Beta
×

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 Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the good-light-on-a-bad-light dept.

Censorship 187

Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York. The video shows protesters gathering outside the building at night and projecting images of the Olympic symbol, 'tank man,' Tibetan riot footage and clips of victims of the Chinese police crackdown in Tibet. After receiving the request, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked if it really planned to pursue a claim. The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'"

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have a mod point... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612259)

for the first person to post a link to the video so that I don't have to look for it myself!

Re:I have a mod point... (5, Informative)

rolfc (842110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612275)

Re:I have a mod point... (2, Informative)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612325)

Best watched with the sound off. It's the same music all the way through.

Re:I have a mod point... (5, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612559)

You could have just linked to TFA since the video is embedded right on the page... No matter, though.

This video is a perfect example of the Streisand effect. It's a horrible little clip with ear-jarring music, poor video quality and even worse editing. I wouldn't have even known what it was about without the article, and even so it does not contain much of a message. Very few people ever would have seen this video if the IOC hadn't issued the takedown notice in the first place, but now it's on the /. front page.

Re:I have a mod point... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612785)

The /. front page?

You mean THE slashdot? Well I'll be fucked. I bet China takes notice now.

Re:I have a mod point... (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613337)

In other news, China declares war on Russia because of its cyber attack, not realising that their melted servers are slashdot's doing rather than the Russians.

Re:I have a mod point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613439)

You mean THE slashdot?

Yes, it's just like THE Google that Bush has been talking about :P

Re:I have a mod point... (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612801)

Very few people ever would have seen this video if the IOC hadn't issued the takedown notice in the first place, but now it's on the /. front page.

I've just watched the video, and to be honest, still very few people have seen it. The count is currently 1947. It would have been a lot better if the article had linked directly to the YouTube video. Then thousands of slashdot readers possible would have opened it.

Re:I have a mod point... (1)

stardaemon (834177) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612919)

I've just watched the video, and to be honest, still very few people have seen it. The count is currently 1947. It would have been a lot better if the article had linked directly to the YouTube video. Then thousands of slashdot readers possible would have opened it.

I also just watched it. The count is still at 1947...

Re:I have a mod point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614079)

google and youtube are known to adjust hit counts to keep videos from appearing on the front page and 'going viral'.

Re:I have a mod point... (3, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612837)

Somebosy else said:I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers.
What if that person was after the Streisant effect. As the Streisant effect is now well known, it could be used to get more attention as well.

Things like this have been done in advertising (at least in Belgium) where one of the adverts in a campaign are slightly offencive to an extreme small part of the population. This becomes a newsitem, everybody hears and talks about it like this one [yahoo.com] which some people in Belgium thought offencive for women, while this one [youtube.com] passed without a problem.
(I am aware of the irony of giving links to ads while talking about viral advertisement)

So could the Streisant effect be used here to 'promote' the free Tibet case?

Re:I have a mod point... (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612941)

I saw the second one , never saw the first.

Strange thing is , being a man , i don't find the second one offensive , but i do find the first one offensive.

Re:I have a mod point... (1)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613347)

Clearly it isn't well-enough known to you, since it's the "Streisand effect"

I know, it's bad form to point out a spelling error - but houghi loves stating the name so much he put it (misspelled) in the post 3 times... And I don't see how you find the second ad offensive , it's hilarious, and could in no way be perceived as sexist (the implication isn't that he's a gross guy, not that he's gross because he is a guy).

yeesh.

-- Stupid Abyss, Stop gazing back!

Re:I have a mod point... (1)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613393)

did post editing change? Part of my last post didn't display and i wanted to add it - I couldn't find the 'edit' function.

regardless, my MAIN point was that it's highly unlikely that anyone at the the IOC wanted MORE people to see this video. As inept as the editing is, they have no reason to want human-rights violations brought to light in the shadow of the most expensive Olympics ever held...

Re:I have a mod point... (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614527)

that's the problem with the IOC and the local organizing commitees they are whacko organization theat routinely steamrollers anyones rights to protect their perceived turf or more importantly their revenue stream.

IOC could be best described the offspring of the UN and the RIAA

Re:I have a mod point... (4, Funny)

daniorerio (1070048) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612467)

No you don't ;)

Re:I have a mod point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614505)

AC can't moderate! I need to get my facts straight...

