More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'

from the youtube-doesn't-apologize-to-infringers,-you-whingeing-buffoons dept

Mon, Aug 6th 2012 9:22am — Tim Cushing

Every so often you come across a conclusion so badly drawn it makes you wonder how the person got from point A to... well, not exactly point B but somewhere well past point B, off in an ethereal realm inhabited by the denizens of overly-complicated word problems and their constantly variable forms of transportation. ("If a premise leaves the train station [Point A] at 10AM riding a bicycle at 3 mph for the first hour and increasing speed by .25 mph every hour for the first four hours before decelerating at a rate inversely proportionate to the incline of the grade [17%], at what time will the bicyclist's speed be exactly 1/4 the average flight speed of the Africanized honey bee? Show your work.)

On even rarer occasions, you'll find this counterintuitive "conclusion" not only applauded for its immaculate "logic," but expounded upon as though it were the genesis of a world-breaking thesis. The obliqueness (and obtuseness) begins with a simple bit of rhetorical questioning by Larry Crane of Tape Op Magazine: "Why does Youtube apologize to people who have illegally uploaded my content?"

I politely asked Youtube to remove a song by my old band that someone had posted without permission. They took it down but then apologized "sorry about that" and ran my business name as if "blaming me" for removing content. Really? Wow. Pretty damn impartial, huh?

Before we get to the title question, let's deal with the rest of the post. You asked YouTube to remove a song and they complied. What's the problem again? Oh, right. They apologized. Hmm.

They also had the temerity to name the business that requested the takedown. What did you expect them to do? Just simply write "This video is no longer available" and be done with it? Of course they named who did it. Do you know why? It's not to "blame" you, which, as the party responsible for the takedown, the "blame" is wholly yours. No, it's to inform viewers and uploaders and other interested parties that this video was taken down to comply with a takedown request, which is something YouTube needs to do to retain its DMCA safe harbors.

The other reason the takedown party is listed is because, sometimes, in rare cases, the takedown isn't legit. Sometimes it's just a clerical error. Or maliciousness. Or a faulty algorithm. This way interested parties can contact the party listed if they feel the takedown is in error. Again, this is a rare occurrence, one that has only happened a handful of times. Like here, for example. And here. And here. And here. Oh, there's also this one. And this other time. Another rarity. Once-in-a-lifetime experience. Well below the expected margin of error. Nothing to see here either. Anomaly. Freak accident. Outlier. In short, it's a handy way to tell at a glance who took the video down and decide whether or not the takedown might be in error.

But, back to the big question: Why does YouTube apologize to the infringing uploader? Good question. But you'll never get an answer because that apology isn't for them. It's not for you, either. It's for the viewer who clicked play and got a dry slab of info rather than the tune/video he or she was expecting. YouTube doesn't apologize to infringing uploaders. They send notices to their account inboxes and email addresses informing them that a video is being removed by request of the rights holders and gently reminding them that if they don't knock this shit off, their account could be deleted.

I'm really not sure how anyone could read that screen and decide that YouTube is oh-so-sorry for being forced to end the uploader's infringement party because of a few rights-holding killjoys. This apology is for fans and potential fans -- the viewers who came here expecting to be entertained and instead got a face full of "NOTHING TO SEE HERE."

Let me ask you a question, Larry. What wording would you use? "YouTube is robbing this artist no longer. Praise Jeebus." "Sorry about all of our infringement, but we're really just a pirate site in corporate clothing." "Enjoy the silence." "'Enjoy the Silence has been removed due to a copyright claim by Warner Bros. Records."

This [waves black and white avatarial arms in the general direction of above] is ridiculous enough. It's just Google-hating in search of a point. But then, someone else decides "ridiculous enough" isn't ridiculous enough. Chris Castle adds some invaluable commentary:

Larry Crane of Tape OP Magazine highlights what must seem like a curious practice by YouTube. First thing--it's Google, so understand that they don't care at all what artists think. Having said that, it will not be surprising to know that YouTube has long employed a tactic that can be thought of as Chilling Effects Lite. acting out of enthusiasm for the artist's music.

Google hate? Check. Moving on.

YouTube leverages the fact that most YouTube videos are embedded in a variety of places, including the artist’s own home page.

Why would an artist embed an infringing video on their own site, especially if they're considering sending a takedown notice? Do they just want their media page to have a sort of "going out of business look?"

This distribution was accomplished by the efforts of the artist or the artist's manager, or the artist's record company or by fans of the artist.

So: if the person who uploaded the infringing video is a fan, you'll reinstate the video? Because the funny thing about uploaders, they don't tend to upload stuff they hate. They're usually fans and they upload songs that aren't on Youtube yet, not to violate copyright laws, but to share music they like. In this example, Chris lists fans as victims of Google's evil "name-and-shame" policy which leaves dead-end embedded videos littering their site but simultaneously wants to chastise fans for uploading the videos without permission, possibly to place on their fan sites. Which is it? Fans = victims? Or fans = infringers who don't deserve the apologies they're not actually getting?

Now, I really didn't want to include this much text, but I'm afraid that if I edited it in any way, I'd be accused of cherry-picking in order to obscure Castle's point. So, here's the whole thing and I welcome you to figure out the point on your own.

When YouTube gets a take down notice that actually results in YouTube removing the video–usually because the poster hasn’t filed a counternotice (which in YouTube’s case can be essentially anything from the poster indicating a pulse)–YouTube isn’t satisfied to just remove the video. (This would cause the video to go dark everywhere it's embedded. Instead, YouTube takes it upon itself to post a notice to the World of Free that campitalizes on the efforts made by the artist and those working with the artist (including fans) to use those efforts to YouTube's benefit. How? YouTube uses the same embed codes to post a notice that YouTube had to actually comply with the law. If that notice comes from an artist’s record company or the music publisher of the recorded song, then everyone who has the video embedded suddenly has a messge “apologizing” due to the fact that YouTube controls what replaces the embeded video that was removed. That “apology” is then flashed across the Internet including the band’s own webpage if they have embedded any YouTube videos. YouTube then feeds that “story” to the Google press who dutifully report on the incident as manufactured news.

