's just that the logo itself is copyrighted, and you can't broadcast that. You can, however, remove the logo and broadcast NBC's version of the public-domain footage sans logo. Assuming, at least that they broadcast essentially the original PD video, and have not made any other changes sufficiently creative to produce a new copyright.

I'm not sure if it's been litigated with film, but in the art world, that was litigated in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. , which found that scanning a public-domain artwork does not make your scan copyrighted. So I don't believe simply rebroadcasting NASA footage creates a new copyrighted version of the footage. Maybe if you do some creative editing, then that specific sequence of cuts is copyrighted.

Re:Copyright violations

[dcollins]

Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites

Still Images, Audio Recordings, Video, and Related Computer Files

NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

Re:Copyright violations

[uvajed_ekil]

if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

NBC, or whomever, can sue for whatever they want. That doesn't mean the case has merit or is a correct interpretation of the law. That's what the court is for. You can't rightfully take public domain content, slap a logo on it, and claim copyright over the content.

Which is a problem in a digital environment: How can you tell whether something came from the original (public domain) source, or the re-broadcaster? YouTube's auto-filters obviously can't.

Which is why Youtube's filters should not be trusted. I don't know if anyone has a right to force YT to change, so we need an alternative that is actually going to protect rights holders, rather than simply accepting false claims and acting brashly as judge and jury.

Re:Copyright violations

[girlintraining]

The problem is, sufficiently creative these days has been so narrowly defined as to mean "But ours is off-white instead of muave. See! That's creative!" -- and the courts uphold this. That's one of the problems with our archaic case law / common law judiciary: Once you win a case against an opponent that can't defend themselves, you can then use that precident against an opponent who can, and probably win. The system assumes that both the defense and prosecution are fairly represented, and the judge is impartial in every case. Of course it isn't, so over time, the system biases itself politically and economically in favor of whomever is in power. This was probably by design... a testament to miserable Britain.

Re:Copyright violations

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA doesn't have a choice. NASA produced work is a work of the United States Government and is automatically in the public domain.

Re:Copyright violations

[ljw1004]

That's the problem with the copyright filters at Youtube and elsewhere: Copyright is based on the production of a work, not the work itself. So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. So the content might be "Curiousity rover team hugging", which can't be copyrighted, but the production of it is. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

That's completely wrong. Copyright gives the rights to the creator of an original work. If you rebroadcast, you're neither creator nor is it original. There's no way to twist this into giving you rights.

Re:Copyright violations

[colinrichardday]

I don't believe that it is NASA's call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government

Re:Copyright violations

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

but not because this footage has been re-copyrighted by the addition of the logo.

That should not attach copyright. It could be a trademark issue, but one that is easily remedied.

Re:Copyright violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because NBC may have spliced in a Ryan Seacrest interview half way through..

Re:Copyright violations

[X0563511]

Which is a problem in a digital environment: How can you tell whether something came from the original (public domain) source, or the re-broadcaster? YouTube's auto-filters obviously can't. There's no way to tell original from copy

Digital signatures and watermarks, how do they work?

Re:Copyright violations

[babywhiz]

Explain to me how this one went down. I still don't understand it. Sure, the video isn't gone, but there isn't a single portion of this video that ever touched by the people claiming the copyright. http://antimattertheinsane.blogspot.com/2012/06/wtf-auto-copyright-content-claim-fail.html

Re:Copyright violations

[Miamicanes]

Where it could potentially get ugly and awkward is when things like h.264 encoding get involved. Given the same HuffyUV-encoded source, not all h.264 encodings are created equal. Further muddying matters is the fact that the encoding transformation itself is "mechanical" and "automated", but the choice of encoding parameters that dictate that strategy is arguably creative black magic (especially if you stray from the beaten path with x264 and get into exotic motion-search strategies), and both time and work with measurable cost is required.

Once again, where it would get muddy is if the extent of your creative process was loading it into Adobe Premiere & choosing a preset from a list of 5 options. Tweaking with x264 is arguably creative. Choosing a present, not so much. But deciding where to draw the line, or appropriate penalties for intentionally crossing it...

Then again, it could be argued that this is akin to translating a work into another language. I can't legally translate Harry Potter into Klingon and publish it without risking a lawsuit by JKR and/or her publisher, but neither could I pre-emptively translate it into Klingon (or Russian, or Chinese, etc), then use my pre-existing translation to blackmail her and threaten to sue HER for infringement if she ends up having sentences that match verbatim.

Re:Copyright violations

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is, there is no incentive not to abuse of the system.

If you force abusing companies to pay punitive charges on each count of abuse, they'll be more careful about takedowns. And that should apply to automated takedowns.

Re:Copyright violations

[Trepidity]

I agree it can get tricky, but so far that argument hasn't worked with paintings at least. Museums tried to argue that they made careful color-corrections and such, but that wasn't deemed enough. On the other hand, photography of sculptures has been considered "creative", because of choice of angles/lighting/etc. Film seems closer to the photo-of-a-painting case to me, but I'll admit I wouldn't want to bet a lot of money on it.

It looks like the Criterion Collection has restored several public-domain films, which would make for plausible test-cases, but I can't find any cases involving those. Either they aren't sue-happy, or nobody high-profile enough has baited them yet.

Re:Copyright violations

[Anonymous Coward]

File date and time says who copied who. Done.

Re:Copyright violations

[Kirth]

Sorry, no, claiming copyright over a work is copyfraud, and it's technically illegal. And putting your logo on it is rather evidence of fraud than to give you any rights.

Re:Copyright violations

[cbiltcliffe]

So ridiculously easy to fake it's not even worth looking at.

I want to copy some post to YouTube. I set my computer clock back 2 years prior to the YT posting, and download the video.
"Look! I had this video on my computer two years before they posted it! They're infringing! They're infringing!"

In case you meant the YT posting dates, then that doesn't show who created it, either. In this case, NASA gave the video to Scripps, which then posted it.
NASA soon after posted it to their channel. According to your method, Scripps would own the copyright.

It also doesn't allow for assignment of copyright, since the original owner would have a computer file from before the assignment took place.

Re:WORKING AS INTENDED !!

[Anonymous Coward]

And will someone please think of the children!

Deny Scripts the right to future government videos

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are going to claim ownership of the video then the appropriate response would be to deny them access to any and all government video feeds. It requires no civil claim, is perfectly legal and will harm them more than the $500 penalty. It will also serve as a warning to companies that send out DMCA takedown notices at the drop of a hat.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just see it on Nasa's site: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=149933921

Re:So what?

[uigrad_2000]

This seems to be the most important comment on here so far.

We have NASA that uses taxpayer money for servers, but people shy away from their website because it is unfamiliar.

So, NASA sends it to a private company that hosts webcam videos for free, and that private company puts ads at the beginning of the video, and ads in popup windows over the video. You would think no one would use the version with ads all over, but people like what is familiar, so it gets lots of views.

Then, since it is subject to takedown notices (the same way as your hot neighbor's webcam is), some partner in Youtube's giant network requests it to come down, and it goes down with no questions asked. These takedowns happen all the time, and rarely are DMCA takedowns, regardless of what the text may say. Basically, any one that pays Google enough can become a "trusted partner" and tell them which free videos should be removed.

Youtube is perfect for sharing thousands of hours of crap when you have no other platform for sharing your video. It's like today's equivalent of Geocities. It's not the proper place for hosting important content from NASA. If you choose to use Youtube (or Geocities) to find NASA content, you my get lucky and find what you are looking for, but if so, it's just lucky coincidence.

TL;DR: Not News.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems to be the most important comment on here so far.

We have NASA that uses taxpayer money for servers, but people shy away from their website because it is unfamiliar.

So, NASA sends it to a private company that hosts webcam videos for free, and that private company puts ads at the beginning of the video, and ads in popup windows over the video. You would think no one would use the version with ads all over, but people like what is familiar, so it gets lots of views.

Then, since it is subject to takedown notices (the same way as your hot neighbor's webcam is), some partner in Youtube's giant network requests it to come down, and it goes down with no questions asked. These takedowns happen all the time, and rarely are DMCA takedowns, regardless of what the text may say. Basically, any one that pays Google enough can become a "trusted partner" and tell them which free videos should be removed.

Youtube is perfect for sharing thousands of hours of crap when you have no other platform for sharing your video. It's like today's equivalent of Geocities. It's not the proper place for hosting important content from NASA. If you choose to use Youtube (or Geocities) to find NASA content, you my get lucky and find what you are looking for, but if so, it's just lucky coincidence.

TL;DR: Not News.

+100 Won thread

Re:So what?

