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!

More DMCA Censorship at Yahoo!

Zonk posted about 6 years ago | from the do-they-call-it-censorship!-there dept.

Censorship 141

Thomas Hawk writes "Once again a Yahoo! user has found themselves on the short end of the DMCA stick. Video blogger Loren Feldman recently found that his video mocking (read parody) the Village People and blogger Shel Israel was removed from the Yahoo! service after Scorpio Music served Yahoo! with a DMCA takedown notice. The video in question contained a very brief fair use parody snippet of the Village People song YMCA as performed by a puppet. What's more, Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


It's a Village People thing... (5, Funny)

PaintyThePirate (682047) | about 6 years ago | (#22985682)

Oddly enough, my friend had a video removed from Youtube last month of four Robosapien RS Medias dancing to a Village People song.

Re:It's a Village People thing... (2, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 6 years ago | (#22985714)

well then that settles it. The most logical explanation is that the village people have nothing better to do than troll the internet, looking for YMCA uses references while they're riding the ever shrinking residual income off that stupid song. I bet they wear their outfits while they do it lmao.

Re:It's a Village People thing... (4, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | about 6 years ago | (#22985780)

I do wonder what happens when they find the image of YMCA Jesus [13gb.com].

D'you think they'll sue the Catholic Church?
If they do, I wanna watch. With pop-corn.

Re:It's a Village People thing... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986314)

Speaking of popcorn...

Quick! Someone make a video of Xenu singing that song.

Re:It's a Village People thing... (3, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | about 6 years ago | (#22986612)

Now I think we know. Either that, or it's slashdotted. It comes to the same thing, doesn't it? Anything good on the net either gets an EULA takedown or gets slashdotted...

Re:It's a Village People thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22987132)

Ironically, hotlinking is fair use.

Re:It's a Village People thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22987150)

Ironically, hotlinking is fair use.

Preparing for the MS takeover, are they? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985984)

WOW! Yahoo is acting as if Microsoft already owns them! ;)

Re:It's a Village People thing... (3, Interesting)

jack455 (748443) | about 6 years ago | (#22986484)

For anyone who believes in any kind of copyright at all that is exactly what should be protected against. Seriously, though, it doesn't sound like fair use (aside from being non-commercial). It's not a true parody IMO (and probably the courts) and not any kind of review or statement and certainly of no benefit to society (nor was the original song).

Whaa? (5, Funny)

Sylos (1073710) | about 6 years ago | (#22985688)

people still use Yahoo?

Re:Whaa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985734)

I thinks it's only the ones that would conclude that their DSL connection is down due to the SBC browser homepage not loading.

No wonder... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985694)

With that kind of attitude on Yahoo's part, no wonder Microsoft is so eager to mate with them.

thats right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985702)

anal sex won't do anything but make your dick stink

Re:thats right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985728)

Opalised turds don't count then ?

Re:thats right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22987114)

Thats not true! After anal I end up dropping two or three kids off at the pool.

Not taking a joke (0, Redundant)

awdau (1108639) | about 6 years ago | (#22985722)

And here I was thinking that the village people (with the songs they sung), would take a joke, specially considering a puppet is involved.

I hope they are not going to sue the puppet, though that would be interesting.

The world really is becoming a sad and sorry place :(

Re:Not taking a joke (0, Flamebait)

FoolsGold (1139759) | about 6 years ago | (#22985746)

The world really is becoming a sad and sorry place :(

The world? Or the US? Take your pick.

Not all countries in the world have such ridiculous laws like the DMCA. There is still some (fading) sanity elsewhere.

Re:Not taking a joke (5, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 6 years ago | (#22985800)

Unless the Village People own Scorpio Music, it's their handlers getting their panties in a twist and not the performers themselves.

Re:Not taking a joke (4, Insightful)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | about 6 years ago | (#22986780)

Mod this post up, dammit. The performers in the Village People have *never* owned the rights to their music, their videos, or even their images. If you only have the typical /. understanding of the entertainment business, then please keep the vitriol bottled up until you do a little reading, okay? I promise to do the same thing next time there's an article that demands a cursory familiarity with C++ or PHP or Web Ruby on Rails 2.0...

