Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used It In Family Guy and DMCA'd the Original (torrentfreak.com) 311
An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: This week's episode of Family Guy included a clip from 1980s Nintendo video game Double Dribble showing a glitch to get a free 3-point goal. Perhaps surprisingly the game glitch is absolutely genuine and was documented in a video that was uploaded to YouTube by a user called 'sw1tched' back in February 2009. Interestingly the clip that was uploaded by sw1tched was the exact same clip that appeared in the Family Guy episode on Sunday. So, unless Fox managed to duplicate the gameplay precisely, Fox must've taken the clip from YouTube. Whether Fox can do that and legally show the clip in an episode is a matter for the experts to argue but what followed next was patently absurd. Shortly after the Family Guy episode aired, Fox filed a complaint with YouTube and took down the Double Dribble video game clip on copyright grounds. Perhaps YouTube should also be blamed for this.
Ok, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they be blamed for following the takedown process that the MPAA/RIAA forced upon them?
Did the MPAA/RIAA force Youtube to make it as easy as they did? Admittedly, I would probably just not care and give them an automated system as well, but I still think that deserves some blame.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know the real trick to getting rich and staying rich?
It is not spending more money than you have to.
In another article a few days ago I saw someone who did the math; apparently Google would have to employ 56,000 people JUST to monitor uploaded Youtube clips in real time. Let's say they get a pitiful 20,000 dollars a year each for staring non-stop at inane video clips (many of which would likely be trolling uploads of Tubgirl, Two Girls One Cup etc.), that amounts to approximately 1.1 BILLION dollars per year.
Just to avoid something like this happening too often.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that's data that even gets sent in the DMCA notice or complaint or whatever it's called. I am pretty sure (though not from any kind of experience, so here's a grain of salt so you don't have to take your own) it just goes "We have determined this video infringes on our stuff. Get rid of it."
Re: (Score:3)
That assumes their video is even uploaded to Youtube, which is pretty unlikely for something like a brand new episode of Family Guy. And being uploaded to Youtube is definitely not a prerequisite for a DMCA claim (or anywhere else for that matter.. you own your copyrights whether or not you decide to post your work online.)
We all get up in arms because its a big relatively hated company profiting off the little guy, and rightfully so, but if we step away from our outrage it becomes a little bit harder to s
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fox could easily air material owned by them produced well before the date of a YouTube video - something they purchased from the archives or another company, or featuring music recorded decades ago - thus rendering simple date checking useless.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the MPAA feels something similar about YouTube's responsibility for infringing content
Based on recent complaints from both the MPAA and RIAA, they want youtube and other similar sites to hold posted content until it's verified to be non-infringing.
Re: (Score:3)
You give big data waaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. Because ultimately that's what we're talking about, comparing a video in a DMCA request to a potential excerpt of something that needs to first be identified, then checked against potentially hundreds of databases to find the correct air-date.
A much better example would be to actually take this into account in the DMCA laws in the first place. Require people submit all this information. Require all defendants to provide a reply within a reasonable time before
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Do you know the real trick to getting rich and staying rich?"
Yes I do, you lie cheat and steal it from poor people. Yes that is EXACTLY what all these companies do. Workers are exploited at unfair wages and work hours, pricing set to the MAXIMUM that people will pay, etc...
You get really rich by being an asshole, or winning the lottery with blind luck. Those are the only TWO ways of doing it. Nobody ever got rich by working hard and saving money.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're basically inserting your "fairness" bullshit into an economic argument. It's sanctimonious, and reeks of someone who has no idea about economics, business, or capitalism.
What is fair? Who determines the price of a product or service? Who determines wages?
You can find many examples of extraordinarily wealthy entrepreneurs who began with little or nothing, worked diligently, saved money, and started their businesses leading to [eventual] success. The fact that you have not done so belies your entire, weak argument.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Warren Buffet has done a *heapload* of a-hole things. Some guy released a book about it a number of years ago.. I was surprised..
Things like - he made a monopoly of industrial railroads. He bought up the indvidual railroad operators and then intentionally shut them down or reduced service so the companies who ship.. coal, grain, steel etc would have to pay more to use HIS (now only) railroad.
This raised the price of grain / coal / steel.. etc - so he bought those - used his rail monopoly to see increased pr
Re: (Score:3)
Try this: Pull out a $100 bill. Place it in front of your computer. Go to sleep.
