Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To Fight Copyright Violations With DMCA?
szyzyg writes "I've created some popular science videos showing how asteroid discoveries have happened over the last few decades. However I've run into a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed. But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction, but even if I did so I'd have to pay court costs up front and since they're based in another country I'd have a difficult time actually collecting any money from the other party. It feels like this other group is simply gambling that I won't spend the time and resources to take further legal action, the DMCA is supposed to provide equal protection but the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are. So does anyone have any suggestions for how I should proceed here?"
Doesn't mean shit outside the USA. Thank God.
Release another video that shows asteroids smashing into the cultist's church and an undead dinosaur army emerging from the crater to devour their children.
1. Read and understand the law before you try to apply it.
2. Decide if you really want to pull the trigger.
3. Hire a lawyer.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
> borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. ...
>
> submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do
> in fact have the rights to this work
A religious organization lie? You're kidding me!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Either you're telling the truth, or they're telling the truth. I don't want to judge that, Youtube doesn't want to judge that, a judge should be the judge of that. And until a judge has looked at it, what reason is there to take down the video again?
If everybody reading this goes in and makes a dislike of that video and others of that so called religion then at least we made a statement.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.
I missed the financial impact in your post. Are you just offended they re-used your works, or is it impacting your sales?
Now that we have THAT out of the way, you could probably sue them both! Name Youtube and the church in your lawsuit, go for an injunction against Youtube and ask for ONE BILLION DOLLARS worth of damages from the church! It works for the music industry! The church probably won't even show up to defend itself, so take a default judgement against them and when they don't pay, use it to get warrants for the arrest of their leadership (for contempt of court or whatever) if they ever come to the USA! Just about everyone who's anyone has to come here eventually!
It'll probably cost you several large briefcases full of cash in lawyers fees which you will probably never recoup, but if you want to make your new hobby making those guys' lives miserable, that's the way to go!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message
Re-redub their version to make the group's religious message blasphemous to Islamists.
That should eventually take care of your problem, but there may be a wee bit of collateral damage to the rest of the world along the way, like World War III.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Right youtube are happy to take the video down again if I spend money filing a court case against the infringing party. Which is what would happen if a single person submitted a counter claim against a major corporation's takedown.
That's part of the problem sir, they've put my picture on their video and are implying that I'm endorsing their message.
Apparently the religious group is outside the US, which adds another level of difficulty.
But anyway, in general, if you live in the US, and protecting your copyright is really important to you, you should file copyright forms with the US Copyright Office. Although current law says that you enjoy copyright protection regardless of whether you file, it doesn't give you *equal* protection if you don't file. If you file, you can sue for both actual damages and statutory damages. If you didn't file, then you can only sue for actual damages, which are presumably zero in your case. When statutory damages are in play, a lawyer will often be willing to take such a case on a contingent fee basis.
The DMCA sucks, but it doesn't follow that enforcing copyright automatically sucks, or even that enforcing it using the DMCA automatically sucks. Laws are like beer and shotguns; they can be used for both good and bad purposes. I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without copyright, but in such a society the GPL and BSD software licenses, for example, would be unenforceable. Likewise, I'm willing to contemplate living in a society without private property -- but if I tried to implement such a society unilaterally, I'd run into all kinds of problems.
Find free books.
His PUBLICLY AVAILABLE registration information for his website, http://harunyahya.com, is as follows:
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Publication, Global ms7uh6j58c5@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Global Publication
ATTN HARUNYAHYA.COM
care of Network Solutions
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
570-708-8780
Record expires on 23-Jan-2022.
Record created on 23-Jan-2000.
Bulk whois optout: N
Database last updated on 23-Sep-2012 14:42:05 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS2.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS3.P03.DYNECT.NET
NS4.P03.DYNECT.NET
Both the address and phone number are fake (they apparently are the address and phone of Network Solutions itself. However you CAN sue Network soultions in small claims since they are now attached to his company. Sue them in small claims for damages and ask alternatively that they hand over all the information that they have on the person. Attempt to take over his website via court order in small claims (it's an asset).
There is also a Wikipedia page about the guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
Also: Some states allow injunctive relief (court order for youtube to take down the site) in small claims court and some do not. If your state does then file and ask that the site be taken down in addition to other damages.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
Then you likely have a defamation or publicity claim to add to your copyright infringement claim. Make sure to bring these up at the initial consultation with your lawyer.
