Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Censorship Businesses Google The Internet Your Rights Online

Dodgey DMCA Use May Lead To 'YouTube Veto Power' 129

BillGatesLoveChild writes "Bob Cringely reports that an interview potentially embarrassing to Steve Jobs was taken off YouTube. The interview was from Cringely's 1990s show Triumph of the Nerds. YouTube said it responded to a DMCA complaint made by NBD Television Ltd in London. Trouble is, NBD is not the copyright holder. They have nothing at all to do with the show and don't even sell it. PBS, who made and holds the copyright said they knew nothing of the complaint. Cringely tried to contact NBD Television Ltd who wouldn't respond. Neither would Youtube, who only speaks by form letter. 'Why did NBD Television make the complaint? Why did YouTube blindly enforce it? Is Steve Jobs behind this, or is it just another media company misusing the DMCA, at that, not even with their own copyrighted material? Why should a London-based company be able to issue DMCA takedowns, yet not be liable when they abuse the law?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dodgey DMCA Use May Lead To 'YouTube Veto Power'

Comments Filter:
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @02:33AM (#18553539)
    Why should a London-based company be able to issue DMCA takedowns, yet not be liable when they abuse the law?'

    You just answered your own question. Someone got them to issue an invalid takedown notice because they can't get in trouble for doing so like any USA company that wasn't Oregon PBS could.

    • Not entirely. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yaHORSEhoo.com minus herbivore> on Saturday March 31, 2007 @02:55AM (#18553631) Homepage Journal
      London is outside US jurisdiction, unless Tony Blair is off his medicines again, which raises all kinds of jurisdiction issues. The copying (not storing, copying) would have occurred in England. This is an English company. English law is the only law that can be applied to an alleged civil offense in England. Unless someone was planning on applying for an extradition order against YouTube's servers, I don't see how anything that might have transpired along the banks of ye olde Thames could possibly have anything to do with an American law.

      Oh, and they CAN get into trouble. A lot of trouble. The ITN network has considerable control over the non-BBC broadcasters, and the BBC ultimately issues the broadcasting licenses themselves. There is also the Governmental broadcasting watchdog, which has the power to fine (and otherwise cripple) broadcasters who break the law. The Listener's Association is nowhere near as powerful a lobbying group as it once was, and is generally highly conservative, but even they would likely rip into a rogue broadcaster like a pack of rabid wolves on speed.

      In short, if enough people in Britain actually wanted to kick up a fuss and applied sufficient pressure, anyone involved in the signing of this DMCA application could find themselves begging in Hyde Park sometime next week. Of course, that's if people complain. If they don't and those with a voice show all the verbal muscle of a wet dishcloth, then nothing will get done and nobody should be surprised. Laws are not broken by corporations because nobody finds out (they usually do). Laws are broken by corporations because even when people know, nobody does anything any different, and the corporations know and expect this. Righteous indignation on a blog site may be fair comment, but if that's where you leave it, you might as well not have bothered.

      • Re:Not entirely. (Score:5, Informative)

        by rohan972 ( 880586 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:54AM (#18553847)
        London is outside US jurisdiction, unless Tony Blair is off his medicines again, which raises all kinds of jurisdiction issues. The copying (not storing, copying) would have occurred in England. This is an English company. English law is the only law that can be applied to an alleged civil offense in England.

        Actually, British copyrights are enforceable in the US, and vice versa. It's called the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org]
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sancho ( 17056 )
          I was aware that British copyrights were enforceable--I was not aware that they were enforceable under the specific laws of the US. Seems to me that they would have to send a takedown notice under the Berne convention rather than under the DMCA.
        • Re:Not entirely. (Score:5, Informative)

          by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:33AM (#18554823) Homepage
          Actually, that is untrue. The Berne Convention -- which is utter crap, btw, and should be gotten rid of and not replaced -- does not claim to make a copyright granted in country A enforceable in country B. Rather, it deals with the granting of copyrights; if a work is created in country A, and is copyrightable in country B, then country B must also grant a copyright on the work. It also deals with setting a minimum for what is copyrightable, and how long those copyrights last, etc.