The gist of it, if it even contains a "gist," seems to be that YouTube complies with the law in a way that is most advantageous to it, PR-wise. That's what I'm picking up and I had to cross out nearly every other word to do it. The specifics, all strung together, add up to nothing at all, other than a whole lot of words being wasted in order to state: "I greatly dislike Google and its subsidiaries."

"The video goes dark at every location it's embedded" because... it's embedded. Castle even states as much. But somehow, this devious code trickery adds up to something evil. And why is it evil? Because sometimes these videos are embedded at the artists' own sites. And when the artist (or their representation) issues a takedown, it causes videos on the artists' sites to go dark. Leading us back to one of our original questions: what the hell is this hypothetical band (let's call them "The Victims") doing embedding videos if it's just going issue a takedown anyway? It's like some bizarre copyright-infected murder-suicide, only with the murderer pointing the gun at his own head first.

And as for all the other verbiage about Google feeding the press reports about nefarious takedowns by evil labels, etc. etc. etc.? You know who usually alerts bloggers and musos and "the press" about overreaching or ill-advised takedowns? The fans. The same fans who are "victimized" by YouTube's takedown policy and the same fans who are being denied an apology by your insistence on playing the victim after YouTube did EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED THEM TO and COMPLIED WITH THE LAW.

Larry, Chris: You two deserve each other. Even when YouTube does everything right, it's still somehow a screw job.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: apologies, copyright, dmca, takedowns

129 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Arthur (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am

What they want
What they want is for Google to just stop. No more searches (for illegal material!), no more hosting of (illegal!) content. Just shut down. And apologize for existing. Give the Internet back to those who know how to use it. Is that so hard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: What they want
  No, no... if Google apologized for existing, then they would be blaming... someone. Thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 8:43pm
  
  Re: What they want
  And why would they want Google to "just shut down"? Because all this Google hate is actually being driven by Google's commercial competitors, who are feeling butt-hurt by Google being so competitive and beating them all. All the stuff about what a tough time artists are having is just the usual smoke screen. Many of the non-Google competitors have a long record of treating artists badly. They would like to live in a world where competition from Google did not restrain their bastardry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:59pm
    
    Re: Re: What they want
    all this Google hate is actually being driven by Google's commercial competitors
    
    Sometimes, but not in this case.
    
    This time, it's driven by media companies who are used to demanding money from everyone who has any connection to content whatsoever. The whole "anti-Google" sentiment is merely a smokescreen designed to force Google to pay them money.
    
    Whether they actually deserve money for anything Google is doing is completely immaterial to them.
    
    The sad part is when artists actually buy this bullshit. Fortunately most artists don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:35am

Actually, they do have it right. Youtube has phrased it in a manner that doesn't blame the user who violated the copyright, but makes it sound like "big bad bully" made them take it down.

It's phrasing that support's YouTube's view of the universe that users don't really do wrong, they just didn't know. You know, the guys who post stuff with "not mine, belongs to these people" but post it anyway - like that like fixes everything.

It's a subtle suckup to Generation-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  "This video was taken down by UMG because it was uploaded by people who lack a moral compass." better?
  
  How about "This content was taken down at the request of UMG. Don't bother looking for it elsewhere they will not replace it here is some good free music LINK."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, how about "The video was taken down because it was uploaded without permission or license by user XXXXXX."
    
    Why name the rights holder? They want the thing down, they don't want their name in lights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh? What do they have to hide? If they're not guilty of abusing copyright, then they should stand up, proud to be named as a digital censor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hfbs (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmm.. that argument could be (and is) used as defence for internet snooping and such like so I suggest a better response would be: 'why name them? The answer is so you know who to go to to obtain permission or a license or to watch/listen to it directly from the person the rights belong to. Or are they that unwilling for their works to be made public?'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why name the rights holder? - I guess the below paragraph was lost on you:
      
      The other reason the takedown party is listed is because, sometimes, in rare cases, the takedown isn't legit. Sometimes it's just a clerical error. Or maliciousness. Or a faulty algorithm. This way interested parties can contact the party listed if they feel the takedown is in error. Again, this is a rare occurrence, one that has only happened a handful of times. Like here, for example. And here. And here. And here. Oh, there's also this one. And this other time. Another rarity. Once-in-a-lifetime experience. Well below the expected margin of error. Nothing to see here either. Anomaly. Freak accident. Outlier. In short, it's a handy way to tell at a glance who took the video down and decide whether or not the takedown might be in error.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No the paragraph ISN'T lost on me. You understand that the vast majority of DMCA complaints that YouTube gets are not answered by the original poster, because they are just another throw away email account that nobody checks?
        
        Also, all of that paragraph explains a very small percentage of DMCA complaints received. Do you think we should stop things for a 1 or 2% error rate? We can ask surgeons to stop operating too on that basis. Stop driving your car too!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're the same guy who doesn't want Chinese or Syrian people knowing that their governments are censoring their Internet, aren't you?
        
        Care to back up that "1 or 2% error rate"? Just because someone takes down content doesn't mean the content was infringing to begin with; it just means someone was scared enough to take something down without the risk of a lawsuit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1% or 2%?
        
        According to Google's own reports more than half of all DMCA's are either faulty or downright improper.
        
        How about terminating a system that doesn't work the majority of the time?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tim Griffiths (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 3:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/11053019945/curiositys-mars-landing-video-disappears-youtu be-due-to-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml#c76
        
        Have a read of that wonderful comment. DMCA is being abused so much that it's possible to argue based on studies of the data (not just your made up number) that correct usage of DMCA take down requests is actually in the minority.
        