[organgtool]

And on the other hand, if NASA's site had become so overloaded with users as everyone in the world attempted to watch this historic event, then NO ONE would have been able to watch the video. How is having the choice of watching the video in a familiar environment with advertisements worse than having no other option? Isn't it fairly well established that the dissemination of popular content is more effective and reliable when it is supplemented through the use of many sources (peers)?

Re:So what?

[Bryansix]

You are forgetting one thing. Youtube has an order of magnitude more servers and bandwidth then NASA.

Re:So what?

[stephanruby]

If you choose to use Youtube (or Geocities) to find NASA content, you my get lucky and find what you are looking for, but if so, it's just lucky coincidence.

Sorry, but for me, on my slow dsl connection, I'll still trust Youtube over most other official hosting sites. Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube are really the three video hosting sites that work for me as intended. It really doesn't matter how big a budget those other sites have, many of them still don't know how to stream video correctly for people with slower speeds.

Of course, I wasn't interested in this NASA video, so I'm not really your target audience, but for me at least, I've had so many bad experiences with other video sites, it will take a lot more than one incident, even if it was an incident on a video that I actually cared about, to put Youtube in the same category as Geocities.

Re:So what?

[glodime]

Redundancy is a good thing (it is the reason why NASA partners with Ustream) copyright law, DMCA and "trusted partner" censorship are bad things (i.e., net negative, dead weight loss on society). Hence, news.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. It's irrelevant where's the best place to serve video.

The problem is that a major provider of video is automatically taking down content without any recourse to the individual whose content is taking down.

The fundamental problem is that Google or Scripps--one of them--is treating account holders differently, with big corporations being given the benefit of the doubt.

If a corporation accuses someone of something, it's assumed to be valid. Why not proceed the other way around, by assuming innocence first? I.e., assume no copyright violation until there is strong evidence to the contrary, rather than assuming a violation until there is strong evidence to the contrary? Require the accuser to provide strong evidence of a copyright violation, otherwise do nothing.

If this happens to *NASA*, after a major historical event, it must be several hundred times worse for an individual. The fact it might happen frequently doesn't make it ok, it makes an even stronger case why something needs to change.

I agree that NASA should sue Google and/or Scripps for perjury or false copyright claims. This is going to continue until these corporations suffer some consequences (as they should).

Re:So what?

[Alioth]

Sorry to be a spelling nazi, but "...more servers and bandwith than NASA". The word "then" means something completely different to "than", and E and A are far enough away I won't believe it's a typo...

Re:So what?

[raind]

Thank you AC

Correction: No there isn't

[scorp1us]

I really thought there was. Anyway I was up all night.

We should make the fine exist for anyone filing false DMCA claims. The law only states that they may be liable for court costs and lawyer fees, but lets make a $50,000 civil penalty too.

Re:Correction: No there isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is we? Unless you and some friends here are somehow involved in passing Federal laws you are in fantasy land.

But, playing along, good luck with that. The law is tilted in favor of the people filing the claims because the people filing the claims are the ones who wrote it. So you'll first have to upend the system that allows laws to be purchased (actually you'll have to do more work on the fundamentals that allow that), then you can 'make fines exist'.

Not that having a bunch of Slashdotters arbitrarily making laws would be a better situation than we have now.

Can we get consequences added to the next rev DCMA

[dlingman]

I'd really like to see consequences for a truly false DCMA takedown. For example - remove the offender from all major search engine results for a week or so, with a notice that their site is being blocked due to their claiming copyright on things that weren't theirs to begin with. I've had Youtube block a video made of my daughter playing piano because of the "use of a copyrighted musical performance." Last time I looked, copyright had expired on that particular piece of music several hundred years ago. Sigh.

Check their report!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://scripps.com/foundation/news/2011%20annual%20report.pdf

It's 1.1MB so check it out! Maybe multiple times. In a row. For hours.

Re:Check their report!

[NatasRevol]

Much easier:
http://www.pagereboot.com/?url=http://scripps.com/foundation/news/2011%20annual%20report.pdf&refresh=5

Re:Check their report!

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW! Refreshing their pdf every 5s FROM YOUR CACHE will surely teach them! Idiot.

Scripps perfectly justified!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Scripps is going to go to all the trouble and expense of sending a camera crew to Mars to get the shots, NASA should respect property rights and not steal that valuable footage.

Corporatism as its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

(Some preferred companies, like Universal Music Group, can even block videos immediately, without filing a claim.)

Now, consider this, if one of us were to flag a Scripps, Cox, Universal, CNN, or who ever's video as violating the DMCA, does anyone think that it would be taken down?

What I'm saying is, even if YOU shot the video with your own camera and some big corp flags it as a DMCA violation, Youtube will just take it down - no questions asked. On the other hand, if you had some video that was stolen by some big corp (they call it stealing. What can't I?) and used it in their video, I really don't think that Youtube would give it the same consdieration.

Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

All NASA footage, photos, etc. are public domain. No exceptions. It's traditional to credit NASA for photos, etc. but not legally necessary.

This is merely meant to inform those that didn't know, and is not meant to make a point or argument of any kind.

Re:WORKING AS INTENDED !!

[Jeng]

Don't fault that which is proven to work !!

False positives indicate that it is not working correctly.

Just because it accomplishes task A, that does not mean it works if tasks B,C,D,E,....etc do not work.

Think about it like an anti-virus program. If your anti-virus removed the virus you would not describe the anti-virus program to be working if it destroyed all of your files along with the virus, even those that were not infected.

Close to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

I operate a youtube channel with just over 100,000 subscribers. I almost had my account permanently suspended when several of my government produced, copyright-free videos of 1940s military footage were flagged by some no-name spanish news station. These videos were converted directly from library archive originals. My only saving grace was one of my subscribers was a lower end employee of Google at the time and was able to contact the right people.

What would have happened to me had I not been so lucky?

Re:Close to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Post your friends name and Google contact details and make them the defacto Google contact for this sort of situation.

Re:Close to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please keep doing what you're doing. Your channel is one of the best on YouTube.

Future headline

[slashmydots]

I think Scripps Local News broadcast building is about to have a satellite or rocket land on it. Don't fuck with NASA lol.

Re:Future headline

[PPH]

"Sorry about that. We just got meters and feet mixed up again [Heh, heh]."

Re:Deny Scripts the right to future government vid

[PPH]

At least, cut off Scripp's access until the copyright ownership and rights issues can be satisfactorily resolved. You can't just unilaterally cut someone off. But you can do so pending the resolution of issues that could lead to further legal trouble.

Contact Info

[moosehooey]

http://scripps.com/heritage/contact-us

DMCA takedown fraud

[benjfowler]

Looks like Scripps Local News have indulged in an open-and-shut case of DMCA fraud and perjury.

However, they most likely will get away with it, as does the infamous quack and anti-vaxxer, Meryl Dorey, who attacks and silences her critics on the Internet by bombarding them with fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Most people find it cheaper to honour the takedown notices, and make it as difficult as possible for victims to file appeals.

DMCA fraud is an old standby of corporate money grubbers and intellectual pissants all over the Internet.

Re:DMCA takedown fraud

[Dan541]

Dorey only gets away with it because no one has filed any legal action against her.

So why isn't Google culpable?

[overnight_failure]

Surely there must be a law against helping people make false copyright claims against other people's work?

repeal the DMCA

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Never gonna happen, but a man can dream

Re:repeal the DMCA

[cpghost]

It will happen. The DMCA will be repealed... and replaced with an even more draconian law.

correct me if i'm wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but isn't (most) everything the goverment publishes automatically public domain? pretty sure it says that directly in the constitution somewhere...

Works of US government employees are public doman

[DNS-and-BIND]

Quoted from Wikipedia, the infallible source of all knowledge:

A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government, but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."

So, let's analyze. What happened here? An employee of Scripps posted the video (due to its public domain status) on their own website. Another employee, whose job it is to monitor Youtube for copyright infringement, detected a Scripps video on a public website. That employee sent the takedown notice, and Youtube complied once Youtube employees had been referred to the Scripps page and had seen the exact same video, hence the "evidence" of "infringement".

Freesound & ccMixter too; YouTube abets copyfr

[chiangovitch]

I've had multiple videos flagged by YouTube as using music belonging to some commercial entity when in fact they use variously licensed tracks from freesound.org and ccmixter.org. Dunno what to do...

PERCENTAGE based fines!!

[bussdriver]

Monetary penalties should be PERCENTAGE of income.

In other nations they have this concept in commonly known laws (speeding tickets;) Americans do not so they never think of applying it to anything.

We have people who think nothing of the fine pay it and continue to break the law so then we have to create more complex laws to attempt to deal with these special cases --- IF it ever gets noticed at all.

Bill Gates should pay $100,000 dollars for a speeding ticket. Corporations are well known for making far more profit than their settlements and then continuing to do evil things; just look at Monsanto... even our political conventions prepay the city with insurance against lawsuits for violating civil rights! It is so bad that our ruling parties "bribe" exceptions!

