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!

Google Sends Repeat Infringers To Copyright School

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the what-about-topless-clowns? dept.

Youtube 182

maczealot writes "Google is launching a new 'Copyright School' for use as a re-education tool for offenders on YouTube. The apparent purpose being to head off additional legislation, lawsuits, regulation and other negative impacts to the site. They even have campy cartoon videos for this school."

cancel ×

182 comments

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

Finally. (4, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822410)

Finally, a sensible approach to copyright infringement. Instead of suing everyone in sight into oblivion, they've decided to follow the model used by traffic police. Force violators to attend "school" and try to educate them about the law and the dangers of violating it, instead of the shoot first, ask questions later approach.

I'm sure this won't work for everyone, but hopefully it will save a good number of people from being bankrupted.

Re:Finally. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822486)

Force violators to attend "school" and try to educate them about the law and the dangers of violating it

For copyright infringement? what dangers?

Re:Finally. (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822542)

For copyright infringement? what dangers?

The danger of being sentenced to watch those hybrid Rick Roll & Tube Girl videos. [shudder]

Re:Finally. (3, Funny)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822926)

Better 'Tube Girl' than 'Tub Girl'.
I'll spare you the link.

Re:Finally. (2)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822556)

The danger of being sued.

COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822766)

Google is in-effect mis-representing the Copyright Act by Educating alleged "offenders": if you read the Copyright Act, it has to do with re-performances and re-enactments and such in commercial use of the said tokens supposedly protected by the law of the Copyright Act.

If the material is used for non-commercial and non-profit purposes, then that is the exemption not spoken of: always look for the inverse that the law graces you into: that's the point, because the original sale discharges the prior owner or tenant from their interests, and a Conditional Non-Endorsement of all adhesion contracts that would derive administration and maintenance of the matter would yield a clear title of the property sold into said Torrens System of titler ownership in the registry of their jurisprudence.

This same technique and approach is about a Controlling Interest: such removes the equitable title into Admiralty Jursidction such as through Rule E(8), and the same obverse of the Copyright Act is the removal of liability for alleged violations of many other non-related matters such as Motor Vehicles unregistered to return to their original conduct of affairs relating to the fact that in all Statutes "All Roads are Open as a matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel."

If the Untied States of America is such a great country(confederation), then how-come it seems like nobody sells property without strings attached like how Copyright Act does? The roads are the same way, as soon as you abate the Federal improvements of that foidal tenure and the alleged "High Seas of Asphault" they pre-suppose the Several States have become in assent of that foreign principality in the District of Columbia.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822848)

Everything you said is false, and nutty, and you will be tried in a court where all the flags have gold fringe.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822852)

Google is in-effect mis-representing the Copyright Act by Educating alleged "offenders":

Nice troll. Legally they are, "criminals", and have committed a "criminal offense." Calling then, "offenders", is both legally and politically accurate not to mention polite.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823028)

I'm pretty sure it's a civil offense.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823236)

If you leak a movie on YouTube or cause more $1,000 in 'damages' during 180 days (gee, that's easy) and the government goes after you, there's a fair chance you'll be tried as a criminal.

Also note that ICE has taken down domains and arrested people for linking to YouTube rips.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823318)

or cause more $1,000 in 'damages'

Even using their logic, how can they prove you caused $1,000 in "damages"?

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823484)

The view count and/or YouTube's subpoenaed logs. It's about retail value, not subjective worth.

Really the only instance I can imagine this happening is if someone uploads, say, The Hobbit a week before it's shown in theatres.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824112)

I know, but they can't prove that any of the people would have bought it in the first place. They merely assume that everyone would have and go off of that.

Re:COPYRIGHT applies only to Commercial Use/Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823482)

You've either been smoking something really powerful or the text you posted has been generated by computer.

But, but, but... That's how the law works. (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822840)

You get into a lot of trouble.
That' the law's purpose. That's why it exists. They made up a law to get people in trouble for doing harmless stuff.
That video taught me that.

