Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Claim Thwarts North Korean Propaganda

Posted by samzenpus on from the use-your-own-lies dept.

ianare writes "A propaganda video from the North Korean authorities has been removed from YouTube following a copyright claim by games maker Activision. It shows a space craft flying around the world and eventually over a city resembling New York. The buildings are then seen crumbling amid fires and missile attacks. However, the dramatic images (video) were soon recognized as having been lifted from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. By Tuesday, the video had been blocked, with a message notifying users of Activision's complaint shown in its place."

147 comments

  1. First takedown! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I claim North Korea for the MPAA!

    1. Re:First takedown! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      I claim North Korea for the MPAA!

      I'm so confused about this. I suppose NK has done more physical harm to other humans than the corporate entities that have been able to abuse the DMCA. So I suppose it's a victory, but it feels like a Pyrrhic one.

    2. Re:First takedown! by icebike · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's a victory, but it feels like a Pyrrhic one.

      True,
      If the nut job running that country does manage to lob something our way, or toward Japan or Seoul, we are going to look pretty stupid waving the DMCA at them.
      Especially when it has already been seen by the people it was aimed at, (North Korean TV viewers). The sad part is, that Kim family has pretty well made his own country the dunderheads of the far east. Even Vietnam could whip up a better sim than stealing one out of a common game.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:First takedown! by cffrost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even Vietnam could whip up a better sim than stealing one out of a common game.

      I'm not so sure; North Korea's driving simulation technology approaches a level of sophistication not seen since the heyday of Pole Position.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:First takedown! by drkim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah - but have you tried their "Tractor Sim" Awesome!!

      http://fotoden.info/sites/default/files/styles/frontpage_photo_landscape/public/42ap120404b187_0.jpg

    5. Re:First takedown! by Smauler · · Score: 5, Funny

      How has "Don't stare at me i'm on duty" not become a meme yet...

    6. Re:First takedown! by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      I suddenly feel compelled to ride one.

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  2. video clip of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen tons of movies captured from videogames on YouTube. Isn't that fair use?

    1. Re:video clip of gameplay by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um fair use, no. Those movies captured from video games give credit to the game they are taken from. The video used by north korea uses games with 0 credit to the game makers. But with that said any those videos on youtube the game creator is well within their rights to remove them but they don't as its not to piss off their fan's. N korea used the video in what is a clear IMO threat to the US of nuclear weapon use. China their biggest ally wouldn't stand by and allow that to happen.

    2. Re:video clip of gameplay by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I disagree, in that a lot of those videos are indeed fair use. Corporate America has been working to redefine fair use, but recording yourself doing something, such as playing a game, is fair use.

      The problem with North Korea's video is that it isn't for "personal use", but for commercial and/or political use. There is a huge difference between private, personal use and political use. A foreign government can't just take your stuff and apply it to their political goals, without permission and or compensation. Not unless they have the political and/or military power to back up that seizure.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:video clip of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The problem with North Korea's video is that it isn't for "personal use", but for commercial and/or political use.

      Actually I think the main problem with North Korea's video is that it is fucking ghey and stupid.

    4. Re:video clip of gameplay by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I for one consider it to be parody.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:video clip of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree, in that a lot of those videos are indeed fair use. Corporate America has been working to redefine fair use, but recording yourself doing something, such as playing a game, is fair use.

      And you'd be wrong. It's already gone through court, well before Internet video, so it's not even a theoretical. In case you're wondering, it was over unauthorized strategy guides. Legal if they're pure text like on GameFAQs, not so much when they're video tapes showing game play footage.

      So any time you see some idiot on YouTube showing how "awesome" he is at Super Mario Bros. or "pwning n00bs" in Call of Honor, it's blatantly illegal. The only reason the videos aren't immediately taken down is that most video game companies are afraid that they'd piss off their fan base.

      But don't mistake "fear of fan backlash" as "legal."

    6. Re:video clip of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For quite some time, the definition of what was fair use or not didn't have much to do with personal use versus other use, but instead what the actual purpose of use was, and if the quantity of material used is appropriate. If you are giving a review of a game, you could use clips of it to discuss it or make jokes about it. But to just lift a whole cut scene or cinematic with no other use specifically requiring referencing that video, you are going to run into trouble with fair use.

    7. Re:video clip of gameplay by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Isn't that fair use?

      There's no such thing as "fair use" in most of the world. The US is kind of on it's own legally, with it.

