Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Yanks Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the ioc-is-not-very-nice dept.

Censorship 482

RevWaldo writes "The International Olympic Committee filed a copyright infringement claim yesterday against YouTube for hosting video of a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese Consulate in Manhattan Thursday night. The video depicts demonstrators conducting a candlelight vigil and projecting a protest video onto the consulate building; the projection features recent footage of Tibetan monks being arrested and riffs on the Olympic logo of the five interlocking rings, turning them into handcuffs. YouTube dutifully yanked the video, but it can still be seen on Vimeo. (Be advised; there is some brief footage of bloody, injured monks.)"

cancel ×

482 comments

I'll judge them in 3 days. (4, Insightful)

Art Popp (29075) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569103)

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

I think the telling point as to whether they cave to pressure from the IOC and China will be when their lawyers have a chance to review the footage and determine that there is nothing infringing going on, if they put the video back.

I'm setting a calendar event to go back and look for it in three days, and am ready to judge the G-folk harshly if they're unwilling to stick up for this obvious expression of free speech.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (3, Informative)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569155)

My understanding is that's exactly what they do. Read Cringely.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html [pbs.org]

Anyway, the IOC is a cabal, a Pentavirate and the Olympics have lost all credibility.

Can't wait till they come to my town in 2010 to screw the whole place up.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569573)

Oooh I HATE the Colonel with his wee beady eyes and secret ingredient that makes you crave it fortnightly! /can't get to imdb to get the quote just right :(

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (5, Funny)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569853)

Pentavirate

Pardon the nitpick . . . I don't think that word is right. It appeared in a comedy film as a word-geek riff on secret societies and conspiracy theories. The word itself is wrong (which is the joke) because it is a build-up on triumvirate, latin for "three men". Penta, however, is a Greek prefix for 5. I think you are looking for something more like "quintumvirate".

I'll shut up now.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (-1, Flamebait)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569247)

Who gives a shit? The Chinese government would do better by its citizens by massacring these bastards. They're not the good guys, not by a long shot. When did trying to spread a primitive religious social structure that has a rigid caste system, brutal laws involving maiming and torture and a hierarchical power structure with zero vertical mobility make you one of the good guys?

Having tolerance for ancient primitive religious orders is a flawed ideal that ought to go by the wayside. I wish our society was as evolved.

In response to your sig... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569335)

More like -1, idiot.

Or do you not know anything about Tibetan Buddhism and are just making this up out of your own misguided sense of religious hatred?

Re:In response to your sig... (5, Insightful)

asdir (1195869) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569571)

Not to justify what the Chinese government does and not to say that a new Tibetan government could be a democratic one adhering to human rights, but the previous leadership in Tibet indeed was more than just a tad theocratic and therefore not democratic at all. However, Wikipedia will tell you that it is debated how bad the caste system really was. Still, as I said, that is besides the point since it was before 1950. And as a German I'd like to say: I would not want to be judged by my country's history pre 1950 either. :-S

Re:In response to your sig... (-1, Offtopic)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569713)

I have bad news for you. You are widely judged for you country's history pre 1950. You're seen (in the US at least) as 'those people who wouldn't stand up to the nazis' (or their descendants).

I can think of a few tv shows just in the last year that made fun of you that way (Simpsons, Outer Limits, Monk). If I pushed my memory I could probably come up with a few more examples.

Re:In response to your sig... (2, Funny)

hostyle (773991) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569717)

Don't mention the war!

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (4, Insightful)

$random_var (919061) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569337)

All right, I'll bite: is China's authoritarian system which brutally suppresses free speech and competing ideas about government any better? Does the existence of a voluntary religion justify subjugating an "autonomous region"? And, to get a little philosophical on your ass, is a religion materially different from any other faith system (like nationalism), and if not, who gets to decide which faith systems the government will crush? Oh, the government you say?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569343)

Why isn't there a '-1, Complete Moron' ?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569355)

Wait, so... massacring people is more advanced than having an out-of-date religion?

Wouldn't it be better that the caste system be discarded AND China stop trying to be stank hos? Can't they both have faults? Just because you argue that they are "bad" does not make China "good".

