Wesnoth trailer banned from Youtube by Viacom

Post by **zookeeper** » February 12th, 2007, 8:22 am

For goodness' sake. Let's just ban YouTube from our part, they're idiots.

Post by **irrevenant** » February 12th, 2007, 8:52 am

zookeeper wrote:For goodness' sake. Let's just ban YouTube from our part, they're idiots.

Surely that would be a Lose/Lose. YouTube can be beneficial to Wesnoth - why should we 'punish' them for doing what they need to to protect themselves from a stupid law?

Post by **zookeeper** » February 12th, 2007, 9:01 am

irrevenant wrote:
zookeeper wrote:For goodness' sake. Let's just ban YouTube from our part, they're idiots.
Surely that would be a Lose/Lose.

Well, not necessarily, we can just use some other video hosting site. I'm sure they exist?

irrevenant wrote:YouTube can be beneficial to Wesnoth - why should we 'punish' them for doing what they need to to protect themselves from a stupid law?

Does the DMCA somehow force them to remove non-infringing content without warning upon arbitrary requests? I'm guessing it doesn't, in which case the blame falls on YouTube. No worries though, the blame is of course equally much on Viacom, and I'd boycott it at least as much, if not more.

nightcrawler · Post by **nightcrawler** » February 12th, 2007, 10:38 am

[imagine a string of bug-eye emoticons here]

I had absolutely no idea this had happened! I suspect the keyword "lotr" triggered it. However, since there is no copyright issue, even with the use of the "lotr" keyword, it should be a simple fix. I'll take care of it.

Post by **irrevenant** » February 12th, 2007, 10:47 am

zookeeper wrote:
irrevenant wrote: Surely that would be a Lose/Lose.
Well, not necessarily, we can just use some other video hosting site. I'm sure they exist?

Yup. And there are other auction sites than eBay, but I wouldn't want to sell things through them.

According to Alexa YouTube is the #5 most popular site - not 5th most popular video hosting site - 5th most popular site.

nightcrawler wrote:[imagine a string of bug-eye emoticons here]

I had absolutely no idea this had happened! I suspect the keyword "lotr" triggered it. However, since there is no copyright issue, even with the use of the "lotr" keyword, it should be a simple fix. I'll take care of it.

Thanks man.

Post by **radoz** » February 12th, 2007, 4:24 pm

Thanks for the PM, Duffchong. What a bunch of a**hats. How dare those media content mafiosi shut down a free, GPL, whatever licensed video. And, of course, Viacom is not to be liable for that action, right?

Suing kids for sharing three mp3s and threatening them with jail on every DVD, but on the other hand a simple e-mail from the gods of copyright is good enough to kill GPL content.

Yes, a rant. I'm furious.

Post by **irrevenant** » February 12th, 2007, 7:40 pm

radoz wrote:Suing kids for sharing three mp3s and threatening them with jail on every DVD, but on the other hand a simple e-mail from the gods of copyright is good enough to kill GPL content.
Yes, a rant. I'm furious.

Understandable. But there is a Counter-Notification process to deal with mistakes.

Post by **radoz** » February 12th, 2007, 8:00 pm

irrevenant wrote: Understandable. But there is a Counter-Notification process to deal with mistakes.

I can't do that. I made that clip, but never uploaded it to youtube. I understand the uploader has to notify them? If someone else uploads it now, all views, links etc. will be history.

irrevenant wrote: 1. A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
2. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
3. A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
4. The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

I wonder if they had all this on file from the Viacom folks, prior to deleting content in their name. I don't think so.

I'm not angry with youtube, I just can't believe that someone who uploaded GPL content that got deleted because of false claims by Viacom must now kneel before the high court, send in a ton of documents to "proof" his innocence. Reversal of the burden of proof I'd call that.

Post by **torangan** » February 12th, 2007, 8:54 pm

Actually they're just doing the same as we. In doubt remove the stuff and don't violate any copyrights. That's why anybody who wanted to do a campaign based on some other story would have to proof that it's legal first.

catwhowalksbyhimself · February 12th, 2007, 10:44 pm

Yes, but we actually know that the story is based on copyright first, we don't pull things off that aren't.

It doesn't really matter. These and other things are conspiring to hurt youtube. I honestly think there's a good chance that it will ultimately fail, although much of the fault is not really theirs.

nightcrawler · Post by **nightcrawler** » February 14th, 2007, 2:50 am

The shot has been cast across the bow. We'll see in about 3 weeks what happens.

Post by **Viliam** » February 19th, 2007, 7:40 pm

I have sent an e-mail about this to EFF, and today I received their answer. The important part is:

EFF wrote:If you're interested in getting your video back on YouTube and making sure they record this as a Viacom mistake, you might want to take a look at this explanation of your rights under the DMCA, especially the option to provide a "counter-notice" to YouTube:

<http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/td.php>

IMHO "getting your video back on YouTube" is not necessary, but "making sure they record this as a Viacom mistake" could perhaps be worth the time for someone.

Keelta MacRonan · February 19th, 2007, 10:52 pm

Put it on http://www.videosift.com . Unless Viacom sued them too. Probably. I haven't checked there for the Daily Show yet. Does anyone know?

Post by **Viliam** » February 20th, 2007, 10:45 pm

Keelta MacRonan wrote:Put it on http://www.videosift.com .

The videos are out there, so we do not have the problem where to publish them. It's just... if someone would like to spend his time for some small revenge... maybe if lot of people would complain about Viacom, something would happen. Not sure what; but probably YouTube could use those complaints against Viacom somehow.

http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/Trailer
here are 3 links to trailer online

Imp · Post by **Imp** » February 21st, 2007, 1:58 am

What's wrong with good old Google Video?