Slashdot Mirror
Blender Foundation Video Taken Down On YouTube For Copyright Violation
An anonymous reader writes "As if the automated take downs on Youtube weren't already bad enough, today fans of the popular open source 3D software Blender were greeted by a copyright take down notice for their third open movie, Sintel, despite it being released under a Creative Commons license: 'This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.' It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool."
https://cloud.blender.org/goos... For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal ;-)
Of course there are also cheaper deals.
Nuff said.
ContentID and the secret deals Google has made with industry organizations have made getting anything on Youtube impossible.
There needs to be a law against this. Sony should have to pay restitution to Blender.
IANAL, but shouldn't this qualify as perjury? Sony needs to certify in their automated DMCA request that they, in fact, own the rights to the content in question, under the penalty of perjury. Someone really needs to take the big studios to court for this sort of abuse, otherwise it won't stop.
Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony. As well as try and get a strike against Sony for this. There is a term for this, False Flag abuse.
free publicity.
Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony. As well as try and get a strike against Sony for this. There is a term for this, False Flag abuse.
Sigh. Please don't use expressions that you don't understand. False Flag: designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
The case can probably be made that Sony is claiming ownership if they are sending take down notices over it. IANAL.
In some countries, it would be obtaining a service (the takedown) based upon a false and fraudulent pretense. That's a criminal offence, and an injured party can call upon the Crown to prosecute it as such. Consult a lawyer in the jurisdiction in question, get a quote and take them with you to the fraud squad, to ensure the process happens correctly. It's arguably hard to do correctly in the U.S, as suggested by the low number of convictions reported...
davecb@spamcop.net
Flagging is also slang for reporting user contributions that violate terms of service. Thus "false flagging" means a false report of such a violation. The meaning you refer to is more often called a "Joe job" on the net.
Or you know to falsely flag a video on various grounds. like copyright or inappropriate to get it taken down.
"Zombie Ryushu" ... he's just high. Relax. I think its more likely that he's simply mistaken one term he does understand for another which he's not heard in the proper context. Maybe he meant something like "False Positives Flagging abuse?" There is certainly a buzz-term for this that is easy enough to confuse linguistically and conceptually with "False Flag operations."
they broke this system a few months back. it just flags everything now and theirs not a live persion in the building to take the flood of wtf they don't own this shit counter clames.
FUCK YOU.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"... falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright"
I personally think the situation is -much- simpler.
Google just needs to not return anything with "Sony" in it, as a search result.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
They could have added a rootkit.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
and have Sony state under oath why they think the video is theirs. Seems Sony is excertising ownership right over the video, seems to me that's IP theft by Sony. After all according to the gove and media IP theft is the biggest danger to American way of life since the nuclear communist threat.
I would happily donate $$$ to this court case.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Sony *and* Youtube should Gold sponsor the movie as a penalty for this mishap.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
went to blender tried ot click on link regarding this and i got....
What happened?
The initial connection between CloudFlare's network and the origin web server timed out. As a result, the web page can not be displayed.
seems sony is DDoS'ing the link off blender now
When the DMCA was being debated it was assured that there were very strong penalties for incorrect takedown notices. Then the goalposts shifted so that "it didn't really mean it" became enough of a defence to escape those penalties. People who warned that this was going to happen were told to remove their tinfoil hats.
That's not the only problem I have with how the DMCA turned out but it's a start. Takedown notice spamming is like putting a speeding ticket on every parked car you see.
A list of Youtube alternatives would be greatly appreciated. I know only Vimeo.
The proper term is "Slander of Title". The rights for Sintel do not belong to Sony, period. They're re-using it under a Creative Commons license, but they're NOT the rights holder and they basically claimed they were with this little stunt. I'd think that the damages might fund several shorts or at least one or two feature length Blender movies.