I say we listen to the fine video and abolish such a law.
It is clearly evil and endangers people and sea otters by making them juggle piranhas while firing themselves from a cannon.
It also promotes property damage and spontaneous litigation.

Re:Finally. (2)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822932)

"The danger of being sued." Exactly! And the first critical lesson in copyright school is... Don't upload anything involving Metallica in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Finally. (4, Insightful)

bieber (998013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822510)

Neither solution makes any sense. Mandatory traffic school is no better a remedy for traffic violations than this "copyright school" is for copyright infringement. Not that the two are really comparable, because no one is going to be forced to watch these videos in lieu of being fined, but lets go with the analogy for now. People don't violate traffic laws because they don't understand them, they violate traffic laws because they don't think they'll get caught. Same goes for copyright. "Educating" infringers about laws they almost certainly already understand isn't going to do anything...well, I guess in the case of traffic violations it makes for an effective transfer of money from citizens to the companies that run the traffic schools...

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822722)

they don't think they'll get caught. Same goes for copyright.

I think not caring about copyfright it is more prevalent then not being caught in this specific case, the youtube deal isn't exactly equivalent to people running a warez ring, its more about "someone humming a melody and the RIAA being unhappy about it".

Re:Finally. (3, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822896)

There are further, and quite massive differences. Speed limits are a good idea, and, barring things like speed traps, are mostly fair. They make our roads safer. We have studies showing that there are fewer fatalities when speeds are lower. Saves gas too, which was the original intent of the national 55 mph speed limit.

Copyrights on the other hand, are legal fantasies, largely unenforceable on individuals. They are blatantly unfair. They cause more harm than good. What of all the works that were removed from the public domain without any compensation whatsoever to the public, each time copyright terms were extended? Robbery! Many of us understand this about copyrights, and no cheesy "educational" film is going to persuade us otherwise. I'm sure Google understands these films are nothing more than bad jokes at best, offensive to our intelligence and common sense. The propaganda is so badly done it should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent kids. Couldn't be any better than Capt. Copyright! It's little better than forcing rape victims to watch films implying it is all their fault because they didn't dress appropriately. But if it serves to appease the idiotic copyright extremists who might well be the only people on the planet who actually believe these films will win others over, while backfiring by helping to persuade more people that copyright laws are crazy, Google likes that. And so should we.

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822986)

Clearly you've never used YouTube before. Half of the infringing videos* on YouTube are uploaded under the assumption that "it's not illegal" or "this qualifies as fair use" (when it typically doesn't qualify).

Even Slashdotters fail at understanding copyright law. YouTube'rs have no chance; and most lack the aptitude to learn.

* I meant the videos that aren't uploaded by the copyright holder under a pseudonym account.

Re:Finally. (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824108)

Some slashdotters =/= all shashdotters, stupid.

Re:Finally. (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823000)

People really don't understand copyright - I've seen hundreds of videos with things like "I DO NOT OWN THIS SONG", "No Copyright infringement intended" etc. Admitting you don't own a song does not make it legal to copy it, and you are taking part in copyright infringement just by uploading a video you don't have copyright on. Whenever I've tried to point this out to people, I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded" type responses from morons.

Re:Finally. (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823096)

I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded"

Well, that's what you get for participating in YouTube comments.

I think it goes to show people do understand copyright - at least, they understand the moral premise that copyright should be based on, which is the right to be identified as the author of a work.

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823366)

So you've conflated attribution with copyright? I 'm sure you didn't mean that. Since it is called copyright, it probably should have something to do with, oh, I don't know, maybe the right to control who can copy it?

Re:Finally. (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823444)

Lack of attribution is a subset of copyright - it involves you copying it and passing the copy off as your own. People intrinsically see this as wrong - as opposed to copying, which is intuitively (and naturally) moral. It's only when you get governments handing out artificial monopolies that it becomes problematic. The fact that people's first reaction to defending themselves against copyright is to explicitly include attribution shows what people in general consider to be the most important - and the disjunction between the people's idea of morality and that of the legislators.

