Houston, We Have A Copyright Problem

from the not-this-again dept

Wed, Jun 25th 2014 8:59am — Mike Masnick

Parker Higgins has a troubling story over at Medium about how he received a bogus copyright takedown on a recording of the famous "Houston, we have a problem" audio snippet from the Apollo 13 mission, which Higgins had uploaded to his Soundcloud page. As Higgins notes, the audio is clearly, without any doubt, in the public domain and free from any and all copyright restrictions -- yet it was still taken down. This is particularly stupid on a variety of levels. Not only is Higgins an activist with EFF who works on copyright policy, his job before that was working for Soundcloud, in part helping them get more historical archival footage on the site! The takedown itself was obviously questionable, given the nature of the content, but bizarrely, whoever sent the claim in claimed to be the crew of the mission itself:

Perhaps more annoying, as Higgins notes, is that the reasons that Soundcloud gives for disputing the takedown... don't apply in this situation, because they all assume copyright:

As Higgins notes this shows the rather nasty assumptions of "permission" culture that everything must have a copyright and everything must be licensed:

It's a dangerous myth, that we should all need permission any time we're getting value out of a piece of culture. And it's one that gets entrenched deeper each time we accept the idea that we're able to make use of a work because a copyright owner is or would be OK with it, and not just because we have a basic right to participate in culture that is more fundamental than anybody else's desire to maximize profits.

Every time we discuss the public domain and how it's increasingly difficult to (a) get anything new into the public domain or (b) determine if something is in the public domain, people seem to dismiss this, as if it's not really a problem. But it is a big problem -- and much of it brought about because of our over aggressive copyright laws, and the potential liability it puts on companies.

We've lost a valuable chunk of the public domain, then, even without the complicity of online services. But those sites feel pressure, too: the minimum they must do to stay inside copyright “safe harbors” is prescribed by law, and many go further in efforts to be on good terms with media companies. That looks like overzealous algorithmic copyright enforcement, like the automated system that caught my upload after some partner presumably laid claim to it (and who knows how much else).

Even as these companies and services strive to be massively accessible public spaces—SoundCloud bills itself as “the world's leading social sound platform where anyone can create sounds and share them everywhere”—they reflect mostly corporate priorities, because they face far too little pressure from the other side. That is, from users who wish to participate in culture, and who don't want to be treated like criminals.

This sense of copyright being the default and everything else the exception is backwards. It was never intended to be that way. In fact, the system was explicitly designed to be the reverse. It is supposed to be about providing limited protections for the purpose of benefiting the public. But now it's turned into a giant "minefield" in which everything is simply a potential liability, creating a dangerous "permission culture," that chills speech and innovation.

Higgins titled his essay on this, Houston, we have a public domain problem -- but the public domain is not the problem here. The problem is the overaggressive nature of copyright laws that have totally flipped the equation. Copyright is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. And yet, decades of fierce lobbying has completely changed that around, much to the detriment of arts, culture and innovation.

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: apollo 13, copyright, culture, dmca, historical recordings, parker higgins, public domain, takedown
Companies: soundcloud

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Trevor, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:04am

Artist: The Crew of Apollo 13

I hear they're playing at Lollapalooza this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:05am

honeypot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:06am

How come nothing on SCOTUS going 6-3 against Aereo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  They probably want to take the time to write a good insightful article instead of merely reporting that news?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  Have you seen how long and thorough Mike's analyses are of big case decisions? Everything I've seen so far online about the decision has been short blurbs or a few paragraphs. I don't know that anyone has had enough time to put together a real piece on it yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    There's not a lot to say. It's a total beatdown. Even the dissenting opinion called into question their business model.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike seemed to have found something to say and a lot to quote. That takes time and thought: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140625/09340227683/supreme-court-uses-bizarre-looks-like-cable-d uck-test-to-outlaw-aereo.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re:
  Then comment on the relevant article, dumbfuck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:23am

OK, Everyone Take a Deep Breath
In the crew's defense, carbon dioxide buildup is affecting their judgment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: OK, Everyone Take a Deep Breath
  Putting a square peg into a round hole is a pretty good analogy for public domain and modern copyright law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:29am

Wouldn't "The copyright work has been mistakenly identified" fit in this situation? Adding a note saying "The audio in question is blatantly in the public domain, so no copyright can apply" should be enough.