The proper term is "Slander of Title". Basically, Sony claimed the Protected Work was theirs wherein they're merely licensing it for their 4K demo content. Under CC Attribution 3.0, they can't claim anything as their own work, they have to attribute the content to the original rights holders, and can't place any additional restrictions on the further publication of the content (i.e. You can't tell someone to do a takedown on the content, either as a DMCA or as a reciprocal agreement as Sony has with Google on YouTube. Violates the restrictions clause and attempts to claim sole rights over the content- you can't claim sole rights over your derivative work per license which would be the only way you could legitimately do a takedown.)
This means they are no longer licensed to the content in question.
Each and every copy they distributed or intend to distribute of the protected work in question, Sintel, is now a willful copyright infringement on Sony's part. Seems to me that the Blender project needs to retain counsel and sue for the Statutory Damages for this...which amounts to $150,000, per each copy done without licensing.
"Don't be evil", they said. Riiiiight....
Content providers generate "fingerprints" of all video content, then they send them to YouTube for takedown. This is all pretty automated. Live TV shows have fingerprints generated of show segments and sent to YouTube before the show is even over. Probably the video was put through a "typical" content pipeline and fingerprinted.
"You wouldn't steal a handbag...
"You wouldn't steal a car...
"You wouldn't download a movie...
"But it's okay to claim someone else's IP as your own... if you're Sony!
It looks like this is just a Youtube thing, that no legal action was taken at all. It was an agreement between two private companies (Sony and Google), to take down content that Sony doesn't like. That isn't illegal, because Google owns the site.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
yes its does
Let them monetize it and just have them set the account that the money goes into to yours.
YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.
Meanwhile, Google mandates that people use YouTube with their real name and make it exceedingly difficult to manage multiple accounts.
Fuck em.
This would happen anyway without Gaagle's buy out. What bothers me is this seems to be the only video site, that /. reports about when there are a handful that are dealing with takedown trolls.
That does not excuse Gaagle, which have proven themselves utterly incompetent when it comes to anything 'free' and 'open'...
AN UNINTENDED BUT DEADLY BACKLASH against Sony Pictures is underway in Italy at the moment with people in major electronics stores reportedly asking customers NOT TO BUY SONY PRODUCTS.
At least a couple of people injured in Rome as security guards wrestled a demonstrator which destroyed a Sony LCD TV.
It would probably be a good idea for Sony to immediately publicly act on the mess by chastising Google's mistake.
Perhaps, if we start a campaign to boycott Google. Don't use google search, don't use Youtube, etc.
Do this for a day or two, just to show Google the error of their ways. Create a website stating what the boycott is about, Google needs to change their policies on such things as erroneous take down notices.
Do it just like the SOPA Internet blackout, or the Aaron Swartz Commemoration. Promote it as widely as possible, just a few days, Google will see it immediately, and perhaps it'll open their eyes.
These assholes needed to have filed a DMCA against this for it to happen. Maybe there's some fingerprinting system that auto detected it, but they should have never added the movie to their list of property. Another black mark on the sordid copy book of Sony et.al.
Yeah, that wouldn't be evil at all.
The proper term is "Slander of Title". The rights for Sintel do not belong to Sony, period. They're re-using it under a Creative Commons license, but they're NOT the rights holder and they basically claimed they were with this little stunt. I'd think that the damages might fund several shorts or at least one or two feature length Blender movies.
And now Sony cannot legally use the Sintel short. They broke the Creative Commons license by claiming ownership, which severs the license. Any and all use of the Sintel short by Sony from now on is unlicensed, i.e. pirate copying.
And no, there is no provision in the CC license for sayihng "oops" to get the license reactivated. They are in breach, and need to get a new license from the copyright holders before they can continue using it.
Given that this is done by US companies operating under a US law, I'm pretty sure they'd give exactly zero shits if they got a false pretense claim from some other country. At the most, if it looked like it was going to get above the small claims level in that country, they'd pay a few thousand $ settlement fee (ie: basically meaningless to Sony or whoever) and continue on with business as usual.
Its basically impossible (by design) for an individual to fight copyright claims. Enough individuals getting together can sometimes do something but you need one hell of a proficient and dedicated organizer to get that done and sadly there are few people with the talent to really motivate their fellow man to get off their ass and do something about the problems in the world. Hopefully one of them will take up the cause of copyright reform some day before we're too far down the rabbit hole.
