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!

Blender Foundation Video Taken Down On YouTube For Copyright Violation

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the now-it's-ours dept.

Sony 306

An anonymous reader writes "As if the automated take downs on Youtube weren't already bad enough, today fans of the popular open source 3D software Blender were greeted by a copyright take down notice for their third open movie, Sintel, despite it being released under a Creative Commons license: 'This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.' It is believed that the takedown was a result of Sony Electronics adding Sintel to their official 4k demo pool."

cancel ×

306 comments

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

Help fund next blender open movie (5, Informative)

fxbar (2627205) | about 4 months ago | (#46673157)

https://cloud.blender.org/goos... [blender.org] For only 224 USD you can be in the movies credits. Others have to work their ass off to get into a movies credits, so if your name is not too offending to anybody this is a done deal ;-) Of course there are also cheaper deals.

Re:Help fund next blender open movie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673163)

How much for a "Ryan / Paul 2016" shout out? I do have some corporate donors that're looking for opportunities.

Re:Help fund next blender open movie (2)

fxbar (2627205) | about 4 months ago | (#46673299)

Tell them Blender Institute is the new secret SuperPAC, but pssst, they should not tell anybody, it's secret. Just write checks for some millions, the rest is done by "the institute".

Re:Help fund next blender open movie (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673193)

Meh... I'm in the credits of a news show every damned week. It's not all it's cracked up to be.

Re:Help fund next blender open movie (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673317)

You're telling me. I got a shout-out in a recent obituary, and people are all, like, "why are you trying to make this all about you?"

Re:Help fund next blender open movie (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#46673475)

The name of my non-profit is "Sony Sucks, Ass."

You think that would be OK?

Sony (5, Insightful)

Richy_T (111409) | about 4 months ago | (#46673159)

Nuff said.

Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673177)

ContentID and the secret deals Google has made with industry organizations have made getting anything on Youtube impossible.

Re:Stop using Youtube (3, Insightful)

calzones (890942) | about 4 months ago | (#46673225)

YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.

Meanwhile, Google mandates that people use YouTube with their real name and make it exceedingly difficult to manage multiple accounts.

Fuck em.

Re:Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673375)

If the point of Youtube was decentralizatoon why have they also stored things on centralized servers?

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673393)

Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

I call bullshit on this one. Since Youtube was taken over by Google, server speed has increased immensely, they've moved to HD, they've removed time limits on videos, they've allowed live streaming of shows, they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)... Et cetera.

However, the linking of Google Plus to Youtube does indeed suck.

Re:Stop using Youtube (2)

calzones (890942) | about 4 months ago | (#46673583)

server speed has increased immensely

I never noticed a problem before Google. Even if it were, video is cacheable and buffer-able and I'd prefer to wait if it's the condition for unencumbered content

they've moved to HD

I think this would have happened regardless. Possibly it would have been YouTube's revenue model... to upload or consume HD, you have to pay in some way.

they've removed time limits on videos

I think this would have been similar to the HD situation and would have happened regardless.

they've allowed live streaming of shows

Meh. I don't care much about live streaming. Regardless, the average Joe isn't doing this, it's mostly people with deeper pockets.

they've given away hundreds of millions of dollars through the partnership program they introduced (including many shows that are simply vlogs)

Revenue sharing is only right. You shouldn't credit Google for making money off the content and then sharing some of that revenue with the people that upload it. Because if they didn't, there would be torches and pitchforks headed toward Mountain View. What does suck, though, is their implementation. Upload original content that happens to have some copyrighted song in the background and you don't get a penny. Sorry, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Re:Stop using Youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673853)

Without revenue sharing you get Break/Liveleak/Ebaums etc. bottomless pits of utter crap, there is no incentive to put any effort into a video when it will jsut be uploaded again by 50 other people. A video that contains copyrighted music that was made by some one else is by definition not "original content." If a TV program used a bunch of music without licencing it you bet your ass they would be sued into the ground, why should YouTube operate differently? Their auto-takedown mechanism needs a lot of work but the idea isn't to be malicious its to enforce law that have been in existance for quite some time now in the entertainment industry.

