
Newest YouTube user to fight a takedown is copyright guru Lawrence Lessig - comex
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/newest-youtube-user-to-fight-a-takedown-is-copyright-guru-lawrence-lessig
======
aspensmonster
So where's a link to the video? I'm digging and will update if I find it.

Edit: The following link seems to match many of the attributes mentioned in
the complaint filed (date of talk, sponsor of talk, his keynote speaker
status, location of talk, video length).

[http://vimeo.com/13816922](http://vimeo.com/13816922)

[http://youtu.be/KBTWoCaNKn4?t=37m41s](http://youtu.be/KBTWoCaNKn4?t=37m41s)

Edit2: Confirmed. This is the talk. The Ars article says the title of the talk
was "Open," same as the title in the video. The "infringement" starts around
37:40. Funnily enough, the "infringed work" is apparently a remix itself. Go
figure. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Edit3: I can't tell whether the song itself is a remix, or if Lessig meant
there were several remixes of the original clip that had the music dubbed over
clips from The Breakfast Club. It appears to be the latter.

Suffice it to say, this is fucking ridiculous. Raise your hand if you're going
to watch a 49 minute long video in order to try and "home tape" the 47 second
clip 37 minutes and 40 seconds in, especially if you can just download the
official video from here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BJDNw7o6so](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BJDNw7o6so)

Whether this is "official" as in this is the actual video shot for the song,
or "official" as in "welovephoenix" is their official youtube channel (or
both), I don't know. But that link has nearly 10 million views.

Edit4:

And this is the original video remixing the song with The Breakfast Club and
another 80s movie I'm too twentysomething to recognize, sitting pretty at 458k
views:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq741YqlP7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq741YqlP7w)

~~~
fpgeek
Lessig retracted his counter-notice in response to their lawsuit threat, so
the video is still down.

~~~
aspensmonster
I know, but I'm guessing that the recently-posted video of his that got the
takedown notice is a cleaned up version of the video I linked. I'm currently
trying to dig through the talk at the moment to get to the supposedly
infringing bits.

------
petenixey
While I hate the heavy-handedness that the DMCA operates with and I think it's
ridiculous that LL's video was banned it's worth remembering back to pre-
YouTube to recall how we got here.

Before YouTube there wasn't any consumer-accessible dissemination of AV media
online. You had to have serious equipment, there was no social distribution
and copyrighted material couldn't get used anywhere.

YouTube came along and simply overpowered the copyright holders with both
sheer volume and variety of copyright infringements and followed through with
the financial and legal muscle of Google behind it. There was a long time when
it wasn't clear whether YouTube would actually survive its legal battle and I
assume that the instant-take-downs were a compromise that was reached to allow
them to continue.

I'm glad that Lawrence Lessig is fighting this case and it's a good time for
it to happen. However it's also worth keeping in mind why these instant take-
downs were instituted in the first place - it was (I presume) because it was
the only way to placate copyright holders into allowing the whole thing to
continue.

~~~
thenomad
That's not quite 100% true - there were various sites that disseminated video
to and from consumers. I ran one of them, Machinima.com, which was founded in
2000.

However, they were few, far between, and didn't work nearly as well as
YouTube. I'll admit to making a massive mistake disregarding Flash video back
in those days in favour of downloadable content!

YouTube really has been a remarkable thing - one of the few .coms that can
genuninely claim to have significantly changed the world.

------
fpgeek
You'd think these DMCA blasters would have some lists of people they shouldn't
tangle with because it will be more trouble than it's worth. Fortunately for
us, apparently not.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Yeah, like when the NFL DMCA'd Wendy Seltzer's YT video of the NFL's copyright
notice plus a short clip of a Super Bowl® ^W^W Sports Championship kickoff.
[http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/dmca-nfl](http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/dmca-
nfl)

------
davedx
Only 2 lawsuits have ever challenged a DMCA takedown? Then the DMCA is
seriously broken. There needs to be a better path for appeal against excessive
or unfair takedowns.

~~~
kbuck
No, the article says that only a few lawsuits have resulted in damages per
section 512(f) of the DMCA [1] (which places a penalty on knowingly
misrepresenting a work when filing a DMCA notice against it, if I am reading
correctly). It sounds like they're able to sue under 512(f) in this case
because Liberation Music pressed the issue even after they had been notified
that the use was fair use. I am not a lawyer, though.

[1]
[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512)

~~~
Fuxy
So does that mean that in order to keep our work up we need to challenge every
take down and invest thousands of dollars fighting it?

That is what is broken in the DMCA. Guilty until proven innocent and you the
content creator (that uses some copyrighted material) have to pay for every
bullshit take down notice you get.

This is what big companies are counting on, that you are not willing to invest
the time and effort needed to challenge them.

And given that they have vastly more resources they will be better prepared to
fight you that you are to fight them.

This is not justice this is survival of the richest.

