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!

At Universal's Request, YouTube Yanks News Podcast Over Music Snippet

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-stop-humming dept.

Music 287

Snaller writes "Tech News Today does what the name says — it's a podcast reporting on Tech news, Monday to Friday. They, like Slashdot, reported on the Megaupload vs. Universal copyright dispute. But during their coverage, they played a snippet of the music video and immediately Universal Music Group had the news podcast yanked from YouTube. Tech News Today has outlets other than YouTube, but should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?"

cancel ×

287 comments

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

And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (5, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383178)

Shoot first, ask questions never, over things that are arguably as Fair Use as it gets. It will only get worse from here.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (5, Insightful)

VanGarrett (1269030) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383430)

Indeed, because I know so many people that use podcasts on YouTube as alternatives to buying CDs. Doesn't everyone?

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (5, Funny)

honestmonkey (819408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383570)

That snippet was just the piece I needed to complete the song! I've put it together from a lot of other "fair use" sources and almost had the whole thing. But I missed the podcast! And I almost had the song FOR FREE! Damn UMG, damn them all to hell!

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (5, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383946)

Find the lyrics, sing them yourself, and auto-tune it.

It's what Big Media is doing nowadays anyway.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383864)

And that's legal?

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38384040)

I guess it's even more terrifying how much RIAA can brainwash someone.

The answer is "Yes". It is perfectly legal to decide not to buy CDs but rather to listen to podcasts on YouTube. Or watch the sunset. Or play checkers.

Re:And this is why SOPA is so terrifying (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384038)

My girlfriend's daughter does. She's 10. She wouldn't know what to do if I bought her a CD. It complicates gift giving.

Punish unjust copyright claims (5, Insightful)

ZorroXXX (610877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383204)

The only way to make these kinds of problems go away is to make it illegal and punishable to claim copyright on something that you do not own the copyright for.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383292)

In this case, they did ask that something they have the copyright to be taken down. The counterpoint here is that by just using a snippet in a way that would fall under fair use, the clip did not break copyright law. Assessing penalties when there's a dispute over fair use is a tricky. Fair use isn't neatly defined, it's not like they state that 30 seconds of a clip is okay to copy, but 35 isn't. There isn't a defined cutoff, because each work is different.

MegaUpload Video (4, Informative)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383572)

They did not have the copyright to it.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383574)

Fair use is a defence: The burden is on the defendant to prove fair use.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383742)

Fair Use is not merely a defense. That is the copyright maximalist spin. The law (remember it?) specifically states that Fair Use is a limitation on the scope of the copyright; that is, if something is Fair Use, the artificial monopoly recipient never had a monopoly over that use in the first place.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383774)

People are talking about policy. What the law should be. You're talking about what the law is, which is the whole problem.

Incidentally, fair use is a bit special because of the first amendment implications. Its sort of like self defense for murder: It's unconstitutional for them to punish you for it. What does that tell you about whether the law should allow "shoot first and ask questions later" on the part of the enforcers?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (4, Informative)

zzatz (965857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383700)

No, Universal does not have copyright to the music involved, which was what made it newsworthy.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (5, Insightful)

David Chappell (671429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383754)

In this case, they did ask that something they have the copyright to be taken down.

Actually, Universal only claims to have copyright to the first video. This seems unlikely since the video is a criticism of Universal. Now they have taken down a video that is a news report on their disputed claim to the first video. Use of short clips to illustrate a news report is such a classic case of fair use that no rights holder can claim to be unaware that the use is lawful. A takedown request is either grossly incompetent or malicious.

What Megaupload has done here is brilliant. They have baited Universal into conducting a dramatic live demonstration of the dangers of giving copyright holder unilateral takedown powers.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383374)

Right, I'm sure that law will get signed while Hollywood's monkey boy is occuying the White House and throwing feces on the Constitution of the United States. Good luck with that.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383730)

George Bush was voted out, who are you talking about? that idiot Boner in the House?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383916)

George Bush was voted IN, not out. He served two terms, the maximum allowed by law, and then someone else was voted in because Bush wasn't allowed to run any more, by law.

He's talking about Obama, who in practice isn't any different from Bush in most ways, and is even more in the pocket of Hollywood and the copyright cartels, along with his buddy Biden.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38384164)

He's talking about Obama, who in practice isn't any different from Bush in most ways, and is even more in the pocket of Hollywood and the copyright cartels, along with his buddy Biden.

