YouTube Yanks Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure 482
RevWaldo writes "The International Olympic Committee filed a copyright infringement claim yesterday against YouTube for hosting video of a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese Consulate in Manhattan Thursday night. The video depicts demonstrators conducting a candlelight vigil and projecting a protest video onto the consulate building; the projection features recent footage of Tibetan monks being arrested and riffs on the Olympic logo of the five interlocking rings, turning them into handcuffs. YouTube dutifully yanked the video, but it can still be seen on Vimeo. (Be advised; there is some brief footage of bloody, injured monks.)"
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:3, Informative)
My understanding is that's exactly what they do. Read Cringely.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070329_001882.html [pbs.org]
Anyway, the IOC is a cabal, a Pentavirate and the Olympics have lost all credibility.
Can't wait till they come to my town in 2010 to screw the whole place up.
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:5, Informative)
It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.
I work for a web hosting company and thus have some exposure to this type of thing.
In a nutshell, you're entirely correct. Under the DMCA, providers are required by law to remove the "offending" material upon receipt of an infringement notice. If they don't, they become liable for infringement as well. No real proof of ownership is required, the author of the notice simply has to say it belongs to them. When we receive one of these, all we do is suspend the concerned account, forward the DMCA to the customer, and then our job is done.
The only thing that makes the DMCA bearable for us is the fact that we're off the hook if our customer decides to unsuspend the account and make the content available again after receiving the notice. From then on, it's a legal battle between the alleged copyright holder and the alleged infringer.
In this case (depending on how draconian YouTube/Google decides to feel today), the user can simply re-upload the video to YouTube and if the alleged copyright holder wants to battle it further, they have to use the legal system to get subpoenas, court orders, etc for further action. (But of course IANAL, so feel free to poke holes in my understanding of the DMCA here.)
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:4, Informative)
Fair Use and Parody (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:5, Informative)
They don't have that right. That's the point of parody [wikipedia.org].
Jerry Falwell certainly didn't want his image used by Hustler Magazine, but he didn't have the power to stop them [wikipedia.org].
- David Stein
Re:Great Firewall of America (Score:3, Informative)
This wasn't the US government, it was Google. You can still see it on Vimeo. And if they edit out the alleged copyright infringement, they can put the video back up. Additionally, any news source can air this without fear, as news is generally held to have a rather broad exception to copyright laws.
If it were really censorship, the news sources would be the primary targets to stop, not one that is actually relatively immune.
This story originally appeared on Gothamist (Score:3, Informative)
Just to give credit where it is due. (Gothamist is cited in the Firehose.)
Cheers!
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:5, Informative)
Well IAAL and it clearly is protected speech, and YouTube should grow a backbone.
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with getting "The Story" on pre-1950 Tibet is that most of the information comes from two groups: The Chinese who wish to paint it as a caste system where the Lama caste mercilously ruled over the population with an iron fist; and the Tibet government in exile who want to paint the Chinese as an oppressive government mercilously ruling over the population with an iron fist.
The closest thing I have found to an independent review is this skeptoid article [skeptoid.com].
And for laughs, and an opinion not tilted by propaganda from either side, but maybe a little biased, is this Penn & Teller B*llsh*t bit [youtube.com].
The responses to the above from the Free Tibet crowd tend to go something like "But *THIS* Dalai Lama was a good one! He would have ruled with justice and compassion." Well, okay, maybe he really would. But history has shown us pretty conclusively that absolute monarchies tend to have more wicked than wonderful rulers.
Re:Hope the maker of the video fights back (Score:3, Informative)
If I understand current US copyright law (DCMA, cough) correctly, the IOC can demand that YouTube yanks the clip now. But at least in theory, they do so under penalty of perjury.
Yes, but it's got very little to do with perjury. The only thing the IOC states under perjury is that they own the rights to the logo. The claim that the clip in question violates the IOCs copyright is not under perjury, but there's a damages clause for making fraudulent claims. Basic process:
1. Copyright holder sends C&D
2. ISP takes down content, forwards to user
3. User files counternotice
4. ISP restores content
5. Copyright holder sues user
Not exactly (Score:2, Informative)
Satire is covered by free speech.
No, parody is covered by fair use [psu.edu], and that's not the same thing.
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:3, Informative)
I stopped caring about the Olympics when Curling made the cut for official status. Just how many obscure sports can we add to an already overly-burdened event.
This is why I like Vimeo so much. (Score:5, Informative)
Vimeo has very restrictive terms about actually owning your content. However, once you have satisfied their requirements for original content, Vimeo is very protective of the First Amendment rights of its content creators. Vimeo was the safe refuge for Wise Beard Man and his Scientology critic videos.
Vimeo is also technically superior to YouTube, GoogleVideo, Revver, Ning, and any other .FLV sites. Sound is better. Picture is clearer and less blocky. They can handle video that is higher definition than 480p.
http://www.vimeo.com/ [vimeo.com] . I don't know anyone there, I don't own their stock, I don't work for them. However, they are the superior solution and Deserve To Win. (tm)
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:5, Informative)
Faldwell didn't win on the libel charge, but did win $150,000 for emotional distress.
