Curiosity's Mars Landing Video Disappears From YouTube Due To Bogus Copyright Claim
from the happens-once-a-month dept
We hear from copyright system supporters that bogus copyright takedowns are rare and we only highlight the "exceptions." Of course, it seems like there are an awful lot of these exceptions. The latest is that with the massive success of last night's Mars landing of the Curiosity Rover, NASA posted the video to YouTube for those who didn't watching the thrilling, suspenseful landing live... except, if you checked out NASA's own YouTube page a few hours later, you got this:
screenshot courtesy of Motherboard
“We spend too much time going through the administrative process to clear videos slapped with needless copyright claims,” says NASA’s Bob Jacobs. “YouTube seems to be missing a ‘common sense’ button to its processes, especially when it involves public domain material paid for by the American taxpayer.”Jacobs is quite reasonably annoyed at the lack of consequences for these bogus takedowns:
“There seems to be few consequences for companies that engage in such activities, which often include legitimate news organizations. We do agree that people who make false copyright claims against our material should be held accountable, regardless of their automated systems.”What's amazing here is that Scripps is a repeat offender with NASA. Back in April, people noticed that it had forced the removal of NASA's (again, public domain) footage of the Boeing 747 that carried the space shuttle Discovery to the Smithsonian (its "final journey"). But, of course, there aren't many (or even any) serious consequences for these kinds of mistakes. While it's not clear what happened, it seems likely that Scripps replayed the footage itself somewhere, and via some semi-automated process uploaded it to YouTube's ContentID, in which it claimed copyright on all its works. But, of course, it was actually broadcasting public domain video from NASA. Unfortunately, YouTube can't recognize that Scripps is the latecomer here, rebroadcasting others' public domain material, and thus took down the material, only to have it corrected later.
Given that Scripps is now a repeat offender, it seems that perhaps YouTube should cut it off from automatically censoring others' videos.
Oh, and if you want to know one of the reasons we're so concerned about a possible broadcast treaty (which the US government is now supporting), it's because it actually would make these kinds of claims quasi-legal, in that broadcasters who broadcast public domain material could then claim a separate "broadcast right" over that footage. Even without that, we see operations like Scripps abusing the law. Do we really want to expand that power?
Now, since the video is back up, here's the actual (public domain) footage, in case you missed it (and if you did miss it, you should watch it, as it really is incredible):
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: bogus takedown, contentid, copyright, curiosity, dmca, landing, mars, nasa, public domain, takedowns
Companies: scripps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just go to http://archive.org/details/movies to get that shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It could lead to the absurdity of (for example) a major movie studio losing rights to the movie they just finished making because someone bootlegged a copy before it hit the theaters and posted it on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, upload any Scripps videos and voila! Banned.
I know YT isn't evil here, but reality says you don't punch the gift horse in the mouth when it's vomiting all over you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh?
YT isn't evil here or anywhere else.
Scripps is clearly evil, and should be punched in the mouth and groin, but since Scripps has no balls, the wouldn't feel anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For that, you can "thank"* the DMCA
*and by thank, I mean, shoot in the face until you can see daylight out the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or so I've been told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To retain safe harbors, upon receipt of a valid DMCA notice, a provider must promptly takedown the alleged infringing work for a period of 10 days.
So by putting the content back up prior to the 10 days, Youtube/Google are dropping their safe harbors protection on this video. Someone would need to be insane to try and sue them over it, but we've learned there are many insane lawyers and copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 10 days is to help prevent abuse of the takedown process. If the issuer of the notice doesn't respond to a challenge in that time, the content can be restored without endangering safe harbor.
YT probably received verification that the video is not infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3. A one, a twohoo, a three. Three.
From someone who has had 2 accounts suspended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not an exception
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!
(Tried to post this before, with a link to Google's study, but it got caught in a moderation trap.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not an exception
http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/ebc0a1f5-6c04-48e5-9215-ef96d06898c0.cmr
See page 9, particularly the footnotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not an exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not an exception
That seems really high, even to me.
Was the Google study based on contested DMCA complaints? That's the only way that it seems even remotely possible that you could get as many as 94% bogus claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is not an exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is not an exception
You're just guessing.
Quit speculating. Let's get a Congressional committee to take testimony from Scripps and Google execs and find out what went wrong here.
