Sony And YouTube Take Down Sintel; Blender's Open Source, Creative Commons, Crowdfunded Masterpiece

from the how-to-mess-up-everything dept

Mon, Apr 7th 2014 3:01am — Mike Masnick

Pretty much everyone has been sending over the bizarre story of YouTube taking down the film Sintel based on a copyright claim from Sony Pictures. While I imagine it will be back up soon (if not already by the time you read this), as I write this the Sintel link shows the following (and between writing this and posting it, the video was put back up, but all weekend it looked like this):

If you're unfamiliar with Sintel, we wrote about it back in 2010. It's an amazingly well-done short animated film created via the open source software Blender, in part to promote how amazing Blender's 3D content creation suite is. The video was partly crowdfunded and was released under a wonderfully broad Creative Commons license that even allowed commercial use (it only required attribution). Sony had nothing to do with any of this.

The Slashdot post about this explains what probably happened here. Sony recently added Sintel to its official 4k demo pool to show off its 4k "ultra HD" TVs. Who knows if they worked out a specific licensed to use it, but under the Creative Commons license, the company wouldn't need to, so long as Sony properly attributed the clip. But, the thinking appears to be that once in the demo pool, the film was somehow added to Sony's "contentID" list of works that Sony claims copyright on, leading YouTube's automated system to pull down the original as infringement. As others have pointed out this highlights almost every possible thing that pisses off people about copyright and automated takedown systems like ContentID.

It's a big company -- one who has fought against the idea that "amateurs" could do powerful work -- taking down a work that it has no copyright claim over. And the work it took down is a well-known example of a freely distributable, Creative Commons-licensed work, created via open source software, and partially crowdfunded. It's hard to think of any other takedown situation that would be more ridiculous or better highlight how broken an automated copyright takedown system is.

Over the last few weeks, in various hearings and conferences, the legacy entertainment industry (and its supporting politicians) have made it pretty clear that they're going to push for automated systems like ContentID to be mandatory in the future. The Sintel takedown by Sony should be the perfect case study in why that's a huge problem.

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: censorship, content id, copyright, creative commons, crowdfunded, open source
Companies: blender, google, sony, youtube

113 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 2:58am

The price of a favor...
Something to keep in mind, the ContentID system was not developed by Google/YT because they were forced to by law, or due to a court order, they paid for and developed it on their own dime and time, in an attempt to appease the circling sharks and hold them at bay.

Now with the 'entertainment' industry apparently desiring such a system be mandatory(without, of course, having to spend so much as a cent on it themselves, of that you can be sure), it would seem Google/YT's 'neighborly' actions now has the potential to turn around and bite them, and everyone else, in a huge way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 3:52am
  
  Re: The price of a favor...
  That's utter bull. How can you argue it wasn't added because they were forced too, when they face countless legal fights every day that force them to make such decisions? Exactly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:39am
    
    Re: Re: The price of a favor...
    Error: Reading comprehension fail.
    
    Here is the operative sentence fragment
    "forced to by law, or due to a court order"
    
    It is amazing how some people read & hear things that were not actually there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
      The law may not require it but it does, with its one sided penalty structure, encourage a shoot first ask questions later approach. Keeping an infringing video up for the amount of time it would take Google/YT to investigate the issue could result in serious legal consequences.
      
      To that effect the law should be changed. Content that is removed due to false takedown notices or due to ContentID abuse (someone using the ContentID system to take down a video they do not legally have rights to) should result in easier to implement stricter penalties.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        The law does not require it at all. Google's implementation of the system was a business, not legal, decision. Yes, it was a response to legal bullying, but they could have responded in other ways if they had wanted to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        I suspect that it was, and probably still is the cheapest option. The people that suffer the bad affects of the system are mainly the ones that cannot afford to take legal action against anyone, while the main users of contentid are the ones that have shown that they will maximize their opponent legal costs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        exactly. The legal system may not require contentID but it does encourage it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        The law is what requires service providers to have a takedown system of some sort. That different service providers may have different systems is irrelevant, when those systems are used to file false takedowns it should also be the law that imposes strict punishments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        What system specified in what law exactly?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        I honestly don't know why they didn't respond "OK, let's settle this like businessmen," and initiate a hostile takeover of whatever studio tried to sue them first. Surely they've got enough money, and if a tech company owned a major movie studio and started distributing films in a way that actually makes sense, and making profits on it, it would completely undermine the MPAA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        I don't either, but I can speculate. They may simply not be interested in becoming a content provider at all. A common mistake that businesses make when they get very successful is to try to branch out too far from their core business. They may view the acquisition of a studio as something that would distract them a lot from their core business (advertising) and end up weakening them.
        
