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Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York.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.'"
Re:Don't be evil (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Prince Charles was right (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:After we free Tibet can we please......... (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?
No Kudos (Score:5, 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.
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:What did the IOC plan? (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 dragged off to jail for blogging... hey everybody's different, right ? :P
Trademark law does not say that (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite honestly, the IOC brand has been so diluted since 1936 by its association with nasty dictatorships, corruption and junk food that the inhabitants of Mt. Olympus should call and ask for their good name back.
Re:No Kudos (Score:3, Interesting)
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 again with minimal time and expense, yes?
(Not a lawyer, not legal advice).
Re:Who believes the reason? (Score:1, Interesting)
It is a bad thing whe Google supports China's censorship policies in most important matters.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (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 face incarceration myself. That just isn't right.
It's even worse with a murder trial. If forced to testify my choices would be a) refuse to testify, and be incarcerated myself, b) testify and be murdered myself, or c) join the "witless protection program" and lose my job, my friends, my family, my possessions, and everyone and everything I love. This despite the fact that I, myself, had done nothing wrong whatever.
If my child committed murder I would go to jail rather than testify. Oddly, you can be compelled to testify against your child or your parent but not your wife. This, too, is wrong. The fifth amendment gives the criminal the right to remain silent, the witness should have the same right.
validity of takedown notice (Score:3, Interesting)
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?