SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Blackmoore writes: "The producers of "House of Numbers" have used a series of bogus copyright takedown notices to get Youtube to remove videos, in which he uses clips from the documentary as part of his criticism, showing how they mislead viewers and misrepresent the facts and the evidence. It's pure censorship: using the law to force the removal of your opponents' views."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
AIDS Deniers Use Bogus Copyright Claims to Censor
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Croll's Query:
If tin whistles are made of tin, what are foghorns made of?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by paddym on Monday February 17 2014, @07:22AM
I've forgotten. Why does youtube have to remove these things? I remember it used to have some kind of safe harbor, but then because the terms of the site changed, they no longer could use safe harbor as a DMCA protection.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dmc on Monday February 17 2014, @08:38AM
"I've forgotten. Why does youtube have to remove these things? I remember it used to have some kind of safe harbor, but then because the terms of the site changed, they no longer could use safe harbor as a DMCA protection."
DMCA is the safe harbor for youtube. DMCA is why they can make tons of money effectively being a host for mass amounts of 'pirated videos'. Alternate to the DMCA, the concept of "common carrier" is also a safe harbor if you get classified that way. Theoretically, if now after the verizon ruling fall of NetNeutrality, the FCC took the court's invitation to do NN the 'right way' by classifying and regulating ISPs as "common carriers", then ISPs like GoogleFiber _could_ remove all the crap from their Terms of Service, like the banning of "improper" use of the network (whatever that means, i.e. it means nothing at all). Once you are a "common carrier" you are not responsible for what goes through your pipes. DMCA is sort of a quasi-common-carrier status for websites that allow users to upload content. So long as youtube follows the DMCA protocol, they are no longer culpable for the literal vast troves of piracy going on there. Note of course that Google, like myself, can also legally use interesting interpretations of 'fair use' to defend their making available of otherwise copyright protected content. I for one think that every child and adult should pretty much have educational and artistic access to pretty much all copyrighted material. Especially in this bizarre world where the Disney lawyers find a way to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain perpetually. Everyone, especially the poor, need access to our rich cultural history. The more access they/everyone has, the more they/everyone will learn and gain wisdom, and the better off we will all be. The current copyright system, while easily defensible in some idealistic terms of enabling content creators to make a living from their art, just has not worked out that way in practice. The scary red screens that dvd players make people watch in front of movies with threats of hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines, and years in pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiaries, are as fracking stupid and counterproductive as the war on drugs. Did that answer your question? :)
(Score: 1) by paddym on Monday February 17 2014, @05:16PM
Thanks.
(Score: 1) by edIII on Monday February 17 2014, @06:29PM
I believe it is just your standard corrupt DMCA takedown notices, but also YouTube's custom way in which you can make objections. To my knowledge that entire system is horribly skewed to support the accuser, and not the accused.
However, that is a problem not just with YouTube, but with the entire IP environment in the US period. Fair Use is being violently attacked by monied interests, along with the Public Domain. Even the Public Domain to these interests is treated like some Pinko-Communist-Socialist disease that needs to be eliminated at all costs.
It's very similar to the credit reporting agencies. A business can expend practically no effort at all to ruin your credit, and consumers are left with an expensive burden (high interest-credit availability-punitive contractual clauses) to reverse the damages. It's a not-so-funny joke that a business can report a single detraction at will, but needs to bundle up positive notes on your credit 1000 at a time. It's quite literally geared towards creating 3rd party duress on the consumer to threaten them into paying a bill, even with a legitimate dispute.
Why have Due Process when you can just threaten them into submission and levy punitive measures against a weaker opponents with no judicial oversight?
Copyrights are no different. The system is geared towards the copyright owners and the proponents of the system were full of shit when they claimed that abuses like this would be limited. The abuse is widespread and has created the ability for corporations to now censor and control what people see.
Governments are troubling for sure, but there is ZERO chance that a corporation has the citizen's best interests at heart. Capitalism tells us that nothing is off limits if it services the share holders, and this is what we get when we allow such notions to override our common sense and good judgement.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.