        That is 100% uninformed speculation, of course.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        I might be willing to accept that speculation, except... Google Fiber.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
        Good point. Although, continuing with rampant speculation, Google fiber is closer to their core business than buying a movie studio would be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re: The price of a favor...
    sorry, i missed where a copyright law was being enforced in this article.
    I saw where a proprietary system for "protecting copyright holders" failed to work as designed, but did not see any "copyright law enforcement" discussed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
      Are you being intentionally obtuse? Or do you really not understand simplicity?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...
      The proprietary system exists to facilitate the enforcement of copyright law. If it weren't for copyright law being the way it is this system wouldn't need to exist or the system could at least not be so highly encouraged to take a shoot first ask questions later approach and it could give those that put content up time to respond to infringement accusations before having their content automatically removed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 7 Apr 2014 @ 3:28am

Typo
"If you're unfamiliar with Sintel, we worte about it back in 2010"

should be "wrote"

Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ole Juul (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 3:38am

should be "wrote"
I prefer "worte".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

My Name Here, 7 Apr 2014 @ 3:51am

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:10am
  
  Re:
  You mean abused, like it was in this case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Some people cannot tell the difference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or some people outright insist on getting away with it and handwave all abuse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:04am
  
  Re:
  horse with no name just can't stand it when due process is enforced.
  
  How's being a Prenda fanboy working out for you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  And you just hate it when people 'steal' from artists.
  
  Except Sony, of course. Because thay are saints and completely blameless in this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:obvious troll is obvious
  obvious troll is obvious
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  And it seems you love it when business's like Sony et.al commit fraudulent practices.
  
  You don't happen to work for EA do you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:21pm
  
  Re:
  Just Sayin' just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2014 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re:
  horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:18am

When I see stories like this I always wonder how many videos with tiny audiences are taken down by mistake and never put back up because the author does not know how to contest the decision, or are simply scared that they may have infringed someones copyright by accident. Also how many people do not know their fair use rights, and so do not contest take-downs when they have a fair use claim, or cannot risk the cost of it going to court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:07am
  
  Re:
  The usual course of action is that Sony the hedgehog, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny just get to grab all the advertising proceeds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Some videos will disappear because of false take-downs, and probably far more than are ever heard about. Also if they are seizing someone else's income isn't that theft, unlike infringement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Theft is perfectly fine so long as the IP extremists are the ones doing it. When anyone else even thinks of infringing you should get severely punished to the fullest extent of the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And way beyond that. Remember, the industry is losing more money to piracy than the country makes. But us mortals can't even comprehend the economic model that is used here, so well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        observer, 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Remember, the industry is losing more money to piracy than the country makes."
        
        Way beyond even that: they claim that money lost to them is lost to the entire economy, because apparently it vanishes into the aether rather than being spent on other products and services. So by their logic, there should be no money left anywhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 7 Apr 2014 @ 3:25pm
  
  Re: because the author does not know how to contest the decision, or are simply scared
  There is also a discouragement to contesting: I believe YouTube has a three-strikes rule regarding content which you put up which is taken down, where you dispute the claim against you, and the claim is found to be valid. After three such instances, your account is taken down.
  
  By contrast, there is no n-strikes rule (for any finite value of n) against abuse of ContentID. Or the DMCA, for that matter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DerPolygonianer, 7 Jun 2014 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re:
  That's exactly the Problem. I just read about a case like that yesterday where a seven year olds lego let's play was taken down because it had content from the movie in it. The Problem is that no other person has the same problem and the game isn't understandable without the cutscenes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - davidbarcomb, 24 Nov 2014 @ 4:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is what I I am thinking. I totally agree!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
me@me.net, 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:30am

So Sony effectively tried to steal this piece
nice.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 4:51am

This is one clear, outstanding example of why someone should take these studios to court for clear and blatant DMCA violations.

