×

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!

NASA's Own Video of Curiosity Landing Crashes Into a DMCA Takedown

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the we-own-it-now dept.

Space 597

derekmead writes "NASA's livestream coverage of the Curiosity rover's landing on Mars was practically as flawless as the landing itself. But NASA couldn't prepare for everything. An hour or so after Curiosity's 1.31 a.m. EST landing in Gale Crater,the space agency's main YouTube channel had posted a 13-minute excerpt of the stream. Ten minutes later, the video was gone, replaced with the message: 'This video contains content from Scripps Local News, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. Sorry about that.' That is to say, a NASA-made video posted on NASA's official YouTube channel, documenting the landing of a $2.5 billion Mars rover mission paid for with public taxpayer money, was blocked by YouTube because of a copyright claim by a private news service."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

597 comments

Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (5, Insightful)

TXISDude (1171607) | about a year and a half ago | (#40895957)

This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true. Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay, and NASA being a government agency will not pursue it. This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues - and timely, not is days or weeks, but with the same SLA as the automated system. Right now, it is almost like the recording industry is calling the shots and everyone is guilty unless they prove they are not infringing. In the US, shouldn't the system be the other way around?

awesome publicity for public awareness (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896081)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal thing. This is more of a corporate thing, and when it's the coprs vs the people, it works the other way around, "guilty until proven innocent". (and then "guilty again after you prove your innocence, rinse and repeat")

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures. Heck, I'd like to see them do what the **RA like to do. NASA file a counterclaim and get it back, Scripps file another notice, repeat that a few times and watch Youtube auto-suspend NASA's youtube account for three abuse claims. (doesn't matter if they are reversed, three claims is all it takes) That would generate some AWESOME publicity!

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (2)

s73v3r (963317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896199)

It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.

I just cannot see that happening. While it is within the realm of possibility, Occam's razor would suggest otherwise.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896379)

It seems more-likely that Scripps contracted with Youtube to automatically have any content removed that has an "audio signature" which matches Scripps own uploaded videos. In other words, no people involved.

I've heard radio host Alex Jones complain about this. Some corporation (CBS Radio if I recall correctly) has contracted a DJ for their national news starting in 2011. However they claim ownership of ALL recordings by that DJ, both present and past. So youtube is automatically removing all videos of said DJ, including interviews on Jones' show from ten years ago. There's no person involved... just a computer doing automatic filtering & automatic takedowns.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896307)

And once again you guys blow it all out of proportion. Nobody is "guilty" here. All that NASA (or anybody else) needs to do is reply to the DMCA takedown request with this response: "This material does not infringe upon anybody's copyright."

Then the video, song, picture, or text will be restored. After that point it is up to the owner is he/she/it wants to pursue a legal court case. THAT is the point where your innocence or guilt is decided. (And yes you are "presumed innocent" during the trial.) Fortunately most companies do not waste their time with a court case, so after your video/et cetera is restored you no longer need to worry.

This process is a LOT better than what we had before. Youtube would yank your video and you had no way to get it restored. At least now under the DMCA you have the legally-protected right to get your video put back up. (Else youtube would be guilty of a criminal act & could be prosecuted.)

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896445)

Wow that is a wonderful Myopic view you have through those rose colored glasses.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (4, Informative)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896477)

TFA says that the process isn't exactly as you describe:

According to the DMCA, if a user disputes a claim from a copyright holder, YouTube should make a video available again, at least until the copyright holder files a second claim to take the disputed video offline again. Instead, YouTube requires the alleged violator to submit a signed counter-claim, under penalty of perjury. (There’s no such penalty for those claiming violations to begin with.) YouTube forwards the claim to the supposed copyright owner and waits ten days for a response. “If we do not receive such notification, we may reinstate the material,” says YouTube, emphasis mine.

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896527)

Nobody is "guilty" here. All that NASA (or anybody else) needs to do is reply to the DMCA takedown request with this response: "This material does not infringe upon anybody's copyright."

The organization who misrepresented their ownership of the file is guilty of perjury. The chances of those criminals being punished are negligible. Is that not a problem?

