Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pisau)   NASA's video of their newest robot landing on Mars was removed from Youtube because another 'bot, this one belonging to Scripps-Howard, claimed copyright on it   ( tecca.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, YouTube, NASA, E.W. Scripps Co., history of science, landing  
•       •       •

11972 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Aug 2012 at 3:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-14 01:51:25 PM  
Luckily NASA's bots are smarter than Scripps-Howard's, or they never would have made it past the stratosphere.
 
2012-08-14 02:07:56 PM  
That's really annoying.
 
2012-08-14 02:27:20 PM  
We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.
 
2012-08-14 02:36:11 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.


A leaden one. These are the same kind of asshats that do patent trolling, I'm sure.
 
2012-08-14 03:00:37 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.


There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.
 
2012-08-14 03:37:40 PM  

aseras: Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.

There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.


That should fund the manned missions.
 
2012-08-14 03:38:27 PM  
And the theme song was probably claimed by WMG.
 
2012-08-14 03:38:58 PM  
Now they're just showing off. YouTube should keep a log of all copyright claims and turn them in to the authorities. The ones where a claim is likely wouldn't need to be investigated, but shiat like this should be investigated and heavily fined. It would keep shiat like this from being taken down as well as negative product reviews or commentary or other fair use things.
 
2012-08-14 03:39:10 PM  
You tube took down a video of me preforming one of my own farking songs for the same reason. I'm' in the farking library of farking congress, for fark's sake.
 
2012-08-14 03:41:15 PM  
I've had 2 videos flagged for containing copyrighted content. In both cases, I was able to establish that the content was public domain, but it's still a pain in the ass.
 
2012-08-14 03:41:31 PM  

vudukungfu: You tube took down a video of me preforming one of my own farking songs for the same reason. I'm' in the farking library of farking congress, for fark's sake.


Maybe the librarians complained because you wouldn't be quiet when they shushed you?
 
2012-08-14 03:43:35 PM  
As much as I support copyrights and the need for people to protect themselves, this is a great example of how things can go too far too easily.

I get that YouTube is pretty diligent about responding to copyright complaints. But, this one was made by a farking 'Bot! It wasn't even a real human. Wouldn't it have been sensible to at least validate the claim before just going, "Holy crap! Take it down! Take it down!"
 
2012-08-14 03:44:19 PM  

aseras: Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.

There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.


The penalty I'd like to see is congress taking their collected intellectual property and putting it in the public domain without compensation. "Oh look, your computer made a mistake. Time to liquidate the company. Enjoy your empty bag shareholders." Everyone invovled with writing and operating and managing the program should be prosecuted for their role in a conspiracy to committ perjury.
 
2012-08-14 03:45:49 PM  
Welcome to last week.
 
2012-08-14 03:46:12 PM  
Work for hire. sorry, no copywrite for you.
 
2012-08-14 03:46:50 PM  

whither_apophis: Work for hire. sorry, no copywrite for you.


or copyright even
 
2012-08-14 03:46:56 PM  

bbfreak: Welcome to last week.


shiat, what's the Powerball drawing numbers for Saturday night?
 
2012-08-14 03:48:39 PM  

bbfreak: Welcome to last week.


Last week? This was on Reddit 2 years ago, where were you?
 
2012-08-14 03:48:47 PM  
First, the person taking down the video should be required to state what they charge for or the value of one viewing of the copyrighted content. This could also be the amount they are limited to asking for in compensation from an infringer.

If the content is indeed found to be in the public domain, the entity making the false complaint should be charged the value they claimed times the number of failed attempts to access the content which they cause.
 
2012-08-14 03:50:08 PM  

Tickle Mittens: aseras: Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.

There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.

The penalty I'd like to see is congress taking their collected intellectual property and putting it in the public domain without compensation. "Oh look, your computer made a mistake. Time to liquidate the company. Enjoy your empty bag shareholders." Everyone invovled with writing and operating and managing the program should be prosecuted for their role in a conspiracy to committ perjury.


