Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

YouTube Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video

Posted by timothy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 04:10 AM
from the good-light-on-a-bad-light dept.
Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York. The video shows protesters gathering outside the building at night and projecting images of the Olympic symbol, 'tank man,' Tibetan riot footage and clips of victims of the Chinese police crackdown in Tibet. After receiving the request, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked if it really planned to pursue a claim. The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] James Powderly of Graffiti Research Labs Detained In China 337 comments
An anonymous reader writes "News from Free Tibet 2008 that internationally known artist, technologist and co-founder of the Graffiti Research Lab, James Powderly, was detained in Beijing early on August 19th while preparing to debut a new work and technology of protest, the L.A.S.E.R. Stencil. According to a Twitter message received yesterday by Students for a Free Tibet at approximately 5 pm Beijing Standard Time, Powderly had been detained by Chinese authorities at 3 am. His current whereabouts remain unknown. Powderly was the inventor of throwies." (Powderly's detention was also mentioned at Make Magazine's blog.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2008, @04:14AM (#24612259)
    for the first person to post a link to the video so that I don't have to look for it myself!
    • by rolfc (842110) on Friday August 15 2008, @04:18AM (#24612275)
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Best watched with the sound off. It's the same music all the way through.

      • by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Friday August 15 2008, @05:20AM (#24612559) Homepage
        You could have just linked to TFA since the video is embedded right on the page... No matter, though.

        This video is a perfect example of the Streisand effect. It's a horrible little clip with ear-jarring music, poor video quality and even worse editing. I wouldn't have even known what it was about without the article, and even so it does not contain much of a message. Very few people ever would have seen this video if the IOC hadn't issued the takedown notice in the first place, but now it's on the /. front page.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2008, @06:04AM (#24612785)

          The /. front page?

          You mean THE slashdot? Well I'll be fucked. I bet China takes notice now.

          • In other news, China declares war on Russia because of its cyber attack, not realising that their melted servers are slashdot's doing rather than the Russians.

        • Very few people ever would have seen this video if the IOC hadn't issued the takedown notice in the first place, but now it's on the /. front page.

          I've just watched the video, and to be honest, still very few people have seen it. The count is currently 1947. It would have been a lot better if the article had linked directly to the YouTube video. Then thousands of slashdot readers possible would have opened it.

        • by houghi (78078) on Friday August 15 2008, @06:13AM (#24612837) Homepage

          Somebosy else said:I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers.
          What if that person was after the Streisant effect. As the Streisant effect is now well known, it could be used to get more attention as well.

          Things like this have been done in advertising (at least in Belgium) where one of the adverts in a campaign are slightly offencive to an extreme small part of the population. This becomes a newsitem, everybody hears and talks about it like this one [yahoo.com] which some people in Belgium thought offencive for women, while this one [youtube.com] passed without a problem.
          (I am aware of the irony of giving links to ads while talking about viral advertisement)

          So could the Streisant effect be used here to 'promote' the free Tibet case?

          • I saw the second one , never saw the first.

            Strange thing is , being a man , i don't find the second one offensive , but i do find the first one offensive.

    • by daniorerio (1070048) on Friday August 15 2008, @05:00AM (#24612467)
      No you don't ;)
  • by eebra82 (907996) on Friday August 15 2008, @04:23AM (#24612297) Homepage
    Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      China's propaganda hasn't been about communism for a long time.

      "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a wildcard because it can mean just about anything. Currently it is defined as socialist market economy.

      • People only noticed the fake big-foot, little did they know China is a fake-communist country.

        • by wisty (1335733) on Friday August 15 2008, @06:21AM (#24612861)
          It's not that much of a dictatorship. The people get to vote on which CP member gets in. It's a bit like the US really, but with one less party.
          • It's not that much of a dictatorship. The people get to vote on which CP member gets in. It's a bit like the US really, but with one less party.

            :-)

          • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday August 15 2008, @06:56AM (#24613051) Journal

            It's a bit like the US really

            Except in the US you can criticize the party in power without being arrested and hauled away by the cops.

              • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday August 15 2008, @08:04AM (#24613587) Journal

                People who live in glass countries shouldn't throw bricks. In the US you don't have to critize anybody to be arrested and hauled away by the cops [illinoistimes.com].

                What's your point? Governmental officials abuse their power? Nobody would deny that. The difference between the US and China is that we have a free press that can investigate those abuses of power and bring them to light. In China they can't even get answers as to why their schools collapsed and killed thousands of their children during the recent earthquakes.

                Remember that Democracy is the worst form of Government ever -- except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  What I don't understand in this discussion is why the American on the street is so hot to criticise China, today. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that China is fifty or a hundred years behind the US on human rights issues. For much of its history, the US has been fifty or a hundred years behind Britain in similar ways. But the US has been proud during that time of the rate at which it has advanced. To take one obvious example, the US is proud of having abolished slavery in (I think) 1865, despite t

                  • by Shakrai (717556) on Friday August 15 2008, @08:53AM (#24614225) Journal

                    As to the free press issue, American reporters go to jail over politics, too [cnn.com]

                    No, American reporters go to jail for refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. Bit of a difference there. I would argue that we need a press shield law on the Federal level (my state has one) but there's still a difference between going to jail for contempt of court and being whisked away for investigating Governmental abuses or corruption.

                    the right to free speech is supposed to be the right to not speak as well

                    Actually, no, there is no right not to speak if you are subpoenaed to testify. You have a right against self-incrimination but if you are offered immunity (i.e: nothing you say can be used against you) then you don't have the right to refuse to testify. This is based on hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition.

                    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                      Do you really think a witness to a murder (or any crime for that matter) should be able to refuse to testify?

                      Yes. I do not agree with drug laws, and if I were on a jury in a drug case (well, I wouldn't be because the prosecuting attorney wouldn't let it happen) I could not in good conscience vote "guilty", no matter what the evidence. [wikipedia.org]

                      If I were called to testify against someone selling pot, I would be in a very bad place indeed; I would have a moral mandate to refuse to testify, but if I did refuse I would f

    • by ubernostrum (219442) on Friday August 15 2008, @05:33AM (#24612639) Homepage

      Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?

      There's another explanation, which is that a lot of symbols surrounding the Olympics are trademarked. And, in the US, trademark law requires that you take steps to protect your trademark, or you risk losing some or all of your rights to it. It's debatable how much that has to do with this case, since at least one of the Olympic symbols (the interlocking rings) is protected by a special statute that falls outside normal rules for this sort of thing, but it could be a factor.

      • I don't quite understand the relation between the Tibetans and the Olympics. It is just a sports event and it has only 1/200 Chinese element in it, among the 200+ nations. The game will last about 10 more days. So after that are we going to see, Nike, G.M., MacDonald, Rolex, Gucci, Kentucky chicken etc... protest along with their Lion flag? If they are after the Chinese govt, why drag with the Olympics.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          It may have 1/200 Chinese athletes, but it has 100% of Chinese commercial interests, and more importantly to the billions of magpies watching, it's shifting attention away from the great vices of the Chinese government, painting them as a happy friendly internationally-welcoming country.

          There's a reason China is feared, they have a ton of American money, and they have the morals of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein all chopped up into one big bad cloak of violent oppression.

          Unless you like the idea of being dragge

      • This myth keeps getting propagated by trademark holders, but it is not correct. You have to protect your trademark to prevent others from using it to sell or represent the same kind of goods and services as their own. But this was obviously not the case here. Nobody with a brain cell thought that the protestors were trying to pass off what they were doing as an alternative "Olympics", or suggest that they were the only IOC-authorised brand of anti-Chinese protest.

        Quite honestly, the IOC brand has been so di

    • Aside from using the logotype (which, in my opinion, was listed as 'fair use'), what exactly did the IOC plan to do with this? And why are they following China's commie propaganda?