Or does soundclound not work that way? Do they not allow making extra arguments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  "The copyright work has been mistakenly identified"
  
  One could argue that that would only apply to a work that is under copyright, not a work that is in the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RD, 25 Jun 2014 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This, a MILLION FUCKING TIMES.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 26 Jun 2014 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re:
  The last reason in the list would be more accurate. Since the sound clip is in the public domain, EVERYONE has a license to use it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John85851 (profile), 27 Jun 2014 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re:
  Well, sure, writing them an e-mail and explaining that copyright doesn't apply is one solution. Though the sound file (and maybe the entire account) will be down while SoundCloud decides on whether the claim or dispute is valid.
  
  The better solution would have been for SoundCloud to tell the fraudulent "copyright holder" to go jump in a lake. But as Mike said, if they did this, they open themselves up to liability if the person decided to push the issue.
  So, to save their own a***, SoundCloud errs on the site of copyright claims.
  
  Of course, this mess could be avoided if hosting companies required more proof than a simple takedown request. If the "copyright holder" says he's part of the Apollo 13 crew and owns the copyright, let's see some proof.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manok, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:31am

No, no, I've clearly heard Tom Hanks say it in some movie, and that derivative work then of course entered copyright. The fact that NASA doesn't claim copyright... silly them... now the movie studio was first-to-file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  It don't work that way. Did he use the bite from the movie, or the mission? I think the actual mission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 26 Jun 2014 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re:
  NASA didn't have the copyright because by law nothing they produce can be copyrighted. It's automatically public domain right from the start.
  
  Someone using that public domain content in a movie doesn't give them any rights to the public domain content -- although they might have copyright on a clip of Tom Hanks saying those words.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jessie (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:35am

Ask not what copyright can do for you, ask what copyright can do for big media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 9:44am

is why i use only opensource sites and things. It's a you have permission by default culture and it fucking rocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 11:04am
  
  Re:
  This doesn't fix the problem. It just avoids it. It's no real solution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 10:09am

i need to make you all aware that i have the rights to the word 'the'. you should refrain from using the word until my attorneys have completed arrangements for licensing. right now they are still working on the alphabet and numerals six through nine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2014 @ 12:26pm

I wonder how long SoundCloud will remain a popular site. There's the bogus takedown notices including the removal of works by the original artist.
http://ragetracks.com/blogs/70-of-kaskades-soundcloud-removed/

I've also heard of people's accts. being removed for posting mashups (mixes/edits of 2 or more songs to make a new song). They've also removed people's dj mix sets.

I'm a working dj and on a facebook group I'm in for djs in my town there's already discussion of moving to other services since soundcloud is becoming shaky ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaine (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 1:58pm

It's easy
You are the copyright owner, so am I.

If everything must have a copyright, then the copyright for anything in the public domain is owned by the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Muir (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 3:07pm

Valid Reasons to Dispute a Claim
I am part of the public. The work is in the public domain. Therefore, I choose option 1: I am the copyright owner. In other words, I have the right to copy this snippet of culture.

If the "permission culture" is so firmly entrenched, maybe we have to push back creatively against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2014 @ 6:59am
  
  Re: Valid Reasons to Dispute a Claim
  The government doesn't care at all about the public. Do you grease the palms of politicians? No? Then get lost!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homer (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 6:15pm

Same thing happened to me
Except in my case the fraudulent claim was over a JFK speech in the public domain.

http://torrentfreak.com/music-distributor-claims-right-to-monetize-jfk-speech-140511/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damien Y. Bizeau, 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:20am

Damien Y. Bizeau
The N.A.S.A is a highly respectable entity. It is a large U.S agency with a good global influence usually. I clearly recall my tour at Cape Canaveral in Florida twenty five years ago, it was very well organized. The N.A.S.A, "Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum" in Washington D.C is definitely very interesting too in my opinion! Thank you for considering that when you deal with the N.A.S.A you are "subject to America" at some of its finest level! This is what I have recently concluded from my personal experience in terms of copyrights; the international matter I have been implicated in with the N.A.S.A since 2004 was "no good" because there is still no Common Internet International Laws, which is a huge problem that will be very challenging to solve I think. Damien Y. Bizeau.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]