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.
I know Ohio is boring and all but if they want the attention: http://www.scripps.com/heritage/contact-us
"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.
Just see it on Nasa's site: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=149933921
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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?
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
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.