      Not sure, but had it not been for the IOC's intervention, who would have seen or even known about the video to begin with?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The IOC have been excessively aggressive in protecting their trademarks for years. The 2004 games in Athens had them threatening every restaurant or other venue with the word 'Olympic' in its name - apparently they were unaware that Olympus is in Greece and things have been named after it for several thousand years there. In the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, there have been laws passed here in the UK granting extra protection to their trademarks.
      • s, there have been laws passed here in the UK granting extra protection to their trademarks.

        And we all know the IOC is nice & fair & reasonable, just like the RIAA and MPAA in regards to copyright claims.

        Really, why does the IOC get "extra" protection in regards to trademarks compared to anyone else? What makes the IOC so special? I have grown tired of these organizations that seem to think they are more important than everyone else, trampling over what they see fit.

        There's the ultimate battle royal

  • by Naruki (601680) on Friday August 15 2008, @04:28AM (#24612331)

    And it's so terribly inconvenient that they deserve praise for it?

    Lowered Expectations.

  • Personally I give Google kudos for doing this. If it were any other company they wouldn't have done anything and would have stated that they will not repost it unless a counter DMCA is issued. I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese. The Chinese are horrible and sure they can make a pretty show but they have total disregard for human rights.

    If this were Microsoft or Yahoo (and yahoo has pandered to the Chinese many many times) they would have waited for a counter DMCA or just ignore it and let another site deal with it.

    So good job not being evil

    *Cheers*

    and I swear the Chinese's pretty little show doesn't change anything.

    • Re:Don't be evil (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Repossessed (1117929) on Friday August 15 2008, @04:56AM (#24612455)

      While Google's intervention helped, I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers. Any real effort on the part of Google would have been, while perhaps right, also a potentially disastrous legal move, given the number of copyright battles where Google is currently relying on a neutral service defense.

      • While Google's intervention helped, I'm betting it had more to do with alerting the IOC to the insanity of one of its workers. Any real effort on the part of Google would have been, while perhaps right, also a potentially disastrous legal move, given the number of copyright battles where Google is currently relying on a neutral service defense.

        I know thats why I applaud google.

        Although after reading the article it seems like the IOC didn't mean to take down that video. It had the title Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony so in a way it was the original posters fault for posting a misleading title.

        I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.

        • I think we shouldn't blame the IOC for this one. They were probably just sifting through google tagging anything from the Olympics.

          We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?

          • We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?

            But text tags are subject to trademark law. Come to think of it, I applaud Google for standing up to someone who tried to use copyright law to enforce a trademark.

      • I suspect it was more along the lines of a counter DMCA notice from the original authors of the work that got it back up than anything else.

    • I applaud Google for taking the extra step of actually contacting the IOC and asking them if they truly want to pursue this or are they just trying to pander to the Chinese...

      I know hating on the Chinese government is in vogue right now but the IOC's initial DMCA notice had nothing to do with "pander[ing] to the Chinese." The IOC is one of the most aggressive organization when it comes to protecting their rights and, given that this video depicted the five interlocking rings (which the IOC protects very
    • No Kudos (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stephanruby (542433) on Friday August 15 2008, @07:23AM (#24613245)

      The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours.

      Google shouldn't have removed the video in the first place. At least, that's what I refused to do when I received an obviously invalid DMCA request for one of my own customers site.

      DMCA requests are being sent out like spam. And when I say spam, I mean that they're being sent out by automated scripts with no human supervision whatsoever. And in many documented cases, DMCA requests are being sent out by people who know damn well the DMCA doesn't apply -- but they just want to have some embarrassing materials taken down as quickly as possible.

      So if a human looks at it, like a Google employee must have obviously done to tell the IOC about it, and says 'no', it's obviously an invalid DMCA request, then the video shouldn't be removed -- or if it was removed already -- it should be posted back right away -- before the IOC is even contacted.

      Now I realize Google is being sued by copyright holders for not being quick enough to respond to them, but we need to sue Google on the other side of the issue to make sure they don't go too far in complying with the legal threats of these automated DMCA requests. If we don't do this, we'll certainly lose our rights to immediate free speech, and *immediate* free speech is important -- or at least it's gaining more importance every single day -- since sites like YouTube often beat out other traditional outlets in getting fresh same-day footage of armed conflicts, rigged elections, and bloody protests.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Google shouldn't have removed the video in the first place. At least, that's what I refused to do when I received an obviously invalid DMCA request for one of my own customers site.

