Slashdot Mirror
"Internet's Own Boy" Briefly Knocked Off YouTube With Bogus DMCA Claim
An anonymous reader writes "In a bitter irony, a documentary celebrating Aaron Swartz, the late Internet activist who helped create the Creative Commons, has been taken down from YouTube by a misguided copyright claim." From the article: [O]ne of the dark sides of how copyright is enforced on the Internet is that sites that don't actually infringe are sometimes mistakenly swept up in rightsholders' takedown notices, which are frequently automated. Visitors who tried to watch The Internet's Own Boy on YouTube Friday were greeted by the message, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Remove Your Media LLC," a reference to a company that specializes in sending copyright takedowns in accordance with the law that governs them, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It's not clear who made the claim, but that's not the point—as activists are all too aware, false copyright claims can can knock legitimate content offline.
this was no accident I bet.
this was a carefully crafted and brilliantly delivered message about the IP dystopia we are creating.
well played, I say.
There is an argument to make that he was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself. He could have done what he did without opening up the network closet - which is the most significant charge that was filed against him. Yeah, the overall response was heavy handed without a doubt, but he wasn't exactly rational himself.
Granted, I guess this is a slightly more interesting story than facebook, the movie but still not that great.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
http://www.demonoid.ph/files/d...
Is it me or is the mere fact that they automated the takedown notices speaking volumes of how frivolous the whole matter has become? Take them all down and let God sort them out, or how is that supposed to be?
Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As long as our methods of content sharing are allowed to operate only by the grace of the major players (i.e. the rich), we will never be free.
in corporatese is meaningless without paying money. Every false claim takedown should have minimum damages applied, with opportunity for more damages possible.
as activists are all too aware, false copyright claims can can knock legitimate content offline.
As not only activists but almost everyone aware of the rampant abuse going on has been claiming for years, it is high time that the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA claims is actually enforced. Mistakes can happen, nobody is perfect, but some companies have been taking down large amounts of content for years, repeatedly and with not even a slap on the wrist.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
From the article:
A representative for Remove Your Media, Eric Greene, refused to name the client who hired him for the takedown, though he noted it was "a distributor outside the U.S."
Can anyone more knowledgeable than me explain why the DMCA allows the accuser to hide behind the act?
I almost feel as though this DMCA request might have been made by an activist, trying to point out how ridiculous and easily-abused this system is.
Youtube should really stop accepting DMCA requests from these nobody companies. If you own an IP, then man up and have the balls to file the claim yourself. I had a video containing nothing but video game footage taken down by a "music society", whatever that is. I fought it and won, but I shouldn't have had to go through that process.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
>[O]ne of the dark sides of how copyright is enforced on the Internet
Not exactly, it's just Google. I can understand that they want to automate as much as possible because everything else would make it more complicated on their side, but it's still just Google.
Take them all down and let God sort them out
Isn't that a quotation from the text of the DMCA?
Back to /r/conspiracy you go.
I already migrated my videos from youtube to archive.org for other reason. The player has some issues but otherwise seems similar.
It looks like this
Karel Kulhavy Twibright Labs
There is an argument to make that he was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself [...] he wasn't exactly rational himself.
There is an argument to be made that Jesus was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself. He failed to put up a defense when asked.
Your statement fairly reeks of the innuendo "this isn't something to get angry over, because he wasn't normal".
It dulls the impact of an important event, it's unfalsifiable (you cite no evidence, just "there's an argument to make"), and it serves to quell any discontent over the current political situation.
I like it. Can the technique be reversed in future incidents? Can a properly crafted response be used to whip up political discontent and restlessness?
I wonder...
That is why I have always advocated strong penalties for filing false claims. Something the copyright industry lobbies heavily against because it would require them to prove infringement rather than automatically sending out thousands of claims in the suspicion that one or two percent of them might contain actual infringing content.
The summary makes it sound like bad faith DMCA takedowns are an accident. They're not. There is real malice here.
Don't put anything online. Then they can't take it and me down, down, down, down.
What's really needed (short of scrapping the whole thing) is to change the law so that DMCA takedowns must be of the form "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of this copyrighted material, and it is being used here in violation of my copyright." And start putting some of these bastards in jail for perjury if they keep this crap up.
I know you made this statement sarcastically but since you've referenced a very important and relevant point in history I'll mention for our younger readers that this is a popular paraphrase of a statement made by one Arnold Amaury during what has become now known broadly as "The Spanish Inquisition" when asked how he proposed they'd weed the heretics out of Béziers; his response was "Kill them all, God will know his own."
