YouTube Yanks Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure

RevWaldo writes "The International Olympic Committee filed a copyright infringement claim yesterday against YouTube for hosting video of a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese Consulate in Manhattan Thursday night. The video depicts demonstrators conducting a candlelight vigil and projecting a protest video onto the consulate building; the projection features recent footage of Tibetan monks being arrested and riffs on the Olympic logo of the five interlocking rings, turning them into handcuffs. YouTube dutifully yanked the video, but it can still be seen on Vimeo. (Be advised; there is some brief footage of bloody, injured monks.)"

I'll judge them in 3 days.

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

I think the telling point as to whether they cave to pressure from the IOC and China will be when their lawyers have a chance to review the footage and determine that there is nothing infringing going on, if they put the video back.

I'm setting a calendar event to go back and look for it in three days, and am ready to judge the G-folk harshly if they're unwilling to stick up for this obvious expression of free speech.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

I think the judgment came in a long time ago. For example: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ [lee-phillips.org] .

Google has removed videos critical of the Pakistani government at that government's request, and has many more shameful examples of political cave-in under its belt.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

It won't be back up. If it does depict the five interlocking rings as the summary states then the IOC will aggressively attack it as infringing. The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever. This will be no different. It has nothing to do with the Tibet/China angel - it's purely about the five interlocking rings. Had the video not had that imagery, I'm certain it'd be fine (from the IOC standpoint, at least).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

The IOC does not let five interlocking rings fly, no matter the context. Ever.

They don't have that right. That's the point of parody [wikipedia.org].

Jerry Falwell certainly didn't want his image used by Hustler Magazine, but he didn't have the power to stop them [wikipedia.org].

- David Stein

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

IANAL, of course... but if what these guys did isn't protected, it damn well should be. The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

Well IAAL and it clearly is protected speech, and YouTube should grow a backbone.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

Mostly true statements. However, this is false:

. Limiting their liability is something they are legally required to do for their share holders.

They are required to accurately represent the business to the shareholders. But if they said "Google/YouTube will fight for freedom of speech first, profits second", then they would have to live by that standard. I don't know what the rules on changing the nature of the company are, but stockholder value does not have to be the overriding concern. In fact, in some cases it cannot be (see the Microsoft offer to Yahoo!).

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

It wouldn't surprise me if the legal situation at YouTube was that they yank any clip against which there is a properly filed copyright complaint, and that they follow up later on the actual applicability of copyright law.

I work for a web hosting company and thus have some exposure to this type of thing.

In a nutshell, you're entirely correct. Under the DMCA, providers are required by law to remove the "offending" material upon receipt of an infringement notice. If they don't, they become liable for infringement as well. No real proof of ownership is required, the author of the notice simply has to say it belongs to them. When we receive one of these, all we do is suspend the concerned account, forward the DMCA to the customer, and then our job is done.

The only thing that makes the DMCA bearable for us is the fact that we're off the hook if our customer decides to unsuspend the account and make the content available again after receiving the notice. From then on, it's a legal battle between the alleged copyright holder and the alleged infringer.

In this case (depending on how draconian YouTube/Google decides to feel today), the user can simply re-upload the video to YouTube and if the alleged copyright holder wants to battle it further, they have to use the legal system to get subpoenas, court orders, etc for further action. (But of course IANAL, so feel free to poke holes in my understanding of the DMCA here.)

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

Whatever youtube does is hardly the issue.

Actions like this by the IOC need to hurt (or at least make fear hurt) the sponsors of the events.

Here is a sample letter I am sending (I will customize it for each business I actually work with, listing what I will now longer be purchasing.

It is a rough draft, so if you use it, edit it.

I just wanted to let you know, that as a freedom loving citizen of the world, your sponsorship of the 2008 olympic games, and more importantly, proud display of association with the International Olympic Committee is going to prevent me from using your product until any of the following happens:

1) Your company issues an official statement condemning the abuses to freedom by the IOC (this includes, but is not limited to claiming copyright infringement on a critical video that used a clearly satirical alteration of their logo, blocking/allowing to be blocked free internet access to international journalists, and allowing people to be kicked out of their homes in tremendously huge quantities).

2) The IOC behaves better at the next Olympic games.

3) The IOC officially apologizes for the same reasons mentioned in item one.

I hope that my voice is one of many (though I fear I am but one of a few) and that your companies inconsiderate pursuite of a new market ends up costing both prophits and shareholders for years to come.

Woops, almost left my sig that includes my phone number from that email.

Hope the maker of the video fights back

If I understand current US copyright law (DCMA, cough) correctly, the IOC can demand that YouTube yanks the clip now. But at least in theory, they do so under penalty of perjury.

The person who put it up can file a counterclaim and say that he believes the video does not infringe any copyright. I think fair use might cover this use of the Olympic Rings, and I'd really like to see the EFF getting behind a lawsuit in such a case.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

All right, I'll bite: is China's authoritarian system which brutally suppresses free speech and competing ideas about government any better? Does the existence of a voluntary religion justify subjugating an "autonomous region"? And, to get a little philosophical on your ass, is a religion materially different from any other faith system (like nationalism), and if not, who gets to decide which faith systems the government will crush? Oh, the government you say?

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

It's a shame you had to go too far in your post, because amongst the flamebait you do have a valid point.

Tibet was not by any stretch of the imagination a free, fair nor democratic society before the Chinese invaded. Many of Tibet's citizens are indeed wealthier, freer and healthier as a result of the invasion.

The Dalai Lamas have suppressed many things over the centuries and have protected their dictatorship bloodily. It's all about money and power. Even now, the current Dalai Lama preaches "simplicity," and the opportunity to buy his latest overpriced book on "simplicity."