      Parody, you can do everywhere - use of the original material, not so much.

    8. Re:video clip of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so out of touch with reality that it isn't funny.

    9. Re:video clip of gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha ROTFLMAO.
      What do you mean he wasn't funny?

    10. Re:video clip of gameplay by lxs · · Score: 1

      I thought political speech was even better protected in the US? Or doesn't it count if it's by a dictator who isn't propped up by the Pentagon?
      Anyway these crazy videos are so unbelievable they count as parody in my book.

    11. Re:video clip of gameplay by icebraining · · Score: 2

      There's no such thing as "fair use" in most of the world. The US is kind of on it's own legally, with it.

      But the law that applied here was the US law. In fact, under NK law, copyrighted works can be copied without consent as long as they're "performed free of charge", so this question wouldn't even be relevant.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    12. Re:video clip of gameplay by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      I thought political speech was even better protected in the US? Or doesn't it count if it's by a dictator who isn't propped up by the Pentagon?

      Thing is, a private company can do whatever they want in the way of censorship. The law and the constitution protect you from the government impinging upon your rights. My guess is that YouTube would have removed this trash anyway eventually, and they are under no obligation to respect "free speech" rights. Moreover, it wasn't the government that requested the takedown, it was Activision. And YouTube did so. I'm all about defending the constitution and everything, but there's really no grist here for that mill.

  3. This is very worrying. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had hoped that North Korea was spending a large percentage of it's budget on original computer graphics propaganda rather than it's actual weapons, but unfortunately I was wrong.

    1. Re:This is very worrying. by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      All together now. "We are the world....We are the people...."

      North Korea is the best Korea! Ronald Reagan, we're coming after you! You can't hide from us forever. You'll pay for what you did to our comrades in the USSR!

      Umm, ya...Those poor poor SOBs. They haven't a clue, do they?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:This is very worrying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are sooooo right. Who needs decent infrastructure, food, opportunity - they should be spending their money on "original computer graphics propaganda".

  4. Two sides to the coin by canadiannomad · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't like how easy it is for people to take down other peoples work, and lately we have seen a lot of that.
    Though it is nice to see when the evil tool is used for good.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:Two sides to the coin by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

      this is just plain funny

    2. Re:Two sides to the coin by AlexLibman · · Score: -1

      Though it is nice to see when the evil tool is used for good.

      You cannot achieve good ends by evil means.

      (This is especially true in the modern world, where technology makes non-violent communication ever-easier.)

      Benevolent ends are a cheap excuse that all sides can claim, thereby proliferating evil.

      Socialist propaganda needs to be debunked, but never stifled by force.

      No matter if it's North Korea or Barack Obama, or anywhere in between.

      --libman

    3. Re:Two sides to the coin by canadiannomad · · Score: 1, Funny

      I too can quote myself.
      --canadiannomad

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    4. Re:Two sides to the coin by canadiannomad · · Score: 1, Funny

      That isn't to say I disagree with you...

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    5. Re:Two sides to the coin by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Unless copyright claims is how they are planning to cope with real nuclear shots from NK.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    6. Re: Two sides to the coin by tippe · · Score: 1

      Of course not, don't be silly. Use of nuclear weapons is clearly a case of patent infringement and will be dealt with through litigation. Duh!

    7. Re:Two sides to the coin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, freedom of speech and so on. It would be great if we could see these propaganda videos for education purposes. Take down notices are just plain evil...

    8. Re:Two sides to the coin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      glad to see you agree with yourself

    9. Re:Two sides to the coin by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 2

      " Oh, wait... it turns out that the original video was actually taken down by the user who uploaded it (i.e., whatever North Korea's version of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo is), so it wasn't so much a victory for America! as it was a failure of America!'s media fact-checking efforts."

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/10392021893/north-korea-threatens-to-nuke-us-with-copied-video-game-footage.shtml

      Cough.

      --
      Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    10. Re:Two sides to the coin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the good? This just takes away from the public the opportunity to learn something, especially if it was really done by the North Korean government. Information is power, and taking away information reduces the public's power... That evil tool is always evil.

    11. Re: Two sides to the coin by Ricwot · · Score: 2

      You don't think that this is something American citizens deserve to see. Yes there's copyright infringement but I'd strongly argue its in the public interest to know about the kinds of threats being made.