~~~
mikeash
In order to keep your work up, all you have to do is tell your provider that
the takedown notice is incorrect, and they'll restore your content. I believe
there's a mandated delay (10 days?) before they can do it, so it's still
pretty bad, but you don't have to sue. You _can_ sue for damages if you think
they sent the takedown maliciously, but it's not required just to restore the
content.

~~~
Dylan16807
Which means unlimited free 10-day takedowns. They can throw them out on a whim
at anything that even matches keywords, because there's no penalty for
negligence, only direct maliciousness.

It's not hugely expensive to fight plain takedowns, but it's still a burden
that shouldn't exist, and having your content down is a cost you'll never
recover.

------
devx
DMCA needs be amended, badly. The automated DMCA takedown notices and with no
repercussions for false infringements are making the copyright situation
worse. These companies need to be punished for sending abusive DMCA notices.

------
Fuxy
Yay! This is fun. Finally a company foolish enough to pick a fight with an
expert in copyright that's been waiting for one for years. Let's just hope the
courts show a bit of common sense.

------
nicholassmith
I wonder if they did any research before filing a DMCA against who they were
poking with a pointy stick? Or whether it was just an auto-match and auto-DMCA
filed?

Hopefully when this goes to the courts it'll set some precedents, I can't
imagine Lessig backing down from a fight over a spurious DMCA claim.

------
Aldo_MX
I lost my faith in Youtube when I started getting claims in my videos with
Vivaldi's Music...

------
Questioneer
Some time ago I became engaged in the Syrian conflict, before it was a
conflict.

There was a time when a multitude of cities rose up in peaceful demonstration.
Civilian organizations took root to make clear cases for ways and means of
reforms, both on the local and national scale. These local coordination
committees were most publicly visible by foreigners on the net, being prolific
in uploading of media, mainly during Friday protests after prayer. These local
orgs, mainly teens, found sites like bambuser.com and youtube.com highly
effective for disseminating and spreading word of solidarity for towns spread
miles apart, those miles just may as well be worlds apart much like how it is
in the US and other nations.

Well I helped disseminate these events, my favorite were those broadcast live
on bambuser as it gave viewers a much more personal feeling for those
demonstrating on the other end. Much respect to Hans Eriksson[1] who used his
position at bambuser in a positive way, embracing these broadcasts and himself
helping disseminate the broadcasts to the world.

These weekly mass demonstrations took a bloody turn, and while many stopped
looking the coordination committees kept witness, services like bambuser kept
showing live feeds even though they were turning increasing violent as Assad's
forces began publicly gunning down crowds.

Ever see the GPS trail of someone fleeing with a crowd of his neighbors during
a live broadcast, while they were being shot at? I have. Here is a profile of
a martyr who fought with his camera to show the world his life[2].

What does this have to do with copyright? Well those early days of mass
demonstrations are valuable evidence of the true origins of the Syrian civil
war, peaceful defiance met with violence.

During my monitoring and dissemination of other people's hard fought media, I
began processing some into panorama as the narrow field of view provided by
handheld cams reduced much of the true impact of what the recorder meant to
show to others. I made stitched images from video showing tanks awaiting a
push into so-called 'infected' cities[3]. I made images of the days during the
fraudulent elections, of BMPs chasing unarmed civilians through the
streets[4]. Later, I've stitched together images of war crimes that I can
never remove from my thoughts. After doing this for many images I had video of
which I also processed and began uploading those of potential interest, video
of Assad's troops hurling IEDs onto residential neighborhoods from helicopters
for instance[5].

But the video that involves this discussion of copyright, is one held dear to
many of the early activists. Held dear to many of those now deceased. It was a
song sung by someone who himself, was killed in those early days of mass
demonstrations.

Ibrahim Qashoush, a fireman and a poet from Hama Syria[6].

Ibrahim coined a song that became popular during these mass demonstrations in
Hama, singing them in a multitude of breathtaking shows filled the entire town
square (remember when towns had those?) with the families that lived there.
Time passed, and after becoming depressed at the daily slaughter I decided to
go back and make a stitched image[7] of that night in Hama, when Ibrahim sung
before his throat was slit[8] for daring to sing.

After uploading the video to Youtube, marking the video as not copyrighted,
then the image to imgur as usual I received a copyright complaint from
CDBaby[9]. Apparently they thought that due to an artist of theirs including a
sample of the protest audio, they retroactively owned the original protest
song themselves.

I lodged a rebuttal saying that the video was clearly not theirs, and Youtube
agreed. Attempts to contact CDBaby were futile. Having the copyright claim
removed I was somewhat happy with the vindication that this dead man's song
was indeed not CDBaby's, but infuriated that this company made ABSOLUTELY NO
DUE DILIGENCE AS TO THEIR CLAIMS. Most of the time people, if they notice, can
contact them saying a company like CDBaby was in the wrong. But in this case
the man they wronged had his throat slit for the media CDBaby was now claiming
as their own. Cue the rage.

Youtube removed the claim from my copy of the video[10] but when linking the
original copy that I processed I noticed that CDBaby's claim was still on
their video. Looking further I found _ALL_ copies of this dead man's voice
claimed by CDBaby.

This is around the time I started making a stink on Twitter making sure to
include CDBaby's handle while pummeling them for stealing a murdered man's
voice.

Of course after this I finally had CDBaby contact me.

The response from their support 'manager' said simply that my upload has had
the claim removed, she was completely unaware or ignorant of what I was
referencing since I never said my video was the problem. The fact they were
blanket claiming without due diligence or occasional follow-ups to check the
accuracy of their claims was the problem.

Only after displaying their absolute pathetic avoiding of the topic of legal
ramifications for false claims online did I receive a simple follow-up from
CDBaby support 'management':

"All claims have been removed," and indeed they were, for now.

My position on copyright shifted in those months of shouting into the
copyright void that is the Youtube/CDBaby scheme.

I will break every copyright possible without care.

Not just for those who died bravely singing songs for others to be motivated
by, but because for-profit entities display far less due diligence in their
corporate position than a marijuana smoker does in his hobby.

Now I sometimes listen to Ibrahims song, thinking of how many of those people
in Hama in the crowd no longer are alive. I think of CDBaby profiting off it
and who knows how many others, think of Google's complicity in the mess, think
of the lawyers who profit off it keeping the situation rolling. I think of the
militant US government who is coming closer and closer to making copyrights
worse than violent crime, and I get really depressed.

That is one of my fights with copyrights.

[1] [https://twitter.com/HansEriksson](https://twitter.com/HansEriksson)

[2]
[http://bambuser.com/channel/syriapioneer](http://bambuser.com/channel/syriapioneer)

[3] [http://i.imgur.com/pyegah.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/pyegah.jpg)

[4] [http://i.imgur.com/prkBmh.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/prkBmh.jpg)

[5]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZNy7V4Dz60](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZNy7V4Dz60)

[6]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Qashoush](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Qashoush)

[7] [http://imgur.com/gallery/R0hnb](http://imgur.com/gallery/R0hnb)

[8]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/world/middleeast/22poet.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/world/middleeast/22poet.html)

[9] [http://www.cdbaby.com/](http://www.cdbaby.com/)

[10]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu_adzfW8tc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu_adzfW8tc)

