Thank you for identifying some "dots" that might connect here. The Google CEO sits on the Apple Board, and Google acquired YouTube in October of last year -- suggesting some sort of supportive relationship exists among these cos. I particularly appreciate your work in identifying that the only clips pulled -- although many are as vulnerable to this action as the two actually pulled -- are those that paint Jobs in a particularly bad light as the Burst.com vs. Apple Markman ruling awaits release any day.

With regard to NBD, I have myself sought to find whether a connection exists between that group and other significant players in this matter, but so far no luck. Your revelation that Oregon Public Broadcasting is the actual copyright holder is also "thought-provoking."

As you say, could all be just "innocent." So too could Jobs' comments about "shameless...stealing." For now, though, I need more information before I can draw those conclusions.

Interestingly, at this point, both Google News and Google Blog searches for "Cringely + Burst.com" yield no hits, although a Google Blog search does reference your recent Technology Envangelist work on Microsoft's "Dirty Tricks."

As I write, Microsoft and Apple are still competitors, and Google and YouTube remain close Apple companions through the presence of the Apple CEO on the Apple Board. Whether these dynamics explain the presence of only your MSFT comments in these Google searches, I cannot say -- but again, I find the coincidence "thought-provoking." Thank you for your column.

gw

When I posted earlier that, "at this point, both Google News and Google Blog searches for "Cringely + Burst.com" yield no hits, although a Google Blog search does reference your recent Technology Envangelist work on Microsoft's "Dirty Tricks," I meant no hits for this present, March 29 column discussing possible connections between Burst.com and Apple. Sorry to have left that info. out in the earlier post. gw

It's been noted at the "JREF Forum" (James Randi Educational Foundation) that similar action has been taken against a plethora of video clips unflattering to the spoon-bending Uri Geller. All of the takedown notices were sent by the same company (which is currently believed to be the spoon-bender in question, or his proxy), despite the fact that the copyrights are owned by multiple individuals/organizations.

Unfortunately, there is little that can be done. The initial posters of these videos (as in your example, Bob) do not own the copyrights and thus can't file DMCA counter-notifications without perjuring themselves as was done in the initial takedown notices. YouTube and the other hosts of these videos have no choice but to take down potentially infringing material upon notification - this is true even if they have reason to believe that the notification is somehow in error.

Personally, I have no problem with content creators/owners like Viacom exercising their rights of IP ownership by requiring hosting companies to remove infringing material. But, there's clearly a problem in the law if it can be used by individuals without legal standing to stifle speech they find objectionable. There's a court case somewhere here - the problem seems to be figuring out who has legal standing to file it.

The only thing that has to be done in that case is to contact the actual copyright holder, have them contact the EFF, and let them take care of the rest. Apparently they're itching or a showdown over illegal takedowns on Youtube, as they've already gone up against Viacom's machinery. Maybe it'll change the current takedown-repost cycle that's been going on there for years.

Reference:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070322-dmca-takedown-backlash-eff-sues-viacom-over-colbert-parody-clip.html

For some reason this post still hasn't shown up in you RSS feed...

I'm just amazed these $1000-an-hour lawyers aren't smart enough to request removal of the whole batch of clips instead of just the two smoking guns. I mean, what would it have taken them, an couple extra hours of summer intern time at most? Stupid cheap.

"I can't get YouTube to remove Triumph of the Nerds clips, either, only the actual copyright holder Oregon Public Broadcasting can do that."

Maybe you could get Viacom to do it for you :-)

As you say, could all be just "innocent." So too could Jobs' comments about "shameless...stealing." For now, though, I need more information before I can draw those conclusions.

I'll go one further - once you've stolen enough things of value, it becomes important to keep others from stealing from you.

-GFO

It would be a lot more interesting if Rebecca Morris (representing the actual owner) authorized reposting the clips. What would Yahoo do? What would NBD do? It only really becomes a scandal if NBD fights back.

Geez, do you think the paranoid, maniacle Steve Jobs might have had something to do with this? Love to see the poster challenge the takedown, get the EFF involved, they'll get to the bottom of it.

I've said it before, (on Amazon,) and I'll say it again..."Revenge of the Nerds" 1 and 2 are the most brilliant and insightful documentaries of their time. They really need to be released in their full, uncut versions, in a nice boxed set, with Background materials, links etc, to people just like me who would be happy to pay hard currency for them. Are you listening Mr Copyright holder?
And as for Mr Creator: When will we see part 3? What ARE you doing with your time, anyhow? You have a certain responsibility, you know. That being, an elder of the industry and all.....