∗ I am the owner or an agent authorised to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that has allegedly been infringed.
∗ I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner reported by complaint is not authorised by the copyright owner, its agent or the law; and
∗ This notification is accurate.
∗ I acknowledge that there may be adverse legal consequences for making false or bad faith allegations of copyright infringement by using this process.

Fails on ALL except the last point - the major part is "FALSE" (although I'm sure they will get away unscathed on THAT).

Someone needs to step up and stop this abuse. I don't care if it is an automated system. Automated systems fail often, especially when it comes to variety of content. There are so many exceptions to Copyright, that a human (or humans plural) MUST review every flagging of so-called infringing content.

Until that happens, the companies MUST be held accountable to their bullshit claims upon ownership of clearly non-infringing works. Otherwise, they will keep getting away with saying they own everything that gets posted, regardless of whether or not they do have the smallest smidgen of ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:13am
  
  Re:
  Ah, but you see: Sony never sent a DMCA notice claiming all that. They bullied Youtube into this self-censorship arrangement where Youtube pulls material automatically based on indexing files from Sony, like a trailer including a reference to Sintel, and then get to have some breathing room before getting dragged to court.
  
  So there is no DMCA notice involved, merely the threat of one (or one million of them). And you cannot sue Sony over anything.
  
  This is a whole shadow DMCA system based on the threat of DMCA actions, so there is nobody who has any legal consequences from false tagging, willful or not.
  
  It works as a DMCA substitute in a similar way that plea deals work as a due process substitute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Then who, in Sony, posted the video up to Youtube's ContentID system, saying they own the video. THAT employee of Sony, and therefore as extension by being Sony's representative, should be responsible for the misrepresentation they own the copyright on the video??
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Only if they made some kind of sworn testimony to that effect. They almost certainly did not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA notices are a legal document. My understanding is that legal documents are sworn testimony. Is that not the case?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This case does not involve the DMCA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whether they use the DMCA to take down content or they use contentID to take down content what's the difference? ContentID is just a way to facilitate takedowns.
        
        They basically found a way to avoid having to use the DMCA by simply submitting content they want taken down through contentID instead of issuing a DMCA notice. Shouldn't that be effectively the same thing? ContentID should not be a way for takedown issuers to circumvent what little legal due process the law provides content uploaders.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        beltorak (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:52am
        
        contracts and promises
        there's no difference in effect, but there is a legal difference. the same difference between 1) an implicit understanding between two parties and 2) a contract. the latter is legally enforceable - you can engage the legal system for restitution when violated. the former is more like an informal conversation: "so you'll do this for me?" -> "sure, no problem". sure, there is such a thing as a verbal contract, but what's the legal bar for classification as a contract? how many "broken promises" have been taken to court? I'm pretty sure that the yt/contentID system was created (or can be argued such that) it avoids being classified as a contract.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Beltorak is correct, but I just wanted to note that my comment was in reply to a specific question raised by the AC: why isn't this a case of perjury on the part of Sony. The answer is because it's not a DMCA takedown.
        
        That alone is an example how the two things are different even if the larger end result is similar.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The effect is the same and I really don't care about the technical differences. I want the law to severely punish those that use the contentID to take down content they're not supposed to. The law is what requires some sort of takedown system to begin with (be it notice and takedown or whatever), just because Youtube chose to automate the process to make it cheaper and easier and facilitate it through technological means doesn't give everyone a pass to abuse those means. contentID is just an extension of the DMCA. Yes, it may technically and legally be different but that's where the law needs to change.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 8 Apr 2014 @ 6:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I want the law to severely punish those that use the contentID to take down content they're not supposed to."
        
        Not me. YouTube is a private service. They can take down anything they want for any reason they want and should suffer no legal repercussion for it unless there's some kind of contract violation. To make it illegal seems to me like an unwarranted intrusion by the government.
        
        "The law is what requires some sort of takedown system to begin with (be it notice and takedown or whatever)"
        
        Technically, the law requires no such thing. The DMCA provides special legal protection to sites that do this, but nobody is required to so it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2014 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not me. YouTube is a private service. They can take down anything they want for any reason they want and should suffer no legal repercussion for it unless there's some kind of contract violation.
        
