Slashdot Mirror
Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used It In Family Guy and DMCA'd the Original (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: This week's episode of Family Guy included a clip from 1980s Nintendo video game Double Dribble showing a glitch to get a free 3-point goal. Perhaps surprisingly the game glitch is absolutely genuine and was documented in a video that was uploaded to YouTube by a user called 'sw1tched' back in February 2009. Interestingly the clip that was uploaded by sw1tched was the exact same clip that appeared in the Family Guy episode on Sunday. So, unless Fox managed to duplicate the gameplay precisely, Fox must've taken the clip from YouTube. Whether Fox can do that and legally show the clip in an episode is a matter for the experts to argue but what followed next was patently absurd. Shortly after the Family Guy episode aired, Fox filed a complaint with YouTube and took down the Double Dribble video game clip on copyright grounds. Perhaps YouTube should also be blamed for this.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a kickstarter to fund legal action against Fox.
If the video owner can catch them for the copyright infringement they can hammer them for Perjury for the DMCA notice.
DMCA is used far too often for things that do not make sense. The only people that really profit from it all is the lawyers, especially in a case like this where there is evidence of prior art.
Shame on Fox. Shame on MPAA. Shame on RIAA. Shame on all of the Congress critters for creating this legal pile of excrement.
If I were to download a song and listen to it in the privacy of my own home/car/phone at work, I would be liable for a lot of money damages. But Fox gets to take a clip from YouTube, put it into a very successful commercial show and then turn around and claim that it came from them in the first place AND suffer no financial damage.
Interesting. It's like the law has been twisted so that it only benefits the wealthy and well-to-do.
Congress. Because it was Congress that was purchased by the media industry, and told by their media industry overlords to pass over-reaching digital restriction laws.
Why should they be blamed for following the takedown process that the MPAA/RIAA forced upon them?
Did the MPAA/RIAA force Youtube to make it as easy as they did? Admittedly, I would probably just not care and give them an automated system as well, but I still think that deserves some blame.
Because instead of brainlessly taking down any video because of a DMCA request they could run it through a sanity check first, but that would take a little bit of effort, so its just easier not to piss off the people with money to sue you.
Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority (i.e. copyright ownership) to be able to enforce the notice.
However, such checks would go a long way toward invalidating the defense used by media companies who abuse the DMCA provisions when faced with such patently absurd filings - that they filed this specific request in error as a result of a failure of an automated reporting system, and that nobody at the media company making the filing was aware that the filing was incorrect. In the meantime, sanctions related to the number of DMCA notices received against content uploaded by specific accounts remains triggered even when many/most of the notices are shown to be bogus/in error, meaning that there is no incentive for the media companies to change and there are no satisfactory mechanisms in place for small uploaders to recover their content/challenge the behaviour.
Which is a great idea, if you can afford to employ enough people to do that. The rightsholders should be responsible for screening their takedown requests. The problem is that there's no limit placed on the supposed rightsholders to prevent them from abusing the system for automated takedowns without reviewing them first. Again, that was forced on YouTube by the rights agencies. Again, why blame YouTube?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Because instead of brainlessly taking down any video because of a DMCA request they could run it through a sanity check first, but that would take a little bit of effort, so its just easier not to piss off the people with money to sue you.
Or, howabout they just follow the longstanding and bright-line Doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued?
Anything else (and any law to the contrary) is blatantly Unconstitutional, and void ab initio. I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
No Court could find differently; and it's HIGH-TIME that that was Tested...
There is no need to quote stole here. Fox has not only copied the video (which would justify the quotes), they have asserted ownership of the work (actual theft).
It's funny how it's primarily the entities that whine about infringement and call it theft that commit the actual thefts.
The DMCA doesn't require the party filing the DMCA notice to provide YouTube a copy of the original so they can compare. All it requires is that they claim they own the legal copyright that the other work is infringing.
The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims. The only punishment is if the filing party knows they don't own the copyright but files the claim anyway. That is, the filing party can always say "I thought I owned the copyright, but I guess I was wrong" and get away with it without even having to say "I'm sorry." That's what's led to the copyright industry filing DMCA claims willy nilly with little regard for accuracy.
Apparently I missed the article of the Constitution that requires a corporation to freely host content for a private individual.
I agree with you that Youtube should not remove the video without review, but I hardly think it's a violation of constitutional rights if they do.
I never understood this argument. Google literally has TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CASH. They have plenty of resources. They just choose not to spend it. Ridiculous.
If everyone hosted their own content from their own systems we wouldn't have these problems. If the demand existed we would trivially have the capability to publish easily. Sane naming and caching architectures either P2P and or hosted by ISPs that don't discriminate and play favorites like current CDNs would be widely deployed to facilitate distribution.
The more everyone sucks on the teet of big content to do EVERYTHING for them the more the Internet becomes Cable TV. The more capabilities are not exercised the more impossible and outlandish it seems to do anything for yourself.