Re:I have a mod point... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612849)

Indeed, free tibet so they can continue using slaves and being barbaric state.

Re:I have a mod point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613751)

and they're not slaves now? lol, what's the difference, they're fucked either way.

Who believes the reason? (0, Troll)

saintm (142527) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612277)

'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'

AKA

'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect their image.'

Re:Who believes the reason? (4, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612323)

'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.' AKA 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect their image.'

I'll take what I can get. You act like one of these choices is a bad thing!

Re:Who believes the reason? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612977)

Problem is....

"Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'"

should read....
  "Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect it's corporate image.'"

This is all it is. Youtube was getting a TON of bad press on the subject. if it was some lame 13 year old's personal rickroll. They would take it down in seconds and never ask squat to anyone.

If this was new Youtube corporate behavior (Better yet they need to challenge EVERY SINGLE TAKEDOWN before they comply) then I'll give them kudos.. until then they were simply trying to make themselves look better in the public eye, not do something that was right.

Re:Who believes the reason? (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614143)

I wish i had mod points, cause you just saved me a bunch of typing.

Re:Who believes the reason? (3, Insightful)

Armakuni (1091299) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612339)

What's the difference? Surely it doesn't matter what the the actual reason internally in YouTube is, if the consequence is a strengthening of free speech?

Re:Who believes the reason? (4, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613035)

Nope. If they selectively challenge DMCA notices (especially if they only challenge trivial ones), they're merely defining the boundaries of free expression, not protecting it.

Re:Who believes the reason? (1)

Kyokushi (1164377) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614443)

Which is better than doing nothing at all.

Re:Who believes the reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614567)

In this case, no. If they would have done nothing at all then they would have ignored the stupid DMCA notice, which is what they should have done in the first place. Instead they took the video down immediately and only reposted it after the IOC's notice was retracted.

Re:Who believes the reason? (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612353)

Everybody! We do *gooood*! Good! Nothing but good!


Now, the rest of this video diary will continue with only the close members of the board in the room.
Right, now that we're alone, lets dicuss the Secret Censoring...

What did the IOC plan? (2, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612297)

Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?

Re:What did the IOC plan? (2, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612381)

China's propaganda hasn't been about communism for a long time.

"Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a wildcard because it can mean just about anything. Currently it is defined as socialist market economy.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

Timosch (1212482) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612505)

Agreed. And in fact it is a dictatorship from a political point of view, combined with a government-boosted turbo-capitalism.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (5, Funny)

wisty (1335733) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612861)

It's not that much of a dictatorship. The people get to vote on which CP member gets in. It's a bit like the US really, but with one less party.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612961)

It's not that much of a dictatorship. The people get to vote on which CP member gets in. It's a bit like the US really, but with one less party.

:-)

Re:What did the IOC plan? (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613051)

It's a bit like the US really

Except in the US you can criticize the party in power without being arrested and hauled away by the cops.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (-1, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613477)

People who live in glass countries shouldn't throw bricks. In the US you don't have to critize anybody to be arrested and hauled away by the cops [illinoistimes.com] .

"This is a big-time dealer for us," Davis said. "This guy is huge, probably the biggest we've pulled down. We hit him on a light day."

Facing a possible 100-year prison sentence, Washington was held on a bond of $1 million.

But what looked like a slam-dunk case didn't play out that way. The two detectives who instigated Washington's arrest -- Paul Carpenter and Jim Graham -- had just come under scrutiny at the time of the dawn raid. Over the following year and a half, as the investigation of the two cops intensified, the case against Washington fell apart. In October 2006, the SPD fired Carpenter and Graham for misconduct; last month, Sangamon County State's Attorney John Schmidt dismissed charges against Washington, citing problems with the sworn affidavit used to obtain the search warrant executed at his home.

Now Schmidt's first assistant, Steve Weinhoeft, won't discuss the alleged crime.

The story goes on to explain that the drugs were most likely planted on Washington by the two dirty detectives.

On the other hand, if you ARE a cop you can be indicted for 49 felonies, plead guilty to two misdemeanors, and go scot free. [illinoistimes.com]

It wasn't until his arraignment, the next day, that he discovered the gravity of the charges: one count of obstructing justice, three counts of criminal sexual abuse, seven counts of criminal sexual assault, seven counts of armed violence, 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, and 21 counts of official misconduct. Lewis' bond was set at $250,000, and he was placed in solitary confinement.