How much code was written when you wake up the next day? Dollars aren't "resources." They can be used to pay for resources, but in and of themselves, dollars are pretty useless things.
Secondly, assets aren't cash. Google might be worth 10s of billions of dollars on paper, but unless they're willing to sell all of their IP, all of their buildings, fire all of their employees, etc, I'd be willing to bet the amount in the bac
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Informative)
If it wasn't Youtube's own Content ID system, FOX could probably be sued for issuing a false takedown notice. Maybe they still could. Hiring a hit man makes you no less guilty of murder.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they should DMCA that episode that contains the offending clip wherever it might be found.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't want to awaken the beast (Nintendo). Nintendo has been issuing their claims on gameplay videos and taking all the ad revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And then I saw in another comment that this is a Konami game, so a lot less likely.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like this was automatedly cut after Fox aired the clip... it would be nice if Google posted a "why" document for takedowns.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority (i.e. copyright ownership) to be able to enforce the notice.
However, such checks would go a long way toward invalidating the defense used by media companies who abuse the DMCA provisions when faced with such patently absurd filings - that they filed this specific request in error as a result of a failure of an automated reporting system, and that nobody at the media company making the filing was aware that the filing was incorrect. In the meantime, sanctions related to the number of DMCA notices received against content uploaded by specific accounts remains triggered even when many/most of the notices are shown to be bogus/in error, meaning that there is no incentive for the media companies to change and there are no satisfactory mechanisms in place for small uploaders to recover their content/challenge the behaviour.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Ok, why? (Score:2)
I am not really impacted by DMCA, so I don't know the details, but does DMCA explicitly state that the ISP/hosting company may not charge any fees for handling DMCA requests? If not, Google should just work out what it would cost to have some manual verification of eqch request, and make that the fee.
But, I guess this is probably not an option because the mafia would have claimed that there are so many more infringers than content owners that they would go bankrupt if they had to pay a nominal (e.g. $5 fee)
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is that the system would favor people who can afford to pay, and those who can't end up not reporting their stolen content.
Re: (Score:3)
In this particular case, it /could/ be automated if Google simply required the DMCA filer to provide the date of the copyright they say is being violated. In this case, this weekend > 2009, so clearly the claim is false. Could they not refuse on those grounds?
Additionally, can this guy not file a DMCA notice with Fox itself, forcing them to take that episode of Family Guy off any of their streaming services until it went to court?
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims. The only punishment is if the filing party knows they don't own the copyright but files the claim anyway. That is, the filing party can always say "I thought I owned the copyright, but I guess I was wrong" and get away with it without even having to say "I'm sorry." That's what's led to the copyright industry filing DMCA claims willy nilly with little regard for accuracy.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims.
That's true, that's the problem. There's a solution, though. Google has a net income of over $16 billion and a market cap of almost $500 billion. I would love for them to put up an 8 figure bounty to a lobbying firm that can get sane copyright laws pushed through Congress.
The current situation is a great example. Any human at Fox, when faced with this case, would admit that they do not own the copyright. But they're using software which doesn't know the difference. The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly? If they don't want a penalty, then they need smarter software. They need a way of identifying their own source material with a series of flags which says which sections they do and do not own the copyright on, and smarter software to look at those and skip the sections where they can't enforce copyright. Otherwise, there needs to be a penalty in the DMCA for people or companies submitting repeated false positives. One penalty could be that section about the penalties for not immediately removing the material are waived for all complaints submitted by the party in question, pending a formal review of the submitted complaint. Maybe a year to respond to the initial complaint would be a good starting point.
Re: (Score:2)
The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly?