I guess most slashdotters watched '24' and that's why they know how this really went down; the Copyright MAFIAA have provided their long time buddy Joe Biden with the real birth certificate. Hollywood runs the White House! That's why the Europeans are now not allowed to disclose ACTA but are supposed to vote for it shortly.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (2)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383794)

You say that as if there is only one person who is responsible for this. I can think of a whole bunch of puppets in a building by the national mall doing exactly that. Even more so when you think of the defense appropriations bill that just went through the senate.

But who's counting at this point?

Even with that, the GP is right. As long as a SLAPP is enough to accomplish what you're trying to do (delay the message until it won't be relevant), that's all they really care about. I would imagine it would be pretty hard to legally define "ass-hattedness," but if we could, I can think of all sorts of excellent ways to punish people for it.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383412)

*nods* that is the major flaw.. there are no consequences for fraudulent takedowns.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (4, Insightful)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383420)

Civil: Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Incorporated - Diebold sued for false DMCA and paid $125k.

Even if it were more possible, do you really think anyone would criminally prosecute a large company for just a false DMCA? Prosecutors gain nothing from that and just waste their resources for a minor offense against a company's major legal team. The end result would just end up being angering potential donors to political campaigns except when those donors encouraged prosecution of small copyright holders too poor to afford good lawyers.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (5, Insightful)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383606)

Why the fuck do you allow corporates to donate to political parties?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (2, Insightful)

malilo (799198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383656)

Well "we" didn't allow it, the assholes on the supreme court did. Unfortunate, to say the least.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (3, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383984)

Yes, but "we" allowed it by not making our representatives in Congress pass a law specifically forbidding it. "We the people" are ultimately responsible for our government, and anything our government does is "our" fault for voting them in.

It's like this in every country. The people of a country are always to blame for its government, no matter what kind of government they have. If the people don't like the government, it's their responsibility to change it, by any means necessary (including violent revolution--see Libya for a recent example of this). If the people don't, then it can be assumed the government operates with their permission. Of course, it's not quite so simple in some cases where a country has multiple ethnic groups that hate each other; Saddam's Iraq was an example of this. In those cases, you can't assume the oppressed minority approves of the government, but you can assume the majority that the government draws its power from does.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384190)

A bill doing just that has been introduced, but I doubt it will go anywhere until the current bunch of bums is thrown out. (I hate people who scream "throw out the bums!" and then re-elect their own Congressmen.)

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383680)

It would be too unseemly for those running the country to just do so without this "congress" thing to use as a front.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383738)

Because rich assholes like to support other rich assholes at the cost of freedom for the poor schleps.

It's been this way for centuries here.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (4, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384138)

It's been this way forever

FTFY.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (3, Interesting)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384352)

For the same reason we allow labor unions, the EFF, and any other group to donate to political parties. Groups of people are still people with the same rights they always had even if they were not in a group. Exercising your freedom of association does not strip you of other rights.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (4, Interesting)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384022)

It seems to me that you could solve the problem pretty well in the following way: If a copyright holder negligently issues a take down for material that is likely to be fair use, the civil damages are no less than 5% of the total revenues collected with respect to that copyrighted work. If the copyright holder intentionally issues such a take down [like Diebold], the damages are no less than one million dollars.

That would pretty well sort it out, and with no help from any prosecutors office: The victims could collect directly in civil court. And copyright holders who find they are unable to tell whether something is fair use are free to request an injunction in court instead of using the take down process, so that a judge can make that determination in an adversarial proceeding prior to the copyright holder subjecting itself to any liability for issuing a fraudulent take down.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383440)

Personally, I'd like to see the DMCA amended to add one thing:

"If the claimed infringed work is owned by an incorporated entity, claimant shall post a bond equal to at least 1% of the annual income of that corporation for each claim, and if the claim is found to be false, claimant shall forfeit that bond to the person or entity being claimed against." ...or something similar (and a lot more air-tight).

Make 'em put their money where their DMCA claim is.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383510)

Not to quibble, since I fully agree, but since in this case Universal really does own the copyright (or that's what it looks like), your title would be the proper way to phrase it. Any unjustified copyright requests need to be punishable, whether the requestee owns the copyright or not. I would say especially if the use was covered by Fair Use, which this clearly was.