Re:Finally. (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823808)

It's intuitively and naturally moral to obtain copies of works without compensating the person who created the work? How so?

Re:Finally. (1)

the_enigma_1983 (742079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823226)

I agree, but I think the reason people do this, is that it makes ethical sense. The uploader is (usually)
  1. Giving credit where credit is due
  2. Not "trying to earn money" off other peoples work

Of course, our copyright laws are more stringent than this, in that technically giving away the work of someone else could deprive them of income, but I imagine that most people believe that the creators have already earned enough incentives, that the creators have already been encouraged to further the arts and sciences.

Re:Finally. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823678)

Copyright in North America depends, partly, on intent. If someone is using YouTube to make a backup of personal copies of videos, and puts a blurb right before the FBI warning saying this isn't for public viewing, they might actually be able to get away with it. However, they probably won't, as the copyright holder will just issue a takedown notice and argue that they were placing a copyrighted work in the public domain by uploading to YouTube.

Both sides in this would be significantly incorrect in their conclusions, but it's the result that matters with things intellectual.

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823878)

I have never uploaded to YouTube but I believe someone can mark videos as unlisted, only available if you have the URL. If it's public then that would generally show intent right there.

Re:Finally. (4, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823962)

I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded" type responses from morons.

I call bullshit. Even on the odd chance one of them didn't abbreviate "your" as "ur", no one commenting on Youtube uses apostrophes correctly.

Re:Finally. (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823218)

in the case of traffic violations it makes for an effective transfer of money from citizens to the companies that run the traffic schools...

It also acts as a deterrent: if you don't stick to the rules you'll have your time wasted.

Re:Finally. (1)

RajivSLK (398494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823730)

People don't violate traffic laws because they don't understand them, they violate traffic laws because they don't think they'll get caught.

I think you are missing the point of traffic school. Largely it's not to educated people on the laws it's to educate them on the potentially fatal consequences of their actions. Something that a lot of people don't understand. I'd wager that most people in traffic school have never been in a serve collision, had a loved on die, or understand 1/2mv^2 very well. A bunch of pictures and videos of crumpled cars, people dying and so on might help.

I don't know if it works at all but I believe that's the premise. Not to educate them about traffic laws...

Re:Finally. (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824110)

What about the people who thinks that the current copyright laws are immoral and should not be accepted as a form of civil protest? Like the people who demonstrate in Egypt. Not that I make the situation in Egypt the same as the situation in Germany, but copyright law is of high concern to me because it invades my privacy and restricts my freedom unnecessary.

Re:Finally. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822616)

I'd agree IF "infringers" weren't incorrectly flagged so often. I've had my home videos flagged and removed on Youtube for copyright infringement and I never got a reason or chance to appeal.

False flagging is especially brutal if you "rip" videos from Nico Nico Douga (the Japanese Youtube) or Youku (the Chinese Youtube) and repost them on Youtube. I've seen re-posted TRAILERS taken down from Youtube for copyright infringement.

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822824)

False flagging is especially brutal if you "rip" videos from Nico Nico Douga (the Japanese Youtube) or Youku (the Chinese Youtube) and repost them on Youtube.

*FACEPALM* Are people really this dumb?

I've seen re-posted TRAILERS taken down from Youtube for copyright infringement.

Yes, movie trailers are also copyrighted. So are your home videos, for that matter.

I have to admit, I'm really hoping this was sarcasm that I missed. If not, maybe this school is long overdue.

Re:Finally. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823726)

Just for clarification (for those who need to watch the videos): Japan and China are not members of the US of A, and have different copyright laws. You can't just take a work published by someone else in some other country and assume it's legal for YOU to publish it via the same service in your own country.

Re:Finally. (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822706)

Pffft! The only sensible approach now is an alternative to youtube that's more resistant to this bullshit. Some 'distributed' format maybe. Gotta be encrypted, or at least well hidden.