Re:PERCENTAGE based fines!!

[Hunter Shoptaw]

You also apparently don't know how easy companies find it to make a $0 net profit in the books. Based on annual salary, I make more than most corporations.

Re:PERCENTAGE based fines!!

[Bengie]

Don't base it on profit. Revenue or Assets or IPO value.. Whatever. Something that can't be manipulated without first ruining the company or causing criminal investigations for other reasons.

Re:PERCENTAGE based fines!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, this is just one reason why you have shell companies.

1. Make a trust fund. Put all your money there.
2. Get an annuity from the trust fund
3. Trust fund own all your assets, like houses, cars, etc. Heck, even house keeping would just be maintenance of the properties and comes from the fund.
4. Your income is the annuity, or basically daily cash spending. Incidentals. Gas. Maybe even less.

So here, your income is no longer attributed to income of the fund, but your annuity. 10% could be almost nothing.

On the other hand, a Joe working 9-5 can't really setup with such a structure. What they make in a year is all they can really count on. 10% could be VERY significant.

So yes, percentage based penalties are much superior to current fixed penalties, they are not the panacea either.

Re:PERCENTAGE based fines!!

[Ciggy]

Make it a percentage of Gross profit then; or Gross sales/other revenue. If the companies are going to apply earnings management, hit them higher up the income statement.

Re:PERCENTAGE based fines!!

[bussdriver]

Stupid lawyer talk.
Any functioning HUMAN can see a childish work around hack like this. Why do we treat the law as if it were computer software? The intent of the law is being circumvented by a trivial technicality and if you allow these kind of simple minded hacks (the implementation complexity doesn't matter) then you undermine the legal system itself making any solution easily susceptible to hacking.

As a child, surely you can remember some rule set by your parents where you tested the boundaries using a technical loophole in what they said (or got the other parent to say) -- did that fool your parents? NO. If they rewarded you for it, one could arguably say they were bad parents in raising a modern lawyer/politician.

The proper response is

[P-niiice]

We should be pissed at this, but really, we should all be amuzed because it will bring lots of attention to the issue.

Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

We still have not tried this yet.

I think it's about time.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[ISoldat53]

That's good advice regardless of the subject.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[History's Coming To]

"Let's kill all the lawyers, let's kill 'em tonight." ~The Eagles, 'Get Over It'

The problem is that YouTube is very big and they have a lot of copyright infringements. They have to respond "in a timely manner" to copyright claims, so there are two ways to do it: automate everything to a great degree, knowing that non-justified takedowns will sometimes occur, or hire an army of people to do it with Eyeball 1.0. Option 1 is cheaper, so guess what?

Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[ClickOnThis]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

Mod parent Informative. Let's stop using this oft-abused out-of-context quote from Shakespeare.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[bigredradio]

I didn't get to post [citation needed]. Gee ... thanks a lot.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[jmerlin]

I think in our current political context we mean layers and the abusive anti-citizen pro-corporate laws they've helped create and abuse, and the whole concept of a corporation being able to sue an individual, etc. Of course, killing all of the lawyers, including the ones that actually protect us, would be a very bad thing. The same idea applies to the congresspeople that propose such clearly anti-American bills (it's treason, and it needs to be seen as such) or who block good bills by introducing terrible amendments, etc. Basically "kill corruption." Pretty hard to do without just completely obliterating our legal system and starting over from scratch, because to change the fundamental bad decisions require unanimous or supermajority votes (like amendments), and those don't happen unless it's about racism, sexism, abolition, or defense funding.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

We could also make all lawyers public servants, and pay them public wages. Which is how it MUST be anyway for an impartial justice system.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

>>That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

>Mod parent Informative. Let's stop using this oft-abused out-of-context quote from Shakespeare.

Often abused by lawyers, anyway. They like to claim that Shakespeare meant that that killing lawyers was a prelude to the Apocalypse, rather than something that -- as attractive as it might sound -- will never happen. Let's look at the quote in context:

CADE: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
        reformation. There shall be in England seven
        halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
        pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
        to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
        common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
        grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--

ALL: God save your majesty!

CADE: I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
        all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
        apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
        like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

CADE: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
        thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
        be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
        o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
        but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
        once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
        since. How now! who's there?

Now, is Shakespeare claiming that "seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny" should scare the socks off of people? What about "the three-hooped
        pot shall have ten hoops"? No? What about the lack of money, or being fed and clothed by the "king"? Why is it that "Let's kill all the lawyers" is the one jarring piece of reality in a farcical back and forth?

No, Lawyers like to twist the meaning, because they hate having people agree with it. Better for them to point out that one might as well wish for the moon to be edible cheese as to wish for the removal of lawyers, something that Shakespeare did recognize.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[j35ter]

Dude, lawyers have taken over our society by creating rules and making sure to enforce them - in most countries they are at the heads of the legislative *and* the executive branches of a government. Basically, the whole government is lawyers.
Since the police and the army are obliged to follow the rules, set by lawyers, as they are obligedto follow their orders, there is really no way for the rest of us to stop them.
And, please, don't start about democracy and elections, as there you are given only the choice between 2 lawyers (or an actor, set forth by the lawyers).

So, the should you feel the urge to kill a lawyer, please go ahead, as this would be in the interest of all non-lawyers and in the interest of democracy, and humankind in general!

Uh, which lawyers do actually protect us? The ones who take a bunch of money from you because their colleagues created unreadable laws, or the ones who cash in on you extort^H^H^H^H^H^H suing someone else?

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[cheekyjohnson]

Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.

Except that the problem isn't solved. Oftentimes it's difficult or impossible to even get the video back up, and who the hell ever gets punished for fake notices?

This is the problem with the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices simply shouldn't exist, in my opinion.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[PoolOfThought]

I want to take your idea and extend it. Make it possible to say "nope, this is in fact not an infringement" and get it automatically reinstated, but then if there is still an issue... let 'em race for the slips. Some corp wants to issue a take down request that's fine. But if it is argued that it's a BS request then it is referred to a real "deciding body" of some sort.

Whoever loses in this process loses their youtube channel and / or rights to request take downs for a certain time period (extended with each failed request). My guess is that a $100 penalty is a joke to almost everyone issuing complaints, but a real chance at losing your ability to protect legitimate, important Intellectual Property is going to be a wake up call. I'm not against IP, copyrights, patents (even software patents), but I'm against someone (corps included) being lazy asses who put the onus on someone else to defend themselves just because there will be no repercussions if they DO successfully defend themselves.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[History's Coming To]

See: "Automate the 'Nope, this isn't copyright' process too" and "The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100", coincidentally also present in my post above. Which you quoted.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Falconhell]

Sometimes I think old Bill was right, lets kill all the lawyers kill em tonight.
Eagles, Get Over It.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[History's Coming To]

I like it. So now we need an xkcd cartoon about it, and YouTube will probably implement it. Brilliant. I love the interweb.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on a second, what is 'in a timely manner'? Just because an automated method might be able to do it 'instantaneously but err on the side of caution' does NOT make this a justifiable definition of 'in a timely manner'...there is NOTHING in the DMCA or other laws that make it justifiable to err so egregiously...nothing is wrong with scaling 'timely' based on the number of DMCA take downs initiated...if there's 1 take down notice in a year 'timely' may mean '1 day'...but with thousands potentially hundreds of thousands in a year to YouTube that does NOT mean that each one has to be acted on immediately or in 24 hours or even 48 hours...timely is undefined & therefore CAN be a 'slide scale'.

As such algorithms SHOULD and CAN be built that have human interaction to make an intelligent system, not just willy nilly removing stuff until it's proven incorrect and still keep costs reasonable, eventually the 'intelligent system' will learn what is valid & what is 'just suspicious so need a human' type of thing...

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

Make that $10,000, or better yet, $100,000, to the person who had to deal with the illegal takedown. That would stop the automated errors pretty quickly, I'd think.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[ShakaUVM]

>>If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person.

This is how it works, however the real person (Youtube Employee) just rubber stamps the copyright holder's claim, whether it is specious or not.

I think a massive lawsuit will be the only way to change this current regime. I think someone like NASA could claim real damages from spurious claims like this.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Ciggy]

The *AA want statutory damages, so an incorrect DCMA takedown notice should require statutory damages (something more like $725?) against the instigator of that notice as the instigator of that notice is assumed to be issuing it as an agent of the copyright holder and if the copyright holder has themselves have put it there, then they cannot be acting as an agent of the copyright holder and so must think themselves as the copyright holder (or acting on behalf of the copyright holder, which they are clearly not) which means that they have infringed the copyright holder's copyright.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a lawyer..
Are you a lawyer?
If so,.... step this way please..

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[silentcoder]

>Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it.