Re:awesome publicity for public awareness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896327)

It's be awesome up to the point where someone realized that they were being asshats on purpose and the cooler heads would realize that hyperbolic abuse claims to make a talking point about legislation is fairly trollish and not worth considering.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896161)

The problem is that YouTube is trying to comply with a flawed law. The law is flawed enough that real compliance is impossible, but they are trying to put in enough CYA anyway. When you have a law that is as flawed as the DMCA you are going to have problems. ...and those problems will generally be a mistake in favor of the corporation's who purchased the law. As Jim Neighbors says, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896439)

The DMCA law is not flawed. It is better than what we had before when youtube just yanked your video & you had no way to get it restored. You just got screwed. At least under DMCA you have a legally-protected right over your videos. Youtube MUST restore your video, else they will be guilty of a criminal act (under the DMCA).

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (4, Informative)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896523)

Hmm...

Youtube Founded: February 14th 2005.
DMCA effective: October 28th 1998.

I think there may be a problem with your argument.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896259)

are you going to pay this human enough money to be educated, or can we expect the same shit to happen when a human doesn't realize that NASA's property is being claimed by some corporation? how long do you think before Average Joe screws up worse than the automated system leaving you with nothing else to blame? the real problem is with the way we treat digital property. stop trying to cut off hydra heads and go for the heart.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896353)

You can pay him alot. The trick is the funding, and the funding solution would actually solve the problem. Punative damages for false positives. An automatic system can't analyze fair use. It's simply looking for snipets. If we penalized the big content distributors for these automated shotgun takedown notices we could actually put the ownus back on the rights holder to enforce their rights and only their rights and not incentivize them to be nothing more than a content bully taking down content that even they don't own.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (3, Informative)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896279)

Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896295)

This is the fault of YouTube LLC's incompetent engineers. The site is a copyright infringement fest [youtube.com] but for some reason it's always innocent bystanders who get hit by their stupid tagging algorithm.

To make things worse they have started asking people to use their Real Name (tm), which has resulted in a bunch of users canceling their G+ account.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896303)

This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true.

... as required by law.

Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay...

You must be referring to That Company Which Must Not Be Named, run by the Dark Lord [censored], and [pronoun] legions of [redacted] lawyers! Of course, it's so obvious! /snark His name is Cary Sherman, and he doesn't speak for the industry; He speaks for a very small portion of it which profits a great deal from the rest of it being forced into using its monopoly. Subtle difference.

This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues -

There is a human loop to fix these issues, but it's not in your ISP's office but your legislator's. And, as I understand it, they're paid a great deal of money to not care about you, as a not-a-corporation person, as opposed to a person person.

and timely, not is days or weeks, but with the same SLA as the automated system.

You want people who are capable of making decisions in nanoseconds? Look, I'm all for overclocking the human brain, but to date nobody has been able to figure out how to get into the BIOS, which means either it's not possible or (more horrifyingly) the secret of life, universe, and everything, was built by Compaq.

Right now, it is almost like the recording industry is calling the shots and everyone is guilty unless they prove they are not infringing.

They paid a lot of money to be able to due that, and you didn't. It's my understanding that the general public is okay with this, since they haven't stormed the castle and killed the royalty.

In the US, shouldn't the system be the other way around?

Why just here? Are we somehow more deserving of a harmonious and fair judiciary and incorruptable politicians and a transparent political process than other countries? I'm pretty sure those are universally good values that every citizen, in every country, wished they had.

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (2)

autocannon (2494106) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896395)

It's my understanding that the general public is okay with this, since they haven't stormed the castle and killed the royalty.

So you're advocating that the only way for the laws to better reflect the "people" as opposed to corporations is for a civil uprising resulting in murder of the "ruling" class?

Re:Unintended Consequences? Unfortunately - Not! (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896449)

There is an answer. Any false claim like this results in a $100,00 automatic fine that has 80% paid to the person who's video was taken down and 20% to youtube.