Seventeen of the charges were class X felonies with special penalties, each carrying the possibility of a 60-year prison term to be served consecutively with other terms. Calculating by the grimmest formula, Lewis faced a potential sentence of 1,200 years behind bars.

The charges sprang from complaints made by seven women, all of whom told authorities that Lewis had made sexual advances toward them while wearing his police uniform. One woman said Lewis approached her in a parking lot and showed her a picture of his penis next to a beer bottle. Another woman said he lured her to the police station to take a Breathalyzer test, then dropped his uniform trousers and had sex with her on the bathroom sink. Another said Lewis pulled her over as though making a traffic stop, then reached into her car and grabbed her crotch while forcing his tongue into her mouth.

The details of the charges varied from victim to victim, but the women had one thing in common: They all performed as strippers at a Belgium tavern called the Playpen.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613587)

People who live in glass countries shouldn't throw bricks. In the US you don't have to critize anybody to be arrested and hauled away by the cops [illinoistimes.com].

What's your point? Governmental officials abuse their power? Nobody would deny that. The difference between the US and China is that we have a free press that can investigate those abuses of power and bring them to light. In China they can't even get answers as to why their schools collapsed and killed thousands of their children during the recent earthquakes.

Remember that Democracy is the worst form of Government ever -- except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (0, Flamebait)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613999)

The point is that this Washington guy pissed off the wrong people. As to the free press issue, American reporters go to jail over politics, too [cnn.com] . The one linked refused to name a source; the right to free speech is supposed to be the right to not speak as well. You can't have a free press if people are afraid to blow the whistle.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614225)

As to the free press issue, American reporters go to jail over politics, too [cnn.com]

No, American reporters go to jail for refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. Bit of a difference there. I would argue that we need a press shield law on the Federal level (my state has one) but there's still a difference between going to jail for contempt of court and being whisked away for investigating Governmental abuses or corruption.

the right to free speech is supposed to be the right to not speak as well

Actually, no, there is no right not to speak if you are subpoenaed to testify. You have a right against self-incrimination but if you are offered immunity (i.e: nothing you say can be used against you) then you don't have the right to refuse to testify. This is based on hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614333)

The press in America isn't free, its perpetually sitting on the auction bloc..... and the few people who still pay attention to the main-stream media are outbid by the US government. I won't bother linking to a bunch of stories about the various scandals the last few years involving officials bribing reporters, FOX news parroting the Bush administrations talking points, billions "missing" from the DOD September 10 2001, etc. Do your own fricken homework.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

kcelery (410487) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613027)

People only noticed the fake big-foot, little did they know China is a fake-communist country.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (4, Interesting)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612639)

Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?

There's another explanation, which is that a lot of symbols surrounding the Olympics are trademarked. And, in the US, trademark law requires that you take steps to protect your trademark, or you risk losing some or all of your rights to it. It's debatable how much that has to do with this case, since at least one of the Olympic symbols (the interlocking rings) is protected by a special statute that falls outside normal rules for this sort of thing, but it could be a factor.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

kcelery (410487) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613099)

I don't quite understand the relation between the Tibetans and the Olympics. It is just a sports event and it has only 1/200 Chinese element in it, among the 200+ nations. The game will last about 10 more days. So after that are we going to see, Nike, G.M., MacDonald, Rolex, Gucci, Kentucky chicken etc... protest along with their Lion flag? If they are after the Chinese govt, why drag with the Olympics.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (2, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613377)

It may have 1/200 Chinese athletes, but it has 100% of Chinese commercial interests, and more importantly to the billions of magpies watching, it's shifting attention away from the great vices of the Chinese government, painting them as a happy friendly internationally-welcoming country.

There's a reason China is feared, they have a ton of American money, and they have the morals of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein all chopped up into one big bad cloak of violent oppression.

Unless you like the idea of being dragged off to jail for blogging... hey everybody's different, right ? :P

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612705)

Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?

Not sure, but had it not been for the IOC's intervention, who would have seen or even known about the video to begin with?

