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!

"Internet's Own Boy" Briefly Knocked Off YouTube With Bogus DMCA Claim

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the until-proven-innocent dept.

Movies 157

An anonymous reader writes "In a bitter irony, a documentary celebrating Aaron Swartz, the late Internet activist who helped create the Creative Commons, has been taken down from YouTube by a misguided copyright claim." From the article: [O]ne of the dark sides of how copyright is enforced on the Internet is that sites that don't actually infringe are sometimes mistakenly swept up in rightsholders' takedown notices, which are frequently automated. Visitors who tried to watch The Internet's Own Boy on YouTube Friday were greeted by the message, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Remove Your Media LLC," a reference to a company that specializes in sending copyright takedowns in accordance with the law that governs them, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It's not clear who made the claim, but that's not the point—as activists are all too aware, false copyright claims can can knock legitimate content offline.

cancel ×

157 comments

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

performance art... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435129)

this was no accident I bet.

this was a carefully crafted and brilliantly delivered message about the IP dystopia we are creating.

well played, I say.

Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 months ago | (#47435139)

There is an argument to make that he was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself. He could have done what he did without opening up the network closet - which is the most significant charge that was filed against him. Yeah, the overall response was heavy handed without a doubt, but he wasn't exactly rational himself.

Granted, I guess this is a slightly more interesting story than facebook, the movie [wikipedia.org] but still not that great.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435195)

Fuck off.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (1, Troll)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 2 months ago | (#47435201)

There is an argument to make that he was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself.

Considering he intentionally took his own life, partly as a means of highlighting his overwhelming situation, you're right. He paid an incredible price just so that the rest of us might take notice of the great injustice at hand, and that deserves at least this much attention.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435279)

He paid an incredible price just so that the rest of us might see how much of a self cenetered douche bag he was.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435735)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzCcNu0zxAM
Little Eddie Mitty, Born in Jersey City....

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436383)

Whereas you won't even give us your name.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435409)

Total bullshit. So the kid who killed himself over being conned in EverQuest should make us take notice of the great injustice in MMORPGs?
 
Just because you're killing yourself doesn't mean that some great injustice was done to you. I know one person who killed himself over a girl, another who killed himself for being caught pilfering 600 dollars from a high school fund raiser.... what great injustice should we learn from these?
 
Aaron made a bad decision, sorry for the loss but he's not a martyr for anything other than himself. It's time to get over it and it's seriously time to get over glorifying suicide as a marker of great injustices.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435629)

Just because you're killing yourself doesn't mean that some great injustice was done to you.

You're beating that straw man pretty hard! Don't you think you're being a bit harsh on the poor thing?

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (5, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 months ago | (#47435425)

No claim can be made about the moment of his decision, it was his own. Clearly no plan had gone into a more peaceful exit via nitrogen or drugs, instead a more brutal immediate method was chosen on the spur of the moment, that moment where the stresses of continuing exceeded the survival instinct. No one is a slave not even to their own life. It is really rather shallow to pick apart someone's demise. The law enforcement agency was clearly to blame purposefully apply as much stress as possible on order to force compliance to their demands, a ludicrously inflated sentence or false admission of fault for a reduced sentence. That pressure succeeded forcing a spur of the moment decision, one that ensures escape.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436627)

> Clearly no plan had gone into a more peaceful exit via nitrogen or drugs, instead a more brutal immediate method was chosen on the spur of the moment

You don't get out much, do you?

Suicides tend to *fixate* on a particular method. Suicides with chronic or bi-polar depression get *really, really stuck* on doing it one way, until they actually try it and it fails a few times.

And no, it's not law enforcement's fault anymore than it's an air bags fault that it breaks your arms when you slam into a tree and you refused to put your arms in the now taught, ""4 and 10" positions on the steering wheel. Aaron was out of control, breaking critical research tools used by thousands of people. He'd finally "proven his manhood" so thoroughly that it actually irritated law enforcement.

Skipping out on it via suicide isn't the sign of a civil rights advocate. It's the sign of a coward, like most forms of suicide.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436649)

Slightly off-topic, but... the new steering wheel positions (as taught to me in a defensive driving course) are 4 and 8, to minimize the chances of airbag injuries.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435511)

It would take a shitburger like you to suck at the decaying dick of this useless cunt. He got what he deserved.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435757)

There was no injustice. He was involved in shady behavior, got caught, and went through the same judicial process that anybody else engaging in similarly shady behavior would be subjected to.

