Sadly, there's nothing illegal about this. Google didn't promise you could host any video of yours on YouTube, just the ones it wants to host for you. Google don't want to host porn. Google don't want to host gore. Google don't want to host content that their media friends claim to own. If you don't like it... pay for your own video hosting, or use some other site that offers free video hosting, like liveleak or vimeo.
This is a fucking cop-out excuse, and I am fucking tired of seeing it. There is no fucking reason why they should be able to take down videos willy-nilly with no fucking reason other than someone claims to own it, especially in the instance where that is not true.
And YouTube should be held liable for that. I don't buy this bullshit, "They are under no obligation to host your video!" excuse. They should NOT be able to take down videos willy nilly in bad faith.
I guess the question is, does the issuer of the takedown have to provide the same information? If so, then I see no problem with it. If not, then that would be a huge potential for abuse.
While I dislike what they are saying, I am very chilled that they could actually be silenced in that manner. I greatly dislike the Republican party, and I would hate to think that they'd be able to silence me simply by claiming ownership of something I said.
Uh, which lawyers do actually protect us? The ones who take a bunch of money from you because their colleagues created unreadable laws, or the ones who cash in on you extort^H^H^H^H^H^H suing someone else?
Ok. Let's kill Bradley Manning's lawyers first. They're clearly not doing anything good.
And, please, don't start about democracy and elections, as there you are given only the choice between 2 lawyers (or an actor, set forth by the lawyers).
You're still given the choice. You also have 3rd party candidates to choose from.
Should lawyers not do what their clients tell them to now? If you were a freelancer, and your client told you to use an utterly garish color scheme for their website, should you not do it? And if you don't, what's to stop them from simply going down the line and finding another one who will, because they need the money more?
If you're going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the people who PAY the lawyers. They're the ones that are hamstringing our society and crippling our technology. Blaming the lawyers is exactly what those people want, because then those that are actually trying to do those things get away scott free.
Of course not. Because there isn't any. Because it would require them to actually think.
The absolutely retarded thing about these people is that there is plenty of actual, real, legitimate stuff to be upset with Obama over. But they stick with the stupid shit.
Look how his administration has awarded the Muslim Brotherhood 3 countries, - Libya, Egypt and Tunisia - and Obama is siding with Saudi Arabia (the world HQ of Muslim Brotherhood) in the Syrian conflict
WTF? So suddenly overthrowing Khadaffi was a bad thing? And who is Obama to tell the people of Egypt and Tunisia who they can and cannot choose as their democratically elected government?
And don't forget that Bush was 1000x closer to the Saudis than Obama ever would be.
But please, don't let things like facts get in the way of your mindless bashing. Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be displeased with Obama, let's make something up.
Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention?
In this case it's true, because I'm not the one advocating mindless violence.
You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with
And you didn't have to respond to the post you did either. In fact, you didn't have to read Slashdot at all.
No, I will not STFU. I was being far more constructive than you, as you were just advocating violence like a retarded gun nut. You added absolutely nothing, and your idiotic suggestion would do absolutely nothing to help the situation, except maybe put you in more power. And that is something that everyone should work to prevent.
Or I could just think that your hyperbole in suggesting that we use the gallows or the guillotine against any number of public officials, regardless of their level of corruption, is absolutely absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, there's nothing illegal about this. Google didn't promise you could host any video of yours on YouTube, just the ones it wants to host for you. Google don't want to host porn. Google don't want to host gore. Google don't want to host content that their media friends claim to own. If you don't like it... pay for your own video hosting, or use some other site that offers free video hosting, like liveleak or vimeo.
This is a fucking cop-out excuse, and I am fucking tired of seeing it. There is no fucking reason why they should be able to take down videos willy-nilly with no fucking reason other than someone claims to own it, especially in the instance where that is not true.
Dude, you had an obviously clear-cut case of infringement, both from YouTube and the original TV station.
And YouTube should be held liable for that. I don't buy this bullshit, "They are under no obligation to host your video!" excuse. They should NOT be able to take down videos willy nilly in bad faith.
I would say that the person authorizing the script should be held responsible and liable for the output of the script.
I guess the question is, does the issuer of the takedown have to provide the same information? If so, then I see no problem with it. If not, then that would be a huge potential for abuse.