While youtube is convenient the opportunity costs in allowing a handful of companies to own a majority of eyeballs and bandwidth are enormous.
The very premise of the Internet is that it is a network of PEERS not a network of SPECTATORS.
The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
Agreed. That is about the only safeguard in place in the act, and it is not enforced.
Swearing under penalty of perjury isn't what it used to be. General perjury on a sworn document is up to five years in prison, but like most such laws, is only enforced if you offend a prosecutor or officer of the court.
When the lawyers who sign the bulk takedown requests start to end up in prison and lose their license, the others will start to take more care.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Do you know the real trick to getting rich and staying rich?
It is not spending more money than you have to.
In another article a few days ago I saw someone who did the math; apparently Google would have to employ 56,000 people JUST to monitor uploaded Youtube clips in real time. Let's say they get a pitiful 20,000 dollars a year each for staring non-stop at inane video clips (many of which would likely be trolling uploads of Tubgirl, Two Girls One Cup etc.), that amounts to approximately 1.1 BILLION dollars per year.
Just to avoid something like this happening too often.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Sure, but the algorithm could be a bit smarter. In this case, checking the post date of the alleged infringing video against the air date of the Family Guy episode would be enough to suspect it's not infringing.
Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority
Stop.
If you host content for other people, are an ISP, etc. then you are required to comply with the initial take-down notice unless you want to become liable.
Then the uploader can file a counter-claim, and get the content reinstated.
Then the original filer can pursue further action if they want.
The problem with youtube, is that as soon as you receive a DMCA notice you get a 'strike' against you.
What should happen is you should receive no penalty until the period for contesting the DMCA order passes.
If you file a counter-claim within that time window, you should not get any penalty and your video should automatically go back up.
If the person pursues legal action, you should not get a penalty until the legal proceedings complete.
In addition, if a person submits a DMCA claim, which then gets a counter-claim filed, they should get flagged.
If they start getting enough counter-claim which either never get contested or pursued, or claims which get over-turned in court later on, they should lose all access to the automated take-down system and have to file everything manually. Youtube's legal department should additional review their actions, and file lawsuits for abuse of process, etc. and to reclaim legal fees and costs.
Once a person is flagged as an excessive DMCA abuser, any video which gets a DMCA filed against it should also give that person some sort of alert, something like "Your video has been subject to a DMCA claim, filed by someone who has been identified as submitting excessive numbers of fraudulent or unproven claims. Contact our legal department at xxx for assistance."
That is incorrect (in US; I don't know about NL).
After the counter-notice, Youtube can reinstate the material and they'll be free of liability to Fox. But that's all. DMCA does not contain anything requiring service providers to provide services to users. Youtube wasn't even required to provide hosting to sw1tched before the fraudulent notice, and the notice didn't magically give sw1tched new rights to hosting services.
A big part of the point of the notice/counternotice stuff is to give companies like Youtube a way out of being too involved in the battle between Fox and sw1tched. They want to be "just the messenger" and their concerns are primarily what this part of the law was intended to address.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I wish more people understood the counter-notice part, meaning the content goes right back up if you dispute the notice. You just reply saying "this notice must have been sent by mistake" and sign it (forms are available online). If more people understood about counter-notices and an amendment to the law added statutory damages for reckless filing of improper notices, the system would probably work pretty well.
Except that's not how it actually works. YouTube received a bogus takedown notice for a video I posted (someone decided they didn't like me and just wanted to be a prick). I filed a counter-claim and it was ignored and there was no response to the e-mails I sent asking about it.
I'm not sure that's data that even gets sent in the DMCA notice or complaint or whatever it's called. I am pretty sure (though not from any kind of experience, so here's a grain of salt so you don't have to take your own) it just goes "We have determined this video infringes on our stuff. Get rid of it."
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
"Do you know the real trick to getting rich and staying rich?"
Yes I do, you lie cheat and steal it from poor people. Yes that is EXACTLY what all these companies do. Workers are exploited at unfair wages and work hours, pricing set to the MAXIMUM that people will pay, etc...
You get really rich by being an asshole, or winning the lottery with blind luck. Those are the only TWO ways of doing it. Nobody ever got rich by working hard and saving money.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yeah, people get lucky all the time. There are probably dozens of people reading this who have found a $20 bill on the ground. That doesn't change what it is, just because people want to pretend their exceptional, or hard workers.
Cheap storage VM.
>The fact that you have not done so belies your entire, weak argument.
Now *that* is a weak argument deserving of ridicule.
Sure, among the extraordinarily wealthy there's a percentage who dragged themselves up from the lower classes though hard work and good luck. But there are incredibly few of those top wealthy slots available - most people *can't* pull themselves up like that, because there simply aren't enough resources to go around. If Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and their ilk had to share their fortune with everybody else who was as smart and hard working as them, they wouldn't have a fortune worth mentioning.
It wouldn't matter if every person on the planet were equally brilliant and hardworking, there would *still* only be a handful of individuals who could make it to the top.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.