Re:Finally. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823012)

Pffft! The only sensible approach now is an alternative to youtube that's more resistant to this bullshit. Some 'distributed' format maybe. Gotta be encrypted, or at least well hidden.

Oh, that site rolled out five years ago. But if you don't already know about it I'm not allowed to tell you any details. :)

Re:Finally. (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823202)

Dailymotion [dailymotion.com] is less restrictive and you can even show boobs :D
However, based on France's recent draconian data retention law [bbc.co.uk] I think I'll be closing my Dailymotion account.

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822966)

Finally, a sensible approach to copyright infringement.

You can't have a sensible approach to an insensible law. Copyright infringement is incompatible with Libertarianism.

Re:Finally. (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823320)

Contract Law is compatible with Libertarianism. What if you sell the work with an explicit contract that the buyer is not allowed to make or distribute copies?

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823616)

What if you sell the work with an explicit contract that the buyer is not allowed to make or distribute copies?

That's fine but if the buyer breaches the contract and distributes a copy to a third party, that third party isn't bound by the original contract and can then do whatever they want with it. In other words, it only takes one person to breach the contract and then the cat is out of the bag.

Re:Finally. (1)

Joreallean (969424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823338)

Because it worked the first time around?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI [youtube.com]

This won't work for anyone and its stupid. Besides if you are going to make a Happy Tree Friends video at needs to include blood and death or what's the point?

My sad tale of bannings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823580)

My youtube account got banned for posting three short clips from TV shows over a span of 3 years. I had no idea there was a "three strikes your out" clause. Along with these, all my legit videos are gone and Youtube support ignores my pleas for account reactivation. One of them even had 1.5M views. It sucks! The clips I uploaded were from the same show and same network as other clips which remain online. Their enforcement is hardly evenhanded.

So sign me up for the reduction camp if It means I can get my legit videos back. Of course their "your account has been deactivated" help screen support button still go into a black hole for me.

What I've had to do to keep using my Gmail without having to move to a different gmail account has been difficult. Since Youtube is tied to google account, my main gmail account is banned from youtube. So I had to enable Youtube as a service for my apps domain, re-sign up from an account on my google apps domain, enabled multiple site logins, then add my gmail account into the apps domain account. Now I can use my old gmail and my new youtube account at the same time. This still sucks though... I've been punished.

Moral of the story... don't steal shit and put it on youtube like I did.

Re:Finally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823632)

It is a sad fact, that a couple of years ago when I was more active here, people generally knew the facts about actual reality really well, and opposed copyright tooth and nail.
How the tides have turned... As now most people here seem to have been fully brainwashed by the MAFIAA propaganda. They not only seem to believe it, but defend it, using the same old pseudo-arguments.
Slashdot has fallen. It's a sad time. :/

Copyright and the whole concept of "intellectual property" is a mental delusion that is contradicting actual observations of how the real world works, and exists solely to bully people into paying money for stuff that is not worth anything since it is not a physical object.

Copyright is a crime. That's what my T-shirt says. "Intellectual Property" is terrorism. And DRM is eugenics for ideas.

I'll continue to fight the lies. I will not believe that 2+2=5, even if half the world already does. And you better do too. Because if not, we will meet some day. And it will end ugly for you.

This is war. But the countries are ideas. And the scorched ground... is YOU.

Founding Lesson (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822418)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

This limited time was 4 years so the authors and inventors could profit and then promote WHAT, boys and girls?

Re:Founding Lesson (2, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822462)

Hey now, no author will write a book unless they and their family will be able to profit from it for their life plus 70 years, its true, just look at history before copyrights lasted that long, no books were ever written.

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822666)

Darn straight. Shakespeare? Who?

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822748)

Back when "copy" meant "take a quill and scrawl out every single letter of the text yourself", and 99% of the audience was incapable of reading, there wasn't much theft of intellectual property.

