Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science Idle Your Rights Online

NASA's Own Video of Curiosity Landing Crashes Into a DMCA Takedown 597

Posted by samzenpus
from the we-own-it-now dept.
derekmead writes "NASA's livestream coverage of the Curiosity rover's landing on Mars was practically as flawless as the landing itself. But NASA couldn't prepare for everything. An hour or so after Curiosity's 1.31 a.m. EST landing in Gale Crater,the space agency's main YouTube channel had posted a 13-minute excerpt of the stream. Ten minutes later, the video was gone, replaced with the message: 'This video contains content from Scripps Local News, who has blocked it on copyright grounds. Sorry about that.' That is to say, a NASA-made video posted on NASA's official YouTube channel, documenting the landing of a $2.5 billion Mars rover mission paid for with public taxpayer money, was blocked by YouTube because of a copyright claim by a private news service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Own Video of Curiosity Landing Crashes Into a DMCA Takedown

Comments Filter:
  • by TXISDude (1171607) * on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:37PM (#40895957)
    This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true. Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay, and NASA being a government agency will not pursue it. This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues - and timely, not is days or weeks, but with the same SLA as the automated system. Right now, it is almost like the recording industry is calling the shots and everyone is guilty unless they prove they are not infringing. In the US, shouldn't the system be the other way around?
    • by v1 (525388) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:46PM (#40896081) Homepage Journal

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal thing. This is more of a corporate thing, and when it's the coprs vs the people, it works the other way around, "guilty until proven innocent". (and then "guilty again after you prove your innocence, rinse and repeat")

      It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures. Heck, I'd like to see them do what the **RA like to do. NASA file a counterclaim and get it back, Scripps file another notice, repeat that a few times and watch Youtube auto-suspend NASA's youtube account for three abuse claims. (doesn't matter if they are reversed, three claims is all it takes) That would generate some AWESOME publicity!

      • by s73v3r (963317)

        It'd be quite entertaining if Scripps Local News did this entirely on purpose, to raise awareness of the abusability of these procedures.

        I just cannot see that happening. While it is within the realm of possibility, Occam's razor would suggest otherwise.

        • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:09PM (#40896379)

          It seems more-likely that Scripps contracted with Youtube to automatically have any content removed that has an "audio signature" which matches Scripps own uploaded videos. In other words, no people involved.

          I've heard radio host Alex Jones complain about this. Some corporation (CBS Radio if I recall correctly) has contracted a DJ for their national news starting in 2011. However they claim ownership of ALL recordings by that DJ, both present and past. So youtube is automatically removing all videos of said DJ, including interviews on Jones' show from ten years ago. There's no person involved... just a computer doing automatic filtering & automatic takedowns.

          • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:14PM (#40896441) Homepage Journal

            "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

            • by publiclurker (952615) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:55PM (#40896923)
              in case we miss some the first go around?
            • by careysb (566113) on Monday August 06, 2012 @02:08PM (#40897087)
              Create software to automatically kill the lawyers.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @02:08PM (#40897097)

              "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

              That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

              • by ClickOnThis (137803) on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:44PM (#40898297) Journal

                "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

                That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

                Mod parent Informative. Let's stop using this oft-abused out-of-context quote from Shakespeare.

                • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:54PM (#40898407)

                  No... let's keep using it, but let's use it in our OWN context, where we MEAN let's kill all the lawyers, because we have OTHER reasons than did Shakespeare's character, because OUR lawyers have basically hamstrung our society, crippled our technology, retarded our advancement, and saddled us with more bad law than good law.

                • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @05:28PM (#40899389)

                  >>>"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

                  >>That's as a prelude to abusing people's rights. So, be careful what you ask for - because you just might get it.

                  >Mod parent Informative. Let's stop using this oft-abused out-of-context quote from Shakespeare.

                  Often abused by lawyers, anyway. They like to claim that Shakespeare meant that that killing lawyers was a prelude to the Apocalypse, rather than something that -- as attractive as it might sound -- will never happen. Let's look at the quote in context:

                  CADE: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
                          reformation. There shall be in England seven
                          halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
                          pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
                          to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
                          common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
                          grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--

                  ALL: God save your majesty!

                  CADE: I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
                          all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
                          apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
                          like brothers and worship me their lord.