PUNISH people for DMCA take downs if they are false. Negative reinforcment works better than any other.

shut Scripps down for 24 hours (3, Interesting)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#40895961)

sauve for the goose is sauve for the gander.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896029)

This. There needs to start being a penalty for false accusations, or they might as well accuse everyone at all times, because hey, what's there to lose?

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896375)

Well there already is. Nasa will probably not pursue this, but they could very well sue for damages. On the other hand they really could use the funding

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (5, Interesting)

budgenator (254554) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896419)

Actually I was thinking along the same lines, IANAL but it occurred to me that Copyright law gives entities the right to control the copying of a work, a false take-down notice infringes on the copyright holder's right to control the distribution of a work, and since NASA is a US government agency it does not hold the copyright but passes it to the public domain, or to "We The People". Perhaps we should fine a good shyster and have him file a class action against scripts for infringing on the copyright of "We The People", a quarter of a million dollars times 300 million people, should get their attention.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (-1, Flamebait)

bob zee (701656) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896041)

is it possible for us to slashdot their website? http://www.scripps.com/ [scripps.com] nobody will see this though because i have such shitty karma. i suck at everything.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896149)

Mods, delete parent comment. He has a long history of disagreeing with slashdot groupthink and sucks at everything.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896429)

And thereby raking in lots of money for them through advertisement or at least page views. Being slashdotted isn't that bad anymore, if you aren't some small company with limited data. I would rather spread the news: "Local newspaper claims ownership of mars landing" sounds like a nice headline for other newspapers

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (1, Offtopic)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896497)

>>> http://www.scripps.com/ [scripps.com] nobody will see this though because i have such shitty karma. i suck at everything.

(wipes away tears). "Anakin..... you're breaking my heart."
Here's your pity fuck. I mean + 1 insightful.

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896047)

Ah yes. A quote from the famous "Opera Sauvage"

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896049)

Sauce, shurely?

Re:shut Scripps down for 24 hours (3, Insightful)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896245)

Hmm, if I had a few more connections, things would be about to get very inconvenient at Scripps. Wouldn't it be a shame if the FBI raided them and shut them down completely for a few days in order to gather evidence? And you wouldn't want to be their tax attorney when the IRS comes knocking next season. When are we going to treat fraudulent takedown notices as the criminal activity they are?

WORKING AS INTENDED !! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896005)

Don't fault that which is proven to work !! If your work were being pirated you'd want it to work the very same way !!

Re:WORKING AS INTENDED !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896101)

And will someone please think of the children!

Re:WORKING AS INTENDED !! (2)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896247)

Don't fault that which is proven to work !!

False positives indicate that it is not working correctly.

Just because it accomplishes task A, that does not mean it works if tasks B,C,D,E,....etc do not work.

Think about it like an anti-virus program. If your anti-virus removed the virus you would not describe the anti-virus program to be working if it destroyed all of your files along with the virus, even those that were not infected.

There is a $500 fine for this (5, Insightful)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896031)

There is a provision that for fraudulent DMCA take-down that there is a penalty of $500. We should increase this to $50,000 immediately to prevent future abuses.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896077)

I'd really hate to be Youtube in such a situation. They'd essentially be damned either way.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (2)

Isca (550291) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896179)

No, not really. They would force the accuser to pay the fee. I don't know about 50k, but 5k should do the trick. There should be some cheap outsourced labor somewhere who can add a small amount of intelligence to tell if the video really is what the script thinks it is for the copyright holders. And if some of that fee was returned to the person who had it removed then we'd have incentive to go after it each time.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (3, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896203)

They basically have two choices:

- Keep shutting down all youtube videos that anyone asks for them to shut down. This is bad as we can see.
- Not shut down on a simple notice and then be found responsible for ALL copyrighted content on their server. This is worse as we can imagine.

The decision is very simple: bad is better than worse.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896315)

OR...hire a legal clerk to vet just the video the automated process flags as infringement before it is forwarded to the ISP.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896235)

The fine wouldn't be for YouTube. It'd be for the piles of shit that are abusing the copyright system.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (5, Interesting)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896097)

$500 for private individuals. 10% of global turnover for incorporated companies. Seems fair.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (2)

preaction (1526109) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896317)

The law, in its magnanimity, does not discriminate. Can't give one fine to one person and another fine to another (corporate) person.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (4, Informative)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896479)

A company is not a person. It is subject to a couple of different rules already.