The chilling parallels between The Inquisition and the current comparatively passive-aggressive war on freedom of information ought not be trivialized by satire.
Is it me or is the mere fact that they automated the takedown notices speaking volumes of how frivolous the whole matter has become? Take them all down and let God sort them out, or how is that supposed to be?
Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.
They're already supposed to be sworn under penalty of perjury, which beats the hell out of a "fine". The mechanism is already there, it's just that nobody seems to be interested in enforcing it.
Whoever sent the takedown notice should be looking at jail time according to the law.
Do you have ESP?
How can you make a DMCA claim, while withholding both the name of the copyright holder and the particular copyrights involved?
If there is zero burden of proof, then what is to stop someone from sending a DMCA takedown notice for EVERYTHING on youtube?
Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.
Perhaps more effective would be to rain down takedown notices upon any group that shows anything. Just go through youtube and start at the A's. Claim copyright on every video, photograph, and PDF you can find - anywhere.
And don't stop until the whole internetz is thrown into chaos.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Have you read "Behold the Man" written 1969 by Michael Moorcock by any chance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_(novel)
That's right. God planned for Jesus (god) to be crucified. So in effect, god sacrificed himself to himself to atone for the things he finds offensive according to his divine rules, so that he can judge you when he checks whether you complied with his rules.
I would like to see a class action suit brought against all the companies that issue false takedown notices.
It's spelled millennium, holy shit, why do people misspell this word with one n 90% of the fucking time. If only there was some sort of way to check your spelling in a web browser.
Why again are we still supposed to use the ballot box instead of the bullet box?
This is absolutely outrageous.
Does that means that if somebody writes a script that goes over every other video from accounts of Warner, Sony, etc. and reports them (mistakenly) as infringement, maybe right before the premiere of $LATEST_REMAKE...
...no, no, that must be wrong.
That's right. God planned for Jesus (god) to be crucified. So in effect, god sacrificed himself to himself to atone for the things he finds offensive according to his divine rules, so that he can judge you when he checks whether you complied with his rules.
So what you're saying is that god was a narcissist.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
The perjury clause isn't for the claim of infringement or mistaken claim, it's for the statement that you are a copyright owner and/or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. For the actually claimed infringement, it only takes a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
Misidentifying a file would not be perjury. The best that could happen is damages and law fees from the person making the claim of infringement.
Perjury charges were promised for false claims. If the DCMA can't be repealed why not amend it to what was promised when it was being voted on?
Or can you point me to the chapter in the bible where Jesus the carpenter set down his hand tools, stole his neighbor's air compressor, power tools, and precut lumber, and proceeded to craft stuff from it in his own name?
It dulls the impact of an important event,
Which "important event" do you have in mind here? Are you talking about when he opened up a network closet and slowed down the network traffic of an entire academic library for his own aims - when he could have downloaded all the same material from the desk where he worked his job? Or are you talking about when he got scared about the possibility of having to face trial, and took his own life rather than object to the laws that he was potentially facing trial under?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
When the DMCA laws were first proposed, there was supposed to be a penalty for making a false claim.
Obviously this needs to be re-visited.
Automated or not, someone set up the system. "Oh. I'm sorry. My Automated script did it". Make them pay a fine. One which increases for each false claim.
Another problem is third party enforcement. Rights holders hire companies to do this for them, then wash their hands of it. Make the original rights holders responsible. That's the way is works in the brick and mortar world. Own a building, you're liable. If a contractor does shoddy, you're responsible. Though you may be able to sue the contractor.
As people and companies are claiming (and in many cases justly so) real rights to content on the internet. It's time to bring the other side of that coin into play. If someone wrongly says they own part of your yard, you're entitled to damages.
Get off my yard.
There is an argument to be made that Jesus was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself.
Christians make that argument all the time; in fact, their entire faith is hinged upon it: if Jesus really was God made flesh, then he was only born into flesh in order to become a martyr, and it was his sole purpose in being born.
the people / layers abusing this system without repercussions and filing bogus claims MUST BE VIOLENTLY KILLED! There is no other way to create examples - kidnapping, torturing and killing them without mercy, all put on video and posted on the web for all to see and remember. GOGO.
Your analogy only works if you consider God and Jesus to be two halves of a multidimensional being - half in Heaven and half on Earth.
Of course there are 4 billion people that don't agree with that interpretation.
Even the church considered it heresy for the first three hundred years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Basically before any person or entity can infringe upon my liberty and similar rights in person they should have to prove the infringement in a court of law which is already a right guaranteed under the constitution, known as the right to due process.