Along comes the printing press and it still takes a major effort to individually lay out every single letter of the text on a plate, and paper still costs a fortune, and there's still no mass-market audience owing to the continuing single-digit literacy rate.

And then someone invents the linotype, and then photolithography, and grammar school, and the world of copyright goes to hell.

So, no, it's not correct to point to the early history of literature as an example of egalitarian treatment of intellectual property.

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822812)

He wrote plays though, which you could theoretically get away with a couple copies for an entire troupe. A copyright violator would only need to steal or create one copy to be able to replicate Shakespeare's act, which did happen more than once. Shakespeare himself complained about it, but that didn't stop him from writing more.

Also worth noting, the printing press was already in England by the time Shakespeare rolled around.

LMAO "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35824132)

LOL "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2082940&cid=35823386 [slashdot.org] where skidborg admits to trolling others 1st & getting his jollies from it, like a sick troll does. Grow up, get help freak - You need it, because LMAO "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself ).

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822880)

And yet people continued still creating content even though it because easier and easier for people to copy there works. Its just like people choose to become starving artists and dancers knowing they will probably never get rich and famous for what they do, most do it because they enjoy doing it just like most authors do it because they enjoy doing it.

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823288)

I thought they were doing it for the chicks, not for the money.

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823804)

Back when "copy" meant "take a quill and scrawl out every single letter of the text yourself", and 99% of the audience was incapable of reading, there wasn't much theft of intellectual property.

Along comes the printing press and it still takes a major effort to individually lay out every single letter of the text on a plate, and paper still costs a fortune, and there's still no mass-market audience owing to the continuing single-digit literacy rate.

And then someone invents the linotype, and then photolithography, and grammar school, and the world of copyright goes to hell.

So, no, it's not correct to point to the early history of literature as an example of egalitarian treatment of intellectual property.

Actually, it's back when "copy" meant to imitate someone else, or their work -- such as what Shakespeare did with many of his plays (copied plays or stories previously penned by others). Shakespeare was the Disney of his time, except that in the beginning, the ruling class decided HE was in violation of copyright, the right being held only by royalty. Eventually, when he moved outside their immediate jurisdiction to perform his plays and they became immensely popular among the upper class, the rulers of the land gave him copyright over the works he had been performing.

The world of copyright started off in hell; an effort was temporarily made to redeem it when the US of A was founded, but it barely made it out of purgatory before it was sent back.

LOL "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35824100)

LOL "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2082940&cid=35823386 [slashdot.org] where skidborg admits to trolling others 1st & getting his jollies from it, like a sick troll does. Grow up, get help freak - You need it, because LMAO "U GOT 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself ).

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823314)

Before Copyright, there was a patronage system that supported the arts; royalty and churches paid for musical works as works for hire. If you've paid somebody for a piece of music extolling your family's or your God's virtues, you probably don't have too much of a problem with people copying it.

Re:Founding Lesson (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823490)

I take it you mean no books with pictures.

They should use this link (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822426)

To professor Eric Faden @ Bucknell University's video, A Fair(y) Use Tale [youtube.com]

As their copyright school

What they should do... (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822440)

Is force copyright owners who flag videos for no reason whatsoever to watch that as well.

Re:What they should do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823008)

But "Fair Use School" sounds like some kinda socialism, and we don't hold no truck with that socialism stuff here in these Corporate States of 'Murrica.

Don't infringe copyright (unless you're a megacorp (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822470)

"Hi kids, today's topic is copyright law and how we're allowed to copy anything we like because we're a multi-billion dollar company and can afford more lawyers than God, while you're just a schlep at a computer who's going to have their ass sued and thrown into jail.

By the way have you heard of Google books....that's right if you can't find it at a used book store, chances are we've copied it to put online.

So remember kids, don't infringe copyright. Let us do it for you, and enjoy the ads!"

