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."
sauve for the goose is sauve for the gander.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
$500 for private individuals. 10% of global turnover for incorporated companies. Seems fair.
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
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?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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'.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
Sure. Throw in the cops, too.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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...
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
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.
Excellent post. (Posting to keep this in my slashdot history, I could save the link somewhere, but meh)
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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?