PERCENTAGE based fines!! (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896399)

Monetary penalties should be PERCENTAGE of income.

In other nations they have this concept in commonly known laws (speeding tickets;) Americans do not so they never think of applying it to anything.

We have people who think nothing of the fine pay it and continue to break the law so then we have to create more complex laws to attempt to deal with these special cases --- IF it ever gets noticed at all.

Bill Gates should pay $100,000 dollars for a speeding ticket. Corporations are well known for making far more profit than their settlements and then continuing to do evil things; just look at Monsanto... even our political conventions prepay the city with insurance against lawsuits for violating civil rights! It is so bad that our ruling parties "bribe" exceptions!

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896111)

It would be better for the claims simply to be made on penalty of perjury, so people who make abusive claims can be prosecuted. Counter-claims must already be made with such a statement.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (-1, Troll)

tgd (2822) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896113)

There is a provision that for fraudulent DMCA take-down that there is a penalty of $500. We should increase this to $50,000 immediately to prevent future abuses.

Why do you assume its a fraudulent take-down? Perhaps it is, but perhaps it actually did contain licensed content.

I'm not sure I saw the video in question, but a similar 12-13 minute video I watched this morning amounted to a screen capture of browsers with NASA's streaming *and* other sites at the same time. (And would be justified in being taken down because of it.)

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (2)

s73v3r (963317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896253)

Why do you assume its a fraudulent take-down?

How the fuck would Scripps Media have a valid copyright claim in the least over something from NASA's livestream?

And no, your example would NOT be justified.

Correction: No there isn't (3, Informative)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896123)

I really thought there was. Anyway I was up all night. [xkcd.com]

We should make the fine exist for anyone filing false DMCA claims. The law only states that they may be liable for court costs and lawyer fees, but lets make a $50,000 civil penalty too.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896153)

"smithers, fetch my change purse."

"all I have with me today is a $100k bill. can you make change?"

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (1)

palindrome (34830) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896313)

"No need for change - it'll cover the other 199 bulk accusations you made that were equally unfounded."

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896171)

or they should have to prove it is theirs before it is taken down. Innocent until proven guilty is the world we should want to live in.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896173)

I know, it is complete and utter bullshit that the penalty for such a thing is so terribly low.

Even $20k would be better. $500 is even cheap for someone in work! (given they aren't in financial ruin already thanks to the banking system wrecking EVERYTHING)

Such a shame nothing will happen here. Not even black helicopters and sky ninjas from the government or anything.
Just a "woops we can't be responsible for youtubes system, we undone it, thank you come again"
NASA should ban them from showing any NASA content for 10 years, see how they like that.
Oh wait, nobody will care because the world is so thick and only care about reality TV or what celebrity died this year. I hate the world sometimes.
I guess we can hope NASA find aliens in the next 10 years. Take THAT future-Scripps!

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896195)

It's my understanding that so long as the notice is sent 'in good faith' it's not fraudulent. Meaning, if the news organisation believed it was protecting its property then the claim isn't fraudulent - just an oversight.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (2)

palindrome (34830) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896341)

I can see that.

"Oh, sorry, I thought that was our footage of the Mars landing. We had a crew there too. Simple misunderstanding, as I'm sure you can understand."

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896271)

If the penalties for infringement are going to continue to be ridiculous, the penalties for blatant, fraudulent abuse should be at least as ridiculous to discourage this sort of thing.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (4, Insightful)

SvnLyrBrto (62138) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896475)

Forget fines. DMCA takedown demands are supposedly filed "under penalty of perjury". Last I heard, perjury is a prosecutable offense. Force all DMCA takedowns to be filed in the name of a specific responsible individual. And start tossing those individuals in prison for these fraudulent takedowns. *Then* I'll be impressed.

