YouTube Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video 187
Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York.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.'"
What did the IOC plan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who believes the reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
'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!
A QUESTION is going out of your way? (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's so terribly inconvenient that they deserve praise for it?
Lowered Expectations.
Don't be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Who believes the reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What did the IOC plan? (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.
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Don't be evil (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Several questions arise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:4, Insightful)
The /. front page?
You mean THE slashdot? Well I'll be fucked. I bet China takes notice now.
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:0, Insightful)
Indeed, free tibet so they can continue using slaves and being barbaric state.
Re:Who believes the reason? (Score:1, Insightful)
Problem is....
"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.'"
should read....
"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 it's corporate image.'"
This is all it is. Youtube was getting a TON of bad press on the subject. if it was some lame 13 year old's personal rickroll. They would take it down in seconds and never ask squat to anyone.
If this was new Youtube corporate behavior (Better yet they need to challenge EVERY SINGLE TAKEDOWN before they comply) then I'll give them kudos.. until then they were simply trying to make themselves look better in the public eye, not do something that was right.
Re:Who believes the reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Meanwhile in Tibet. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Bumper stickers are more about making yourself feel good than actually doing something to end Chinese oppression.
Why don't the folks who put bumper stickers on their cars and wear the cool t-shirts organize an expeditionary force like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that traveled to Spain to fight Franco's fascists?
And if it ended up being a suicide mission it would certainly draw the attention of all the major news networks and the brave volunteers could go to their deaths knowing they sacrificed their lives for a greater good.
Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (Score:1, Insightful)
Given that US police have shot dead people for the crime of celebrating a local sports victory, I think China only doing so in response to actual protests may actually be progress.
Of course, the reason the US doesn't shoot protesters is because they arrest them and ship them off to prison for a few days until there's no longer a danger of anyone noticing them protesting. No need to shoot them.
And I don't think Russia has ever tried to poison seven of its own people in order to fabricate evidence to support a war with another country.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (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 that England ruled against it in 1772, even before the American revolution. Back in the present, China's current rate of progress on social and economic fronts is, I think unarguably, an order of magnitude greater than the US has ever accomplished. Why, then, are they the bad guys, when to all appearances they are doing the most good, in progress times population, perhaps of any nation ever existing on the planet?
Yes, to accomplish this, China is making a lot of what appear to be very, very calculated compromises. Taken in isolation, these compromises frequently appear ugly, cynical and sometimes (for instance on the environmental front) terrifyingly risky. But could you do better, starting from where they are starting? Could the US government do better? Nobody really believes any government when they say, 'in five years we will achieve this.' But look at your scorecard. Is the US truly keeping its promises better than China does?
The biggest high level criticism you can level at the Chinese government in recent history is that, OMG, they have abandoned the ideals of Communism. The US has been compromising on some of its political ideals lately, too. Tell me honestly: which direction of change do you prefer?
The point at which you, the parent, joined the discussion, was democracy and the free press. Take a step back and look at contemporary America. Are you certain that the last two elections represent the will of the people? Are you certain that what your news media are telling you about, let's say, the governments of the US and China are unbiased, unscripted, and intellectually and factually honest? I want to be very clear. I am emphatically not saying China is at this moment better than the US. But I am saying that they seem to be working on it, very hard indeed. The US, of late, is all talk. And a lot, a lot of America's recent 'progress' is frankly retrograde.
So what about Turkey (Score:2, Insightful)