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.
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.
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.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
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.
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.
"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.
Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.
I call bullshit on this one. Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.
However, the linking of Google Plus to Youtube does indeed suck.
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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
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.
There needs to be financial penalties for false takedown notices. Right now there is no cost in automated sending of takedown notices.
Google trying to push everyone onto G+ was my reason to throw YouTube in the crapper... and the only reason why I even looked for other services, which turned out to be the best move I ever made concerning my online viewing habits.
So, in a twisted kind of way, I think I have to thank Google for trying to push G+ onto their YouTube users. Without, we probably would never have bothered to learn that there's other, and better, ways to get your daily dose of videos.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Slashdot effect. You must be new here.
A list of Youtube alternatives would be greatly appreciated. I know only Vimeo.
server speed has increased immensely
I never noticed a problem before Google. Even if it were, video is cacheable and buffer-able and I'd prefer to wait if it's the condition for unencumbered content
they've moved to HD
I think this would have happened regardless. Possibly it would have been YouTube's revenue model... to upload or consume HD, you have to pay in some way.
they've removed time limits on videos
I think this would have been similar to the HD situation and would have happened regardless.
they've allowed live streaming of shows
Meh. I don't care much about live streaming. Regardless, the average Joe isn't doing this, it's mostly people with deeper pockets.
they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)
Revenue sharing is only right. You shouldn't credit Google for making money off the content and then sharing some of that revenue with the people that upload it. Because if they didn't, there would be torches and pitchforks headed toward Mountain View. What does suck, though, is their implementation. Upload original content that happens to have some copyrighted song in the background and you don't get a penny. Sorry, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Have you used YouTube lately? It used to be jammed with 1 hit wonders, spam and viral crap. Now YouTube is rewarding and encouraging people to basicly start their own TV show. Of those that are doing so the percentage of intelligent and usefull shows is WAY higher than you find on any TV network, none of it would have happened without Google to back it up.
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.
Not exactly.
Because of multiple lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the recording industry, Google has struck this deal with major stakeholders whereby they can basically bypass what limited due process exists in the DMCA and takedown videos on a whim.
You have no recourse under this system because the DMCA isn't being invoked by these media companies where there is an ability to file a DMCA counter-notice and sue for damages for false copyright assertions.
There are, but conveniently enough you have to file your own suit against them rather than the government enforcing it.
Google fights authority for lots of things. In this case, they happily worked on non-trivial content-tracking and content-scanning code and subsequently handed over the keys to the YouTube kingdom to the MAFIAA.
Why? Because Big Content is now also distributed on YouTube. Google gets a piece of that action. That wouldn't have happened if Google hadn't agreed to clamp down on even the most borderline and questionable copyright claims possible.
Here's an example: my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. He's not making any money, but he is increasing his exposure and the hope is someday it will help him get somewhere. In the meantime, the video is garnering views on YouTube and we had it set to monetize. Our aim was to offset our investment even in the most minor way possible. The medium sized publishing company that he used to distribute his track turns out is owned by a bigger publishing company. That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it. There's no one you can actually talk to at Google to dispute these things and it's all automated and played according to rules designed solely to favor the big content companies that revenue share with Google for hosting their commercial YouTube channels.
Since the publishing company didn't enter into any contract with us to produce a video, we don't stand a chance to get any money. We can take down the video and thus hurt our friend, or we can demand he pay us, which also hurts him, or we can leave it there and the publishing company, which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to either write, record or produce the track (they just distribute it, and their reward is a cut of the sales), and which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to write, record, or produce the video... just gets to sit back and monetize the video. It's peanuts to them. Shit, it's peanuts to us and wouldn't undo the time and money we put into the video. BUT IT'S THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!
All thanks to Google buying YouTube and then not only not fighting the fight it should have fought, but actually working intentionally to hand it all over to the bad guys.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
"Don't be evil", they said. Riiiiight....
Sorry, to clarify: our friend has even spoken with the publishing company. They say they have no control over it. Google just automatically flags content that includes songs that are in the database as being owned by different publishers. Short of paying to get lawyers involved, and everyone loses except the lawyers if that happens, there is no way to alter this automated madness!
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
But it's because the DMCA takedowns exist that these automated systems exist.
[End Of Line]
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.
Other than the fact that Google has these crappy copyright policies to begin with?
[End Of Line]
It's the DMCA takedown laws that allow this.
I don't think that's accurate. The DMCA creates a 'safe haven' for content sites like Youtube, it essentially says, "if you takedown when someone tells you that their content is on your website, then you can't be sued." Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).