Re:There is a $500 fine for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896513)

This is one very important event in human history. Not because of what it represents, but the way it's witnessed by everyone on the planet.

$500 or $50,000 is all it's worth?

Blame atheists (1, Flamebait)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896039)

They send ships to heaven while forgetting that here is the legal hell.

And nothing will come of it (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896045)

...since it's a civil issue and the US Gov't won't bother to pursue it.

It's a shame we can't get together, as taxpayers, and sue on behalf of the gov't.

Re:And nothing will come of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896151)

All government actions are described as being on behalf of the citizens (despite the reality of the actions), so all you're doing is trying to create an endless loop of motivation. Sure, it should be as deadly to an AI as a paradox, but the entire law industry is like an army of Wheatleys.

Scrpps Media Company (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896069)

I know Ohio is boring and all but if they want the attention: http://www.scripps.com/heritage/contact-us

what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896071)

Seems like a taxpayer-funded public-domain NASA video should be flagged "cannot DMCA", unless YouTube somehow doesn't think NASA is credible and/or responsible enough to allow this.

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag? (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896215)

Seems like a taxpayer-funded public-domain NASA video should be flagged "cannot DMCA", unless YouTube somehow doesn't think NASA is credible and/or responsible enough to allow this.

What makes you think NASA is any more responsible than anyone else?

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896291)

Then corporations will get the same flag because, hey, they must be credible with all those lawyers and money. Then when a corporation does steal your stuff (which happens disturbingly often), you're SOL.

Re:what, no "NOT-DMCA" flag? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896435)

So flag it "No Copyright/Do Not DMCA".

It would be better for NASA to just copyright their stuff and then license it for all educational/informational use. That would keep others from grabbing it and taking credit/applying their own copyright somewhere down the road.

Copyright violations (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896099)

That's the problem with the copyright filters at Youtube and elsewhere: Copyright is based on the production of a work, not the work itself. So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. So the content might be "Curiousity rover team hugging", which can't be copyrighted, but the production of it is. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

Which is a problem in a digital environment: How can you tell whether something came from the original (public domain) source, or the re-broadcaster? YouTube's auto-filters obviously can't. There's no way to tell original from copy; And guess who gets sued if they don't block when they could have? Which underscores another problem with copyright law: Presumed guilt. DMCA notices force providers to take down potentially infringing content. Not actually infringing, potentially-infringing. It's a presumption of guilt; Your innocence must then be established later. And with technology like this, how can a judge, or even yourself, tell the difference between the original 101110101000101110100011 and the copied 101110101000101110100011?

Re:Copyright violations (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896207)

I don't think this is technically right. I could be wrong, but I think NASA doesn't make this footage public domain for the very reason copyleft exists and you bring up in your comment. They don't want people claiming copyright of their work.

Re:Copyright violations (3, Informative)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896349)

Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites

Still Images, Audio Recordings, Video, and Related Computer Files

NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Copyright violations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896405)

NASA doesn't have a choice. NASA produced work is a work of the United States Government and is automatically in the public domain.

Re:Copyright violations (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896217)

So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive.

This area isn't actually that clear. You probably cannot rebroadcast the version that has NBC's logo on it, but not because this footage has been re-copyrighted by the addition of the logo. Rather, it's just that the logo itself is copyrighted, and you can't broadcast that. You can, however, remove the logo and broadcast NBC's version of the public-domain footage sans logo. Assuming, at least that they broadcast essentially the original PD video, and have not made any other changes sufficiently creative to produce a new copyright.

I'm not sure if it's been litigated with film, but in the art world, that was litigated in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. [wikipedia.org] , which found that scanning a public-domain artwork does not make your scan copyrighted. So I don't believe simply rebroadcasting NASA footage creates a new copyrighted version of the footage. Maybe if you do some creative editing, then that specific sequence of cuts is copyrighted.