The DMCA is designed to force content distributors like YouTube to take action to get on the record statements. They did that. At this point they now have your statement made under "good faith clause" and the church's statement made under penalty of perjury.
Assuming your version of events is correct you have a situation where the religious organization is engaging in perjury. The problem is civil perjury is rarely prosecuted. Generally the system responds to perjury via. large awards. So in your case if you sued you would be likely to get a large reward that you wouldn't be able to collect on.
However, YouTube is potentially involved in contributory infringement if you notify them. Provide them a complete set of documentation proving your claims and then they are on the hook. What happens from there is up to them. Suing YouTube is not going to be cheap but then again they are unlikely to care enough for you to have to fight them.
It's always been this way. Law is expensive. Lawyer costs, court costs, transport, time off work. Even when the case is open-and-shut, it'll cost a small fortune to fight. This isn't new: It goes back as far as law does. Call it the cynic's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet - some way that lets you bypass all the expensive bits in between where you are now and where you legally should be. But there isn't one. This isn't even a politically important case, so you can't expect any activist group to come to your aid with money and experts. Basically, you're screwed. You really only have two options:
1. Accept it. Let them have your video.
2. Get MAD. Spend your savings and go through some legal hell. You'll win, easily, but all you will win is petty revenge. The victory will hurt more than just giving up. With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
You nailed it. Legal questions in Ask Slashdot are requests for the community's help in performing steps 1 (understand the basics of the law) and 2 (understand the costs and benefits of suing) in order to become better prepared for step 3 (initial consultation with lawyer).
Public defenders are for those accused of criminal acts. This is a civil case. So no, the OP can't spend tax payer dollars to enforce their copyright.
However, you might be thinking of finding a copyright friendly attorney to do it pro bono, it which case there's no limitations.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
That guy may be grossly misinterpreting your data, but it almost seems like a fair use of the video, as absurd as the usage and interpretation is. Would you want to be limited as to usage of video clips in this way? And what would this say for free speech, which is supposed to protect this sort of speech, even though we find it ridiculous.
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
And on one image they even left in "© Scott Manley" visible.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Filing only costs $350, and you can save yourself some money and file it per se. They're not very likely to bother you after that.
you probably can't get punitive damages.
I believe you mean statutory damages. The copyright act does not provide for punitive damages, and therefore registration would not be a prerequisite for trying for them.
If only you had had a similar fear of posting and having your posts unlawfully copied this would be a better world.
Are you being purposefully ignorant considering that IN the video the guy admits that Scott created the video?
Before you do anything at all consider this web page:
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
If no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
Yes, but you would have to get a prosecutor to take the case. Unlikely they will prosecute a religious organization for perjury when they are in a different country.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.
And possibly easier said than done, given this guy's previous form:
"When Dawkins publicly lampooned the research in the Atlas of Creation (he pointed out that one of the photos of a Caddis Fly was in fact a fishing fly, complete with metal hook, stolen from the internet, pictured), and labelled Yahya a charlatan on his website, Yahya used his considerable influence and battalion of lawyers to sue for libel and have Dawkins's website banned in Turkey. This is just one of thousands of cases he has brought before the Turkish courts."
Lots more here, including lurid claims about blackmail and sex parties:
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2131
When somebody asks you for legal advice on Slashdot, you're supposed to give it. In case you hadn't noticed, simply having an account on Slashdot qualifies you as a legal expert, especially on IP issues. No legal training? No problem!
Those kind of "Slashdotters" are usually a lot more coherent than "Slashdotters haters Slashdotters" like you. ;)
That said, most slashdotters are not against copyright per se, but against the abuse of copyright by corporations, the use of public money to defend their rights while the common citizen have to bankrupt himself to have any chance of having justice made, and the erosion of fair use promoted by those same big corporations.
Your limited capacity of understanding these concepts is what brings you to perceive their opinions as something paradoxical.
That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.
You misunderstand what the DMCA takedown request actually does.
This portion of the DMCA allows the victim to file a claim with a third-party hosting provider (youtube in this case) stating that someone (the unnamed religious organization) has infringed on your video which is protected by copyright.
Acting on the request, youtube can take down the video and allow the unnamed religious organization to respond, identify themselves and claim that they do not infringe the victim's copyright. Youtube can then put the video back up.
Having identified the infringer, the victim can then sue the unnamed religious organization for damages.
By following the DMCA takedown request law, youtube has no liability for copyright infringement.
The DMCA takedown request does not create or eliminate liability by the infringer. It merely serves to identify the infringer so that the victim can sue in court.