    12. Re:Two sides to the coin by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would like to watch that video. It sounds like it would've been more amusing than anything I've seen all week. I'm disappointed that I didn't hear about it until it was taken down, and I think it's a shame that the video game producer couldn't be a better sport about the thing, given that this video was very obviously not competing with them in any meaningful way.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    13. Re:Two sides to the coin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because I agree with myself too.

      --Anonymous Coward

  5. Dadblastit by xevioso · · Score: 1

    Yeah! Silly North Koreans! Make your own darned cgi video of NY blowing up!

  6. I wonder something... by xevioso · · Score: 0

    Can North Korea demand that YouTube take down any video clips of Kim Jung Il singing "I'm so Ronery" from Team America, as that is clearly an unauthorised reproduction of the Dear leader singing?

    1. Re:I wonder something... by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      I believe the cases are completely different as parody is allowed, straight out stealing video from a game using in an attack type statement is not.

    2. Re:I wonder something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no! He really does sing like that. Thus, it is unauthorized reproduction! See, that's the problem.

    3. Re:I wonder something... by drkim · · Score: 1

      Can North Korea demand that YouTube take down any video clips of Kim Jung Il singing "I'm so Ronery" from Team America, as that is clearly an unauthorised reproduction of the Dear leader singing?

      No. The real Kim Jung Il never actually sang "I'm so Ronrey." He used to sing:
      "Your Little Body's Slowly Breaking Down" from "Evita"
      "I Kissed a Girl"
      "Walk Like an Egyptian"
      "Easy To Be Hard"
        and
      "America" from "West Side Story"

  7. Activision or North Korea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one wins.

  8. Marines by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    I have a friend who's a marine and we had a good laugh about the mock fighter jet the Iranians put out last week. I bet I'll have them on the floor when I show them this...

    The media portrays Iran as this menacing threat. People in our military however tend to look at them as that kid who kicks sand in everyone's faces. Harmless, but annoying.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "N. Korea put a video out, I'd better make an Iran comment!"

    2. Re:Marines by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Iraq was a lot more "harmless" than Iran, but I'm sure the 5000 dead and 30,000 wounded US soldiers would dispute that description.

    3. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Iraq was a lot more "harmless" than Iran, but I'm sure the 5000 dead and 30,000 wounded US soldiers would dispute that description.

      I'm sure the dead are the ones who wouldn't dispute anything.

    4. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's arguable: the Iraqi military was indeed harmless. It was the militants afterward that were dangerous, and many of them likely aren't even connected to the old Iraqi government.

    5. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of nearly a million soldiers during the whole campaign and with many more Iraqis dead or wounded.

    6. Re:Marines by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      True. But if they do launch a high altitude nuke and detonate it way up there, the resulting EMP (sand) could blind us for a very very long time. Not so funny now is it round eye?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Marines by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      True. But if they do launch a high altitude nuke and detonate it way up there, the resulting EMP (sand) could blind us for a very very long time. Not so funny now is it round eye?

      First, they need to have a nuke to launch, and their nuclear scientists have an odd habit of exploding, dying in car accidents, or taking vacations to the United States that they never return from. And then there was that unfortunate problem with all their centrifuges self-destructing. Couple that with their apparent inability to construct anything high-tech like, say, a fighter jet, without it having basic design flaws like, say, the afterburner melting the aircraft and setting fire to the pilot, and I'll just say "Hammer industries... 20 years."

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    8. Re:Marines by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the Iraqi soldiers were "harmless" as much as "had no loyalty to Saddam Hussein and his family".

      I'd imagine a fair number of Iranian soldiers feel the same way about the Ayatollah, but it's hard to say when it's a matter of loyalty to a religious leader vs a secular dictator.

    9. Re:Marines by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine a fair number of Iranian soldiers feel the same way about the Ayatollah, but it's hard to say when it's a matter of loyalty to a religious leader vs a secular dictator.

      I doubt any Iranian soldiers are on /. to comment on this, but since the Ayatollahs have established a "revolutionary guard" as a parallel military with its own command structure, logistic chain, etc. it seems they don't trust their professional army.

    10. Re:Marines by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. 125,000 well equipped loyal soldiers (give or take) would be a hell of a lot worse than a few thousand insurgents in Iraq. I hate to Godwin the discussion but there are parallels, of course...

