Google Customizes Its YouTube Takedown Message In Response To Bogus Innocence Of Muslims Takedown
from the sorry-about-that dept
We just wrote about the 9th Circuit's ridiculously problematic ruling claiming that an actress who appears in 5 seconds of the 13 minute Innocence of Muslims "trailer" has a copyright interest in her performance, allowing the court to order Google to remove all copies of the video (along with a highly questionable gag order).Soon after the ruling came out, EFF's Parker Higgins suggested the sort of custom "takedown" message that Google might want to put on the video:
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: alex kozinski, copyright, first amendment, free speech, innocence of muslims
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Awesome...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We're sorry for the 'One Account. All Of Google.' force we did onto our users. Now, rejoice in the return of the 'Multiple Password Accounts (for Security). All Of Google.' policy. We really weren't trying to be evil."
:\
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Awesome...
They just need to use such resource more since it reaches so many (and provide links to pages explaining the situation in these messages).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Mike's post indicates the YouTube message is from Google's lawyers.
Spending quality time before a court explaining its contents and why they should not be disciplined is not a productive way to use one's time.
Disciplined for what exactly? For posting facts that are part of the public record?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But to be honest, I have a bigger issue with them trying to push google+ at every step. I don't want *any* social network bullshit. Not facebook, not g+, just leave me alone with that crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's an easy workaround that I recommend to everyone who complains about this "one password for everything" business (which is a LOT of people!) -- just create a different account for each service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It would be very little time in court. In the US, there would be no basis for a case at all, and it would be tossed out unceremoniously. They should not be disciplined because they did nothing wrong or illegal. Case closed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My understanding is that it absolutely was.
Spending quality time before a court explaining its contents and why they should not be disciplined is not a productive way to use one's time.
Under what possible legal theory could that ever lead to them being disciplined? The statement is no different than the kind of corporate statement companies release to the press after losing court cases all the time.
You really need to let go of your irrational hatred of all things Google, and your desire to slam everything. It just suggests you're not nearly the super lawyer you pretend to be. It repeatedly clouds your judgment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've lost me here... what is the effective difference between these two things?
In either case, if a hacker were to determine the password he would have access to all of the the things controlled by that password. Only, with a SSO system, the hacker is given a greater level of convenience when figuring out what other services the password will provide access to.
Password-based SSO systems are dangerous for this reason. There are other ways of doing SSO that aren't as risky, but they're not password-based.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Under what possible legal theory does the actress have a copyright claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Awesome...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Those rallies had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
"Christians attacked embassies and caused riots world wide that results in hundreds of deaths any time someone insults their beliefs I would think differently."
Christians have done this.
Here's the thing -- you're confusing politics with religion here. The Muslims that are truly dangerous are not dangerous because they're Muslim. They're motivated by politics dressed in Islamic clothing. There are tons of examples of the same thing happening, but with Christian clothing instead.
Right now, the political area that has the most militant anger against the US happens to be in an area that is predominantly Islamic, but they aren't so mad at the US because they're muslim.
The totality of all muslims in the area is a minority of muslims (Islam is the second most popular religion in the word -- there are quite a lot of them.) Most muslims feel about the US about the same way as everybody else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
It's not at all hard, honest. All you have to do is know something about all of the other Islamic countries.
"In Islamic countries they build shrines to the "martyrs" who strap on bomb vests and set them off in markets and buses to kill their enemies even when that includes women and children."
You say this like this is common practice in all Islamic countries. That's simply and plainly untrue. This sort of thing happens in literally a couple of places, not even uniformly in any single nation. It not anywhere near indicative of something that is inherent to Islam or Islamic countries.
"Extremism will always exist in any religion."
I'm pleased to see that you acknowledge that it is the crazies, not the religion as a whole, that is the problem.
"In no religion today is it so predominate as it is in Islam."
I'm far from sure this is true, but even if it was -- so what? It doesn't mean that there's something inherent in Islam to cause it. It means that the areas of great political distress are largely Islamic ones at this time.
"It is only a matter of time until they achieve their goal of setting off a nuclear bomb in a large American city."
Whose goal? (Hint: it's not an Islamic goal at all.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Basically, Christianity is at the beer chuggers level of maturity while Islam is throwing teenage tantrums.
[ link to this | view in thread ]