                  DICK: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

                  CADE: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
                          thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
                          be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
                          o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
                          but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
                          once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
                          since. How now! who's there?

                  Now, is Shakespeare claiming that "seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny" should scare the socks off of people? What about "the three-hooped
                          pot shall have ten hoops"? No? What about the lack of money, or being fed and clothed by the "king"? Why is it that "Let's kill all the lawyers" is the one jarring piece of reality in a farcical back and forth?

                  No, Lawyers like to twist the meaning, because they hate having people agree with it. Better for them to point out that one might as well wish for the moon to be edible cheese as to wish for the removal of lawyers, something that Shakespeare did recognize.

            • by History's Coming To (1059484) on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:42PM (#40898275) Journal
              "Let's kill all the lawyers, let's kill 'em tonight." ~The Eagles, 'Get Over It'

              The problem is that YouTube is very big and they have a lot of copyright infringements. They have to respond "in a timely manner" to copyright claims, so there are two ways to do it: automate everything to a great degree, knowing that non-justified takedowns will sometimes occur, or hire an army of people to do it with Eyeball 1.0. Option 1 is cheaper, so guess what?

              Solution: Automate the "Nope, this isn't copyright" process too. If you have a video taken down you can put it back up and the case is referred to a real person. The company/person who was in the wrong then has to pay $100 to the person who dealt with it. Problem solved.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by davester666 (731373)

            Now if this was a DMCA takedown notice, then NASA could possibly get it back in 15 days...but by using a separate, private agreement with Youtube that gives permission for a wide variety of corporations to claim anything as being 'theirs' with no method of recourse for the actual owner to fight it, is Youtube's failure.

          • by N0Man74 (1620447) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:50PM (#40896869)

            I've heard similar stories. I remember seeing a story about a couple of guys who made a YouTube video. This Tonight Show decided to replay this video during their ending credits. Apparently an automated system detected the original YouTube video as matching the content from the NBC footage, and was automatically taken down.

            It's absurdity...

            And that is without even considering that detecting a small segment of the NBC broadcast is considered infringement would be considered infringement (and not fair use), while NBC broadcasting the complete video created by someone else was not.

          • by Sqr(twg) (2126054) on Monday August 06, 2012 @02:42PM (#40897583)

            How does this work? A DMCA notice requires somebody to certify under penalty of perjury that he represents the copyright holder. Perjury is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. In a system where scentences are served consecutively, such a script could easily get you sent to prison for the rest of your life.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              The penalty must be near-zero. There are people with YouTube channels who bash Islam. Islamists issue DCMA takedowns flatly lying they own it. The reason is the real ownee's response is to counter-claim, easy enough, but they must submit their legal name and address, which is why the Islamists want it. The penalty for them is much less than the street justice penalty they want to hand out.

              • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:54PM (#40899055)

                There are people with YouTube channels who bash Islam. Islamists issue DCMA takedowns flatly lying they own it. The reason is the real ownee's response is to counter-claim, easy enough, but they must submit their legal name and address, which is why the Islamists want it.

                Considering how there are tons and tons of such videos all over youtube that haven't been DMCA'd it sounds like you are just repeating typical jihadwatch-style delusional paranoia. But you are welcome to provide a cite to prove me wrong.

              • Uh, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Safety Cap (253500) on Monday August 06, 2012 @05:27PM (#40899381) Homepage Journal

                The penalty for them is much less than the street justice penalty they want to hand out.

                You do have real evidence for this, right?

                This isn't one of those "Fox 'News' says Islamists want to kill me in my sleep so I better vote for Romney or everyone I know will get their heads cut off" knee-jerk fear of the other taken to the logical absurd end, right?

            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @09:18PM (#40901077)

              This isn't DMCA. YouTube offers "preferred" content owners automated detection of content, with automated takedown or applying forced advertising to the content, with diversion of revenues to the claimed content owner.

              This "going way beyond DMCA" is one of the reasons why YouTube are still going despite rampant copyright infringement, and why megaupload (despite abiding by DMCA to the letter) are defunct.

              A similar sort of thing has happened to me. I had a funny video, which a local TV channel ran on their show (without permission). They then posted their show on YouTube. As a preferred customer, YouTube took their clip and used it as a reference for an "infringing material" search; unsurprsingly, as my video was the source, it triggered a match, and the revenue on my video was seized. I also got a warning that I was at risk of losing ALL my advertising revenue irrevocably, if I continued to upload "infringing" material.