Re:What did the IOC plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612923)

This is explained very clearly in the article. The clip was posted with a title suggesting that it was footage of the opening ceremony, which would mean that it was protected by IOC copyright. The IOC appear to have issued the DMCA notice based on the title without actually looking at the video. Apparently there is a lot of stuff on You Tube that genuinely is under IOC copyright and they just got a bit sloppy in trying to find all of it.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613103)

The IOC have been excessively aggressive in protecting their trademarks for years. The 2004 games in Athens had them threatening every restaurant or other venue with the word 'Olympic' in its name - apparently they were unaware that Olympus is in Greece and things have been named after it for several thousand years there. In the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, there have been laws passed here in the UK granting extra protection to their trademarks.

Re:What did the IOC plan? (1)

British (51765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613263)

s, there have been laws passed here in the UK granting extra protection to their trademarks.

And we all know the IOC is nice & fair & reasonable, just like the RIAA and MPAA in regards to copyright claims.

Really, why does the IOC get "extra" protection in regards to trademarks compared to anyone else? What makes the IOC so special? I have grown tired of these organizations that seem to think they are more important than everyone else, trampling over what they see fit.

There's the ultimate battle royale for you: A pirated MP3 song by band called "The Olympix".

Can anyone enlighten me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612301)

At 0:56, what am I looking at?

Re:Can anyone enlighten me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612823)

It's the combine.

A QUESTION is going out of your way? (3, Insightful)

Naruki (601680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612331)

And it's so terribly inconvenient that they deserve praise for it?

Lowered Expectations.

Re:A QUESTION is going out of your way? (5, Funny)

redaction101 (1309783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612395)

In the world of DMCA notices, questioning the "rights holder" whether his claim is valid or a sham is about as shocking as asking to screw his wife. On a long term basis. Without coffee breaks.

Re:A QUESTION is going out of your way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613717)

Hold on there, buddy. You take away my coffee breaks, and I'm going straight to the union.

Re:A QUESTION is going out of your way? (1)

neuromancer23 (1122449) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614323)

Mock con-call:

YouTube: Are you serious?

IOC: Not Really. We're just trying to see how fascist we can be before people start complaining.

YouTube: So are we. Ideally, we like to engage in political censorship without the public even knowing about it.

Larry Silverstein: Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.

IOC: Ok.

YouTube: ok.

Silverstien: Good. I have one of my puppets over at Standford Law, do a write up about YouTube and the IOC being the champions of democracy.

YouTube: We have our own puppets at Stanford Law. Didn't you know Stanford is a Banana Republic controlled by Google? The story is already written.

Silverstein: I thought a Banana Republic is were you go to buy khakis.

IOC: You've been watching too much YouTube.

YouTube: Seriously.

Silverstein: Are we agreed then?

IOC: Yes.
YouTube: Yes.

Silverstein: Alright then. Hail Satan.

YouTube: Hail Satan.
IOC: Hail Satan.

I don't think they had a good reason in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612333)

Doesn't sound noble to me. Sounds like they asked "are you really going to follow through with this claim, or will we have to put it back up?" instead of saying "to hell with your claim, this is free expression."

I mean, not keeping a clip down because someone decided on a whim they didn't like it is kind of good. But I don't think it's the reason we thought YouTube was putting it back up.

Don't be evil (5, Insightful)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612335)

Personally I give Google kudos for doing this. If it were any other company they wouldn't have done anything and would have stated that they will not repost it unless a counter DMCA is issued. I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese. The Chinese are horrible and sure they can make a pretty show but they have total disregard for human rights.

If this were Microsoft or Yahoo (and yahoo has pandered to the Chinese many many times) they would have waited for a counter DMCA or just ignore it and let another site deal with it.

So good job not being evil

*Cheers*

and I swear the Chinese's pretty little show doesn't change anything.

Re:Don't be evil (3, Interesting)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612455)

While Google's intervention helped, I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers. Any real effort on the part of Google would have been, while perhaps right, also a potentially disastrous legal move, given the number of copyright battles where Google is currently relying on a neutral service defense.

Re:Don't be evil (2, Insightful)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612695)

While Google's intervention helped, I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers. Any real effort on the part of Google would have been, while perhaps right, also a potentially disastrous legal move, given the number of copyright battles where Google is currently relying on a neutral service defense.