    11. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. Insurgencies are complicated by the ease with which the enemy can blend into the civilian population, combined with our aversion to civilian casualties and the desire to maintain infrastructure for nation-building. All out war with a uniformed military opponent is something the US is VERY good at, and well prepared for. Only question is political and public will.

    12. Re:Marines by Smauler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This.

      girlintraining, ask your marine friend about how many people died, and how they died in Iraq. Laugh over coffee.

    13. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, harmless as long as you didn't invade and occupy it for ten years.

    14. Re:Marines by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Well, harmless as long as you didn't invade and occupy it for ten years.

      Yes, brilliant point, in which case Russia and China must have even more harmless militaries since they have not been invaded and occupied for almost 70 years!

    15. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why the US will attack Iran. The gutless US cowards only attack those who cannot fight back - drone and Apache pilots being the worst.

    16. Re:Marines by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, I'm sure those 30K / 1M = 1 out of 30 soldiers who were wounded feel much better about those statistics, not including all of those with PTSD, etc.

    17. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but I'm sure the 5000 dead and 30,000"

      Aren't 98% of those casualties from a long drawn out occupation, not a "War".

    18. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't want to get hurt they could have refused to follow the patently illegal order to deploy to a state that never attacked the USA nor was even a threat to it.

    19. Re:Marines by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      And you could say that about even one person who was wounded or became afflicted with PTSD. It is valid to point out the actual proportions of those involved to those who actually became casualties as a measure of success of an operation.

      While it would be nice to have *no* casualties, that isn't usually an option when it becomes a military operation.

    20. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and then they would be safe and sound in Leavenworth.

      And there was nothing illegal about the war, no matter how ill-conceived the operation may have been. Congress did the needful, and picking at the terminology of what they did to authorize it, smacks of the same sort of technicality-based and FUD oriented BS that the Birthers use to try and argue that the validly elected President is some sort of usurper.

      Can we please try and simply argue against the war on it's own (de)merits as an operation and not try to turn it into some sort of constitutional crisis that it is not?

    21. Re:Marines by Herr+Brush · · Score: 1

      And your point is? If Iran was to be neutralized as a threat to the region, it would take more than a bombing campaign. That means boots on the ground and lots of dead marines.

    22. Re:Marines by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I think you should go reread how this thread started and then look up the definition of "harmless".

    23. Re:Marines by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Well, it is probably at least a little silly to call a country like Iran or Iraq "harmless", but in comparison to the looming threats of both past and present, they certainly are fairly harmless. And I think the thread starter was mostly talking about their equipment, as opposed to their ability to kill people, which even then, is only possible because we walked up to their house. Short of their ability to kill people via terrorism and possibly shutting down the Persian Gulf for the brief time it would take us to sortie to destroy their ASM sites, their power projection capability is near zero, and their conventional forces are a joke in any fair fight.

      We get torqued up about them because they are the Enemy de jure, but they really are Mickey Mouse on a geopolitical level.

      So, let's call them "Mostly Harmless".

    24. Re:Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not ask what they died for? Bad intel about a chemical weapons program? Lies about a nuclear weapons program? Decades of foreign policy creating and destroying governments?

  9. Chilling Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    This is an abuse of the DMCA process, irrespective of the merits of North Korea. Propaganda is political discourse and using copyright against a political viewpoint is censorship.

    1. Re:Chilling Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your post, but I really don't see the "Chilling Effects". It's not as if this is the first or a landmark case for DMCA abuses, shit, even scrolling down on the front page of Slashdot you will find another example used for personal persecution.

    2. Re:Chilling Effects by arbiter1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You are pretty much a retard aint ya? They stole video from the game, gave 0 credit and pretty much played it off as an Attack on another country. This was proper use of DMCA if there has even been one.

    3. Re:Chilling Effects by davydagger · · Score: 0

      I hate to agree but I do.

      While I certainly find NK despicable, I don't like how they are using copyrights, trying to make them seem more acceptable to us, by showing how they can attack someone we all don't like

    4. Re:Chilling Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not government censorship. It's Activision censorship.

      Legally (by US law, at least) and morally, that makes it allowable. Governments can't stifle political dissent, morally. In a logical sense, it's a conflict of interest. That makes it unjust and immoral and thus at complete odds with the whole reason for government to exist.

      But corporations aren't a first-party to political discourse, thus making their political censorship specifically not a conflict of interest. They don't have a direct interest in political points of view or judicial processes. Their interests are monetary.

