YouTube Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video

Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York.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.'"

I have a mod point...

for the first person to post a link to the video so that I don't have to look for it myself!

Re:I have a mod point...

Oki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao [youtube.com]

Re:

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

Re:I have a mod point...

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.

Re:I have a mod point...

The /. front page?

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

Re:I have a mod point...

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?

Re:I have a mod point...

No you don't ;)

What did the IOC plan?

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:

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:What did the IOC plan?

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.

Re:What did the IOC plan?

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.

Re:What did the IOC plan?

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:What did the IOC plan?

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:What did the IOC plan?

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.

A QUESTION is going out of your way?

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

Lowered Expectations.

Re:A QUESTION is going out of your way?

In the world of DMCA notices, questioning the "rights holder" whether his claim is valid or a sham is about as shocking as asking to screw his wife. On a long term basis. Without coffee breaks.

Don't be evil

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

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.

Re:

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.

No Kudos

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.

Prince Charles was right

..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.

Several questions arise

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?

Re:Who believes the reason?

'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!

Re:

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?

Re:Who believes the reason?

Nope. If they selectively challenge DMCA notices (especially if they only challenge trivial ones), they're merely defining the boundaries of free expression, not protecting it.