Finally! Now we know how to delete a Yahoo ID! (5, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | about 6 years ago | (#22985740)

Finally, Yahoo reveals that the way to delete a Yahoo ID is to commit serial copyright violations!

Re:Finally! Now we know how to delete a Yahoo ID! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985856)

They'll delete it from public view, but quite probably they'll still retain the data.

Re:Finally! Now we know how to delete a Yahoo ID! (1)

tokul (682258) | about 6 years ago | (#22987166)

Finally, Yahoo reveals that the way to delete a Yahoo ID is to commit serial copyright violations!
And you even don't have to violate copyright. [publaw.com]

And they wonder... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 years ago | (#22985774)

wuh - uh - uh - uh - under...


It's an old 50s song or something. But appropriate. I do not even know who the "artists" are.

They -- yahoo -- wonder why their business has not done so well. Well, here is one hint: don't harass, intrude upon, or intimidate people for stupid reasons. Other corporations have slowly been learning that lesson, harshly and expensively.

Gee, I hope /. doesn't get a takedown notice for my having sort of quoted some old song that somebody might actually hold a copyright on. What a tragedy that would be. No doubt the copyright holder just lost a shitload of money because I mentioned their work.

Re:And they wonder... (3, Informative)

downundarob (184525) | about 6 years ago | (#22986102)

Yours is probably a rhetorical question, and you would know how to find out but..
Del Shannon originally penned (and had a hit with it) in 1961

Lawrence Welk 1962.
the Small Faces in 1967
Elvis Presley in 1970,
the Beach Boys were known to have played it live.
Charlie Kulis 1975
Bonnie Raitt 1977

Just to name a few

So what? (0, Offtopic)

OldFish (1229566) | about 6 years ago | (#22985778)

This is still the land of the free and the home of the brave isn't it? Love it or leave it! Stop hating Amerika.

Re:So what? (1)

damista (1020989) | about 6 years ago | (#22985906)

Is it? Are you sure? Considering you're asking, I guess you aren't sure at all.
The DMCA is pretty much the biggest pain in the arse that was ever put on paper. But the worst thing is not that it exists. It's that despite all the problems it caused, your government still tries to export it to the rest of the world. As if Mickey Mouse, Coke and Maccas wasn't enough already. And to top it all off, the leaders of the rest of the world are just as stupid, ignorant and salting the pretzels of the "Content Mafia" like those responsible for the DMCA.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 6 years ago | (#22985996)

The land of the free where you can be sued if you say anything someone dosen't like.


Re:So what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986932)

Are you saying that there are countries that are better in terms of free speech?

Canada not, due to the hate-speech tribunal and the cost to anyone they decide to pursue.

Europe not, they ban political parties aplenty and ministers can shut down your servers.

China not, obvious reasons. Other parts of Asia not, for the reason that you typically get beat up rather than sued.

Middle East? Africa?

And remember that a "free" country isn't simply defined by laws, but by the types of consequences suffered. If e.g. the law says a statement is protected, and you say it, and get beaten up by a crowd, and they are not vigorously pursued by law enforcement (and perhaps it's implicitly said they acted in justified anger), then you don't have "free speech" either.

As someone said, there's few places where speech is "free". There are however different places where different kinds of speech are sanctioned.

They're trying to avoid lawsuits during takeover (5, Insightful)

Simonetta (207550) | about 6 years ago | (#22985796)

Since Yahoo! is in the delicate stage of being bought out by Microsoft, they're trying to avoid any lawsuits that could cause the buying price to be pulled lower. This is probably the reason that they are acting like consummate assholes. Normally the yahoos couldn't care less about pissant grandstanding through dubious legal stunts, but...this is a delicate moment in the take-over process.

    Maybe Microsoft is behind this in order to use a barrage of picayune lawsuits as a justification for lowering their bid offer. Goodness knows, Microsoft's staff of eager-beaver Ivy League lawyers do live for this kind of thing.

Re:They're trying to avoid lawsuits during takeove (3, Interesting)

mrvan (973822) | about 6 years ago | (#22986460)

What I don't get is this: I thought the principle behind the DMCA was that Yahoo, on being served a notice, would take down the possibly illicit material, and that the poster could get it back on by identifying himself and taking legal responsibility.