Check out http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ for one group attempting such (in their case, attempting to stop the TPP from become international SOPA which is where the media companies are trying to take it.. SOPA got rejected in the US? Just hide it in an international trade agreement and require that it overrides sovereign laws! Problem solved!)
And who's going to stop them? Its one thing to say its illegal.. its quite another to enforce that claim, even if you're technically true. That's the whole problem with the current copyright system (and much of the legal system in general) -- money makes the laws and money enforces the laws. Justice gets to sit in a corner and sulk with the rest of us.
There are better alternatives, like Archive.org--especially for Libre/Opensource projects. I would not bother with Youtube, which is riddled with ads anyway. Archive.org has a mandate to serve the public, Youtube has a mandate to line the pockets of the rich. I'll take Archive.org. The Blender team should have known better.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool.
This sounds like Sony is the infringer.
On YouTube, reporting a video for breaking the rules is called "flagging" the video and flagging a video for illegitimate reasons is called "false flagging."
this, from the moment the video was took down, every download of Sintel from any Sony Pictures server is an instance of copyright infringement carrying a fine of up to $250,000.
I would love to see Sony Pictures lawyers claiming it was just an accident after all the aggresive prosecutions of "accidental" music sharers.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Well, first of all many major copyright holders have special deals with YouTube where they don't actually send DMCA requests. In that case it's just a private agreement between Sony and YouTube on content monitoring, at best you have a slander suit but no basis for a perjury. Secondly, they may have a legal claim to copyright on the whole clip reel as a collection - basically the selection and composition of clips - and that's enough to get them out of the perjury part. In generic terms, "Under penatlity of perjury, we are the copyright holders of movie X. We believe that the posted scene Y is in violation of our copyright on X." Even if that last part is wrong because it's freely licensed or in the public domain or for some other reason not eligible for copyright it's not under perjury. It sucks, but any competent lawyer will manage to wiggle Sony out of any trouble.
The youtube page in fact says: "This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
Assuming they're as careful with their language as I am, that says the Sony, not Youtube, initiated the takedown.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
When companies keep acting like this I have a moral obligation to pirate there stuff. I will fill follow the law when they do.
As expected by the completely braindead amaericans.
Maybe some European who is actually a copyright owner should make sure Youtube gets taken down in the rest of the world.
The DMCA claim by Sony is illegal since it breaks the Creative Commons license that the Blender foundation chose to apply to the work. That means that Sony is violating the copyright of the Blender foundation.
Unfortunately, it seems that Google did the right thing here. I personally wouldn't mind blaming them, but they are forced to comply with DMCA even if the claim is illegal.
Once again, I'm not sure it was a DMCA thing
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The text that appears when you try to watch the video is:
"This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. "
Using the term "copyright" makes it unequivocal -- this is clearly a statutory issue, not a contractual one between two private entities.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
That doesn't make any sense. I can tell you I don't like you based on copyright grounds, but it doesn't mean it will have anything to do with legality. The DMCA has a fairly specific list of steps that need to be followed for it to be considered a takedown notice.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
test reply with more text
> Sony claimed the Protected Work was *theirs*
That's the problem: Sony didn't claim anything. It was just some pattern matcher whithin the bowels of Google. Oops.
Thus, they (Sony, everyone else) can wash their hands in innocence. The fact that they colluded in creating this whole mess with automatic takedowns, etc. is much more difficult to fight against, especially because governments are in the same bed (cf. ACTA et al).
Automatic "law enforcement". Quite worrying, this.
(On the bright side, others get killed by algorithm/drone strike, thus it could be worse. Cheer up!)
Sony has been a big supporter of groups that lobby for a three strike rule on copyright violations. According to them, copyright protections are so important that people caught violating it three times should have their internet access removed. While I disagree with the claim, I think Sony should at least hold themselves to how they feel the world should work.
So therefore all it should take is three copyright violations by Sony itself and they should feel obligated to remove themselves from the internet.