The case here is that the studios have made an agreement with Google: they don't have to file a DMCA takedown request at all. They tell Google they don't like it, and they have two options: take all ad profits from the content, or have it taken down. "Take all ad profits from the content" is definitely not part of the DMCA, that's something extra Google came up with (I presume, maybe it was a studio idea).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"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."
In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others. The DMCA didn't change that, but created a much stronger safe harbor which you lose by not obeying the DMCAs takedown provision, thus providing a strong incentive to follow those takedown provisions. A sneaky end-run around the First Amendment; you don't HAVE to obey the whims of those who send takedown letters, but in practice the incentive is overwhelming.
In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others.
Are you sure about that? Do you have a source or something?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Yeah, that wouldn't be evil at all.
This isn't a problem with Google this is a problem with you, your friend and his publisher. They added the video to the list of media they owned, did they do that because your friend told them they could? Did they do it without his knowlege? What does his contract with the publisher say, they very well may own the copyright to that video now. As far as Google is concerned one person owns that video and the publishing company is a more convincing argument than 'the guys who filmed and editied it for free.' Can the guy who did the mixing for the latest pop album claim that he owns the songs because he made it? Media production is not about what is right or wrong its about following the letter of the law through its nightmarish fractal itterations.
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.
No, what the DMCA did was reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The "safe harbor" provision was a marketing ploy to sell the law.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Forget financial - let's set copyright penalties.
False takedown claim, claimant's copyright that was reportedly infringed immediately turned over to public domain, and can NEVER be returned to claimants.
This would apply even if the claimant is just a front company hired to look for violations, they would need to be bonded and insured for billions in losses.
A video that contains copyrighted music that was made by some one else is by definition not "original content."
False dichotomy. A video can contain both original content and content that was made by others.
[End Of Line]
Which is broken by design, since they don't need to file suit to get the content removed to begin with, which, at the very least, they should. Instead, they get to fire off takedown notices, which websites have to comply with if they want safe harbor, with impunity, or at least until someone challenges them in court, but even then, it's unlikely they'll actually get in real trouble due to the way the DMCA was written.
Also, if you file suit against them, it would be the government that would decide the result and enforce it; that's what courts are.
[End Of Line]
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.
No, what the DMCA did was reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The "safe harbor" provision was a marketing ploy to sell the law.
I'm not sure this is accurate, the DMCA merely protects the hosting service from liability. It has nothing to do with burden of proof. The hosting service doesn't need to remove the content, but then they are liable to defend it in court.
The hosting company needs to notify the person who uploaded the content, and the person who uploaded it can respond without needing proof, merely promising that they own the content (or have it licensed or whatever). After that (and IMO an unreasonably long delay), it must either go to court where proof is required as normal, or if the accuser doesn't respond the content goes back online.
Of course, the hosting company doesn't need to put it back up, that is their choice. And if the hosting company has a good relationship with the accuser, they might take it down just because they are friends, like Google and Sony. Which seems to be what happened here, it doesn't like there was a DMCA takedown notice at all.
So really the DMCA doesn't apply here.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Indeed, the best way to get around the slashdot effect is to hit refresh repeatedly, that will get it working.
...
The hosting service doesn't need to remove the content, but then they are liable to defend it in court.
That is precisely the problem. The accuser should pay all costs, and the video should stay up until the case is closed. Unfortunately a hosting company has little to gain from defending the client's rights, so, down it comes. The internet needs to be more P2P to make the removal of content more difficult.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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)
Huh? How would that work in this case, exactly? Sony makes a false claim, and Sintel gets put in the public domain??
The accuser should pay all costs, and the video should stay up until the case is closed.
Why?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Once again, I'm not sure it was a DMCA thing
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Innocent until proven guilty, that's why...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Interesting.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Shouldn't be
Supposed to be the norm
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I've had similar experiences. Three times I've invoked the wrath of the youtube content ID system.
The first I'll let them have: The video was clear infringement, albeit of a video that the copyright holder at the time refused to publish. A certain very early Disney cartoon that cast their beloved Micky in a rather bad light. I used it to demonstrate some video restoration techniques.
The second was clear fair use. I used about thirty seconds of footage from a twenty-minute cartoon, with dubbed-over music, in order to poke fun at certain visual elements. No matter. Interestingly, this wasn't automated: The copyright holder for the cartoon actually had someone send a takedown notice. I'm guessing I offended an executive.
