Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of man. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
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 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.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
"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!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
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.
...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.
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?
Yeah, right.