It's called plausible deniability. If they don't verify it before filing, they can legally claim ignorance. That's what needs to be fixed in the law. If you use an automated tool, you should be required to make an attempt at due diligence before you can come back later and claim ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
The law should just be structured so that any submission needs to be done with a "good faith" understanding that you own the copyright. It then moves the burden of determining that to the people filing the complaints. Any complaint received will be assumed to be a good faith complaint. If the people filing the complaints are using substandard software to identify content and file complaints without human intervention, then that's their problem and they should get penalized for filing invalid complaints.
under DMCA, Youtube isn't the judge and jury (Score:5, Informative)
> [Youtube should be blamed] mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority
That's not the way the law works. Under DMCA, Youtube isn't the judge and jury, they don't have any subjective decisions they are allowed to make. Youtube has little to no choice here. Here's the process that the DMCA law specifies:
1. Complainant notifies hoster (youtube) that they claim infringement.
2. Youtube may immediately contact respondent (uploader).
3. Youtube temporarily disables the content.
4. Respondent may send Youtube a counter-notice, saying that they dispute the original DMCA notice.
5. Upon receiving counter-notice, Youtube re-enables the content.
6. Complainant may file suit in federal court (expensive).
The process is pretty well set in stone by law. The one place where Youtube has some choice to make is that they have to disable/remove the content "quickly", but how quickly? A host can choose to contact the uploader and give them 24 hours to counter-notice before removal, or they can remove it right away and put it back when they get a counter-notice.
I wish more people understood the counter-notice part, meaning the content goes right back up if you dispute the notice. You just reply saying "this notice must have been sent by mistake" and sign it (forms are available online). If more people understood about counter-notices and an amendment to the law added statutory damages for reckless filing of improper notices, the system would probably work pretty well. As it is, reckless notices aren't penalized enough to matter, and most people seem to think that there's nothing they can do if they are on the wrong end of an erroneous notice. Just send back a counter-notice. You don't have to argue your case, just state that you think the notice is wrong and leave it at that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish more people understood the counter-notice part, meaning the content goes right back up if you dispute the notice. You just reply saying "this notice must have been sent by mistake" and sign it (forms are available online). If more people understood about counter-notices and an amendment to the law added statutory damages for reckless filing of improper notices, the system would probably work pretty well.
Except that's not how it actually works. YouTube received a bogus takedown notice for a video I posted (someone decided they didn't like me and just wanted to be a prick). I filed a counter-claim and it was ignored and there was no response to the e-mails I sent asking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority (i.e. copyright ownership) to be able to enforce the notice.
However, such checks would go a long way toward invalidating the defense used by media companies who abuse the DMCA provisions when faced with such patently absurd filings - that they filed this specific request in error as a result of a failure of an automated reporting system, and that nobody at the media company making the filing was aware that the filing was incorrect. In the meantime, sanctions related to the number of DMCA notices received against content uploaded by specific accounts remains triggered even when many/most of the notices are shown to be bogus/in error, meaning that there is no incentive for the media companies to change and there are no satisfactory mechanisms in place for small uploaders to recover their content/challenge the behaviour.
This is probably the worst part. Automated tools are fine, but you need to pass it by real humans for review before submitting claims.
In this case, the automated tool should have raised a red flag that the violation was uploaded years before the work in question even existed, which is impossible...unless the work is the scammer!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mainly for failing to perform any checks to see if the party filing the DMCA notice actually has the authority
Stop.
If you host content for other people, are an ISP, etc. then you are required to comply with the initial take-down notice unless you want to become liable.
Then the uploader can file a counter-claim, and get the content reinstated.
Then the original filer can pursue further action if they want.
The problem with youtube, is that as soon as you receive a DMCA notice you get a 'strike' against you.
What should happen is you should receive no penalty until the period for contesting the DMCA order passes.
If you
Re: (Score:3)
> "Your video has been subject to a DMCA claim, filed by someone who has been identified as submitting excessive numbers of fraudulent or unproven claims. Contact our legal department at xxx for assistance."
Or better yet "click here to automatically file a counter-claim using our one-click-counter-claim feature". Of course, Amazon them would probable sue Google because Jeff Bozos thinks he owns anything "one click".
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Informative)
Youtube makes takedowns exceptionally easy, but the process of getting a video put back up can take months and there are no repercussions for a bad takedown.
Remember the other part of the DMCA safe harbor bits -- you need to take the video down immediately, but if the person says to put it back up, it becomes squarely that person's legal issue, not Youtube's. Youtube is not adequately capturing this workflow.
Then again, it's not clear if these takedowns are actual DMCA requests or if it's just an agreement Youtube has. I know that Youtube supports both.
Re: (Score:3)
There's enough history to suggest that DMCA complaints from these idiots should go directly into the "known abusers, extra scrutiny required" pile.
Re: (Score:2)
They could retaliate by turning off Fox's or $OtherDMCAAbusers' official feeds, and be well within their rights claiming acceptable use policy violations.