        At which do you stop asking a doctor to operate or demand a recall of cars due to faults?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Arthur (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:51am
      
      How do you know it was "uploaded without permission or license"? Huh? Was it proven in court? Was any proof provided? No, it was just a takedown request, period.
      But you think accusing people of illegal activities without any proof at all is a good thing???
      The statement that the video was removed because of a request by XXXXX is fully factual. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Why would XXXXX be ashamed of "protecting his or her precious IP???
      I think you have the whole concept here backwards.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JayTee (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you not read the article? Tim explains why naming the rights holder is useful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Torg (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Unfortunately, that fails to identify who holds the copyright, which actually is useful information. Something like "This video is no longer available because User XXXXXX has been accused of violating Company YYYYYYY's copyright" is the closest you can get to that without removing relevant information or including potentially false information.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Arthur (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:28am
        
        Who did what?
        That statement contains unproven or immaterial information.
        
        It has not been proven that user XXXXXX was the one who uploaded anything and, obviously, it isn't proven that they did anything wrong, so posting their name is just a bad idea.
        
        Also, unless they were the author of the takedown request, the copyright holder hasn't done anything. Why include their name at all?
        
        I don't see anything wrong with exactly what YouTube is doing, stating specifically what happened -- and not including anything unproven.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's kinda the problem, google doesn't know there was no permission or license. All they know is "we received a takedown request so we took it down" then instead of 404'ing the videos they display why it's not the video they were looking for.
      
      Just because a takedown was issued doesn't mean it's legitimate. There are many many cases where the promotions department and the legal department apparently weren't comparing notes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you mean there are many many cases where Big Google screws over the artists by complying with their notice and takedown in accordance with the law without first making sure that won't affect videos embedded in to artist's own site. Obviously when they said 'take the video down' they didn't mean there! Sheesh, Big Google just screwing artists all the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 6:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You forgot to log in before commenting bob.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Holy crap, my satirical troll post was so good someone thought I was the troll of trolls! Such an honor!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Coyote (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why wouldn't you name the rights holder? No, really, why wouldn't you? It complies with the law in every word and does everythign necessary to keep its' safe harbors. I'm also pretty sure it names them so the users or the holders can properly identify the legitimate takedown notice, or they can counter-it -- because that's how the goddamn law works. Otherwise, you'd have no idea who issued the takedown or who to go to, besides Youtube, to counter-claim in order to get it back up from a false claim.
      
      You can argue all you want about semantics, because your post is nothing but bullshit. If they could get the license to upload it, it doesn't matter, because you can't check that sort of inane thing, or at least Youtube cannot. If it tried, it would cost even more money than it earns, just due to how railroaded the permission system is and how impossible it is to even get al icense to parody something.
      
      They want it down, so be it, but they're going to get their name on it because it's required, by law and by common sense. Otherwise, users have no way to counter-claim, and surprise, they have rights too.
      
      Why are you complaining about this? No really, why? They're not apologizing. They're saying 'sorry' to anyone who wanted to view the content but didn't get to because of a copyright takedown. All it does is hurt the consumers; do you think it actually hurts the companies issuing the takedown? Lord no. It doesn't hurt the artists, either.
      
      So again, I ask: why do you care about the wording? Why does anyone care about the bloody wording?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dave, 6 Aug 2012 @ 7:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why are you complaining about this? No really, why? They're not apologizing. They're saying 'sorry' to anyone who wanted to view the content but didn't get to because of a copyright takedown.
        
        I think that's the problem there. Lots of people equate saying sorry to apologizing, even though the word sorry isn't exclusive or restricted to that.
        
        As an FYI to others: sorry is also used to denote sadness over something. It just depends on context.
        
        Ah, the age of political correctness we live in...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why name the rights holder (and not the uploader)? Righteous indignation cannot be adequately expressed online or otherwise without the name of the rights holder. Moreover, uploader privacy is of paramount importance, even in cases where infringement is not the least in doubt.
      
      A simple "This video is no longer available" is entirely sufficient.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why name the rights holder (and not the uploader)?"
        
        Because the supposed "rights holder" may not be the rights holder, as in this case of Scripps News Service forcing removal of NASA's Mars probe footage...
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/11053019945/curiositys-mars-landing-video-disa ppears-youtube-due-to-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe that notice was wrong. Then again, maybe it was right. There are simply no relevant facts presented upon which to form an accurate opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        .....? So we know NASA posted posted a video and scripps had it taken down. But maybe it was right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, perhaps it was right...but this depends entirely upon who is the rights holder, if any, of the actual video.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        LazDude2012, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You realise that NASA's video is entirely public domain? That it was, if you're an American, paid for by your tax money? And that there is no way on Earth some company has any claim on the footage? Please, complain about how "the internets" are "stealing your bits".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        NASA and is the owner therefore the public is the rights holder. Thanks for playing though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you know as a fact that NASA is the "owner" because...? Maybe it is a "work of the United States Government", but no facts have been presented that compel this conclusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 6:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        NASA is pretty sure they put it up. Nobody else has gone to Mars recently. Are you suggesting they're wrong and it really is someone else's Mars movies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So basically what you're saying is that you're completely ignorant of either who NASA is or what material is eligible for copyright protection possibly both?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The uploader's name is right above the video. Why should they be named in the replacement message again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      exactly, but the pirate who stole and uploaded it, doesnt want anyone to knbow who he is, thats why youtube "blames" the owner, so people get mad at them, instead of the mouthbreathing moron, who should get blamed
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about it's in accordance with the law per DMCA?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Davis Riley, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "exactly, but the pirate who stole and uploaded it, doesnt want anyone to knbow who he is, thats why youtube "blames" the owner, so people get mad at them, instead of the mouthbreathing moron, who should get blamed"
        
        The "stealing' meme has become a weird badge of honor, like posting the N word or "porch money" etc. etc. on an Obama thread. This guy is proud he doesn't understand or care about the topic. His only goal is to be hateful and creepy.
        