Then he did something rather stupid to himself, of his own volition.

If I repeatedly smashed my penis and scrotum with a hammer, I would be considered a fucking moron. Anybody doing something equally stupid to themselves should not be revered in any way.

We shouldn't feel sorry for him, and we shouldn't think we was "mistreated" in any way by anyone other than himself.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436403)

If I repeatedly smashed my penis and scrotum with a hammer, I would be considered a fucking moron.

Actually, you'd be nominated for a Darwin Award. Please try for it, I'd like to see if you'd win - most especially because you wouldn't be having kids.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436257)

He paid an incredible price just so that the rest of us might take notice of the great injustice at hand, and that deserves at least this much attention.

We should remember this guy, all right. But purely as an example of what how even folks who are supposed to be smart can be really fucking stupid. Now everyone gets to remember him as the unwashed, unshaven 'tard who basically copied a bunch of library books--shit that anyone can get for free from a college library--and then then killed himself when it was time to accept the wrist slap. Way to commit, pussy.

Mister "Oh, I'm sooo right and sooo intelligent and sooo ready to stand up for what I believe in" just couldn't admit that he was about to catch a felony for a not-particulary-useful cause and couldn't do his sentence like a man. That's right, smart boy, kill yourself for being threatened with prison time. The little bitch hadn't even been sentenced or exhausted his appeals. "Waaa, waaa," cries the Internet, "but the feds were threatening a million years." Threatening isn't the same as delivering.

Kevin Mitnick pisses on this crybaby's grave.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (1, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47435227)

We really should be recognizing him as the clown he was, and recognizing the administration and the cops and the courts as the tyrants the continue to be.
Instead he's been propped up as some sort of tragic hero figure and attached to things that have very little to do with him or the case against him, and thus the important shit (the tyranny) gets lost in the haze.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (1)

un1nsp1red (2503532) | about 2 months ago | (#47435311)

That's just the benefit of the doubt you get when you're dead. Your paintings are worth more, your songwriting suddenly carries new weight (see: Kurt Cobain), the awful shit about you is quickly forgotten, and the virtue embellished. The only thing certain about a martyr is that they're dead. The rest of their reputation may bear no resemblance to real events.

Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435335)

Back to /r/conspiracy you go.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (4, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 2 months ago | (#47435353)

There is an argument to make that he was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself [...] he wasn't exactly rational himself.

There is an argument to be made that Jesus was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself. He failed to put up a defense when asked.

Your statement fairly reeks of the innuendo "this isn't something to get angry over, because he wasn't normal".

It dulls the impact of an important event, it's unfalsifiable (you cite no evidence, just "there's an argument to make"), and it serves to quell any discontent over the current political situation.

I like it. Can the technique be reversed in future incidents? Can a properly crafted response be used to whip up political discontent and restlessness?

I wonder...

Re: Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435631)

"If I tell you you will not believe and if I ask you will not answer; nevertheless you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of God." is a significant defence. The truth is not blasphemy.

Before Pilot his defence against insurrection was understood: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were my people would fight that I not be handed over ..."

Nevertheless it was intentional that justice be miscarried for that was the plan that he be executed without cause.

Re: Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435725)

That's right. God planned for Jesus (god) to be crucified. So in effect, god sacrificed himself to himself to atone for the things he finds offensive according to his divine rules, so that he can judge you when he checks whether you complied with his rules.

Re: Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (1)

zieroh (307208) | about 2 months ago | (#47436287)

That's right. God planned for Jesus (god) to be crucified. So in effect, god sacrificed himself to himself to atone for the things he finds offensive according to his divine rules, so that he can judge you when he checks whether you complied with his rules.

So what you're saying is that god was a narcissist.

Re: Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436769)

Your analogy only works if you consider God and Jesus to be two halves of a multidimensional being - half in Heaven and half on Earth.

Of course there are 4 billion people that don't agree with that interpretation.

Even the church considered it heresy for the first three hundred years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435657)

Have you read "Behold the Man" written 1969 by Michael Moorcock by any chance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_(novel)

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 months ago | (#47436505)

I think you win the internet there for the most absurd comparison of the year.