A Free Tibet will be a great thing. But neither the Chinese nor the (self-appointed) Tibetan Government in Exile are in anyway truly interested in that.

So both philosophies are flawed....

But only one side invaded a sovereign nation in enforce their will upon it. That invader is by default the 'bad guy'

Sorry, that's just how it goes.

Re:In response to your sig...

Not to justify what the Chinese government does and not to say that a new Tibetan government could be a democratic one adhering to human rights, but the previous leadership in Tibet indeed was more than just a tad theocratic and therefore not democratic at all. However, Wikipedia will tell you that it is debated how bad the caste system really was. Still, as I said, that is besides the point since it was before 1950. And as a German I'd like to say: I would not want to be judged by my country's history pre 1950 either. :-S

Re:In response to your sig...

Yes it was pre-1950 but there was never a democratic government in Tibet. If China pulled out tomorrow what would happen in Tibet? One has to wonder. I remember when Germany was reunified. At first there was great joy and then everybody stopped and looked and thought... Good grief now what do we do! It was a huge mess. Imagine the same thing but without West Germany to help!
West Germany had a common heritage with East Germany to say the least and had decades of democratic government, freedom, economic reform, and economic growth. That was a best case scenario and it was still a long and complicated process.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

A couple popular ones:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html [michaelparenti.org]
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm [case.edu]

Etc., etc. Now, the fact that Tibet was formerly ruled by an oppressive, fanatical, and theocratic regime characterized by slavery doesn't make what China is doing now correct.

However, from the perspective of someone fighting for human rights, claiming that it was some sort of "peaceful paradise" can only undermine positive efforts.

Acknowledge that life in pre-China Tibet was absolutely terrible for the average person, acknowledge that life for the average Tibetan has improved dramatically in terms of education, quality of life, etc., and then, from this more realistic position, demand more.

Propping up what is understood by anyone knowledgeable about Tibet as a myth only hurts efforts to improve human rights and religious freedom in China.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

The problem with getting "The Story" on pre-1950 Tibet is that most of the information comes from two groups: The Chinese who wish to paint it as a caste system where the Lama caste mercilously ruled over the population with an iron fist; and the Tibet government in exile who want to paint the Chinese as an oppressive government mercilously ruling over the population with an iron fist.

The closest thing I have found to an independent review is this skeptoid article [skeptoid.com].

And for laughs, and an opinion not tilted by propaganda from either side, but maybe a little biased, is this Penn & Teller B*llsh*t bit [youtube.com].

The responses to the above from the Free Tibet crowd tend to go something like "But *THIS* Dalai Lama was a good one! He would have ruled with justice and compassion." Well, okay, maybe he really would. But history has shown us pretty conclusively that absolute monarchies tend to have more wicked than wonderful rulers.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

Pentavirate

Pardon the nitpick . . . I don't think that word is right. It appeared in a comedy film as a word-geek riff on secret societies and conspiracy theories. The word itself is wrong (which is the joke) because it is a build-up on triumvirate, latin for "three men". Penta, however, is a Greek prefix for 5. I think you are looking for something more like "quintumvirate".

I'll shut up now.

Re:I'll judge them in 3 days.

Because suing Amnesty International would be PR suicide?

This is pretty clear cut

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

How about accurately titling your video next time? I don't think trying to scam people looking for the opening ceremonies into viewing propaganda for your cause is the best way to get sympathy.

No, it's not really clear cut

According to the screenshot, the video was titled "Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony." It's not about censorship, it's about copyright, and was probably automatically removed based just on the title.

What, does the IOC have copyright on the word "Olympics"?

I imagine they're objecting to the image of the five colored rings that's shown in the video for a second or two. And if that's the case, this is a total abuse of a copyright infringement claim.

First, you'd think that showing the rings for a time that's probably less than 2% of the entire clip would qualify as fair use. Secondly, there's an issue of free speech. Are we no longer allowed to identify organizations by their logos?

Ambiguous title

At first I read it as "YouTube Yanks [as in Americans] Free Tibet Video After IOC Pressure". Needless to say, I was really confused until I read the description...

Abominations and Copyright

The attacks upon monks in Tibet as well as the general lack of human rights in China are a moral abomination that over ride notions of copyright. There is a thing called natural law and every human being has a deep moral obligation to stand up for the oppressed regardless of circumstances.
            If anything America and all other nations should be deeply ashamed of allowing any commerce at all with China including Olympics or other sporting events. Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.

Protected Satire

Changing the Olympic logo into handcuffs, while certainly offensive to some, is clearly protected political satire akin to flag burning. YouTube should be ashamed, and the posters of the video should counter-file that their video is protected fair use.

Re:The IOC cannot allow unofficial use of the ring

These people aren't trying to identify anything else as the Olympics. They're trying to say the IOC is complicit with suppression and torture. The Olympic rings are being used to identify who they're supposed to identify, so there's no trademark issue.

Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Dude the Olympic ideal died a long time ago. It is all about who will make millions selling sneakers.
Sorry but that is what it has turned into.
And in this case it is also to show off to the world that China is a new wealthy world power. So yes I feel that it is totally legit to bring up China's political issues.
Trust me if it was in the US and people wanted to protest by blocking the marathon their would be people on Slashdot screaming about Freedom of Speech.
As much as I like the Olympics coming to the US maybe they should just make it always in Athens.
Or maybe they should pick the poorest country with a good history of Human rights and then all the rich nations chip in to build the infrastructure and give that nation a shot in the arm.
Maybe that would bring back the spirit.