        Youtube is not a publisher, it is a public store and forward service, which allow public searching and access. If similar requirements were placed on parcel services to examine the contents, and restrict what they delivered, their would be outrage, especially if that examination was on behalf of companies to allow them to seize any recordings that they deemed infringed their copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 8 Apr 2014 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " If similar requirements were placed on parcel services to examine the contents, and restrict what they delivered, their would be outrage"
        
        I'm not saying that there shouldn't be outrage, only that it shouldn't be illegal. Same with private parcel delivery services -- as long as the searching and restrictions are made very clear to people before using the service. People can always choose not to use the service.
        
        Not everything that is terrible should be against the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2014 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not everything that is terrible should be against the law.
        
        What should always be illegal is some third party getting a service provider to withdraw service, and seize goods, while they are in the hands of the service provider. Only law enforcement, after obtaining a warrant, should be able to interfere in the delivery of a contracted service. Without that limitation, a powerful lobby can always gain the legal power to interfere in other peoples business, and prevent businesses that do not comply with their wishes from operating.
        This is not only a problem of the copyright lobby, but also the network providers getting laws passed to prevent competition, along with things like Taxi licensing preventing competition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 8 Apr 2014 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What should always be illegal is some third party getting a service provider to withdraw service, and seize goods, while they are in the hands of the service provider."
        
        Seizing goods is an entirely different issue, and doesn't apply, even by analogy, to YouTube takedowns. With that exception, I still disagree with you about this. A private entity should be able to legally withdraw service for any reason they like as long as they don't violate antidiscrimination laws. Even if that reason is because some third party bullied or paid them to do so. If the provider violated a contract with you in doing so, then it should be treated just as any contract violation is treated.
        
        "but also the network providers getting laws passed to prevent competition, along with things like Taxi licensing preventing competition."
        
        Those are completely different cases, as those involve government action/government granted monopolies. Not at all analogous to the YouTube situation.
        
        Anyway, I do understand where you're coming from. YouTube is behaving badly, and on that point we agree. We just differ in terms of the remedy. I think the remedy is to avoid using YouTube.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2014 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My point is that it is not so much YouTube behaving badly, as being coerced into letting other people behave badly. Boycotting YouTube is not the solution to this problem, because:-
        1) They are not the root cause of the problem.
        2) Those interfering in their business wish them to fail.
        3) If they fail because of outside interference in their business, it make it that much harder for someone to build a replacement service.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Except adding it to the ContentID isn't legally making a claim that they own the video, so they still haven't run afoul of the law.
      
      The problem isn't the DMCA, it's Youtube's voluntary ContentID system, which is just going to drive people to start using other video services.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem isn't the DMCA, it's Youtube's voluntary ContentID system, which is just going to drive people to start using other video services.
        
        And hopefully ones NOT residing in the USA since then DMCA notices can be used for what they are really worth. Toilet paper!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And hopefully ones NOT residing in the USA since then DMCA notices can be used for what they are really worth. Toilet paper!
        
        Letting you data cross US cables, and you have no control over that, seems to be enough to convince the US that you can be charged under their legal system, so ignoring DMCA notices is a risky proposition. Even obeying them does not help, just ask Kim Dotcom.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris Brand, 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think that's clear. The notice says "contains content from Sony", so either Sony or YouTube are claiming something that is provably false.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - KevinEHayden (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:39am
    
    Re: Re: Way to fix ContentID
    The way to fix ContentID is to notify the uploader that the video is in violation of copyright and allow them a chance to contest it. If they contest it, it should immediately be re-instated, with notice going to the alleged copyright owner that a subsequent takedown request must be done via the proper DMCA notice route. This should eliminate the false takedown problems and force both the uploader and supposed copyright owner to take a second look and ensure that they are on solid legal ground. If it were done that way, then Sony would indeed be on a legal hook if they had continued to claim ownership of the Sintel video.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Way to fix ContentID
      A 10c charge for every takedown request processed would help too with a thousand dollar charge for a false claim split between the actual rights holder and the company processing the request.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:13am

To see if the law and youtube rules are fair, lets reverse this situation.
If Sony had used something I had made, and had it on one of their 'official' channels, would a takedown from me be taken seriously?
What about the Content ID, would I be able to mute one of their videos or siphon the revenue to my account?

Mind you, this being just me as a small indie one-man artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- beltorak (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: To see if the law and youtube rules are fair, lets reverse this situation.
  quick ddg search on "how to use youtube contentid" turned up https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en which says
  
  > YouTube only grants Content ID to content owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, content owners must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.
  
  in other words, "money" measured by the proxy "owned content".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:23am

And this is why we can't get copyright law fixed.