It seemed to me (not an American, not a lawyer) like a good system: the host is responsible in the first instance and takes material down without judging about the illegality (which the host can't), unless the poster takes responsibility and claims it is not illegal (fair use, own work, whatever), and it can be settled in court.

Apparently, it doesn't work that way...? Or does the poster not have the guts to stand up for his right? Or does yahoo go further than required by the DMCA?

Re:They're trying to avoid lawsuits during takeove (1)

houghi (78078) | about 6 years ago | (#22987362)

It is a lousy system. It is guilty untill proven inocent and the burden is on part of the defence. Let them go to court. Let them pay the wages and then let the court decide wether it must be taken down or not.

If then de acused thinks he is in his right, he can say so and the legal battle can begin.

What will hapen is that most won't even bother to fiel a suit and/or courts decide they can't be botherd with such trivial things.

D-M-C-A (5, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | about 6 years ago | (#22985802)

Young man, there's no need to feel down.
I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.
I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy.

Young man, there's a lawyer I know.
I said, young man, who can get you some dough.
You can sit back, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to ruin others good time.

It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

You can get yourself mean, you can have a good deal,
You can get folks to settle for whatever you feel...

Young man, are you listening to me?
I said, young man, what do you want to be?
I said, young man, you can make real your dreams.
But you've got to know this one thing!

No man does it all by himself.
I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf,
And just look there, to the D.M.C.A.
I'm sure our legal team can help you today.

It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the lawyer boys ...

It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

You can get yourself mean, you can have a good deal,
You can folks to settle for whatever you feel ...

Young man, I was once in your shoes.
I said, I was down and out with the blues.
I felt no man cared if my band were alive.
I felt the whole world was so jive ...

That's when a lawyer came up to me,
And said, young man, sign this release.
There is a law called the D.M.C.A.
They can start you back on your way.

It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.
It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A.

They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all RIAA boys ...

It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A
Young man, young man there's no need to feel down
Young man, young man pick yourself off the ground

It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A
Young man, young man are you listening to me?
Young man, young man what do you wanna be?

you'll find it at the Y-M-C-A
no man, young man does it all by himself
young man, young man put your pride on the shelf

then just go to the Y-M-C-A
young man, young man I was once in your shoes
young man, young man I said, I was down and out with the blues.

My comment has too few characters per line and I'm really hoping that this brings up the average - though I don't know that it will be enough. Apparently not on the first try- though I did bring up the average an entire character. Let's see if this was sufficient. Wow - it did go up another word but still too few. This could take a while. And of course the entire joke is ruined now. But I've got a stubborn streak in me that just kicked into full gear. Holy cow- 26.2 characters per line is not enough. I'm gonna have a novella down here to go with my funny (or not funny - we'll see) lyrics. Or maybe I'll just go down in flames as off topic for this section. Oh the suspense. 28.4 is not enough. For crying out loud. I like Slashdot, I really do, but this is annoying. If there are going to be ads in the comments then I ought to be able to at least post song lyrics - or should I say parodies of song lyrics. And while I hate to play this card, if that's not possible for the hoi polloi, well it'd be a nice bonus for the um you know - paying customers. I mean I don't think that is asking too much. Time to check again. Oh really - 32.6 is too few? There has to be something more to it than that. I've posted lots of comments that were shorter than that. The one I'm looking at right now above mine isn't that long. There must be something else in the formula there. But I'm not giving up. I'm going to keep at it until this thing gets past. On the bright side, no fear of seeing "Slow Down Cowboy!" now is there? I'm an eternal optimist. And I really feel like I'll be making the world a better place once this goes live. But I wont be doing it with an average of 35 words per line. I wonder if I could do something above without making this unreadable? I doubt it. Something to work on later. It seems that this would be new code. I could cut out some of the lines that just have DMCA and nothing else. Wont exactly match the song, but I think folks will get the idea. I just liked having it be the same number of lines as the inspiration.
Ok - that is what I did. I hope that helps out - but if anyone says I've left something out, it isn't my fault. It's slashcode's fault. That cut got me to 37.5 per line, which is apparently still not enough. I may get beaten by this system. I'm running out of stuff to say. I hate to fail after going this far, but really, this is too much. Though I guess if Anakin could stick it out and pull his burned up stump of a body up that side of the lava pit, I can hang with this post and try to get it postable. Of course he did pretty much turn into a very evil guy after that - or was before that I guess. Just watched ep III tonight. Not really that good though I did enjoy general grievous. Cool animation and ideas with that one, too bad it really had nothing to do with Star Wars.
I should have watched Stand By Me instead. I haven't watched in quite a long time and my wife bought it for me the other day. She is so cool. It is just such a great movie. And of course Wil Wheaton kicks butt in it. O.k. now something is up because my average has stopped going up. I may have to lop out some of the lyrics. Or maybe I just didn't put enough characters in the last line. Hit carriage return on occasion out of habit. I'll go back and bump this up into line with the last.
I had to cut more lyrics. That sucks. Let's check the average. Well that was enough - though it seems a Pyrrhic victory.