And another $100 to the person falsely accused to reimburse his time having to reverse the invalid take-down.
That would seriously slow down the degree to which companies are prepared to lay dubious and over-extensive copyright claims on platforms like youtube.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[mcgrew]

"Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! For ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them." -- J.C.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

I don't know if your serious or not, but since when has lets kill everybody been an intelligent response to anything. I'm sure there are lawyers chomping at the bit to "prosecute" I.E extort money out of this somehow, but don't waste our time with comments like this. I don't like people who make immature or stupid comments openly in a public domain, but if we killed every person who made stupid comments, youtube would be bankrupt first of all, and maybe we wouldn't have the government so inclined to take advantage of our info to secretly control it all under our ignorant little noses. I'm not attacking you, just think about it. While you waste time fantasizing about killing all the lawyers, which is foolish anyway, there are those who would like to be informed about the serious problem at hand and find out what others have to say about it. They then get distracted by idiocracy practiced by brainless drool monkeys that make posts similar to ones made by yourself. Good luck.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

Id agree with the other anonymous coward. Despite the "oft-cliche" based on overemphasized historical fiction. Its historical for a reason, it has timeless TRUTHS. btw I hate Shakespeare.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[s73v3r]

in most countries they are at the heads of the legislative *and* the executive branches of a government.

Wait, you mean that the government body charged with implementing the law is made up of people trained in the law?!?! Well I never!

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[s73v3r]

Uh, which lawyers do actually protect us? The ones who take a bunch of money from you because their colleagues created unreadable laws, or the ones who cash in on you extort^H^H^H^H^H^H suing someone else?

Ok. Let's kill Bradley Manning's lawyers first. They're clearly not doing anything good.

And, please, don't start about democracy and elections, as there you are given only the choice between 2 lawyers (or an actor, set forth by the lawyers).

You're still given the choice. You also have 3rd party candidates to choose from.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[s73v3r]

Should we start with Bradley Manning's lawyers? How about the lawyers representing MegaUpload? The lawyers at the EFF and ACLU?

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[s73v3r]

This is the problem with the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices simply shouldn't exist, in my opinion.

They should exist, they should just have very hefty penalties associated with takedowns in bad faith.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Painted]

I've maintained for years that due to the inherent self interest of lawyers to making law inaccessible to non-lawyers (ie, convoluted law that requires a lawyer to understand), anyone who holds a law degree / has passed the bar should be prevented from ever holding public elected office where they can enact laws.

On a related note, one of the only places where we let people set their own salaries is politics too....

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Branciforte]

You are quoting a killer who wanted to overthrow the government?

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[cheekyjohnson]

Why? I'd much rather they have to ask a judge to have the content removed. More difficult than just firing off take down notices? Yes. But at least that way actual people will be involved, a judge can evaluate the situation, and doing nonsense like this will be far more difficult. Unenforceable? That's their problem.

Even if done they're punished, I still don't like it. I believe being able to take things down with no judge involved is just asking for trouble.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[mcgrew]

This is the problem with the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices simply shouldn't exist, in my opinion.

Onerous takedown notices wouldn't be a problem if there was a large enough penalty for false notices, rather than "none" as it is now.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[cheekyjohnson]

Only if they were actually punished, and I find that highly unlikely. I'd rather them have to appear in front of a judge to get the content removed. They likely wouldn't waste their time with small fries (so the chance of false take downs would decrease even further) and an actual human would be introduced in the process.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

I guess that means we cant leash em by making their computers our bitches either.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[sociocapitalist]

Dude, lawyers have taken over our society by creating rules and making sure to enforce them - in most countries they are at the heads of the legislative *and* the executive branches of a government. Basically, the whole government is lawyers.

Since the police and the army are obliged to follow the rules, set by lawyers, as they are obligedto follow their orders, there is really no way for the rest of us to stop them.

And, please, don't start about democracy and elections, as there you are given only the choice between 2 lawyers (or an actor, set forth by the lawyers).

The idea of George Dubbya being a lawyer (ie passing the bar) is kind of funny actually...guess he could be an actor though...

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, it's not that simple, Einstein.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[AlienIntelligence]

Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.

and who the hell ever gets punished for fake notices?

Seriously man... what planet are you from?

The only ones that can get auto-anything done are the ones that rule the world:
The Golden Rule - He who has the gold, rules.

And fining them, well... that means that they make less money, how the fuck would that work? /s

-AI

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[bill_mcgonigle]

has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it

1/10th of 1% of annual income or corporate earnings (adjusting for $100K individual).

That's $100 for an individual and about $800,000 for Scripps. I think that's a fair balance - they both have relatively as much to risk.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[Anonymous Coward]

Join PETA if you think getting rid of parasites is murder.

Re:Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II

[doccus]

It's the lack of repercussions that is the main reason this issue exists,, I would LOVE to see penalties for "bearing false witness".. and hey, wasn't that one of the 12 commandments? How far we have fallen ;-(

Re:Deny Scripts the right to future government vid

[void*]

Sending a DMCA take down doesn't require having access to the video.

Get With It, Slashdot

[brit74]

I read the summary and concluded that Scripps Local News blocked the video using a false copyright claim. But, then I read the actual article:

"YouTube will block or censor content for one of three reasons: if a video violates the site’s terms of service, if its content is automatically found to match copyrighted content, or if it receives a request from a copyright owner to remove a pirated video." ... Content ID, YouTube’s automated copyright monitor, was meant to be the site’s secret weapon in its fight to stay legal, and make some sense – or cents – out of the video chaos: by algorithmically matching content, robots can, ideally, keep track of which videos contain copyrighted material.

So, basically, the whole takedown might've had nothing to do with Scripps Local News issuing a false takedown, and might've had everything to do with YouTube's robots misidentifying the video. Now, we've got a whole comment section full of people who want to attack Scripps for issuing a false takedown, even though we're not even sure what exactly happened. Please update the summary, Slashdot.

Re:Get With It, Slashdot

[Jason Levine]

Except that, as klingens pointed out above ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029795&cid=40896133 ), they've done this before. At the very least, their automated "that's our copyrighted material" robots need tweaking. At the most, they are fraudulently trying to claim copyright on videos that aren't theirs. The longer they go without fixing their copyright-detection-robots, the more likely the latter explanation is.

Re:Get With It, Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

A scumbag company sends out so many takedowns on anything and everything all completely automated that alot of them turn out to be false...
So many in fact they even nail nasa with false claims.

Yeah. that's really unclear isnt it.

We need LESS companies like this one. Not more.
So get to it internet world. make this one learn a harsh lesson. lets do something they DO care about..

COST THEM MONEY!

Re:Get With It, Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The robots are YouTube's, not Scripp's.

Re:Get With It, Slashdot

[brit74]

Maybe. It does seem odd that this is the second time Scripps was involved. However, it could be that Scripps uploads the NASA video to YouTube (from the NASA website) before NASA does, and that's causing some sort of problem with YouTube seeing the video as the IP of Scripps rather than NASA. A similar situation might've happened last time as well. I'd actually like to hear YouTube's version of what happened. If Scripps issued a takedown notice, then, yes, this is their fault.

Re:Get With It, Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime I upload a video they get tagged for copyright violations. I ranges from 1 to 5 depending on how much different audio they contains.
I haven't had my account suspended although it has happened around 10 times.
All the audio in question has been stock sound and music from iMovie and Final Cut Pro. I always dispute them, explain that I have used audio from libraries that was bundled with these programs and that I am legally in the clear. And then I end the text with a link to Apple's SLA on their site with a reference to the paragraph that explains that I can use it.

Lucky the DMCA has a provision for false takedowns

[godless dave]

I'm sure Scripps News Service will be assessed the lawful penalty for issuing a false DMCA takedown notice. Also, I believe in the Tooth Fairy.

64 million dollar question

[Anonymous Coward]

Is someone FINALLY going to be sued for perjury on a DMCA notice?

Or is this going to be yet another case to prove that the DMCA was never about the rights of the authors.

Re:64 million dollar question

[shentino]

Unfortunately the only perjury you can get nailed for on a DMCA claim is falsely claiming to represent the copyright owner.

it's not perjury to lie about infringment.

Actually...

[sootman]

... the first one had a Prince song playing in the background. New one will be up soon.

Re:Actually...

[ClickOnThis]

...when you assume that a short string of words Shakespeare (or whoever) wrote down once can only be used in the manner he used it -- even if uttered verbatim -- it is you who look like a pretentious idiot.

Language is what we make it, as we use it. That's its nature. Were it not that way, we would all be constrained to meaning what characters in sitcoms meant when they mouthed phrases we use every day.

Language is living -- but Shakespeare's particular use is relevant only within his art.

So I repeat, with literal meaning, and not because lawyers are good:

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Note the lack of quotes -- bitch.