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 months ago | (#46673409)

YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

I don't agree with your opinion, but really this has little to do with the issue at hand.

It's the DMCA takedown laws that allow this.

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Interesting)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 4 months ago | (#46673523)

There needs to be financial penalties for false takedown notices. Right now there is no cost in automated sending of takedown notices.

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673625)

There are, but conveniently enough you have to file your own suit against them rather than the government enforcing it.

Re:Stop using Youtube (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673617)

Not exactly.

Because of multiple lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the recording industry, Google has struck this deal with major stakeholders whereby they can basically bypass what limited due process exists in the DMCA and takedown videos on a whim.

You have no recourse under this system because the DMCA isn't being invoked by these media companies where there is an ability to file a DMCA counter-notice and sue for damages for false copyright assertions.

Re:Stop using Youtube (1, Insightful)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 4 months ago | (#46673659)

But it's because the DMCA takedowns exist that these automated systems exist.

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Interesting)

calzones (890942) | about 4 months ago | (#46673631)

Google fights authority for lots of things. In this case, they happily worked on non-trivial content-tracking and content-scanning code and subsequently handed over the keys to the YouTube kingdom to the MAFIAA.

Why? Because Big Content is now also distributed on YouTube. Google gets a piece of that action. That wouldn't have happened if Google hadn't agreed to clamp down on even the most borderline and questionable copyright claims possible.

Here's an example: my company wrote, directed, filmed, and edited a music video for a lesser known artist who is a friend. We did it pro bono because he is a friend. We posted the video to YouTube and he started using it successfully to promote himself and get more appearances. He's not making any money, but he is increasing his exposure and the hope is someday it will help him get somewhere. In the meantime, the video is garnering views on YouTube and we had it set to monetize. Our aim was to offset our investment even in the most minor way possible. The medium sized publishing company that he used to distribute his track turns out is owned by a bigger publishing company. That bigger company claimed they owned the copyright on the video. Google happily revoked our right to monetize it and gave us the option to take it down or let the bigger company monetize it. There's no one you can actually talk to at Google to dispute these things and it's all automated and played according to rules designed solely to favor the big content companies that revenue share with Google for hosting their commercial YouTube channels.

Since the publishing company didn't enter into any contract with us to produce a video, we don't stand a chance to get any money. We can take down the video and thus hurt our friend, or we can demand he pay us, which also hurts him, or we can leave it there and the publishing company, which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to either write, record or produce the track (they just distribute it, and their reward is a cut of the sales), and which didn't spend a SINGLE DIME to write, record, or produce the video... just gets to sit back and monetize the video. It's peanuts to them. Shit, it's peanuts to us and wouldn't undo the time and money we put into the video. BUT IT'S THE FUCKING PRINCIPLE!

All thanks to Google buying YouTube and then not only not fighting the fight it should have fought, but actually working intentionally to hand it all over to the bad guys.

Re:Stop using Youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673645)

Bullshit, and you have exactly ZERO evidence of your Google Hate.

Re:Stop using Youtube (1)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 4 months ago | (#46673709)

Other than the fact that Google has these crappy copyright policies to begin with?

Re:Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673721)

> Bullshit, and you have exactly ZERO evidence of your Google Hate.

Respectfully, that statement makes no sense.

Re:Stop using Youtube (5, Interesting)

calzones (890942) | about 4 months ago | (#46673647)

Sorry, to clarify: our friend has even spoken with the publishing company. They say they have no control over it. Google just automatically flags content that includes songs that are in the database as being owned by different publishers. Short of paying to get lawyers involved, and everyone loses except the lawyers if that happens, there is no way to alter this automated madness!

Except (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673791)

Let them monetize it and just have them set the account that the money goes into to yours.

Re:Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673813)

Yes there is... use Vimeo or something else that's not youtube!

Re:Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673881)

If your account is in good standing and your video was mis-identified there is an appeal process. It's free and it protects users who consistently upload videos that follow the rules.