          So if you are a British author, then you likely have a US copyright, but it is only that copyright, and not your UK copyright, that can be enforced in the US.

          Indeed, you cannot make a claim in the US founded on the Berne Convention; it is not a source of US copyright law. (See 17 USC 104(c) for this)
        • You can always sue them for slander and defamation. A proper DMCA notice requires that they say that they are the legal copyright holder and that the posting is a violation of their copyright rights. If that's not true, then you can sue them for making a false statement that causes you problems.
        • Hey idiot, the berne convetion is NOT US law.
      • Re:Not entirely. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @04:18AM (#18553947) Homepage
        and the BBC ultimately issues the broadcasting licenses themselves.

        Actually, OFCom does.
      • by Sirch ( 82595 )

        The ITN network has considerable control over the non-BBC broadcasters

        Actually, OfCom (the Office for Communication) is ultimately in charge of television channels. It can censure stations, and has the power to order them to broadcast an apology - presumably it can also revoke a station's license to broadcast.

        As for television licenses, they are issued by TV Licensing [tvlicensing.co.uk], "a trading name used by entities contracted by the Licensing Authority (the BBC) to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system" - not OfCom as anoth

      • Unless someone was planning on applying for an extradition order against YouTube's servers, I don't see how anything that might have transpired along the banks of ye olde Thames could possibly have anything to do with an American law.

        Hmm, that gives me a thought. Couldn't YouTube simply move their servers off shore and avoid all copyright problems? I mean, if American businesses can move offshore to avoid tax laws, why can't it work for copyright law? I'm probably missing something here though.

      • by kirun ( 658684 )
        Other posters have picked at other points, but you also seem to be confusing ITN (who produce news programmes) and ITV (the TV network, and one of ITN's customers). It's also not true that ITV has any special control over the "non-BBC broadcasters", other than being the biggest one themself. If ITV told Channel 4, Five, Flextech, and the rest to jump, the response would be closer to "you first" than "how high?".
        • by jd ( 1658 )
          There is indeed the Independent Television News, but there is also the Independent Television Network, which is the federation of all non-BBC terrestrial broadcasters.
    • Who says they are not liable? Surely the US has jurisdiction on a notice issued under US law to a US company? Can you be extradited for perjury? If so, it could get interesting.
    • Probably true that they cannot get into trouble under the DMCA, but they can probably be had for slander of title. I imagine that the DMCA takedown notice contained a statement that they were acting as an agent of the copyright holders.

    • I want a bunch of different UK and even other countries to start sending in a flood of DMCA copyright letters, to everything and anything they can. And while they are at it, they should send DMCA takedown notices to random people on the internet and just flood that platform.

      Basically it would bog down the ability of ISPs to cut off internet to infringing uses are cut off youtube from taking down things. It seems like just flooding takedown notices everywhere would roughly make takedown notices either imposs
      • I want a bunch of different UK and even other countries to start sending in a flood of DMCA copyright letters

        I, the undersigned, claim that the parent post made by Tatarize (682683) infringes on my copyright of the word "the"

        I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by my registered copyright and by the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is inaccurate and that I am not the copyr

    • Idiot. Mod the parent down.
  • because. (Score:5, Informative)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @02:35AM (#18553547) Homepage
    Why did YouTube blindly enforce it?

    Because they're required by law to. A DMCA takedown request is basically a statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the information is correct.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So basically any anti-US group in another country could have fun filing DMCA takedowns on anything politically related in the US? Imagine they could have great fun with election season.
      • Re:because. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jacksonj04 ( 800021 ) <nick@nickjackson.me> on Saturday March 31, 2007 @04:52AM (#18554025) Homepage
        Yep. Of course, the company the notice is filed against is not obliged to respond, so if they *know* they're not breaking the DMCA then they can safely ignore the notice. If there's any doubt, however, it's best to act since if you receive a notice but ignore it you lose on all the protection clauses of the DMCA.
      • Re:because. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sancho ( 17056 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @06:59AM (#18554501) Homepage
        The DMCA includes a clause for the submitter of the content to refute the takedown. Once they do, the hosting company puts the material back up and the courts are supposed to take over. In this way, the DMCA should not be abuseable to continuously remove speech that a person doesn't like, but has no ownership over.