Re:D-M-C-A (4, Informative)

cp.tar (871488) | about 6 years ago | (#22985864)

You should have used HTML formatting.

Put a <br/> at the end of each line, and instead of empty lines, use the occasional <p>...</p> tag pair. Empty lines are the worst, I'd say; they bring your average way down.

I learned it the hard way, too, but I've been posting my comments in HTML ever since.

P.S. Obligatory Userfriendly link [userfriendly.org]

Re:D-M-C-A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985894)

Honestly, your three line "rant" because of the lameness filter was much more entertaining than the 52 lines of modified lyrics above ;)

Re:D-M-C-A (1)

Spacejock (727523) | about 6 years ago | (#22986232)

I thought the lyrics were funny, but the paperweight you had to attach to the bottom really takes the cake.

Re:D-M-C-A (1)

Fizzl (209397) | about 6 years ago | (#22986308)

Hehe, thanks for that. I am amazed by your persistence while fighting the braindead spam filter. I always give up if couple of lorem ipsums do not do the trick.

Microhoo! del.icio.us + flickr + mail = enema (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985810)

Microsoft welcomes you to Microhoo! del.icio.us, flickr, and mail!

Please download this proprietary nsakey.exe file to verify if you are general loser to our advantage. Silverlight required to proceed with the download.

What's Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985820)

Who really cares.

Host it yourself then (1)

trawg (308495) | about 6 years ago | (#22985830)

While it might be seen as lame for Yahoo to just capitulate like this, there's no doubt good reasons for them to do it - I assume being on the wrong end of a DMCA suit in the US can be expensive both in terms of lawyer fees and potential fines (?? assuming they can get sued for damages).

If the video creator is sure its not infringing they can just put it up themselves on another service and then they can go head-to-head with Scorpio Music.

Whether its in Yahoo's interests to keep it up is probably a painful number crunching risk analysis excercise ("how much potential revenue are we going to lose by refusing to host this and the possible subsequent bad press, versus how much will we lose if these douchebags try to make a big deal out of this and we end up in court because of it?") - I'm sure its easier for them just to ditch it.

What's the BFD here? (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 years ago | (#22985832)

It is terrible that it seems that anybody in the world can send a DMCA notice, valid or not, to Yahoo and get them to censor user content. Personally I think Yahoo has a higher obligation to the users who use their sites.
Yahoo doesn't have a higher obligation to there users and I don't recall the DMCA requiring content hosters to vet takedown notices.

You really think Yahoo (or any other large webhost/portal) is going to spend the money to have people sitting around all day checking the validity of every single DMCA takedown notice they receive?

Yahoo did what they were supposed to do under the law.
Now it's your turn to file a counter-notice [chillingeffects.org]

Re:What's the BFD here? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985912)

Because that's not the American Way(TM). The American Way is to stomp your feet, whine like a little bitch, then blame the company who is following the law. Sure, he could have filed counter-notice and follow the law himself, but why do that when you can have a tirade and piss on a company you don't like?

Re:What's the BFD here? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986008)

They probably should since they could then bill the offending parties for the resources spent investigating their frequently bogus notices. Sure you'd have to do some manuvering to setup a MS technical support style system. But set up as a credit card hold that will be refunded should the apperatus involved find the content indeed infringing, Yahoo could probably make money on it. In the mean time jackasses like Prince, KISS, Madonna, and apparently the Village People would be diminished and in fact paying to improve everyone else's service experience. The beauty of a setup like this is that it's in Yahoo's interest to set an extremely high barrier, and maximize the number of credit card charges.