Eric J. White, I think you mean "Triumph of the Nerds." Not to take anything away from "Revenge of the Nerds." I always thought Curtis Armstrong's portrayal of Booger was one of Hollywood's best moments.

I always look forward to Thurs-Friday's posting, thanks Robert!

The Hotel Coral Essex & Tri-Lam forever!

I have a hard time getting worked up about this. I remember those telephones on college campuses that people were always posting flyers on. People put them up, people tore them down. Whatever.

There is more to be concerned about folks posting video that hurts people than in removing things.

The biggest problem with copyright it the proper attribution of who said what and when.

If ever there was a problem that the internet was capable of sorting out it is the proper attribution IF THE PEOPLE PUTTING STUFF UP WOULD JUST PUT UP LINKS TO THEIR SOURCES.

The monetization doesn't matter as much as, when we finally figure out a way to monetize things properly, having the proper attributions.

For most things, there will never be any monetization for an excerpt, but for some other thing, some content creator (or some copyright holder, which definitely isn't the same thing) would definitely want compensation.

The keeping track of attributing can be done on, and by the very nature of, the net.

The monetization can then follow the links all the way back to some public domain object where the payment chain just stops.

Bob:

Thanks for the 15 seconds of fame (I think?).

I understand your concerns about the length of material excerpted from the documentary and I wrestled with this issue and actually created several versions of differeing lengths before I uploaded the "banned" version to YouTube.

I do take exception to your comment about "and extensively recut at that." I looked at the timeline in Final Cut Express and did not find any cuts other than the "In" and "Out" cut taken from the capture. My copy of the DVD was loaned to a friend so I can't re-confirm this other than lookimg at the work document materials. I believe that the 5 minutes are continuous and are not "extensively recut". I will validate this when I receive my copy of the DVD (purchased from Amazon.Com) in a few days.

What intrigues me at this point in time is "When does the infringement start?" In my view even after I receive a notice from the copyright holder (Oregon Public Broadcasting) we are talking about an "alleged infringement" claim. There seems to be some additional work that needs to be done before we arrive at an "infrignement".

I certainly do not think that a 3rd party notice from someone other than the copyright holder are grounds for YouTube to remove my clip. Even a notice from Oregon Public Broadcasting would have to be considered an "alleged infringement" claim from a copyright holder.

I will have much more to say about this on my Squidoo Lens that you have referenced in your links. As you like to say "All the best to you".

burstingsquidoo

This post has been removed due to copyright violation.

Way Off Topic Depart:
Did Apple, Inc. deliberately make the Apple TV easy to hack?http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130298-c,tv/article.html#
Did their engineers throw their hands up in the air and say,"You know, what's the point?", and just designed another cool looking toaster, that every Betty and Bobby Brown will add to their collection of cool appliances, with knowledge that one half of one per cent of all models will be hacked into and modified by geeks anyway?

This is SO cracking me up. C'mon people, think a little bit.

Ripping off a PBS show? For Christ's Sake, didn't the taxpayers effectively pay for the production of that show in the first place?

Yes, I know there are private interests involved, and you have to sell your frames to the Glorious People's Committee for Glorious Public Entertainment and all that, but come on .... we paid for that show, Bob. Well worth it IMO but I'm not entirely sure I had a choice in the matter.

The great Information-Age conglomerates are doing the Dance of the Honey Bees right now, signalling to each other where the nectar is that each hive is allowed to collect.

Make no mistake, you WILL be allowed to further their interests, if you in no way further your own to even a slightly greater degree.

Interesting observation here. When I read about an embarrassing quote, I recalled a comment by Steve Jobs in "Triumph of the Nerds" where he said that the desktop wars were over. Out of all the quotes, I would think that one is the one he would most like to take back considering Apple's recent rise.

And then there is Micheal Dell telling the world that Apple should just close shop.

BTW, Triumph of the Nerds was amazing. Can't believe it's been that long.

Did you tell Squidoo all of this, and ask him to counterclaim? If so, why didn't you mention it here; and if not, why not?
Sorry this isn't more funny ;)

I certainly do not think that a 3rd party notice from someone other than the copyright holder are grounds for YouTube to remove my clip. Even a notice from Oregon Public Broadcasting would have to be considered an "alleged infringement" claim from a copyright holder.