Call your representative and demand a hearing into what Scripps did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not an exception
So it is ok when the MAFIAA does it, but not when folks here do it. And keep in mind that Mason provided the source for his speculation, as well as criticism of the speculation ("Depending on the overlap...") He has done far more than the MAFIAA has ever done in presenting the data.
Call your representative and demand a hearing into what Scripps did.
Can I borrow a few thousand Benjamin's? That appears to be the only way they actually listen to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not an exception
So do you have a better plan for getting these outrages stopped?
Scripps sure isn't going to listen to you. Over on /. and elswhere hotheads are calling for a DDoSing on their website, and Scripps isn't going to listen to that either.
Scripps pulled this stunt back in April, and they'll probably do it again. You want to just let these things go?
What other remedy do we have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not an exception
No more allowing people to hack our computers with DRM technology simply because they own a copyright on something we chose to put on the system.
No more takedowns of online content on accusation alone, in blatant defiance of centuries of legal precedent.
And no more using these two abuses as the foundation to build even worse abuses on. Everything bad about SOPA, ACTA, TPP, etc exists in a lesser form in the DMCA.
Until enough people call for the DMCA to be repealed that Congress can't ignore it, this sort of thing will continue to happen. If it's not Scripps it will be someone else. If it's not SOPA or ACTA, it will be whatever they come up with next. As long as the DMCA remains the law of the land, everything else we do is nothing but a game of whack-a-mole.
If we want real change, we need to focus on getting the DMCA repealed first and foremost. Anything else is just a distraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not an exception
I agree. Repealing DMCA and revisiting copyright to figure out how to fix its failures (and bring it back to what the forefathers intended when they wrote the Copyright Clause into the Constitution) are the only way. However, for a stopgap, having Congress and the President push for enforcement of the penalty of perjury would go a long way to stop this madness. If I can submit an automated takedown request with no risk to me, I'll do it with impunity. But when the police show up and arrest me, or fine me for each time I submit a fraudulent takedown request, then I'm going to start hiring employees to make sure that the system is issuing correct takedowns and avoiding issuing invalid ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not an exception
The "form of sabotage" is your added words, I gather.
Further, you math competely fails. 57% is a number by itself. 37% is a number by itself, which may include take downs also in the 57%. You cannot add the two of them together to get some sort of "nothing is valid".
Furthermore, Google doesn't say what part of the 57% are actually valid. They also don't break out in those numbers the cases where the copyright claim was valid (ie, it's the copyright holder) but that fair use was invoked.
So, I would say that your 94% number is completely, totally, and utterly full of shit. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is not an exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But then Scripps would be automatically blocked from making an ass of themselves and showing the flaws in the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spelling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A quick change to the law, and this stops
But they're obviously broken when this can happen - so let's amend them.
Let's bring in game theory.
The issuer of a takedown has to declare the value of the material. This value is legally binding, and can be used in court when discussing damages. (Except statutory damages.)
Conversely, if the takedown turns out to be bogus, then the issuer is liable for an instant statutory fine of 10x the value declared, multiplied by the number of downloads/views the material has (if available).
(The multiplier hopefully prevents late claims or attempts at censorship.)
No value means no takedown.
A value below a certain threshold (set by the Library of Congress, based on combination of length & content type) means no takedown.
This should solve the problem. Those with genuine takedown needs get a takedown, AND for playing nicely they get to declare how much they think their goods are worth for the court's consideration later.
And those who are just trolling get their wallets emptied on a regular basis.
An interesting side effect means that we may actually get to see companies start to put realistic values on their goods, and that if the load for DMCA takedowns becomes too high the data is there to begin processing them in "most expensive losses" order first.
Which raises an entirely new dilemma on the part of the issuer. Submit high and get takedown sooner, or submit low and hedge against having made a mistake?
(There is a third option - submit low and go for statutory damages in court. Except that will mean that the figures will end up showing that statutory damages are too high, and give hard facts which allow the law to be altered there. A good short term option, but a very dangerous long term one.)