Re: (Score:3)
What I really wanna see is Nintendo sue Fox for copyright violation. Let them pick on someone their own size.
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that they didn't even get a DMCA notice from Fox. Content ID is to blame IIUC. I haven't been able to find anything definite but this quote seems to suggest that and I've seen other comments about this story that seem to back that up...
"It's most likely that this is just another example of YouTubeâ(TM)s Content ID system automatically taking down a video without regard to actual copyright ownership and fair use. As soon as FOX broadcast that Family Guy episode, their robots started taking down any footage that appeared to be reposted from the show â" and in this case they took down the footage they stole from an independent creator," Lyon says.
Lyon referring to Jeff Lyon, the CTO of Fight for the Future [fightforthefuture.org].
Is anyone really sure that Fox issued a notice and that this isn't just another example of Content ID failing miserably?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is setup to be nearly one sided towards the takedown requests. There are many fair use usage where they are taken down. Where the poster is unable to operate their business. Such as Movie reviewers.
As far as I see it, they are making you guilty until you can prove you innocence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because instead of brainlessly taking down any video because of a DMCA request they could run it through a sanity check first, but that would take a little bit of effort, so its just easier not to piss off the people with money to sue you.
Or, howabout they just follow the longstanding and bright-line Doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued?
Anything else (and any law to the contrary) is blatantly Unconstitutional, and void ab initio. I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
No Court could find differently; and it's HIGH-TIME that that was Tested...
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Funny)
I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says.
I, on the other hand, could not.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Informative)
Ironically, some people are being ironic, even when they didn't mean to be.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, some people are being ironic, even when they don't mean to be.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases. A DMCA takedown notice isn't a criminal case. The only thing that matters here is statutory law.
The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder).
The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.
Agreed. That is about the only safeguard in place in the act, and it is not enforced.
Swearing under penalty of perjury isn't what it used to be. General perjury on a sworn document is up to five years in prison [cornell.edu], but like most such laws, is only enforced if you offend a prosecutor or officer of the court.
When the lawyers who sign the bulk takedown requests start to end up in prison and lose their license, the others will start to take more care.
Re: (Score:3)
The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder)
A lawyer isn't required to "sign his name" on a DMCA takedown. The person claiming to be the copyright owner can (and usually does) do so.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, the perjury charge isn't about claiming copyright when you don't own the copyright. It's about claiming you're authorized by the copyright owner to enforce the copyright on their behalf, when you're not. There is basically no penalty for filing a false DMCA claim; the only penalty (perjury) is if you know the claimant doesn't own a copyright and file a DMCA notice anyway. The copyrighted work doesn't even have to be anything like the video being taken down - as long as the copyright owner alleges the video is infringing, the person filing the DMCA notice gets a free pass.
It's a terrible law with no checks and balances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
except the perjury part doesn't apply to "this infringes our copyright", it only applies to "I am or represent someone who has a copyright". The law was carefully crafted to penalize impersonation of a corporation but not false accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued.... I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
Sure, but then you lose your safe harbor protection under DMCA. Youtube would be getting prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than the video poster. Youtube is not going to take on that liability for any reason.
Re: (Score:3)
and just refuse to take down the ALLEGEDLY "offending" video until a COURT ORDER is issued.... I could care less what the DMCA STATUTE says. The Constitution trumps all.
Sure, but then you lose your safe harbor protection under DMCA. Youtube would be getting prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than the video poster. Youtube is not going to take on that liability for any reason.
I actually forgot about the Safe Harbor provision when I wrote my OP.
That really DOES take the "fight" out of the "Content Provider's" hands, and puts it right where it belongs; between the "aggrieved parties".
That is probably the ONLY semi-reasonable thing in that damnable piece of legislation.
Re:Ok, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Payback (Score:5, Interesting)
The only right and proper response is, when the original video returns to YouTube, to DMCA the Fox video. It will likely last a microsecond due to Fox lawyers being all over it, but they deserve to have to deal with that shit.
Re:Payback (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Payback (Score:4, Interesting)
Nintendo has been stealing/claiming ad revenue for recently made gameplay videos. I wouldn't draw any attention to myself if I was hosting a Nintendo gameplay video.