I would say loosing the copyright is a fair punishment, in this case. The use was clearly covered by exemptions, there is no way Universal could have not known this, so the takedown was clearly spurious. Most importantly, faulty claims need to hurt, and badly. A slap on the wrist just won't cut it.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383610)

It's disputed. The artists in the video are contracted to Universial. The dispute appears to be over a standard clause in recording contracts that transfers copyright for everything the artist produces to the label for the term of the contract. It's intended to prevent another label poaching artists after they become famous.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38384028)

Problem is, recording copyright actually goes to whoever makes the recording, rather than the artist themselves. (And you'd better believe the record companies know that.) It's arguable that the artists in question have violated their contracts. But if the music was recorded by MegaUpload, the copyright is theirs.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (0)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384354)

So, basically, these black men are indentured servants to Universal?

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (5, Interesting)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383538)

It already is. Under OCILLA/DMCA 512, UMG's lawyers have probably just perjured themselves. The trick is making it stick.

Re:Punish unjust copyright claims (1)

Froggels (1724218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383658)

Even if it were punishable (which is probably already is) there would be little or no effect as most people negatively affected by such behavior do not have the resources to sue in court as the large media corporations do. This is just another tool to be used along with SLAPP lawsuits.

Seriously (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383236)

Should be really allow copyright abuse in such a manner that it is illegal to even report on something regarding copyrighted material. If so, as a society we should just start teaching our kids to immediately give their lunch money to the biggest meanest kid in the school before they can even ask.

I doubt approval from YouTube is even necessary (4, Interesting)

daitengu (172781) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383244)

It's quite likely that large corporations like Universal, Viacom, etc. have access to pull things down from YouTube on copyright claims without Youtube's approval.

I assume Youtube assumed these organizations would use their power responsibly. Perhaps that assumption needs to be revisited.

Re:I doubt approval from YouTube is even necessary (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383362)

Its more likely that Google understands that when the public objects to something they twit their friends.
When corporations object they lobby and get laws passed. Which would you care more about?

Re:I doubt approval from YouTube is even necessary (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383544)

For Google? The public opinion. Google has tremendous power to lobby on their own. But if they loose public opinion, a company like Google that relies nearly 100% on the public using them on a daily basis could collapse overnight.

Re:I doubt approval from YouTube is even necessary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38384124)

It's 'lose', not 'loose'. The distinction is important and not difficult to grasp. To make it even easier for you to understand the difference, I've done the hard part for you:

Lose [reference.com]
Loose [reference.com]

Read them, learn the difference, and improve your command of the English language.

Re:I doubt approval from YouTube is even necessary (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384328)

Google's lobbying power is next to nothing compared to the copyright regimes that own both major parties.

Fair Use? (1)

broginator (1955750) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383252)

What happened to it?

Re:Fair Use? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383534)

I'm all for fair use and indeed, I have often commented on the horribly broken copyright laws and the abuse of them by big media. Youtube is not publicly owned, though. It's Google's decision what they allow or don't allow. If they pulled the report because they only care about the quiet life, that's their choice (it's a bad choice in my view and it diminishes Google in my eyes, especially given their arguments over fair use and their book scanning project, but that doesn't automatically make it wrong). On the other hand if the labels have some power to force Google to pull the video without consulting the publisher when it's clearly fair use (seriously, who listens to the news so that they can get down to random snippets of music?), then that's a wholly different matter. I'd like to hear some more of the facts before I decide what to think about this.

Re:Fair Use? (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383638)

Same as always. Fair use is a perfectly valid defence, providing you are willing to spend a huge pile of money hireing lawyers and going to court over it. That's just how it usually works with the legal system: People have as many rights as they can afford to defend, and no more.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

broginator (1955750) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383828)

Sad but true.

The biggest crime (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383256)

The biggest crime is that these videos are not posted in Ogg Theora format. What are we teaching our children?

No (4, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383316)

It obviously doesn't have the right. It's fair use for the purpose of reporting news.

This is simple collateral damage when you use software to automatically flag copyright violations and then act on that software's flagging automatically too cause humans are simply too expensive to police it all manually. Happens all the time. All the usual slashdot tropes of printers which do torrents, grandmas that get notices, openoffice that gets removed from ftp servers, etc.