Or can you point me to the chapter in the bible where Jesus the carpenter set down his hand tools, stole his neighbor's air compressor, power tools, and precut lumber, and proceeded to craft stuff from it in his own name?

It dulls the impact of an important event,

Which "important event" do you have in mind here? Are you talking about when he opened up a network closet and slowed down the network traffic of an entire academic library for his own aims - when he could have downloaded all the same material from the desk where he worked his job? Or are you talking about when he got scared about the possibility of having to face trial, and took his own life rather than object to the laws that he was potentially facing trial under?

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436587)

There is an argument to be made that Jesus was intentionally trying to make a martyr out of himself.

Christians make that argument all the time; in fact, their entire faith is hinged upon it: if Jesus really was God made flesh, then he was only born into flesh in order to become a martyr, and it was his sole purpose in being born.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435389)

Soon after almost everyone died that has seen HIM live, some clerks will get the idea of preserving the stories about HIS life for the coming generations. They will write HIS story using Temple OS, where everything is Ring 0, and they will praise HIM three times, and HIS WORD will be worshipped in eternity.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 2 months ago | (#47435505)

There is also an argument to be made that your statement represents a base misunderstanding or perhaps even willful ignorance of what a martyr actually is.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436317)

Herpaladerp. Your faggotry is extreme.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436187)

Now little Timmy, yes we know you're upset. But when you grow up you can come and sit here at the 'Big People' table. And stop pouting so much. Goodness, if you don't calm down we'll send Uncle John over to sit with you. You don't want to hear him tell you about his new table fan for the next three hours do you?

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436201)

He was just a fucked up faggot. I'm tired of the geek circle jerk around his criminal acts and pathetic suicide.

Re:Will we ever stop celebrating him? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437079)

Meh. One more obnoxious Jew getting his kicks creating a disturbance. It's not like there's any shortage of those. Shame he's not around to get the punch in the face he deserves.

Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435161)

Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral damage (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47435211)

Is it me or is the mere fact that they automated the takedown notices speaking volumes of how frivolous the whole matter has become? Take them all down and let God sort them out, or how is that supposed to be?

Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435327)

Take them all down and let God sort them out

Isn't that a quotation from the text of the DMCA?

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (5, Funny)

Narcocide (102829) | about 2 months ago | (#47435569)

I know you made this statement sarcastically but since you've referenced a very important and relevant point in history I'll mention for our younger readers that this is a popular paraphrase of a statement made by one Arnold Amaury during what has become now known broadly as "The Spanish Inquisition" when asked how he proposed they'd weed the heretics out of Béziers; his response was "Kill them all, God will know his own."

The chilling parallels between The Inquisition and the current comparatively passive-aggressive war on freedom of information ought not be trivialized by satire.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437057)

To be precise, the Sack of Béziers took place in 1209, when the local bishops were in charge.
The Inquisition took lead of the Albigensian Crusade in 1222.
And that was the Medieval Inquisition. The Spanish Iniquistion was only established in 1478.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (2)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 2 months ago | (#47435573)

Is it me or is the mere fact that they automated the takedown notices speaking volumes of how frivolous the whole matter has become? Take them all down and let God sort them out, or how is that supposed to be?

Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.

They're already supposed to be sworn under penalty of perjury, which beats the hell out of a "fine". The mechanism is already there, it's just that nobody seems to be interested in enforcing it.

Whoever sent the takedown notice should be looking at jail time according to the law.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47436303)

The perjury clause isn't for the claim of infringement or mistaken claim, it's for the statement that you are a copyright owner and/or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. For the actually claimed infringement, it only takes a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

Misidentifying a file would not be perjury. The best that could happen is damages and law fees from the person making the claim of infringement.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 months ago | (#47436809)

What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (1)

Bitmanhome (254112) | about 2 months ago | (#47437051)

But if the claimant doesn't have any copyright authority, I don't believe the claim is actionable under the DMCA. If I claim your video violates someone's copyright, YouTube is under no obligation. If I claim the video violates my copyright, only then is YouTube obligated to take down the video. And this triggers the perjury clause.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 months ago | (#47435589)

Am I the only one who thinks it's about time for some (serious) fines for frivolous takedown notices? It's not like they don't cost the media providers anything.