Re:Don't infringe copyright (unless you're a megac (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822760)

I'm pretty sure that video isn't for kids. Given the nature of Happy Tree Friends... http://bit.ly/igdpxc [bit.ly]

Re:Don't infringe copyright (unless you're a megac (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822798)

Have you ever seen what happens when some megacorporation like, say, Google, copies something from some other megacorporation like, say, Oracle?

This. [cnet.com] The litigation of which will probably outlive the comma and result in legal fees larger than the federal debt.

So, no, you can't make the blanket statement that corporations can just steal what they want because they have lawyers and money. Corporations have whole departments to prevent their employees from even inadvertently violating intellectual property rights of other corporations.

And good luck getting anything you wrote into a Hollywood studio. It's an entire industry that doesn't even allow you to share ideas except in a structured environment, to avoid having to defend itself against lawsuits from unimaginative dolts who come up with the same ideas everyone does (and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).

Re:Don't infringe copyright (unless you're a megac (2)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823064)

Indeed, a more correct version would be: only copy stuff that belongs to someone who can't afford as many lawyers as you. Or maybe: the company that has the most lawyers can get away with anything.

This could also be applied to other areas, for example: the country with the most powerful military can get away with anything. *hides*

Re:Don't infringe copyright (unless you're a megac (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824076)

(and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).

You're being unduly critical of the audience.

The reason Hollywood films are bland and derivative is because Hollywood makes blockbusters. A blockbuster might gross, say, $70 million. Now, that gross is from selling tickets at $7 a pop, meaning that they had to convince 10 million people to agree on what would be entertaining to watch.

If Hollywood was willing to make a movie that appealed to just one tenth the number of people, they could do far more novel stuff. But, they're in it for the money, and so they don't.

There are plenty of smaller studios that do interesting films, and occasionally those films catch on with a wider audience. The biggest for the smaller studios is that they don't have the connections and don't get the corporate welfare that the big Hollywood studios do.

Re:Don't infringe copyright (unless you're a megac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823090)

Except the example you cited is completely false. You sadly can't find those out-of-print book copies online. What Google did amounted to no more than ripping a private DVD collection, minus the criminal distribution act.

school? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822480)

If this is anything like schools here are already, as soon as they show up, the doors will be locked and barred, they'll be run through the metal detectors, relieved of anything sharp or electronic, then shoveled into a cramped, hot room where they'll have to endure hours of someone talking at them and there will be no breaks to go to the bathroom. And after, you'll be fed a crappy lunch and told what a rotten person you are, and be given a letter to take home instructing everyone to love you less. Yeah, actually that sounds like what I'd expect from the pro-copyright crowd.

Re:school? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823048)

If this is anything like schools here are already, as soon as they show up, the doors will be locked and barred, they'll be run through the metal detectors, relieved of anything sharp or electronic, then shoveled into a cramped, hot room where they'll have to endure hours of someone talking at them and there will be no breaks to go to the bathroom.

That sounds like the last time I went through US Customs. And me being a US Citizen . . .

And after, you'll be fed a crappy lunch and told what a rotten person you are, and be given a letter to take home instructing everyone to love you less.

I thought that parents were there to tell you that. But they still won't kick you out of the basement . . .

No sweat.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822488)

you can outsource the "work" to China for about a dime.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black (4, Interesting)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822500)

Like when a certain company decides they have the right the republish every book? Where's the cute little cartoon for that lesson

Re:Pot Calling the Kettle Black (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823266)

The weren't republishing every book; they were making every book searchable. It may have been a reach, but I think it is productive to start a discussion on what the limits of fair use are for a search engine.

Companies need to get a life. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822530)

I am a fan of YouTube poops but many companies can't stand their work getting parodied despite it being created by lifelong fans of the shows. WTLnetwork for example parodied Thomas the Tank Engine. but (s)HIT entertainment took it down. All this does is create a Streisand effect where users go to more liberal video hosts instead of going to re-education camps by repressive hosts.

Well, I just watched the video... (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822552)

I'm not really sure how effective it will be. The cartoon seemed more of a satire then educational. They should take a lesson from School House Rock on how to make educational cartoons that will be taken seriously.