Re:Copyright violations (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896391)

The problem is, sufficiently creative these days has been so narrowly defined as to mean "But ours is off-white instead of muave. See! That's creative!" -- and the courts uphold this. That's one of the problems with our archaic case law / common law judiciary: Once you win a case against an opponent that can't defend themselves, you can then use that precident against an opponent who can, and probably win. The system assumes that both the defense and prosecution are fairly represented, and the judge is impartial in every case. Of course it isn't, so over time, the system biases itself politically and economically in favor of whomever is in power. This was probably by design... a testament to miserable Britain.

Re:Copyright violations (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896361)

if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

NBC, or whomever, can sue for whatever they want. That doesn't mean the case has merit or is a correct interpretation of the law. That's what the court is for. You can't rightfully take public domain content, slap a logo on it, and claim copyright over the content.

Which is a problem in a digital environment: How can you tell whether something came from the original (public domain) source, or the re-broadcaster? YouTube's auto-filters obviously can't.

Which is why Youtube's filters should not be trusted. I don't know if anyone has a right to force YT to change, so we need an alternative that is actually going to protect rights holders, rather than simply accepting false claims and acting brashly as judge and jury.

Re:Copyright violations (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896471)

That's the problem with the copyright filters at Youtube and elsewhere: Copyright is based on the production of a work, not the work itself. So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. So the content might be "Curiousity rover team hugging", which can't be copyrighted, but the production of it is. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

That's completely wrong. Copyright gives the rights to the creator of an original work. If you rebroadcast, you're neither creator nor is it original. There's no way to twist this into giving you rights.

Deny Scripts the right to future government videos (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896115)

If they are going to claim ownership of the video then the appropriate response would be to deny them access to any and all government video feeds. It requires no civil claim, is perfectly legal and will harm them more than the $500 penalty. It will also serve as a warning to companies that send out DMCA takedown notices at the drop of a hat.

Re:Deny Scripts the right to future government vid (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896289)

At least, cut off Scripp's access until the copyright ownership and rights issues can be satisfactorily resolved. You can't just unilaterally cut someone off. But you can do so pending the resolution of issues that could lead to further legal trouble.

Re:Deny Scripts the right to future government vid (1)

void* (20133) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896461)

Sending a DMCA take down doesn't require having access to the video.

So what? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896121)

Just see it on Nasa's site: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=149933921

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896451)

This seems to be the most important comment on here so far.

We have NASA that uses taxpayer money for servers, but people shy away from their website because it is unfamiliar.

So, NASA sends it to a private company that hosts webcam videos for free, and that private company puts ads at the beginning of the video, and ads in popup windows over the video. You would think no one would use the version with ads all over, but people like what is familiar, so it gets lots of views.

Then, since it is subject to takedown notices (the same way as your hot neighbor's webcam is), some partner in Youtube's giant network requests it to come down, and it goes down with no questions asked. These takedowns happen all the time, and rarely are DMCA takedowns, regardless of what the text may say. Basically, any one that pays Google enough can become a "trusted partner" and tell them which free videos should be removed.

Youtube is perfect for sharing thousands of hours of crap when you have no other platform for sharing your video. It's like today's equivalent of Geocities. It's not the proper place for hosting important content from NASA. If you choose to use Youtube (or Geocities) to find NASA content, you my get lucky and find what you are looking for, but if so, it's just lucky coincidence.

TL;DR: Not News.

Can we get consequences added to the next rev DCMA (2)

dlingman (1757250) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896143)

I'd really like to see consequences for a truly false DCMA takedown. For example - remove the offender from all major search engine results for a week or so, with a notice that their site is being blocked due to their claiming copyright on things that weren't theirs to begin with. I've had Youtube block a video made of my daughter playing piano because of the "use of a copyrighted musical performance." Last time I looked, copyright had expired on that particular piece of music several hundred years ago. Sigh.

Scripps perfectly justified! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896189)

If Scripps is going to go to all the trouble and expense of sending a camera crew to Mars to get the shots, NASA should respect property rights and not steal that valuable footage.

Corporatism as its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896225)

(Some preferred companies, like Universal Music Group, can even block videos immediately, without filing a claim.)

Now, consider this, if one of us were to flag a Scripps, Cox, Universal, CNN, or who ever's video as violating the DMCA, does anyone think that it would be taken down?