The problem is a lack of money and defense going to protect the public from abuses like this so most likely it has never been tried in court and there is no easy way to complain. Additionally all laws would be very one sided given they were written not with individuals rights in mind but large corporations instead.
I am actually wondering if a Habeas corpus would work because liberty infringement is at stake by the ability for other people to control me or my material by issuing false DMCA take down notices without first proving their case to a court or jury enabling this easy as pie vlantant liberty infringement against all individuals.
http://www.obamasweapon.com/
1 - Write an automated take down script :
For each $contentProvider
{
For each $content in getCatalog($contentProvider)
{
if(true)
sendDMCATakeDownNotice( $contentProvider, $content, getRandomClientName() );
}
}
For each $counterNotice // Do not change anything...
send( $contentProvider, "My apologies, it is the automated script which made the mistake. Your feedback will help improve its detection rate');
2 - Sell the service to hundreds of these large companies.
3 - Profit!
What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.
But if the claimant doesn't have any copyright authority, I don't believe the claim is actionable under the DMCA. If I claim your video violates someone's copyright, YouTube is under no obligation. If I claim the video violates my copyright, only then is YouTube obligated to take down the video. And this triggers the perjury clause.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
At the very least, when a false DMCA notice has been issued, and contested, the person who sent it should be FORCED to reveal who was ultimately behind it. This refusing to reveal their "client" is total bullshit.
(And if they refuse to hand over the identity of who claimed to own the content so the courts can determine whether or not there was an innocent mistake or not, then they should be forced to assume the full responsibility as if they were the content owner making the DMCA claim. And since they can't possibly pretend to be the owner of the content in question, they can go directly to jail/major penalties/whatever.)
To be precise, the Sack of Béziers took place in 1209, when the local bishops were in charge.
The Inquisition took lead of the Albigensian Crusade in 1222.
And that was the Medieval Inquisition. The Spanish Iniquistion was only established in 1478.
The perjury clause doesn't say what you think it says. If I own the rights on work A, to file a notice on work B, I claim that work B infringes work A. The perjury clause kicks in only if I do not own the rights to work A (or represent the person who does). If work B doesn't infringe, then that's a matter for the courts. This is quite annoying, but it does make sense. It's clear cut if works A and B are the same, but not in the case that B is a derived work of A. A court has to decide whether the use of A in B counts under fair use or not.
The counterbalance for this is that the DMCA does indemnify YouTube if they respond to a counternotice and reinstate the work. If you, the owner of work B, think it does not infringe then you send such a notice to YouTube. I then have no further recourse against YouTube and must take you to court directly.
The problem here is that it's very easy to automate sending takedown notices, but very hard to automate sending counter-notices. Mass-sending of automated takedown notices was something that the authors of the DMCA didn't foresee and the act probably needs amending to require the notice to explicitly state (under penalty of perjury) the person who has compared the works and their reason for believing that they are infringing.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Don't claim copyright on every video, this will make you guilty of perjury under the DMCA. Claim copyright on one video and then claim that every other video appears to be a derived work of that video. This is exactly the mechanism that the big studios use.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You call that counterbalance?
What's keeping me, a rights owner of a movie that's a real stinker, from silencing everyone who dared to do a negative review of it by carpet bombing any and all media pages with takedown notices for those reviews?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You didn't read to the end of my post, did you?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes, I've been wondering about this. If Jesus is not a manifestation of Lord but LORD's son (a demigod), then who did LORD sacrifice him to? Satan? Or another god? How many (Jewish) gods are there in the Bible anyway? There are so many names of gods, some of them plural, it's really hard to tell. But one thing is clear, that the monotheistic interpretation is the least likely. If there were no other gods, there would be no need for the commandment not to have other gods than LORD.
Obviously Jesus was sent to die as a man on earth so that he might meet with the gatekeepers of the afterlife directly so that they could form an agreement on how to further deal with human souls from that point on. It took him three days of dealing before he returned.
Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices?
No. Is anything going to happen? Please see first answer.
Copyright = Money
Copyright Infringes = Easy Pay Day
Copyright and Patents should last no more than half a human average age approx. 40 years, After which, it should belong to the public.
Taking the DMCA in it's full wording, it seems it can be sufficiently twisted around to claim that a false DMCA takedown is in fact infringing the copyright management systems of the actual owner of the copyright who can then launch a DMCA claim against the false claimant who is using DMCA against them, especially via an automated system. This would enable the pursuit of criminal charges and the big dollar fines. So when a firm or individual makes repeated false claims thus impacting the copyright management systems of the legal owner and via that method stealing the copyright to the work, they are then criminally liable for that theft.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Take the whole damn thing away from them. No more takedown notices at all.