        Of course, it doesn't always work out that way [slashdot.org].

        • The problem is, why would Google/YouTube refute it? They didn't post the video, they have no interest in keeping it up and they couldn't defend it if they wanted to. It doesn't belong to them. What might be needed is some sort of request resolution, whereby the requests are issued to the poster, not the service, and they can duke it out without YouTube being caught in the middle.
    • Re:because. (Score:5, Informative)

      by supersat ( 639745 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:48AM (#18553817)
      From what I understand, they aren't actually required to act on a takedown notice. However, if they fail to do so, they are no longer shielded from liability if the claim is valid. On the other hand, if they do act on the notice, they can't be held liable if the claim is bogus. So, most service providers will act on ANY DMCA notice, regardless of validity, just to be on the safe side.

      However, I do know that some service providers have refused to act on certain DMCA notices where it's clear that issuer of the notice has no rights to the material in question.
      • by rbanffy ( 584143 )
        Couldn't responding with a "We don't think you are the copyright holder of this material. Please show us proof you are before we take it down.", as long as it's swiftly done, be considered an adequate response still keeping the recipient shielded?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Sancho ( 17056 )
          Nope. That's the fun of the DMCA.

          The DMCA basically makes it so that sites such as Youtube are not considered to be hosting the content--instead, whoever put it on their servers is. However, because Youtube is hosting the content (and can remove it), the DMCA allows a person to claim ownership and demand that they remove it. If Youtube does anything other than remove it, they become the content hoster in the eyes of the law.

          If the actual hoster files a counter-claim under the DMCA, the content goes back
        • by dissy ( 172727 )
          Couldn't responding with a "We don't think you are the copyright holder of this material. Please show us proof you are before we take it down.", as long as it's swiftly done, be considered an adequate response still keeping the recipient shielded?

          Purely from reading
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infr ingement_Liability_Limitation_Act [wikipedia.org]
          and
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA [wikipedia.org]
          (So hold this with the same grain as anything from wikipedia...)

          No
          You must take down the offending material upon recept of the
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Nope, but don't read too much into that.

          The idea of the DMCA here was to shield larger ISPs (or, to be more specific, internet service companies, including web hosting companies, that have a huge number of customers whose activities they cannot possibly track or be responsible for every action of, so not just GreatHosting.Web, but everything from Geocities.com to, whatever Viacom and Mark Cuban might argue, YouTube) from being responsible for the copyright violations of their customers.

          To do this shiel

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zerocool^ ( 112121 )


      Because they're required by law to. A DMCA takedown request is basically a statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the information is correct.


      Yeah, but when I was into webhosting, every DMCA letter we got also stated that the person contacting us, under penalty of perjury, was affirming that they were either the copyright holder, or a legal representative thereof.

      I mean, if I email youtube and say "Take down that clip of the Morning Show, I swear that it is the property of CBS"... I don't think it ho
      • Who has legal standings to proceed in civil matters?
        Could you narrow that question down a bit? Because the answer to that question is "anyone, depending on the circumstances." You don't have to be a citizen of the US to sue in US court. Hell, you don't even have to be in the US to initiate a suit in US court.

        • I mean, doesn't the claim have to be made by the party who is being harmed (allegedly)? I can't sue youtube for infringing on CBS's copyright claims, right? Because I am not an interested or harmed party.
          • Correct. The only party who may initiate a claim is the "legal or beneficial owner under a copyright," as given in 17 U.S.C. 501(b) [cornell.edu].

            (b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the reco

    • Here's my question. Does this mean that if I (an obscure little media company which just now happened to be founded) lived in a country which did not have an extradition treaty with the United States for, um, perjury, I could happily sell people an "non-investigatory acceptance of presumptive distribution rights (r)" or some such, and issue DMCA takedown requests to my heart's content?
    • by Snaller ( 147050 )
      They are not required by law to accept the word of non american liars.
  • I've found that DMCA removal patterns are through certain keywords. Company X puts in a few keywords and then sends DMCA takedown notices to everything that shows up in the search.