They will show the stats about the X number of 'infringing' videos taken down, but never mention how many were in error. Even if it was in error there is no harm to them to lie and claim they own the content when they do not.

They use the courts to make their target bleed money until they are willing to give them something the law doesn't require, then spin that agreement into showing how "easy" it is and everyone should do it.

If I were to download a movie the law allows them to seek up to $150K. That is just a single copy. They can steal (yes it is stealing they remove the original to being under their control) and the punishment??? Nothing.

Perhaps it is time to review what is happening but not just the ludicrous statements of rightsholders and look at the abuse of the public in the system and introduce inducements to encourage people who are wronged to fight back & punish those who abuse the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:50am

It got mixed in Sony's copyright blender =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:22am
  
  Re:
  *groans* and hands you a plate of Koala Tea puns
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:17am

Some quotes from people from SoylentNews that I found relevant.

xlefay (65) writes

"So essentially, from what I'm gathering here (previously, I just ignored these kind of articles), it's all just bullying the little guy and giving in when one stands it's ground.. what a great world we live in eh ;-)"

http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=1125&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&am p;pid=27272#27287

This is why the law needs to be changed, to prevent powerful entities with lots of spare resources to spend from bullying everyone they can and requiring everyone to 'stand their ground' every time they get something taken down just to have it put back up. Very strict and easy to implement penalties against the issuer (and their parent or sister companies) are in order, huge rewards for those that have been the victims of false takedowns. Getting a false takedown should be the equivalent of winning the lottery or something. and if some organization sets up a 'non-profit' to do these sorts of takedowns (kinda like how Disney et al sets up the MPAA) if it is determined that this proxy was representing its members in false takedowns the members should possibly be seriously fined.

Or every takedown should require a signature from a specific lawyer and if the lawyer is found to be responsible for three false takedown notices that should cost them their license and strict personal fines against the lawyer responsible.

This nonsense where companies set up shell companies to do their work and take liability in order to shield the parent company from liability needs to end. Either figure out a way to punish the parent companies or figure out a way to hold the specific individuals responsible for breaking the law personally accountable within those shell companies.

edIII (791) writes
"The DMCA in it's entirety is a complete bypass of due process. It literally hands over the entirety of the due process into private and corporate hands."

http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=1125&cid=27234
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:29am
  
  Re:
  Then again, if every takedown requires a signature from a lawyer the pro-IP side will argue that only those that can afford lawyers would be able to file takedowns and this is unfair for those that can't afford lawyers. In which case I would argue this is a good argument against having these IP laws being that they are too expensive for everyone to police.
  
  Either way with all the corporations that attempt to set up shell companies and proxies to shield them from liability I think the best way to go is to hold someone personally responsible for signing off on takedown attempts and personally accountable, with the potential of huge penalties and having their takedown privileges revoked after three strikes or something, for false takedown attempts. This includes individuals who file false takedowns.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:22am

Sorry folks this is all confusing to me.

What part of the video is infringing?

Until I know that I have no idea who and what is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:50am
  
  Re:
  No part, Sony didn't own any rights in relation to this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:02am
  
  Re:
  "What part of the video is infringing?"
  
  None of it. It's a video 100% released under the Creative Commons and the copy in question is hosted on the YouTube account of the foundation that produced it (i.e. the copyright holders). The only way it could be infringing under the CC licence chosen is if someone tried to monetise it without giving proper attribution.
  
  Sony have no actual claim against it - they simply made a clerical error (if we're being charitable) and the system is so gamed in their favour that they're unlikely to face any repercussions for taking down other peoples' content from legal distribution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:36am
    
    It's Sony
    Sony is well-known for the Sony rootkit. Given their past, it's a little harder to simply accept this as a "clerical error".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:42am
      
      Re: It's Sony
      Since they were using it to demo their 4K TVs, somebody at Sony probably figured that Sony made it, because why would Sony use open source? They hate open source.
      
      (Sony is still on my lifetime ban list.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: It's Sony
        "somebody at Sony probably figured that Sony made it"
        
        That's my opinion too. It probably went like this: someone tasked with obtaining demo content threw in a couple of free movies either for budgetary reasons or because they personally liked the content. Further down the line, someone else was tasked with ensuring nobody pirated the content they were using, and didn't check the actual licencing and ownership before adding it to the ContentID block. Given the corporate culture in many of these companies, I doubt the person who did that even realised that such a thing as legal free animated content even existed, let alone that Sony didn't have any copyright claim on it.
        