      All of these things are concepts that North Korea's government fails to grasp in any adequate manner. Unfortunately, the same thing applies increasingly to western governments as well. Oddly enough, China is improving in this regard, though it's not impossible to believe since there's a certain amount of "it can't get any worse" involved in their case. Russia went through similar modernization in the 90's when they finally decided to relax decades of stubborn refusal to make progress and joined the rest of the world in governing in a closer-to-sane manner.

    5. Re:Chilling Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shutting down propaganda from an enemy (literally a hostile sovereign state in this case) is not censorship

    6. Re:Chilling Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But corporations aren't a first-party to political discourse, thus making their political censorship specifically not a conflict of interest.

      (ummm.. geeks feel the need to be precise even if irrelevant).

      I don't think one cares if there is a conflict of interest or not if/when a corporation is capable of exerting censorship over a political speach

    7. Re:Chilling Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shutting down propaganda from an enemy (literally a hostile sovereign state in this case) is not censorship

      Is US at war with NK and nobody knows?

    8. Re:Chilling Effects by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Youtube is a US company, using US laws. Sorry... I feel no sympathy for plagiarism (which is completely different from copyright infringement, btw).

      No one is stopping them from producing their own content, and publishing it on a major US website. They can publish whatever they like.

    9. Re: Chilling Effects by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      It's at war with South Korea, which has a massive US military presence for support, so yes.

    10. Re:Chilling Effects by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Well you know, all NK needed to do was not use footage from someone else's game, and they could very easily have not become affected.

      And presumably, they can render their own scene of New York burning, substitute it in, and post the very same video, and Activision couldn't say anything. So, this isn't some sort of blanket power of censorship, it is simply a statement that if you want to shout from a soapbox, maybe you should get your own.

       

    11. Re:Chilling Effects by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US is at war with North Korea and *everybody* knows.

      The Korean War never ended officially, there was only an Armistice signed, not a Peace Treaty. We are *still* at war with North Korea and have been since the 1950's. The fact that the current situation simulates an actual peace hides the technical reality of the situation.

  10. Headline Trollops by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    North Korea has morphed into a Kardashian class nation, whereby it matters not "what" they're in the news for, so long as they're in the news....

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  11. Awww.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video wasn't real? I mean, what kind of threat is that. Shameful.

    1. Re:Awww.... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It was hard to get a time scheduled to shut down Rush Hour traffic so that 80% of New York City could be lit on fire.

      Of course, they could have just used Detroit, but then people wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between the damage from the depicted attack and what Detroit usually looks like on a normal day.

  12. How convenient. by Yaa+101 · · Score: 0

    Censoring by copyright, the law is working well for the masters.

    However, not that one should like the North Korean proganda makers, but that is besides the point here.

    1. Re:How convenient. by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Well, as much as I hate "Big Content providers" and their shills, I can totally see why Activision does not want to see its content in NK propaganda video.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    2. Re:How convenient. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what copyright is for, or what it should be for. Moral and ethical issues about where the product you have produced are much much much more important than financial ones. I don't quite know where you are coming from with this.

      Copyright is by it's very nature censorship. That's its point. Unless you disavow it altogether, you support censorship.

    3. Re:How convenient. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Let's avoid the confusion of terms.

      Copyright is not censorship, it is a licensing scheme for the use of written and recorded works to induce authors/publishers to produce works, not to discourage them.

      Censorship is government action to stop speech or publication based on the content of the speech, without regard to the "ownership" of the content.

      The reality that copyright can seem like censorship in some facets of enforcement does not make it censorship, because in the end, the government does not enforce based on the content of the piece, only on the claimed ownership. In that manner, the government might enforce copyright against even those who produce government-friendly material, if the material violates someone's copyright.

       

  13. We are the World by Zeni · · Score: 3, Funny

    WTF? Really We are the World that crappy 80's song so we give money to the starving people of Africa.

    Oh I get it DPRK is starving and that's their way of saying please help us.

    1. Re:We are the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we would, if their government would get out the way so we could help.

    2. Re:We are the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Really We are the World that crappy 80's song so we give money to the starving people of Africa.

      Oh I get it DPRK is starving and that's their way of saying please help us.

      To be honest, I'm expecting that's exactly what it is. Before they launch their so-called missile, there'll be a "mysterious" explosion in one of their factories. Hundreds will die, we'll hear them claim it was their nuke misfiring (despite all evidence to the contrary), that they've learned their lesson, and that without that factory, they can't provide for their people, so halp plz kthx.