While I dislike what they are saying, I am very chilled that they could actually be silenced in that manner. I greatly dislike the Republican party, and I would hate to think that they'd be able to silence me simply by claiming ownership of something I said.
In a system where scentences are served consecutively, such a script could easily get you sent to prison for the rest of your life.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
this other MegaCorp said they own this video, and we aren't empowered to decide who owns what.
By acting on it, they have decided.
I really wish NASA would sue YouTube over this.
Sadly, their budget is too small to waste on things like this.
This is the problem with the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices simply shouldn't exist, in my opinion.
They should exist, they should just have very hefty penalties associated with takedowns in bad faith.
Should we start with Bradley Manning's lawyers? How about the lawyers representing MegaUpload? The lawyers at the EFF and ACLU?
Uh, which lawyers do actually protect us? The ones who take a bunch of money from you because their colleagues created unreadable laws, or the ones who cash in on you extort^H^H^H^H^H^H suing someone else?
Ok. Let's kill Bradley Manning's lawyers first. They're clearly not doing anything good.
And, please, don't start about democracy and elections, as there you are given only the choice between 2 lawyers (or an actor, set forth by the lawyers).
You're still given the choice. You also have 3rd party candidates to choose from.
in most countries they are at the heads of the legislative *and* the executive branches of a government.
Wait, you mean that the government body charged with implementing the law is made up of people trained in the law?!?! Well I never!
Should lawyers not do what their clients tell them to now? If you were a freelancer, and your client told you to use an utterly garish color scheme for their website, should you not do it? And if you don't, what's to stop them from simply going down the line and finding another one who will, because they need the money more?
If you're going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the people who PAY the lawyers. They're the ones that are hamstringing our society and crippling our technology. Blaming the lawyers is exactly what those people want, because then those that are actually trying to do those things get away scott free.
Of course not. Because there isn't any. Because it would require them to actually think.
The absolutely retarded thing about these people is that there is plenty of actual, real, legitimate stuff to be upset with Obama over. But they stick with the stupid shit.
Look how his administration has awarded the Muslim Brotherhood 3 countries, - Libya, Egypt and Tunisia - and Obama is siding with Saudi Arabia (the world HQ of Muslim Brotherhood) in the Syrian conflict
WTF? So suddenly overthrowing Khadaffi was a bad thing? And who is Obama to tell the people of Egypt and Tunisia who they can and cannot choose as their democratically elected government?
And don't forget that Bush was 1000x closer to the Saudis than Obama ever would be.
Remember SOPA ?
And how the Obama administration OPPOSED SOPA?
http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin+Declares+War+on+SOPA+SOPA+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/14/obama_administration_comes_out_against_sopa_and_protect_ip.html
But please, don't let things like facts get in the way of your mindless bashing. Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be displeased with Obama, let's make something up.
You'll wind up slaughtering a lot of limp wristed liberal lawyers, and be shot dead by the well-armed conservative lawyers
Because conservatives are the only ones who know how to use guns?
Isn't it amazing how everyone thinks they're the one making a intellectual contribution, whereas it's the other guy who's always some brainless neanderthal unworthy of attention?
In this case it's true, because I'm not the one advocating mindless violence.
You didn't have to respond to my original post; you didn't have to respond to my subsequent responses. If anyone is 'adding nothing,' it would be you, since you weren't the original respondent to begin with
And you didn't have to respond to the post you did either. In fact, you didn't have to read Slashdot at all.
Why do you assume its a fraudulent take-down?
How the fuck would Scripps Media have a valid copyright claim in the least over something from NASA's livestream?
And no, your example would NOT be justified.
The fine wouldn't be for YouTube. It'd be for the piles of shit that are abusing the copyright system.
No, I will not STFU. I was being far more constructive than you, as you were just advocating violence like a retarded gun nut. You added absolutely nothing, and your idiotic suggestion would do absolutely nothing to help the situation, except maybe put you in more power. And that is something that everyone should work to prevent.
And I hope you get thrown in pound me in the ass prison for it.
It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.
I just cannot see that happening. While it is within the realm of possibility, Occam's razor would suggest otherwise.
Or I could just think that your hyperbole in suggesting that we use the gallows or the guillotine against any number of public officials, regardless of their level of corruption, is absolutely absurd.