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is to add some infringing content from a company that doesn't allow monetization. For example, Blizzard allows infringing videos but doesn't allow you to turn on the monetization (adverts). So stick 30 seconds of WoW on the end of the video, to ensure that their robots flag your video as "no monetization".
That way even when Nintendo claims your video they won't be able to turn on the ads. The video stays up, ad free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only would I do the counter-notice here in the US, I would self-represent in court if they were stupid enough to take it that far. Most judges would kick it out just after looking at the file dates. But it's doubtful that their lawyers would be stupid enough to let it get to court.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't just file counter notice, I'd file a counter-suit saying that they infringed on MY copyright.
Re:Payback (Score:4, Insightful)
That is incorrect (in US; I don't know about NL).
After the counter-notice, Youtube can reinstate the material and they'll be free of liability to Fox. But that's all. DMCA [cornell.edu] does not contain anything requiring service providers to provide services to users. Youtube wasn't even required to provide hosting to sw1tched before the fraudulent notice, and the notice didn't magically give sw1tched new rights to hosting services.
A big part of the point of the notice/counternotice stuff is to give companies like Youtube a way out of being too involved in the battle between Fox and sw1tched. They want to be "just the messenger" and their concerns are primarily what this part of the law was intended to address.
Re: (Score:2)
If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.)
Perhaps an actual lawyer can chime in?
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube should recognise that Fox is not exercising due diligence before making use of its automated take down system. Thus Fox should no longer be allowed to use automatic take down. I believe that the DMCA process involves some statement of truth; Fox is abusing the courts should take note.
Re: (Score:2)
Release the hounds (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a kickstarter to fund legal action against Fox.
If the video owner can catch them for the copyright infringement they can hammer them for Perjury for the DMCA notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a kickstarter to fund legal action against Fox.
If the video owner can catch them for the copyright infringement they can hammer them for Perjury for the DMCA notice.
The problem is that they did not commit perjury regarding the DMCA notice. In the context of a DMCA notice, the only thing that must be true is that you own the copyright to the material you claim that is being infringed. Whether or not the allegedly infringing material actually infringes (and whether you could/should have known this), is irrelevant as far as the DMCA perjury clause is concerned.
It does make me wonder why there haven't been any public DMCA take down campaigns aimed against big companies yet
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright in the clip likely belongs to Konami, the developer of Double Dribble. But don't break out your #FUCKONAMI just yet, as we don't know the terms of any agreement that may exist between Fox and Konami.
Re: (Score:3)
And remember, infringement for commercial purposes is criminal, as well as civil.
I'd contribute to that.
Konami is the copyright owner here (Score:2)
It could be the case that Fox obtained permission from Konami, copyright owner of Double Dribble, and then used the clip pursuant to 17 USC 103(a) [copyright.gov], which states that an unauthorized derivative work is not eligible for copyright, and/or a supposition that the uploader's contribution to the clip do not "represent an original work of authorship" (17 USC 101 [copyright.gov]).
Re: (Score:2)
However, it is the USA, so probably he will get a pay rise.
This Often Happens (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA is used far too often for things that do not make sense. The only people that really profit from it all is the lawyers, especially in a case like this where there is evidence of prior art.
Shame on Fox. Shame on MPAA. Shame on RIAA. Shame on all of the Congress critters for creating this legal pile of excrement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This Often Happens (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Don't blame Fox. Don't blame the MPAA. Don't blame the RIAA. And surely don't blame Congress...
The blame lies directly on the consumers and voters, nowhere else. It's simple math.
Good idea: place the blame squarely on the only group that had nothing to do with the problem and have no power to fix anything.
Re: (Score:2)
We keep electing and reelecting the retards in Congress who passes this shit. The blame lies entirely on the voters. The problem with politics isn't that money is speech, it's that people vote for what the one eyed monster in their living room tells them to vote for. As long as that's the case, everything else is just a matter of who controls the stream, and it will never be someone who hast he public's interest at heart.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn right, they could have voted for Kodos. This would have made all the difference!
These can be fought. (Score:2, Informative)
I upload for preservation. Some Italian music group filed a DMCA against it. Turns out some duo had lifted a major section of the intro (all of one video file on the psx) for their mix.
I disputed in a rant and they rescinded the notice.