Re:Stop using Youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673827)

Sue Google and said "medium sized publishing company" for loss of revenue or STFU.

Re:Stop using Youtube (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673941)

This isn't a problem with Google this is a problem with you, your friend and his publisher. They added the video to the list of media they owned, did they do that because your friend told them they could? Did they do it without his knowlege? What does his contract with the publisher say, they very well may own the copyright to that video now. As far as Google is concerned one person owns that video and the publishing company is a more convincing argument than 'the guys who filmed and editied it for free.' Can the guy who did the mixing for the latest pop album claim that he owns the songs because he made it? Media production is not about what is right or wrong its about following the letter of the law through its nightmarish fractal itterations.

Re:Stop using Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673985)

We'd all benefit from knowing which publishing company this is.

Re:Stop using Youtube (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#46673725)

It's the DMCA takedown laws that allow this.

I don't think that's accurate. The DMCA creates a 'safe haven' for content sites like Youtube, it essentially says, "if you takedown when someone tells you that their content is on your website, then you can't be sued." Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).

The case here is that the studios have made an agreement with Google: they don't have to file a DMCA takedown request at all. They tell Google they don't like it, and they have two options: take all ad profits from the content, or have it taken down. "Take all ad profits from the content" is definitely not part of the DMCA, that's something extra Google came up with (I presume, maybe it was a studio idea).

Re:Stop using Youtube (2)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#46673745)

Prior to the DMCA, sites could be sued for any comment posted on their website, and have a good chance of losing (I don't know any case of this happening before the 1998, if someone else knows, that would be interesting).

In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others. The DMCA didn't change that, but created a much stronger safe harbor which you lose by not obeying the DMCAs takedown provision, thus providing a strong incentive to follow those takedown provisions. A sneaky end-run around the First Amendment; you don't HAVE to obey the whims of those who send takedown letters, but in practice the incentive is overwhelming.

Re:Stop using Youtube (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#46673765)

In fact, the opposite was the case. You were not liable for copyrighted content posted by others.

Are you sure about that? Do you have a source or something?

Re:Stop using Youtube (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#46674015)

No, what the DMCA did was reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The "safe harbor" provision was a marketing ploy to sell the law.

Re:Stop using Youtube (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46673529)

Google trying to push everyone onto G+ was my reason to throw YouTube in the crapper... and the only reason why I even looked for other services, which turned out to be the best move I ever made concerning my online viewing habits.

So, in a twisted kind of way, I think I have to thank Google for trying to push G+ onto their YouTube users. Without, we probably would never have bothered to learn that there's other, and better, ways to get your daily dose of videos.

Linkies please! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673579)

A list of Youtube alternatives would be greatly appreciated. I know only Vimeo.

Re:Stop using Youtube (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673595)

Have you used YouTube lately? It used to be jammed with 1 hit wonders, spam and viral crap. Now YouTube is rewarding and encouraging people to basicly start their own TV show. Of those that are doing so the percentage of intelligent and usefull shows is WAY higher than you find on any TV network, none of it would have happened without Google to back it up.

Re:Stop using Youtube, bullmess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673835)

YouTube was great until Google acquired them. Every "enhancement" and change they make drags it down further.

Of course, without Google, YouTube might not still be around otoh. But the point of YouTube was to decentralize video sharing and take it out of the hands of corporate media giants. Instead, the giants are increasing their stranglehold on YouTube and making it unfeasible for any old Joe to get a tiny kickback for content they upload, as well as crowding out all other competing content.

Meanwhile, Google mandates that people use YouTube with their real name and make it exceedingly difficult to manage multiple accounts.

Fuck em.

This would happen anyway without Gaagle's buy out. What bothers me is this seems to be the only video site, that /. reports about when there are a handful that are dealing with takedown trolls.

That does not excuse Gaagle, which have proven themselves utterly incompetent when it comes to anything 'free' and 'open'...