With or without quotes, you can't just pretend Shakespeare didn't say it first. People will still make the connection even if you naïvely insist that they shouldn't. And I suspect you intend for them to do so, in an attempt to give your utterances a weight they do not deserve. I could say "my love is like a red, red rose" out in public and literally mean it. People will still think I'm quoting Burns even if I claim I'm not.

This goes also for phrases from sitcoms, SNL sketches, politicians, etc., if they become well-known and have a distinct cultural significance attached to them. Nobody is going to think you're borrowing a common phrase like "give me a break" from TV, but a phrase like "wardrobe malfunction" invites a comparison.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just call yourself a bitch?

Troll drives traffic to own site...

[Picass0]

...suffers no legal consequences.

Scripps Local News probably received a burst in traffic last night while the copyright claim was being sorted out. Scripps will probably will do this again unless Youtube locks their channel and bans them.

But that would mean taking a stand. Google doesn't care enough to do that.

Scripps Contact Info:

[Daryen]

For the curious, Scripps Contact Info from their website:

Corporate Headquarters:
312 Walnut Street
2800 Scripps Center
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-977-3000
Fax: 513-977-3024

E-mail Contacts:
Feedback: corpcomm@scripps.com
Corporate Communications: corpcomm@scripps.com
Human Resources: askHR@scripps.com

I'm sure they would love to hear what you have to say!

Re:Scripps Contact Info:

[Anonymous Coward]

For the curious, Scripps Contact Info from their website:

Corporate Headquarters:

312 Walnut Street

2800 Scripps Center

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Phone: 513-977-3000

Fax: 513-977-3024

E-mail Contacts:

Feedback: corpcomm@scripps.com

Corporate Communications: corpcomm@scripps.com

Human Resources: askHR@scripps.com

I'm sure they would love to hear what you have to say!

This is the form reply...

“We apologize for the temporary inconvenience experienced when trying to upload and view a NASA clip early Monday morning. We made a mistake. We reacted as quickly as possible to make the video viewable again, and we’ve adjusted our workflow processes to remedy the situation in the future.”

The E.W. Scripps Company
 

Google could make money policing this

[schwit1]

If an unreasonable takedown is received Google could charge the offending company a penalty. Don't want to pay?

Let the name of Scripps be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of the Internet.
Let the name of Scripps be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of Google(and its subsidiaries) until the fine is paid, with interest.

Re:Google could make money policing this

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be extortion, and if you really support that you haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion.

Fight Back

[Beer_Smurf]

We all need to send claims against all the big media content.
Make this rule cost them money.

Re:Can we get consequences added to the next rev D

[ravenknight]

> Last time I looked, copyright had expired on that particular piece of music several hundred years ago. Sigh. On that particular piece of music sure, but was the rendition of that piece several hundred years old? No? I didn't think so....

don't forget the "cable" websites

[swschrad]

DIY, HGTV, etc.

Re:Can we get consequences added to the next rev D

[ravenknight]

Oops, I screwed up the formatting a bit. Sorry.

Last time I looked, copyright had expired on that particular piece of music several hundred years ago. Sigh.

On that particular piece of music sure, but was the rendition of that piece several hundred years old? No? I didn't think so....

Everyone, get all your friends...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone, get all of your friends, neighbours, relatives, even your enemies, and get them to contact the Scripps News service, and get each of them to fire off ...say 30 or 40 requests (each) as to why they are blocking a public domain video of a taxpayer funded venture. Call Scripps onto the carpet and demand why they are blocking this. Get them, their team of bloodsuckers... oops, I mean lawyers, and everyone else involved in this (no, not the secretaries, just those with a job like CXO, or anyone with with a title like "Vice" or "President" or "Chair" or "Officer" and get them all to stand up before a group of nasty, angry reporters and civil liberties activists and civil rights demonstrators and demand to know what in the hell they are doing, and how they are going to make it right, and exactly why it happened in the first place, and the steps they will take to make sure, after its fixed, that it never ever happens again. Go now!

The was not a DMCA takedown.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the result of YouTube's Content ID. Scripps is a media partner with Google. All of their uploads are "protected" by the Content ID system. NASA released the video to the news outlets, Scripps published it on YouTube before NASA did. When NASA did upload it, it was already in the system from the Scripps uploaded and was automacticlly flagged.

No DMCA claim was filed, it was all automatic. Maybe the Scripps employee the posted it could have tagged the video to prevent this, I don't know.

The problem is a result of Google trying to police copyright, not with a company filing a complaint.

Re:The was not a DMCA takedown.

[Twinbee]

If you're right, then this should definitely be upvoted.

Re:The was not a DMCA takedown.

[Bryansix]

That's still lame. Scripps added no value to the equation. They should have just linked or embedded the official video once it was done uploading. Instead they are trying to monetize off something they don't even own.

Re:The was not a DMCA takedown.

[nothings]

Whether it's automated or manual, google needs to stop getting a pass if it keeps happening.

Re:The was not a DMCA takedown.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it happens all the time.
http://raoulpop.com/2011/10/23/do-not-use-imovie-sounds-for-youtube-videos/

Re:The was not a DMCA takedown.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is a result of Google trying to police copyright, not with a company filing a complaint.

No. The problem is with scripps not specifying that the video they uploaded is not their's. If they can't specify that then they should not be uploading.

If there is no mechanism for scripps, or any "trusted" or other uploader, to specify non-ownership, then it's Google's problem also.

Someone with balls and cash needs to sue

[davidwr]

When BigMediaCo accidentally or deliberately files false DMCA takedown claim against me, it causes me actual damage.

When the send one to a service like Google that everyone including them knows doesn't auto-reinstate based on a simple counter-claim, they are causing much greater damage.

Sooner or later some victim with both cash to burn and a willingness to go "all in" will bypass the DMCA and immediately file suit against the person who filed the claim on the grounds that it was "either grossly negligent or deliberately fraudulent, resulting in a harm to the plaintiff of $BIGBUCKS." Of course the plaintiff will concurrently follow all of Google's procedures to show a good faith effort to mitigate damages.

In the "best" (minimum actual damages) case, Google will reinstate the work in short order and damages will be limited to that caused by a few hours' down-time plus a few hundred dollars of the plaintiff's time plus legal costs. Still, that could easily be 4 or low-5 figures if it's a public figure or well-known company that got victimized.

After a few dozen such lawsuits by victims that are more interested in creating a public record than getting cash, media companies with more than 2 or 3 suits against them that went to a jury verdict will be even more vulnerable in court because future victims will be able to "prove a pattern of behavior."

Re:Someone with balls and cash needs to sue

[Ciggy]

In the "best" (minimum actual damages) case, Google will reinstate the work in short order and damages will be limited to that caused by a few hours' down-time plus a few hundred dollars of the plaintiff's time plus legal costs.

What about compensation for the reputation damage done by the [false] statement:

This video contains content by XXX, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

published and on display for those few hours?

Can we also make it the second and third things?

[publiclurker]

in case we miss some the first go around?

Correct Response, Contact Competitors in Markets

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct response in this situation, is to contact Scripps competitors in its own markets.

A) So, look here http://www.scripps.com/broadcast/locations and pick a television market.
B) Then GIS for their competitors.
C) Contact one competitor with this story http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/8/6/nasa-s-mars-rover-crashed-into-a-dmca-takedown and also http://www.fidosysop.org/4460/04/scripps-local-news-removing-nasa-videos-from-youtube/ and say something to the effect that it looks like Scripps is legally bullying NASA, you think this would be a good story.
D) Maybe watch a little local news.

Class action lawsuit, 350 Million defendants

[Anonymous Coward]

Every citizen of the United States is a defendant on this one.

Re:Can we get consequences added to the next rev D

[ODBOL]

> Last time I looked, copyright had expired on that particular piece of music several hundred years ago. Sigh. On that particular piece of music sure, but was the rendition of that piece several hundred years old? No? I didn't think so....

According to dingman's description, his daughter holds copyright on the performance.

NASA blocked the article

[Perl-Pusher]

I can't view the article because NASA web filter blocks it. You can view the NASA's curiosity video here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=18895

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Sure. Throw in the cops, too.

Automate it!

[careysb]

Create software to automatically kill the lawyers.

Re:Automate it!

[Nyder]

Create software to automatically kill the lawyers.

Probably the motivation for making skynet.

Re:Automate it!

[Anonymous Coward]

The software will be taken down by automated response. There is no need to fear Skynet.