~~~
Questioneer
There is a lot of pain within me from the last few years, so many people I no
longer have contact with, for most likely bad reasons. It felt good writing
this out, thank you for reading.

~~~
unimpressive
Right now your comment seems to be at the bottom of the page.

Don't take that to mean nobody is reading.

I personally feel the same way about youtube writ large. Google has made
youtube one of the greatest video libraries ever compiled. Downloading videos
is not allowed by the software (No, various add ons and browser extensions are
not acceptable.), and on top of that it's disallowed by their TOS.

I can only imagine the tragedy set to occur when youtube inevitably shuts
down.

One of the most egregious examples I've seen thus far is on the older Tay
Zonday videos where it says the license is creative commons but there is no
way to download the video.

EDIT:

" This MP3 is subject to a Creative Commons License. Creative Commons License
Details:"

Interesting. Guess I didn't read close enough the first time.

~~~
Questioneer
It is at the bottom because it is a new account, it is a new account because
HN ghosts accounts at the drop of a hat. Oh well.

My problem with the CDBaby/Youtube relationship is that CDBaby was essentially
created to take advantage of blanket claims. Youtube's algos create a set of
hashes or something of track audio. This is fine. The first to make a
copyrighted claim, even if non-copyrighted uploads already exist, get
precedence. This is not fine.

So the hundreds of copies of the man singing his heart out matter nothing once
CDBaby uploads one copyrighted track that includes a part that matches.
Copyrighted claims override the others for some horrific reason.

Leaving me to defend a dead man. Thanks to @ioerror, Telecomix and others for
keeping it real respecting the dead's rights.

~~~
plorkyeran
CDBaby predates Youtube by many years, so it was fairly obviously not created
to abuse anything related to Youtube.

~~~
Questioneer
That's nice. It's fairly obvious CDBaby's mode of operation is what I have
described. Looking into them after they obtained my attention resulted in
finding many similar stories from others.

I have NEVER seen anything from CDBaby's presence with actual CD sales, be it
in retail shops or online, on the other hand their mode of operation since
starting to use Youtube indicates this is their main line of income.

"Represent" artists by claiming copyright on any under-protected samples that
they may have used.

Including voice samples of men who have had their throats slit.

Force users dispute it on Youtube, disputed videos get resolved but every
other copy of the media that was uploaded does not. Leaving each of the other
users who uploaded to fight it one by one on their own. Blanket claims on
swaths of video are made by CDBaby forcing individual defense from users for
each of their uploaded copies. Not all users notice the copyright claims, not
all care, even less have the motivation to try to set things right.

CDBaby over time gets claim to a larger and larger portfolio of media that
doesn't belong to them.

It's all fairly obvious, regardless of how the original company started and
operated.

