Samsung Forced YouTube To Pull GTA 5 Mod Video Because It Showed Galaxy Note 7 As Bomb (redmondpie.com) 219
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Redmond Pie: The Galaxy Note 7 wasn't just recalled, it was cancelled. For good. And that makes Samsung very cranky indeed. So when YouTube user HitmanNiko created a video showing a Grand Theft Auto 5 mod in which Galaxy Note 7 handsets can be used as grenades, it's perhaps somewhat understandable that someone inside Samsung took offense to the idea. What's incomprehensible though is the fact that Samsung has apparently set about trying to erase that video, and presumably others like it, from the Internet. The first step? Forcing YouTube to remove HitmanNiko's video. Trying to view the video now does nothing but display a message which says that the video is "no longer available due to a copyright claim by Samsung Electronics America" which leaves quite the bad taste in our mouths. The biggest issue here is that this is arguably the worst misuse of the DMCA we have ever come across, simply because nothing was copied, unless Samsung is trying to claim that by making the in-game grenades look like Galaxy Note 7 smartphones then the video creator was in fact in breach of copyright.
This will backfire! (Score:5, Funny)
(uh... oops...)
GET YER VIDEOS HERE! (Score:5, Informative)
Enjoy video of this clever and humorous mod!
https://youtu.be/6EK-Qy_UZX4?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung, former darling of Slashdot, now book-burners and coverup artists.
Re: (Score:2)
There is never any love on Slashdot only temporary allies.
Unless a company sells a fully Open Source phone which is modular and allows personal hacking. However built in is everything including a 25pin Parallel port. As well at 1tb of RAM and 1eb of Storage. Battery Life 6 months without a charge. and All in a paper light and thin framework that can't be ugly.
Re:This will backfire! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes it will. Samsung just joined Sony on my "Do not buy" list.
Re:This will backfire! (Score:4, Insightful)
Samsung just joined Sony on my "Do not buy" list.
Samsung joined Sony on my 'forbidden' list when they started pushing out Smart TV firmware upgrades that had non-optional advertising built in. So I'm not surprised in the least by their recent attempt at censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
DCMA Fair Use / Parody (Score:5, Informative)
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.
Source. [slashdot.org]
If that video isn't parody I don't know what is.
That's, for better or worse, for a court to decide (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the problem here and in other cases like it.
It has to be checked-off by a court to say exactly that. Only after that step can the guy turn around and sue for damages and lost wages. It's as backward as you can get. It's putting the onus on the defense to prove that they're _not_ infringing. Assume guilt much?
Copyright law needs a top to bottom reform. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
It's putting the onus on the defense to prove that they're _not_ infringing. Assume guilt much?
I agree it is a problem but not for the reason you give. Samsung will still have to prove that the defendant infringed their copyright. The problem is one of risk. The cost of the court case is the problem here. Samsung is, for the moment ay least, a multi-billion dollar company with huge pockets. Win or lose the cost of this type of court case is a blip in their budget. However for the defendant the financial risk is huge: he could lose his life savings on a case like this.
This is the serious problem w
Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score:4, Interesting)
Even in the case of very highly-paid CEOs though, the annual salary of that employee still won't sting a big corporation like Samsung very much. Now, make it 1% of their annual revenue, and then we're talking.
Personally though, I think the DMCA could be fairly easily reworked to put some parity between the parties into the system:
1) Forbid any automated, multiple, and/or electronic takedowns. Each takedown should be for a single alleged infraction, and delivered by registered mail, FedEx, or some other similarly-reliable delivery service that provides evidence of delivery.
2) Those claims of infringement need to be made by a single, identifiable, individual. It doesn't matter if that's the actual owner or their lawyer; so long as the claim can be traced back to that person claiming, under penalty of perjury, that the content is owned and infringing.
3) Give the "under penalty of perjury" part some teeth. If the content is not actually owned by the claimant, covered by fair use, or in any other way determined to be non-infringing; the individual from step 2 above goes to jail for perjury. I think a nice schedule would be:
1st false claim: 30 days in county.
2nd false claim: 90 days in county.
3rd false claim: 1 year in state, plus felony conviction on their criminal record and disbarment if the claimant is a lawyer.
Three simple steps. And I'd bet that we'd eliminate nearly all false and frivolous DMCA claims; but, more importantly, equalize the risk and power differential between the plaintiff and defendant.