        That's no excuse for what happened, of course, but I'm of the mind that this was a mistake rather than a deliberate conspiracy.
        
        "why would Sony use open source? They hate open source"
        
        Not really. http://www.sony.net/Products/Linux/common/search.html
        
        Like any corporation, they're interested in what is best for them. They seem to go back and forth on the subject of FOSS, but they're not a hive mind. Most people on the technical side probably have some affection for open source, but it probably doesn't sit well with the "control everything" corporate mindset.
        
        Again, this is probably mere ignorance on the part of whoever added the movie to the ContentID filter - the automated system and lack of pre-takedown oversight did the rest. Unacceptable, but not unfixable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: It's Sony
        "Sony is still on my lifetime ban list."
        
        I heard that! The rootkit put 'em there for me. This just makes their ban lifetime plus 100 years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just Another Anonymous Troll, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: It's Sony
        You must really hate Sony. That's longer than copyrights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Sony
        Give them time, they're working to make them longer...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Sony
        I don't buy Sony for the exact same reason. It's not a matter of hate at all, though. It's entirely practical. Sony has shown that they can't even be trusted to meet the low bar of "don't hack my systems". It would be foolish to ever trust them again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        James Jensen (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Sony
        It's amazing what Sony does with very little backlash. Rootkits, removing an advertised feature, securing PSN so poorly� and I've always thought that if Sony had decided to try with the PS4 what Microsoft did with the Xbone, they would have gotten away with it. It'd have hurt their market share, but not by that much, I think, and it would have set the standard for everyone to do it the next time around.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Sony
        There was quite a lot of backlash to the rootkit, actually. That's why they stopped doing it pretty quickly after it was discovered.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:33am

they did it simply because they can, knowing they wont receive any sort of punishment or retaliation for abusing the take down procedure. congress wont do anything because they are happy to carry on receiving the back handers from the entertainment industries and others for implementing no abuse punishments. talk about helping friends in certain places! this stands out like a poodles plums!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:34am

Any decent company
With the resources they have I would think Sony could afford to make a big contribution to Sintel and not again have their name dragged through the dirt as has happened so many times over the last few years.

Maybe what Google should do is make sure that no video is taken off YouTube unless the person that uploaded it is advised why the content is infringing and has the opportunity to fight it. Also, maybe stopping taking down content that is under 30 minutes long would be a start of a solution as to what is fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:39am

Jerk algorithm
Sony's ContentID program flagged a Madonna cover I put it up, claiming that the audio contained Oasis' Don't Look Back in Anger.

I'm kinda thinking a machine made that dispute. One would think a human would have selected the right content, being as the track name is in the title. My channel is specifically not monetized, people!

I'm so glad we've automated jerkiness. Maybe that will free up people to get back to being nice to one another, now that the machines are responsible for jerkiness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:56am

Competition
Sony must be afraid crowd-sourced talent will produce a better movie than anything they produce. "Must stop this before the peasants get revolting!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:57am

Maximalists will hold a parade with signs reading "anomaly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:19am
  
  Re:
  What do you have when you have a vast number of anomalies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Jensen (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Depends. If you're honest, you change paradigms. If you're dishonest, you spread FUD until everyone's too scared to talk about it.
    
    It takes a lot of courage to say there are only four lights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - beltorak (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I've always thought that if I were the cardassian, seeing picard's unbreakable resolve, i would have put up a fifth light... especially for the last "enhanced interrogation" interview when all the cardassian's desires were focused on the single remaining goal of breaking picard before the end.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - James Jensen (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah. Better still, find some way to have a fifth light appear only when Picard was by himself. That'd really mess with your head.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        beltorak (profile), 9 Apr 2014 @ 11:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think that would be too difficult - the trick relies on having the light turn on without the victim (*ahem*, excuse me) interviewee being able to define when it came on. If it appears and disappears with any regularity or predictable pattern or in conjunction with other observable events, the ... honored guest can attempt to apply the scientific method to discover when the light appears and disappears. Being able to reason out a causal relationship behind a variation of any aspect of one's environment - no matter how trivial - can help the ... chosen individual regain a sense of some measure of control over one's environment. When breaking someone's will (*cough cough*, pardon me) engaging in an enhanced debate to enlighten someone [ha! puns!], it is important to instill a sense of powerlessness (*eek*, forgiveness, i beg) remove any inducements to irrelevant mental strain that could distract our charge from the topic at hand.
        