        Which is fine, but ...
        
        ... how does it sell mp3s?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dirkmaster (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you miss the entire paragraph where this was explained? The takedown author is named because 1) The DMCA requires it, and 2) There are so many incorrect take downs, you may need that info to challenge. There were 22 examples of that linked to in the article. Isn't that enough reason?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Milton Freewater, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Did you miss the entire paragraph where this was explained?"
        
        Yes, on purpose. He didn't come here to read or even debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Merely for my edification because I may have missed it, do you happen to know where in the DMCA the name of the "takedown author" is required to be presented on anything other than the takedown notice filed with a service provider?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 2:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, how about "The video was taken down because it was uploaded without permission or license by user XXXXXX."
      
      Why would they say that when they don't even know if that's true? What they do say is at least factually accurate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Why name the rights holder?"
      
      IP is not a right, it's a privilege.
      
      " They want the thing down, they don't want their name in lights."
      
      I want the government to give me a billion dollars!!! WAH WAH WAH!!!
      
      Too bad.
      
      Your comment is more reason to abolish IP laws. You keep making these laws about the interests of privilege holders and not about the public interest. ABOLISH IP!!! GET RID OF IT!!!!
      
      IP shouldn't exist to serve the interests of the privilege holder, it should only exist to serve the public interest. Consequently, the public has an interest in knowing who is responsible for removing content.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They want the thing down, they don't want their name in lights."
        
        IP should not be about what the IP holder wants. It should only consider the public interest and what the public wants. Stop making IP about what the IP holder wants because doing so gives more reason to abolish these laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why name the rights holder?
      
      Because they don't want to grant permission?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick Dynice (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That is a good idea! They can sell ads/links to other videos on these dead-end pages. I might consider using that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arthur (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: WTF?
  "Youtube has phrased it in a manner that ..."
  You can read whatever intention you want into a few words on a screen. That doesn't mean that was the actual intention behind those words.
  
  You can believe in your amazing "mind reading" abilities but those words don't "mean" what you pretend they mean.
  
  The message, "Sorry, the content you asked for isn't available because..." is not some secret, coded message to pirates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  Now let's get one thing straight here.
  
  Just because some loony can write a takedown notice, that doesn't mean that he is right. Also, just because some Nutcase had his video taken down by said takedown notice, that doesn't mean that he is wrong.
  
  These are things that is not up to Youtube to decide. Only a judge can determine who is right or wrong.
  
  What Youtube can do (and does) is simply state the facts: Loony A has requested a take down of a video uploaded by Nutcase B, and we complied, under the terms of the DMCA. No more, no less.
  
  It takes someone who is both a Nutcase and a Loony to misinterpret that as some sort of evil game being played by Youtube.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  It is the big bad bully who made them take it down though. Otherwise it wouldn't be taken down. Cthulu forbid they should actually take responsibility for their actions.
  
  As for the users, the uploaders might be violating copyright law but the viewers are not. So, they get the apology. Making a copy of a copyrighted work may be a civil offense but receiving or viewing one is as legal as breathing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JayTee (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:59am
  
  Re:
  Read the article, youtube is apologising to the 3rd party who is neither the label nor the infringer but THE FAN who wanted to view the video. It is not justifying anything, it is simply saying "Hey, you wanted this content, we don't have it anymore, sorry."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:22am
  
  Re:
  "Actually, they do have it right. Youtube has phrased it in a manner that doesn't blame the user who violated the copyright, but makes it sound like "big bad bully" made them take it down."
  
  Actually, boy, they do it so that those who indulge in copyfraud (and there's a LOT of those) or honestly request a vid that doesn't belong to them (because of a similar title or someesuch) can be contacted.
  
  Do you look under the bed for muggers before going to sleep?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  You are one of those people deeply bothered when you hear about someone who shoots up a movie theater and the news reports it as "The suspect of the shooting is in custody by the police." Because it paints the police as a bunch of jerks bullying someone they merely suspect to be a mass murderer huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  You're just taking the notices and reading what you want into it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  Since when is an accusation of infringement evidence that someone really did something wrong?
  
  No, it's phrasing that support's YouTube's view of the universe that users should benefit from the presumption of innocence. Until there's a guilty party the content is being taken down at the request of 'big bad bully' sorry about that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  but makes it sound like "big bad bully" made them take it down.
  
  And how is it that you don't understand that that is EXACTLY what has happened?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re:
  "that doesn't blame the user who violated the copyright"
  
  Then who's fault is it that the video was taken down? Who's fault is it that the video is not freely allowed to be viewed on Youtube.
  
  " but makes it sound like "big bad bully" made them take it down."
  
  Those are your words, not Youtube's. If taking down a video isn't so wrong then why should the IP privilege holder not want to be named? Why is the privilege holder so afraid of being named if he or she is not doing anything wrong? He should man up and stand by his decisions. and if the public deems the takedown itself immoral then who are you to decide for the public what constitutes moral behavior. Nobody you dumb loser.
  
  "It's a subtle suckup to Generation-free."
  
