Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Movies Youtube Your Rights Online

YouTube Threatens To Remove Scientist's Account Over AIDS Deniers' DMCA Claims 268

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-don't-want-to-hear-it dept.
First time accepted submitter EwanPalmer writes "YouTube is threatening to remove the account of a scientist who made a series of videos debunking claims made in an AIDS denialist movie over copyright infringement disagreement. Myles Power is claiming the producers of controversial 2009 documentary House of Numbers are attempting to censor him by submitting bogus DMCA claims against him. He says his movies do not breach copyright laws because his films are educational and therefore fair use. The 'AIDS denialist' documentary makers say they instead amounted to 'propaganda.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Threatens To Remove Scientist's Account Over AIDS Deniers' DMCA Claims

Comments Filter:
  • Non-story (Score:5, Informative)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Monday February 17, 2014 @06:27PM (#46271467)

    From the article;

    YouTube said that Power's account, which has more than 20,000 subscribers, will be removed on 18 February unless they receive a counter-notification disputing these claims against him by that date.

    All they have to do is follow the law, file a counter-notification and this all goes away. The summary makes it look like YouTube is the bad guy when all they are doing is following the law and acting on the DMCA claims. It is up to the alleged infringer to counter-claim not the service provider.

    He says his movies do not breach copyright laws because his films are educational and therefore fair use.

    Tell that to YouTube and the story is over.

    • Re:Non-story (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rahvin112 (446269) on Monday February 17, 2014 @06:37PM (#46271559)

      Tell that to YouTube and the story is over.

      Google doesn't care. They breach their immunity if they don't follow the DMCA process, which involves the counter-notice. He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice and make the denialists sue him then trounce them in court along with counter-suit for damages and legal fees.

      If he's not willing to defend what he produced he just doesn't care enough.

      • Re:Non-story (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arbiter1 (1204146) on Monday February 17, 2014 @06:43PM (#46271603)
        Problem might not fact he don't care, its having the $ to fight it. Since you can't rely on court awarding legal fee's.
        • In the unholy trinity (sex, drugs and copyright) you can't even rely on court to follow the law, considering that there are almost more contradictions than in the Bible.

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          That is a problem only if it actually gets to court. Filing a counter-claim costs nothing and the copyright holder may not file as it is obvious there is no infringement. Many copyright holders will file the first step of the process but never file with a court. The know that can scare some people into submission. Just follow the process, stand up to the bullies and they slink away.
          Even if it goes to court there are many organisation such as the EFF which will fund this kind of defense. I bet many AIDS grou

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          it's not a court claim..

          basically, the counter claim in this case is just an email. as was the original claims too.

          since it's free to make dmca notices assholes will use them to censor other people.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        He shouldn't tell them anything, he should send in the proper counter-notice

        The reason why the films do not infringe is part of a proper counter-notice.

        • It's been a few weeks since I read the DMCA, but as I recall the counter-notice just has to say that you're contesting it. You don't have to go into any legal theory of why. It just shows that a) you're responding and b) don't agree that you've infringed.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            It looks like you are right though you do need to make the following statement;

            I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

            I guess specifics are not necessary.

      • There's also the fact that even with a counter-notice, the debunking stays down for at least 10 days.
        • by Rich0 (548339)

          That is Youtube's fault. I'm not aware of any DMCA provision that requires the site to stay down for 10 days even after a counter-notice is filed.

    • by bugnuts (94678)

      Right. If you have enough copyright claims against you that are not disputed, youtube will simply remove your account.

      This guy pissed off some folks who are making claims in bad faith, but if you're sure you're not violating the law you need to state so in a counter claim. At that point, it's no longer legal to file further DMCA takedown notices on the same material, and they have to take you to court to proceed. Multiple claims on the same clip [arstechnica.com] are considered misrepresentation. This is why it's suspicious

      • by bidule (173941)

        This guy pissed off some folks who are making claims in bad faith,

        I am not sure it's that black and white.

        I watched the 16 minutes first part. There are maybe 2 minutes of original video at the start and 2 more minutes of a Foo Fighter music video, leaving about 10 minutes of House of Number material.

        He really did a convincing work on the montage and the voice-over, but NPOV must agree the majority of the video came from the deniers. Now I don't know how far fair use goes, but maybe they really have a case there. How did MST3K handle that?

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          The fact that there was commentary over almost all of the video makes it fair use. There is a very old case that makes this clear.
          Folsom v. Marsh [yalelawtech.org]

          no one can doubt that a reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.

          It is clear that the vidios are criticism and do not supersede the original work.

        • by Fnord666 (889225)

          He really did a convincing work on the montage and the voice-over, but NPOV must agree the majority of the video came from the deniers. Now I don't know how far fair use goes, but maybe they really have a case there. How did MST3K handle that?

          None of which is any concern of Youtube. They have absolutely nothing to say about fair use or not. They follow the letter of the law as written and preserve their Safe Harbor protections under the DMCA. Youtube's actions are out of their hands on both sides unless they are willing to jump into the fray and assume liability.

  • This is clearly an unconstitutional restraint of journalism.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

    Come on man.

    • ...this has nothing to do with the government. Nobody here is "the government" - it's just three private parties arguing over who's shit got posted to youtube.

      • The reason it matters is the DMCA. That's clearly the government interfering with free speech and journalism.

        As the Founders said, Congress can't make a law that does that.

      • by tragedy (27079)

        ...this has nothing to do with the government. Nobody here is "the government" - it's just three private parties arguing over who's shit got posted to youtube.

        Unless we're talking about the government that passed the DMCA into law, or that established copyright in the first place, or that runs the courts where this would go if they file a DMCA counter-claim. You could have made a valid point that copyright is also established in the constitution, however.

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled many times that the right freedom of speech stops where it harms others. Copyright and the laws that support it are there to stop economic harm.

  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Tuesday February 18, 2014 @12:48AM (#46273691)
    The joke of course is just how much content on YT clearly violates copyright but just sits there for years. I mean entire major motion pictures [youtube.com] will be posted by some non-rights-holding Joe Shmoe, remain up for years, and get recommended to you by YT's algorithms and have ads run before they show it to you. So you go ahead and post a short clip from, say, The Jackie Gleason Show from 1960, Jackie Gleason Enterprises sends in a DCMA by the next day, it gets taken down, (fair enough) and YT has the absolute gall to send you a "you're a naughty boy!" email and ask you to watch this oh-so-amusing copyright drivers-ed film [youtube.com] which declares pretty much anything not 100% original content is a violation of the rules, while pretty much the vast majority of the content on the site does exactly that.

    So the poor analogy is this: kids throwing rocks at the old factory windows in full view of the police. If the factory owner calls the police and complains, the kids are promptly arrested. If the owner says nothing the police gather a crowd around inviting people to watch the kids smash the windows, then mills through the crowd selling tickets to the policeman's ball.

    .
  • Stupidity of these people is undeniable, but this is still censorship. And as a ./ story, it should be filled in appropriate cabinet.

Are you having fun yet?

Working...