        Alternatively, if you could somehow recognize exactly when the ... recipient of our attentive ministrations can begin to see all five lights, begin a new dialogue at some point in the future (after a slightly longer, but not definably so, intermission) arguing that there are only four. It may be necessary to invent some plausible reason to abruptly remove yourself from the conversation and terminate this most recent interview. Have one of your ... employees page you with an urgent matter, appear slightly distracted when you start out, and be sure to leave before the individual can fight through the momentary confusion and challenge you on your apparent reversal. Attempts by the individual to point out any inconsistency in your assertions should always be met with increasingly irritated denials; e.g.: "there have always been four lights". It may also be helpful to, in the few interviews immediately prior to the assertion reversal, be vague about the specific number of lights an focus more on the incorrectness and stubbornness of your interlocutor.
        
        Note that this trick may only be usable once.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    one big anomaly
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Proof that piracy is rampant! :/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:18am

Theft and Stealing
They say piracy is Theft and Stealing.

Falsely taking down someone else's content is much more a case of Theft and Stealing than piracy.

In the case of false takedowns, someone else's entire work is removed from their entire audience. And if they derive income from it, then their entire income from it as well.

Piracy, at worst, never takes away the entire work, the entire audience or the entire income stream. And it very likely doesn't take away any of these. The pirates are people who would not have bought it anyway. And that might simply be due to excessively high prices, inconvenient purchasing, inconvenient access, inability to put it on all your devices, region restrictions, availability windows, unskippable commercials on content you paid for, and unskippable "YOU MUST BE A PIRATE!" accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:42am

As to why the video was perhaps blocked someone suggested this as a possibility in the Youtube comments.

Janne Grunau
5 hours ago

writes

"Apparently the 4k version of Sintel is in Sony's 4k show case library. I'd guess someone decided to submit that as Sony's content to content-I'd. Copyfraud."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  and this is why IP is bad. It's perfectly OK for Sony to steal content from others but the moment Sony falsely thinks someone infringed on what they believed to be their content they issue a takedown without even doing the necessary work to ensure that they do own the content. and the result is that they will probably receive little to no punishment from our broken legal system, their only 'punishment' is public backlash. It should be the legal system that they should be afraid of and not public backlash. Yet the legal system could potentially impose disproportionate fines if you are caught infringing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  As to why the video was perhaps blocked someone suggested this as a possibility in the Youtube comments.
  
  Yes, we explained that in the 3rd paragraph of our story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:49am

Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
Why can't Youtube have an option when a video is uploaded to have the user (provided they input their identity) able to claim they own any/all copyrights on the video. Basically a way for them to pre-fill out a DCMA counter claim notice in an effort to slow down all of the copyright/DCMA trolls?

Seems like if you held the user liable for perjury. Then it would be up to the DCMA filer to file a lawsuit rather than a DCMA notice. In other words, this would be done at the user's risk. It would slow down the DCMA guys, but it would also allow them to potentially claim willful infringement (if it is infringement).

It's a dangerous tradeoff for the user, but it would be for obvious uses where someone having a copyright claim are rediculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
  "Why can't Youtube have an option when a video is uploaded to have the user (provided they input their identity) able to claim they own any/all copyrights on the video. "
  
  Don't they already do that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:45am
    
    Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
    I think AC might be talking about something more proactive. Maybe being able to claim that the uploader owns all copyright to the content during upload. That way, when something like this comes along, the counter notice has already been set and it would need to go to the next step.
    
    I like that idea. "I attest, under risk of loss of account, that I own all copyright to the uploaded content or that I have readily available proof of license to the content uploaded." Should probably throw something in there about fair use, bu that's a gray area and should probably be handled in a case by case bases.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - beltorak (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
      I believe, if you read the TOS, the very act of uploading already asserts that you have permission to upload; either because you own the copyright or have permission from the owner.
      