I know thats why I applaud google.

Although after reading the article it seems like the IOC didn't mean to take down that video. It had the title Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony so in a way it was the original posters fault for posting a misleading title.

I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613253)

I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.

We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?

Copyrights != trademarks (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613873)

We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?

But text tags are subject to trademark law. Come to think of it, I applaud Google for standing up to someone who tried to use copyright law to enforce a trademark.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613307)

I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.

We shouldn't blame them because they didn't do their jobs properly? They made a mistake, they were careless, they take the blame.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612755)

I suspect it was more along the lines of a counter DMCA notice from the original authors of the work that got it back up than anything else.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613243)

I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese...

I know hating on the Chinese government is in vogue right now but the IOC's initial DMCA notice had nothing to do with "pander[ing] to the Chinese." The IOC is one of the most aggressive organization when it comes to protecting their rights and, given that this video depicted the five interlocking rings (which the IOC protects very aggressively), it should come as no surprise that they went after the video, despite fair use rights. I'm actually _VERY_ surprised they withdrew this claim, in fact. But, their complaint had zero to do with pandering to the Chinese or any other government.

No Kudos (4, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613245)

The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours.

Google shouldn't have removed the video in the first place. At least, that's what I refused to do when I received an obviously invalid DMCA request for one of my own customers site.

DMCA requests are being sent out like spam. And when I say spam, I mean that they're being sent out by automated scripts with no human supervision whatsoever. And in many documented cases, DMCA requests are being sent out by people who know damn well the DMCA doesn't apply -- but they just want to have some embarrassing materials taken down as quickly as possible.

So if a human looks at it, like a Google employee must have obviously done to tell the IOC about it, and says 'no', it's obviously an invalid DMCA request, then the video shouldn't be removed -- or if it was removed already -- it should be posted back right away -- before the IOC is even contacted.

Now I realize Google is being sued by copyright holders for not being quick enough to respond to them, but we need to sue Google on the other side of the issue to make sure they don't go too far in complying with the legal threats of these automated DMCA requests. If we don't do this, we'll certainly lose our rights to immediate free speech, and *immediate* free speech is important -- or at least it's gaining more importance every single day -- since sites like YouTube often beat out other traditional outlets in getting fresh same-day footage of armed conflicts, rigged elections, and bloody protests.

Re:Don't be evil (1)

clragon (923326) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613293)

I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese. The Chinese are horrible and sure they can make a pretty show but they have total disregard for human rights...

...and I swear the Chinese's pretty little show doesn't change anything.

Why do you think the Chinese government cares so much about one free Tibet video on youtube? there are already so many other ones uploaded already regarding Tibet and the Beijing Olympics... it would be pretty meaningless.

On the other hand IOC has "long history of overzealously "defending" its trademarks" [techdirt.com] .

Re:Don't be evil (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613441)

google.cn doesn't display results that the chinese government don't like.

Re:Don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613735)

They did it because
1: they got cought
2: it is bad PR
3: they read slashdot, and realized how stupid it is.
4:???
5: Will not effect all other less public cases that dont show up on slashdot.
6: Profit !!in PR WAR!

Re:Don't be evil (1)

p2sam (139950) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614031)

Hi, I'm Chinese, and I would say that I'm mostly not that horrible. And like most average joe's, I don't know much about human rights. Thanks for the blanket statement, Mr Obese-American-Gun-Nut. :)

Re:Don't be evil (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614289)

Hi, I'm not Chinese and I would like to point out that GP was talking about your government, not you. Unfortunately, countries tend to get judged according to what their governments do, so if you think you're being unfairly painted with the same brush then why don't you try to change the government? You could picket or hold a banner or something. Oh wait... actually, that sounds like a bad idea. China doesn't like it much.

Huzzah! (1)

scott_karana (841914) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612363)

Good on YouTube, good on Google!
Fuck you, chilling effect.

Beware (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612431)

A nigger bit off my penis.

IOC - global censorship? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612453)

just crazy. IOC doing global censorship? this is just plain weird! go GOOGLE!

What? (0, Redundant)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612511)

The IOC thinks it owns Tibet now? Are they crazy? Go youtube!