Youtube and your mail client's spamfilter have the same problem: false positives. Both use an automated system to flag violations of policy and in both cases it mostly works but never 100%. You cannot demand from youtube or the RIAA to flag it all manually, just like you can't really flag all your spam manually: if you do, either Youtube goes out of business cause their business model does not allow that many employees and still serve you videos for "free". Or the major labels go out of business since they have to hire people to police youtube and demand even more per song. I'm sure many /.ers would like this 2nd outcome but it's not really realistic or actually desirable either.

So Tech News should alert youtube to unblock their video and move on. Oh I forgot: better to post it to slashdot frontpage so Tech News can get a few thousand more hits! Genius! The RIAA is evil after all.

Re:No (1)

governorx (524152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383414)

+10 For the Win

Re:No (5, Insightful)

SoTerrified (660807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383422)

cause humans are simply too expensive to police it all manually.

This is ridiculous. That's like saying everyone arrested should just be considered guilty and sentenced because it's simply too expensive to have trials for everyone. Yes, our courts are jammed and yes, trials are a burden, but the alternative is simply unacceptable.

So why is this any different?

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383594)

Because in the case of arrest you are looking at the possibility severely affecting people's lives. In the case of Youtube you are simply talking about yanking a video from...uh Youtube. It shouldn't have to be explained. In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. In the other, speak up if there is a problem to help improve the process; otherwise, move on.

Re:No (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383684)

In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right.

Really? I think both cases are worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. I'd rather not inconvenient innocents merely because there might be a copyright violation (Who cares?).

You say it's not important, but that is subjective.

Re:No (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384050)

So you think it's worth spending the man hours to ensure your spam block is done right too? Cause with thousands of video submits per second on youtube it's the same problem only that videos are up to ten minutes long which you have to check all while a spam mail is about 2 pages tops and a lot faster to scan.

Re:No (1)

Gunstick (312804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383744)

in other news, the MPAA has severely affected lives of people just because they shared a song via... uh torrent.

Re:No (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384072)

Has the MPAA sued Tech News yet? Sent them a costly legal notice? No? Then it's not like your torrent example.

Re:No (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383752)

Because in the case of arrest you are looking at the possibility severely affecting people's lives. In the case of Youtube you are simply talking about yanking a video from...uh Youtube. It shouldn't have to be explained. In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. In the other, speak up if there is a problem to help improve the process; otherwise, move on.

Perhaps more to the point, one is arresting people. Since it is possible to have bots post things to youtube in an automated fashion, one needs to have bots to take things down.

Re:No (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383838)

THIS is precisely why bills like SOPA should not even be considered, never mind passed.

People like you will whine that "it's only suppressing their free speech" and the Bill of Rights will become even more of a mockery than it already is.

You've got your values ass backwards.

Re:No (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384178)

Because in the case of arrest you are looking at the possibility severely affecting people's lives. In the case of Youtube you are simply talking about yanking a video from...uh Youtube.

If YouTube is so insignificant then why does it matter if copyrighted videos get posted to it? Either it's unimportant and so if copyrighted works get posted there it doesn't much matter and there is no call for extraordinary minimal-oversight methods to remove them, or it's very important and thereby requires the whole of due process. You can't have it both ways.

Re:No (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383712)

So why is this any different?

It isn't any different, but the stakes are so much lower that people tend to make dumb arguments without thinking things through.

BUT, in reality, it is simply to expensive to have trials for everyone.
Depending on the jurisdiction, 85%~95% of all cases are settled before trial.
Our legal system chokes on the small fraction of cases that do go before a judge.
 
/and it doesn't help that the President has been prevented from appointing judges to the bench.

Re:No (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383466)

If they don't want to do it manually, then too bad for them. I'd rather let real violations go than allow them to send take down notices at random.

Re:No (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384142)

I hope you filter your incoming mail manually as well, just to be consistent.
Hint: there was no "take down notice". It's an automated system just like your spamfilter. Not randomness involved.

Re:No (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383536)

I think much of the outrage is due to the presumption that the content was asserted to be infringing by the judgement of an actual person working for Universal. If Universal has an automated system producing false positives, I suspect it would be much more understandable to the average Slashdotter.

The other side of this is, If Tech News Today only published through their own web site, they wouldn't have the problem of automated content takedowns due to copyright assertions. If you publish on YouTube, you have to live with the eccentricities of YouTube's automated systems, whether or not they are always fair to you.