    Maybe the video had different keywords than the other triumph of the nerds clips?

    • Re:Keywords? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:11AM (#18553689)
      this smells like class action material for any attourney enterprising enough to gather the needed client base.

      though i know better on the front of private winks and nods, the public position of the government is that any invalid/abusive DMCA C&D is supposed to be punishable by perjury and/or other penalties (forgot exactly what those penalties were but they were pretty stiff--on paper).

      This said, the practice of "keyword trolling" the internet with a bot that then generates DMCA takedown notices without any reasonable investigation could and should be targetted for class action.

      If i remember correctly, however, the EFF tried to do this once before and was dismissed via some rather underhanded interpretations of what constitutes "legal standing".
    • Company X puts in a few keywords and then sends DMCA takedown notices to everything that shows up in the search.

      I always fancied making some short video clips just a minute or two long, like maybe a little film of me cutting some pieces of wood with a saw, and naming it "SAW-divx-highquality.avi". And then maybe another short film of me using the pieces of wood to guide my knife as I cut a sponge cake into two slices, so I can spread icing between the layers. I might call that "Layer_Cake-xvid-best-copy.a
      • by Sancho ( 17056 )
        I hope that you don't actually engage in illegal activities if you do that. Seems likely that your computer equipment could be seized if court proceedings ever began.
        • Unlikely. If the allegedly infringing material is liberally plastered with "Copyright 2007 Gordonjcp" and the Creative Commons licence, I don't think they would get anywhere with trying to seize equipment.
        • Jerking the **AA's chain isn't illegal yet :)
  • Why does this smell familiar? [tzywen.com]

    The relevant quote is well, so very relevant:

    "Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing. I mean Picasso had a saying, he said good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas and I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists
  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:08AM (#18553681) Journal
    YouTube are obliged to do this. It's unreasonable for them to track down the copyright holder.

    The response is to file a DMCA counter notice, on the grounds that it doesn't infringe NBD's copyright. YouTube will put it back. NBD can then take it up withthe person who posted it.
    • by Sancho ( 17056 )
      I disagree. This is why the DMCA rocks! This is the only part of the DMCA that I'm actually ok with. It allows copyright holders some means of protecting their content, it allows false claims to be disputed, and it protects content carriers. What exactly is wrong with it?
      • Lack of obligation for the content holders to check. The fact that there's no compensation for the victim of a takedown if they aren't infringing. The fact that there's a viable weaponif you want something taken down for a short time.
        • by Sancho ( 17056 )

          Lack of obligation for the content holders to check.

          Obligation? Come on, with the rapid-fire way these suits have to be managed for sites like Youtube, you want them to be obligated to verify the complaint? No chance in Hell. Smaller companies would never have the resources to do this. Youtube would have failed long before the Google purchase.

          The fact that there's no compensation for the victim of a takedown if they aren't infringing.

          I haven't seen anything in the DMCA that prevents the victim from filing a suit.

          The fact that there's a viable weaponif you want something taken down for a short time.

          That's fair, but managing copyright is a difficult problem. I'd say this portion of the DMCA got a lot of things right, overall.

          • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @09:03AM (#18554983)
            Lack of obligation for the content holders to check.

            Obligation? Come on, with the rapid-fire way these suits have to be managed for sites like Youtube, you want them to be obligated to verify the complaint? No chance in Hell. Smaller companies would never have the resources to do this. Youtube would have failed long before the Google purchase.

            I think you misunderstood him. "Content holder" probably refers to the person claiming to own the copyright (in this case, the London-based firm), not the company disseminating the information (YouTube.) And he's right ... look at the collateral damage being done just from Viacom's efforts alone. Lots of stuff that isn't even owned by Viacom is being taken down because Viacom is incapable/unwilling to verify their takedown requests. They cheerfully admit that a significant percentage of their notices are in error, and when it turns out that somebody else gets hurt, so sad too bad. Viacom (and anyone else that decides to issue one of those things) should be required to be goddamn sure it's their content being misused: if not, then they are the ones misusing the law and there should be consequences. Should my rights under the law have to be violated so that someone else can protect theirs? I don't think that's right, but that is what is happening.