Re: (Score:3)
3) Give the "under penalty of perjury" part some teeth. If the content is not actually owned by the claimant, covered by fair use, or in any other way determined to be non-infringing; the individual from step 2 above goes to jail for perjury. I think a nice schedule would be:
1st false claim: 30 days in county.
2nd false claim: 90 days in county.
3rd false claim: 1 year in state, plus felony conviction on their criminal record and disbarment if the claimant is a lawyer.
Those teeth are too sharp. You would swing the balance too far in the opposite direction, which would gut any industry that legitimately relies on digital copyrights having value. Conceptually, the DMCA is a necessary thing, and legitimate claims are beneficial to society at large. It just happens that it was written in an absurd way that allows incredible levels of abuse, and that needs to be fixed.
IMHO, either 1 or 2 that you suggest would effectively solve the problem, though I think it would be better i
Who is the defendant (Score:2)
Samsung is, for the moment ay least, a multi-billion dollar company with huge pockets. Win or lose the cost of this type of court case is a blip in their budget. However for the defendant the financial risk is huge: he could lose his life savings on a case like this.
Isn't Youtube the defendant here?
No, it's not.
Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score:4, Informative)
Samsung is, for the moment ay least, a multi-billion dollar company with huge pockets. Win or lose the cost of this type of court case is a blip in their budget. However for the defendant the financial risk is huge: he could lose his life savings on a case like this.
Isn't Youtube the defendant here? Google could step in here.
Nope, as long as YouTube abides by the terms of the DMCA, they are shielded from liability. This means they must take down the video when they receive a copyright claim, but must reinstate the video if the author files a counter claim. At that point, Samsung's recourse would be to sue the author.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Samsung did get sued for making a parody of the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it there currently is *no* defendant - there is only a DMCA take-down notice claiming copyright infringement, and Youtube taking down the video to avoid risking becoming the target of a lawsuit as per DMCA safe harbor provisions.
I think the only way it goes to court is if the person who posted the video decides to sue Sony for making a false claim against them. And since the law is extremely lax about allowing such things (as I recall, no one has *ever* been punished for issuing a false tak
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law needs a top to bottom reform. Period.
Here's my proposal: sed '/^/d'
Seriously, copyright brings us exactly as much good as patents, and for the same reasons: a king of England got greedy and devised a way to gouge people for even more moolah while enacting censorship -- and then it got worse. The exact law differs (Statute of Anne that gave a monopoly and censorship duties to the Company of Stationers vs random "letters patent" monopolies) but their aim was the same.
Creative writing/art/etc was doing well before anyone thought of copyright.
Before copyright, no credit and no money (Score:4, Insightful)
Creative writing/art/etc was doing well before anyone thought of copyright.
No, actually it wasn't. Before copyright, writers got no credit and no money for their work. Most of the works surviving from the middle ages we don't even know who wrote them-- the authors are called things like "the Pearl poet" by scholars, because all we know of him (?) is that he (or she) wrote the Pearl sequence (and Gawain).
Copyright law might be broken, but no copyright is not the solution.
Re:Before copyright, no credit and no money (Score:5, Informative)
And yet, they were still written. Which is the entire purpose of copyright - to promote the creation of art. Not to enrich the artists or have their name preserved in history - that's just the carrot that's dangled to further promote their production.
Take away copyright entirely, and art will still be created. There would no doubt be a decrease in expensive, commercial-oriented art like blockbuster movies, but also an increase in "derivative" art, that would be free to incorporate previous works without fear of infrigement lawsuits.
When you get right down to it, most artists create for the joy of the craft, getting paid for it is a bonus that lets them create more rather than working a "real" job. And that only if they can fetch a decent price for their art within their lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that a limited monopoly for copying enables the artist to derive some (non-joyous) benefit from their endeavour, thus allowing them to create more art, since they're not busy using all their time working on something else simply so they can eat.
Joy is a wonderful byproduct of being an artist, but it doesn't feed anyone.
If you like your job you should work for free (Score:4, Insightful)
As an author, I think your message "we should take away copyright, because authors would keep on writing even if they got no money and no credit for it" to be, basically, utterly and completely despicable.
False dichotomy (Score:3)
The absurdly long duration of copyrights, from the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act, is indeed absurd.
A good discussion, how can we fix copyright without telling artists that they don't own their own work, would be useful.
The fact that copyright law has problems, however, does not mean that it has no value and should be discarded entirely. Except on slashdot, where any problem whatsoever can only be seen in black or white, a complete dichotomy: if copyright law isn't perfect then it's useless, no other
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, they were still written.
