Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Sends Repeat Infringers To Copyright School

Comments Filter:
  • Finally. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BitterOak (537666) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:27PM (#35822410)

    Finally, a sensible approach to copyright infringement. Instead of suing everyone in sight into oblivion, they've decided to follow the model used by traffic police. Force violators to attend "school" and try to educate them about the law and the dangers of violating it, instead of the shoot first, ask questions later approach.

    I'm sure this won't work for everyone, but hopefully it will save a good number of people from being bankrupted.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Force violators to attend "school" and try to educate them about the law and the dangers of violating it

      For copyright infringement? what dangers?

      • For copyright infringement? what dangers?

        The danger of being sentenced to watch those hybrid Rick Roll & Tube Girl videos. [shudder]

      • by bunratty (545641)
        The danger of being sued.
        • You get into a lot of trouble.
          That' the law's purpose. That's why it exists. They made up a law to get people in trouble for doing harmless stuff.
          That video taught me that.

          I say we listen to the fine video and abolish such a law.
          It is clearly evil and endangers people and sea otters by making them juggle piranhas while firing themselves from a cannon.
          It also promotes property damage and spontaneous litigation.

        • "The danger of being sued." Exactly! And the first critical lesson in copyright school is... Don't upload anything involving Metallica in any way, shape, or form.

          • Nah, the first lesson is not to watch or listen to anything which involves Metallica in any way, shape or form... :)

    • Re:Finally. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bieber (998013) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:37PM (#35822510)
      Neither solution makes any sense. Mandatory traffic school is no better a remedy for traffic violations than this "copyright school" is for copyright infringement. Not that the two are really comparable, because no one is going to be forced to watch these videos in lieu of being fined, but lets go with the analogy for now. People don't violate traffic laws because they don't understand them, they violate traffic laws because they don't think they'll get caught. Same goes for copyright. "Educating" infringers about laws they almost certainly already understand isn't going to do anything...well, I guess in the case of traffic violations it makes for an effective transfer of money from citizens to the companies that run the traffic schools...
      • Re:Finally. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Thursday April 14, 2011 @06:22PM (#35822896) Journal

        There are further, and quite massive differences. Speed limits are a good idea, and, barring things like speed traps, are mostly fair. They make our roads safer. We have studies showing that there are fewer fatalities when speeds are lower. Saves gas too, which was the original intent of the national 55 mph speed limit.

        Copyrights on the other hand, are legal fantasies, largely unenforceable on individuals. They are blatantly unfair. They cause more harm than good. What of all the works that were removed from the public domain without any compensation whatsoever to the public, each time copyright terms were extended? Robbery! Many of us understand this about copyrights, and no cheesy "educational" film is going to persuade us otherwise. I'm sure Google understands these films are nothing more than bad jokes at best, offensive to our intelligence and common sense. The propaganda is so badly done it should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent kids. Couldn't be any better than Capt. Copyright! It's little better than forcing rape victims to watch films implying it is all their fault because they didn't dress appropriately. But if it serves to appease the idiotic copyright extremists who might well be the only people on the planet who actually believe these films will win others over, while backfiring by helping to persuade more people that copyright laws are crazy, Google likes that. And so should we.

        • by N1AK (864906)

          It's little better than forcing rape victims to watch films implying it is all their fault because they didn't dress appropriately. But if it serves to appease the idiotic copyright extremists

          You're comparing asking people not to breach copyright with blaming victims for the occurrence of crime.... talking of idiotic extremism.

      • Re:Finally. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by somersault (912633) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @06:34PM (#35823000) Homepage Journal

        People really don't understand copyright - I've seen hundreds of videos with things like "I DO NOT OWN THIS SONG", "No Copyright infringement intended" etc. Admitting you don't own a song does not make it legal to copy it, and you are taking part in copyright infringement just by uploading a video you don't have copyright on. Whenever I've tried to point this out to people, I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded" type responses from morons.

        • I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded"

          Well, that's what you get for participating in YouTube comments.

          I think it goes to show people do understand copyright - at least, they understand the moral premise that copyright should be based on, which is the right to be identified as the author of a work.

        • Re:Finally. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sco08y (615665) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @08:21PM (#35823962)

          I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded" type responses from morons.

          I call bullshit. Even on the odd chance one of them didn't abbreviate "your" as "ur", no one commenting on Youtube uses apostrophes correctly.

        • Admitting you don't own a song does not make it legal to copy it

          However, as I understand it, good faith in identifying an underlying work's author does score brownie points for the "character of the use" factor if you are trying to build a fair use rationale for your transformative work.