  This comment is more reason for IP laws to be abolished. IP laws should not exist to counter the propagation of free content. It should only exist to serve a public interest. Abolish IP!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    and if IP holders don't want to be named because they know that the public doesn't like IP laws and will resist takedown requests then perhaps that's reason for IP laws to be abolished. If the public doesn't want IP laws then lets abolish them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am

Any idiot who embeds "illegal" copies of his own videos and then complains when the embeds don't work after he himself requests them taken down does not deserve the consideration it took to write this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, he does, we can make fun of him. I'm pretty sure that's one of our regular critics too, considering the low IQ displayed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:39am

I think you meant "bizarre copyright-infected murder-suicide" instead of "bizarre copyright-infected murder-homicide."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:17pm
  
  Re:
  You're correct. I wanted the one that made sense and typed the one that made itself redundant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:45am

If you're embarassed about sending a takedown notice, stop sending takedown notices. If you truly feel you're standing up for your copyright, you shouldn't feel any guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:46am

Malice or stupidity?
Sounds to me like they just don't understand how YouTube works. They think that each 'embedded' link is actually a unique copy and so they want the 'bad' ones to go dark while leaving the 'good' ones up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keroberos (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: Malice or stupidity?
  This. And they also expect Google to somehow know the difference. How? By using magic I guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re: Malice or stupidity?
    We are the techies, and we are here to wave our magic wands that will transport you back to the 1970's!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Malice or stupidity?
    Simple, the good ones stay up.
    
    "But that doesn't..."
    
    THE GOOD ONES STAY UP OR YOU HATE THE ARTISTS!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:39pm
  
  Re: Malice or stupidity?
  It's also funny to see them happily pass on all hosting costs to YT but on the other hand start the whining.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am

"... it makes you wonder how the person got from point A to... well, not exactly point B but somewhere well past point B..."

It's easy: Start with the conclusion you want, then work your way back to a premise. Sometimes, it's a long and winding road, but if you're sufficiently motivated, you'll get there eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  Sounds like how anime characters justify their reasonings.
  
  "Character A is bad! Thing B, which is bad, happened! Character A caused Thing B to happen just by existing! We'll figure out how to get there later!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pixelpusher220 (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "... as soon as you get off our lawn!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am

Illegitimate requests
The point that illegitimate DMCA takedown requests aren't rare is refreshing to see, but it still makes it look like a handful of incidents. What someone needs to do is draw attention to the true magnitude of the problem.

According to a 2009 study conducted by Google, 57% of DMCA takedown requests--which are supposed to be used only to fight piracy--are instead made by businesses directly targeting their competition, as a form of sabotage. And 37% of requests do not represent a valid copyright claim. Depending on how much overlap there may be between these two categories, that suggests that potentially as few as 6% of all takedown requests are legitimate attempts to stop piracy!

This is a horrifying statistic. We tolerate limited amounts of abuse from useful tools because they are generally useful. For example, some drivers in rare cases use their cars as a weapon to assault or murder people, but for the most part they are used to help improve people's lives by providing personal transportation, so we encourage automobile ownership and attempt to use the legal system to minimize vehicular assault. Now imagine a car that was used 94% of the time not for transportation, but for the sole purpose of running people down. We would say, quite rightfully, that this is not a useful tool at all, but a menace to our society, and we would be justified in using the full force of law and legislature to suppress it!

And yet no one is talking about this. The DMCA takedown process is thoroughly corrupt and evil, and no one is denouncing it. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 7:54pm
  
  Re: Illegitimate requests
  According to a 2009 study conducted by Google,
  
  Small correction: Though Google quoted the study, it was neither conducted by them, nor funded by them. It was a study conducted by Jennifer Urban of USC, and Laura Quilter of UC Berkeley, called Efficient Process or �Chilling Effects�? (the link is to a PDF of the summary report).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am

Clap, clap, clap.

Spread the word, people. Copy and paste this article as much as you can, on as many sites as you can. I love the concept of Youtube, but hate the fact that, as a defensive measure, it became a trigger happy censoring maniac. However, Youtube isn't to blame for that. They were in a way forced into it, through threats of lawsuits. At their own expense, they developed ContentID, which is something that goes far beyond the requirements of copyright law.

And yet, this is what they get in return. The very people who demand that Youtube police their site at Youtube's expense are now saying...that Youtube is evil.

bob...where are you? I'd love to see you spin this into yet another Big Search rant. Oh, and you never did answer my question of "Why are you so happy that Jammie Thomas faces lifelong economic slavery to the RIAA for sharing a few songs?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

"The other reason the takedown party is listed is because, sometimes, in rare cases, the takedown isn't legit. Sometimes it's just a clerical error. Or maliciousness. Or a faulty algorithm. This way interested parties can contact the party listed if they feel the takedown is in error. Again, this is a rare occurrence, one that has only happened a handful of times. Like here, for example. And here. And here. And here. Oh, there's also this one. And this other time. Another rarity. Once-in-a-lifetime experience. Well below the expected margin of error. Nothing to see here either. Anomaly. Freak accident. Outlier. In short, it's a handy way to tell at a glance who took the video down and decide whether or not the takedown might be in error."

Actually, all of this highlights why the anonymous or near anonymous postings on YouTube are a real problem, because it leaves nobody to answer DMCA complaints.

You cannot hide behind a law on one side, and then fail to do your part of the job. Anonymous postings should always be removed by even the weakest of DMCA complaints, as they still have way more standing than a disposable e-mail accounts upload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  Can we remove this comment? It's anonymous so he doesn't deserve to get to post things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    "It's anonymous so he doesn't deserve to get to post things."
    
    Um... OK AC.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think you missed the sarcasm. Or maybe irony - of an AC arguing against anonymous posting and saying they should be removed by any complaint, and then another AC issuing said complaint to remove the first.
      
      Its less funny after explaining it. sadface
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Donnicton, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's funny that it went clear over his head, though!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 2:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Most insightful and funny of the week by a wide margin. So says the Prophecy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  " this highlights why the anonymous or near anonymous postings on YouTube are a real problem"
  Says the anonymous poster. Face-palm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keroberos (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  But it's only anonymous to us, the end viewer. YouTube knows exactly who that upload came from, well at least as far as an ip address can be used to identify a single person. If the IP holder wishes to sue the uploader, they can get a court order to have YouTube reveal that information to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyote (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  Let me try to understand your reasoning here. You think we all should post with our real names and stuff, right? You know how problematic that is?
  