              I appealed the match, but all this meant was that YouTube simply ask the purported "owner" for a manual match. They claimed that they had watched both videos and agreed that they matched, and that was all YouTube wanted. As far as YT were concerned, the appeal had been lost, and the decision was final.

              So, I made a DMCA claim on YouTube against the TV channel. Nothing happened. Zip. Nada. In the end, I removed the video, as I'd rather no one got the advertising revenue from my work, than someone who had copied it from me in the first place.

        • by durrr (1316311) on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:03PM (#40897867)

          What do I have to do to get automated takedown acess? There's a few million videos I don't like.

      • by Khashishi (775369)

        Bwahaha. I can totally see Scripps doing this on purpose, but not for the reason you stated. The only awareness that Scripps is interested in raising is the existence of Scripps Local News, which I never heard of until now.

    • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:50PM (#40896161) Homepage Journal

      The problem is that YouTube is trying to comply with a flawed law. The law is flawed enough that real compliance is impossible, but they are trying to put in enough CYA anyway. When you have a law that is as flawed as the DMCA you are going to have problems. ...and those problems will generally be a mistake in favor of the corporation's who purchased the law. As Jim Neighbors says, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

    • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:01PM (#40896279) Journal
      Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.
      • by russotto (537200) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:30PM (#40896623) Journal

        Actually from what I hear the DMCA requires immediate carrier response. If they tell the carrier your content is infringing, then your carrier MUST shut it down; it's not their call, legally they must remove the content on claim. Then you can come back and say bullshit, and your carrier can re-instate it, and then it's your legal battle--there's no edit war here, you're now responsible for the content and the carrier by statute is able to legally accept your claim as primary until the court decides who has controlling interest.

        No, it's worse than that. After you say "bullshit", the claimaint can say "not bullshit" -- then the provider has to (in order to retain safe harbor) take it down again until a court says otherwise. Basically an automatic injunction.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This is what happens when you automate things and accept all claims as true.

      ... as required by law.

      Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay...

      You must be referring to That Company Which Must Not Be Named, run by the Dark Lord [censored], and [pronoun] legions of [redacted] lawyers! Of course, it's so obvious! /snark His name is Cary Sherman, and he doesn't speak for the industry; He speaks for a very small portion of it which profits a great deal from the rest of it being forced into using its monopoly. Subtle difference.

      This needs to be a wakeup call before we allow ISP's to monitor and police everything - there needs to be a human in the loop to fix these issues -

      There is a human loop to fix these issues, but it's not in your ISP's office but your legislator's. An

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:15PM (#40896449) Homepage

      There is an answer. Any false claim like this results in a $100,00 automatic fine that has 80% paid to the person who's video was taken down and 20% to youtube.

      PUNISH people for DMCA take downs if they are false. Negative reinforcment works better than any other.

    • by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Monday August 06, 2012 @02:04PM (#40897035) Journal

      Sad thing is, "the industry" will say this is a small price to pay, and NASA being a government agency will not pursue it.

      Quoth TFA: "NASA, which has a powerful presence on YouTube, likely contacted Google directly for help getting the video reinstated. But most YouTube uploaders don’t have that luxury."

  • by swschrad (312009) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:38PM (#40895961) Homepage Journal

    sauve for the goose is sauve for the gander.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:43PM (#40896029)

      This. There needs to start being a penalty for false accusations, or they might as well accuse everyone at all times, because hey, what's there to lose?

      • by budgenator (254554) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:12PM (#40896419) Journal

        Actually I was thinking along the same lines, IANAL but it occurred to me that Copyright law gives entities the right to control the copying of a work, a false take-down notice infringes on the copyright holder's right to control the distribution of a work, and since NASA is a US government agency it does not hold the copyright but passes it to the public domain, or to "We The People". Perhaps we should fine a good shyster and have him file a class action against scripts for infringing on the copyright of "We The People", a quarter of a million dollars times 300 million people, should get their attention.