It's what gets done to us little people, right? Big nanny state figures we've abused a righ---"privilege" too much, so they take it away.
To be precise, the Sack of Béziers took place in 1209, when the local bishops were in charge. The Inquisition took lead of the Albigensian Crusade in 1222. And that was the Medieval Inquisition. The Spanish Iniquistion was only established in 1478.
Man being stretched on the rack:(Screams) Mind you, I'm not complaining. I bless my stars every day that I am being interrogated by the Medieval Inquisition and not the Spanish Inquisition. I hear those Spaniards are right bastards. (Screams)
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It is doubtful that Google will roll over on this. More to come from this story.
That would violate my first amendment rights to file frivolous automated take down notices. Such a change would certainly be escalated to the supreme court and tossed out. [sarcasm/]
Correct, but you're leaving out an important consideration. If god is the creator, then he reserves the right and ability to judge his creation (you) regardless of what happens next. Perhaps a more complete statement: So in effect, god sacrificed himself to himself to _demonstrate his divinity and his ability to_ atone for the things he finds offensive according to his divine rules _and to show_ that he can judge you when he checks whether you complied with his rules.
God gave you free will so you could voluntarily do as He wants you to do. Don't abuse the free will God gave you to do something God disapproves of, otherwise you will burn in Hell forever.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
And Socrates before that, in requesting (if only jokingly) a reward after being found guilty of crimes, as his punishment.
>What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.
They considered this, but Goodlatte and other representatives in the pockets of industry explicitly rejected it because it might have a cooling effect on takedowns. :p
He chose not to put up a defense. As the son of God and the Lord, he could've easily chopped the Roman's heads off, or set the planet on fire in mere seconds or less, but he chose not to annihilate his enemy, but let them be, and be as a regular man, so that he could be like the people, and deliver a much more meaningful message than he would have otherwise.
"Oh. I'm sorry. My Automated script did it"
Yeah, let's see that excuse save somebody's ass when it's a botnet taking out a media company's site. Oh wait, it won't. So why is it a valid excuse for media companies performing takedowns of other's people's content?
This outstanding article at Vice by Matt Stoller is well worth reading,
http://www.vice.com/read/aaron...
http://www.thestranger.com/sea...
I am wondering if this is a case of "slander". When they make a copyright claim, they are saying to the public that you are a criminal. Which is not true and possibly could do harm to the one accused of infringement.
I put up a lot of youtube videos and a fair number have been incorrectly identified as copyright infringement. In my case it is always music that causes the issue. I use creative commons licensed music. I believe their are companies out there with the sole purpose of claiming ownership to free music simply because they can and will steal money by advertising over or next to the video content.
These companies do nothing, but steal money from the original artists. I think it would be in youtubes interest to get rid of theives and hold companies accountable for their defective automated detection software. If the software dont do what its supposed to... youtube should ban them from making future copyright claims... as their words and opinions have no meaning.
The DMCA sucks. It may be useful to also pursue additional legal means. False/unwarranted takedown notices are a form of harassment, particularly when there's a pattern of such, and it's not "mere relatively rare accident". Sue the party submitting the takedown notice and the copyright holder authorizing the party to submit such, get a restraining order against them issuing any such unwarranted takedown notices against any of your content, and if/when they violate such restraining order, notify law enforcement - violation of restraining order is generally a felony. Can probably also sue them in small claims court for nuisance or the like.
40 years is already more than what's sensible. Imagine I invented something that ensures I'll get more money than I could sensibly spend per month. Where's my incentive to invent again instead of spending the rest of my life in a hammock?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...They suck rocks with their own foolish brand of censorship!
You can have someone else than the actual copyright owner legally send the DMCA notice? So it is actually legalized one sided trolling. For the DMCA notice to be removed and the content restated you have to sent a counter claim including your personal details to the original claimant... which means that you have to give out your details while the "claimed owner" of the first notice, the one who hired this entity to send out the DMCA notice can stay totally in the dark? This system is even more fucked up than I previously thought.
Maybe there needs to be a financial incentive to make sure your take down notice is valid. A fine of some sort, of the take down has been found flagrantly bad.
Alternatively we need a legal precedent that a false claim of ownership of Copyright in a work is tort (e.g. trespass to chattels) as the real owner is deprived of the use/benefits of the work; moreover if the claim was made dishonestly (the claimant knew it to be false) then the claim should be tantamount to theft. Such a precedent could potentially be established in any common law jurisdiction.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net