    3. Re:We are the World by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      That's actually what it is... except that the government wants the help without compromising on their complete and absolute power.

      They are poking at us because they know we won't attack them. They also know that if they launched a nuke at the US, North Korea would be a smoking crater 30 minutes later, and there would be nowhere in the world that the Kim family could hide, even if they survived the retaliatory strike.

      The point of the exercise is to rile us up enough that politically there becomes pressure to pay them off to get them to stop riling up our populations and making them fear the "insane" NK government.

  14. Transformative Use? by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there is a argument for that somewhere? Regardless of message, it is not just a clip of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:Transformative Use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would surprised if it was not transformative and fair use. Are we so frightened of North Korean propaganda that we sink to the level of the MAFIAA?

      Actually I think whoever filed the take down notice was just being a dick. But, if we do not stand up for the freedoms of those we despise, we do not deserve them ourselves.

  15. bitNch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    long term survival if I r3main

  16. How dare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The filthy American imperiocapitalist pigdogs at Activision and Google will be being exterminated with prejudice for this offense against glorious nation of Best Korea!

  17. Cardassian class nation by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    North Korea has morphed into a Kardashian class nation

    It already was: "Cardassian society is often depicted as being Orwellian, with strict government control over information and violent force. Denizens are shown as having unquestioning obedience to authority due to the general lack of human rights, which provides a contrast to the personal protections of the Federation."

    1. Re:Cardassian class nation by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Mixing up Trek with Kardashians? Although alien mind control would explain how they're famous.

    2. Re:Cardassian class nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up

    3. Re:Cardassian class nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the Cardassians worry about human rights?

    4. Re:Cardassian class nation by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mixing up Trek with Kardashians?

      I wouldn't be the only one.

    5. Re:Cardassian class nation by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      Hopefully you dont know that the celebrity and the race are two very distinct things and the grand parent was not talking about that some alien race, but one who wants to be on the tabloid grocery market isle.

      But the point is that the cardassians were supposed to be nazis. Bajor was obviously isreal, klingons germans, romulans russians, etc.

      North korea on the other hand are the ones with the spaceship that "wont go" and needs geordi to fix them, only to have his good will taken advantage of by malevolent imbeciles.

      --
      -
    6. Re:Cardassian class nation by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      North Korea is the Ferengi, without the lobes for business.

    7. Re:Cardassian class nation by khallow · · Score: 2

      klingons germans, romulans russians, etc.

      I believe the Klingons and Romulans were crudely based on the USSR and Communistic China respectively. Keep in mind that China in the 60s was pretty much as isolated from the West as North Korea is now, which is a better match for the secretive and xenophobic Romulans than the Soviet Russians who tended to have schemes brewing everywhere and had a far more interventionist approach (which fits the Klingons much better).

    8. Re:Cardassian class nation by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I believe the Klingons and Romulans were crudely based on the USSR and Communistic China respectively. Keep in mind that China in the 60s was pretty much as isolated from the West as North Korea is now, which is a better match for the secretive and xenophobic Romulans than the Soviet Russians who tended to have schemes brewing everywhere and had a far more interventionist approach (which fits the Klingons much better).

      Interesting. If we assume the analogues were deliberate, it makes me wonder about the Vulcans. My first guess would be Japan - an ancient society that turned away from its violent past in pursuit of logic and knowledge. I'm by no means an expert on international relations back in the '60s - not sure how good a fit this is. Particularly since the Vulcan's violent period is ancient history in all the Trek cannon, whereas it was still very fresh in the middle-aged WW2 vets back in the '60s.

      Gotta say, stuff like this is part of why I love Slashdot. Where else can you start from the North Koreans cribbing video game footage for a propaganda film and end up discussing the geopolitical symbolism of Star Trek?

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    9. Re:Cardassian class nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedantic mode TURN ON!

      Cannons fire cannonballs.

      Law dictated by the Church, or TV show writers is Canon.

      They sound the same, but have completely different roots, meanings, and spellings.

      Thank you.

    10. Re:Cardassian class nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romulans were based on the Romans, idiot (maybe the name should give you a clue?). Klingons on Mongols. The two were supposed to be very warlike, so they were based (loosely) on very warlike past cultures.