          • by tehcyder (746570)

            Admitting you don't own a song does not make it legal to copy it

            However, as I understand it, good faith in identifying an underlying work's author does score brownie points for the "character of the use" factor if you are trying to build a fair use rationale for your transformative work.

            The definition of "fair use" is not "I couldn't find out who owns the copyright so I copied it wholesale anyway".

        • by Legion303 (97901)

          "Whenever I've tried to point this out to people, I get the usual Idiocracy 'you're a fag and your shit's all retarded' type responses from morons."

          Welcome to Youtube, the biggest pile of stupid commenters since IMDB.

        • by Isaac-1 (233099)

          No one understands copyright law, for that matter no one understands the law any more. Last weekend I was boxing up some old law books, specifically a copy of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations from about 15 years ago, this process took a couple of hours, resulted in 30+ linear feet of open shelf space. This is just the U.S. federal laws, not cases about interpreting the laws, or implementations of the law.

      • by Asic Eng (193332)

        in the case of traffic violations it makes for an effective transfer of money from citizens to the companies that run the traffic schools...

        It also acts as a deterrent: if you don't stick to the rules you'll have your time wasted.

      • by RajivSLK (398494)
        People don't violate traffic laws because they don't understand them, they violate traffic laws because they don't think they'll get caught.

        I think you are missing the point of traffic school. Largely it's not to educated people on the laws it's to educate them on the potentially fatal consequences of their actions. Something that a lot of people don't understand. I'd wager that most people in traffic school have never been in a serve collision, had a loved on die, or understand 1/2mv^2 very well.
      • by devent (1627873)

        What about the people who thinks that the current copyright laws are immoral and should not be accepted as a form of civil protest? Like the people who demonstrate in Egypt. Not that I make the situation in Egypt the same as the situation in Germany, but copyright law is of high concern to me because it invades my privacy and restricts my freedom unnecessary.

        • What about the people who thinks that the current copyright laws are immoral and should not be accepted as a form of civil protest?

          Yeah, that's what I think of when I think of copyright violators: "Courageous Freedom Fighters."

          Like the people who demonstrate in Egypt

          Here's the difference: The protestors in Egypt bravely marched in the streets, staring down heavily armed soldiers. Copyright violators cower in their parents' basements, staring down bags of Doritos.

      • by mangu (126918)

        People don't violate traffic laws because they don't understand them, they violate traffic laws because they don't think they'll get caught

        That's true for some laws, but not all of them. For instance, how many drivers understand the exceptions for speed limits when overtaking? How many drivers understand that, if someone passes you on the right side, you are the driver who is violating the law? The general assumption is that the driver who generally behaves like an asshole is always right, and the driver who shows more ability to control the car and more awareness of what's happening around him on the road is in violation.

        A similar situation e

      • by LBU.Zorro (585180)

        Two words for you: wilful infringement

        Once you have had the education about copyright and how what you are doing is bad you can no longer claim that you didn't realise, or didn't understand. You are educated, and there is a record of your education.

        And as I understand it, wilful infringement hits you with triple damages... Hmm, well it appears to be that way for patent infringement but a quick scan doesn't seem to have the triple damages rule for wilful copyright infringement but does impact your damages.

        There is a point to it, quite a nasty one.

        1. Google gets to look good, educating the copyright infringers. Helps get the *IAAs off their back, probably because of point 2.
        2. The *IAAs get to get higher damages and lower burden of proof for repeating offenders. After all if you've violated copyright many times before and been educated it's going to have a bearing on the trial judge and jury.

        Z.

    • Pffft! The only sensible approach now is an alternative to youtube that's more resistant to this bullshit. Some 'distributed' format maybe. Gotta be encrypted, or at least well hidden.

      • by Tetsujin (103070)

        Pffft! The only sensible approach now is an alternative to youtube that's more resistant to this bullshit. Some 'distributed' format maybe. Gotta be encrypted, or at least well hidden.

        Oh, that site rolled out five years ago. But if you don't already know about it I'm not allowed to tell you any details. :)

      • by Baseclass (785652)
        Dailymotion [dailymotion.com] is less restrictive and you can even show boobs :D
        However, based on France's recent draconian data retention law [bbc.co.uk] I think I'll be closing my Dailymotion account.
    • by tehcyder (746570)
      No, it's Google taking the piss out of copyright holders, as they now believe themselves to be in the driving seat.
  • To professor Eric Faden @ Bucknell University's video, A Fair(y) Use Tale [youtube.com]

    As their copyright school

  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:30PM (#35822440)

    Is force copyright owners who flag videos for no reason whatsoever to watch that as well.