Perhaps more effective would be to rain down takedown notices upon any group that shows anything. Just go through youtube and start at the A's. Claim copyright on every video, photograph, and PDF you can find - anywhere.

And don't stop until the whole internetz is thrown into chaos.

Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437053)

At the very least, when a false DMCA notice has been issued, and contested, the person who sent it should be FORCED to reveal who was ultimately behind it. This refusing to reveal their "client" is total bullshit.

(And if they refuse to hand over the identity of who claimed to own the content so the courts can determine whether or not there was an innocent mistake or not, then they should be forced to assume the full responsibility as if they were the content owner making the DMCA claim. And since they can't possibly pretend to be the owner of the content in question, they can go directly to jail/major penalties/whatever.)

Pick up that can (4, Interesting)

preaction (1526109) | about 2 months ago | (#47435217)

As long as our methods of content sharing are allowed to operate only by the grace of the major players (i.e. the rich), we will never be free.

Re:Pick up that can (2)

jelizondo (183861) | about 2 months ago | (#47436601)

Sorry for the bad news: we were never free.

What has happened is that the elite has shorn any semblance of shame and decided to act according to its power.

It's like they asked themselves: If we have the power, what do we care about appearances?

Think back to satellite T.V. for example, in the U.S. it was (is?) theft to get the signal and decode it, in Canada it was fine to do it, because legally, the waves were in public space.

Re:Pick up that can (3, Informative)

preaction (1526109) | about 2 months ago | (#47436625)

But Youtube was supposed to change the world! Time magazine said it did! Instead, it and all other things like it are just another channel by which the major content providers are allowed to provide you with content. Consume, citizen!

The DMCA requirements for good-faith are too lenient, clearly, if this many false-positives are allowed to continue. Google won't push back, it's not good business. And we won't stop using Youtube, ever.

The Internet was allowed to be free only until there was money to be made.

Re:Pick up that can (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436903)

How is that bittorrent streaming thing going?

Sorry... (2)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 2 months ago | (#47435233)

in corporatese is meaningless without paying money. Every false claim takedown should have minimum damages applied, with opportunity for more damages possible.

Re:Sorry... (1)

grahammm (9083) | about 2 months ago | (#47437047)

And those doing so should be also charged with perjury, as allowed for by DMCA. Claiming to own the rights to something to which you do not own the rights should be treated as being far more serious that copying (or distributing) something without permission (so called 'piracy').

and... (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 2 months ago | (#47435245)

as activists are all too aware, false copyright claims can can knock legitimate content offline.

As not only activists but almost everyone aware of the rampant abuse going on has been claiming for years, it is high time that the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA claims is actually enforced. Mistakes can happen, nobody is perfect, but some companies have been taking down large amounts of content for years, repeatedly and with not even a slap on the wrist.

Re:and... (4, Informative)

ray-auch (454705) | about 2 months ago | (#47435519)

Read a DMCA claim wording _carefully_.

What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work, and that the other info in the notice is correct (which is I believe merely the location of infringed and allegedly infringing works, and your contact details). The notice is also an allegation of infringement hence you are swearing that you have made an allegation.

What you are not doing is swearing that the allegation of infringement is in any way correct - that can only properly be decided by a court anyway.

Or to put it another way:

1. I allege the moon is made of jelly
2. I swear under penalty of perjury that I have alleged that the moon is made of jelly

1 + 2 = No perjury committed - even though everyone _knows_ that the moon is in fact made of cheese...

Re:and... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 2 months ago | (#47435563)

What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work...

Yes. Maybe you should read your own post again ;-)

Re:and... (1)

ray-auch (454705) | about 2 months ago | (#47435895)

I have read it again and I can swear that it still makes perfect sense to me. YMMV of course.

Relevance of that line to the incident in TFA remains unknown, all we know is the allegedly infringing work. We do not know (at least from TFA) what work (call it Foo) that the movie was alleged to have infringed or who is behind the company making the DMCA claim and claiming to be authorized by copyright holder of Foo.

Re:and... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 2 months ago | (#47436683)

I have read it again and I can swear that it still makes perfect sense to me.

Yes, it makes perfect sense. But it contradicts the point you were making.