An example of such three copyright violation performed by Sony could be:
The fact that Sony's website is still online suggests that Sony wishes there to be one law for everyone else and an exception for them. This game that copyright law is important only as long as someone other than Sony is violating it needs to stop. People need to learn that as long as they continue to buy products and services from Sony, then Sony will use that money to continue the historical trend lobbying to inhibit others for violating the same laws that Sony itself blatantly violates.
[1] http://docs.gnu-designs.com/sony/
[2] http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/sony27s-xcp-drm-system-violates-gpl/
To protect the legitimacy of copyright requires first halting the businesses that have profited on violating it's terms. To protect the legitimacy copyright requires bringing down Sony.
As asked correctly by the parent poster, how would that work in false ownership claims? I'd say they'd have to pay for the production of said item to the party that they wronged by their claim, since putting the production in public domain would only hurt the actual owner. Make false claims hurt so much that people will think twice before submitting one.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
How about a modification to the CC license revoking permission to display/use any CC-licensed content if their name appears on a list of "established Title slanderers". If someone chooses to license CC-LIST, any one appearing on the list is excluded from the normal CC provisions.
If sony, say, fraudulently claims titles repeatedly without basis, they are added (by the EFF or a board specifically created for this purpose) and lose rights to display hundreds of thousands of CC works.
They may think twice before arbitrarily claiming copyright on things they don't own if being added to the list means they lose the collective output of everyone putting material out with this CC license flavor.
actually a false takedown notice is purgery which is a criminal act which the government is to sue on. But you will need to go to the police to file charges first.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html - "Linux's Hit Men - ... So far, none of the Free Software Foundation’s targets have decided it is bad for the world and gone to court. This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank and one lawyer who works for free, part time, when he’s not teaching classes at Columbia University. "
> That's the problem: Sony didn't claim anything. It was just some pattern matcher whithin the bowels of Google. Oops.
Youtube had a huge text up that completely clearly claimed this. There were no weasel-words or anything indicating that a mistake is possible.
So yes, at least Google very much did claim so.
Given that this is done by US companies operating under a US law, I'm pretty sure they'd give exactly zero shits if they got a false pretense claim from some other country.
Considering that Blender foundation is a Dutch organization they could run this case in EU. EU is a larger market than the US and also has the guts to tell large companies to follow the law or GTFO.
Sure, it would suck as an EU citizen to have to rely on Dailymotion for your cat videos but it is a hell of a lot better than handing over the legal system to profit driven companies.
Not that it ever is going to happen, neither Sony nor Google are going to risk having to explain in their quarterly report why they no longer have access to their largest market.
And who's going to stop them?
Since Blender is a Dutch organization it would be EU. If Sony ignores the copyright they will end up with an Antigua-situation where EU will essentially claim to WTO that since Sony doesn't follow copyright regulation they are exempt from it and all Sony IP is free for copying within EU.
So the only place to view Sintel is piratebay now. There's some Sony genius.
> Sony claimed the Protected Work was *theirs*
That's the problem: Sony didn't claim anything. It was just some pattern matcher whithin the bowels of Google. Oops.
On the Sintel video from the BlenderFoundation account on YouTube:
This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
That is an explicit claim associated with Sony Pictures Movies & Shows. To get that, Sony had to upload content to the YouTube content system saying "I own this content. Anyone matching it is in copyright violation."
Also, the content ID system does not support Creative Commons or similar license usage (can use with attribution, can/cannot monetize the content, etc.) and does not work with collaboration/team events on multiplayer games, podcasts or discussions.
If they're affecting a user in another country and operating in that country then they might well give a shit. You reckon Microsoft (a US company) didn't give a shit about all those EU fines?
1) don't put your videos on YouTube
2) don't buy Sony products and services
Does that movie contain copyrighted material by Sony, yes? Then what is this fuss about? And why were they so stupid to include it, and whay are they wondering now that it got blocked?
No? So what is the fuss, let the shitstorm start and support them to sue Sony for unrightfull claim of copyright.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How about we all start sending take down notices claiming copyright on all Sony content, forcing all Sony content to be taken offline. Even better if we're able to take down all MAFIAA content off of YouTube.