    • by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:59PM (#40896245)
      Hmm, if I had a few more connections, things would be about to get very inconvenient at Scripps. Wouldn't it be a shame if the FBI raided them and shut them down completely for a few days in order to gather evidence? And you wouldn't want to be their tax attorney when the IRS comes knocking next season. When are we going to treat fraudulent takedown notices as the criminal activity they are?
  • by scorp1us (235526) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:43PM (#40896031) Journal

    There is a provision that for fraudulent DMCA take-down that there is a penalty of $500. We should increase this to $50,000 immediately to prevent future abuses.

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:43PM (#40896045) Journal

    ...since it's a civil issue and the US Gov't won't bother to pursue it.

    It's a shame we can't get together, as taxpayers, and sue on behalf of the gov't.

  • Scrpps Media Company (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:45PM (#40896069)

    I know Ohio is boring and all but if they want the attention: http://www.scripps.com/heritage/contact-us

  • Copyright violations (Score:4, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:47PM (#40896099)
    That's the problem with the copyright filters at Youtube and elsewhere: Copyright is based on the production of a work, not the work itself. So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive. So the content might be "Curiousity rover team hugging", which can't be copyrighted, but the production of it is. Since NASA made it public domain, they have no rights to it whatsoever, so anyone can take the content, re-broadcast it, and then claim copyright on that broadcasted content.

    Which is a problem in a digital environment: How can you tell whether something came from the original (public domain) source, or the re-broadcaster? YouTube's auto-filters obviously can't. There's no way to tell original from copy; And guess who gets sued if they don't block when they could have? Which underscores another problem with copyright law: Presumed guilt. DMCA notices force providers to take down potentially infringing content. Not actually infringing, potentially-infringing. It's a presumption of guilt; Your innocence must then be established later. And with technology like this, how can a judge, or even yourself, tell the difference between the original 101110101000101110100011 and the copied 101110101000101110100011?

    • I don't think this is technically right. I could be wrong, but I think NASA doesn't make this footage public domain for the very reason copyleft exists and you bring up in your comment. They don't want people claiming copyright of their work.

      • by dcollins (135727) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:06PM (#40896349) Homepage

        Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites

        Still Images, Audio Recordings, Video, and Related Computer Files

        NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

        http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html [nasa.gov]

    • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdo ... org minus author> on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:57PM (#40896217)

      So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive.

      This area isn't actually that clear. You probably cannot rebroadcast the version that has NBC's logo on it, but not because this footage has been re-copyrighted by the addition of the logo. Rather, it's just that the logo itself is copyrighted, and you can't broadcast that. You can, however, remove the logo and broadcast NBC's version of the public-domain footage sans logo. Assuming, at least that they broadcast essentially the original PD video, and have not made any other changes sufficiently creative to produce a new copyright.

      I'm not sure if it's been litigated with film, but in the art world, that was litigated in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. [wikipedia.org], which found that scanning a public-domain artwork does not make your scan copyrighted. So I don't believe simply rebroadcasting NASA footage creates a new copyrighted version of the footage. Maybe if you do some creative editing, then that specific sequence of cuts is copyrighted.

      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:10PM (#40896391)
        The problem is, sufficiently creative these days has been so narrowly defined as to mean "But ours is off-white instead of muave. See! That's creative!" -- and the courts uphold this. That's one of the problems with our archaic case law / common law judiciary: Once you win a case against an opponent that can't defend themselves, you can then use that precident against an opponent who can, and probably win. The system assumes that both the defense and prosecution are fairly represented, and the judge is impartial in every case. Of course it isn't, so over time, the system biases itself politically and economically in favor of whomever is in power. This was probably by design... a testament to miserable Britain.
  • So what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @12:48PM (#40896121)

    Just see it on Nasa's site: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=149933921

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by uigrad_2000 (398500) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:15PM (#40896451) Homepage Journal

      This seems to be the most important comment on here so far.

      We have NASA that uses taxpayer money for servers, but people shy away from their website because it is unfamiliar.

      So, NASA sends it to a private company that hosts webcam videos for free, and that private company puts ads at the beginning of the video, and ads in popup windows over the video. You would think no one would use the version with ads all over, but people like what is familiar, so it gets lots of views.

      Then, since it is subject to takedown notices (the same way as your hot neighbor's webcam is), some partner in Youtube's giant network requests it to come down, and it goes down with no questions asked. These takedowns happen all the time, and rarely are DMCA takedowns, regardless of what the text may say. Basically, any one that pays Google enough can become a "trusted partner" and tell them which free videos should be removed.

