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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[Attila Dimedici]

Perhaps we should fine a good shyster

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

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Khashishi]

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[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

[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]

>>>"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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

Actually...

[sootman]

... the first one had a Prince song playing in the background. New one will be up soon.

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!

Fight Back

[Beer_Smurf]

We all need to send claims against all the big media content.
Make this rule cost them money.

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.

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."

Can we also make it the second and third things?

[publiclurker]

in case we miss some the first go around?

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

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.

"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)

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.

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!

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

[Trogre]

Get thee to a nunnery.

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.

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?

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

"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,

Thank you, Copyright

[Trogre]

No wait, "thank" isn't quite the word I was looking for...

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.