And startups still happen too. The grand thing about trying something new is that you can try it. News didn't travel spectacularly in the middle ages and they had what ended up being a perpetual literary bubble.
But much like the CueCat these days people are far less likely to do anything if there isn't money in it. Those people playing at bars for your entertainment rarely if ever do it for shits and giggles.
Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think copyright is totally bad. For example, I recently published my first novel. Without copyright law, someone else could grab my novel and start printing/selling their own copies of it. I'd wind up competing with my own novel. Then there are issues of film studios being able to take anyone's work and make movies based off of it without compensating the author at all. I'd have to spend a lot of time and money filing lawsuits to make them stop and, without copyright law, I might not be successful.
The big problem with copyright law isn't its existence. It's the length. Copyright was originally 14 years plus a one-time 14 year extension. This isn't so bad. The novel I just published would have until 2044 (assuming I renewed the copyright) to make me money. Then, the book transfers to the public domain for others to build on it. Very few works still make money after 28 years - and I'd wager most of the ones that still do (like Star Wars) partly keep making money because of new material being added.
However, over the years, copyright terms lengthened until now it's 70 years after the author's death. If I die at age 90, my novel will be protected by copyright until 2135. At that point, my youngest son (now 9) would be 128 - and likely deceased. If my youngest son had a child at 30, his child would be 98 when my copyright ran out. I don't need copyrights on my works lasting until my great-great-great grandchildren are born. That's not giving me incentive to create new works. 14 years + 14 years would be plenty.
If copyright law was reset back to 14 years plus an optional one-time 14 year extension, a lot of the problems with copyright would go away.
Re: (Score:2)
I understood that Disney was one motivator behind the extension of copyright, otherwise the mouse would now be in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Steamboat Willie would be, but Mickey himself is trademarked, so while (if the copyright ever actually expired) you would be able to make something derivative of SW (like a remake with other characters, or using clips of it in something), you'd still have issues making new stuff claiming to use Mickey Mouse as a character.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark doesn't prevent people from distributing the original.
Re: (Score:2)
Without copyright law, someone else could grab my novel and start printing/selling their own copies of it.
You should look into Creator Endorsed [questioncopyright.org].
Only asshole people will buy from a rip-off publisher. But asshole people will also elect a government that will enact things like a DMCA, so they're going to screw society either way as long as they have the government stick to wield. Not having the government-enforced copyright also eliminates problems like this Samsung* one, so you get multiple benefits from th
Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say we do away with copyright tomorrow and all of my novels have that creator endorsed marking on them. The big question is whether the book buying public would even care. My novel sells for $7.99 (paperback). Suppose HarperCollins decides to publish an edition of my book without my approval. Thanks to copyright going away, there is no legal recourse for me to tell them to stop or to compensate me. Being a bigger publishing house, they might be able to undercut me on price. Now, my $7.99 paperback has to contend with their $4.99 paperback edition. Plus, they are able to get their version of my book into all the bookstores while mine is still limited in scope. (My book is only available from Amazon at the moment.)
The big question is: Would the buying public care that my book has the "Creator Endorsed" logo on it or would they flock to the cheaper copy to save some cash?
As much as I'd like to say people would go with Creator Endorsed, I think they'd go with the saved cash and I'd wind up losing sales. (This is the only time when I'd call "lost sales" an actual thing since the person actually bought a copy of the book but did so from someone who was selling their own version without getting approval/providing compensation.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you'd still be able to make money after that. It's just that after 2044, other people could too. The only thing you would lose would be the monopoly on that novel. It's important to remember that this is the actual job of copyright - incentivizing contributions to the public domain with temporary monopoly power.
As you correctly note, it's the effective remo
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, this... very much this. I don't think I'd even go so far as 28 years though, or require anyone to go through the hassle of filing for the extension. I'd just go with a flat 20 years. For the life of me, I can't think of a single good reason that a copyright should last any longer than a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's, for better or worse, for a court to dec (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think copyright is totally bad. For example, I recently published my first novel. Without copyright law, someone else could grab my novel and start printing/selling their own copies of it. I'd wind up competing with my own novel. Then there are issues of film studios being able to take anyone's work and make movies based off of it without compensating the author at all. I'd have to spend a lot of time and money filing lawsuits to make them stop and, without copyright law, I might not be successful.