Then in the instances where they have to go to court, their countersuit remedy should ask that the supposedly infringed work in the public domain in the event they prevail. One company engaging in that sort of brinksmanship winning one time would make all the other paper people better corporate citizens.

Re:What's the BFD here? (2, Insightful)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | about 6 years ago | (#22986126)

Damn and I ran out of modpoints because that's the most insightful thing I've heard al day. Make money off the fuckers who are trying to use the law to protect their ever diminishing income streams

As for counter notices. I can see where Yahoo sits on this. It's not in their interest to waste money chasing up the many thousands of these shitty notices they get each day. They just rip out the "offending" content and let the two ends of the deal battle it out.

The problem with the system is that the Recording Industry Assholes of America are just issuing random notices on the basis of words in filenames. We've seen it before, we'll see it again. These people don't care about fair use. They'd like to see all fair use abolished to make the way for a neverending income stream.

Now, it's hardly fair that the little guy has to waste his time and effort defending his legally protected right to free speech and fair use because he's been censored by a money hungry media asshole. It's the "vibe" of it that's wrong.

The law makes the little guy demonstrate that he is, in fact, right after his media has been pulled down. Yet, it puts no burden of proof on the rich media company who now can just send round random junk and censor whoever they like; even temporarily.

File a counter notice (5, Insightful)

RedWizzard (192002) | about 6 years ago | (#22985852)

File a counter [chillingeffects.org] notice [chillingeffects.org]. You've got rights. Exercise them.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

Temporal (96070) | about 6 years ago | (#22986220)

Indeed, Yahoo is just doing what they are required to do by law, and filing a counter notice is the correct response. Complaining to Slashdot... not so much.

Re:File a counter notice (1)

interiot (50685) | about 6 years ago | (#22987738)

Yep. The law wasn't written to put Yahoo (or any other company) in the position of being final arbiters of what's fair use and what isn't. That's what the penalty of perjury is for, and the fact that the step after the counternotice is for the original person to file a lawsuit and have a judge make a ruling.

DMCA counter notice (1)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | about 6 years ago | (#22985866)

Why didnt he file a DMCA counter notice? Fair use is still protected.

Re:DMCA counter notice (1)

pgn674 (995941) | about 6 years ago | (#22985970)

Yea, this sounds like standard procedure to me. You post content on a service. Someone else (presumably wrongly) throws the DMCA at the service about your content. Service provider takes down content without investigation (expensive and murky water and many other reasons). You file (presumable rightly) a counter DMCA notice and service provider brings content back up. If the original DMCA thrower doesn't like that, you take it from there.

Also, the threat of account removal sounds like normal fine print to me, with Yahoo! trying to cover most of their bases.

Re:DMCA counter notice (2, Informative)

yuna49 (905461) | about 6 years ago | (#22987882)

From the level of whining we hear here, you'd imagine that a counter-notice would be a difficult and costly proposition. Here's what's really required [chillingeffects.org]:

* The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature
* Identification of the material and its location before removal
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body.

Doesn't seem too onerous to me. Once you file the counter-notice the rightsholder has to file suit against you within 14 days in a Federal court. I'd bet many of these complaints would just fade away if the rightsholders were forced to file suit in response to counter-notices.

Instead we have people like the OP who decide the best route to contesting take-down notices is to complain in his blog and on Slashdot.

Now there are a couple of areas where the balance between the rightsholders and the alleged infringers might be improved. It appears that, for complainants, perjury only applies [chillingeffects.org] to the issue of whether the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the rightsholder. For the counter-notice, perjury applies to the statement describing why the material does not infringe. If that's the correct interpretation, I'd like to see the perjury clause apply to the actual claim of supposed infringment as well as to the claimant's authorization. Forcing rightsholders to sign the claim of infringement under penalty of perjury might stave off nuisance take-down notices.

Also, while I understand the rightsholders wishes that the supposedly infringing material be removed as soon as possible, I do think it would have been better if the ISPs were required to notify the alleged infringer before the material is removed, not after.