Add a "repeat offender" escallation

[Mike Van Pelt]

Make it $500 for the first offence of a fraudulent DMCA complaint. $1000 for the second. $2000 for the third. Double it for each offense thereafter. Don't charge Youtube with them; charge the entity making the fraudulent claim. This would provide an appropriate smackdown for an individual doing it once for whatever reason, and quickly reach into "bankrupt the company" levels of penalty for the major offenders. (See the "grains of wheat on the chessboard" story.)

nuts

[slashmojo]

Or person kicking you in the nuts claims they were not your nuts to begin with and so you have no right to complain when said nuts are removed. You can though file a counter claim and in the fullness of time, all things considered, following a detailed examination, your nuts may be returned. However they are under no obligation to do so and may in fact expose your nuts to anyone they please at any time. More than likely you will find that your nuts now belong to someone else forever.

Kind of like marriage, now that I think about it.

Re:nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like marriage, now that I think about it.

Marriage at least has blowjobs to offer in compensation.

Re:nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Marriage at least has blowjobs to offer in compensation."

You're not married.

Or, you haven't been married for very long. You know the difference between a marriage of ten years and a job you've had for ten years? After ten years, the job still sucks.

Re:WORKING AS INTENDED !!

[green1]

You're implying that the goal of the DMCA was as publicly stated... Perhaps it is working exactly as intended.

Wow, I am overwhelmed

[jd.schmidt]

Scripps is truely a troll amoung trolls. I can only sit an awe and learn from the master.

"This content is not available in your country"

[fa2k]

I've almost stopped cliecking Youtube links, half of them don't work. NASA should host their own videos.

Re:Freesound & ccMixter too; YouTube abets cop

[green1]

Dunno what to do...

A few suggestions:
- leave youtube, find a better host, or self host
- follow the DMCA through to conclusion by taking the fraudulent entity to court.
- write your government representitives
- move to a country with sane laws (very few of those left, but it's worth a try)

Re:Freesound & ccMixter too; YouTube abets cop

[raydobbs]

If they have ISRC numbers embedded in them - file a claim with Google and Youtube - providing them the numbers used. If they don't cooperate, then sue the commercial entity doing the flagging and name Google to get the content reinstated.

Automate them back

[Anonymous Coward]

Just add another button that says "Report not copyrighted by X". If you want, you can make that only available to the O.P.
Then record how many times 1 user (say Scripps) incorrectly reports that they have the copyright to a video that they don't and issue a notice to them after 3 incorrect submissions, and personally I wouldn't allow that user to report any thing else.

Not even close to the silliest takedown

[Derekloffin]

How about Square-Enix taking down one of their own videos on their own channels? That one still have me baffled why they would DMCA themselves.

Just out of Curiosity...

[Greyfox]

What's to keep an enterprising group of people from submitting takedown notices for every new piece of content posted on youtube? Or the Internet as a whole, for that matter? I imagine it wouldn't take too many people to shut the whole thing down in the USA.

Thank you Scripps for getting Congress's attention

[PetiePooo]

Thank you, Scripps Local News!

This single incident will do more than any other event in recent history in helping to reign in the DMCA. This will finally get the legislature's attention focused on this bad law and give them the incentive and public pressure to try to fix it.

My suggested solution would be a check-box when submitting media confirming that you hold copyright, and any infringement claims should be brought to you directly. If this affidavit is checked, and the user's contact information has been verified as valid, the carrier can maintain their safe harbor by forwarding the complaint instead of removing the media.

Yeah, I know that's similar to how things worked before DMCA (less the contact verification), but I also understand that congress-critters never admit they're wrong, and this looks more like a tweak to them than an outright repeal.

Dude, they just landed a nuclear-powered rover...

[ScienceMan]

Equipped with lasers, no less, on MARS -- and you want to claim copyright to their video of it? Very anti-Darwinian of you, Scripps, very anti-Darwinian. I wouldn't want to be standing next to you when the next one lands in your vicinity!

Re:Thank you Scripps for getting Congress's attent

[PetiePooo]

Oops! s/reign in/rein in/

Start protesting the Content mafia

[someones]

Thats getting a little out of hand.
And its not the first case, where stuff was unrighteous removed.

It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[Anonymous Coward]

No... let's keep using it, but let's use it in our OWN context, where we MEAN let's kill all the lawyers, because we have OTHER reasons than did Shakespeare's character, because OUR lawyers have basically hamstrung our society, crippled our technology, retarded our advancement, and saddled us with more bad law than good law.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[ClickOnThis]

No... let's keep using it, but let's use it in our OWN context, where we MEAN let's kill all the lawyers, because we have OTHER reasons than did Shakespeare's character, because OUR lawyers have basically hamstrung our society, crippled our technology, retarded our advancement, and saddled us with more bad law than good law.

You're entitled to an opinion, but if you quote Shakespeare out-of-context to express it, then you wind up looking like a pretentious idiot.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[KhabaLox]

if you quote Shakespeare out-of-context.

That's a Shakespeare line? I thought it was from the INWO card game.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[Trogre]

Get thee to a nunnery.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[bugs2squash]

Actually the phrase is (c) Scripps Local News so please stop using it.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[Zyrill]

Actually, that were the politicians, not the lawyers as such.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyers didn't do any of that stuff. The people that retained them did.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[s73v3r]

Should lawyers not do what their clients tell them to now? If you were a freelancer, and your client told you to use an utterly garish color scheme for their website, should you not do it? And if you don't, what's to stop them from simply going down the line and finding another one who will, because they need the money more?

If you're going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the people who PAY the lawyers. They're the ones that are hamstringing our society and crippling our technology. Blaming the lawyers is exactly what those people want, because then those that are actually trying to do those things get away scott free.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[mcgrew]

Actually the phrase is © Scripps Local News so please stop using it.

FTFY (protip: ©
: )

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[sociocapitalist]

No... let's keep using it, but let's use it in our OWN context, where we MEAN let's kill all the lawyers, because we have OTHER reasons than did Shakespeare's character, because OUR lawyers have basically hamstrung our society, crippled our technology, retarded our advancement, and saddled us with more bad law than good law.

Or perhaps we have crippled our own society by using lawyers the way that we do. Other societies have lawyers that don't have the 'trigger happy' "I'm gonna sue 'em" attitude that rules in the US.

Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people...

Well, okay lawyers sue people too but I think there are usually non-lawyers behind the action in most if not all lawsuits.

Re:It's NOT Henry the VI, Act IV, Scene II today

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyers just follow the rules. The problem is that the rules are for sale to the highest bidder. Or, maybe that's not a problem, if you're a high bidder type. Who make the rules. So you just make a rule that it's not a problem. Problem solved!

If you make the news, you own the news

[Jesrad]

I say.

Actual IP theft!

[sjames]

"Big content" likes to clainm copyright violation is theft. It isn't actually because they retain the ability (right) to make copies just as they were before the so-called theft.

THIS was copyright theft. Because of Scripps wrongfully asserting ownership of the video, NASA was deprived of their right to make copies as they were before.

Re:Actual IP theft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright violation is bona fide theft because you receive copyrighted content in while or in part without the necessary permission and any relevant cost

Re:Actual IP theft!

[sjames]

No, theft is wrongfully transferring ownership. Copying is not a transfer, the owner isn't diminished. If someone 'stole' your car in the sense that it's still in your driveway not diminished in any way, ready to take you where you want and when you want, do you actually have a complaint? Would you even know?

Wozniak Cloud Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the whole "it's going to be horrendous" claim? NASA entrusted their data to the cloud and despite their importance, they were still taken down accidentally by a much smaller organization.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when you assume that a short string of words Shakespeare (or whoever) wrote down once can only be used in the manner he used it -- even if uttered verbatim -- it is you who look like a pretentious idiot.

Language is what we make it, as we use it. That's its nature. Were it not that way, we would all be constrained to meaning what characters in sitcoms meant when they mouthed phrases we use every day.

Language is living -- but Shakespeare's particular use is relevant only within his art.

So I repeat, with literal meaning, and not because lawyers are good:

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Note the lack of quotes -- bitch.

SOPA

[Dunge]

And then they said SOPA was a good idea

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[reboot246]

And don't forget the politicians!

DMCA Takedown all of Scripps Local News...

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be very surprising if there aren't at this moment many enterprising slashdotters creating throwaway youtube accounts just to file DMCA takedown notices on every Scripps Local News video they can find... 3 accusations and they're banned, right?

what color are your bits?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the copyright status of information is a "color", a meta-property that cannot be deduced solely from the bits that make up the information. So any technological systems we build that try to derive copyright status of the bits as a function of the bits themselves, is doomed to encounter problems like this.

Years ago, this problem was explained quite well.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[CayceeDee]

Lawyer and politician is pretty much synonymous. The vast majority of politicians are lawyers. As I tell people. Being a lawyer is the only career where you get to create your own jobs and then get paid to argue with people about them.