            This is a case of the law giving way too much Power to the People ... and Congress knew what it was doing when it did it. The only purpose being served by this section of the DMCA (well, of the DMCA in its entirety, really) is to line the pockets of IP attorneys. The rest of us aren't getting much from it.

            The fact that there's a viable weapon if you want something taken down for a short time.

            That's fair, but managing copyright is a difficult problem. I'd say this portion of the DMCA got a lot of things right, overall.

            Yes, copyright is a thorny problem indeed. The problem comes in when you set up a law that is just sooooo easy to abuse, that can wreak havoc when it invariably is, and when there is zero penalty for abuse. Whenever you remove accountability from any system operated by human beings abuse will occur, with as much certainty as the Sun rising tomorrow. It's human nature and nothing will ever change that, so good law should be written to accommodate that fact. For that reason alone, the DMCA is not a good law.

            Put it this way, what is the big complaint the copyright holders (some of them) have with information sharing, either peer-to-peer or a more centralized operation like YouTube? Well, I'll tell you: it's the fact that their legal rights are being infringed with no accountability for those who are doing it. So yes, the DMCA has given rightsholders a weapon, but like the Internet itself it is indiscriminate. Worse, because of the carelessness and irresponsibility of those wielding that weapon, it is having negative effects far beyond its stated purpose.

            Congress was far too trusting.
            • by DavidTC ( 10147 )

              Viacom (and anyone else that decides to issue one of those things) should be required to be goddamn sure it's their content being misused: if not, then they are the ones misusing the law and there should be consequences. Should my rights under the law have to be violated so that someone else can protect theirs?

              Viacom is required to make sure. They sign those notices, actually, their lawyers do, under threat of perjury. Lying in them, or even being unsure of the truth and saying it anyway, is actually ill

          • by DavidTC ( 10147 )

            I haven't seen anything in the DMCA that prevents the victim from filing a suit.

            No one should have to 'file suit'. DMCA takedowns are signed under threat of perjury. That's an actual crime, not a civil offense. The Federal government should have, as soon as they became aware of this, required YouTube to turn over the DMCA notice they got, and looked into setting up a grand jury or filing charges or whatever the proper process is.

            Of course, heaven forbid the government actually investigate the improper i

            • But it's okay to do behave in that manner when interacting with human beings, as human beings rarely have the courage to do anything about it, and the government won't care if you do so.

              True, although I'd say it isn't necessarily courage that is lacking (most people get pretty riled up when dumped on by a bunch of jackasses) but a comparative lack of resources. The DMCA gave companies a really easy way to screw people over, but didn't give individuals any corresponding power to fight back, as you said. T
          • by rhizome ( 115711 )
            Come on, with the rapid-fire way these suits have to be managed for sites like Youtube, you want them to be obligated to verify the complaint?

            Best parody of a DMCA proponent ALL MONTH!
      • This is why the DMCA rocks!

        Hi Sonny. Back from the dead are we?
  • by ISurfTooMuch ( 1010305 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:09AM (#18553683)

    I'm beginning to wonder if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, could fire off a DMCA request and get something taken down. I bet it'd be fairly easy, since many of these things would come by e-mail, and spoofing a domain in the From field is trivial. And i seriously doubt that most organizations bother to check the validity of such requests. They likely get them, read them in a cursory fashion, and then take the referenced content down.

    And perhaps it's time to test the system, preferably on the content of the big media companies and politicians, especially the latter. Once those who support the DMCA find out how easily it can be misused in a way that harms them, then you'll see then have a miraculous awakening to its problems.

    • At the risk of whoring my own link, YouTube will blindly follow DMCA requests made by people who are claiming copyright protection over video of their Second Life avatars [somethingawful.com].