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (0, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569423)

Where did you get the idea that Tibet was anything other than a peaceful independent nation prior to China's invasion and take-over? As to primitive religious social structure? I think nothing could be more primitive than our own generally accepted belief in a single god and his son on earth born to a virgin. Would you mind backing your assertions up with examples and references?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (0, Redundant)

krazytekn0 (1069802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569491)

Just as far as chronology goes there are many more primitive religions that Christianity pretty much every major religion other than Islam is older than Christianity

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (2, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569605)

Just as far as chronology goes there are many more primitive religions that Christianity pretty much every major religion other than Islam is older than Christianity

Er, but he made no mention of "chronology", and "older than" is certainly not synonymous with "more primitive than".

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (5, Interesting)

mikelu (120879) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569813)

A couple popular ones:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html [michaelparenti.org]
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm [case.edu]

Etc., etc. Now, the fact that Tibet was formerly ruled by an oppressive, fanatical, and theocratic regime characterized by slavery doesn't make what China is doing now correct.

However, from the perspective of someone fighting for human rights, claiming that it was some sort of "peaceful paradise" can only undermine positive efforts.

Acknowledge that life in pre-China Tibet was absolutely terrible for the average person, acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.

Propping up what is understood by anyone knowledgeable about Tibet as a myth only hurts efforts to improve human rights and religious freedom in China.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569433)

Because, of course, the best response to people who hold religious views you disagree with is to brutally murder them. Do you realize how hard it is *not* to have Godwin's Law invoked in this conversation?

Oh, and I think you don't understand Tibetan Buddhism nearly as well as you evidently think you do.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (4, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569449)

It's a shame you had to go too far in your post, because amongst the flamebait you do have a valid point.

Tibet was not by any stretch of the imagination a free, fair nor democratic society before the Chinese invaded. Many of Tibet's citizens are indeed wealthier, freer and healthier as a result of the invasion.

The Dalai Lamas have suppressed many things over the centuries and have protected their dictatorship bloodily. It's all about money and power. Even now, the current Dalai Lama preaches "simplicity," and the opportunity to buy his latest overpriced book on "simplicity."

A Free Tibet will be a great thing. But neither the Chinese nor the (self-appointed) Tibetan Government in Exile are in anyway truly interested in that.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (2)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569699)

The Chinese government would do better by its citizens by massacring these bastards. ... I wish our society was as evolved.

Yes. Massacring people is an extremely enlightened and evolved thing to do. Idiot.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (4, Interesting)

lee1 (219161) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569349)

I think the judgment came in a long time ago. For example: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ [lee-phillips.org] .

Google has removed videos critical of the Pakistani government at that government's request, and has many more shameful examples of political cave-in under its belt.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569827)

This is the same Youtube that yanks videos merely for being critical of the behavior of Mohammed, while leaving Jihadi snuff films up to this day despite numerous complaints.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (5, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569393)

It won't be back up. If it does depict the five interlocking rings as the summary states then the IOC will aggressively attack it as infringing. The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever. This will be no different. It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings. Had the video not had that imagery, I'm certain it'd be fine (from the IOC standpoint, at least).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (3, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569663)

If I had to guess, I'd say this would be a perfectly acceptable use of the five interlocking rings: parody. IANAL, of course... but if what these guys did isn't protected, it damn well should be. The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (2, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569799)

The IOC will throw notices at any and all unlicensed uses of it's trademarks, regardless of legality or the context in which it stands. In the case of trademark protection, it is their safest bet to ensure that their world wide recognized logo does not lose its protections. If they did not go after each and every unlicensed use, it wouldn't take long at all for the logo to become unprotected.

YouTube, as per their apparent standards, will pull down any video that they get a complaint on, review it, and decide later what to do about it, as a means of limiting their liability. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.

So the two companies are just doing the dance that all companies do. Give it a few days to shake out and the legal pros over at youtube time to determine their liability, and if the risk of lawsuit is low enough, they'll put the video back up.

-Rick

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569841)

It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel.

I'm intrigued about this Tibet/China angel you mention. Angels [wikipedia.org] , although prominent in many traditions and beliefs, aren't that popular in most Tibetan or Chinese cultures (I think - IANA religious scholar). Perhaps that's why this angel has done such a lousy job taking care of the monks.

