from the good-for-them dept
Of course, all the public shaming in the world isn't going to matter much if ISPs are free to clog up interconnection points and you have no real competition to go to.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jul 7th 2014 3:30pm
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Jun 24th 2014 7:58am
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Jun 20th 2014 10:00am
Wed, Jun 18th 2014 7:43am
A couple of weeks back, I brought you news that Nintendo had announced they were creating an affiliate program for YouTubers who wanted to use its content. This seemed like it might just be good news, coming on the heels of the gaming company putting the whack on tons of "let's play" videos that covered Nintendo games, because free promotion is something to be squandered, apparently. In that post, however, I noted that there were some serious concerns about how Nintendo would approach this and whether it would attempt to exert some kind of control over video content. It turns out I massively underestimated how badly Nintendo would screw this up. The first quote in the Kotaku post contains only a hint of the problem:
"Think of it as an affiliate program where we will be providing access to executives, information, etcetera, encouraging that group of affiliates to create content on our behalf," Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime told me when I asked him for details at E3.Did you spot the problem? You did, didn't you? Creating an affiliate program that generates extra access to Nintendo executives and all that isn't a bad idea, but focusing on using that access specifically to get "affiliates to create content on our behalf" sounds exactly like the reputation-murdering I had worried about when it comes to the trusted YouTuber names. If you're trading access to become a Nintendo sock-puppet, best of luck keeping your fan base. But it's when the interviewer specifically asked about "let's play" videos that Nintendo showed its true colors.
"When we unveil our affiliate program it'll be clear how different entities can play," Fils-Aime said. "And likely there will be a place for the kinds of examples where you reference, like, look, 'All I want to do is capture some of the content and put it out there,' not add a lot of value. There'll be a role for that. The first thing we needed to do was make sure that the content that's out there was representative of the franchises. These are our lifeblood. These are our children. We needed to make sure that the content there was reflective of what these franchises are. The next step is working with the YouTube community to provide access to information, access to executives, to help them create world-class content, leveraging our franchises."Note that there is no promise to actually free up all that free advertising for Nintendo in the form of "let's play" videos. All there is are a lot of maybes, might-bes, could-bes, and, oh by the way, we don't think those kind of videos actually have a whole lot of value anyway. Add on top of that a good old-fashioned dose of that Nintendo protectionism and we're right back where we started. Nintendo will allow content it likes and take down content it doesn't feel is "representative." For the YouTube personalities that have built up their reputations as game reviewers and let's-play makers, they shouldn't be touching this affiliate program with a ten-foot pole.
Wed, Apr 9th 2014 5:37am
I imagine in some room somewhere, a whole bunch of people in well-tailored suits came up with the idea of DMCA takedowns and thought it'd be just peaches. The practical application of that policy, however, has been something of a performance art piece on how intellectual property is a canard better left on the cutting room floor. YouTube in particular exemplifies this, what with their attempts to comply with rightsholders juxtaposed to a service model that just begs for case studies in inadvertent violations and strong arm attempts by confused non-rightsholders.
Peter writes in with the latest such example, concerning an uploader who put up his trek across the Brooklyn Bridge. The video was taken down for the silliest of reasons.
ANYWAY, I went through all of the trouble of uploading and editing both of these boring-ass videos to a popular Internet video hosting website, only to have the aforementioned website totally mute the Brooklyn Bridge video because there's a Michael Jackson impersonator at the foot of the bridge and he's performing to the song "Beat It," which you can hear in the background.So, someone crossing a bridge has a video of the experience that includes the decades-old song of a deceased performer being reenacted by a street performer... and down the video goes. I imagine the originators of copyright are rolling over in their graves at this point, never imagining that automated systems would trip the flag on this kind of takedown. Even imagining for a moment that this wouldn't or shouldn't be considered fair use, can someone explain to me what the point of all this is?
I'm pretty sure incidental capture of a portion of a song being played by a street performer falls under "fair use," and I've disputed it because I have nothing better to do with my life, but in the meantime I'm inspired by the knowledge that our publicly-traded companies go to such great lengths to protect the copyrights of great Americans like Michael Jackson.The reality of course is that the rights to the song are held by a third party label and this was just the automated system accidentally capturing a video that the label probably wouldn't even bother taking down itself and blah, blah, blah. All I know is this is really stupid and a hindrance to the simple sharing culture that humanity has always enjoyed. Thanks copyright.
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Mar 18th 2014 7:11am
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Mar 14th 2014 4:27pm
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Mar 14th 2014 12:39pm
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Mar 13th 2014 1:47pm
The YouTube permissions that Google has given the Home Office in recent weeks include the power to flag swaths of content “at scale” instead of only picking out individual videos.And the UK government even admits that the videos it will be taken down are not illegal:
They are in part a response to a blitz from UK security authorities to persuade internet service providers, search engines and social media sites to censor more of their own content for extremist material even if it does not always break existing laws.