      I didn't fight it, but it took [smh.com.au] Steve Hutcheon of The Age an EFF lawyer and several weeks to get his video back up.
    • I'm beginning to wonder if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, could fire off a DMCA request and get something taken down

      Yes you could. You'd probably be committing a crme though.
      • Yes, it certainly is a crime. And you see how vigorously the provision against bogus takedown notices is being enforced. Right now, if a media company says something you put up violates their copyrights, even if it clearly doesn't, then down it comes. You, as the real copyright owner, have to fight to have it restored. And what happens to the company who sent the notice? Not a damn thing.
        • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
          Yes, it certainly is a crime

                Well if you get caught, just say "oops I'm sorry, no, I'm not the copyright holder". Hey, it worked for Viacom.
    • by hax0r_this ( 1073148 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:45AM (#18553807)
      This, is brilliant.

      I don't mean to suggest anything, but hypothetically, someone could go through and compile a list of politicians who support the DMCA, then find any content helpful to their campaigns on YouTube or whatever, and spoof takedown notices for that content. Then go to the politician's own website, find any videos they have, and send the politician himself takedown notices for those, preferably in the name of the politician's constituents. Then go the site of any organization which supports the politician and spoof more takedown notices in the politician's name. This way you create a huge mess for said politicians to clean up, and all as a result of their beloved DMCA.

      Not to suggest anything of course.
    • i had modpoints yesterday pal >.

      this is a REALLY good protest idea.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LordLucless ( 582312 )
      You'd be committing perjury with every one you sent. And you can bet the government would be much more likely to prosecute individuals pointing out their own stupidity/corruption than they would corporations actually exploiting the law.
    • by Raptoer ( 984438 )
      Anyone can send a DMCA request and chances are the company will follow it because it removes their liability. On the other hand you can get counter claimed, and if they won that then they could put it back up. DMCA requests are also a written oath. If you do not own the copyright and you say you do by filing a DMCA request, you are committing perjury. which is exactly what is going on here.
      • Anyone can send a DMCA request and chances are the company will follow it because it removes their liability. On the other hand you can get counter claimed, and if they won that then they could put it back up. DMCA requests are also a written oath. If you do not own the copyright and you say you do by filing a DMCA request, you are committing perjury. which is exactly what is going on here.
        Perjury for an USian, but what about us Britons?
        • by DavidTC ( 10147 )

          There is nothing that stops someone physically located in another country from being able to commit perjury in the US.

          There might be difficulties in prosecuting them, but the same thing would happen if they lied in court, immediately caught a plane to England, and then were discovered to have done so.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )
            The is their electronic crimes treaty, and extradition. So certainly they could be pursued however nobody is going to make the effort. The person who did sign the form of course could be pursued by the general public especially if they were acting against the interests of their own company.

            They now of course have the threat of that offence hanging over them now for the duration of the statute of limitations, commit perjury and the penalties are quite severe, from falsely claiming patent inventions to DMCA

    • Well, yes, anyone can fire off a DMCA request. But if they're lying, then they're guilty of perjury.

      Likewise, anyone could break into YouTube's HQ, hack into their servers, and delete the files they don't like. But, as in the "lying when making a DMCA request", they're breaking the law.

  • by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:37AM (#18553779) Journal

    "Potentially embarrassing"? Er, how? From TFA:

    Steve Jobs: The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is -- I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way.

    Yeah, and? Where's the embarrassment?

    I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products.

    By the way, does anyone know what time it is?

    • by figleaf ( 672550 )
      Your quotes are from a video which was not removed.

      There is another video where Jobs claims he stole ideas -- that was removed.
    • by BillGatesLoveChild ( 1046184 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @03:51AM (#18553831) Journal
      That's not the 'Potentially embarassing' part Cringely refers to, which is Steve Job's "Good Artists Copy, but Great Artists Steal" quote. Mildly inconvenient if you're in a Patent Law suit. But there is a funny story behind the part you cite. Jobs *did* feel embarrassed about that (for different reasons), and called up Gates to apologize. It went like this:

      Jobs: "Bill I'm calling to apologize. I saw the documentary and I said that you had no taste. Well I shouldn't have said that publicly. It's true, but I shouldn't have said it publicly."
      Gates: "I'm glad you called to apologize, Steve, because I thought that was really an inappropriate thing to say."
      Jobs: (smirking uncontrollably) "You know it's true, it's true you have no taste."