Re:No (5, Informative)

acedtect (183616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383568)

Just to be clear we, at Tech news Today have posted a counter-notice and YouTube requires our show to stay off YouTube for 10 days to give UMG the opportunity to decide whether to take us to court or not. We also did not submit this story to Slashdot.

Re:No (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383746)

I agree 100%. Google just has to cover themselves so they don't get shut down completely. There's no way to police any of this, so they have an automated system. Nobody really screams that loud when a valid email gets sent to the spam filter. This is basically the same thing. If you don't like it, well, host your videos on your own web server. You don't have to worry about somebody else taking the video down without asking you. Youtube is great for teenagers posting videos of their latest skateboard tricks, but don't try to run your whole business off of it. Post content on your own servers and let people watch it from there. Also, post it on youtube as well if you want that for extra marketing and exposure, but make sure you have a site with your own content on it as well.

No more "Fair Use" law? (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383330)

Now that big companies will just bludgeon people with lawsuits, is it possible to even defend oneself with the Fair Use doctrine? Note, I am talking about only those that are within Fair Use boundaries, which this case sounds like. I do movie reviews as a hobby, am I going to get hit with a suit for posting some screen captures now? Or quoting dialogue?

Forget the Corporate States of America, welcome to the Judicial State of America.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (3, Interesting)

gral (697468) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383398)

I am sure you can take it to court, and they will side with you. The problem is, it is so easy for them to claim DMCA against a site, have it taken down. You then have to go through costly litigation to prove you were right in the first place.

Now if the courts allow for you to turn around and charge for the number of people that would have seen your item if they hadn't used DMCA, now THAT would be interesting to see.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383494)

Problem is he probably can't cover the court costs. They might even manage to pay their way into having it done in a different state. They may not even WARN you, having had someone else sign your summons (if they even sent one in the first place), and win by default. Sure, that shouldn't work, but its happened before and they're rich enough not to get so much as a slap for such an act.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (2)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383496)

The problem is, it is so easy for them to claim DMCA against a site, have it taken down. You then have to go through costly litigation to prove you were right in the first place.

False.
You file the counterclaim that is provided for in the DMCA, indicating that to the best of your knowledge you are not infringing copyright. The ISP must then put the content back up If the copyright holder still wants to pursue the matter, it is up to them to take it to court.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (1)

ElBeano (570883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383604)

You file the counterclaim that is provided for in the DMCA, indicating that to the best of your knowledge you are not infringing copyright. The ISP must then put the content back up If the copyright holder still wants to pursue the matter, it is up to them to take it to court.

Nevertheless, at THAT moment the legal exposure and costs become quite real. What we need is a private consortium of fair use defenders to fund these counterclaims, or something like it, to even the scales of power.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383670)

... and which point you have to go through the costly litigation. The problem we keep running into is just one inherent in the legal system: It can easily get so time-consuming and expensive doing anything that smaller corporations and individuals just can't afford to play that game.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (1)

gral (697468) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383898)

I wasn't aware of the counterclaim provision. Thanks.

My original point still stands. Until there are some repercussions for RIAA and others to issue DMCA, it is still going to take time and money for VALID uses of Fair Use.

From what I understand, RIAA has never liked the Fair Use provisions, and have tried on numerous occasions to get those abolished. It seems if they can use DMCA take downs each time for valid Fair Use it could become a problem.

Re:No more "Fair Use" law? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383632)

Unless your site has a lot of traffic, it's still unlikely to cover the expense of your lost time in fighting the decision. For the hobbyist that would be bad news.

DMCA Gives the Right (5, Interesting)

pscottdv (676889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383340)

should a music company have the right to have a news podcast removed on copyright grounds, when it's not even clear that said company has had any copyrights violated?

Should they? No. But the DMCA gives them the right (or at least the ability) to do so. It gives it to you, too. My understanding is that anyone can file a DMCA takedown notice.

I have often wondered what would happen if people started filing DMCA takedown notices by the millions on major websites against the big content producers. There doesn't seem to be any penalty for filing bogus notices.

Re:DMCA Gives the Right (5, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383518)

I have often wondered what would happen if people started filing DMCA takedown notices by the millions on major websites against the big content producers. There doesn't seem to be any penalty for filing bogus notices.

If individuals started doing this, I assure you there would be consequences for them. The feds, the MPAAs and RIAAs and their members, and even YouTube itself understands that this law can be abused, but that privilege is for the modern nobility, not the masses.