On a more serious note, I think you nailed it. You put the rings anywhere or on anything and you can expect to be hammered by the IOC. And, at least in the US, the IOC will win. I haven't watched the video, but from the description it sounds like a simple edit would get the IOC to back off.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (5, Informative)

tambo (310170) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569877)

The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever.

They don't have that right. That's the point of parody [wikipedia.org] .

Jerry Falwell certainly didn't want his image used by Hustler Magazine, but he didn't have the power to stop them [wikipedia.org] .

- David Stein

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (5, Informative)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569577)

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

I work for a web hosting company and thus have some exposure to this type of thing.

In a nutshell, you're entirely correct. Under the DMCA, providers are required by law to remove the "offending" material upon receipt of an infringement notice. If they don't, they become liable for infringement as well. No real proof of ownership is required, the author of the notice simply has to say it belongs to them. When we receive one of these, all we do is suspend the concerned account, forward the DMCA to the customer, and then our job is done.

The only thing that makes the DMCA bearable for us is the fact that we're off the hook if our customer decides to unsuspend the account and make the content available again after receiving the notice. From then on, it's a legal battle between the alleged copyright holder and the alleged infringer.

In this case (depending on how draconian YouTube/Google decides to feel today), the user can simply re-upload the video to YouTube and if the alleged copyright holder wants to battle it further, they have to use the legal system to get subpoenas, court orders, etc for further action. (But of course IANAL, so feel free to poke holes in my understanding of the DMCA here.)

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (4, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569683)

Whatever youtube does is hardly the issue.

Actions like this by the IOC need to hurt (or at least make fear hurt) the sponsors of the events.

Here is a sample letter I am sending (I will customize it for each business I actually work with, listing what I will now longer be purchasing.

It is a rough draft, so if you use it, edit it.

I just wanted to let you know, that as a freedom loving citizen of the world, your sponsorship of the 2008 olympic games, and more importantly, proud display of association with the International Olympic Committee is going to prevent me from using your product until any of the following happens:

1) Your company issues an official statement condemning the abuses to freedom by the IOC (this includes, but is not limited to claiming copyright infringement on a critical video that used a clearly satirical alteration of their logo, blocking/allowing to be blocked free internet access to international journalists, and allowing people to be kicked out of their homes in tremendously huge quantities).

2) The IOC behaves better at the next Olympic games.

3) The IOC officially apologizes for the same reasons mentioned in item one.

I hope that my voice is one of many (though I fear I am but one of a few) and that your companies inconsiderate pursuite of a new market ends up costing both prophits and shareholders for years to come.

Woops, almost left my sig that includes my phone number from that email.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569689)

I'm under the impression that Amnesty International has in fact been using a similar 5 interlocking handcuffs logo as part of their highlighting of China's human rights abuses, if the IOC has any reasonable claim - why is Amnesty able to continue using it?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (3, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569913)

There are two different logos shown in the video, one being the 5 rings as handcuffs in black and white, which should be protected under fair use. But at the beginning of the projection, there is a full color illustration of the IOC's trademark 5-rings.

Now, if someone where to clip out that 1/2 a second of frames and re-post the video, I would be hard pressed to defend the IOC's actions.

-Rick

Hope the maker of the video fights back (4, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569701)

If I understand current US copyright law (DCMA, cough) correctly, the IOC can demand that YouTube yanks the clip now. But at least in theory, they do so under penalty of perjury.

The person who put it up can file a counterclaim and say that he believes the video does not infringe any copyright. I think fair use might cover this use of the Olympic Rings, and I'd really like to see the EFF getting behind a lawsuit in such a case.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (1)

CougMerrik (1221450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569851)

So basically, all you have to do to shut Youtube down is start filing copyright complaints against any popular or interesting video, however baseless they may be? Cool.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569107)

they yanked it for political reasons or for their logo? That seems a little messed up if it's just the logo, that could potentially mean that if you take a home video and M&M's are featured in the Background that Mars could order you to pull the video?

Re:So... (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569161)

The IOC is very protective of their logo. If I remember correctly, the card game "Legend of the Five Rings" had to change their logo because the IOC threatened legal action over a passing similarity.

Re:So... (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569265)

They call themselves the IOC but can't be good sports themselves. The irony!

Re:So... (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569401)

Actually, after a little more research, the Olympic Committee (at least in the US) has an exclusive right granted to it by Congress, which restricts others from using logos that are five interconnecting rings. I'm not sure if this was extended to outside the US.