Re:Well, I just watched the video... (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822638)

What makes you think they want to be taken seriously?

Re:Well, I just watched the video... (0)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822746)

Given the nature of Happy Tree Friends http://bit.ly/igdpxc [bit.ly] I'm pretty sure it wasn't educational.

Viacom (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822570)

So are they going to send MAFIAA members to school too, when they claim that videos are infringing when actually they are making fair use?

Re:Viacom (2)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823052)

Very, very few people understand what "fair use" really is.

I'd estimate that for every hundred ignorant, entitled teenagers screaming about their fair use rights being violated, there's one person who actually does have his fair use rights violated. In my mind, that's an extremely generous and optimistic statement, because just about every single one of the screaming idiots I've seen so far thought that because they attributed the music in their video, it was now fair use. Sorry, but that's just not the way it works.

What really gets me is that all you have to do is ask permission. Write to your favorite band, ask them for permission to use a song that you love, and, chances are, they'll give you permission. Instead, people just take without asking, then get all offended and start screaming about their "rights". I really hate this entitlement complex that's spread through American society, where anyone can simply take whatever they want, without asking permission. Personally, I blame advertising, because, for fifty years now, we've been blasted with the message that we can't possibly live without having the latest pop culture crap that's been mass produced by media conglomerates. Now that people are finally starting to believe this, it's biting the media conglomerates on the ass, because they've got legions of pop culture-addicted morons pirating everything in sight. I think the two deserve each other: the pirates has a hole in their lives that never be fulfilled by anything but gigabytes of soulless pop culture, and the media conglomerates are going berserk hopelessly trying to capitalize on the pirates. It's like something out of Dante's Inferno.

Re:Viacom (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823158)

So are they going to send MAFIAA members to school too, when they claim that videos are infringing when actually they are making fair use?

It's not the MAFIAA lawyers' responsibility to determine what is and isn't fair use. If you're using something in a way that you believe is fair use, defending that assertion is your problem.

Re:Viacom (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823712)

Actually it is. There is a law against frivolous C&D letters.

Meta-Copyright School (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822640)

I reposted the campy videos to YouTube without permission, and then they sent me to Meta-Copyright School. :-(

Good Idea (2)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822642)

Many people unknowingly confess to copyright violations in their You Tube postings.

They say things like: "I don't own this. It is owned by ViaNBCBS." That is like a total admission of guilt.

They need Copyright School to keep them away from civil liability!!

Re:Good Idea (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823210)

Many people unknowingly confess to copyright violations in their You Tube postings.

I wouldn't say "unknowingly"...

But, really, given that Google's pretty good at identifying misappropriated content, one could say the only difference between being up-front about it and being evasive about it is that in the former case you're at least giving credit where it's due... That's not gonna help you legally, I think, but I think it's ultimately a more responsible way to conduct oneself.

Still, it's generally pretty funny when people try to legalese their way around the fact that they've just blatantly violated someone's rights under copyright law. My favorite is "No copyright infringement intended. All rights are still totally theirs."

Like the attack dogs are gonna read that and be like, "Oh, OK, it's cool, bro."

Bah.. Can Someone Send Me the Link (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822648)

To the .torrent so I can watch it on my jail-broke iPad?

Well, they've finally done it.... (1)

penguinman1337 (1792086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822670)

Perhaps this school should be referred to as copyright re-education. We could even have a special program for the worst offenders where they get to go to some type of low-tech retreat where they learn how infringing copyright is detrimental to society. They could then complete their "re-education" at one of these "camps" and become a productive consumer generating add revenue again. This is a GREAT idae!!

Speaking of copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822672)

... the character Lumpy in the Google video looks suspiciously similar to another cartoon character ... Bullwinkle.

Re:Speaking of copyright infringement (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823224)

"Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a copyrighted song out of my hat!"
"What??? Again?!?"