I think that if those changes were made, DMCA takedowns might actually approach something which almost resembles sanity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A quick change to the law, and this stops
Which is why that would never get through Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A quick change to the law, and this stops
Under what legal or moral theory is it a good idea to punish an accused lawbreaker on accusation alone, particularly the accusation of the allegedly injured party? We know that's a bad idea in any other context. Why is IP so special that DMCA takedowns and DRM technology are enshrined in the law of the land instead of recognized as the crimes they are?
What we need is to repeal the DMCA. Anything else is a distraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A quick change to the law, and this stops
You're not articulating a feasible path to make that happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A quick change to the law, and this stops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A quick change to the law, and this stops
Right now, this instant, there is a goodly rage online.
Unfortunately, most people are dissipating that energy in useless directions. You've probably seen Scripps corporate online contacts being passed around: Some people are bitching out Scripps personally. Meanwhile, as I already said, other people are firing up their Low Orbit Ion Cannons or whatever they use these days.
Making people aware of the problems doesn't automatically mean they're putting pressure on Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Im going to go bury my head back in the sand now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video is live again
So this bears a question. If I have NASA channel and record then place online content of this landing or any other public news, would this be a copyright violation - you know, using public information, from public projects?, or would this be in line with how NASA outreach wants the public to participate?
Wouldn't NASA starved for funding be jumping up and down with pride to see the user community making efforts to promote them, even making their uploads to spread the word about NASA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video is live again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video is live again
You underestimate the greedtards. There is always a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video is live again
You underestimate the greedtards. There is always a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Last time I checked, an innocent mistake, under DMCA, is perjury. You sign on the dotted line (electronically, apparently,) that under the penalty of perjury, that you certify that the information contained in the notification to be true and accurate, and that you have the authority to act on behalf of the owner. Since they aren't the owner, nor have authority, they are violating that clause. And an innocent mistake kinda goes against the true and accurate part. It should be up to the person filing the notice to make sure they aren't making an innocent mistake before they issue a notice to block someone-elses 1st Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the law already has provisions to punish bogus takedowns, then why is punishment not being meted out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
b) Since it is a crime, proceedings must be initiated by the DOJ and we all know where the DOJ stands.
c) Even if all was going right $2500 dollars in fines is just a laugh, for companies that is, I don't understand why those things are not measure in percentage of yearly earnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think so. To commit perjury, you have to say something that you know is not true. If you say something that you believe is factual, but turns out to be incorrect, that doesn't rise to the level of perjury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, so I am going to pull a Judge Posner and say it isn't perjury, but it is just as wrong. It is like me calling up the police and saying "I think my neighbor is killing his wife," when they are just having a little argument, and then being surprised when the SWAT team comes over. It is certainly a false reporting, and since the damage is just as severe (the person's 1st amendment rights get dumped as quickly as the video,) it should have equal consequences to the offender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your example, I would fault the police for sending the swat team based on an inference ("I think my neighbor is killing his wife") rather than a fact ("My neighbors are having a very violent-sounding fight" or "my neighbor is loudly threatening his wife").
In the case of takedowns, the stakes aren't quite as high of course, and (and I stress) in theory the violation of first amendment rights is limited as the content can be restored as soon as the error is cleared up.
Law is, after all, about the balance of rights. No right, including constitutional rights, is absolute because can all be exercised in ways that impinge on other rights that are equally important. The majority of what the court system does is to find a balance so that everyone gets their rights infringed upon in the fairest possible way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to wonder why the framers of DMCA put that statement into the law then, since apparently it can be safely ignored.
Law is, after all, about the balance of rights. No right, including constitutional rights, is absolute because can all be exercised in ways that impinge on other rights that are equally important. The majority of what the court system does is to find a balance so that everyone gets their rights infringed upon in the fairest possible way.
There is no balance here when it comes to DMCA. Anyone can claim they own something, even when they don't (as Scripps did here,) and it is gone. All that is needed is an accusation, whether it is true or not. There is no court system involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you provide the relevant text of the law? I did a quick search and came up dry (I don't have time at the moment to do an in-depth search), but I would be willing to bet that the law does not make being wrong illegal. It probably either uses the term "perjury" or it includes a phrase like "on good faith" or "to the best of knowledge" -- any of which keeps it in line with legal standards for this sort of thing.
I agree with you that the DMCA is a terrible law, however I do think it overstates the case to say there's no balance when it comes to takedowns. There was certainly at least a half-hearted attempt at balance.