Disgusting (Score:3)
This shit is getting out of hand. Someone has to stop this, and as I'm typing this rant, I feel YouTube has capability and responsibility to do so.
Let me see if I have this right (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were to download a song and listen to it in the privacy of my own home/car/phone at work, I would be liable for a lot of money damages. But Fox gets to take a clip from YouTube, put it into a very successful commercial show and then turn around and claim that it came from them in the first place AND suffer no financial damage.
Interesting. It's like the law has been twisted so that it only benefits the wealthy and well-to-do.
Put the blame where it belongs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Robots cannot detect permission (Score:2)
Not only can robots not detect fair use, nor they cannot detect when the work is used with the permission of the copyright owner neither where the company running the robot does not own the copyright but is using it with permission nor where the work is being used with the permission of the robot's owners.
No need for quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no need to quote stole here. Fox has not only copied the video (which would justify the quotes), they have asserted ownership of the work (actual theft).
It's funny how it's primarily the entities that whine about infringement and call it theft that commit the actual thefts.
Re: (Score:3)
Because in their mind they own anything anyway. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, and if you complain here's 10 lawyers that blanket you with lawsuits 'til you cry uncle.
Fuck them. If terrorists cared for good PR, they'd pick different targets.
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps"? (Score:2)
Where is the doubt?
Perjury (Score:2)
Host your own shit (Score:5, Insightful)
If everyone hosted their own content from their own systems we wouldn't have these problems. If the demand existed we would trivially have the capability to publish easily. Sane naming and caching architectures either P2P and or hosted by ISPs that don't discriminate and play favorites like current CDNs would be widely deployed to facilitate distribution.
The more everyone sucks on the teet of big content to do EVERYTHING for them the more the Internet becomes Cable TV. The more capabilities are not exercised the more impossible and outlandish it seems to do anything for yourself.
While youtube is convenient the opportunity costs in allowing a handful of companies to own a majority of eyeballs and bandwidth are enormous.
The very premise of the Internet is that it is a network of PEERS not a network of SPECTATORS.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I had mod points, because WaffleMonster speaks the truth! The buttery, sticky truth!
Everyone needs to go back to Internet 1.5, where we hosted our own sites..Bring back Webrings! lol
Re: (Score:3)
If everyone hosted their own content from their own systems we wouldn't have these problems
Yes and no. They'll either issue the DMCA notice to the hosting company or your ISP if you run your server directly. And then your whole web site goes offline.
It's true that it's harder to scan the entire Internet vs. a monolithic video hosting service. But that's not a fundamental difference.
DUN, ADSL, and CGNAT killed home servers (Score:3)
The very premise of the Internet is that it is a network of PEERS
In practice, three factors killed this premise:
A few errors (Score:2)
It seems that it's the ContentID system, not DCMA takedown notices, that caused the clip to be pulled. ContentID is a pre-emptive system built by Google, as part of a settlement with Viacom
One should note it was Konami, not the uploader, who made Double Dribble. So, it's entirely possible that Konami gave permission to Family Guy and/or Konami got the clip taken down.
"Whether Fox can do that and legally show the clip in an episode is a matter for the experts to argue" is a scary statement. It seems like
IN OTHER NEWS... (Score:2, Funny)
EXCLUSIVE BUY TIP!!! ALL TAYLOR SWIFT MERCHANDISE!!!
Taylor Swift's ongoing campaign to defend her brand, boot Etsy items with containing lyrics [buzzfeed.com] and shut down merchants selling unlicensed merchandise and destroy their wares [cbslocal.com] has had a surprising and completely unintended effect: it appears the original has been destroyed in the confusion.
"Have you seen Taylor? Tell her to call her agent right away. We're worried."
Asked how Taylor could have been destroyed... how an actual human being might possibly have joine
Golden Rule (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like somebody has a payday coming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much easier than "click-be gone" could it possibly become?
Still co-owned (Score:2)
Regardless, this wasn't Fox News
Still co-owned. Except in the most egregious cases, such as the SOPA blackout of January 2012, FOX News is unlikely to cover opposition to the expansion of copyright because it shares a parent company with a movie studio that benefits from said expansion and thus benefits from voters being uninformed of the ramifications of copyright maximalism [pineight.com]. This is where CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News are all expected to slant the same way because of Warner Bros. Pictures, Universal Studios, and 20th Century Fox respectively