Guess IOC and China need to learn (-1, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612565)

That you shouldn't threaten lawsuits, especially not lawsuits via the fair US system. Fair lawsuits can't really be used for this at all.

So they should just resort by default to violence, because that works. We all know what happened to "fitna", first on liveleak, but youtube followed soon after. And we all know how much criticism of islam we see online. Keep in mind that this is a religion founded by a paedophile massacrer, that's causing millions of death via organised slaughter, so you can imagine just how necessary criticism is.

So IOC and China : pay attention. "Progressives" or in general "western elites" aren't afraid of the western law system. Therefore, don't use it. Just kill one of them, and they all collectively and immediately shut up.

They're cowards. Utter and complete cowards. So use that, not the court system. Have some Chinese in America send death threats with some sugar in the envelope to the idiots, and they'll soon shut up.

Re:Guess IOC and China need to learn (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612675)

Hmmm, on second thought, I think they already know :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7562669.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Now they need to start doing this outside of their country too. Wouldn't be too hard, especially since you can trivially get past American border security as incidents keep illustrating.

Think how trivial something like this would be for the chinese government (btw the nature of the substance is confirmed, and the culprit is a somali muslim that illegaly entered US via the canadian border) :

http://cbs4denver.com/local/burnsley.hotel.death.2.793573.html [cbs4denver.com]

Let's just think America keeps buying. More ... and more ... and more.

Retraction (1)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612571)

After starting to seriously lose faith in Google living up to their "Don't be evil" policy, I have to take back what I said about "Don't be evil, unless it involves China". Well done Google. We are holding you to your own high standards. Don't slip too much! Credibility is a hard thing to recapture.

Re:Retraction (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613935)

well, since they took it down first when they should have stood tall and given the IOC an 'up yours' they definitely did bend. After all, it's the IOC's decision not to pursue a DMCA claim that made them re-instate the video, not because they suddenly grew a pair.

Re:Retraction (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614311)

Meh... the takedown is probably completely automatic. I'm impressed that a real person actually reviewed it... although that was probably just because of the flak they were getting.

Re:Retraction (1)

lee1 (219161) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614245)

So what do you think about Google allowing extremist Muslims decide what videos you are allowed to see, and concealing their censorship like this: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ [lee-phillips.org]

After we free Tibet can we please......... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612589)

free the US? After the last 8 years China and Russia aren't looking as bad as they used.

Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613081)

free the US?

You do realize we have an election in less than three months right?

After the last 8 years China and Russia aren't looking as bad as they used.

Are you sure [wikipedia.org] about [telegraph.co.uk] that?

Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (-1, Flamebait)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613643)

free the US?

You do realize we have an election in less than three months right?

How cute. You think that will make a difference.

Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613695)

How cute. You think that will make a difference.

Given the fact that both viable candidates seem to against the worst excesses of the Bush administration, yes I think it will make a difference.

Will it solve our bigger problems? Who knows. Democracy doesn't seem very good at solving big issues until they reach the crisis stage. But I'll take it over the other forms of Government that are available to us.

Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614387)

How cute. You think that will make a difference.

Given the fact that both viable candidates seem to against the worst excesses of the Bush administration, yes I think it will make a difference.

They're against the excesses NOW, because THEY'RE not the ones holding the scepter, as it were.

If either of them was the type to let go of power once it was in his hands, he wouldn't be a politician.

Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (1, Troll)

idamaybrown (584881) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613249)

You are free to leave

Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614163)

-1 Flamebait

Prince Charles was right (3, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612599)

..he once undiplomatically referred to the current Chinese leadership as "ghastly old waxworks." And last week in The Guardian, Marina Hyde suggested that the same description should apply to the IOC and that they deserved one another. When a feudal relic aged around 60, and an upper class British journalist think two sets of people are hopelessly past their sell by date, they must indeed be a long way into the bulging and growing mould stage.

So Google is not so much doing the right thing, but making the tough decision whether to go along with old, obnoxious powerful men who will soon be history, or to keep alongside its demographic.

What the fuck.... (0, Troll)

thephydes (727739) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612669)

does IOC have to do with Tibet anyway? To my way of thinking there is no and will be no relationship unless the 4012 games is to be held there. Geez IOC get a real life and worry about your brief - to provide olympic games every 4 years. Otherwise shut the fuck up!

