Google Customizes Its YouTube Takedown Message In Response To Bogus Innocence Of Muslims Takedown

from the sorry-about-that dept

Fri, Feb 28th 2014 7:19am — Mike Masnick

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:

The YouTube sad face icon and takedown message has become fairly iconic, so much so that I have random people stop me on the street frequently to comment on my own YouTube takedown t-shirt. However, historically, YouTube has stuck to its basic default messages when videos are taken down, almost never providing much in the way of details. Apparently, the lawyers at YouTube are so upset about this particular ruling that they've gone a different route, taking a page from Higgin's suggestion and having the takedown message on the video actually explain that they disagree with the situation:

Yes, that's the actual message shown if you go to see the video right now. While I doubt YouTube will be using these sort of customized messages that often, it seems like something similar might come in handy over in Germany, where a court has ordered YouTube to stop hurting GEMA's feelings with its takedown messages, which highlight how GEMA has refused to license music to YouTube at a reasonable rate (like basically every other collection society in the world).

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

41 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:39am

Awesome...
I think I mentioned something like this in the chat a bit ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:34am

Now, if only it would customize another message:

"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 ]
Ninja (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 6:45am

Re: Awesome...
Now that is pure epicness. And nobody can do shit because they are in their 1st Amendment rights to disagree.

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 ]
crade (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:55am

Re:
lol, I'm pretty sure you are in the vast minority for that request
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:04am

In case they get a takedown notice, I took a screenshot. They'll never find me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:14am

They could include the words "This video is a piece of shit but it is a piece of shit that is protected by the first amendment. If they can take this down they can remove something that is actually of value in the future".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:16am

Re: Re:
Maybe so, but I join him in that minority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:21am

I certainly hope the second notice is not the work or has been approved by counsel for Google/YouTube. 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:28am

Re:
Yeah, pesky facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KevinEHayden (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:35am

Put up an edited version
Someone needs to re-edit the video to take out this actress' 5 seconds of 'fame' or maybe replace it with something that says 'this portion of the film removed due to idiocy' and then repost it. She and the court should have no obections then!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:39am

Re:
I certainly hope the second notice is not the work or has been approved by counsel for Google/YouTube.

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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:39am

Re: Re:
not really a minority from what I can tell.

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 ]
crade (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 8:53am

Re: Re: Re:
Well, thats why god gave us the gift of choosing which services we patronize I guess :) If there are more than the two of you, maybe it will be enough to support some service that doesn't use single sign on and caters to the crowd that loves to fiddle with passwords.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
halley (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:14am

Re: Put up an edited version
Or just do the StreetView-Face-Blur on the whiny bitch in question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't love to fiddle with passwords, but I do love increasing my security (or at least not reducing it by using the same password for everything -- that's the #1 security problem with passwords these days.)

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 ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:29am

Re:
"Spending quality time before a court explaining its contents and why they should not be disciplined"

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 ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:40am

Re:
I certainly hope the second notice is not the work or has been approved by counsel for Google/YouTube.

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 ]
crade (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 9:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
increasing security is a completely separate thing, which is measurable only by results in a private company like Google. Increasing the number of passwords you keep track of passwords only gives the perception of security. Using the same password for multiple accounts is not at all the same thing as using the same account for multiple things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then again, who am I to talk, now that I think about it I use only one secured service at google and have two accounts for it lol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 10:26am

Now we just need a new one for GEMA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 28 Feb 2014 @ 10:31am

Re: Re:
Based on this ruling, I bet the court also found a way to put a copyright on the facts, and will rule that Google is in violation of the courts "facts" copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 11:15am

So Google/Youtube finally grows a set a very tiny set I might add after the millions of videos that have be taken down in the past with-out a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Using the same password for multiple accounts is not at all the same thing as using the same account for multiple things."