If the infringer doesn't identify themselves, then youtube must keep the video offline, or if youtube puts the video back up, youtube now runs the risk of liability for copyright infringement.
Depends on the local jurisdiction whether they can issue an injunction. The good news is that Adnan Oktar aka Harun Yahya probably will not answer a complaint in a local small claims court therefore you would win a default judgment of up to $5,000 or more (amount depends on jurisdiction) which would be all that YouTube would need to take it down and you could also try to seize any advertising funds generated (if any) by YouTube on behalf of Harun Yahya. Plus it might be sufficient cause to get the YouTube user banned since they submitted an affidavit under threat of perjury that they were entitled to use video.
Downsides: 1) They could answer charge and have it dismissed in favor of moving it to a Federal court. 2) Filing fee of ~ $50 (amount depends on jurisdiction)
But then I've always like tilting at windmills.
Another idea is that maybe they have done this numerous times and it involved 5 or more people then maybe you could sue under RICO statutes which might entice a lawyer working on a percentage basis to take the case. Then again, my "limited knowledge" of the RICO statutes make me believe it is under utilized by private citizens which leads me to wonder if I know just enough to sound ignorant.
Boo hoo. It's Youtube. Get over it. If you make enough of a noise, you invite the Streisand effect. Don't go blaring about it. Just fuck them over. Like copy THEIR stuff into a new video and make fun of them. When they go "wah wah wah" and have it taken down, pull the same thing - declare that it isn't. The law isn't set up to help YOU, it's set up to help major corporations extract wealth from the working class. Claiming DMCA with idiots like that is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You're not going to win, unless you are very fast and very good at throwing knives. Since you've piddled away a lot of time on this already, fast isn't going to help, so you need to nuke the fuckers. Don't advertise it, just destroy them. And then: get over yourself. Anything on the web is fair game. That's the new rule: it's a game of TEGWAR.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
However, it appears you may have problems suing a religion in a different country. You may well find that suggesting to YouTube/Google that they are complicit and therefore liable to a lawsuit, and far easier to get at. You might find they just remove the video, it might well be part of their normal dispute process:
1: Complaint received from X, video removed.
2: Legally binding statement made by Y, video reinstated.
3: X responds saying he has proof of Y making an untrue statement, and legal action will be taken. Video removed again.
Google are still breaking laws by transmitting copyright material, and they make an effort to avoid hassle. And the best scenario is that the religion have to distribute "their" video on their own, at which point you start the multiple download project and destroy their bandwidth fund....
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Get a story off to www.groklaw.net and ask for publicity and advice there.
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
There is no federal small claims court. Copyright law is federal. Roughly speaking, this poster is f'd.
I'm a nature photographer.
> This is a civil case. So no, the OP can't spend tax payer dollars to enforce their copyright.
This isn't strictly true. If OP is big enough to buy some congressmen he can, in fact, spend tax dollars to enforce his copyright.
See: RIAA, MPAA
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
In the US this would almost certainly be considered 'fair use' because it is commentary on OP's original work.
The US four factors test for fair use is largely met:
Purpose: The authors of this video have added significant commentary that was not present in OP's original work.
Nature: They are using OP's video not as a creative work, but as statements of facts to support their commentary.
Portion: They used a large percentage of OP's video, but not all. This might be an item in your favor, but since this video is low res, they used as little as they could to make their point.
Market: They are not likely to have reduced the commercial value of OP's video.
So this seems to me that this is 'fair use' of OP's video. The commentary they present is certainly utter rubbish, but the law allows people to use evidence from original works as evidence for their arguments, even rubbish arguments.
OP has already posted a comment that attests that this is an unauthorized use of his original video. That taints the authors and their message. I am not sure that any further action improves the situation.
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Copyright laws are different in different parts of the world. Whether Youtube is an American company or not has nothing to do with whether the video in question is legally considered to be violating any copyright in another country
Even under American copyright laws, there's exemptions made for "educational" use, and they could be arguing that their film is educational in nature. Tinfoil hat alarmist dreck though it may be, it could still meet the legal definition for an educational exemption from copyright.
Mostly agreed.
But if y watch their rubbish carefully you will find that they really only used a small portion (repetitively) so your point about "portion" is strengthened.
This isn't worth the effort. Nobody is going to the clown work for an educational video.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Get a declaratory judgment. Once a Court rules it is yours, then Google will listen. How much would Google spend to fight when it has no dog in the fight.
Fight Spammers!