Guilty until proven innocent. (5, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#46673181)

There needs to be a law against this. Sony should have to pay restitution to Blender.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673205)

Blender is nothing, a piece of dust in comparison to the Corporate Glory that is SONY CORP.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46673535)

I still prefer dust to crap on my carpets, let alone my desk.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673285)

Don't worry the "invisible hand" is working:

http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]

The more DRM they add, the worse their sales are.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46673547)

Who could have predicted that replacing innovation with vendor lock-in could fail?

I think anyone but people with a MBA. Sometimes it seems that part of the MBA curriculum is replacing common sense in a person with hubris and the thinking that people would do what they themselves would never do, because they think everyone's stupider than them.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (0)

stenvar (2789879) | about 4 months ago | (#46673879)

Who could have predicted that replacing innovation with vendor lock-in could fail?

Not Apple, because they are still busy following that strategy.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673919)

Can you expand on that? I tried to make that argument but couldn't come up with strong enough examples.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (5, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 4 months ago | (#46673287)

Sony should have to pay restitution to Blender.

This. I understand the need for corporations to be able to take down entire movie content et al from being served in public, as much as we would like things for free, movies do cost, there needs to be profit to get them funded etc.

However...

The pendulum is on the movie producers side right now, and they are shilling legitimate content etc as much as possible, and would rather have something by default taken down incorrectly than do their due diligence. The best way to solve this, is when an incorrect takedown notice has been issued without honest and reasonable proof that the correct steps have been taken to identify illegitimate content according to the laws, the party requesting the unlawful removal of content should become liable for any damages that occur from the takedown, and that those damages should be commensurate with the calculations used when movies are pirated, as obviously it is the same goods we are speaking of.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 4 months ago | (#46673415)

A publicly-owned You Tube would drive Sony crazy.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673489)

Not sure if serious. You are aware that Google is a publicly-owned company, right?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673471)

How about Anti-trust or RICO prosecutions?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46673565)

Not only do they usually not keep you from continuing your business until the decision, which happens to come at a MUCH faster pace than any DMCA takedown revert I have ever heard about, there's also provision that you get reimbursed for your losses if you have been accused wrongly, something the DMCA is sorely missing.

In a nutshell, provided you have the deep enough pockets, you can sink a potential competitor using the DMCA. By the time he could possibly retaliate or even start trying to get back at you, he's been out of business for years.

You are proposing what DMCA was supposed to be (5, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46673509)

The best way to solve this, is when an incorrect takedown notice has been issued

When the DMCA was being debated it was assured that there were very strong penalties for incorrect takedown notices. Then the goalposts shifted so that "it didn't really mean it" became enough of a defence to escape those penalties. People who warned that this was going to happen were told to remove their tinfoil hats.


That's not the only problem I have with how the DMCA turned out but it's a start. Takedown notice spamming is like putting a speeding ticket on every parked car you see.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673977)

I make videos based on public domain classical music so my channel gets hit with copyright claims all the time. The thing that bugs me the most about the whole process is that the claimant doesn't have to respond to disputes for 30 days and a lot of times the claimant will wait until the 29th day then do something called a "reinstatement" which can take another 30 days to dispute. It's ridiculous. After the dispute is won and the video is re-monetized, it's a crap-shoot for how long it will stay undisputed because there are hundreds of matching recordings in the content tracking system and they only get flagged one at a time. You can't dispute them all at the same time, and each dispute can take 60 days to resolve. I estimate the most popular videos on my channel are in dispute 50% to 75% of the time they're up. If they would just shorten that 30 days to something more reasonable, like 7 days (which is about how long it takes the companies that are on it to respond), I'd be a lot happier.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent. (1)

Sigma 7 (266129) | about 4 months ago | (#46673309)

I've been wondering if it already exists in already-existing copyright law:

From http://www.law.cornell.edu/cop... [cornell.edu] :

Sect. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

[...]

Sect. 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106 [17 USCS Sect. 106], the author of a work of visual art--

(1) shall have the right--

(A) to claim authorship of that work,

This is probably meant to prevent other people from placing their name on your work, and probably should be tested on Youtube copyright claims. After all, a video does qualify as visual art.