  Take Blizzard's RealID situation and turn it up to eleven in Youtube format. You see all those inane commentators? They can find out your place of residence and more just from a cursory glance at google or, if you're in the business of hating google so much you refuse to use google for some raison, blink or ask.com. Just like that and bam, they can find you.
  
  In fact, one of the main reasons it was never implemented is because someone found out where another anonymous person lived just by his name, found out his phone number, all of it. It's real fucking easy. That's the benefit of anonymous posting; you don't have as much of a security worry with it, and there's literally nothing wrong with that system whatsoever.
  
  The irony, of course, is that you're posting Anonymously and I'm not, yet I argue that Anonymous posting is the most beneficial. Either way, it's only a problem in how stupid people will be on youtube. Otherwise, it really really isn't and you overexagerate the problem -and- make a horrendous conclusion that no one with a thinking brain would use, because it's a real fucking stupid way of implementing the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    The irony, of course, is that you're posting Anonymously and I'm not
    
    To be fair, you're just as anonymous as he is. You're just accountable for what you've said in the past.
    
    Side note: I've "upgraded" by Youtube account to use my real name. I ain't skeerd.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  I just submitted a DMCA notice on Techdirt for this post. You should be recieving it in about....7 days prior.
  
  /silly
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  How does any of that highlight anything even remotely touching on anonymous or near anonymous postings on YouTube? None of that DMCA abuse has anything to do with the anonymity of the poster.
  
  All postings, both named and anonymous, are always removed by even the weakest of DMCA complaints by the way. In fact there's no conception or ability for a content host to judge the strength of a DMCA notice, they're all maximum strength according the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

It's rare when Slashdot scoops Techdirt on this topic.
NASA's posting of their own video of the Curiousity landing was taken down due to a copyright violation.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/06/1613211/nasas-own-video-of-curiosity-landin g-crashes-into-a-dmca-takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:54am

My question is: why use the company name to take down the video? If the band was truly concerned, why didn't they add the band's name?

I'm with the firm belief the band didn't use their own name because they know people will get upset over the video taken down and it's always better to shield the hate with a faceless corporation.

Personally, I think YouTube should put down every copyright holder who owns the rights to the takedown.

This way, bands will think twice before allowing their corporations speak on their (supposed) behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  The band probably didn't get their name shown because they probably don't have the rights to their music. They couldn't take down (or, leave it up) if they wanted to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  "why didn't they add the band's name?"
  Silly you. The band has no say how their content gets used, the labels own them/it.
  
  So even if the band, ya know the ppl the labels claim they care so much about, wanted the exposure the label still has it taken down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 9:54am

He's just pissed couldn't properly campitalize on the genius that is Vomit Launch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  I see what you did there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonymousCoward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:01am

DCMA bots take down NASA's own videos
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/06/1613211/nasas-own-video-of-curiosity-landing-crashes-into -a-dmca-takedown

NASA's own videos from NASA's own YouTube channel of the Curiosity were taken down from the DCMA bots.

Those that remove legitimate content should be HEAVILY fined out of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 1:13am
  
  Re: DCMA bots take down NASA's own videos
  I agree. Then maybe these Google astroturf groups will stop their false flag operations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:02am

Its because right holders are scared that people will just not give a shit about them. They very well should be. Also I think its fair to find out who issued the request. Not like it would be hard to find out which company is profiting from said video/song, ect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:15am

Like I said copyrights holders don't want to be named for fear of backlash. Also yes they want something equivalent to a 404 or just static or whatever. They'd basically wish that video be erased forever rather than name them as the reason its gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:35am

In search of...
It's just Google-hating in search of a point
Perhaps the point was removed from google results by a DMCA request?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:41am

Also
Speaking of bad takedowns,

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.'

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/06/1613211/nasas-own-video-of-curiosity-landing-cras hes-into-a-dmca-takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:43am

Remember the constant theme of the legacy players in the digital: "We don't/can't/won't think primarily of legit customers."

So the common sense reaction isn't going to be the for the users of youtube. It's all focused on the pirating minority. Who cares what the user experience is for the legit users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AndyD273 (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:45am

Bee's average speed is between 12-15 mph
So, going on the lower limit, 2pm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CaitlinP (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 10:49am

Nice strategy.
It's nice to see their ideals in action, what with all the "No apologies" I mean, who wants someone to be sorry for their actions?

Certainly arrogance is quite becoming of them, real attractive feature right there. Let's just all start inconveniencing everybody and not apologize for it! I mean, nothing bad could possibly happen to anyone as a result of being a complete and total asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:02am

So basically Larry would like people to be able to take down videos in complete secrecy without being held accountable. I can't see how that could ever go wrong at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vog (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:10am

Elementary.
If a premise leaves the train station [Point A] at 10AM riding a bicycle at 3 mph for the first hour and increasing speed by .25 mph every hour for the first four hours before decelerating at a rate inversely proportionate to the incline of the grade [17%], at what time will the bicyclist's speed be exactly 1/4 the average flight speed of the Africanized honey bee? Show your work.

Assuming top flight speed for a honey bee is 12 - 15 mi/h (www.houstonbeekeepers.org/ahbfaqs.htm) and the average may be represented as 13.5 mi/h;

Assuming the rate of deceleration is, literally as stated, inverse to the grade of 17%, and may be assumed to be in miles per hour squared;

We have:
10 AM - 11 AM: 3 mi/h
11 AM - 12 PM: 3.25 mi/h
12 PM - 1 PM: 3.5 mi/h
1 PM - 2 PM: 3.75 mi/h
2 PM - 3 PM: 4 mi/h

After 3 PM, the velocity in mi/h may be represented as v = 4 mi/h - (1/0.17) mi/h^2 * t, where t is the fraction of the hour since 3 PM.