Re:and... (4, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 2 months ago | (#47435599)

Read a DMCA claim wording _carefully_.

What is sworn under penalty of perjury is that you are, or are authorised to act for, the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work....

Correct. And since they're not authorized by the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work the statute should kick in.

There's no way out. Someone perjured themselves and it's high time they get to see the inside of a jail cell. This crap stops tomorrow with one single example. Right now, there's literally no downside to filing thousands of frivolous claims. The worst that happens is... nothing. The whole point of the DMCA is that you can take stuff down but you have to put your own ass on the line in order to do so.

There's tons of precedent for this, by the way. If I call the police and say "so and so robbed my house today" and then, when they come and investigate and find no evidence that my house was robbed I say "oh, well, not really" - I'm going to jail in that case. That's filing a false report and it's a crime.

We do this for a reason. The DMCA was written like that for a reason. What we see right now is the direct result of lack of enforcement.

Re:and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435627)

No; you don't say you own the movie. You say "I own the rights to Happy Birthday" (which you do) "and this video infringes upon that copyright."

Re:and... (2)

ray-auch (454705) | about 2 months ago | (#47435849)

Correct. And since they're not authorized by the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work the statute should kick in.

What work did they claim was infringed, and what proof is there that they are not authorized by the owner of that work - since TFA doesn't state.
Do you have a copy of the notice ?

Or, put another way:

- I _allege_ "Internet's Own Boy" infringes copyright of "A work I made up yesterday"
- I _swear_ I act on behalf of copyright owner of "A work I made up yesterday"

Now, clearly we know that "Internet's Own Boy" cannot be derivative of "A work I made up yesterday", but that doesn't mean any perjury has been committed. That part of the statute only kicks in if I don't actually own the copyright of "A work I made up yesterday".

There simply isn't any real penalty in DMCA for saying that A infringes B even when it is blatantly obvious it doesn't - which is what the vast majority of false DMCA claims are - there is only penalty for falsely claiming that you are authorized by copyright owner of B.

And, yes, the DMCA was written like that for a reason - to confuse the unwashed masses into believing they had some protection from false claims by big business whilst in fact providing no such protection.

Re:and... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47436337)

For the content, one only needs a good faith belief. There could be a garage band in the background singing "row roe row your boat" and the automated whatever thinks it is part of some bands album and issues the warning. That would be a good faith belief that the content was infringing. But as you showed, would not be perjury.

Re:and... (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 months ago | (#47436961)

Correct. And since they're not authorized by the copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work the statute should kick in.

For the umpteenth time, no that's not how the DMCA's perjury clause works.

I own the rights to a video I made about dogs. I file a DMCA takedown notice claiming your video about cats violates my copyright.

Because I am asserting you're infringing my video about dogs, and I own the copyright to that video, there is no perjury. I am legitimately filing takedown notices to protect the copyright on the dog video. That your video is about cats is irrelevant to the DMCA. By issuing a takedown notice, I am swearing that I own the rights to (or am authorized by the owner of) the dog video. It is only perjury if I don't own the dog video or am not authorized by the owners of the dog video (e.g. what those lawyers filing lawsuits against people downloading porn were doing - threatening to sue even though they weren't authorized by the real copyright owners, in the hopes that because it was porn people would roll over and settle without a fight).

There's tons of precedent for this, by the way. If I call the police and say "so and so robbed my house today" and then, when they come and investigate and find no evidence that my house was robbed I say "oh, well, not really" - I'm going to jail in that case. That's filing a false report and it's a crime.

Yes that's the way it should work. But that's not the way the DMCA is written. At this point I think the only way this will ever be fixed is if millions of everyday people start filing DMCA takedown notices against stuff owned by studios (e.g. official Justin Bieber videos on YouTube), claiming it violates the copyright on their cat or dog video. Since the DMCA puts the burden of proof entirely upon the accused with no penalty for the accuser, the only way to stop the abuse is to accuse the accusers who are abusing it.

Re:and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436981)

... copyright owner of the allegedly infringed work ...

The lawyer isn't claiming your work has been infringed but that his (boss's) work has been infringed.

That's filing a false report and it's a crime.