It's called Slander of Title (5, Informative)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 4 months ago | (#46673377)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

"... falsely claiming you own someone else's copyright"

Re:It's called Slander of Title (5, Interesting)

jcfandino (2196932) | about 4 months ago | (#46673875)

Time for crowd founded lawsuits?

Better yet... (1)

thrill12 (711899) | about 4 months ago | (#46673493)

Sony *and* Youtube should Gold sponsor the movie as a penalty for this mishap.

Perjury? (5, Interesting)

janoc (699997) | about 4 months ago | (#46673215)

IANAL, but shouldn't this qualify as perjury? Sony needs to certify in their automated DMCA request that they, in fact, own the rights to the content in question, under the penalty of perjury. Someone really needs to take the big studios to court for this sort of abuse, otherwise it won't stop.

Re:Perjury? (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#46673243)

Someone with a million or two to just throw out the window and a lifetime of freetime to spend.

Re:Perjury? (3)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46673267)

Maybe the EFF.

Re:Perjury? (2)

Cryacin (657549) | about 4 months ago | (#46673293)

Now there's a case for a crowd funding action! I'd pay $5.

Re:Perjury? Sony? Say it Ain't So. (3, Interesting)

NReitzel (77941) | about 4 months ago | (#46673379)

I personally think the situation is -much- simpler.

Google just needs to not return anything with "Sony" in it, as a search result.

Re:Perjury? Sony? Say it Ain't So. (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 4 months ago | (#46673933)

Google just needs to not return anything with "Sony" in it, as a search result.

Yeah, that wouldn't be evil at all.

Re:Perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673429)

Like the head of the MPAA and others appointed to just those positions responsible for doing just that by Obama.

Re:Perjury? (5, Informative)

amaurea (2900163) | about 4 months ago | (#46673321)

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. This is all voluntary agreements between Google and various coorporations that kick in *before* any DMCA stuff. I think what happens is that Google runs video/audio matching programs on behalf of other companies, and when something matches they take it down, notifying the user. The user can then assert that they do in fact have the right to upload the video. Once they do, the video is put back up, and the company is notified. They then file a real DMCA claim. The video is then taken down again, and the user is notified. They can then file a DMCA counterclaim, which would bring the video back but expose them to a lawsuit, or back down, in which case they get a "copyright strike", which leads to the loss of the ability to upload long videos, and eventually being banned from youtube.

I think these voluntary agreements are a perversion of an already pretty nasty law. I've had one of my own videos affected in a somewhat milder fashion: They put advertisements on the video instead of taking it down. That makes it seems like Iæm selling out my viewers to advertisers, but though the video was quite clearly fair use (a video comparing the current and previous world rectord speedruns of a computer game), I would have to consult a lawyer before contesting it, which would take days, and be expensive. The power asymmetry means that Sony etc. can accuse you as much as they want with no worry, while defending oneself is a costly and risky endeavor to normal users.

Re:Perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673423)

OK, so maybe it's not perjury, but how about "tortious interference with business relationships"?

Re:Perjury? (5, Informative)

jdi_knght (3507915) | about 4 months ago | (#46673441)

Sadly, I don't think that's the case. This is all voluntary agreements between Google and various coorporations that kick in *before* any DMCA stuff. I think what happens is that Google runs video/audio matching programs on behalf of other companies, and when something matches they take it down, notifying the user. The user can then assert that they do in fact have the right to upload the video. Once they do, the video is put back up, and the company is notified. They then file a real DMCA claim. The video is then taken down again, and the user is notified. They can then file a DMCA counterclaim, which would bring the video back but expose them to a lawsuit, or back down, in which case they get a "copyright strike", which leads to the loss of the ability to upload long videos, and eventually being banned from youtube.

I think these voluntary agreements are a perversion of an already pretty nasty law. I've had one of my own videos affected in a somewhat milder fashion: They put advertisements on the video instead of taking it down. That makes it seems like Iæm selling out my viewers to advertisers, but though the video was quite clearly fair use (a video comparing the current and previous world rectord speedruns of a computer game), I would have to consult a lawyer before contesting it, which would take days, and be expensive. The power asymmetry means that Sony etc. can accuse you as much as they want with no worry, while defending oneself is a costly and risky endeavor to normal users.