I like that idea. It is the ultimate Fark You to the thieves.
 
2012-08-14 03:50:36 PM  
I'm not sure I'd want to piss off an entity that regularly launches nuclear payloads into orbit.
 
2012-08-14 03:52:11 PM  
I love to hear the court case in that. "If Scripps-Howard can show they landed a rover on Mars for scientific exploration, we would be certainly willing to drop all cases and apologize, but until then GTFO!"
 
2012-08-14 03:53:54 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: aseras: Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.

There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.

That should fund the manned missions.


I love it!
 
2012-08-14 03:55:04 PM  

aseras: There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.


In theory there are. In practice there are not. Generally speaking the DMCA penalties are only applicable in cases of fraud, not negligence. And most big sites don't actually follow the DMCA procedures -- for good reason, as sites that do are frequently raided by the government and shut down for some variation on "copyright infringement" -- so the protections even against fraudulent takedown requests have no legislative backing, making such claims difficult to win.
 
2012-08-14 03:55:07 PM  
CSB: About 10 years ago, when Star Wars fan films were really popular, I entered the Atom Films contest. 2 years in a row I had cartoons that were finalists. (Both of which proceeded to lose, but George Lucas saw my silly cartoons, so suck it!)

Never in my time doing film-type of stuff, did I concern myself with how I gathered assets like music and stuff. Like the first run of one film actually had John Williams music durbnpoisn.comli.com.
Anyway, Atom Films was particularly strict about every last little thing. Music and SFX had to be public domain or you had to prove you own it. All images and voice actors... I had to have them all sign contracts giving me and Atom Films permission to use their stuff.

That was all pretty wild.

Over the years I've been very careful to not be so careless with other people's material. And you know what I get for that? Kids downloading my films to make fake trailers for Star Wars films using MY footage, and they don't even give me credit.

//Jerks
 
2012-08-14 03:58:13 PM  
That's right, corporations are people, my friend.
Except when they make mistakes.

Then they they're schizophrenic many-headed, many-handed abominations that barely shamble along without vision or purpose.
And no-one could ever imagine holding a *real person* responsible for what one overzealous piece of these organizational monsters might get up to...
 
2012-08-14 04:00:01 PM  
Get rid of the bots and hire people to do the job. removes errors of this type and puts people to work. Win-Win.
 
2012-08-14 04:01:30 PM  
Scripps-Howards... it's too late now. We already think you're a bunch of douchebags. No worries though, we'll go back to forgetting all about you soon enough. Until we hear your name again and think, "Oh... it's those douchebags".
 
2012-08-14 04:08:14 PM  
So if Sopa had passed, nasa.gov would have been taken off the air?
 
2012-08-14 04:08:25 PM  

This text is now purple: I'm not sure I'd want to piss off an entity that regularly launches nuclear payloads into orbit.


Reminded me of this one

i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-14 04:08:29 PM  
For its part, E.W. Scripps has apologized for killing the public's access to a piece of scientific history. "We made a mistake," wrote E.W. Scripps spokeswoman Michele Roberts in a response to tech blog Motherboard. "We reacted as quickly as possible to make the video viewable again, and we've adjusted our workflow processes to remedy the situation in [the] future."

How about you just turn off your bot? You're not losing any money by your shiat content being on youtube anyway.
 
2012-08-14 04:09:22 PM  
Stick to spelling bees, you farking dicks
 
2012-08-14 04:09:24 PM  
A copyright bot? Farking seriously???
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-08-14 04:12:05 PM  
If this is a DMCA takedown notice it's supposed to be under penalty of perjury, which implies a human, otherwise it does not defeat safe harbor. If this is a YouTube private mechanism Google can handle it anyway the master control program likes.
 
2012-08-14 04:15:50 PM  
Google (and thus youtube) are idiots. Film at 11:00 removed due to copyright claims
 
2012-08-14 04:16:40 PM  
Sue them for the cost of the mission.

