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."

Comments

Sony

[Richy_T]

Nuff said.

Guilty until proven innocent.

[Narcocide]

There needs to be a law against this. Sony should have to pay restitution to Blender.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent.

[Cryacin]

Sony should have to pay restitution to Blender.

This. I understand the need for corporations to be able to take down entire movie content et al from being served in public, as much as we would like things for free, movies do cost, there needs to be profit to get them funded etc.

However...

The pendulum is on the movie producers side right now, and they are shilling legitimate content etc as much as possible, and would rather have something by default taken down incorrectly than do their due diligence. The best way to solve this, is when an incorrect takedown notice has been issued without honest and reasonable proof that the correct steps have been taken to identify illegitimate content according to the laws, the party requesting the unlawful removal of content should become liable for any damages that occur from the takedown, and that those damages should be commensurate with the calculations used when movies are pirated, as obviously it is the same goods we are speaking of.

Re:Perjury?

[wisnoskij]

Someone with a million or two to just throw out the window and a lifetime of freetime to spend.

Re:Stop using Youtube

[Frosty Piss]

YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

I don't agree with your opinion, but really this has little to do with the issue at hand.

It's the DMCA takedown laws that allow this.

Blender should take them to court

[future assassin]

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.

How about...

[NewtonsLaw]

"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!

Re:Perjury? Well, fraud maybe...

[Altrag]

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.

Re:Perjury?

[MrL0G1C]

What we need is a 3-strikes and you're out system - submit 3 false DMCA take-downs and any more take-downs become invalid.

Re:Perjury? Well, fraud maybe...

[Registered Coward v2]

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.