Just to expand on the process, when a video is first hit with the claim, you can dispute it within YouTube, and have to provide an explanation. What they *don't* tell you is that the company who made the claim (which would be Sony in this case) is the one who reviews it and makes a determination.

If they deny your dispute, you can then appeal from within the YouTube interface, again stating an explanation about why your content is your own, or fair use, or whatever. But this time you get to read a lot more legal scare stuff, AND you have to provide your address & phone number along with the appeal. Yet again, the claimant is the one who reviews this. At this point they either have to retract their claim, or send a formal DMCA takedown notice to keep your video down. Or I suppose they could just directly sue you now that they have your info.

If they go the DMCA takedown route at that point, that's where you can file a DMCA counter-notice, and they'll have to bring you to court if they want to pursue things further. Since you gave them your address & number during step 2, you won't be hard to track down.

The system is completely stacked in favor of the big media companies, and I'm sure it works well for them. Make claims on all kinds of content, and the vast majority of people will be too afraid to challenge it, and many of those people might even assume that they were in the wrong even if they weren't. Next benefit is that the claimant's allowed to put advertising/etc on the video that Joe User made and profit from it. And the very existence of steps #1 and #2 allows big media to skirt around the risks of sending false DMCA notices.

Re:Perjury? (2)

silentbozo (542534) | about 4 months ago | (#46673505)

So... why not small claims? If every person who was in the right on YouTube filed a small claims case against a media entity, they could be bled to death through a thousand cuts, and it would either put a stop to the practice, or make judges aware that the big media companies are abusing their power, which could be very helpful once someone wants to do a class action to stop what is essentially private taxation (running ads on independently produced content) for the benefit of corporations. I mean, seriously - we've seen this before. Independent artist releases album. Independent artist's track gets licensed and used for some big movie studio trailer. Big movie studio trailer gets uploaded to YouTube by big movie studio. Next thing you know, independent artist's promo videos get banned or adjacked because some idiot matching algorithm looks at big movie studio trailer, automatically assumes big movie studio owns the independent artist's works, and now independent artist is screwed and has to do double the work to reclaim the rights to their own work.

Re:Perjury? Well, fraud maybe... (3, Insightful)

davecb (6526) | about 4 months ago | (#46673323)

In some countries, it would be obtaining a service (the takedown) based upon a false and fraudulent pretense. That's a criminal offence, and an injured party can call upon the Crown to prosecute it as such. Consult a lawyer in the jurisdiction in question, get a quote and take them with you to the fraud squad, to ensure the process happens correctly. It's arguably hard to do correctly in the U.S, as suggested by the low number of convictions reported...

Re:Perjury? Well, fraud maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673585)

The proper term is "Slander of Title". The rights for Sintel do not belong to Sony, period. They're re-using it under a Creative Commons license, but they're NOT the rights holder and they basically claimed they were with this little stunt. I'd think that the damages might fund several shorts or at least one or two feature length Blender movies.

Re:Perjury? Well, fraud maybe... (5, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 months ago | (#46673963)

The proper term is "Slander of Title". The rights for Sintel do not belong to Sony, period. They're re-using it under a Creative Commons license, but they're NOT the rights holder and they basically claimed they were with this little stunt. I'd think that the damages might fund several shorts or at least one or two feature length Blender movies.

And now Sony cannot legally use the Sintel short. They broke the Creative Commons license by claiming ownership, which severs the license. Any and all use of the Sintel short by Sony from now on is unlicensed, i.e. pirate copying.
And no, there is no provision in the CC license for sayihng "oops" to get the license reactivated. They are in breach, and need to get a new license from the copyright holders before they can continue using it.

Re:Perjury? (1)

jaa101 (627731) | about 4 months ago | (#46673331)

Do we know this is the result of a DMCA request? Doesn't Youtube give studios like Sony an interface to take down what they want? So then it's back to being as annoying as hell but not legally actionable in any way :-(.