As pirates are quick to note, piracy isn't theft and therefore isn't a property crime. Its seems the DMCA law doesn't hold lawyers to any standard of due diligence. Since IP is a common form of property, its owners want the police to protect it with the same property laws and funded by the government. That may happen and hopefully the effect of frivolous claims will change in the future.

As ray-auch notes, all they're really promising is that they're allowed to write what they've written.

You-tube and other content hosts could implement a penalty for wasting their time: Such as de-listing all of the claimant's valid content. This requires an improved tagging system which someone has to make. Regardless, spending a little time enforcing punishment now will have a massive effect in the future.

Re:and... (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 2 months ago | (#47437031)

The whole point of the DMCA is that you can take stuff down but you have to put your own ass on the line in order to do so.

No, the point of the DMCA is that those with money can take stuff down.

We do this for a reason. The DMCA was written like that for a reason. What we see right now is the direct result of lack of enforcement.

What we see right now is the real face of copyright. This is the spirit of all such laws, no matter what their letter might say.

Right to face accuser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435251)

From the article:

A representative for Remove Your Media, Eric Greene, refused to name the client who hired him for the takedown, though he noted it was "a distributor outside the U.S."

Can anyone more knowledgeable than me explain why the DMCA allows the accuser to hide behind the act?

Re:Right to face accuser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435351)

explain why the DMCA allows the accuser to hide behind the act?

Because money?

Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 12 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.

Seriously? Are you fuckers over at Dice kidding me???

Re:Right to face accuser (1)

Kuroji (990107) | about 2 months ago | (#47436567)

More importantly, if they're outside the US, why does the DMCA apply to them?!

False Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435277)

I almost feel as though this DMCA request might have been made by an activist, trying to point out how ridiculous and easily-abused this system is.

Youtube's shitty copyright... (5, Insightful)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about 2 months ago | (#47435305)

Youtube should really stop accepting DMCA requests from these nobody companies. If you own an IP, then man up and have the balls to file the claim yourself. I had a video containing nothing but video game footage taken down by a "music society", whatever that is. I fought it and won, but I shouldn't have had to go through that process.

Re:Youtube's shitty copyright... (5, Insightful)

bl968 (190792) | about 2 months ago | (#47436119)

I regularly receive false copyright claims on music which is clearly in the public domain and was performed live by Military bands. The company which files the claim should face criminal penalties for perjury, Once a false claim is made by a company, Youtube should be forced to remove their access to the content id system or should become directly liable for the false claims made by these companies.

Re:Youtube's shitty copyright... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436817)

This music society thing is a big problem right at the moment. YouTube sometime last year began removing hoards of videos, reviews and other shit because Nintendo and others decided they didn't want people to see footage of the game before they bought it. Fearing negative impressions/lost sales, and also claiming that the graphics, characters and music and logo in the gameplay was owned by them. YouTube apparently wiped out whole accounts including reviews by people of the games.

I figure that fair use should prevent these fucks from being able to do this but there is no way to get them to acknowledge your rights in this process without a big expensive court battle.

Oh yeah they did it to me as well, a video game called Sonic & Sega All Stars Racing .. I made the video just to record my gameplay in 2010 and in 2013 I received a copyright claim notice saying the music in the video was copyrighted and YouTube was apparently counting it as a strike against my account before it was closed or shutdown which happens if you get 3 copyright claims against you. Yeah we could see it applied if I uploaded a full length movie or something but not a clip of a video game with footage of a player playing it. Cause let's face it, its a recording of my history, a point in time, not one of their copyrighted works. And I should own the rights not them of any performances within the game trumping their pathetic rights as the copyright holder. As fair use of their product and perhaps as transformation of the work into performance or fair use or as documentation of my performance.

[O]ne of the dark sides of how copyright is enfor (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435315)

>[O]ne of the dark sides of how copyright is enforced on the Internet

Not exactly, it's just Google. I can understand that they want to automate as much as possible because everything else would make it more complicated on their side, but it's still just Google.

Suggestion: put it on archive.org (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435347)

I already migrated my videos from youtube to archive.org for other reason. The player has some issues but otherwise seems similar.

It looks like this [archive.org]

Karel Kulhavy Twibright Labs [twibright.com]

Re:Suggestion: put it on archive.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435647)

It is [archive.org] , already.