Using v = 3.375 from (0.25 * 13.5 mi/h), we have:

3.375 = 4 mi/h - 5.882 mi/h^2 * t
t = (4 - 3.375) mi/h / 5.882 mi/h^2
t = 0.10625 h

This decimal is equal to 6 minutes, 22.5 seconds. Thus the answer is 3:06:22.5 PM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dirkmaster (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Elementary.
  I *SO* wanted to do this. But after seeing it, I can see that I am clearly not smart enough. Hats off to Vog!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: Elementary.
  I only know the simplest of maths, but this is why Techdirt commenters > all other commenters.
  
  I just made that thing up as I went along. There's no way there should actually be solution. And yet, there is.
  
  When you go home tonight, there's going to be another story on your house. Use it to store all the internets you have just won.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bratwurzt (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: Elementary.
  Math can be done in imperial units? That is so cool - error margin is... one FOOT. :>
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vog (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re: Elementary.
    I try to avoid Imperial units. They're bad for the liver.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy Silver, 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:22am
  
  Re: Elementary.
  Actually I think the velocity passes 3.375 during the acceleration stage, sometime in the first four hours. I read the velocity as steady between 10am and 11am, then from 11am accelerating at 0.25 mi/hr^2 for three more hours, reaching 3.75 mi/hr at 2pm.
  
  From the ahem elementary physics formulae at:
  wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion
  
  I remind myself of:
  v=at+u
  
  Final Velocity equals Acceleration multiplied-by Time plus Initial Velocity
  
  so to re-arrange the formula to obtain t...
  
  at=(v-u)
  t=(v-u)/a
  
  plug in the numbers...
  
  t=(3.375-3)/0.25
  t=0.375/0.25
  t=1.5 or 1hr 30 mins
  
  11am + 1hr 30 = 12.30 am
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy Silver, 13 Aug 2012 @ 12:44am
    
    Re: Re: Elementary.
    oops meant 12.30 pm
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vog (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 4:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Elementary.
    I thought of this, but the way the problem is worded is such that the bicyclist experiences discrete increases in velocity, which would make the graph of velocity over time discontinuous at each hour. Thus, though he bypasses the speed, he never attains it exactly. You cannot linearly interpolate the answer over this interval. It is only upon decelerating, when v = v_0 + a*t that his velocity slows to the exact amount.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeremy Silver, 14 Aug 2012 @ 3:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Elementary.
      Guess it's mainly in the interpretation of the question, but I do not believe bicycles are capable of such an instantaneous, stepped velocity increase, such that the speed increase between 3.25 and 3.5 does not hit 3.375 on the way. Do Premises operate bicycles in a different manner perhaps?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Vog (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Elementary.
        I tried to stay as true to the wording of the problem as possible, lest I get skewered for an inappropriate assumption. (No one ever said math had to be practical!)
        
        With that said, in the natural world, your answer is, of course, correct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am

$5 says this guy's being a sock puppet for the department of homeland security after Techdirt identified in an earlier article a takedown request and named the department in the list of copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am

That �apology� is then flashed across the Internet including the band�s own webpage if they have embedded any YouTube videos.

I'm surprised no one else commented on this...

1. Band embeds YouTube video on its website.
2. Band visits their own site, sees video was taken down.
3. Band complains.

So either:

A. Band embedded an illegal video on their own site, or
B. Band issued a takedown notice on their own legitimate video!

Which it is, vomit launchers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
byte^me (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am

It's like some bizarre copyright-infected murder-homicide, only with the murderer pointing the gun at his own head first.

I assume you meant murder-suicide, too. Which reminds me something one of my friends used to say:

(pointing gun at his own head) What are you laughing at? You're next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 6 Aug 2012 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re:
  As Maxwell Smart would say: It's the old "Suicide by DMCA" trick.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 11:48am

First thing--it's Google, so understand that they don't care at all what artists think.

Well, I don't care what artists think either. And by "artists", we both mean "Chris Castle".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 12:32pm

See? Video games aren't the cause of violence. People saying stuff like this are the cause of violence.

'Cause I don't know about you, but right now I feel like I want to track this guy down and choke the crap out of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 1:25pm

I find it houmorous
oK, HOW CAN i SAY THIS.

I find it interesting that groups DONT USE locations like this to FIND there favorites/new people/others to enjoy their music.
Create a page and Gather up all the music into THEIR OWN page.
I hope you understand that bands/groups make more money at a LIVE performance then on most labels.
That MOST performances cant handle more then 10-14,000 people in the audience. Then(even before) you could add access to TV or recordings of the show. AND add Millions of watchers. but the DIE hards want to BE THERE.

TV dont really PAY the groups that Watch from the TV. they only Give access to an event. OVER and OVER and OVER, is how TV makes the money.
But there are FEW if any location you could get ALL the people that LIKE your group/band/event in 1 place.

So, why not use the NET. USe it for LIVE and later watching..but GATHER UP all the post, and SHOW them from your own group location on the net. You can gather TONS of info from it. You can even advert your NEXT gig and have MORE people show up. YOU CAN even direct sell your tickets. And jump over all the 2nd-3rd-4th party Charges ON THE TICKETS. Insted of a $200, without the OTHER charges you could Probably get it down to $50-100..
Yes, you have to do math. but WHY deal with all the MIDDLE men, when you can go DIRECT to the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ECA (profile), 6 Aug 2012 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re: I find it houmorous
  ON an aside.
  Think of a video game with psychological Parameters.
  To set up situations that require you to do certain things, certain ways to get Certain abilities.
  What would a person DO??
  you have the WORLD as a Genny pig..
  think about it..
  
  You have a GROUP where you can ask and SEE all the things you can create an event for.
  You give them FREE play and make a Good game, and then you can get TONS of data.
  WHY restrict things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2012 @ 2:44pm

It's also a matter of free speech, Google has (or should have) free speech rights to name those that exercise their copy protection privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milton Freewater, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:17pm

Sad news
I'm ashamed ... another Generation X icon becomes a superstitious nut job.