Re:Perjury? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 months ago | (#46673419)

Well, first of all many major copyright holders have special deals with YouTube where they don't actually send DMCA requests. In that case it's just a private agreement between Sony and YouTube on content monitoring, at best you have a slander suit but no basis for a perjury. Secondly, they may have a legal claim to copyright on the whole clip reel as a collection - basically the selection and composition of clips - and that's enough to get them out of the perjury part. In generic terms, "Under penatlity of perjury, we are the copyright holders of movie X. We believe that the posted scene Y is in violation of our copyright on X." Even if that last part is wrong because it's freely licensed or in the public domain or for some other reason not eligible for copyright it's not under perjury. It sucks, but any competent lawyer will manage to wiggle Sony out of any trouble.

Re:Perjury? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46673521)

There's an enormous intentional loophole which means the perjury thing never applies :(

Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony (3, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | about 4 months ago | (#46673237)

Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony. As well as try and get a strike against Sony for this. There is a term for this, False Flag abuse.

Re:Blender should file a Counter Claim against Son (2)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 4 months ago | (#46673273)

Blender should file a Counter Claim against Sony. As well as try and get a strike against Sony for this. There is a term for this, False Flag abuse.

Sigh. Please don't use expressions that you don't understand. False Flag: designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

Flagging, false flagging, and Joe jobs (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#46673329)

Flagging is also slang for reporting user contributions that violate terms of service. Thus "false flagging" means a false report of such a violation. The meaning you refer to is more often called a "Joe job" on the net.

Re:Blender should file a Counter Claim against Son (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673345)

Or you know to falsely flag a video on various grounds. like copyright or inappropriate to get it taken down.

Re:Blender should file a Counter Claim against Son (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 4 months ago | (#46673351)

"Zombie Ryushu" ... he's just high. Relax. I think its more likely that he's simply mistaken one term he does understand for another which he's not heard in the proper context. Maybe he meant something like "False Positives Flagging abuse?" There is certainly a buzz-term for this that is easy enough to confuse linguistically and conceptually with "False Flag operations."

Re:Blender should file a Counter Claim against Son (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673607)

The proper term is "Slander of Title". Basically, Sony claimed the Protected Work was theirs wherein they're merely licensing it for their 4K demo content. Under CC Attribution 3.0, they can't claim anything as their own work, they have to attribute the content to the original rights holders, and can't place any additional restrictions on the further publication of the content (i.e. You can't tell someone to do a takedown on the content, either as a DMCA or as a reciprocal agreement as Sony has with Google on YouTube. Violates the restrictions clause and attempts to claim sole rights over the content- you can't claim sole rights over your derivative work per license which would be the only way you could legitimately do a takedown.)

This means they are no longer licensed to the content in question.

Each and every copy they distributed or intend to distribute of the protected work in question, Sintel, is now a willful copyright infringement on Sony's part. Seems to me that the Blender project needs to retain counsel and sue for the Statutory Damages for this...which amounts to $150,000, per each copy done without licensing.

Re:Blender should file a Counter Claim against Son (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#46673735)

It looks like this is just a Youtube thing, that no legal action was taken at all. It was an agreement between two private companies (Sony and Google), to take down content that Sony doesn't like. That isn't illegal, because Google owns the site.

On the Other Hand... (2)

Richy_T (111409) | about 4 months ago | (#46673251)

free publicity.

Re:On the Other Hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673531)

For Sony? Maybe, in the negative sense. They're too big to be healthy, as are most of the corporate giants.

Re:On the Other Hand... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673767)

Sintel - The movie so good, Sony thought it was theirs.

Fucking Sony! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673283)

Fucking Rat Bastard SONY! They are the ass holes of the electronics world.

Blender, sue Sony! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673315)

The case can probably be made that Sony is claiming ownership if they are sending take down notices over it. IANAL.

just broken youtube (1)

luther349 (645380) | about 4 months ago | (#46673367)

they broke this system a few months back. it just flags everything now and theirs not a live persion in the building to take the flood of wtf they don't own this shit counter clames.