The problem is any self-respecting lawyer would not dare give legal advice on a forum, because of liabilities/etc.. Lawyers need to be careful that what they say, especially if it's not in full possession of the facts, is not taken as legal advice, because they can be held liable if it turns out to be bad advice. And no, I am not a lawyer, but I have studied some law.
Your best bet, in a situation like this is to do a little research. First off, make sure that they actually are violating your copyright... from what I've seen, there's a small amount of the original work that gets used repeatedly. My understanding of the US "fair use" allows for re-use of a small clip in a derivative or other work, as long as it is not a large part of the original film, and is not substantially the same as the original. There are also considerations for the potential impact on market value of the original, and for the commerciality of the derivative work... is it being used for educational purposes, for example?
These are questions I can't answer, because I don't know enough about US copyright law, but I suspect that they're arguing that their film is allowed because it's educational in nature, because it is substantively different from the original, and because they're only using a small part of the video without including the sound.
If you still feel you have a case, then make an appointment with a lawyer and ask them whether it's worth pursuing it. If you don't like their answer, ask another lawyer.
Thank you, that's interesting and, at least in theory potentially useful to me some day.
(Only had one real copyright claim, someone used one of my images on the cover of their death metal CD and was selling it. No returned phone calls for weeks. Good thing it was the cover, Eventually I DMCA'd the album cover from Amazon's web site, got a call back in *minutes*, whole matter was settled an hour or two later. If they'd counterclaimed, or just used m images inside the CD booklet, ... well, anyway. Weird how these things work.
Anyway, thanks again for the data.
One other thing: The copyright office has an RfC or the like on making a copyright small claims court. I think something like that might be sensible, but IANAL. Anyway, FYI, http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/
I'm a nature photographer.
If astronomers could afford congressmen, the US wouldn't be in the mess it's in today.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Lots more here, including lurid claims about blackmail and sex parties:
Man, I wish I had enough sociopathy to be a cult leader.
I hear a whirring sound. I think it's Kemal Ataturk spinning in his grave.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I'm suspicious. You really think these whack jobs deserve the publicity? They're already prominently featured on slashdot, ffs...
The poster has made a very interesting video, which was "borrowed" by an organization that he doesn't like. This organization gave proper attribution and their video is not strictly identical to the poster's. This case is probably not that trivial, it may border on the "fair use" side of things.
The best response would probably have been to continue working with youtube and not publicize the organization's message, but it is too late now.
So, the basis for denying GPL code made by others in proprietary-closedsource-only software is based on emotion, not principle? Or there doesn't exist any "principles" outside of the scope of Free(beer) vs. Libre(freedom) vs. Paid-and-proprietary?
The copyright holder has every right to allow or disallow any use of his/her work as he/she sees fit, and they are under no obligation to justify their decisions or the basis of said decisions. Of course, after a license has been granted, it binds the copyright holder but excluding certain uses on whatever basis while allowing other uses certainly falls within the rights of copyright holders. The audience can either take it or leave it as it is.
Now, we might argue whether or not the guy should have anticipated stuff like this and expressly deny all religious marketing with his work, but given the infringing parties response so far it might not have done any difference.
So if the RIAA/MPAA sued to protect their content then there would be a massive tirade on Slashdot about the evilness of DCMA and those trying to protect their content. However the moment some "average Joe" finds someone is using his content without his permission suddenly it's Slashdot to the rescue to try and offer advice on how to protect his interests.
You can't have it both ways guys and gals.
So either DCMA is evil and must be abolished, meaning that anybody posting content is at the mercy of unscrupulous users that would simply take the content and use it however they see fit,
OR
DCMA is a necessary component of digital distribution in which those people that choose to offer their content under its protection are entitled to fight for their IP distribution rights when its in violation.
You can't pick and choose to defend or deny the existence of DCMA based on the amount of money the content holder makes off it. Just because some movie company wants to protect their billion dollar blockbuster is no less valid a claim to protect their IP as some guy that doesn't hope to earn a penny off their content. DCMA is offered to ANYBODY that wants to distribute content that requires licensing for use or viewing.
So, the majority of posters here offering advice to this guy to protect his interest are pure hypocrites because if this was a story about the RIAA or MPAA suing some grandmother for distributing millions of songs and movies then the very same people would be in outrage.
So, my advice. Get over it, accept the fact that the moment you post something digitally online people are going to abuse it. If you are suffering financial or personal damages because of its use, then sue like every other claimant under DCMA protection.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.