The third one was inexcusable: Content-ID picked up the infringement of audio, but for music that was so ancient (Any older and it'd be on wax cylinder!) as to be public domain even in the US. I looked into it - a collecter's society had claimed the rights to it, even though the composer was dead more than seventy years ago. I attempted to appeal this one, but there just isn't an appeal option. There's nothing you can use. I tried three times to contact an actual human at youtube to explain the situation, but never even got a reply. If it's a DMCA takedown (As in case two) you can file a counterclaim, but this was Content-ID: Its word is final and beyond contest.
Yet the search engine division refuses to penalise pirate sites or remove them from the rankings, and even when forced to by law they put up the DMCA informational notice complete with the removed links as a soft of 'fuck you' to the copyright holder.
There's clearly a different approach to copyright in different divisions.
Yes, if there is sufficient evidence that the damage will increase if the other party is allowed to continue, the damaged party is even entitled to demand from the damaging party to immediately stop whatever they are up to, before things are settled in court.
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."
I honestly thought of doing something along those lines. But we're talking pennies barely worth small claims court here (going by what Google normally pays out for YT revenue sharing). And at the end of the day, such a suit might even end up dismissed with a simple "well, you should have read the fine print and not posted the video" or some such, because it's true, my company doesn't own the audio content, my friend does and he has a contract with the publishing company so I assume they would argue they are protecting his rights by adding his music to the database. Best case scenario we'd get some fraction of the revenue sharing, the publishing company gets another fraction and my friend gets nothing because it's not enough to undo the by operational costs.
Alas, I have too many other things to worry about and no good lawyer friends. Its not worth it so I just live with that chip on my shoulder but move on.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Yeah, that was unclear... I meant to say that Google fights authority for a lot of things, but not this, because in this case, they have a stake in not fighting it. So it's foolhardy to look at Google and think they are a champion for just causes, which is how they first looked to most people in the earlier days.
I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor. The point of the post is to show how the principle of the system is flawed and stacked against the common person, which is what YouTube was originally all about.
Now it's all big content on there that drives the show. Common person content is only still allowed there as a way to make it seem like it's still the same youtube and maintain it's original attraction. Lies. As soon as any such content actually garners enough eyeballs on a regular basis, a bigger content company buys them out.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
This. The Content-ID thing. A travesty.
At the very least there should be an accountable human behind any DMCA takedown request (which even then would be terribly flawed for all the other arguments pointed out by others).
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Let's not forget that's the hubris and presumptuousness that is required to assume that a video is worthless except for the copyrighted audio track within.
At the very least, Google's Content-ID system should split the revenue sharing 50-50 between the Content ID owner the owner of the video. Neither could exist without the other.
While a record company may claim that no one would watch the video were it not for the soundtrack (and this does happen a lot on YouTube, where people just upload a song and add a photo of the album cover or something), the reverse is just as often true: people watch a video for the video and in the process learn about a song, or are further exposed to it (and that's the point of radio, after all. the more you get exposed to a song the more likely you are to end up wanting to buy it).
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
> 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?
I deal with mostly video game content on YouTube, but the Content ID system is the same across the board. The publisher is either lying or incompetent, because they definitely can release claims on content, even if it's a match. YouTube even has one match type (I don't know why it isn't default) that just notifies the claimant of detected matches so they can manually screen for validity and claim them.
If you bother the publisher enough maybe a manager will tell some peon that knows what they're doing to fix it.
I feel your pain, but I'm not sure the people complaining in this thread understand the sheer size of YouTube. It's literally the entire worlds video repository. There are over 100 hours of video uploaded every minute. Over 100 hours! Even if YouTube employed an entire army of specialised copyright lawyers trained in the international nuances of fair use, there's no possible way the enormous number of disputes could ever be mediated in a fair way.
When you upload to YouTube, you get a lot of stuff for free, but you don't have to use them. You could host the video yourself and then the disputes would come to you directly instead of being auto-resolved by a machine. If you aren't willing to pay the costs of doing that, then you need to accept the consequences of YouTube's razor-thin profit margins and vast economies of scale.
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.
Perhaps this is the problem: Youtube has just become too big and too important. It's not just a hosting service - it's also by far the world's most influential video recormendation engine. A clip uploaded on youtube can go viral, the same clip uploaded anywhere else will remain in obscurity.
Content-ID picked up the infringement of audio, but for music that was so ancient (Any older and it'd be on wax cylinder!) as to be public domain even in the US. I looked into it - a collecter's society had claimed the rights to it, even though the composer was dead more than seventy years ago
How old was the recording you used? The song/tune itself can be public domain due to age, but the performance/recording will still be protected by copyright if it was made recently.
Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.
I have a rather more cynical view of that. Better latency, HD, longer videos and live streaming are basically all just effects of one good thing, better servers. That's probably the only good thing that Google has given to Youtube.
I don't count the partnership program as good. Basically it radically influences channel content for the worse. Either it introduces money, which ruins everything*, or it introduces legal protection from U.S. entities which makes for some pretty bland content**.
* I'm a viewer of some channels that thrive on the partnership program (Drive Network and TotalBiscuit for example) and they all do worse and worse the more money is involved. Instead of being fueled by passion they are fueled by ratings and money. Which is what utterly killed Hollywood and Television for me and got me into Youtube in the first place. Examples from the Drive Network: the three-minute car reviews, which are blatantly not at home on that channel, and the product placement (like Pirelli) / advertisement videos that pop up every once in a while. Examples from TB: where to even begin. Makes videos based solely on the highest ratings, to the point where it comes close to ruining his personal life. Adjusts video content and kills off series based on how much revenue they bring in and not based on what he enjoys playing/shooting, which blatantly shows in his commentary.
** Partnership channels are pretty strictly regulated in regards to what they can show in their videos. They are trying to dodge takedown requests like this one and copyright strikes which may stop their cash intake. So... anything remotely inflammatory or controversial that could be in any way interpreted as slander, copyright infringement, etc... just won't appear on a channel like this any more.
Also: the GP was right about the ridiculous "updates". They're almost all terrible. The layout changes, the default setting changes, the player changes... Just the facts that buffering still doesn't work, quality settings were broken for months, subscriptions break all the time, are all great examples of the incompetency of the devs or the misguided priorities over there. Youtube is constantly becoming more corporate, better at generating revenue, and worse for the users. And users hate it more all the time and only use it because hardly anyone could ever afford to make a better Youtube clone.
The greatest thing Youtube has introduced lately is HTML5 compatibility and I have complete confidence Youtube could've and would've implemented that without Google's "help".
> 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.
I didn't sign the contract. I was just doing a favor.
This is entirely the problem. On one hand you say you were just doing a friend a favor, on the other hand you enabled advertisements for the video. Now it isn't just a pro bono favor anymore. You say you were just trying to recoup expenses, but what happens if the video goes viral? Who gets the money then?
Since your friend is in business and so are you, it's best to get these things worked out in advance, especially when it comes to ownership and money.
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 ----
What the sibling AC said - care to share your list?
Note that for [your] online viewing habits, you don't need G+. I guess you could be doing it out of solidarity of the internet commenters or those uploaders who curse the requirement while coveting the ad/syndicated partnership income - but if you're just watching the videos, you don't need a Google+ acccount. (Yet. Not likely to change, but then Google pulls all sorts of unlikely things.)
Which is more or less exactly what happens with the DMCA.
The accuser sends a notice to the hosting company saying they believe they are publishing infringing material.
Hosting company informs customer, and will remove content if no reply is received within 24 hours.
Customer responds, that they own the copyright, and once done hosting company restores the content, if removed, or does not remove it if the time period has not elapsed.
Once that stage is reached, the accuser must pay all costs and the video stays up until the case is closed.
The issue is that most providers will remove the material fist, and ask questions later - even though, they are permitted to leave the material for 24 hours to allow the accused to respond.
The other issue is that there is no penalty or cost for an accuser to make false claims under the DMCA. A malicious accuser can easily cause huge administrative headaches for hosting companies and content creators, and face no penalty or cost for it. Things get a lot more expensive and risky for the accuser at the 2nd phase once, and the number of copyright cases that progress after a DMCA counter-claim is very small indeed.
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.
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
my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. [...] That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it.
Well, this sucks, but it might actually be legally correct: When you friend signed away his soul to the record company, he gave them every right to act this way. As such, your company would have had to make a contract with the soul owner, not with the poor remains.
Many musicians seem to be very naive and don't realize this when they sign up with a publisher, not even years later. Many don't even seem to think it necessary to point this out when they're doing contract work, like for indie games, even though it's very relevant. YouTube casters (which are the main PR for indie games) are not allowed to review games that come with this kind of tainted music. They are not even allowed to show trailers of the game. The casters not getting paid for their work is the mildest of results from violating this law.
I've even seen musicians that tried to argue with their masters about that they would like them to allow game reviews, but it's a very sorry sight.
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.
