Dev.SN

AIDS Deniers Use Bogus Copyright Claims to Censor

posted by Dopefish on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:34PM   
from the why-deny-reality? dept.

Blackmoore writes: "The producers of "House of Numbers" have used a series of bogus copyright takedown notices to get Youtube to remove videos, in which he uses clips from the documentary as part of his criticism, showing how they mislead viewers and misrepresent the facts and the evidence. It's pure censorship: using the law to force the removal of your opponents' views."

• Re:Whatever happened to safe harbor anyways Re:Whatever happened to safe harbor anyways (Score: 3, Interesting) by dmc on Monday February 17 2014, @04:38AM

  by dmc (188) on Monday February 17 2014, @04:38AM (#502)

  "I've forgotten. Why does youtube have to remove these things? I remember it used to have some kind of safe harbor, but then because the terms of the site changed, they no longer could use safe harbor as a DMCA protection."

  DMCA is the safe harbor for youtube. DMCA is why they can make tons of money effectively being a host for mass amounts of 'pirated videos'. Alternate to the DMCA, the concept of "common carrier" is also a safe harbor if you get classified that way. Theoretically, if now after the verizon ruling fall of NetNeutrality, the FCC took the court's invitation to do NN the 'right way' by classifying and regulating ISPs as "common carriers", then ISPs like GoogleFiber _could_ remove all the crap from their Terms of Service, like the banning of "improper" use of the network (whatever that means, i.e. it means nothing at all). Once you are a "common carrier" you are not responsible for what goes through your pipes. DMCA is sort of a quasi-common-carrier status for websites that allow users to upload content. So long as youtube follows the DMCA protocol, they are no longer culpable for the literal vast troves of piracy going on there. Note of course that Google, like myself, can also legally use interesting interpretations of 'fair use' to defend their making available of otherwise copyright protected content. I for one think that every child and adult should pretty much have educational and artistic access to pretty much all copyrighted material. Especially in this bizarre world where the Disney lawyers find a way to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain perpetually. Everyone, especially the poor, need access to our rich cultural history. The more access they/everyone has, the more they/everyone will learn and gain wisdom, and the better off we will all be. The current copyright system, while easily defensible in some idealistic terms of enabling content creators to make a living from their art, just has not worked out that way in practice. The scary red screens that dvd players make people watch in front of movies with threats of hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines, and years in pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiaries, are as fracking stupid and counterproductive as the war on drugs. Did that answer your question? :)

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+2
  Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Whatever happened to safe harbor anyways (Score: 1) by paddym on Monday February 17 2014, @01:16PM

  by paddym (196) on Monday February 17 2014, @01:16PM (#850)

  Thanks.

  Parent