The UK’s security and immigration minister, James Brokenshire, said that the British government has to do more to deal with some material “that may not be illegal, but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive”.Of course, that kind of statement shows the program is wide open to abuse. The sort of material people would not want to see or receive? Well, then they just don't watch it. Besides, who gets to decide what people would not want to see? Because there's lots of important content that a government might not want its citizens to see, but which are kind of important to a functioning democracy and open society.
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Mar 12th 2014 8:00pm
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said Facebook and YouTube could be banned following local elections in March after leaked tapes of an alleged phone call between him and his son went viral, prompting calls for his resignation.And, within a day, there was President Gul saying that such bans were not on the table:
Erdogan claims social media sites have been abused by his political enemies, in particular his former ally US-based Turkish Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, who, he says, is behind a stream of "fabricated" audio recordings posted on the internet purportedly revealing corruption in his inner circle.
"We are determined on this subject. We will not leave this nation at the mercy of YouTube and Facebook," Erdogan said in an interview late on Thursday with the Turkish broadcaster ATV. "We will take the necessary steps in the strongest way."
“Things like YouTube and Facebook are accepted all around the world, and their closure cannot be of discussion,” Mr. Gul said Friday in televised remarks. “Reversing on liberties is out of the question in Turkey. We always feel proud of reforms that enhance freedoms; they will always proceed further.”Of course, just last month, it was Gul who approved new censorship laws in Turkey. While he did get the new law amended to address some of the criticism, he still approved the final law, which has serious problems. Either way, it appears that internet censorship remains a very popular tool for insecure Turkish politicians.
Explore some core concepts:
|18:18||Let's Encrypt Releases Transparency Report -- All Zeroes Across The Board (22)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Bring Out Your Dead... (10)|
|15:52||German Court Says YouTube Isn't Liable For Infringement, But Wants A Notice-And-Staydown Process (25)|
|14:49||Leaked TPP Chapter Shows How It's A Massive Gift To Big Pharma And Against Public Health (47)|
|13:44||Nope, You Can't Patent A Generic Idea Like Crowdfunding (9)|
|12:44||Chicago Rages Against The Future With 9% Tax On Netflix, Spotify And Other Streaming Services (56)|
|12:14||As FBI Fearmongers About 'Going Dark' Because Of Encryption, Actual Wiretaps Almost Never Run Into Encryption (22)|
|10:37||MLB Network DMCAs Video Of Bob Costas Torching MLB Pitcher, Which We'll Now Discuss At Length (20)|
|10:33||Daily Deal: Striker Spy HD-Camera Drone (5)|
|09:26||David Cameron Promises To Do Away With 'Safe Spaces' On The Internet (54)|
|08:25||Amnesty International Told That GCHQ Spied On Its Communications (24)|
|07:25||How States Are Fighting To Keep Towns From Offering Their Own Broadband (23)|
|05:19||Comcast's New Voice-Controlled Remote Starts Marketing Movies To Your Kids (22)|
|01:16||What's Behind The Attack On EU's Outdoor Photography? The Usual Copyright Maximalism And Anti-Americanism (40)|
|21:16||Bob Costas Rails Against The Internet After Criticism For Going Nuclear On MLB Pitcher (30)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Playing Super Mario By Rote... Is Fun? (18)|
|15:48||Seattle City Council Member Urges Grass Roots Broadband Revolution After Ten Years Of Failing To Fix Broken Broadband Duopoly (20)|
|14:33||No Craig Newmark Did Not Donate To EFF; He Helped Make CFAA Worse Instead (24)|
|13:49||Lawsuit Filed After Export-Import Bank Official Swears He 'Accidentally' Deleted All Of His Responsive Text Messages (12)|
|12:45||Chicago Area Sheriff Who Wasted Taxpayer Money Suing Craigslist, Now Strong-Arms Payment Companies To Avoid Backpage (26)|
|11:40||TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Taken From Him By Federal Agents (76)|
|10:38||Audit Reveals Verizon Tried To Corner NYC Broadband Market By Striking Exclusive Landlord Deals (5)|
|10:31||Daily Deal: Amazon Web Services Engineer Bootcamp Bundle (0)|
|09:32||Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious (52)|
|08:31||Craziest Part Of Apple's Price Fixing Ruling: Publishers Knew They Were Encouraging Piracy, Didn't Care (65)|
|07:10||Court Tells City: No, You Cannot Sue Someone For Making A FOIA Request (11)|
|05:09||With 'Pregnant Woman Mode,' Chinese Router Maker Begins Marketing To Paranoids (53)|
|01:07||CETA Isn't Dead, But Its Corporate Sovereignty Chapter Is Still A Huge, Unresolved Problem (5)|
|21:03||It's 2015 And Congress Is Now, Finally, Allowed To Use Open Source Technologies (29)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: It's Not So Simple To Get To Mars... (15)|