Re:DMCA Gives the Right (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383694)

At a guess, the notices would be ignored entirely. In theory that opens the sites up for being sued if the claim is valid, but that would be prohibatively expensive and they know it.

A theory about the megaupload song... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383344)

None of the celebrities sang anything. The words were just dubbed in. The whole thing is a hoax. Watch the video again, but be a bit more sceptical. There's no way a warez website got permission (and participation) from all those celebrities.

Re:A theory about the megaupload song... (0)

Anonymous Codger (96717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383400)

Thank you for your insightful comment, Universal astroturfer. I hope they're paying you well.

Re:A theory about the megaupload song... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383786)

How are we supposed to watch the video again, after Universial had it pulled? Your claim does have much plausibility - I too find it unlikely so many major artists would endorse Megaupload - but it can't be proven either way without looking at the video. Which, amusingly, is now only accessible by going to pirate websites to download it.

That's it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383392)

I'm a pacifist, but the carry on of Universal has pissed me off so much that it's time their weapons of mass deletion were used against them. DMCA the fuck back out of them! Hit them where it hurts them - in the pocket.

Re:That's it (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383732)

A boycott is an interesting proposal, but with a fatal flaw: It's an extreme minority issue. Right now there are probably more people campaigning for shops to say 'Merry Christmas' than there are willing to join any kind of music boycott.

Clear instance of fair use. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383394)

A short clip used for commentary in a 45 minute long podcast is clearly fair-use even by the most restrictive standards. Shame on UMG and Youtube.

Music Video Irrelevant (5, Insightful)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383396)

The copyright status of the clip used is irrelevant. The situation is this: Media conglomerates have been given editorial control of Youtube, subject only to the ability of posters to retain high-priced legal counsel. They can and do use these powers to further their own agenda.

Re:Music Video Irrelevant (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383442)

Then the proper solution is to provide a way for video producers to self-host video and for viewers to discover video without the aid of YouTube services, so that no single entity has such a huge target painted on its behind.

Re:Music Video Irrelevant (0)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383720)

There is this new technology called bittorrent. I hear its great for distributing large amounts of data.

Good luck getting BitTorrent installed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383948)

Good luck getting a BitTorrent client installed on all users' machines, even on all those that can view YouTube. And good luck getting people to find your video that is distributed through BitTorrent. Have you an idea for a solution to these problems?

Re:Music Video Irrelevant (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383764)

The self-hosting part just got a lot easier with HTML5. I've recently had to switch my own videos from youtube to my own site, after it's content identifier decided that Gertie the Dinosaur (Produced in 1914, creator dead more than 70 years) is still under copyright.

Re:Music Video Irrelevant (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383918)

The self-hosting part just got a lot easier with HTML5.

Sure, a solution could be built around HTML5, but one still has to make a script to transcode to YouTube H.264 240p, H.264 360p, H.264 480p, H.264 720p, H.264 1080p, WebM 240p, WebM 360p, WebM 480p, WebM 720p, and WebM 1080p, and then choose one of those to serve to the viewer. Go with WebM only, and tablet users and IE 8 users won't be able to watch it; go with H.264 only, and users of Fx/Chrome/Opera won't be able to watch it. Go with a too high resolution, and viewers with slow connections won't be able to watch it; go with a too low resolution, and people will complain about the video being not even as sharp as TV.

CORRECTION (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383978)

"transcode to YouTube" should have been "transcode like YouTube"

Re:Music Video Irrelevant (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384380)

True. Almost. Actually, you don't have to worry too much about choosing the right codec - you still have to offer at least two video files, but video-tag capable browsers are capable enough to pick a format they support if you offer a list. That means all you need to worry about is resolution. I've been having trouble getting WebM to work quite right so far (It's still a young format), so my own videos are currently Theora/Ogg/Ogg. Firefox plays them fine. You can see the progress-so-far at http://birds-are-nice.me/video/ [birds-are-nice.me] - but I've got a long way to go yet before it's ready to link with the site proper, not even done a layout yet and only got two test-videos up.

I think a greater problem is going to be getting traffic. Youtube isn't just a video hosting service - its recormendation engine is a powerful feature in itsself, and can serve as the means by which a very obscure producer gains recognition. Without such an engine, they may just languish in obscurity.