    11. Re:Cardassian class nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, the klingons where crudely based on the then USSR.

      the Romulans are based on ancient rome. They came in the first season, when trek was still somewhat innocent, and they needed a more generic bad guy. Most of the stories in the first season where pretty timeless tales, such as comming of age, and generic conflics repeated through the ages, and well word fables,

      the klingons came in the heavy political second season. the second political season was very much about the then and now of the social and political life of the US of A in 1968. M.A.D., the arms race, racism, The "threat" from a foreign enemy, developing nations, more M.A.D.,

      the third season was pretty goofy, and worthless, except for the last episode with space hippies.

    12. Re:Cardassian class nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point why would the Kardashians worry about human rights, they ain't exactly human dude.

    13. Re:Cardassian class nation by khallow · · Score: 1

      That is a good point. The name, "Romulans" is an obvious pointer towards one of the mythological founders of Rome and they use Roman titles frequently (such as "centurion" and "praetor").

      But the Roman empire was not at all isolationist (except when it came to repelling "barbarians" at the frontiers). I think one needs to look to communist China for what inspired that choice.

      I see from Wikipedia that while the Romulans preceded the Klingons, both races were introduced in the first season (the Klingons here). I think the creators of Star Trek had all along looked to modern day analogies for creating the long standing conflicts of the Star Trek universe.

  18. North Korean strikes first loser North Korean by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    North Korean strikes first loser North Korean

  19. America is no better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    So the North Koreans made a video, even if with lifted footage, of a burning new york. Who cares? Look at all the American video games where you kill foreigners, including North Koreans. The first Crysis anyone? You spend most of that game cutting north korean throats or running them over or blowing them up. We shouldn't be surprised when they do the same to us. It is just irony that it used footage lifted from of all things an american video game.

    1. Re:America is no better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how this is modded Troll. Murrikans find the truth about themselves offensive. They can dish it out endlessly, but as soon as foreigners depict their land aflame, they scream bloody murder.

  20. Why Not Homefront? by zenlessyank · · Score: -1

    It already has NK invading the US. Guess I'm the only person that got the game gifted to them. Of course i would sell THQ too after playing the game!!!

  21. We are the world? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice the theme music in the video? A strangely sappy song to have playing for the nuking of New York.

    Oh, and I'll bet they didn't get permission for the song either as well as the Activision video. Wait until the RIAA bills Dear Leader for eleventy billion dollars for lost revenue. That'll fix 'em.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  22. Peter Griffin by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 1

    When I see NK doing testing with rockets I just get reminded of the family guy episode where Peter crashes the petercopter then the hindenpeter into Joe's front yard.

    "How can you afford these things?!"

  23. Fair Use by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it covered by 'Fair Use'?

    1. Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same thing.

    2. Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time a company gave a shit about that? If American law makes it so fucking easy to get rid of shit, shit will be gotten rid of.

    3. Re:Fair Use by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      In what way? In checking the four considerations for Fair Use in the US, I'm not seeing how any of them (other than perhaps the point about affecting the market value of the work) favor the idea that they were engaging in Fair Use. The fact that the clip is fictional, was used for their own profit, and that it made up a major piece of their video (i.e. that they didn't contribute much, at least, based on the descriptions I've read, since I can't find the original clip) all work against them in this case.

    4. Re:Fair Use by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Having only a small sample usually isn't enough to get a fair use defense by itself.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Fair Use by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      No it is not. Glorious Leader should sue those thieving imperialist talentless hacks at Activision for stealing his footage which he made himself by typing out the binary.

    6. Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly is fair use. There is no doubt about it.

      This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the U.S. 1st amendment is there to protect. I may disagree with what is said, but I will defend with my life the right of people to say it.

    7. Re:Fair Use by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      "The fact that the clip is fictional, was used for their own profit, and that it made up a major piece of their video (i.e. that they didn't contribute much, at least, based on the descriptions I've read"

      Profit? These guys are old-line Commies, so profit is probably the least of their motives, unless they've become so bankrupt they need to cash in on their YouTube hits. As for "fictional", I'd say much of what politicians claim during election season falls under that same broad category.

      While I suspect the video was done in poor taste, I'd say it pretty much falls under the standard definition of fair use. Add to this the fact that it's a government doing it. And as we all well know, governments, even presumably democratic ones, can get away with far many more criminal acts than the average Joe Blow or fringe group.