This is just yet another media campaign against this stupid DMCA ruling. Not that I think DMCA didn't deserve it.

Re:Suggestion: put it on archive.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435865)

This is awesome! Thanks. I've always wondered if 20th century people replicate the methods of 17th century science.

Apparently, they can!!

Mind blown.

There should be Penalties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435357)

That is why I have always advocated strong penalties for filing false claims. Something the copyright industry lobbies heavily against because it would require them to prove infringement rather than automatically sending out thousands of claims in the suspicion that one or two percent of them might contain actual infringing content.

Re:There should be Penalties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435877)

That is why I have always advocated strong penalties for filing false claims

Strong penalties are worthless when the people that should invoke them turn a blind eye to the events that should cause them.

And that is what we seem to have now: a "balanced" law from which one leg is fully ignored -- have you read about even a single granted complaint against just a single DMCA invoker ? I havn't.

Catcha: unless - no law is worth the ink its written with unless all parties are treated equal.

Re:There should be Penalties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436139)

Of course there is one way we'd start to see them actually enforced - if the big interests were retaliated against and had their "legitimate" channels started getting denial of service via DMCA requests. Funny how selective perception is, teachers only see victims reaction and never the bully, government always sees some crime for the whistleblower, never the wrongdoing pointed out.

Re:There should be Penalties (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 2 months ago | (#47436357)

How about just getting rid of DMCA take-downs?

Backhanded Apologist Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435375)

The summary makes it sound like bad faith DMCA takedowns are an accident. They're not. There is real malice here.

I follow the Simpson Doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435383)

Don't put anything online. Then they can't take it and me down, down, down, down.

Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (1)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | about 2 months ago | (#47435553)

What's really needed (short of scrapping the whole thing) is to change the law so that DMCA takedowns must be of the form "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of this copyrighted material, and it is being used here in violation of my copyright." And start putting some of these bastards in jail for perjury if they keep this crap up.

Re:Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (4, Informative)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 2 months ago | (#47435607)

What's really needed (short of scrapping the whole thing) is to change the law so that DMCA takedowns must be of the form "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the owner of this copyrighted material, and it is being used here in violation of my copyright." And start putting some of these bastards in jail for perjury if they keep this crap up.

That's how the DMCA is already written. The problem is the lack of enforcement, not the law.

Re:Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (3, Informative)

Binestar (28861) | about 2 months ago | (#47436373)

Except the DMCA is *NOT* written like that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]

The relevant portion:

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Notice the wording of section VI: A Statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO ACT...

The only part of any of that in a DMCA takedown is a statement under penalty of perjury that you are actually authorized to send DMCA by the owner of the material you are saying this infringes against. There is no perjury on any other portion of it, including the good faith, or accuracy notification.

This law was written specifically this way to protect any agent of copyright holders from mistakes and/or malice.

Re:Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47436413)

Since the notification was clearly not check for accuracy then you'd hope perjury should apply - but so far in the life of the DMCA it has NEVER applied. Shortcuts should be dealt with and eliminated instead of being the normal situation.

Re:Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435615)

It already is, fucktard. I bet you like to go around and look like an authority on the laws of IP but obviously you don't know jack shit.
 
Go back to being an ignorant fucking retard.

Re:Requirements for a DMCA takedown. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47437029)

Oooh. An internet tough guy. You must be really tough.

Secret Copyright (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 2 months ago | (#47435575)

How can you make a DMCA claim, while withholding both the name of the copyright holder and the particular copyrights involved?

If there is zero burden of proof, then what is to stop someone from sending a DMCA takedown notice for EVERYTHING on youtube?

Re:Secret Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436099)

Im just speculating,but many media outlets have major $$$$ and Google as much as they try to 'pretend to support freedom of information has its foundations built with cash.I dont blame em,the lawsuits etc.could literallly bury even a GOOGLE!I dont see the laws changing anytime soon,so for the 1st time I support outsourcing!A GOOGLE(or google like co.)based on any # of foreign locations that dont buckle under US law.DMCA,our outdated copyright etc.To restrict access would then become the US as censors.

Sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435885)

I would like to see a class action suit brought against all the companies that issue false takedown notices.

"Millennium" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47435999)

It's spelled millennium, holy shit, why do people misspell this word with one n 90% of the fucking time. If only there was some sort of way to check your spelling in a web browser.