In the positive though, no youtube comments. I am not the only one to notice the strange effect: Youtube comments are overwhelmingly dumb. Not even just a little dumb, like blog comments often are, but some of the greatest concentration of stupid on the internet. I don't know quite how this happened.

Re:Music Video Irrelevant (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384074)

You can appeal the decision with YouTube, apparently its quite common for them to flag public domain content. In one instance, YouTube flagged a user posted video containing the public domain music they used for their "YouTube 1911" April Fool's Joke!

Leo is the man (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383692)

Leo Laporte makes fun of this happening, and it's happened before. He'll play a few seconds of some song while talking about something on TWiT, and joke on how that will get the show yanked from YouTube. It falls pretty clearly into the realm of fair use, I think YouTube has been knocked around so much by copyright lawsuits they just do whatever the big conglomerates say.

Here is why I have no problem with this (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383740)

We live in a great world where a third party will pay for the storage and bandwidth to have other watch my lame videos. This is great because it costs me nothing to publish my videos. There is no risk and no expense beyond the production costs which can also be negligible.

Why is this possible? Because bandwidth is cheap, because storage is cheap, and because there is little risk of legal costs. The US Government has said that as long as a service take down any content that they have been notified violates a copyright, the service is not subject to any legal action. This is good for free services such as Youtube because it eliminates the risk and allows them to accept videos without any filtering.

If one wishes, one can set up one's own video sharing service, pay for the bandwidth, and the legal liability associated with potentially violating copyright. No one is going to stop the setup of such a service, and such a service can be free to ignore takedown notices. It is simply not in the best interest of Youtube, the preeminent distributor of lame and random video, to so do.

Of course many would say why not make the copyright holders for frivolous take down notices. I would support that. But even that would require companies like Google to invest in legal action that may not generate a profit, or at least might generate a greater loss than complying with takedown notices. Also, if policing video got too expensive, then copyright holder might put real money into lobbying congress and buy even worse legislation. This is, after all, the congress that has put more earmarks that funnel tax payer money to their families and buddies than almost any other. And this after a pledge not to so do.

Re:Here is why I have no problem with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38384330)

Its supposed to work like this under the current DMCA:

-Party A submits a take-down notice asserting a copyright violation by Party B, host removes material
-Party B submits a counter-notice challenging Party A's original take-down, host returns material
-Party A then takes Party B to court to settle the matter if they feel they have cause.

Surely the Fair Use clause applies? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38383870)

Given that the clip was used for journalistic purposes?

Or are we redefining what makes journalism? From Wikipedia: "Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues and trends to a broad audience in a timely fashion."

To send the same information to a broad audience requires a broadcast. Thus completing the definition. From printing newspaper to uploading video to Youtube to updating your Facebook wall for the benefit of your 5,000 "friends".

Just because you don't have a press pass doesn't make you any less a journalist than any News International keyboard monkey.

Terms of Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38383876)

If people are upset about Youtube yanking perfectly legitimate fair use videos, then STOP USING YOUTUBE.
They have the "right" to remove any video they feel like, without litigation, via 6F of their Terms of Service. http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms

This is a youtube problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38384086)

This wouldn't have happened, if they used a real ISP.

Youtube is a known quantity. If you put anything on youtube, you know that they will immediately fold upon receiving a DMCA notice, rather than contacting you and going through the counter-notice procedure. They are too big, or don't have the time, or maybe just not the will, to go through the whole thing. (And that's their right; they don't owe you hosting service.) Whatever their problem is, they definitely do have it, and have had it for a long time. They have a known vulnerability to DMCA exploits and the hole just isn't ever getting fixed.

Youtube is practically why the notice mechanism is often referred to as a guilty-until-proven-innocent policy. DMCA notices aren't really biased in that manner; it's youtube's policy that causes it to work out that way. It's a match made in hell. Use almost any other ISP and you'll find that fraudulent DMCA notices used for vandalism (which is what seems to have happened here), can be resisted.

Those who want consequences for bogus DMCA takedowns, I offer to you my words "fraudulent DMCA notices used for vandalism." If Tech News Today thinks they can demonstrate financial harm (how?) as a result of Universal's activities, maybe they have grounds for action.

SOPA == Chinese (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384268)

And they get mad when we compare SOPA to Chinese censorship using the same tools.

DMCA mass mail in protest!? (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38384372)

Wonder if YouTube can be taken down by a mass submission of DMCA notices. A million notice march?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>