      Andy Hertzfeld (Original Mac Programmer) was there when the call was made: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/nerdtv/transcripts/001 .html [pbs.org]
      • And Jobs was quoting Picasso; not sure what would really be all that embarrassing about it. I think it's generally understood what it means, and I think most artists/musicians/etc. have sort of "understood" it since the dawn of mankind. I've always seen it as sort of tongue-in-cheek, personally, something that only artists/musicians/designers would actually say..... generally speaking there are people who steal ideas/etc. who wouldn't be called "great artists", which is always the part that has seemed sor
  • Right now, a DMCA takedown notice has no cost other than making it. All these fakery would go if the self-declared IP holder had to put some cash on the table. Let's say 1% of the "value" of the infringement.

    -If the "infringer" doesnt reply to cancel the takedown notice, the IP holder gets his money back.

    -The "infringer" can accept the IP holder declaration of ownership, pay the "value" of the infringement and keep the video up. The ISP keeps the escrow.

    -The "infringer" can demand proof of ownership. If his
  • People and coorporations would simply comply to the complaint, on the grounds that doing so would be less of a burden on profits, than not complying to each and every complaint some London based company, for example will present them with.

  • by V50 ( 248015 ) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @04:37AM (#18553991) Journal
    Here in Canada, someone either supporting, or associated with the opposition Liberal Party is apparently using copyright claims to remove pro-Conservative Party videos:

    http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2007/03/30/libe ral-party-activists-censoring-youtube-videos-criti cal-of-stephane-dion/ [thepolitic.com]

    Although I'm a Tory myself, it wouldn't suprise me at all to see a Conservative or Dipper engage in the same behaviour.
    • someone either supporting, or associated with the opposition Liberal Party


      The story you linked to didn't give the identity of Youtube user "liberalvideo." Unless you have additional information, you have no way of knowing that to be true.
      • by V50 ( 248015 )
        They've also posted numerous (around 30), videos of Stephane Dion talking in parliament, giving speeches etc, as well as some anti-Conservative videos. It's rather unlikely that whoever it is doesn't support the Liberal Party.
  • Spam them (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Alioth ( 221270 )
    You know what... perhaps we should get a DMCA takedown spamming campaign against YouTube - send out lots of legitimate looking DMCA takedown notices for video that's obviously someone's home movie, and do it over a period of months so the rate's high enough to notice, but not so high that they can obviously spot the erroneous notices without actually viewing the video being complained about. The resulting embarrassment to YouTube when they take down thousands of obviously legitimate videos might make them a
    • I think Viacom beat you to it. [harvard.edu]
  • Ok, which brave and just /.er is going to post a link to another copy of the video? Screwtube be damed!
  • The Cthurch of Scientology routinely sent out mass DMCA claims against web sites which included material that belonged to someone else or were in the public domain. (They seem to be running out of steam on those; worn down by the Internet and rotation of their people through their "ethics" re-education camps. Now they robotically notify Google to remove posts to ARS with Hubbard's OT-III story. [cmu.edu]) They got an Avagram! [soundclick.com]
  • So Gates has no taste and Jobs has no class. Maybe that was news in 1980, but it's old hat now.
  • You forget that according to the DMCA, someone who issues a bogus complaint (aka takedown notice) is subject to civil liability on behalf of the affected party. In this case and, IIRC, Cringely (or PBS, whoever owns the copyright) could sue the issuer of the takedown notice for $25,000.

  • That bit in the subject line - ????

    Where in Cringely's article - the only source linked for this story - is there any mention of a "YouTube veto"? Or is the poster simply speculating wildly?
  • I can't believe nobody has pointed out yet that a valid takedown notice must, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A) include, among other things: (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
    (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an excl

People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't.

Working...