And make it hurt. Hurt bad. Both financially, and bad press.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If Sony can just say 'oops' and get away with what amounts to piracy, ( even worse than a simple "copy", they claimed they owned it... ) then they have no right to sue anyone over infringement again and if they do, 'oops' damned well better be a valid defense for the people they sue too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Under DMCA, the video or other content is supposed to be immediately restored if you respond, saying it's not infringing. The DMCA calls this a counterclaim. It stays up unless the claimant files suit in federal court.
The law should definitely be adjusted to reduce automated takedown notices, perhaps by strengthening the penalty for a reckless claim or requiring that the claimant investigate beyond "good faith belief". Other than that, the procedure defined in DMCA is actually pretty reasonable.
Blender published Sintel -> Sony made a copy -> Sony reported Sinel as piracy, since Sony has a copy of Sintel
FSCK sony... everybody dowload popcorn time.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html - "Linux's Hit Men - ... So far, none of the Free Software Foundation’s targets have decided it is bad for the world and gone to court. This despite the fact that the foundation has $750,000 in the bank and one lawyer who works for free, part time, when he’s not teaching classes at Columbia University. "
That eleven year old article is written from the POV that the FSF is the bad guy for enforcing the GPL and that somehow forcing companies to comply goes against the very idea of free open source software. Forbes has concluded it is bad to attempt to enforce copyrights and license agreements when it would force a large corporation to actually do what the license requires because it would open them up to competition. It complete ignores the option to not use GPL code; except for a passing note about some poor company that estimated it lost $10 million because it they licensed code and then scrapped the project and went to a BSD license when they didn't like the terms of the original license.
It's really simple. If you don't want to share don't use GPL software. Use a BSD style license or develop proprietary code if you are worried about cloners. If your code is so integral to your product that releasing it would allow cloners to capture much of the market you probably shouldn't use the GPL or rethink your product. Apple probably chose the BSD license, in part, because it allowed them to develop an OS that had a stable core without having to open up their OS to cloners. They can share what they feel is appropriate and maintain MacOS unique to Apple. No one is stopping other companies from doing this; and Forbes' claim the FSF is demanding companies "burn down [their] house, or at the very least share it with cloners" is pure FUD. CISCO seemed to survive OK by complying with the GPL after FSF' lawsuit.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The Blender people aren't the only ones. Many artists who make their work available under permissive licenses know about the problem. One music artist I use regularily for videos who makes all his work available under CC licenses even has a page on his webpage dedicated to the problem. It doesn't even matter if you link to his license page in the video comment. Filing a counterclaim works, but it sometimes takes a week to resolve it.
Anyone still thinking it's a coincidence that the DMCA and related laws give you zero recourse for false claims?
They really need to make it perjury to make a false claim.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
what the fuck is wrong with you
Blender CAN sue for compensation. Maybe if the law specified treble damages for negligent filing the initial complaint, Sony might be more careful next time.
It seems to have been noticed and fixed.
Link to video on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
The truth shall set you free!
That would be interesting. I once licensed some software I wrote like that. My license specified it could be freely distributed by anyone other than Microsoft, their employees and affiliates.
... people make mistakes. Then again, mistakes make people. At any rate, Sony is no stranger to making mistakes. All the good will they create with this stunt will surely bolster their flagging bottom line, like that wonderful rootkit they devised some time back. You really can't buy incompetence like that; you have to grow it yourself.
You had to eat your words for it http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Start the Slander of Title proceedings. Then issue them a DMCA takedown for their now-infringing use. You don't use just one legal tactic to hand them their ass. You use them all. Get the EFF involved. Fund with Kickstarter. Use the tools available, and be sure to throw the book at them.
If they want to live by the sword, they can die by it just as easily.
I made this.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
That is an explicit claim associated with Sony Pictures Movies & Shows. To get that, Sony had to upload content to the YouTube content system saying "I own this content. Anyone matching it is in copyright violation."