Publish it in the open (2, Insightful)

Bromskloss (750445) | about 6 years ago | (#22985874)

They should publish every such request at their front page for everyone to see and for the shame of those requesting the takedown. One box with latest news, one box with latest takedowns.

Re:Publish it in the open (1)

arivanov (12034) | about 6 years ago | (#22986134)

They cannot. AFAIK there was a recent decision that takedowns are subject to copyright as well.

While it is completely bogus and will be repelled one day for the time publishing takedown notices is a bad idea.

Re:Publish it in the open (2, Informative)

Evets (629327) | about 6 years ago | (#22986196)

That was a case under very specific circumstances. The takedown notice was actually filed with the copyright office before being sent. It specifically contained a "do not publish" clause within the takedown notice. And it was sent specifically to goad the recipient into publishing the takedown notice, as other very suspect takedown notices sent by that law firm had been published publicly by that particular site.

That's not to say that the big guns wouldn't just follow suit with that strategy, but the easy way around it has been around for years [catb.org] - although admittedly it doesn't scale very well.

Re:Publish it in the open (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | about 6 years ago | (#22987914)

If legal messages are copyrighted, can't you then justly refuse to read them, and have them tossed as legally binding and/or compliant with Court notification standards?

Visit My Blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22985904)

Hi I'm Thomas Hawk and I'm submitting a story to /. that mentions "DMCA" so I know Zonk will post it and drive up my hits. Thanks for visiting everybody!

Move servers out of USA? (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#22985918)

Again a DMCA notice... this is not the first time it happens to a user. Also non-USA citizens are subject to this crazy law, when they post material on a US based server. Or not even necessarily that it seems, do legal reverse-engineering or encryption related work in your own country, visit the USA, get arrested, it's possible, no? But leave that discussion for later.
What actually surprises me is that there are no similar portals in e.g. the EU. All major portals and sharing sites are US based - Yahoo!, MSN, Flickr, Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, you name it, they are all in the USA, I can't think of anyone based fully in Europe. And as such they are subject to the US's draconian copyright laws.
This again makes me wonder why none is being set up outside of the US jurisdiction. How about a facebook.de, or a youtube.nl, fully hosted in that country, and incorporated there as well. What is holding the Internet back? It is not that Europe doesn't have the IT infrastructure, on the contrary. It may be better than what's available in the USA. Same accounts for the people. I may assume there as much business sense on both sides of the pond.
Yet all these video-sharing and other creative enterprises on the Internet seem to sprout and flourish mostly in the USA. The world is really a wonderful place.

Re:Move servers out of USA? (1)

witherstaff (713820) | about 6 years ago | (#22986306)

I'm not familiar with the venture capital side of things outside of the US. Could it be that the method of funding 10 things, hoping 1 turns out very big to recoup the cost of the 9 failures, is mostly an American phenomena?

For the past two years Nokia has done an annual competition for mobile development. Nokia brought in established Silicon Valley VC's to work with them. If a company the size of Nokia still relys on American companies for funding projects, I can only guess it'll take awhile for top tier Internet sites to be entirely EU based.

Re:Move servers out of USA? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 6 years ago | (#22986442)

Venture capital could be largely a US phenomenon, I have no idea really how that works.
But then a site like Google got going without any VC funding. And so many more companies that are huge now: started in someone's garage or dorm room. Only to attract capital after they prove their idea, and needed the money to grow further. I believe Slashdot itself is also an example. Europe also has garages and dorm rooms.
One obstacle may be the language. Dutch web site startpagina.nl, now a major collection of links to all kinds of subjects, started off in someone's home as help for family or friends, just like Google. But the Dutch speaking market of course is relatively small, which will limit their growth. Still nothing stops one to go multi-lingual.

Re:Move servers out of USA? (2, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | about 6 years ago | (#22986660)

From what I hear, the American entrepreneurial spirit is still almost exclusive to this country. Obviously there are entrepreneurs in other countries as well, but it's not as ingrained into the culture as it is here.