It works like this:
Joe Random issues a takedown under penalty of perjury. That there is a legal ramification to lying here provides a bit of theoretical protection against ill intent.
The site takes down the content and notifies whoever put it up of the takedown. If that person files a counter-notification, the content can be restored immediately and kept up while the dispute is resolved.
I would say that provides some balance. If everyone's on the ball, the amount of time the content is taken down can be quite small, less than a day.
That's what the law provides for. Where the balance can go away is that sites don't have to be so careful. They don't have to restore the content on counter-claim, they're merely allowed to without endangering safe harbor. They don't have to restore the content ever, even if it's ultimately proven legal.
So, although the law provides some balance, any given site can remove it. But that's the fault of the site, not the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
17 USC 512
''(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
So, although the law provides some balance, any given site can remove it. But that's the fault of the site, not the law.
True, and Google is definitely a little more proactive than others when it comes to taking down material. But it seems that it is too easy for people with automated systems to offload their costs of checking to see whether something really does fall under infringement on to those who wish to provide service to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
And personally, I think that it is disingenuous at best to file a takedown notice automatically -- in my opinion, actual fact-checking should take place before someone swears that the information is accurate.
This ties into one of the (many) ways that our legal system is corrupt and unfair: until something is challenged in court, it is de facto legal, and it takes a lot of money to challenge these things in court.
I suspect that someone with a lot of money to burn could argue that the automated systems aren't good enough to base a takedown notice on. But until/unless someone does, then the automated stuff will continue.
And, I think, that's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call your representatives
Scripps executives need to be hauled in front of a Congressional commitee and publicly bitched out—on behalf of the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a new opportunity
Sure, it probably wouldn't last to long in the courtroom (depending on the judge), but in the meantime it would make shills, shysters and flimflam artists like this company, be forced to admit in open court that this was and always has been public domain material. Thus proving that they are the scammers we always knew they were. No "it was automated" excuses will be accepted.
This could be a lesson for them to learn that one cannot "automate" even the appearance of signing a DMCA complaint "declared under penalty of perjury" and just get away with anymore. Not without looking like a total and complete fool, and an ass to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a new opportunity
So you hope some public-interest group will do something for you? It is unethical for a lawyer to file a frivolous suit.
I'll you what we can do: Here in America, Congress has a long tradition of putting corporate executives in the hotseat when they really screw up. Congress has the power to make Scripps say they're sorry in public.
That's we need: Scripps executives need to hauled in front of a Congressional hearing and raked over the coals on live C-SPAN.
God-damn. I was up all night watching NASA TV, and I just heard about this. It's after 5pm in DC, already. So we can't call til tomorrow--that's probably a good thing--let me cool off enough to tell my representative how pissed I am without having a staffer hang up the phone.
Call your representative. Call your senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I see a new opportunity
No, I'm hoping they'll do something to someone else. Someone who really needs their face shoved into the dirt like they do to other people all the time, someone who when they are caught red handed say, "Oops, my bad", but only get slapped on the wrist by the law and walk away scott free.
It is unethical for a lawyer to file a frivolous suit.
It is unethical for lawyers to do lots of things, but just like in all walks of life, some still do and get away with it.
["Raising Arizona" for ethically challenged lawyers]
Judge 1: They've got a name for people like you, that name is called "Ethicless."
Judge 2: Repeat offender!
Judge 1: Not a pretty name, is it Lawyer?
Lawyer: No, your honor. That's one bonehead name, but that ain't me any more.
Judge 1: So you've said that you really think you have a chance at winning your case. You're not just telling us what we want to hear?
Lawyer: No, your honor, no way.
Judge 2: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.
Lawyer: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Judge 1: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?
Lawyer: Yes, your honor. Absolutely 110 percent I believe I can win this case.
Judge 1: Okay, then.
That's we need: Scripps executives need to hauled in front of a Congressional hearing and raked over the coals on live C-SPAN.
Got tired long ago of suits asking questions of other suits, who "don't know" or "can't remember" or even "on advice of my lawyer, I'm pleading the Fifth". Embarrassment doesn't work on these kinds of "people" any more. Time to reopen Alcatraz or Devils Island and send them away. That's when I know my tax dollars would be well spent.