/2.5 billion is probably chump change to a company like that.
/Well, maybe it isn't. BUT LETS FIND OUT!
 
2012-08-14 04:17:14 PM  

ZAZ: If this is a DMCA takedown notice it's supposed to be under penalty of perjury, which implies a human, otherwise it does not defeat safe harbor. If this is a YouTube private mechanism Google can handle it anyway the master control program likes.


images.wikia.com
 
2012-08-14 04:20:00 PM  

ZAZ: If this is a DMCA takedown notice it's supposed to be under penalty of perjury, which implies a human, otherwise it does not defeat safe harbor. If this is a YouTube private mechanism Google can handle it anyway the master control program likes.


Google has to rate limit the requests because of bots like this. Then RIAA-type folks complain about it. Link
 
2012-08-14 04:22:03 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.


I think a nice sliding "false-claim fee" with increasing fines for each instance would fix this pronto.

1st time: $1
2nd time: $100
3rd time: $10000
4th-10th time: $100K
11th-20th time: $250K
21st-30th time: $500K
etc.

/Feel free to multiply by 10 or more if you want to be hard-ass about it...
 
2012-08-14 04:23:31 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com


"My User has information that could... that could make this a free system again! No, really! You'd have programs lined up just to use this place, and no MCP looking over your shoulder."
 
2012-08-14 04:37:35 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.


Doesn't some actual representative of the copyright holder have to swear under penalty of perjury that they own the copyright? Just file perjury charges against whoever's name the bot's takedown orders go out with.

\But I forgot, no one's ever responsible for anything that happens under them. Overzealous bot is the new overzealous staffer.
 
2012-08-14 04:38:23 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.


First time: warning
2nd time: 1 day suspension of uploading new material
3rd time: 1 week suspension of uploading new material
4th time: remove account and all content
 
2012-08-14 04:41:32 PM  
the Dicks. i guess NASA is funded by corporate america then. yea, right. 2.5 Billion of OUR money went into Curiosity.
 
2012-08-14 04:42:07 PM  

ZAZ: If this is a DMCA takedown notice it's supposed to be under penalty of perjury, which implies a human, otherwise it does not defeat safe harbor. If this is a YouTube private mechanism Google can handle it anyway the master control program likes.


Perjury isn't as serious as it once was now that corporations are people.
 
2012-08-14 04:42:11 PM  

GWSuperfan: I've had 2 videos flagged for containing copyrighted content. In both cases, I was able to establish that the content was public domain, but it's still a pain in the ass.



isn't Freedom great!
 
2012-08-14 04:42:24 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.


Or maybe just enforce the one that's already written into the DMCA?
 
2012-08-14 04:43:19 PM  

aseras: Some 'Splainin' To Do: We've got to start implementing some kind of penalty for bogus take-down attempts.

There's penalties. You can sue and there's statutory damages. Nasa should sue the shiat out of them. Especially since they've done it before.


Also, filing a false takedown per the DMCA is supposed to be perjury. But that offense has yet to be enforced.
 
2012-08-14 04:46:27 PM  
"we've adjusted our workflow processes to remedy the situation in [the] future."


HOORAY for internal reviews!
 
2012-08-14 04:52:06 PM  
ringersol

they're schizophrenic many-headed, many-handed abominations

This word you use, "schizophrenic". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia:
Despite the etymology of the term from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind"), schizophrenia does not imply a "split personality", or "multiple personality disorder" (which is known these days as dissociative identity disorder)-a condition with which it is often confused in public perception
 
2012-08-14 05:07:34 PM  

Capt. Sparkles: A copyright bot? Farking seriously???



I believe a few years ago there was 24 hours of video being uploaded to youtube every two minutes. I can't imagine that rate has not increased. There is no possible way for humans to sift through that.

So they use bots that scan both sound and video and see if it matches their own patterns.

This is one reason a lot of people upload copyrighted material with left and right flipped, and the sound slightly off, to fool the bots recognition algorithms.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report