  • by syousef (465911) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:34PM (#35822470) Journal

    "Hi kids, today's topic is copyright law and how we're allowed to copy anything we like because we're a multi-billion dollar company and can afford more lawyers than God, while you're just a schlep at a computer who's going to have their ass sued and thrown into jail.

    By the way have you heard of Google books....that's right if you can't find it at a used book store, chances are we've copied it to put online.

    So remember kids, don't infringe copyright. Let us do it for you, and enjoy the ads!"

    • I'm pretty sure that video isn't for kids. Given the nature of Happy Tree Friends... http://bit.ly/igdpxc [bit.ly]
      • by Nialin (570647)
        The video posted in the summary is quite suitable for the most part. There's not a loose eyeball, drop of blood, splintered bone, or bit of brain matter to be seen anywhere.
        The video sucks doubly for that reason...
    • by blair1q (305137)

      Have you ever seen what happens when some megacorporation like, say, Google, copies something from some other megacorporation like, say, Oracle?

      This. [cnet.com] The litigation of which will probably outlive the comma and result in legal fees larger than the federal debt.

      So, no, you can't make the blanket statement that corporations can just steal what they want because they have lawyers and money. Corporations have whole departments to prevent their employees from even inadvertently violating intellectual property r

      • by sco08y (615665)

        (and Hollywood ends up filming because it's realized the audience is incapable of spending money on original ideas, but really, they're only doing that because of market research, so it's the same dopes who send in their unoriginal ideas who are demanding and paying to see movies with those unoriginal ideas; it's all perfectly logical, and artless).

        You're being unduly critical of the audience.

        The reason Hollywood films are bland and derivative is because Hollywood makes blockbusters. A blockbuster might gross, say, $70 million. Now, that gross is from selling tickets at $7 a pop, meaning that they had to convince 10 million people to agree on what would be entertaining to watch.

        If Hollywood was willing to make a movie that appealed to just one tenth the number of people, they could do far more novel stuff. But, they're in it for the money, and so they

        • by blair1q (305137)

          Well, no, I'm telling you what happened to the studios in the 80s that got us to where we are today where no Major studio makes anything other than a blockbuster.

          They stopped listening to the artists and started listening, intently and without question, to the focus groups.

          And as a result every one of their movies clocks that 10% penetration, and many go to 20% or more, and if Jimmy Cameron wants to film his next turd in 4-D Shittovision he'll probably pull another $billion from the trough. They don't give

  • If this is anything like schools here are already, as soon as they show up, the doors will be locked and barred, they'll be run through the metal detectors, relieved of anything sharp or electronic, then shoveled into a cramped, hot room where they'll have to endure hours of someone talking at them and there will be no breaks to go to the bathroom. And after, you'll be fed a crappy lunch and told what a rotten person you are, and be given a letter to take home instructing everyone to love you less. Yeah,
    • If this is anything like schools here are already, as soon as they show up, the doors will be locked and barred, they'll be run through the metal detectors, relieved of anything sharp or electronic, then shoveled into a cramped, hot room where they'll have to endure hours of someone talking at them and there will be no breaks to go to the bathroom.

      That sounds like the last time I went through US Customs. And me being a US Citizen . . .

      And after, you'll be fed a crappy lunch and told what a rotten person you are, and be given a letter to take home instructing everyone to love you less.

      I thought that parents were there to tell you that. But they still won't kick you out of the basement . . .

  • by Eightbitgnosis (1571875) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:36PM (#35822500) Homepage
    Like when a certain company decides they have the right the republish every book? Where's the cute little cartoon for that lesson
    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      The weren't republishing every book; they were making every book searchable. It may have been a reach, but I think it is productive to start a discussion on what the limits of fair use are for a search engine.
  • I'm not really sure how effective it will be. The cartoon seemed more of a satire then educational. They should take a lesson from School House Rock on how to make educational cartoons that will be taken seriously.

  • by Dunbal (464142) * on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:44PM (#35822570)
    So are they going to send MAFIAA members to school too, when they claim that videos are infringing when actually they are making fair use?
    • by Elbereth (58257)

      Very, very few people understand what "fair use" really is.