You can't throw a rock without hitting someone trying to start a company around here, and so there's [i]plenty[/i] of things to fund. EU labor laws apparently make Europeans significantly more conservative, both due to how safe people's jobs are (keeping people from wanting to leave their jobs and start a company) and due to how hard it often is to fire people (making hiring people a much bigger risk than it is here).

America's philosophy of firing people with no notice means that self-employment is significantly more attractive, and hiring people is significantly less risky. Whatever else you may say about it, it's very good conditions to start a business in.

Re:Move servers out of USA? (1)

clickety6 (141178) | about 6 years ago | (#22986954)

USA: Language - One - English (American Style)

Europe - Language - 346 - English, French (French), French (Swiss), German (German), German (Austrian), German (Swiss), Dutch, Flemish, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Norwegian, Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Irish, etc., etc., etc., usw, and so on...

Re:Move servers out of USA? (2, Insightful)

Weedlekin (836313) | about 6 years ago | (#22987704)

"Also non-USA citizens are subject to this crazy law, when they post material on a US based server. "

I fail to see how anyone could reasonably expect any country's laws not to apply to content that's in that country by virtue of being on servers that are physically located there.

"Or not even necessarily that it seems, do legal reverse-engineering or encryption related work in your own country, visit the USA, get arrested, it's possible, no?"

It only happens if you reverse engineer stuff that would be covered by the DMCA, which means it has to be from a company which has rights to the item in question within the US who have complained about your actions, and managed to get an arrest warrant issued. They have no more jurisdiction over things that aren't legally distributed there (beyond banning them, of course) than the European Commission does over things that aren't distributed within the EC, unless of course they're acting on behalf of a country that they have treaty obligations to. This will however only happen if said country has made a formal request to the relevant US authorities.

"How about a facebook.de, or a youtube.nl, fully hosted in that country, and incorporated there as well."

How would they finance themselves? Advertisers on the US versions have a potential audience of hundreds of millions, the vast majority of whom can read or write English, so AT&T for example will pay a lot more for a spot on a popular US site than a Polish phone company would to a Dutch or German one. You only have to look at how much UK ISPs are squealing about the extra bandwidth costs that the BBCs media players are lumping them with to see how difficult things could be for a European YouTube, especially when one considers the fact that the UK is one of largest EU countries in terms of population, and that the BBC don't let people from outside access its content.

"Yet all these video-sharing and other creative enterprises on the Internet seem to sprout and flourish mostly in the USA."

The size and nature of the US market has resulted in all sorts of companies and services that are rare elsewhere, but the Internet is the only place that it becomes obvious to those who haven't spent a fair amount of time there.

Fuck This Shit! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986004)

And Fuck Yahoo!

Goddamn users do nothing but add value to the company and get treated like shit.

Candy Ass Motherfuckers.

Remember there are still fair use laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986014)

Remember there are still fair use laws even though the video sites like youtube aren't ripe for the picking yet.

All services in one place... (5, Insightful)

darkpixel2k (623900) | about 6 years ago | (#22986106)

Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID

Isn't it great having everything integrated into one easy-to-use service? Pictures, searching, games, dating services, emai--oh fuck--they just canceled everything in my entire life.

Same goes for Google everything. If one company controls all the services you use, all it takes is one idiot at that company to make your life hell.

Re:All services in one place... (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | about 6 years ago | (#22986402)

Yup, and 34 seconds later you can have a brand new account with access to all the same services. Sure, you have the hassle of changing your email address, but I think people are used to this happening already.

Re:All services in one place... (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | about 6 years ago | (#22986692)

Many people store much of their email, contact lists, images / video, etc on such services - when one loses access to their account, they lose access to much, if not all, of their user content. That can be devestating for many people.

Personally, I don't use Google / Yahoo for anything important, but I know many people who do - some don't understand the risks while others simply accept the tradeoff of possibly losing access / data as the price of using such "free" services.


Re:All services in one place... (1)

bball99 (232214) | about 6 years ago | (#22986870)

- which is why one shouldn't store this information under a single site/vendor or even at all?

DMCA doing what it should do? (3, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22986292)

Hang on, isn't this (the first part at least) how the DMCA supposed to work? I thought hosts/ISPs had to honour the takedown request and then investigate if a counter claim or dispute was filed so that the host can claim safe harbour [chillingeffects.org].