What's so great about copyright is there isn't any alleged infringement. It works like this: did you distribute some work? Yes. Are you Oregon Public Broadcasting? No. You are infringing. Now you'll probably argue that your case is an example of Fair Use -- but get this -- Fair Use is an affirmative defense. If you claim Fair Use you are affirming "guilt" (copyright infringement) by making the defense. At which point a judge decides against the four point test if your infringement is Fair Use, or not. With copyright you are essentially* infringing until proven Fair Use, i.e., "guilty" until proven "innocent"!

In short, Fair Use isn't a right, it's a defense. Copyright isn't a right either; it is a limited-time** State-granted monopoly on distribution. For more info, check out 17 USC 107 and also http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

*Since you can't be non-infringing without being sued and winning!

**One day short of forever, is inexplicably constitutional to some Supremes. Extention every time new works are about to reach the Public Domain still counts as "for a limited time"; See Article 1.8.8.

I think both Jobs quotes are great. The stealing quote is one of the most important things to understand about software and design in general. I'm sure people here understand what he means. A wise man can recognise the best solution when it already exists and knows to copy the concept rather than trying to best it out of pride. Of course this doesn't refer to whole products but indivudual concepts/solutions that make up the product.

>> I'm sure people here understand what he means.

What you mentioned was strictly your interpretation of what Mr. Jobs said. You cannot state, as you did, that your interpretation is what Mr. Jobs actually meant.

My interpretation of what Mr. Jobs said is that he is willing to steal and use the ideas of others just because those ideas are good ideas. I also note that the word "steal" means to take without propoer compensation.

This kind of DMCA notice -- a takedown request of material on which one does not hold the copyright -- involves some serious playing with fire. According to the DMCA (17 USC sec. 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) in this case), any takedown notice must include:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (emphasis added)

If NBD is really acting on its own here, without Oregon Public Broadcasting's consent, then one of two things happened here. Either NBD left out the sworn statement of authorization, in which case Youtube is under no obligation to take down the video (a case came down just this week on that point), or NBD made false statements under oath and thus could face perjury charges. The DMCA can be a powerful tool of censorship, but sharp swords can cut both ways.

Stealing! How about the when Apple sued Microsoft for lifting Apple's GUI - then Xerox interceded in the cause (or sued Apple later?) because Xerox said who lifted what from whom? Apple settled with Xerox!

And this as well as the many other fishy things is why THOUGH i hate microsoft, i would NEVER ... EVER use anything made by apple instead, I will rot in windows and Linux before I EVER use, purchase, or incorporate ANY thing apple has made, I refuse even to install quicktime, APPLE and Steve Jobs are Communists, PERIOD. sure MS sucks they're shit breaks all the time, they dominate the market, they are the company everyone loves to hate but are required to live with, but APPLE is plain bullshit, they lie, they steal, they bully, they con, they decieve, even when caught red handed, just as this quip from the tv shows, Steve Jobs is a crook. he just hides it with fruity bullshit covers on his faggot gay hardware covers, IMAC... the gayprone visually appealing BOAT ANCHOR.

At least Bill Gates is helping to better the world with his well earned riches. ... BUT, he needs to cut me a check for the countless hours of BS I've had to deal with because of a life of windows.

Hi Robert! Long time fan! Thanks for the inside on such a GREAT story!! This is a very interesting clip! Steve Jobs must be the most severe hypocrite the world has ever admired. Seriously, I hope this guy who had his clips taken down fights back, and I hope others who have access to this video start posting the money quote everywhere in the world so that Steve Jobs when he wakes up in the morning someday will finally realize that he's no better than anyone else, that his company copies as much as the next, and hopefully one day in the distant future, he'll finally understand that same kudos are not handed out in the technology world for originality as they are for musicians, painters, and artists in general. In the technology world there basing your technology on the works of others is the only way to compete. I for one am tired of Steve jobs and his followers crying about he copied this and he copied that when it's actually good for the consumers for companies to take the best of others.

Thanks!! Jason B.

The NBDTV to Apple connection

A few flinty-eyed long-BRST-stock crackpot points:

NBDTV does not even offer Triumph of the Nerds; note the following website search results….

http://www.nbdtv.com/frames_main/search_az/az_search.asp#t and

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+%22triumph+of+the+nerds%22+site%3Anbdtv.com&btnG=Search

But…….NBDTV is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCD Media.

http://www.dcdmedia.co.uk/business_areas_distribution.asp

And does DCD have a connection to (/in bed with) Apple?

From their annual report it is quire clear that DCD has at least a business arrangement with Apple. Note the prominent use of the IPOD photo on page 5.

http://www.dcdmedia.co.uk/pdf/annualreport_06.pdf

Can we all connect these dots, now?