      How would this "I attest, under risk of loss of account, that I own all copyright to the uploaded content or that I have readily available proof of license to the content uploaded." feature work? A checkbox? what's to stop the actual (accidental or intentional) infringers from checking that box? In which case it may as well always be checked, because if you don't have the permission to upload it then you are not allowed to upload it!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
        " In which case it may as well always be checked, because if you don't have the permission to upload it then you are not allowed to upload it! "
        
        The difference here is permission versus ownership. If you own the copyright, then no one else should be able to lay claim to it. You're not using fair use or something similar as a defense for uploading it, you're calling it yours.
        
        The idea is to premptively file the information required for a DCMA claim no matter who files. In a permission or fair use claim, the owner still may have a claim to remove the copyright, so you can't make a blanket DCMA counter by claiming ownership.
        
        In essence it would be for private videos (that don't contain copyrighted songs, clips, etc), open videos like this, or (worse) streams. I just feel like there are some bogus DCMA notices that common sense would be able to prevent if the user had the ability to say they owned the copyrights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
        I just feel like there are some bogus DCMA notices that common sense would be able to prevent
        
        This problem was caused by contentid, Where Sony added Sintel to the list of content over which it held copyright. It was not reviewed by Youtube.
        When it comes to actual DMCA notices Google/Youtube receive so many that other than a cursory glance, they are not checked by their staff. I suspect that the legacy industries are trying to bury them under DMCA notices, as it is a way they have of Increasing Google's costs in a effort to get them to do exactly what they want, that is grant them control over Google search results, and Youtube Content.
        In other words, Google/Youtube cannot verify Contentid claims, or DMCA notices, they simply cannot afford enough qualified staff to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2014 @ 8:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....
        Agreed, that's why I'm saying the user (at their own risk) should be able to remove some of that burden. In other words, I'm trying to help Google/Youtube out...
        
        The legacy industries would gain more as well, but they would have to do a little more work (lawsuit against willful infringement).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phil, 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:27am

Once you get past all the bull with Sony you realize the movie plot sucks and the animation looks like a video game cut scene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, there we are. I was wondering what happened to the "I don't like this piece of art, so the artists are OK to have their rights removed" defence.
  
  "the movie plot sucks and the animation looks like a video game cut scene."
  
  The same can be said for many movies at the cinema nowadays. So?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re:
  Sintel was made to drive the development of Blender, and it's capabilities. Plot, and continuity etc, were secondary to these objectives. That said its video quality is such that Sony are using it as a demo video for 4k TV's.
  
  PS, if you think you can do a better job, all the rigged models etc. are available for you to use to make your own video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D�Oliveiro, 7 Apr 2014 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Plot, and continuity etc, were secondary
    Yet it still managed to win a few critical awards...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:02am

I HAVE A SOLUTION
HOW about a 3 strikes rule for abusing Sending out these notices?\
LETS make it 200 strikes PER YEAR..
THEN they cant send anymore notices..THIS could also be in the CONTRACT for the Corp..that way it bypasses the LAW..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 12:50pm

Change content ID
Youtube needs to change to a notice system whereby the copyright holder gets an email notices that say:

Dear Dumbass,
Since you're too lazy to do your own job, here's a video that may include some of your content. If you wish to file a DCMA claim, please click on the link below."

That way, they actually have to open themselves up to liability.

Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 12:55pm

This is all nothing more than baying at the moon. Until a major corporation gets involved, with infinite money, in fighting these violations, they will continue. Why? Because they can. Because they get away with it. Because no one can afford to challenge them in court. Because it makes them lots of (stolen) advertising money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digger, 7 Apr 2014 @ 1:39pm

Fix for False DMCA Claims
Any Corporation (not individual) that files a false DMCA claim effectively donaits 100% of all of their copyrighted and patented content straight to the public domain.

That's right kiddies, 1 strike and you no longer own any copyrights or patents and the world is a better place.

Now the asshats @ Sony will have to triple, quadruple and even 1google-plex check before making a DMCA takedown claim.

I for one look forward to Disney's next false takedown notice. Imagine all that material returning to the public domain with zero recourse to get it back. I love it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2014 @ 2:23pm

Stop trying to fucking break the internet "gramps"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2014 @ 1:29am

Slashdot beta
Why the fuck are you linking to Slashdot's beta site? Nobody should ever go there and if it ever just becomes "the site" everyone should boycott Slashdot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]