Re:just broken youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673515)

This is actually pretty simple to solve. So, I'm surprised this junk has been going on for so many years. It is just three steps:
1) Response to take down requests are automated. Mostly just do them, (maybe with some automated abuse checkers).
2) Responses to disputes by the video poster are also automated. Mostly just immediate video reinstatement, (maybe with some automated abuse checks).
3) Further copyright claims on the video are not automated and take down requests would require formal DMCA-compliant written notifications.
Steps 1 and 2 are just there for efficiency and to "play nice" with both sides. Only step three is actually required by law. What YouTube is doing now is not required and is simply doing favors to the 1%. It is yet another example of how the rich in America are getting free rides on everything.

Dear Sony (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 4 months ago | (#46673371)

FUCK YOU.

Maybe Sony added content to their video (2)

Megahard (1053072) | about 4 months ago | (#46673435)

They could have added a rootkit.

Re:Maybe Sony added content to their video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673781)

Under CC-Attribution-3.0, they can't make those claims. Copyright infringement. Not that they give a damn until someone sues their asses.

Blender should take them to court (4, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 4 months ago | (#46673467)

and have Sony state under oath why they think the video is theirs. Seems Sony is excertising ownership right over the video, seems to me that's IP theft by Sony. After all according to the gove and media IP theft is the biggest danger to American way of life since the nuclear communist threat.

I would happily donate $$$ to this court case.

Re:Blender should take them to court (2)

Alpha232 (922118) | about 4 months ago | (#46673587)

Please note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. Where YouTube has a good faith belief that a person is materially misrepresenting that material or activity is infringing of their rights or the right of a copyright owner for whom they are authorized to act, YouTube may, in its discretion, not remove the cited content. In this case, we will notify the complainant.

I hope to see a Defamation/Libel case coming to a court room near you!

hrmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673497)

went to blender tried ot click on link regarding this and i got....

What happened?
The initial connection between CloudFlare's network and the origin web server timed out. As a result, the web page can not be displayed.

seems sony is DDoS'ing the link off blender now

Re:hrmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673561)

Slashdot effect. You must be new here.

Thanks Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673643)

"Don't be evil", they said. Riiiiight....

What probably happened (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673697)

Content providers generate "fingerprints" of all video content, then they send them to YouTube for takedown. This is all pretty automated. Live TV shows have fingerprints generated of show segments and sent to YouTube before the show is even over. Probably the video was put through a "typical" content pipeline and fingerprinted.

How about... (5, Insightful)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about 4 months ago | (#46673729)

"You wouldn't steal a handbag...

"You wouldn't steal a car...

"You wouldn't download a movie...

"But it's okay to claim someone else's IP as your own... if you're Sony!

beta suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673777)

yes its does

MASSIVE BACKLASH AGAINST SONY (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673871)

AN UNINTENDED BUT DEADLY BACKLASH against Sony Pictures is underway in Italy at the moment with people in major electronics stores reportedly asking customers NOT TO BUY SONY PRODUCTS.
At least a couple of people injured in Rome as security guards wrestled a demonstrator which destroyed a Sony LCD TV.
It would probably be a good idea for Sony to immediately publicly act on the mess by chastising Google's mistake.

Boycott Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673885)

Perhaps, if we start a campaign to boycott Google. Don't use google search, don't use Youtube, etc.
Do this for a day or two, just to show Google the error of their ways. Create a website stating what the boycott is about, Google needs to change their policies on such things as erroneous take down notices.

Do it just like the SOPA Internet blackout, or the Aaron Swartz Commemoration. Promote it as widely as possible, just a few days, Google will see it immediately, and perhaps it'll open their eyes.

Absolutely disgraceful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46673895)

These assholes needed to have filed a DMCA against this for it to happen. Maybe there's some fingerprinting system that auto detected it, but they should have never added the movie to their list of property. Another black mark on the sordid copy book of Sony et.al.

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>