So, if the video is using a parody of the logo, it's probably more for the use of the logo than the content. Plus I can't imagine the IOC wants to be associated with the atrocities alluded to.

Re:So... (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569845)

This means that any chemical compound with five connecting benzene rings will have to be put out of production as their chemical structures represent the Olympics logo.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569909)

I think it was because it showed the logo. But I can't imagine how a decent lawyer could not have argued that is is being used under "Fair Use."

In Fascist China... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569113)

...IOC YANKS YOU!

Re:In Fascist China... (2, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569149)

That's just bad...and I laughed which makes it worse!

Copyright? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569115)

Was the original video on YouTube from a new station or someone's handicam? I can see copyright infringement from the former, of course (though fair use comes into play -- but I'm not sure fair use exists anymore), but not if it's a personal recording. I'll assume the former.

Is satire infringement? (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569285)

How can it be copy-write infringement if the work is intended to satirize or criticizes the IOC? The intention of copy-write is to stop people stealing creative works. The intention of trade mark laws (which may be more relevant) is to stop people passing themselves off as another company. You can't use Mickey Mouse in a cartoon (that's passing yourself off as an "official" Disney cartoon producer), but you use Mickey Mouse in a satire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy [wikipedia.org]

Interested in copyright? (1)

DSwitz (1343055) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569773)

If anyone is interested in some serious copyright reading, check out Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. Given the current state of copyright issues in the U.S. I would not be at all surprised if YouTube did not put the video back.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569123)

The video depicts demonstrators conducting a candlelight vigil and projecting a protest video onto the consulate building; the projection features recent footage of Tibetan monks being arrested and riffs on the Olympic logo of the five interlocking rings, turning them into handcuffs.

People, please! This is the Olympics. The Olympics--let's not bicker and argue about who's been brutally repressing who for hundreds and hundreds of years!

On a side note, I used to enjoy this band from Minnesota called The Olympic Hopefuls who are now known [mtv.com] as The Hopefuls due to some legal business and the fact that the IOC is full of lawyers. And you're surprised a video criticizing the Olympics is taken down on the internet?

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569283)

I guess we should all be thankful the *AA lawyers aren't the Legal Athletes that the Olympics have.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (1)

hrieke (126185) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569619)

The word Olympics is a super-trademark.
Basically it means that no-one else can use it.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569809)

What is so special about the Olympics?

Is it the fact that a very private mafia-like committee are running it? Or the fact that their modus operandi is bribe? Or their tolerance (bordering on ass-kissing) of cash-rich oppressive regimes? Or the commercialization of sport they re-invented to the level where, for example, the advantage of the swimsuit is more important than the skill of the swimmer?

The Olympics have become such a blatant PR act, they are a pain to watch. And a shame to participate in or support.

Ah the IOC (2, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569127)

The IOC is about as protective of its brand as China is. Sad.

Re:Ah the IOC (2, Interesting)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569495)

I disagree. If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, as you imply with the above poorly-worded comment, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved. The video is a commentary on this: it implies that awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit. That being said, I fail to see how this video would not be considered fair use of the copyright (not to mention that I also find it hard to believe that the rings are copyrighted, rather than trademarked.) I suppose it's not worth the video producers' time to fight it.

The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the rings (1, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569159)

The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the Olympic rings logo, it has nothing to do with supporting or opposing the right of people to protest their condition or the conditions endured by others around the world. The problem is that if they allow this use of the rings then it will encourage others to do the same without first asking permission until the eventual loss of control over the symbols and logos associated with the games occurs. The IOC cannot allow this to occur for the good of the Olympic games and the preservation of the spirit of peaceful international competition. They might have been a bit more tactful in their response, but this decision, despite the controversy, was correct.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (3, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569277)

Except that this isn't protecting a brand in the marketplace, though arguably Youtube "profits." I'm not sure this would hold up in court. The protesters aren't gaining anything monetarily. If satire is protected why shouldn't protesting?