Re:What the fuck.... (1)

jolinfire (1345173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612813)

They gave China Olympic games. So don't you see why there is a link ?

Several questions arise (2, Insightful)

rumith (983060) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612767)

  1. Was bringing the video back Google's own idea or did someone from the government or a three-letter agency hint that it would be a good idea?
  2. Would Google go to the same lengths if Fox News requested takedown of this inconvenient video [youtube.com] ?
  3. How do you discriminate between free speech and propaganda at all? Counting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian videos as free speech and counting anti-American videos as propaganda might look like an attractive answer to some, but it will not be accepted.
  4. Provided there is a definitive answer to the previous question, should commercial sites like YouTube allow propaganda videos?

Re:Several questions arise (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#24612911)

How do you discriminate between free speech and propaganda at all? Counting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian videos as free speech and counting anti-American videos as propaganda might look like an attractive answer to some, but it will not be accepted.

shitload of anti american videos posted by americans are on youtube since 2002.

Re:Several questions arise (1)

BillyGee (981263) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613003)

Lovely video indeed. I hope people really aren't naive enough to think it's just a coincidence that a russian girl who speaks perfect english and just happened to be "on vacation" in a conflict zone is somehow "found" for foreign media?

Re:Several questions arise (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613353)

Answers:
1. Yes.
2. NOOO. That is so NOT possible. Look, YouTube is an American company. We show dirt on China and Russia. Not on US.
3. Free Speech? You are barking up the wrong tree. This amounts to Racial Discrimination.
4. Yes. And we all should upload Maroon 5 or 50 Cents videos by millions so that their copyright gangsta is swamped.

chinese don't seem to know "free" is a verb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24612937)

the see "free tibet" and just say "no it isn't"

Meanwhile in Tibet. . . (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613143)

. . . Tibetans are risking their lives and liberty to fight Chinese oppression.

Although I applaud the recent demonstration by western supporters of Tibet in China at the Olympic Games, I think they and we knew that at most they risked a few days in jail and deportation. China wouldn't dare treat them the same way they treat Tibetans while the whole world was watching.

I'll have a lot more respect for pro-Tibetan protesters when they put their own lives and liberty at risk in support of a Free Tibet.

Sorry, but bumper stickers ain't gonna do it.

Re:Meanwhile in Tibet. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613603)

. . . Tibetans are risking their lives and liberty to fight Chinese oppression.

In order to reinstate Tibetan oppression. Seriously, I don't understand this stampede to bring back the last government on earth to practice serfdom. Just because China is against it doesn't make it a good thing.

Re:Meanwhile in Tibet. . . (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613629)

Actually, bumper stickers help more than you think. A big problem with the Tibetan crisis is lack of awareness. The great majority either don't know about it enough to care, or even worse they don't believe it at all.

It will require nothing less than for all the major news networks air a one-hour in-depth special on China's crimes against Tibet and against humanity, with an idiot proof "Free Tibet" message delivered to the TV watching drones. Maybe then, someone will take notice and China will have to answer some very difficult questions.

Until that happens, the problem remains small and China excels at mind control since it controls almost all communications crossing the border. Right now their reasoning is simple: destroying Tibet is cheap and easy, because the rest of the world largely ignores the whole fiasco.

Re:Meanwhile in Tibet. . . (2, Insightful)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614237)

Bumper stickers are more about making yourself feel good than actually doing something to end Chinese oppression.

Why don't the folks who put bumper stickers on their cars and wear the cool t-shirts organize an expeditionary force like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that traveled to Spain to fight Franco's fascists?

And if it ended up being a suicide mission it would certainly draw the attention of all the major news networks and the brave volunteers could go to their deaths knowing they sacrificed their lives for a greater good.

screw youtube (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613889)

they took it down first, that's something that should have *NEVER EVER* happened, DMCA or not. Bad laws are there to be broken, the DMCA is as bad as it gets.

Re:screw youtube (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614449)

Bad laws are there to be exposed so that they can be changed. If all you do is break them:

A) who makes YOU decide which law is good or bad?
B) Not enough people will know, and if its truly a bad law, you'll have to constantly break it instead of having it fixed.

mo3 down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614271)

then disappeared I 3on't bore yoU by fundamental
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>