    8. Re:Fair Use by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Profit? These guys are old-line Commies, so profit is probably the least of their motives

      Oh come off it, the whole commie thing is just an excuse for the fat cats at the top to live it up with hookers and blow while the rest of the population languishes in a human hell.

  24. Plenty more out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGxbOVscHPs

    1. Re:Plenty more out there by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Ok... that video was interesting, thanks for posting it.

      I also found this, which is slogans of North Korean posters... I was laughing for about 10 minutes, literally. Crap... perhaps it's my sense of humour... I'm crying watching it again.

      ps. it's _very_ anti-American - if you're offended by things like that, don't watch. It's not funny because it's anti-American though.

    2. Re:Plenty more out there by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why, but there's something inherently funny about "Isn't this a concrete fence?"

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  25. Phase 2 by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 1

    Kidnapping South Korean graphics designers to do an original animation. They have form in this regard, see here

    --
    You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
    1. Re:Phase 2 by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 1

      ahem, here [wikipedia.org]

      --
      You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
  26. Good by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    So what exactly was the good which happened by taking down the video?

  27. In other news: by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    NK's Glorious Leader has changed his name to Duke Nukem.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  28. Berne convention by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For whoever is interested, North Korea signed Berne convention in 2003. Foreign author copyright has therefore a meaning for them.

    1. Re:Berne convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Berne convention had an exemption for countries at war. I know the US and Russia ignored each other's copyrights during the cold war...

  29. The South Koreans however, would be all PMSL by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    Well, given the gaming reputation of the South Koreans, NK isn't really going to fool anyone down South, is it? If that was the target of their propaganda, that is -- SK would enjoy a huge laugh at NK's expense.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:The South Koreans however, would be all PMSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's for internal use. The North Korean elite probably knows that kind of propaganda wouldn't help at all in winning over South Korea.

  30. Were It So Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The USA's Hermann Gobbles will testify to the Intelligence Committee of Congress.

    His message will be clear.

    His message will be direct.

    'The President of the USA IS the determinator of the life of any USA Citizen. As such, HE has the power to end any USA Citizen or any other human being's life on planet Earth as his Great Intellect Demands and WE THE FEDERAL CORPS will kill any and all that oppose HIM, SO HELP US GOD.'

  31. This is madness! by russotto · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kim Jong-Un wrote Call of Duty himself, in an evening. Activision is the thief here, and they will feel the wrath of the Supreme Leader.

  32. And to see the video banned from Youtube by Lorens · · Score: 4, Funny

    we are directed to a copy of the video... on YouTube??

  33. where? by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

    Any way... where can I watch the video?

  34. Copyright abuse? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Not being familiar with the game: was the video included as such with the game? As a cutscene, introduction or whatever?

    Or was the video a recorded sequence of gameplay? If this is the case, is it right for the games company to have copyright on what I consider user-generated content? Does Notch now have a precedent to take down Youtube videos of Minecraft constructs?

    It's easy to be all neener, neener in this particular case, but IMO we're seeing an abuse of the law here.

  35. Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The old 'heroic corporation' trope.

  36. But are lawyers cheaper than battleships? ;-) by fantomas · · Score: 1

    My first thought was - great - we can save money and remove North Korea as a threat to world peace by employing lawyers to shut them down and save lots of money by reducing military forces.... but then... I got wondering... perhaps the lawyers cost more than battle fleets and jet planes and nuclear missiles? ;-)

    1. Re:But are lawyers cheaper than battleships? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nukes cost on the order of $40M each in components and labor, smaller conventional warhead missiles between .1% and 10% of that.

      Delivery and logistics, plus the associated costs of the political aftermath, should have a cost between 50x to 150x of the base cost of that missile. Part of the costs of the after-action politics will involve the same attorney costs as the civil action anyway.

      No whoosh, just responding as it was an interesting question.

  37. I smell bullshit by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    What about all the other game videos people put up? I smell bullshit.

  38. I watched that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, I watched that two weeks ago.... It was a good video.

  39. It's all bad by flug · · Score: 1

    This is bad news for two reasons:

    • 1. We should let North Korean propaganda fly its flag proudly so that everyone can see it for the ridiculousness that it is.
    • 2. This is very clearly fair use.

    Boy, never thought I'd see myself defending North Korea about anything. Looks like in the North Korea vs. MPAA evilness matchup, MPAA wins . . .

  40. Bulldust by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    No way did this come out of North Korea. Anyone believing that is a dropkick.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.