That is a good point. Without copyright, not only would you compete against yourself when selling your own book, it would annihilate any control directly related follow on work -- movies, book sequels, etc.
Removal of copyright would have far reaching consequences to the entertainment industry and software industry. Many people here on slashdot think that software patents are mostly bad, and we should fall back on copyright. Well, gee, do we really want to categorically remove the concept of intellectual property?
Re: (Score:2)
And, just in case people somehow think that individuals or small businesses would prosper without any copyright, who would be the ones to quickly churn out a movie or book sequel based on an authors (instantly copyright-less) book? Big media companies. So I publish my novel (Shameless Plug: The title is "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That's, for better or worse, for a court to de (Score:2, Interesting)
Well not exactly, l the DMCA has a 7 step procedure that ends in a court battle. And is supposed to favor the accused until then.
I don't remember the steps exactly, but it's something like this:
Accuser files claim
Content removed
Accused contests claim
Content restored
Accuser reinstates claim
Content removed
Accused recontests claim
Content restored
Accuser is now supposed to file suit, and the outcome decides who owns the content and weather it remains up.
Problem is youtube only implements up to the 3rd step. (A
The law decide only the minimum process (Score:2)
Re: That's, for better or worse, for a court to d (Score:2)
Its a good thing you posted AC because you are a fucking idiot.
The DMCA was design to protect the host seving the data while allowing copyright holders to identify the person that posted the material so they can be sued. Its a process whereby the copyright owner sends the host a takedown notice and the host removes the data. The poster can then respond to the host claiming the initial claim is in error and provide all their contact info. The host is now free to repost the material without any liability, the
No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law needs a top to bottom reform. Period.
The people who own the government strongly disagree with you. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the only reform will be to make it worse.
With the current system in place.
Re: (Score:2)
I just have to say... (Score:2)
Your post pairs nicely with your signature.
Re: (Score:3)
Parody is a defense for a use that would otherwise be copyright infringement. That makes discussing it unnecessary, since this just simply isn't copyright infringement to begin with. A Galaxy Note 7 is an object, not a video. The idea that merely using any random object in a video gives the person who designed the object claim over the video is absurd!
But not for trademark (Score:2)
Re:DCMA Fair Use / Parody (Score:5, Interesting)
Not even.
The phone isn't copyrighted. Its existence and a representation of it as a material fact can't be copyrighted. You can't copyright the existence and form of your product in such a way that, for example, a novel writer can't mention that a person was using a Samsung Note 3 and describe the functionality he was using. Those are material facts.
The phone is a trademark--or at least its visual form and its name are potential trademarks. You may be able to patent the production of a phone in that form (design patent), and trademark a particular shape of a phone (like the Gibson and Fender headstocks--yes, their brand-identifiable shapes are trademarked); that applies only to actually making a phone.
Samsung is legally-required to protect its trademarks, else they lose them. That means a number of things. It means you can't make a DogRun Galaxy 7 phone (especially in substantially-similar design to the Samsung offering) because Galaxy and Galaxy 7 are Samsung trademarks. It means you can't use the Samsung name to brand your phone. If you do these things, Samsung must take action, or else the next guy to do the same thing can point out that Samsung hasn't protected their trademark.
A reference to a trademark isn't a trademark infringement.
A reference to a trademark in a book, in a TV show, in a video game, in literature about your own product, wherever it is, does not infringe trademark. Trademark distinguishes products. If you make a phone and, in the literature, identify that it is distinct from the Samsung Galaxy 7 by pointing out that it has similar or superior battery life to the Samsung Galaxy 7, you haven't infringed trademark because you haven't identified your phone as a Samsung Galaxy 7.
That video isn't parody, by law; it's non-infringing. It's a non-infringing reference to a trademark and to the existence of a product. Artistically, it's satire: it explores an existing material fact with humor and exaggeration. Even if it had no artistic defense, there's no standing for any intellectual property claim--copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise. Samsung's phones blowing up is a material fact; it might be over-emphasized, but it's a thing that happened in the world, and the phones are a thing that exist in the world, and the thing in the game is a representation of that thing and not a counterfeit product.
Re: (Score:2)
This is largely a myth.