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (5, Insightful)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569325)

These people aren't trying to identify anything else as the Olympics. They're trying to say the IOC is complicit with suppression and torture. The Olympic rings are being used to identify who they're supposed to identify, so there's no trademark issue.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

thegdorf (1222548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569327)

I disagree. If the IOC was truly the custodian of the spirit of peaceful international competition, it would not have awarded the games to China until its human rights record was much improved. The video is a commentary on this: it implies that awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit. That being said, I fail to see how this video would not be considered fair use of the copyright (not to mention that I also find it hard to believe that the rings are copyrighted, rather than trademarked.) I suppose it's not worth the video producers' time to fight it.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569553)

Well they've held the olympics in some places with pretty bad human rights records before...

Though all the original poster has to do if this is a bona fide DMCA notice is to file a counter notice with YouTube and then YouTube is obligated to put the content back up. From that point on the IOC has to step up and sue over the copyright infringement because if they file another DMCA notice they'd be breaking the law.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569847)

awarding the games to China was *not* in keeping with the Olympic spirit.

So why not simply ban the Chinese and other countries that are widely disliked from the Olympics? Oh wait, then it really wouldn't be an international competition anymore, but rather the "Democracy Games" or the "Freedom Games" hosted by Dubya and his posse. The Olympics must engage with all nations, even those which are widely reviled, in the hopes that by including them in the spirit of peaceful international competition we will speed reforms and promote the spread of peace and the Olympic ideals. If we allow the entire movement to collapse because of our differences then what good will that do for us? There was also a bit of history involved in the choice of Beijing for the games in that the Chinese, by appearing at the 1984 Los Angeles games when the Soviet Union and many other countries had threatened to boycott, helped to prevent the games from collapsing permanently and giving voice to those who said that the peaceful international competition, with the games as its symbol, was an anachronism that had outlived its purpose. If China had honored the boycott and the Olympics had smothered then what good would that have done for the world? The government of China still has a long way to go in the areas of freedom and human rights, but they will not be very inclined to listen to the rest of us if we exclude them from every major international event. Even now, great international attention has been brought to the human rights record of China and plight of the people of Tibet which would not have occurred had the games not been awarded to China, so that in and of itself is a form of progress.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569407)

The problem is that if they allow this use of the rings then it will encourage others to do the same without first asking permission until the eventual loss of control over the symbols and logos associated with the games occurs. The IOC cannot allow this to occur for the good of the Olympic games and the preservation of the spirit of peaceful international competition.

The IOC cannot allow this to occur for the good of their bank accounts.

It's like you said, the IOC is about international competition.
They are a business first.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

saintsfan (1171797) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569525)

yeah, if the IOC loses some control over its brand then athletes all over the world won't want to compete to represent their countries anymore! please

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569565)

Pfft. The requirement that you police other people's use of your logo does not mean that you have to police every single use. There is fair use of trademarks, and this use seems to be flatly in the middle of that. Anybody viewing the video is absolutely not going to think that it came from the IOC.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the VISA (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569641)

The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the Olympic rings logo, it has nothing to do with supporting or opposing the right of people to protest their condition or the conditions endured by others around the world.

But it's fine to put them on Visa cards and checks. I think the latter diminishes the value of the symbol much more than the former!

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569671)

What you're saying would make sense if the "offending" video actually misused a trademark to cause confusion in the marketplace. It doesn't. The video uses the trademark critically and satirically. Nobody is viewing this video thinking it's some kind of "Official Olympics Product."

It was a totally bullshit pull-request. I don't blame youtube (much) for being a mindless machine and automatically pulling the video, but I hope the video's copyright holder files the appropriate counter-notice and youtube does the right thing when they get it.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569695)

I personally don't agree with the Tibet protests - I think they are way off the mark in the same way the exile Cubans' propaganda is. I mean, the ones in exile are the ones who lost power and huge possessions when China threw them out - of course they are pissed off about it, but I suspect their views are not the most neutral, even though they are the loudest.

But in this case I think the IOC are wrong - using the Olympic rings this is satire, as far as I can see, which is normally legal; or am I wrong?

You mean the money... (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569893)

Not the good of the games and the spirit of peaceful international competition.

If they lose control over the symbols, they won't be able to charge out the wazoo to use them in advertising.

Copyright Protection (2, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569169)

The IOC has always been one of the most aggressive organizations in protecting their "five rings" copyright. ANYTHING depicting five interlocking rings will get them into action. Thus, this doesn't surprise me - had the video not had the five rings, I suspect the IOC wouldn't have been motivated to action...