      I'd estimate that for every hundred ignorant, entitled teenagers screaming about their fair use rights being violated, there's one person who actually does have his fair use rights violated. In my mind, that's an extremely generous and optimistic statement, because just about every single one of the screaming idiots I've seen so far thought that because they attributed the music in their video, it was now fair use. Sorry, but that's just not the w

      • by tepples (727027)

        just about every single one of the screaming idiots I've seen so far thought that because they attributed the music in their video, it was now fair use.

        Is it probably fair use if 1. you attribute the music, 2. your video includes only 20 seconds of each song in question, and 3. it is specifically about melodic similarities among multiple songs?

      • Re:Viacom (Score:4, Insightful)

        by russotto (537200) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @09:18PM (#35824406) Journal

        What really gets me is that all you have to do is ask permission. Write to your favorite band, ask them for permission to use a song that you love, and, chances are, they'll give you permission.

        Chances are they don't even own the rights, and so can't give you permission.

        • by Elbereth (58257)

          Yeah, that's a distinct possibility, when you're dealing with modern media conglomerates, like the major labels or movie studios. While that does end up clouding the issue of whom to ask, it doesn't remove responsibility to do so. If the author doesn't have distribution rights, then I'm sure he/she/they can forward your request to the appropriate party.

          I've found people using my photography without permission, and all it would have required is a simple e-mail. I've never done anything about it (life is t

    • by Tetsujin (103070)

      So are they going to send MAFIAA members to school too, when they claim that videos are infringing when actually they are making fair use?

      It's not the MAFIAA lawyers' responsibility to determine what is and isn't fair use. If you're using something in a way that you believe is fair use, defending that assertion is your problem.

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @05:53PM (#35822642)

    Many people unknowingly confess to copyright violations in their You Tube postings.

    They say things like: "I don't own this. It is owned by ViaNBCBS." That is like a total admission of guilt.

    They need Copyright School to keep them away from civil liability!!

    • by Tetsujin (103070)

      Many people unknowingly confess to copyright violations in their You Tube postings.

      I wouldn't say "unknowingly"...

      But, really, given that Google's pretty good at identifying misappropriated content, one could say the only difference between being up-front about it and being evasive about it is that in the former case you're at least giving credit where it's due... That's not gonna help you legally, I think, but I think it's ultimately a more responsible way to conduct oneself.

      Still, it's generally pretty funny when people try to legalese their way around the fact that they've just blatan

  • To the .torrent so I can watch it on my jail-broke iPad?

  • I am unable to believe that the authors of that video had any expectation whatsoever of it being taken seriously. It is clearly a parody of the heavy-handed system and ridicules the current state of affairs.

  • by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @06:41PM (#35823080)
    [Opens video.]
    [Sees Happy Tree Friends.]
    [Closes video damn fast.]
    Watching the occasional campy video at work, I can get away with. Watching something with a rep for being NSFW no matter what the content of the actual video? Not so much.
    • Actually, this one is SFW. Seriously. The worst that happens is some off-screen vomit and a cannon explosion without gore.
  • You mean like Don't download this song [youtube.com]?
  • I highly recommend that everyone use Russell and Lumpy as characters in their own videos, and upload them to YouTube. Could become a movement, y' know.
  • I make original game video on my YouTube channel, even then I get my video's claimed by people like "IMG Media UK" (google them) weekly, basically they go around throwing DMCA on video they find just to have people subscribe to them. To the point videos that aren't disputed are removed from YT.

    A few months ago another copyright troll (Kanobu Networks) tried doing this on a bunch of my videos that they ripped from my channel [youtube.com] (Yes they ripped my video, re-posted it and claimed copyright on the original vid
  • by PeeAitchPee (712652) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @08:37PM (#35824086)
    I guess when Google ignores authors' rights and digitizes millions of books at a time [google.com], it's OK, but God forbid if someone downloads a few .mp3s. The duplicity is shocking. Just another example of a fucking corporation having more rights than the individual.
  • [Click anon shortened link]

    [Sees start of Happy Tree Friends]

    [Nauseated as soon as point becomes evident]

    [Click DISLIKE button]

    "This feature is not available right now. Please try again later."

    Not to mention that comments are disabled on the video.

    Yeah. And all te googlers bonus depends on social networky success this year. ROTFL.

  • News from a future newspaper: “A man was stopped yesterday at the boarder of Italy and France, his computer was scanned and pirated material was found, mostly Adobe software and songs by Beatles. The man was arrested at the spot”

    From a poem to a drug, from an piece of software to a music record and from a film to a book, everything that’s famous and profitable, owns much of its economic value to the manipulation of the Multitudes. People haven’t asked to know what the Coca-Cola logo

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...