Trademark Law Does Not Require Companies To Tirelessly Censor the Internet [eff.org]
Re: DCMA Fair Use / Parody (Score:2)
It doesn't need fair use on copyright because Samsung doesn't have a copyright on this at all. Samsung MIGHT be able to claim a trademark violation (which this is clearly fair use), but the DMCA can't be used for trademarks. Unless Samsung can show this mod uses code samsung wrote there is NO copyright claim here and a blatant misuse of the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but is it a parody of the copyrighted elements? That's the tack I'd take if I were Samsung's lawyer: this is not parodying Samsung's IP, it is quoting Samsung's IP in a literal, non-transformative way that is not actually parody.
Of course in my heart I'd hope to lose, but that argument is no more ridiculous than many others that have become established case law. Issues like privacy and IP are where fundamental values we have as a society cut against each other and generate innumerable weird corner cas
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That mod is rather tame compared to some other snarky stuff I've seen out there. I remember after the Toyota "unintended accleration" issues, someone was plugging a "Toyota Simulator" that they made... when you went to the site it was just a continuous first-person video from a drivers' seat, played in fast forward, with the driver screaming in panic ;)
Obligatory All your Base reference (Score:5, Funny)
Someone set us up the Note 7
they got no signal, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have no chance to survive. Make your time
Re: (Score:2)
Dear stupid fuckers at Samsung (Score:2)
We already know your products suck, too late, the cat is out of the bag.
Coming down like a totalitarian nutjob only makes you look even worse
Comment removed (Score:3)
I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Has nobody heard of the Streissand effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I just posted a link to another video to Samsung Mobile USA's facebook page. :D :)
We should harass Samsung with this until they agree to bring back user-replaceable batteries
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I once was really hardcore on the "user-replaceable battery" bandwagon, but I've really softened on the issue. There are some significant advantages to making them not replaceable, including better waterproofing and the savings of both mass and volume. It's not some sort of scheme to make people replace their phones - or, at the very least, not only that.
If someone could make an IP67 phone with a user replaceable battery, I'd consider that a bonus over one that doesn't have a user-replaceable batt
Re: (Score:2)
I think I more than doubled the useful life of my phone by being able to replace the battery easily but probably would not have benefited from waterproofing. I really think there is a market for both types of devices, even if some companies would prefer that one of those markets disappears.
Re: (Score:2)
Not personally, but a friend ruined his that way, and I've had some of what would have been "close calls". Likewise, I've never had to replace/send in a phone because of a bad battery. My "had to replace my phone" history is two cracked screens and one defective charge port.
For me, waterproofing is peace of mind - not having to worry about it. And I can do things that people whose phone isn't waterproof wouldn't dream of, like wading out on a beach or sitting in a spring while holding it. I was at a ne
Re: (Score:2)
No but I've heard of the slashdot effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're too busy dealing with "Exploding-Jar-of-Kimchee Effect."
Good Job! (Score:2)
Solidify my decision not to use your products! I avoid all things Samsung like most people would avoid a rabid dog or a disease-infested needle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, same. I have been in the market for an Android phone for a while now. I was seriously considering a Samsung, Nexus or OnePlus. All of this stuff surrounding Samsung recently completely turned me off to them as an option.
I pulled the trigger yesterday and went with a OnePlus 3.
Not a copyright violation, a Trademark violation (Score:2, Interesting)
This was a trademark violation. And likely taken down under that context, not copyright. And it's legitimate if they used the word Samsung or Note 7.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a violation of your trademark to use your trademark to refer to your brand. Otherwise, every time anybody used any brand name it would be a trademark violation. Deception must be at least attempted for trademark violation to occur - that is, the violator must make some pretense that the usage is known to and endorsed by the owner of the trademark. Perhaps Samsung could argue that the use of their trademark might confuse people into thinking that this GTA mod was sanctioned or released by them. I th
Re: (Score:3)
Then I suppose you ought to take your post down. After all, you uttered the phrases "Samsung" and "Note 7".
Irony at its finest! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law is a bitch; Fair Use is not a right (Score:2)
The design of the Note 7 is copyrighted, just as any other product. To reproduce a likeness of a piece of "art" without permission is infringing (just ask the US Post Office). How accurate was it? Could it be identified as a Note 7? If so, then it's a by right thing - it IS infringing.
Now, Hitman Niko can absolutely pursue this in court by re-publishing on a non-common carrier platform and having Samsung sue him. He may then, and only then, proffer his defense that the use falls under one of the Fair Use se
Re: (Score:2)
Get a sense of perspective (Score:2)
this is arguably the worst misuse of the DMCA we have ever come across
Good grief! it's a minor spat about a device that the public will have forgotten all about in a few months. Hardly worth raising your blood pressure over - let alone using superlatives about.