Re:Copyright Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569617)

just to nit pick but aren't the rings trademarked, not copyrighted?

Re:Copyright Protection (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569887)

I _believe_ (though could be wrong) that they actually have both for the five interlocking rings. I might be mis-remembering, however.

Re:Copyright Protection (2, Funny)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569709)

Picard: there are _four_ rings! ;)

But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (2, Interesting)

Banner (17158) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569175)

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Of course videos that are against Jihad MUST be taken down as well.

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569301)

Why not? If the issue at hand is copyright? There is no double standard... not that I agree with all this copyright, but don't make it seem like a double standard. Or are you suggesting that when it's American's being killed, YouTube should have a special policy for that?

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (3, Funny)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569347)

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Of course videos that are against Jihad MUST be taken down as well.

+1 Insightful

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

+1 Funny? -1 WTF?

I just don't know.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (3, Insightful)

mxs (42717) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569377)

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Of course videos that are against Jihad MUST be taken down as well.

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

Blah Blah Blah. This is not about the people at Youtube, it's about copyright laws and the DMCA. They didn't take these videos down of their own accord (and neither would they take those others down unless they were against the terms of use or there was a legal requirement to).

The DMCA has long been abused to suppress free speech. Everybody knows it. Nobody cares.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (1)

PJCRP (1314653) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569405)

Don't you know? The Jihadists have an excellent legal team...

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (1)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569457)

Could you be more specific? Which videos against jihad were taken down? I am going out on a limb and assume that you do realise that the jihad and China's reign over Tibet have nothing to do with each other. A search on the keyword 'jihad' yields many results from many perspectives. Surely there are many video's of afghans and iraqi being torn apart by coalition weapons. So tell me, where do you see this supposed bias?

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569499)

Gotta wonder about the people at You-Tube, they really seem to hate freedom.

Anyone who claims that another party "hates freedom" based on nothing more than an uninformed opinion deserves to be culled from the heard. It's just idiotic rhetoric that serves no purpose but to instill fear/anger in the minds of those lemmings to dim to realize there are other people in the world besides themselves.

Right up there with statements like "Obama hates America", "Liberals want higher gas prices", and "Republicans want another terrorist attack". Freaking retarded.

-Rick

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569595)

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

It inflames and "reminds" the american public, particularly the youth. What better way to inspire a 18 year old kid to join the Marines, than to show him a video of a bunch of "towelheads" celebrating blowing up a humvee?

Also, those clips probably generate a ton of hits from both the fans and the haters, in terms of linkage, and comment activity- and thus ad revenue.

Re:But those Jihad Videos can stay up just fine... (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569737)

Yup, videos of Jihadists killing American Soldiers can stay up. Videos recruiting terrorists can stay up.

Your mission is to infiltrate the jihadists and slip Coca Cola logos into their videos.

and what's exactly being infringed? (1)

pxuongl (758399) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569179)

go abusing the system!

Its in the name (1)

ryen (684684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569207)

Maybe they shouldn't have named the video "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony". Its possible they just flagged the video purely on the name and not content.

Redirect (1)

Chief_Wiggum (1341031) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569213)

"Free Tibet" now redirects to a Rick Roll. Take that, China!

This is pretty clear cut (4, Insightful)

Arccot (1115809) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569215)

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

How about accurately titling your video next time? I don't think trying to scam people looking for the opening ceremonies into viewing propaganda for your cause is the best way to get sympathy.

No, it's not really clear cut (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569627)

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

I imagine they're objecting to the image of the five colored rings that's shown in the video for a second or two. And if that's the case, this is a total abuse of a copyright infringement claim.

First, you'd think that showing the rings for a time that's probably less than 2% of the entire clip would qualify as fair use. Secondly, there's an issue of free speech. Are we no longer allowed to identify organizations by their logos?

Copyright != trademark (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569705)

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

No, but IOC has exclusive rights more or less equivalent to a famous trademark on "Olympics", "Olympic", "Olympian", "Olympiad", the rings, etc.

Re:This is pretty clear cut (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569665)

> it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

Titles are immune from copyright protection.

Ambiguous title (4, Funny)

slobber (685169) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569241)

At first I read it as "YouTube Yanks [as in Americans] Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure". Needless to say, I was really confused until I read the description...