50 year periods in US

[harvey the nerd]

I don't agree with "inevitability" but the historical record is this:
1968 Vietnam war, related problems
1918 WWI for US participation, patriotic fervor and race riots
1868 Reconstruction with racial problems, eventual rise of the KKK. Of course 1861-65 was peak violence.
1818 correlation seems to me to slip, Panic of 1819
1768 hmmm, but French and Indian War 1756-1783 is bloody
1718 huh? zzzz

Uh, yeah

[Safety Cap]

The penalty for them is much less than the street justice penalty they want to hand out.

You do have real evidence for this, right?

This isn't one of those "Fox 'News' says Islamists want to kill me in my sleep so I better vote for Romney or everyone I know will get their heads cut off" knee-jerk fear of the other taken to the logical absurd end, right?

Re:Uh, yeah

[RajivSLK]

Here you go, a list of fatwa's calling for the death of ordinary individuals who speakout or say something negative about islam. It is one of the negative things about fundamentalist islam.

Salman Rushdie
Main article: The Satanic Verses controversy
One of the first well-known fatwas was proclaimed in 1989 by the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, against Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses. The reason was an allegedly blasphemous statement taken from an early biography of the Prophet Muhammad, regarding the incorporation of pagan goddesses into Islam’s strongly monotheistic structure. Khomeini died shortly after issuing the fatwa. In 1998 Iran stated it is no longer pursuing Rushdie’s death; however, that decree was again reversed in early 2005 by the present theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed to death in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was torched by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator.

Shahin Najafi
An Iranian rapper who raps in Persian language has been forced into hiding after hardline clerics offered a $100,000 reward for his murder, incensed by his song (Naghi) which is satirising the Tehran regime and making allegedly irreverent remarks about the tenth Islamic imam (Naghi).

Geert Wilders
Possibly the most internationally well-known politician, Geert Wilders, is one of many Dutch politicians who have had a fatwa issued against them. In 2008 Wilders received 285 death threats, with a further 264 aimed at all Dutch politicians. There were a total of 145 protection orders for Wilders in 2006; in 2005 there were 110. An Australian imam named Feiz Muhammad has issued a fatwa calling for the Dutch politician’s beheading, as of 2010.

Jerry Falwell
In an interview given on September 30, 2002, for the October 6 edition of 60 Minutes, American Christian minister Jerry Falwell said: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war."
The following Friday, Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari, the spokesman of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa calling for Falwell's death, saying Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed." He added, "The death of that man is a religious duty, but his case should not be tied to the Christian community."

Taslima Nasreen
Fundamentalists in Bangladesh proclaimed a similar fatwa against Taslima Nasreen in 1993, against a series of newspaper columns in which she was critical of the treatment of women under Islam. The next year she wrote Lajja (Shame) which described the abuse of women and minorities. Again there were calls for her death, and her passport was confiscated. Within the legal system, she felt that she might have faced a jail term of up to two years, where she was likely to be murdered. She managed to escape the country via Calcutta, was granted asylum in Sweden, and then lived in Paris, and finally came to India. Even in India, she had to flee the city of Calcutta and move to Delhi under Indian government's strict orders following riots in Calcutta.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatwas#Fatwas_promoting_violence_against_a_particular_individual

Re:Uh, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's clearly a list of youtube DMCA complaints...

Fucktard. Backup the claims actually made or GTFO.

Re:Uh, yeah

[mvdwege]

Typical racist douchebag dodging of the question noted.

Re:Uh, yeah

[cpu6502]

Not ONE example of a youtube uploader who has been targeted via the DMCA process to get their home address. You stupid anti-arab racist mother fucker. Put on a white cape so you'll make an easier target for my gun..... I hate racist trash.

Re:Uh, yeah

[s73v3r]

I guess the question is, does the issuer of the takedown have to provide the same information? If so, then I see no problem with it. If not, then that would be a huge potential for abuse.

Re:Uh, yeah

[kubernet3s]

This is a list of fatwas against relatively high profile journalists and authors, not people on YouTube. Who hasn't at one time or another wanted to issue a fatwa against Jerry Falwell anyway? The Rushdie thing is only such a big deal because the Ayatollah issued the fatwa. It's a long leap from "theocracies targeting citizens for making openly seditious statements" to "jihadists trolling youtube for frat boys to behead"

I suspect

[Safety Cap]

that the legal lackeys who wrote this law for their MPAA/RIAA masters knew exactly what they were doing: they intentionally made it so there was no penalty for flooding take-down notices across the length and breadth of the internets.

If there was some kind of penalty or cost (say, a paltry fee of $1 for every take down notice filed), we'd see these things dry up faster than a river in corn country.

IMNSHO...

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Scripps and Youtube need to repeatedly kicked in the head until this sort of bullshit is stopped.

"NASA should host their own videos" -- They do.

[zooblethorpe]

See http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=149933921 for the Curiosity landing video.

Cheers,

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[Anonymous Coward]

And the dumb-asses who elect them.

NASA should have posted to the Internet Archive

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the real Library of Alexandria.

Thank you, Copyright

[Trogre]

No wait, "thank" isn't quite the word I was looking for...

Alternate here:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGyeULvpQdY

Penalty proposal.

[gstrickler]

Rights holders issuing fraudulent (materially incorrect) DMCA takedown notices, shall immediately have ALL their copyrighted content taken down for 30 days, or 10x as long as the material they made a fraudulent claim upon was down, whichever is longer. This includes all sites they control, including any such things as YouTube channels they control, their corporate website, etc. In addition, they will pay a $5000 fine per instance to the US Govt, pay $1000 or actual expenses (whichever is greater) to the provider they issued the notice to, and pay damages of 3x the actual losses of the entity who does have the copyright to the material in question, but in no case less than $5000, to that entity.

That should give them sufficient incentive to make sure it's their material and not something covered under "fair use" before issuing a notice.

Re:Can we get consequences added to the next rev D

[FirstOne]

Techincally... the offending DCMA claim is claiming false copyright ownership (defacto case of copyright infringement).

The statutory damages for copyright is limited to $150,000, but in cases of copyright infringement for commercial gain, the compensatory/punitive damages have no limit.. In theory NASA could rip scrips a new ass.ole, (5/10 million should do it), if they wanted to pursue the matter.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[sco08y]

Sure. Throw in the cops, too.

This is a pretty typical anarchist sentiment, but I thought about it, and it works for me. You'll wind up slaughtering a lot of limp wristed liberal lawyers, and be shot dead by the well-armed conservative lawyers (have fun storming the legal offices of the NRA!) and the country will be far better off.

So, have at it!

21st century FFS!

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

I watched this live yesterday, but my kids were at school (Australia)
I so much wanted to share with them the experience of the landing and watching the control room react with each step

The human race just put a truck on Mars using a method straight out of the best sci-fi movies and do you think I could find a copy of the raw footage of the control room anywhere?

Nope. Nothing more than the canned final minute replayed ad-nausea by every news service on the planet. The 10 minutes before that? Nothing...
Now I know at least ONE of the reasons why. Whether its ideological or simply for cash, its nothing less than censorship of the masses.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwww, so cute. I love watching these 'special' children use the internet. Kind of like watching the special olympics.

Let's not forget ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... that the Obama administration supports DCMA and all its equivalent draconian laws that originated from the hq of MAFIAA

Remember SOPA ?
 

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Obama. Cthonic Manchurian Candidate. Created whole-cloth from nothing.

Where was he, as recently as 2002? Nowhere. With nothing published of note - despite "editorial" resume as expert on Constitutional Law.

The whole "birth certificate" issue was deliberately created to misdirect with an irrelevant absurdity, real and actual questions as to his origins and sponsorship.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...his origins and sponsorship

Muslim Brotherhood... or the Communist Party

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Taco Cowboy]

...his origins and sponsorship

 
Muslim Brotherhood... or the Communist Party

 
Most likely the Muslim Brotherhood
 
Look how his administration has awarded the Muslim Brotherhood 3 countries, - Libya, Egypt and Tunisia - and Obama is siding with Saudi Arabia (the world HQ of Muslim Brotherhood) in the Syrian conflict
 
On the other hand, his administration is not exactly in friendly terms with Cuba, Russia, China, nor North Korea. In conclusion, we can safely say that the commies are not his sponsors
 

Re:Let's not forget ...

[h4rr4r]

You forget the picture of W playing kissy face with the Saudi prince already?

The US government has been at the beck and call of the Saudis for quite a while.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[BVis]

Time to change the tinfoil in your hat, there, Sparky.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[BVis]

That's a pretty serious assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have any tangible evidence that President Obama has any financial ties to either organization?

Re:Let's not forget ...

[mcgrew]

Crazy shit like that really makes your side look stupid, especially the "Obama is a Muslim" slander. Yes, slander. Obama worships in a Christian church, not a Muslim church.