HTF Seriously? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822778)

I am unable to believe that the authors of that video had any expectation whatsoever of it being taken seriously. It is clearly a parody of the heavy-handed system and ridicules the current state of affairs.

Can we (1)

madsci1016 (1111233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35822784)

Sweet. Can we voluntarily attend it just to remove the two strikes we've had on our account for 6 years? I'd like the option to post unlisted back.

Copyright School for Politicians (CR 100.5) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35822992)

While they are at it, they can perhaps add a copyright school for politicians

Lesson 1.
What is Copyright? Copyright is an artificial construct, created so you can make something public while we all agree to treat it like something private, and as a reward for the public for doing so, this is for a limited time only. During this limited time, the creator has the opportunity to make money off his/her creation, after which they will have to create something new (if they haven't done so already) for which the clock has been reset to zero and starts ticking again.
Lesson 2.
What is Public Domain? The public domain consists of works that are no longer copyrighted. This is great, as it allows everyone free access to these works. There's no better way to promote culture than to make it free-as-in-beer to enjoy.
Lesson 3.
What is "Fair Use"? Even though we have granted certain exclusive rights to the creator during this limited time period, there are still certain situations where the Fair Use-rights trump the Copy-rights.
Lesson 4.
What about those poor artists? While everyone is always concerned about "the artists", research done in Europe, one project done at the behest of the European Union, has shown time and again that the vast majority (90%+) of existing soon-to-expire copyrights in musical recordings actually benefit the labels rather than the performing artists.
Lesson 5.
TBD.

copying is not theft video (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823024)

Can someone with a youtube account please reupload the well-known "copying is not theft" [youtube.com] song video as "in response to" to this silliness?

Happy Tree F(close page) (2)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823080)

[Opens video.]
[Sees Happy Tree Friends.]
[Closes video damn fast.]
Watching the occasional campy video at work, I can get away with. Watching something with a rep for being NSFW no matter what the content of the actual video? Not so much.

Re:Happy Tree F(close page) (2)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823982)

Actually, this one is SFW. Seriously. The worst that happens is some off-screen vomit and a cannon explosion without gore.

Lumpy and the Lumpettes (1)

xkr (786629) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823438)

I highly recommend that everyone use Russell and Lumpy as characters in their own videos, and upload them to YouTube. Could become a movement, y' know.

Hypocrites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823556)

Interesting that the background at 3:42 is the OS X Panther default wallpaper, whose copyright is presumably owned by Apple...

Re-education Camp (1)

plastick (1607981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35823624)

"Someday, son, people will be sent to re-education to brainwash them for things like not having papers, saying certain things, listening to certain music, or even driving to the store."

"Dad, that sounds like a horror movie. I don't think it will EVER come to that. I mean, people just wouldn't accept something so terrible!"

How Ironic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35823938)

A copyright lesson from Google?!? The ultimate freeloader on the web, lunching on the work of everybody else!

They should have a school for copyright trolls. (1)

doomy (7461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824066)

I make original game video on my YouTube channel, even then I get my video's claimed by people like "IMG Media UK" (google them) weekly, basically they go around throwing DMCA on video they find just to have people subscribe to them. To the point videos that aren't disputed are removed from YT.

A few months ago another copyright troll (Kanobu Networks) tried doing this on a bunch of my videos that they ripped from my channel [youtube.com] (Yes they ripped my video, re-posted it and claimed copyright on the original video). Frustrated with a lack of option to deal with this type of copyright troll, I looked around for other victims of Kanobu and had them protest on Kanobu's YT channel (since google does nothing to stop copyright trolls). Eventually Kanobu got so much negative comments that they stopped claiming copyright on other people's YT videos and apologized. Kanobu too was trying to get subscription to their channel.

Irony (2)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35824086)

I guess when Google ignores authors' rights and digitizes millions of books at a time [google.com] , it's OK, but God forbid if someone downloads a few .mp3s. The duplicity is shocking. Just another example of a fucking corporation having more rights than the individual.
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>