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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:14pm

I love the way it still retains the sheepish "Sorry about that" bit at the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:15pm

Re:
I don't think they ever commented on what they think of the video as that isn't really relevant to whether they allow it or not at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re:
True. They really wouldn't have to in this case because it has been all over the web what a stinker this video is. I guess if I want the right to spout off things others may not agree with we have to defend trash like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Put up an edited version
No one would have ever paid attention to this whiny bitch if she had just kept her mouth shut. I have to wonder if it was her intention to put this whole thing into Streisand overdrive for her 15 minutes of fame?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re:
Who needs a legal theory? Sue first, figure out why later. Judges like Kozinski seem to be happy to figure out elaborate, nonsensical reasons for arbitrary lawsuits to be valid, such as the one that got the video in question blocked in spite of the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yup, that's the way the first amendment works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 5:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Um, no. She did get death threats before she started filing lawsuits, after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
I suppose if there is a religion that flies jetliners into buildings, blow themselves up, stone their daughters for kissing a boy, start deadly riots over a cartoon etc. maybe you shouldn't perform in a video they would consider blasphemous. Does the name Salman Rushdie mean anything to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2014 @ 7:11pm

Re: Re:
Under what possible legal theory could that ever lead to them being disciplined?
Under what possible legal theory does the actress have a copyright claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2014 @ 5:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Extremists do those things in the name of the religion. You ignore the fact that the vast majority of practitioners of the religion throughout the world are peaceful people who reject such practices. Statements like that only polarize people further exacerbating the problem. Would it be appropriate to characterize the exploits of the Westboro extremists as being representative of the entire Christian religion simply because the act in the name of it? Of course not. You need to use a smaller brush in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Awesome...
Sure they can. I fully expect the judge who handed down the absurd ruling to find Google in contempt of court any moment now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
I'm just remembering the massive rallies all over the Mid East celebrating and cheering loudly when the towers fell. If Christians attacked embassies and caused riots world wide that results in hundreds of deaths any time someone insults their beliefs I would think differently. If the Muslims truly followed the teachings of Muhammad they would be the "religion of peace" they claim to be. The percentage of extremists is a lot larger than the politically correct liberals want to admit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Just to add this thought: The Westboro are a very small group of extremists who have few members that are not part of Fred Phelps family and are an embarrassment and universally scorned by virtually every Christian church. No deaths have resulted from their hateful actions. They are not killing people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 6:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
"I'm just remembering the massive rallies all over the Mid East celebrating and cheering loudly when the towers fell."

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 ]
OldGeezer (profile), 1 Mar 2014 @ 8:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
It's a little hard to separate the religion from the politics when many Mid East countries range from heavily to completely under control of the Muslims. Even governments that have some moderate influence protected Osama Bin Laden for a decade. All of the 9/11 attackers were from countries supposedly friendly to us. Sure, there some nut cases and even terrorists who call themselves Christian. 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. The families of these heroes receive support payments. 70 virgins await in paradise for them to pop their cherries. Extremism will always exist in any religion. Centuries ago the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England were responsible for ghastly atrocities. In no religion today is it so predominate as it is in Islam. It is only a matter of time until they achieve their goal of setting off a nuclear bomb in a large American city. The mutually assured destruction that kept the Soviets at bay does not matter to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Mar 2014 @ 6:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
"It's a little hard to separate the religion from the politics when many Mid East countries range from heavily to completely under control of the Muslims."

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 ]
OldGeezer (profile), 2 Mar 2014 @ 9:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Don't have a lot of time right now so I'll just hit the high points. Perhaps some Islamic countries are not as radical as others but any country predominately Muslim will have factions. If it's 2% in some countries or 20% in others it will be there. It only took 19 hijackers to kill over 2,000 people. These were from "friendly" countries like Egypt, United Emirates and Saudia Arabia. As far as the nuclear threat many experts are saying it is not a matter of if, it's when. A great deal of atomic materials from the former USSR are unaccounted for. First it will probably be a dirty bomb but eventually they will achieve thermal. Won't matter much if they are doing it to please Allah or political reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 3 Mar 2014 @ 2:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up an edited version
Yes, because that religion is 'only' 2000 years old and so is 600 years more mature than Islam. It's a shame any religion takes so long to reach any form of maturity.

Basically, Christianity is at the beer chuggers level of maturity while Islam is throwing teenage tantrums.
[ link to this | view in thread ]