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
Link to the video? I'll see if there's a way to escalate this issue internally. No guarantees, but it's worth a shot. Also, can you provide a succinct and factual summary of the sequence of events and the relationship with the publisher? Something I can include in the bug report.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Good question. The video itsself was 'Gertie the Dinosaur,' made in 1914. The opening title indicates it was released by 'The Box Office Attraction Company'*, suggesting it was a work for hire and thus even under the 95-year term would expire in 2009 - or 2004, if you assume it was just a project of Window McCay and thus expired seventy years after his death. The music is difficult though: No credit, seemingly no record of who composed or played it or when, and it may have been added later as the film is silent. I was able to determine an extract was reused for the later film 'Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend in 1921 though - same animator, so it was likely something composed specifically for use in Gertie. It is certainly written to fit the action of Gertie.
*Still around. They changed name, and are now better known as Fox.
Condidering how convoluted music rights are, your friend may have unwittingly signed away more rights than either of you realize.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
Fair use has a valuable role even when it isn't used: It prevents copyright holders bringing frivilous suits as a means to intimidate or harass critics or fans who are making noncommercial, noncompeting use of extracts. The copyright holder isn't going to file suit if they know that any judge is likely to accept a fair use defense and throw it out, and perhaps have them pay the defendant's costs too. That is what would likely have protected my video - it was just a joke, perhaps in rather bad taste, but textbook fair use. No commercial benefit for me, no significent part of the work used, not in competition with their own business. That doesn't work now that courts have been replaced by DMCA takedowns and automated processing: There's no longer any risk or cost to fileing a takedown, so copyright holders often tend towards an 'if in doubt, take it out' policy.
There have been many well-known incidents of this overzealous automation going horribly wrong - an independant game called 'Doom 3' being hit by takedowns after ID released their own game of the same title, a student being threatened after sharing their school report on Snow White on a p2p network and a bot mistaking it for the Disney movie, the livestream of the Hugo Award being taken offline for showing an extract from a TV program with permission because the copyright holder had neglected to inform the operators of the enforcement-bot that the showing was authorised, videos of a space shuttle launch being taken down because a local TV news channel had the policy of automatically adding all their broadcasts to the bot list even if it was just footage they relayed from NASA's cameras. The only way to keep up with the sheer volume of video and other content the internet transmits is to rely heavily on automation, but this automation cannot apply the good judgement of a human and, in order to avoid liability, will block content upon even the hint of a suspicion.
It's hard to say on the music, but it syncronises the action in a way that shows it must have been composed specifically, and the presence of artifacts and horrible sound quality would indicate it is certainly old. Just how old there is no way I could determine. No credits for composer, just producer/animator and distributor.
Winsor McCay, rather. Behold the fearsome power of the spellchecker.
... 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
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."
You know that copyright itself is not criminal law?
If people can go to jail for violations, I don't quite see it that way, but right, the law's the law.. And I find it very unfortunate that the accuser can sting a guy with a mere "preponderance of evidence". It's a bogus two tiered system. "innocent until proven guilty" should be applied much more strenuously and forcefully to all charges leveled against anybody.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It means to have something that's not controlled by the media cartels. But, in the case of youtube, the media cartels control it anyway.
There's no way the media cartels would ever release a platform that everybody can upload video to. They want full control.
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.
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.
IIRC, *not* going after an infringement can be used in court to bust your copyright. So they're damned if they do, damned if they don't?
Yes, they should be more careful -- apparently there's little, if any, manual review of automated detections, which is the real problem.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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
It's when a cat files a false affidavit.
No, it isn't. There's two parts. One is to claim standing, that one is either the copyright holder of a certain work or authorized by the copyright holder. That's under penalty of perjury. The other is the claim that whatever is on the website infringes on the copyright of that work, and that isn't.
I am the copyright holder on many things (not that I've registered any of them), so I could legally claim that I have a copyright to this picture of my cat (true), and your video infringes on my copyright (almost certainly false, but it isn't perjury).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thing is, people put things on YouTube without paying for hosting, as I understand it. Since they pay nothing, Google is not under any contractual obligation to keep things up, and they have every right to take it down if it turns into a hassle to keep it up, or for any other reason.
Remember, if you aren't paying, you aren't the customer, but rather the product.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Especially if the agent was Mr Crowley
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
You got it, it's Corporate Censorship. I keep hearing people talk about being free, freedom this, freedom that but support are still playing ho to these corporate giants.
Yeah we have our guns but what can we do with them but shoot things.
We also have other ways to be free and that is fair use. I can't see the video to judge for myself but Sony is loosing ground and will soon split up so I still won't buy their sh!t.