Maybe NASA could have a go at Scripps videos and take a few of their vids down because they used NASA footage. When Scripps cries about "public domain" NASA could say, "Whoops, my bad, but you can't sue us unless we agree to it because we're the government and that's the way it is."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
17 U.S.C. § 105: “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government... ”
You want NASA to lie about that? Falsely claim copyright over public domain works? In order to protect the public from Scripps' false claims?
As bad as the DMCA is, you do know that 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) provides that the copyright claimant should furnish:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What made me sad is the main stream media barley mentions it, Romney and Obama can fight any day, but something like this rarely happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This. Though landing on the moon was quite an accomplishment too. They had done this once before with Phoenix, but that one didn't have nearly as many moving parts, and wasn't as heavy as this one (770 lbs vs 2K lbs.) And everything was done by the robots autonomously (since there was about 8 minutes delay between curiosity and NASA vs the 4 second delay between Earth and the Moon.
What made me sad is the main stream media barley mentions it, Romney and Obama can fight any day, but something like this rarely happens.
The majors seem to not like science much...probably harder to sell than video games responsible for murder, and proves them wrong a lot. However, the news websites I read all had tons of coverage, and even the local bird-cage liner had a full story on it, so it is getting some coverage after the fact.
I loved watching the live coverage of the landing, though I know others found it "boring" because they didn't have live video of the landing (it takes time to download that much data.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we should all get a bot and start sending in millions every single day to the point it would be possible to keep up.
Bot + decaptcher = fucking shit up.
Money + Open information + Non greedy smart people = Data protection solutions that does not require wiping your ass with a flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might look something like this:
Over one billion take downs with only 1,182 actually being legitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube doesn't have any employees to ensure that each copyright claim for every video is manually investigated for violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you live inside the US, you still have to deal with the take-down notices and you have to worry about the DMCA saying you have to take swift action.
I would also like to point out that Youtube does check on the claims made. I had three claims made on three different videos of mine. One I knew was valid ("Still Alive" from a Portal Let's Play), but the other two I didn't think were valid. I didn't fight them because I didn't know; copyright is complex and is different depending on where you are. After a few days, the two that I thought were invalid went away. Someone did check on them for me without me asking.
I looked into it, Youtube does check on copyright claims, it can just take a while and I'm sure lots of things get missed. I don't know why mine were fixed, I'm not exactly popular, not bringing in the ad bucks, but they did fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're not going to get the DMCA repealed unless Congress see the problems.
How do want to show Congress the problems without having them hold hearings? The hearing process is how Congress works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OOPS my bad it was "automated"......He'll eviscerate the DCMA faster than you can say "the RIAA are the enemy of humanity and actively damage society"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube, Scribed, etc. as Technological Soup Kitchens.
A larger point is that one needs to be highly self-critical in adopting the baggage of commercialized youth culture, meaning stuff like YouTube, Facebook, and what have you. Uncritical adoption is apt wind up in a middle-age man appearing in public, for business purposes, wearing a costume consisting of a pink tutu, black fishnet pantyhose, red high-heels, and a lace handkerchief pinned into his hair. That is all very well for a young girl going to a Halloween party, and playing at being a can-can dancer. However, for a sober business executive or government official...
After the Second World War, England was in grave economic difficulties. It had beaten the Nazis at the cost of widespread hardship and suffering, and had staggered home, only to find renewed hardship. This was the age of "Austerity," and many people found to their dismay that what they had enjoyed before the war was gone forever, and this bitterness reflected on the government. In 1949, the Royal Ballet organized a tour of the United States, starring Margot Fonteyn, who was not only a great dancer, but also an exceptionally beautiful woman. They had a great success, and brought back an impressive quantity of hard money-- dollars-- which could be used to buy all kinds of things which England desperately needed. A newspaper published a cartoon showing the principle [male] cabinet ministers dressed up as ballerinas, with the caption, "After the phenomenal dollar-earning success of the Saddler's Wells Ballet in New York, the Cabinet is contemplating another mission to America" (Katherine Sorley Walker and Sarah Woodcock, The Royal Ballet: A Picture History, 1981, p. 58). This was of course a savage and hateful commentary on the government, saying in effect that a little butterfly of a ballet-girl was doing their job better than they could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]