Larry Crane produced Elliott Smith and other great Pacific Northwest artists back in the day. I would feel bad if he went the Adam Ant route in his middle age. But it happens to the best of us, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milton Freewater, 6 Aug 2012 @ 3:17pm

Sad news
I'm ashamed ... another Generation X icon becomes a superstitious nut job.

Larry Crane produced Elliott Smith and other great Pacific Northwest artists back in the day. I would feel bad if he went the Adam Ant route in his middle age. But it happens to the best of us, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darrin Huss, 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:23am

YouTube
I find the article here well written, and informative.
My only regret is that YouTube doesn't have a time limit for how long the "takedown" message and linked video actually remains in their online graveyard.
As an independent artist, who has witnessed many "bootleg" videos of my songs, (you know the ones with the album cover representing the audio for easy downloading). I have in fact taken down quite a few myself, and have no problem with YouTube displaying the fact that myself, or my company Psyche Enterprises is responsible for removing the video. I just wish that after, say 3 months the videos of "non-Content" would just disappear. I also wish that the mentality of the general public could be educated in a better fashion as they must realize that posting such "fan videos" with a picture of my album cover and a song are not necessarily helping "promote" my music, as I have my own adequate videos that they could just as easily link to for this purpose. So that's my 0,00002 cents worth from my monetized videos for you all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 5:18am
  
  Re: YouTube
  It's a little off topic, but I'm curious as to why you put the term "fan video" in quotes. Are you suggesting that the people wanting to share your art aren't your fans, or that what they uploaded aren't videos?
  
  Further, I feel like some details are left out of your situation: Why would someone re-post a video you've already put up? Or, by "adequate videos", do you mean "videos of different songs than the one uploaded by the fan"?
  
  The point I'm getting at is that these people are your fans, and clearly they want something that you're not giving them. Instead of treating them like criminals, why don't you just upload the songs they want to youtube?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 6:41am
  
  Re: YouTube
  Does it matter? You still get the ad funds from those fan videos anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tim Griffiths (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:00am
  
  Re: YouTube
  I'd have thought you'd want the take down pages to remain up as an indicator to your fans not to re-upload the song. If a fan searches for song and does not find it they may upload it, if they search for a song and see a clear indication that you've asked for the song to be taken down before? They may think twice. Think of it as a education tool, since you are so hot on wanting to teach your fans the correct way to be your fans.
  
  To be honest the only reason I can only think of for you to want the notices to expire is that you don't want a list of songs your fans want to hear on youtube but which you are not providing on your account. I can see why from a image stand point that you don't want take down notices being only results for songs you provide. I am of course presuming that "adequate videos" does not include every song you've issued a take down for.
  
  As for educating your fans that this not the best form of promotion for you make it seem to me that you are misunderstanding their motives. "What can I do to best promote the artist I like" is not what drives some one to upload a track. "I want to share this song and artists because I like them" seems more likely. That sharing does act as promotion for you but how efficient that promotion is or isn't in your view is not really a factor in their uploading. So telling them "this does not promote me in the best way" is unlikely to change anything except make your fans think that you see them and them sharing your music purely in terms of how it benefits you. Which is not really the best way to connect with your fan base.
  
  Now to be fair I will explain that I'm some one who firmly believes that musicians are best off providing their music freely while selling it to those who want to support you. I'm following this advice with my own band and my own music and I've been actively trying to promote this idea to other bands and musicians I know who are far more successful than I am.
  
  So I am coming at this from a bias point of view, I just think you are making the mistake of over estimating the damage these videos are doing to you. If fans are going to keep upload these videos why not provide exactly what they want on your own page? If it's going to happen anyway you may as well be collecting the ad money for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bratwurzt (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: YouTube
  Ripping music from youtube 360p videos? What's next - fixing those tapes with a pencil and record the sound played with a webcam microphone few metres away.
  
  I find music on youtube and then get it from somewhere else in better quality (spare me the fallacies on "somewhere else"). If "somewhere else" is a internet store or even your own homepage with paypal option, by logic vested in me the music track on youtube is promotion. If I torrent some music from your label (If I found any) and I really like it - I'll send you money (well, I'd just try to buy it somewhere) and I'll promote your music through social media and my own social (non-digital) life.
  
  Now lets go back to your "blacking out that bootleg video because people download music from youtube" argument - in the time this video was blacked out a lot of people did not hear your music and therefore did not care at all. There's a lot of good music to find and we (general public you'd like "educated") don't need yours.
  
  And explain this to me - if you have your own video with identical music - what is stopping youtube audio rippers from ripping your video? Your writing kinda sounds like ye olde gatekeeper mentality of CONTROL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2012 @ 4:51am

Unconscious guilt + being forced to confront it = big 'ol crocodile tears?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Magnus, 7 Aug 2012 @ 7:40am

It's not hard at all to see what happened here. An artist wanted to enjoy something he did not pay for. (Sounds familiar somehow...)

Here is the likely chain of events that provoked this:

1. Artist makes video.
2. Artist uploads video to YouTube servers.
3. YouTube places an embedded link to the video on YouTube.com.
4. Artist embeds video on his own site.
5. Someone else places an embedded link (an embed) to the video on a site.
6. Artist sees this and mistakes the link for a copy.
7. Artist sends DMCA notice to YouTube.
8. All embedded links to the video, including the one on artists own site, displays the DMCA takedown notice.

So want did he want that he did not want to pay for? Well, YouTube is not a free service. You pay for storage and bandwidth by allowing YouTube to show the video to anyone, though embedded links, on YouTube.com and on other sites.

The artist in question wanted free hosting without paying the price for it. In essence, he wanted YouTube to forbid all linking to his video. Which they did. Oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]