Thank goodness the UK doesn't have anything quite as bad as the DMCA (yet...)

The bit about terminating services is a bit more extreme, but seems to be some standard practice taken too far - "You've breached part of the ToS by posting breaking a law, so we'll terminate your account" but without the part where they check whether it was a copyright infringement or just another quick DMCA claim.

Re:DMCA doing what it should do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986378)

The UK does have a EUCD-compliant section allowing for safe-harbour and takedowns, since October 2003.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#27 [opsi.gov.uk]

Re:DMCA doing what it should do? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22986748)

But that's part of copyright legislation, not some newly named "DMCA" legislation that seems to have been designed to be abused.

I can see from a legal stand-point that taking something down when infringement is claimed is the best policy, as it is up to the court to decide if it infringes or not and the court hasn't made a decision at that point, but the DMCA seems to have somehow taken it a step too far. Even if there wasn't "safe harbour", I'd have thought there would be the ability under previous law to take similar action to force the removal of items where they infringed.

Only threatened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986322)

What's more, Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID.

Only threatened? Yahoo! revoked my account a few years ago for no reason at all. They refused to provide any justification as to why and there was no way to appeal or recover any information. That was the last time I used Yahoo!

He is lucky they only threatened.

OpenID (3, Insightful)

infestedsenses (699259) | about 6 years ago | (#22986338)

What's more, Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID.

That's a slightly larger problem than it may seem at first. A Yahoo ID as at the same time an OpenID. People using that account as an OpenID are subject to the whims of Yahoo. I'm not yet sure of the implications this bears, but it will become a problem when people become more reliant on OpenID.

Ya Know..... (2, Interesting)

IHC Navistar (967161) | about 6 years ago | (#22986388)

Ya know, it would hilarious if someone turned this around and made a parody of the DMCA by changing the lyrics and setting it to the tune of "YMCA".

As much of a copyright violation that it may seem to be, it would still be *VERY* Fair Use, since it would be a parody.

Question mark end of DMCA stick (2, Informative)

iamacat (583406) | about 6 years ago | (#22986416)

DMCA takedown is basically a question from ISP to the content publisher on weather the material is distributed legally. The publisher can just tell Yahoo that the material is legal. In this case, the videos will be restored and subscriber's identity will be made known to the author of DMCA notice to settle the matter in court if necessary. The process is mutual and in fact the issuer of DMCA notice is liable for any damages resulting from the downtime.

Unlike DMCA counter-circumvention provision this is actually a good thing. ISP is off the hook and instead the customer and the purported copyright owner get to give up their claims or duke it out in court if they choose. Genuinely infringing material can be immediately removed from public access, ensuring that say, Photoshop source code does not make it into too many hands before the court battle is settled.

Re:Question mark end of DMCA stick (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 years ago | (#22987120)

But there are two problems here. Firstly, Yahoo overreacted. They are only meant to disable access to the work infringed. Secondly, the law isn't as good as you make out. The provider is still required to remove access to the content. A better method would be for the ISP to give the publisher a certain time to send a counter notice before it is disabled. At the moment this does provide a means for short term censorship.

Land of the what? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22986668)

Tell me again, how did you guys end up with this DMCA and when do you think you will be rid of it?

Wow, tough talk! (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 6 years ago | (#22987084)

I'ma delete your Yahoo ID, ya warcriminal pansy, you.

This is what the modern world has degenerated to.

Censorship? (-1, Flamebait)

torstenvl (769732) | about 6 years ago | (#22987168)

There's no such thing as "censorship at Yahoo!" because censorship is about civic speech, not about the decisions of private entities. It's a contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility, for there to be censorship at Yahoo!.

The OP makes about as much sense as screaming "censorship!" when a publisher rejects you, or when the President decides a movie rated PG-13 would be better than one rated R for his own family's viewing time. Get over yourself.

Re:Censorship? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 6 years ago | (#22987366)

parody is fair use that is protected by the 1st amendment. Yahoo is hiding behind the dmca. They have a history of cencorship with china

gn4a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22987502)

the future holds Mr. Raymond's be treated by your There are only This mistake or f0r the state of Fact came into Survival prospects
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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