        That's a very dangerous thing to do -- you're depriving yourself of the "safe harbor" protections that would mean that only your customer, and not you yourself, has liability. Sure, the claim may be invalid -- but if they try to haul you into court alongside your customer, it would be nice to be able to get yourself back out agai

  • Good on YouTube, good on Google!
    Fuck you, chilling effect.

  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Friday August 15 2008, @05:27AM (#24612599)
    ..he once undiplomatically referred to the current Chinese leadership as "ghastly old waxworks." And last week in The Guardian, Marina Hyde suggested that the same description should apply to the IOC and that they deserved one another. When a feudal relic aged around 60, and an upper class British journalist think two sets of people are hopelessly past their sell by date, they must indeed be a long way into the bulging and growing mould stage.

    So Google is not so much doing the right thing, but making the tough decision whether to go along with old, obnoxious powerful men who will soon be history, or to keep alongside its demographic.

  • by rumith (983060) on Friday August 15 2008, @06:02AM (#24612767)
    1. Was bringing the video back Google's own idea or did someone from the government or a three-letter agency hint that it would be a good idea?
    2. Would Google go to the same lengths if Fox News requested takedown of this inconvenient video [youtube.com]?
    3. How do you discriminate between free speech and propaganda at all? Counting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian videos as free speech and counting anti-American videos as propaganda might look like an attractive answer to some, but it will not be accepted.
    4. Provided there is a definitive answer to the previous question, should commercial sites like YouTube allow propaganda videos?
    • How do you discriminate between free speech and propaganda at all? Counting anti-Chinese and anti-Russian videos as free speech and counting anti-American videos as propaganda might look like an attractive answer to some, but it will not be accepted.

      shitload of anti american videos posted by americans are on youtube since 2002.

  • Unless I've missed something, the DMCA deals exclusively with copyright infringement. The linked rings symbol is trademarked by the IOC. There is no copyright in it, and certainly no copyright in the linked-handcuff symbol used in the Free Tibet video. Even granting that the IOC might have a case for trademark infringement, what entitles them to issue a DMCA takedown notice? Indeed, a DMCA takedown notice requires the issuer to attest under penalty of perjury that the issuer holds the copyright in the work in question. Did the IOC or its lawyer not commit perjury in issuing this notice?

    • by wild_quinine (998562) on Friday August 15 2008, @04:27AM (#24612323)

      'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.' AKA 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect their image.'

      I'll take what I can get. You act like one of these choices is a bad thing!

        • Vimeo... (Score:3, Informative)

          Vimeo has stood up to the Church of Scientology and the IOC. Their commitment to free speech is absolute. They are far more worthy of our support than YouTube, which regularly knuckles under to media companies whispering "Boo!" in their ears. Vimeo will not allow you to upload your rips of Battlestar Galactica episodes but they will stand by your right to free speech. Plus videos look and sound WAY BETTER there.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What's the difference? Surely it doesn't matter what the the actual reason internally in YouTube is, if the consequence is a strengthening of free speech?
    • Everybody! We do *gooood*! Good! Nothing but good!


      Now, the rest of this video diary will continue with only the close members of the board in the room.
      Right, now that we're alone, lets dicuss the Secret Censoring...
    • Hmmm, on second thought, I think they already know :

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7562669.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      Now they need to start doing this outside of their country too. Wouldn't be too hard, especially since you can trivially get past American border security as incidents keep illustrating.

      Think how trivial something like this would be for the chinese government (btw the nature of the substance is confirmed, and the culprit is a somali muslim that illegaly entered US via the canadian border) :

      http://cbs4denve [cbs4denver.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      free the US?

      You do realize we have an election in less than three months right?

      After the last 8 years China and Russia aren't looking as bad as they used.

      Are you sure [wikipedia.org] about [telegraph.co.uk] that?