thanks for the link, that was pretty good, but f’n depressing. geeze.
That stood up firmer than Haystack’s paragraph 3 there; so following low-hanging fruit to correct this, need we a bit more legislative work to be done making the elastic clause for enterprise without a declared legal authority back from senecence?
2 Likes
I am pretty sure this is “just” a mistake by some bot or over-ambitious lawyer. However it does show the problem with the way Youtube and copyright enforcement work. But it’s really the most ironic way anyone could have exposed this issue ever. 
For me this also shows how important the projects by the Blender Foundation are:
Producing movies that are really owned by the creators and the community, free to share and distribute.
Right now the Blender Foundation is working on their next project, called Project Gooseberry. This is going to be a full animated feature film, produced by the Blender Foundation in collaboration with 12 studios around the world. It will be completely open, even during the production you can check out all the production files and assets while they are being produced.
They are currently trying to raise enough funds to make this happen.
Please help Blender to make this happen!
http://gooseberry.blender.org/wp-content/themes/gooseberry/
5 Likes
Proving their title and ascription and credibility in court is not a sticking point or without value. Having to do that through court could get to be an errand, though. I hear you have to pick the right Tuesday, go play the camera-sync dance game (it has been AKB0048-related at times) with the judge until they agree the gorilla can’t just grab anyone into the privacy blind, and stick the caltrops where they will be handy.
2 Likes
Wasn’t the DCMA a nightmare piece of corporate bullshit from the very start anyway? Oh, how far we have come. Or not.
2 Likes
Just hold on a moment here… Aren’t all copyright infringement damages hypothetical? It’s often referred to as “lost sales” but at best it’s “lost possible sales”, where the companies get to use statutory damages rates and multiply by the number of people on the internet. That seems pretty hypothetical to me.
2 Likes
Note to self: Start stealing stuff from Sony.
1 Like
yeh, but blender is terrible. vive le cinema4d!
There’s a section of the site to suggest articles to the blog: http://boingboing.net/suggest.html
2 Likes
Meanwhile ---- the clip is back up! I’m another who wouldn’t have heard of it except for Sony making a fool of itselt.
3 Likes
It makes me think about why so much content is still so centralized. Most content on these sites is actually original content. If there was a ton of content not hosted by Google, it would still be in their interest to make it easily found. I imagine internet providers slacking on upgrading infrastructure, centralized social networks, video codec patent hell, DRM, and even w3c aren’t helping…
1 Like
Those are actual damages. The harm was done, even if it’s fuzzy to figure out exactly how much harm was done. Talking about a YT account that maybe possibly in the future might get closed down is hypothetical damage. Fuzzy or difficult to discern is not the same thing as hypothetical. Statutory damages are used for to account for this fuzziness.
That’s not the same as your already free movie going offline. If it’s free, it’s hard to argue you missed out on sales. This isn’t copyright infringement- what statute are you applying that calls for statutory damages in this case?
3 Likes
If their YouTube channel is ad-enabled (I don’t know if the Blender one is, but if we’re talking about other instances of fraudulent takedowns, there are PLENTY of ad-enabled channels that fall into this category), they are losing ad revenue when the video is fraudulently taken down. That’s pretty concrete damages.
3 Likes
The key word here is still “fraudulently.” Fraud isn’t something you typically do by accident. Fraud is an intentional tort. Is ContentID the first incarnation of SkyNet? Did it become self-aware? Then you also have to parse down YT’s TOS. The TOS may well protect YT from mistakes like this, and I have a feeling that such provisions would likely be enforceable.
Sorry, but I don’t see why everyone thinks it’s so easy to sue for any slight. Sometimes you’re legally SOL, and in the right. Happens all the time.
Well, in this case, Sony submitted a clip with Sintel footage in it to the ContentID database (that’s why it got taken down). Sony did not own that content, yet claimed that they did. An argument could be made that Sony was fraudulently claiming ownership of the Sintel footage that they submitted.
4 Likes
The video is now back up on youtube. It is viewable and there is no longer a takedown notice.
3 Likes
Vimeo? or one of the million other places which host videos and have identical functionality to youtube?
1 Like
Identical functionality perhaps, but not the AUDIENCE. And for people looking to monetize their content in one way or another, audience size matters. Which is why everybody is still flocking to Youtube.
1 Like
Since you only name video, I’m assuming that’s the only one of the “million other places” you could actually find. I’ll actually give it another look - I only remember it as that annoying thing that all the “official” music videos were on that was absolutely terrible to use and worked terribly, and that you had to pay out a good chunk of money to upload videos for, only to have those videos not work for half the people who might want to see them. And then they’d ban whatever topic you were covering, which seemed to happen every so often, and all your videos would be pulled even after you paid to put them up.
Admittedly, that was all a while ago, and I have just sort of avoided them since then, thinking of them as an even worse and more annoying version of youtube that was only for “professional” studios, but it actually looks like it has improve, so it’s worth another look. It looks like they’ve still got a blanket ban on reviews/let’s plays/anything related to gaming, even if you have express permission to do so from the game developers, though, which is sort of… problematic, since that’s one of the bigger things I use youtube for. At the very least it looks like it would have been a better place for THIS video.
Suggestions for additional services to look into are still appreciated.
2 Likes
Monetizing on Vimeo also requires you pay them $200/year for the opportunity. Hope you realized your video would get big BEFORE hand!
2 Likes
