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!

[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!

[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!

[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: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?

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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?

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]

We still have not tried this yet.

I think it's about time.

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

Re:Can we also make it the second and third things

[reboot246]

And don't forget the politicians!

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?