      Youtube is perfect for sharing thousands of hours of crap when you have no other platform for sharing your video. It's like today's equivalent of Geocities. It's not the proper place for hosting important content from NASA. If you choose to use Youtube (or Geocities) to find NASA content, you my get lucky and find what you are looking for, but if so, it's just lucky coincidence.

      TL;DR: Not News.

  • Close to home. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:00PM (#40896257)

    I operate a youtube channel with just over 100,000 subscribers. I almost had my account permanently suspended when several of my government produced, copyright-free videos of 1940s military footage were flagged by some no-name spanish news station. These videos were converted directly from library archive originals. My only saving grace was one of my subscribers was a lower end employee of Google at the time and was able to contact the right people.

    What would have happened to me had I not been so lucky?

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:01PM (#40896283)
    I think Scripps Local News broadcast building is about to have a satellite or rocket land on it. Don't fuck with NASA lol.
  • by brit74 (831798) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:16PM (#40896467)
    I read the summary and concluded that Scripps Local News blocked the video using a false copyright claim. But, then I read the actual article:

    "YouTube will block or censor content for one of three reasons: if a video violates the site’s terms of service, if its content is automatically found to match copyrighted content, or if it receives a request from a copyright owner to remove a pirated video." ... Content ID, YouTube’s automated copyright monitor, was meant to be the site’s secret weapon in its fight to stay legal, and make some sense – or cents – out of the video chaos: by algorithmically matching content, robots can, ideally, keep track of which videos contain copyrighted material.

    So, basically, the whole takedown might've had nothing to do with Scripps Local News issuing a false takedown, and might've had everything to do with YouTube's robots misidentifying the video. Now, we've got a whole comment section full of people who want to attack Scripps for issuing a false takedown, even though we're not even sure what exactly happened. Please update the summary, Slashdot.

  • I'm sure Scripps News Service will be assessed the lawful penalty for issuing a false DMCA takedown notice. Also, I believe in the Tooth Fairy.
  • by sootman (158191) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:28PM (#40896591) Homepage Journal

    ... the first one had a Prince song playing in the background. New one will be up soon.

  • by Daryen (1138567) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:30PM (#40896619)

    For the curious, Scripps Contact Info from their website:

    Corporate Headquarters:
    312 Walnut Street
    2800 Scripps Center
    Cincinnati, OH 45202
    Phone: 513-977-3000
    Fax: 513-977-3024

    E-mail Contacts:
    Feedback: corpcomm@scripps.com
    Corporate Communications: corpcomm@scripps.com
    Human Resources: askHR@scripps.com

    I'm sure they would love to hear what you have to say!

  • by Beer_Smurf (700116) on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:32PM (#40896655) Homepage
    We all need to send claims against all the big media content.
    Make this rule cost them money.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @01:54PM (#40896913)

    This was the result of YouTube's Content ID. Scripps is a media partner with Google. All of their uploads are "protected" by the Content ID system. NASA released the video to the news outlets, Scripps published it on YouTube before NASA did. When NASA did upload it, it was already in the system from the Scripps uploaded and was automacticlly flagged.

    No DMCA claim was filed, it was all automatic. Maybe the Scripps employee the posted it could have tagged the video to prevent this, I don't know.

    The problem is a result of Google trying to police copyright, not with a company filing a complaint.

  • by Perl-Pusher (555592) on Monday August 06, 2012 @02:05PM (#40897049)
    I can't view the article because NASA web filter blocks it. You can view the NASA's curiosity video here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=18895 [nasa.gov]
  • I've almost stopped cliecking Youtube links, half of them don't work. NASA should host their own videos.

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Monday August 06, 2012 @03:09PM (#40897937) Homepage Journal
    What's to keep an enterprising group of people from submitting takedown notices for every new piece of content posted on youtube? Or the Internet as a whole, for that matter? I imagine it wouldn't take too many people to shut the whole thing down in the USA.
  • by Trogre (513942) on Monday August 06, 2012 @06:12PM (#40899773) Homepage

    No wait, "thank" isn't quite the word I was looking for...

Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support rather than illumination.

Working...