Larry Flynt took the case to the Supreme Court and won [wikipedia.org]. The court ruled that the parody was protected speech under the first amendment.
In terms of your other assertion, that trademark allows absolute control of images like the Olympic rings, that is not true. US trademark law has a provision called the fair use defense [wikipedia.org], where trademarks can be used to criticize or analyze. This doctrine allows this video [youtube.com] to be posted on YouTube though it contains many of Disney's trademarks and copyrights.
Videos (Score:1, Informative)
You can get the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao [youtube.com]
http://www.tinyurl.com/tibetvideo08 [tinyurl.com]
http://www.tinyurl.com/tibetvideo [tinyurl.com]
Download and spread!
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that the average lifespan in Tibet has increased pretty dramatically since the Chinese took over from the lamas, then yes, it is better.
Says who, exactly? The very same Chinese government that took over?
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:2, Informative)
Autobots are cars, Decepticons are planes!
Nerd license revoked!
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:4, Informative)
A trademark's purpose is to allow someone selling Coca-Cola to prevent someone else from selling "I can't believe it's not Coca-Cola" and benefiting from the former's good name and marketing efforts unjustly via consumer confusion.
It is not trademark infringement to use a company's trademark to specifically identify that company's product in the context of criticism of that company's actions. Parody or not. I can opine that Microsoft is evil or Windows XP is crap without any fear that I am infringing their trademark doing it.
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:3, Informative)
There's a LARGE IMPORTANT difference between a takedown notice and arguing a case before court.
YouTube won't evaluate whether a takedown notice is likely to be legally valid in the long-term... as long as someone says that they swear under penalty of perjury that the takedown notice is valid, then YouTube will comply immediately. YouTube's role is not to judge the eventual legality of takedown notices, nor should it be.
Once in court, of course, issues get closely scrutinized by the two sides.
Working YouTube Link (Score:1, Informative)
Here's a YouTube link that worked when this reply was posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:4, Informative)
Mostly. The "unsuspend their account" is really a counter-notification [cmu.edu], and it works on all websites. The thing that's intended to stop misuse of the DMCA is that takedown notifications and counter-notifications are done under penalty of perjury, and that if the accused believes they're in the right, that the default state before a court hearing is that the content stays up (because of the three steps 1) takedown notice, 2) counter-notice, 3) accuser files a lawsuit, #1 and #2 are very quick, so if it's ultimately headed to #3, the content is only taken offline for the brief time between #1 and #2).
Re:In response to your sig... (Score:3, Informative)
But apparently that is not something you'll let stop you from having opinions on it?
Why does that seem apparent? I'm ignorant of Tibetians, and gave no opinion of Tibetian Bhuddism, but I'm not ignorant of Thai Bhuddists.
And just because a religion teaches righteous behavior, that is no guarantee that those ideals will actually be followed
That's true, but the Bhuddists I knew did in fact follow those ideals, although I'm sure there were a lot who didn't; I just didn't witness it. I wrote a K5 diary entry [kuro5hin.org] about one particular encounter with a devout Bhuddist.
As to power corrupting, I'm not sure if that's accurate. I think power attracts the corruptable. That said, Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athiests at slashdot combined. People often do use religion for their own gain, even if they don't believe iin its teachings.
Re:In response to your sig... (Score:1, Informative)
Right, at a minimum, common pop-culture references represent a common thought. At best, that means that it is common to think it is funny to make fun of Germans for rolling over for the nazis. Which proves my point, even if that is the ONLY reason it comes up in popular culture.
You're right. The Germans didn't roll over for the Nazis. They elected them! They may not have know just how far the National Socialists were going to take things, but the Nazis were pretty up front about just taking advantage of the system so that they could do away with it as soon as they took control and make some sweeping changes.
But we forgive you, we elected GWB and then failed to stop him from making an even bigger mess of the Middle East.
Gotta go A/C for this one, but it's true.
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:3, Informative)
For me it was when they not only included beach volleyball but included maximum bikini size for the women playing beach volleyball....
The Olympics haven't had much to do with athletes for a long time. It is just big business.. Except for the athletes...
--jeffk++
Re:I'll judge them in 3 days. (Score:2, Informative)
That could just be natural progress.
The average lifespan was, as usually quoted, 36 years. Think about that for a little bit.
This is what happens when the infant mortality rate is significant--You get skewed lifespan statistics which suggests everyone gets killed in their 30's. Infant mortality rates have probably improved all over the world since then and/or Tibetans have been having less children. You could get the same skewed life-expectancy statistics if people all of a sudden started having a lot of babies and the infant mortality rate didn't change a bit (nor did the average age of death of people who lived one year, etc). One statistic can paint any picture you want if you use it right.
New Youtube link (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx2vBljYBOc&fmt=18