When you have to resort to batshit insane stuff like this, your own candidate must REALLY suck... oh, speaking of whom, he said Harry Reid needs to put up or shut up, that makes little sense either. Romney should put up or shut up. What does he have to hide? He paid about half of what a working man pays of his taxed percentage in the one he released, I find it more credible than not that he's either paid fewer taxes than that, or none at all.

BTW, where was Romney born? Can he produce a birth certificate? No, there's no reason whatever for Romney to. There's every reason to release his tax records, unless of course it would make his winning the election impossible.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any tangible evidence that President Obama has any financial ties to either organization?

Sorry, that's classified.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ackkk! Mein Gott! He goes to church! Ah.. Well... that's completely different. I mean, if he goes to church, he can't be all bad. Especially if it's a Christian church,, You really do swallow the mass media sausage whole, don't you? I just love how easy it is to get you guys out of the woodwork with the smallest 'offense'. As dependable as old faithful. And what's even better is when you all assume that if you're against one candidate, you're for the other. Definitely a laugh riot. What a bunch of suckers!

Re:Let's not forget ...

[s73v3r]

Remember SOPA ?

And how the Obama administration OPPOSED SOPA?

http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin+Declares+War+on+SOPA+SOPA+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/14/obama_administration_comes_out_against_sopa_and_protect_ip.html

But please, don't let things like facts get in the way of your mindless bashing. Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be displeased with Obama, let's make something up.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[s73v3r]

Look how his administration has awarded the Muslim Brotherhood 3 countries, - Libya, Egypt and Tunisia - and Obama is siding with Saudi Arabia (the world HQ of Muslim Brotherhood) in the Syrian conflict

WTF? So suddenly overthrowing Khadaffi was a bad thing? And who is Obama to tell the people of Egypt and Tunisia who they can and cannot choose as their democratically elected government?

And don't forget that Bush was 1000x closer to the Saudis than Obama ever would be.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[s73v3r]

Of course not. Because there isn't any. Because it would require them to actually think.

The absolutely retarded thing about these people is that there is plenty of actual, real, legitimate stuff to be upset with Obama over. But they stick with the stupid shit.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[BVis]

Totally agree. By all means, disagree with the President all you want on policy issues, that's your right. You can even call him a liberal jerk without fear of retaliation from the government. But making wild accusations intended to assassinate his character that have no basis in reality doesn't accomplish anything; no sane person would believe you without tangible proof. It also makes you look like an idiot.

But, if you're ok with that, who am I to tell you you can't. You have the right to say whatever you want. And I have the right to call you an idiot for doing so.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...require you to think..."

Hmm... Nah... Much easier to dismiss out of hand as 'conspiracy'. Screw that thinking stuff. That's for useless, vegetarian, intellectual four-eyes.

Also, I find your righteous indignation over Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt to be quite humorous. It's like you actually believe they have any more democracy now than before. Wonderful place over there now

Re:Let's not forget ...

[bill_mcgonigle]

There's every reason to release his tax records, unless of course it would make his winning the election impossible.

I like Root's suggestion - Romney releases his tax returns and Obama unseals his college records.

I'll be heating up the oil for the popcorn.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for Obama to show us the birth certificate with his real father's name on it.

Re:Let's not forget ...

[mcgrew]

I see nothing wrong with Root's suggestion, either. It would be interesting to see how both candidates did in school and how much they've paid in taxes for the last ten years.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the law says Google should block the content first and ask questions later - then the law is fucked up.
Certainly if the new agency gets to block other people's content based on no more than "their word", with no legal due process, then at least they should have to provide evidence that is reviewed by a human (and pay an appropriate fee).

Re:Well...

[lpq]

The law doesn't require what they are doing. They are to respond to take down requests -- just because one of their own partners uploaded a pirated copy of the video doesn't mean the original should be taken down...

I'm seriously wondering if the news service got "exclusive rights" to the video before they subscribed to a Google service that presumes "exclusive rights" by any of their publishers -- whether or not it is... and in many cases is not.

Google is good about publishing the URL's of search results they were not allowed to show due to various requests -- and I know many of those URL's shouldn't have been blocked (and some likely 'should' under current corporate owned law), at least by publishing the requester's information and the URL, people can still see if the site falls under fair usage or even has the purported violation...

God bless America

[neither_geek_nor_ner]

ho ho ho ho hohohhohohohohohoohohoho..........heh heh heh heh heh Why are non-americans getting to see the weirdest possible stories emanating from the US of A?

why this happens

[cratermoon]

According to a number of sources, the reason this happens is related to the way YouTube partners with companies like Scripps. Essentially, when one of YouTube's enterprise customers uploads a video, in the process of making it available YouTube kicks off an automated search that immediately goes looking for other copies of that video, already online.

This is why a video that's been on YouTube for months or years and is clearly someone else's property can get shown on a late night talk show and then suddenly get a copyright takedown

In short, YouTube assumes that if one of their paying partners uploads a video, it must belong to the company, and no matter how long that content has been on YouTube before Scripps, NBC, or whoever uploads their copy, it must be a pirated copy.

I hope they don't think they can simply roam aroun

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they don't think they can simply roam around the Gale Crater without paying the appropriate fees.

Early in 2005 I personally purchased 100 million square miles of the Mars surface.

Can someone from NASA please contact me urgently to discuss payment for rover storage?

Any samples or images taken by the rover are copyright and my not be publicly released without paying $10,000 per image, also if the rover is not removed within 10 working days it will be assumed that it is abandoned and will be removed at your cost.

Re:Can we get consequences added to the next rev D

[Ciggy]

Agreed: the rendition was his daughter's and so copyrighted to her.

Ice the T, Album VII, Track II

[Anonymous Coward]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

Don't hate the lawya, hate the law.

A simple suggestion

[Rambo Tribble]

It is high time that any entity placing a non-valid takedown request be barred from further such requests for a minimum of three years. Or 30 years, whichever comes last.

They Apologized

[Toad-san]

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/06/curiosity-landing-removed-from.html

Yeah, right. Time to beat those greedy careless bastards UP!

Like the above anonymous coward reply: let's give them some kind and loving attention, eh?

http://www.scripps.com/heritage/contact-us

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[s73v3r]

You'll wind up slaughtering a lot of limp wristed liberal lawyers, and be shot dead by the well-armed conservative lawyers

Because conservatives are the only ones who know how to use guns?

Who needs Youtube?

[John Holmes]

Use rutube. No censorship. No rules.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think gun-loving liberals exist, I invite you to visit Austin. There's lots of us here.

Re:Occam's Razor

[ormondotvos]

Occam's Razor doesn't apply to human behavior. It's a science theory thang.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show how far American law has got its head up its own arse! Fuckwit lawyers for allowing it to happen or encouraging it to happen. And fuckwit people for standing back and allowing nonsense liker this to prevail.

Google - change your ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Google testing the channel for NASA or any other federally funded organization?

Their original material is by definition public domain.

Not that anyone at Google will read this, or put it in practice. No ad money in it.

"NO EVIL" - it's just another lie.

Maybe it is time for Anonymous to DMCA flood Google.

E. W. Scripps Company's channels might be a good place to start.

author:Brenda Lee Ayala Parrilla

[Brenda Lee Ayala]

This made me laugh! LOL I guess is all fun and games untill litigation begins. I think everyone deserves the chance to fair resolutions saving all parties involved the stupidity factor. When something violates the law just remove it... and show integrity."Do good and dont look to who!"

The Bats just called......

[Ol Olsoc]

....and they say that no way, no how is their shit as crazy as humans and their copyright laws. They say we'll have to come up with something better.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[Anonymous Coward]

the root of all evil. you can't blame greedy corps or anyone else. without the politicians (either side of the scumbag) we would not have such a conscienceless world. they take the money and laugh at us. with good reason.

That's awesome

[ToddInSF]

Everybody should flag every youtube vid !

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[sco08y]

You'll wind up slaughtering a lot of limp wristed liberal lawyers, and be shot dead by the well-armed conservative lawyers

Because conservatives are the only ones who know how to use guns?

That's almost exclusively my experience. The enlisted ranks in the military are heavily conservative, and they all have at least basic proficiency. All your hunters, farmers, etc., are largely conservative, and they tend to be armed.

But more importantly, liberals are the only ones who deliberately disarm themselves and their law-abiding neighbors, for example, in "gun-free zones". Virtually every major inner city region is run by liberals, has strict gun control, and vastly higher murder rates.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[sco08y]

If you don't think gun-loving liberals exist, I invite you to visit Austin. There's lots of us here.

I like Austin, I've been there a couple of times. But you can't hold a candle to Vermont, absolutely anyone can carry concealed, no permit required.

But, reading comprehension: I said that if anarchists start killing lawyers or cops, they'd go after unarmed people first, and the fact remains that most liberals deliberately disarm themselves.