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_B/threadview?m=tm&bn=24325&tid=12755&mid=12755&tof=1&frt=1

As an update, here is a link to a revised version of one of the clips, coming in at 11 secs and so acceptable as "fair use" -- as I understand fair use, at least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE

Here is another interesting use of "copyright" as a method of getting an item removed from YouTube.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000817.html

You can shutdown any website easily by using this us state court injunction generator:
http://www.ipnic.org/preliminary.html

This isn't that different from what happened to that video.

This raises the question of knowing who the correct copyright holder is? Does "Squidoo" have any way of knowing that NBD Television Inc. is not the copyright holder of the show, and hence tell YouTube this?

That injunction generator is a fake...

"Not exactly the sort of statement you want your opposition to show to the jury in a patent infringement trial, is it?"

Why would they need YouTube, the "Triumph of the Nerds" DVD is not on sale at the moment? And this is not the first patent infringement trial involving Apple, what's so urgent about this clip?

My modernist interpretation of Picasso's quote: good artists copy what they see in nature; great artists abstract - or 'steal' - the essential forms of nature to create something new.

God knows what Picasso really meant. God only knows what Jobs thought Picasso meant, or what he meant.

On the other hand, as Robert suggests, if you were ever recorded when you used the word 'steal' in the past, when the RIAA come knocking at your door, you can expect to pay them whatever they tell you to pay. This is why I've completely eliminated the word [blank] from my vocabulary. In 5 years you'll know what I mean.

"You can't shut us down. The Internet is about the free sale and exchange of other people's ideas. We've done nothing wrong."

Futurama S3E15

Triumph of the Nerds is one of my favorite documentaries ever. Kind of off topic here, but thanks for it, Bob.

My wife just tried to throw out my copy of Triumph of the Nerds this weekend. Luckily I rescued it before it made it to the dumpster. Also one of my favorite documentaries (and books).

Did you notice that URLs ending in "F" through "H" have also been "taken down" by NBD Television Ltd.?

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcE

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcF

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcG


">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeNumls8hcH

Could this merely be a typo? Occam's rule should apply, even when it comes to GooTube...

Charles

If you want to see some of what they took donw, try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE

HEY! HERE IS AN EXISTING TV MULTICAST APPLICATION FOR MACOS AND WINDOWS WICH LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY YOU DESCRIBE!!

http://www.zattoo.com/

IT EXISTS SINCE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND IT WORKS (2 SECONDS BUFFERING, GREAT IMAGE QUALITY, TONS OF TV CHANNELS)!!

sorry for the CAPS but I thought all of you MUST see this working, and it AIN'T AN APRIL FOOL JOKE ;)

HEY! HERE IS AN EXISTING TV MULTICAST APPLICATION FOR MACOS AND WINDOWS WICH LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY YOU DESCRIBE!!

http://www.zattoo.com/

IT EXISTS SINCE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND IT WORKS (2 SECONDS BUFFERING, GREAT IMAGE QUALITY, TONS OF TV CHANNELS)!!

sorry for the CAPS but I thought all of you MUST see this working, and it AIN'T AN APRIL FOOL JOKE ;)

Jesus Bob, usually I find your articles very interesing but I fell asleep with my finger on the scroll-down button this time.

Bob:
Longtime fan, first time writer. Thanks for all the informative, entertaining articles over the years. I teach an "Intro to Computing" course to high schoolers, and we just finished watching "Triumph of the Nerds" and "Nerds 2.0". I hope you make more full-length series!

Ethan

I don't think I agree with the particular logic of your fair use analysis (although I should admit I'm more familiar with print copyright than video.)

5 minutes out of a 165 minute production is just barely more than 3%. It's my perception that percentage of the whole should make a bigger difference than the absolute amount of time. (I suppose you could argue that it's 9% of one episode, and I'd still argue fair use should cover that.)

On the other hand, you comment that it's "extensively recut at that." This isn't an add-on, it should be the crux of the argument! He's taken your work and made something substantially different out of it. Now, I'd argue that's what copyright is supposed to encourage, but apparently Congress stopped believing that somewhere around the 5th round of tequila sunrises at Sonny Bono's wake.

Amazing. I know little about copyright, but surely there resides a legal document somewhere in the bowels of government bureaucracy (with copies in lawyers' offices), identifying the copyright holder for a work under copyright; and it's remarkable that YouTube apparently doesn't require such documentation be made available to them to verify that the party claiming copyright infringement is entitled to make such a claim. BEFORE they pull something down.