Re:Ambiguous title (1)

Frigga's Ring (1044024) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569831)

I did the same thing... Those yanks over at Youtube have finally freed that Tibet video? Good for them! Maybe they'll help the actual country next.

Name change: CensorTube.com (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569249)

Might be time for a name change... Too bad the domain CensorTube.com is already taken. Of course, YankTube.com was taken as well...wait, that's not right.

I'm surprised anyone here cares (1)

godfra (839112) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569275)

It's the Olympics guys :( You know.. PE!!

Ah man. You've changed.

Google = YouTube (2, Insightful)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569297)

Whatever happened to "Don't do evil?" With their track record, Google should change their motto to "Don't do evil, except if it involves China".

Re:Google = YouTube (1)

mrbah (844007) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569731)

The whole "don't be evil" thing was an internal witticism, not an actual corporate stance. Google is a publicly traded company -- it's not about being good or evil, it's about making money for the shareholders.

Perhaps "try not to break too many laws if possible" would make a better mantra for this lot.

victims of tibetians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569321)

To be fair, why not show some photos of innocent Han and Hui victims killed by those Tibetian and monks? Don't tell me they did not kill. They KILLED.

the IOC now owns Tibetan monk protests? hah! (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569425)

if there are no Five Linked Rings, or the words approximating Old, Limp Pigs used, there is no violation

Abominations and Copyright (4, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569439)

The attacks upon monks in Tibet as well as the general lack of human rights in China are a moral abomination that over ride notions of copyright. There is a thing called natural law and every human being has a deep moral obligation to stand up for the oppressed regardless of circumstances.
            If anything America and all other nations should be deeply ashamed of allowing any commerce at all with China including Olympics or other sporting events. Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.

Im asking youtube execs from here : (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569443)

should i yank my own videos on youtube or not ?

decide, users' wish against chinese government's whish.

noone should even need to tell you which one you should choose, you idiots. dont let your lawyers run your service. lawyers do not increase popularity of a web service. they decrease it.

Great Firewall of America (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569493)

See? The United States censors just as much information as China. Us working Americans are all slaves, wake up and realize it.

The Olympic logo is special (1)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569521)

I'm not making a value judgement here. It is protected much more strongly than most other symbols. Only the Red Cross & Red Crescent have more stringent rules.

In the UK we have the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995.

Some countries have signed up to the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol.

In the US, you have 36 USC 220506.

The Beijing Olympics logo says it all... (2, Interesting)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569551)

Just see how China came up with the logo...

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/7229/isnichwahrdepekingolympao6.jpg [imageshack.us]

Ok, so that's not how they came up with the logo, but it sure highlights their horrendous human rights record and killing of 1 Million Tibetans in the past ~50 years.

Protected Satire (5, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569585)

Changing the Olympic logo into handcuffs, while certainly offensive to some, is clearly protected political satire akin to flag burning. YouTube should be ashamed, and the posters of the video should counter-file that their video is protected fair use.

Go Fuck Your God Will Be My Final Word (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24569621)

God is the reason we live in dismay
It is his will that this world's suffering
If we do not believe what you foretell
We can expect afterlife will be Hell

You are the one who killed his own son
We are the ones you're blaming it on
Lust was created beginning with hymn
When we indulge we are guilty of sin
Torture our lives with confusion and lies
Mass contradiction, religious facades

BLAME IT ON GOD
BLAME IT ON GOD
BLAME IT ON GOD!
LIAR

Lord of salvation keep looking away
It is your will that this world goes astray
Take us each day from this place you unworthed
Unfulfilled promise of Heaven on Earth

You are the one who killed your own son
We are the ones your hatred is on
Children are dying and this you're content
Where is your profit in what you have left
No intervention from angels above
God is the reason that Satan lives on

BLAME IT ON GOD
BLAME IT ON GOD
BLAME IT ON GOD!
LIAR

Google (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569633)

Bending over backwards for the Chinese since 2004.
Or whenever it was. I'm not looking it up.

Seriously... (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569745)

Seriously, as sad as it might be, is anyone here truly surprised by this?

Fair Use and Parody (2, Informative)

DustoneGT (969310) | more than 5 years ago | (#24569767)

Parody and criticism is fair use under copyright law. Look it up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...