Another video of the Mod (Score:2)
Samsung can hardly take all of them down if people keep putting them up. [youtube.com]
Samsung needs to get some better laywers (Score:2)
It took 20 days from the mod being released (Oct. 1st), and maybe two or so weeks since it got some attention and started appearing in videos for these guys to issue the take down. And, not even going after the mod itself (I think), but only a video of it. That's some grade A lawyering we got here.
That's ok.. (Score:2)
Note to Samsung (like they'll learn from it) (Score:2)
The damage to your name is done. It's going to get around in FAR more places than a YouTube video or gaming mod. It's already public knowledge. It has hate, love, jokes, stories, tabloid material.... Just give it the eff up already. Something happened and it's done. It can't be undone. All you can do is compensate and move on.
Maybe you should try playing on the negativity as a way to assist advertising safe new products. When a company jokes about themselves about external things that were forced
dumbass lawyers...will you never learn? (Score:2)
And the answer is no of course.
I mirrored the video as a mp4. Feel free to share this far and wide.
https://www.btfh.net/GTA5_EXPL... [btfh.net]
Way to alienate your customers (Score:2)
Well they are in their rights.. (Score:2)
You may not like it, but the phone and it's look are samsungs IP, you can't just go using it without permission, especially in a non-positive way..
Re: (Score:3)
I, too, believe it's Fair Use, and he has a right to counterclaim. But this takes money, and the desire for a long fight, going through Discovery, showing damages, and all the other processes of tort law.
It's better to raise this issue and show that Samsung did the totally wrong thing, starting at their bad QA, bad engineering, bad process control for field testing, and an even worse procedure once the problem was found.
Corporations don't like to eat humble pie, eat crow, or whatever metaphor you'd like to
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, a DMCA counterclaim at this point is simply writing out a statement and sending it to, in this case, youtube, stating that you believe, under penalty of perjury, that the content is parody in nature falling under fair-use.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid... [dmlp.org]
Re:So why hasn't the video creator counterclaimed? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know. Glad it was easy as that.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all defined by the law to give companies like Google safe harbor from lawsuits for publishing or copying someone else's work. It still ends up in court if the original claim is pressed, but Google is off the hook.
This, by the way, is seen as spurring the great growth of a bunch of the Internet by US companies, allowing them to protect themselves. Many Euro and other countries allow good old fashioned suing of these sites. All this crap of news sites suing to get a cut of Google profits just for b
Re: (Score:2)
Trump needs to do what? Get a GTA V mod video pulled from YouTube using a DMCA complaint? Make a GTA V mod video with exploding Note 7's?
Um, sure...I'll see if they can get right on that, and I'm not prying but aren't you supposed to take your meds today?
Re: (Score:2)
Use the dmca to remove any video that shows him acting in a way that hurts him.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that you're heavily invested in a datacenter company and are trying to lower the cost of hard drives by causing Youtube to flood the market with all of the excess drives they'd have in such a scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
CEPH needs lot's of disks on many nodes. Then we can do the updates that need reboots with out having storage go down.
Re:The trump camp needs to do this! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you just need to STFU. For fucks sake, does literally every god damn thing have to mention the election? No, no it doesn't. I get it, you're a small minded individual, and this is all you can think of to say. But shut the fuck up. We're what, a bit less then three weeks from the election? Everywhere you go all people are talking about is how much Trump sucks or how much Clinton sucks and on and on and on. I think I speak for most people when I say we're fucking sick and tired of hearing about it. This story doesn't involve Trump. This story doesn't involve Clinton, Fuck you for trying to bring them in to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Video's here:
https://youtu.be/6EK-Qy_UZX4?t... [youtu.be]
I had a chuckle at the mere description of the mod, and never would've heard of it without Samsung's "help." I'll have to thank them for the laugh at their expense!
Re: (Score:2)
Okay that was funny.
Re: (Score:2)
That was pretty good. I also would never have come across this unless Samsung cried about it.
What a bunch of whiners. They make a faulty product then get mad when people poke fun.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course he could always rebrand it something like the "Litigious Electronics Corp Explodaphone 7" to mock them further over the lawsuit in the course of complying.
Re: (Score:2)
Sumdung 7
Re: Streisand Effect Much? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the original one, it now looks like there are many different ones now though.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the original is on this page: http://fraghero.com/gta-5-mod-... [fraghero.com] scroll down a bit.