This is a very important legal argument to make in court. By submitting content to the system - or to YouTube in a way that would be interpreted as being "Copyright Sony, rights reserved" by the system - Sony knowingly made a claim of ownership.
This both disparaged BlenderFoudation's title and voided their license to distribute the content, making further distribution by Sony subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That's not true, you're just a lazy kind of person who just gives up on everything.
... making further distribution by Sony
or their agents (i.e. YouTube, with Sony still on the hook for the money)
subject to the $150,000 statutory damages penalty.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I suggest specifying @SonyPictures and the #SonySucks hashtag.
Something like this:
@SonyPictures Dear Sony asshat lawyers: How is this your content?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/04/06/007256/blender-foundation-video-taken-down-on-youtube-for-copyright-violation #SonySucks
Let's see if we can get it trending on Twitter! :-)
It makes perfect sense, because it is germane to the issue, unlike your analogy.
There's nothing saying that Sony can't have a DMCA takedown printing press ready to fill in the blanks and fire a billion of them off on a moment's notice, or the technological equivalent thereof.
The fact that a) the video is blocked, b) on copyright (and, thus, statutory) grounds, at the behest of c) Sony says that the DMCA take-down process has been executed. If it hasn't, and YouTube just took it down willy-nilly, then they are liable for a plethora of legal challenges, including breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
you forgot to put IANAL in your post
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It seems to me that Google registers a huge number of false copyright claims on Youtube. The DMCA should be amended to permit a provider to stop honoring DMCA takedown notices if it is determined that they receive more than 3 false claims in a calendar year from any one source. That would put the burden on the copyright holders to make sure that they have a valid claim and eliminate the robot approach that spur so many false claims.
Arguably, if there was an infringement that took place that was anything beyond casual, it should be simple enough to identify. If it's small enough to completely slip under the radar, then it probably isn't worth the effort. For example, a baby video shared with friends where there's music in the background.
you forgot to put IANAL in your post
Not everybody likes that.
As far as I can see it is NOT fixed. It's just that it hasn't finished flagging all the different versions that were posted to different channels.
Self correcting, make financially responsible if the claim turns out to be false. Including court and legal fees.
Is it time for me to list my services on Kickstarter... wet-ops for the FOSS community?
If it hasn't, and YouTube just took it down willy-nilly, then they are liable for a plethora of legal challenges, including breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations.
Really? What contract? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm wondering whether Youtube would actually leave themselves open legally to such to things.
Actually nevermind, it seems they don't leave themselves open to such things:
The Terms of Service also state that "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content and User Submissions without prior notice," so YouTube takes the view that it can remove a video for any reason it likes.
And given that it is their service I'm not sure where you are getting your information from.
The promised land of lawyers. Where is the company that files standard counter suits for dollars? Or for cut of the compensation? Hello? Should be easy wins, right?
That's how you do it.
Please tell me you are joking. Imagine the brouhaha when Google stops serving the results of one of its competitors. Even if there wasn't, would you want Google to pick and choose whose results are returned?
The issue, at its heart, is legislative in nature: it is bad legislation, poor enforcement, or both. This is an issue for Washington to fix.
And there's no way for you to recover any lost wages? That's awful.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
And Sintel is virtually already in the public domain, except for attribution.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Just watched in in HD.
But it has had it's possitive side: People are pretty upset with this crap.
And regarding the movie: I knew it. I knew it would end this way :P
-- 29A the number of the Beast
And libeler: How'd "eating your words" taste? See here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... were they flavorful (lol) seasoned with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + YOUR FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH you bigmouth libelous Open SORES bullshitter?
As to the rest of my subject, let's let TOM speak shall we:
"I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
This isn't true. The movie is still online. I just checked!
Google plus is trying to manipulate the Content provided by authors and ridiculously preventing You tube posts and comments on my own sections.
Additionally Youtube has become permissive to dupicity-duplicate content COPY AS IT IS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. Who has given license without sense of Infringement ?
The avowed intent and purpose of protecting the name and original authors get lost.