"Internet's Own Boy" Briefly Knocked Off YouTube With Bogus DMCA Claim 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.
Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral damage (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
and... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Youtube's shitty copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will we ever stop celebrating Jesus? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:and... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Youtube's shitty copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
There is supposed to be a penalty. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (Score:5, Insightful)
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.