Refresh my memory... (3, Informative)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about 2 months ago | (#47436023)

Why again are we still supposed to use the ballot box instead of the bullet box?

Re:Refresh my memory... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47436723)

Why again are we still supposed to use the ballot box instead of the bullet box?

Because if you can rally enough people to your cause to actually win a war, then you can rally enough people to win an election. The system is designed to have an easier method for regime change than bloodshed, and for good reason: after a typical revolution, the chances of ending up with something better are not high.

Double-edged sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436145)

This is absolutely outrageous.
  Does that means that if somebody writes a script that goes over every other video from accounts of Warner, Sony, etc. and reports them (mistakenly) as infringement, maybe right before the premiere of $LATEST_REMAKE...
 
...no, no, that must be wrong.

Your friendly reminder: Aaron Schwartz was a dick. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436217)

Just a friendly reminder that Aaron Schwartz was an asshole and it's good that he is dead. That is based on the blog posts he himself wrote and published, still available. He was no better than a KKK member or neo nazi who decided to off themselves - good riddance, trash.

Perjury charges were promised for false claims (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47436401)

Perjury charges were promised for false claims. If the DCMA can't be repealed why not amend it to what was promised when it was being voted on?

There is supposed to be a penalty. (4, Insightful)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about 2 months ago | (#47436581)

When the DMCA laws were first proposed, there was supposed to be a penalty for making a false claim.
Obviously this needs to be re-visited.
Automated or not, someone set up the system. "Oh. I'm sorry. My Automated script did it". Make them pay a fine. One which increases for each false claim.
Another problem is third party enforcement. Rights holders hire companies to do this for them, then wash their hands of it. Make the original rights holders responsible. That's the way is works in the brick and mortar world. Own a building, you're liable. If a contractor does shoddy, you're responsible. Though you may be able to sue the contractor.
As people and companies are claiming (and in many cases justly so) real rights to content on the internet. It's time to bring the other side of that coin into play. If someone wrongly says they own part of your yard, you're entitled to damages.
Get off my yard.

Re:There is supposed to be a penalty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436797)

Shouldnt be a fine it should be restitution as a penalty. As if they violated someone else's copyright by making a false claim of ownership. Then the damages should be both punative to make them think twice about doing it again or perhaps removing their ability to do it again, including pain and suffering due to severe anger and outrage, and also monetary loss including the damage caused by potential lost viewers and all that goes with it such as possibility someone famous would see it or even a job opportunity would have been lost due to the outage, etc. http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Re:There is supposed to be a penalty. (1)

grahammm (9083) | about 2 months ago | (#47437061)

Maybe apply the 'three strikes' doctrine and make it that after N false take-downs all of the copyrights they do own revert to the public domain.

violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436645)

the people / layers abusing this system without repercussions and filing bogus claims MUST BE VIOLENTLY KILLED! There is no other way to create examples - kidnapping, torturing and killing them without mercy, all put on video and posted on the web for all to see and remember. GOGO.

DMCA needs to be scrapped (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47436779)

Basically before any person or entity can infringe upon my liberty and similar rights in person they should have to prove the infringement in a court of law which is already a right guaranteed under the constitution, known as the right to due process.

The problem is a lack of money and defense going to protect the public from abuses like this so most likely it has never been tried in court and there is no easy way to complain. Additionally all laws would be very one sided given they were written not with individuals rights in mind but large corporations instead.

I am actually wondering if a Habeas corpus would work because liberty infringement is at stake by the ability for other people to control me or my material by issuing false DMCA take down notices without first proving their case to a court or jury enabling this easy as pie vlantant liberty infringement against all individuals.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Golden Method? (1)

Arkh89 (2870391) | about 2 months ago | (#47436781)

1 - Write an automated take down script :
        For each $contentProvider
        {
                For each $content in getCatalog($contentProvider)
                {
                          if(true)
                                  sendDMCATakeDownNotice( $contentProvider, $content, getRandomClientName() );
                }
        }

        For each $counterNotice
                send( $contentProvider, "My apologies, it is the automated script which made the mistake. Your feedback will help improve its detection rate'); // Do not change anything...

2 - Sell the service to hundreds of these large companies.
3 - Profit!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>