What I'm saying is, even if YOU shot the video with your own camera and some big corp flags it as a DMCA violation, Youtube will just take it down - no questions asked. On the other hand, if you had some video that was stolen by some big corp (they call it stealing. What can't I?) and used it in their video, I really don't think that Youtube would give it the same consdieration.

Remember (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896243)

All NASA footage, photos, etc. are public domain. No exceptions. It's traditional to credit NASA for photos, etc. but not legally necessary.

This is merely meant to inform those that didn't know, and is not meant to make a point or argument of any kind.

Close to home. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896257)

I operate a youtube channel with just over 100,000 subscribers. I almost had my account permanently suspended when several of my government produced, copyright-free videos of 1940s military footage were flagged by some no-name spanish news station. These videos were converted directly from library archive originals. My only saving grace was one of my subscribers was a lower end employee of Google at the time and was able to contact the right people.

What would have happened to me had I not been so lucky?

Future headline (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896283)

I think Scripps Local News broadcast building is about to have a satellite or rocket land on it. Don't fuck with NASA lol.

Re:Future headline (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896331)

"Sorry about that. We just got meters and feet mixed up again [Heh, heh]."

DMCA takedown fraud (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896311)

Looks like Scripps Local News have indulged in an open-and-shut case of DMCA fraud and perjury.

However, they most likely will get away with it, as does the infamous quack and anti-vaxxer, Meryl Dorey, who attacks and silences her critics on the Internet by bombarding them with fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Most people find it cheaper to honour the takedown notices, and make it as difficult as possible for victims to file appeals.

DMCA fraud is an old standby of corporate money grubbers and intellectual pissants all over the Internet.

correct me if i'm wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896363)

...but isn't (most) everything the goverment publishes automatically public domain? pretty sure it says that directly in the constitution somewhere...

Works of US government employees are public doman (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896373)

Quoted from Wikipedia, the infallible source of all knowledge:

A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government, but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."

So, let's analyze. What happened here? An employee of Scripps posted the video (due to its public domain status) on their own website. Another employee, whose job it is to monitor Youtube for copyright infringement, detected a Scripps video on a public website. That employee sent the takedown notice, and Youtube complied once Youtube employees had been referred to the Scripps page and had seen the exact same video, hence the "evidence" of "infringement".

Freesound & ccMixter too; YouTube abets copyfr (1)

chiangovitch (1371251) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896385)

I've had multiple videos flagged by YouTube as using music belonging to some commercial entity when in fact they use variously licensed tracks from freesound.org and ccmixter.org. Dunno what to do...

The proper response is (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896431)

We should be pissed at this, but really, we should all be amuzed because it will bring lots of attention to the issue.

Get With It, Slashdot (4, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896467)

I read the summary and concluded that Scripps Local News blocked the video using a false copyright claim. But, then I read the actual article:

"YouTube will block or censor content for one of three reasons: if a video violates the site’s terms of service, if its content is automatically found to match copyrighted content, or if it receives a request from a copyright owner to remove a pirated video." ... Content ID, YouTube’s automated copyright monitor, was meant to be the site’s secret weapon in its fight to stay legal, and make some sense – or cents – out of the video chaos: by algorithmically matching content, robots can, ideally, keep track of which videos contain copyrighted material.

So, basically, the whole takedown might've had nothing to do with Scripps Local News issuing a false takedown, and might've had everything to do with YouTube's robots misidentifying the video. Now, we've got a whole comment section full of people who want to attack Scripps for issuing a false takedown, even though we're not even sure what exactly happened. Please update the summary, Slashdot.

Lucky the DMCA has a provision for false takedowns (2)

godless dave (844089) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896473)

I'm sure Scripps News Service will be assessed the lawful penalty for issuing a false DMCA takedown notice. Also, I believe in the Tooth Fairy.

64 million dollar question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40896487)

Is someone FINALLY going to be sued for perjury on a DMCA notice?

Or is this going to be yet another case to prove that the DMCA was never about the rights of the authors.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...