21 ms·

Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

606 points by Lio 10y ago

msh 10y ago
Is there a major mobile phone producer with lower morals than Samsung?
- lallysingh 10y ago
  Are there morals in mobile phones?
  - LesZedCB 10y ago
    capitalism has no morals.
- pearjuice 10y ago
  Apple comes to mind.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Your getting downvoted beacuse morals only apply to people in the same social caste as you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
    - akerro 10y ago
      This thing is called "suicide net", plenty of images of them on Google Image, eg here http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FOXCON-APPLE-SUICIDE-NETS.jpg http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FO... If some people find them moral, maybe they will find this a bit less moral: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/c...
    - gambiting 10y ago
      And I am sure that employees working at factories that make parts for other manufacturers absolutely never kill themselves due to their work, and that foxconn never supplies parts for anyone else but Apple? Let's be realistic for a second.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        From the wiki "Fell from apartment building[11] after losing an iPhone prototype in his possession.[12] Prior to death, he claimed he was beaten and his residence searched by Foxconn employees."
        gambiting 10y ago
        And if Apple used any other factory in China it wouldn't have happened? Or are you saying that Apple murdered someone?
        clarry 10y ago
        > And if Apple used any other factory in China it wouldn't have happened? It could have happened in another factory. However, it surely wouldn't have happened in every single factory. And it shouldn't have happened in any factory. If large corps like Apple are in a position to influence a change such than things like this do not happen in the factories they rely on, then perhaps it is their moral responsibility to do so. If not them, who else would do it?
        gambiting 10y ago
        The government of the country those factories are operating in, perhaps???
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        So manifest destiny is your arugment essentially?
    - burger_moon 10y ago
      Foxconn and their awful employment treatment are brought to you by the profits of more than just Apple however. Perhaps that's why people have a knee jerk reaction to singling out a tech company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Major_customers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Major_customers
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        That's relative morality, not morality.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      From your link (emphasis mine): "The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time as well as all 50 states of the United States."
  - msh 10y ago
    How are their morals worse than samsung? I don't remember them trying to bribe a president.
- turblety 10y ago
  Maybe not a mobile phone producer, but certainly YouTube has morals at least the same as, if not lower than Samsung. We really need to fight these censorship issues before it's too late.
  - neolefty 10y ago
    It's an automated system designed to comply with the DMCA. Give it a few days for manual intervention to shake things out, then judge.
- amelius 10y ago
  Sony?
turblety 10y ago
By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?
- jnagro 10y ago
  You're right. Satire is fair use.
  - thinkMOAR 10y ago
    Unless you do satire about dictators and parties alike. And samsung is behaving a bit weird about this all.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is. Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned. Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks. Copyright does not protect basic look and feel. There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves. This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Declanomous 10y ago
      >This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone. I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place. If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing. You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways. I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-billions-of-views-youtube-video-goes-viral-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-bill... Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringement-facebook-content-id-celebrities-2015-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringeme...
warrenmiller 10y ago
methinks this will only lead to the barbra streisand effect.
- jnagro 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]
- corobo 10y ago
  I'd not heard of it until now. Streisand is in full effect. I've also grabbed a copy of the mod in case they decide to abuse copyright to take that down too, pretty sure I can upload it to sites faster than they can DMCA them. The real lesson here is don't make exploding phones.
  - milankragujevic 10y ago
    I have to bitch about Samsung once more, because their batteries are absolute shit and puff up even if charged with their original charger in the original phone, and so innocently the batteries' warranty is 6 month but they puff up and decrease in capacity dramatically after 7-8 months of use.
    - dasboth 10y ago
      I have to agree. I should have learned my lesson after the Galaxy S2 Mini I had, but I went and got the S4 Mini anyway. I regret it now - after 18 months it barely lasts a day with me not doing much with it and gets very hot. Last Samsung I bought for a long time, that's for sure.
      - JoelBennett 10y ago
felipelemos 10y ago
Like this? https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xAfsxiA9aBytq0/source.gif https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xAfsxiA9aBytq0/source.gif
jnagro 10y ago
Satire is fair use. Someone should sue Samsung, Get Lawrence Lessig on this!
- raverbashing 10y ago
  This is the correct answer
- adrr 10y ago
  US government just needs to enforce laws against corporations abusing the DMCA. Samsung committed perjury by saying they hold the copyright to these videos.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Not quite. Samsung claimed they own the copyright to some work, and that this video is in violation of such copyright (for example, the videos could include a photo or text owned by Samsung). I don't think the perjury clause applies if they're just wrong about the latter.
    - adrr 10y ago
      They claimed copyright on a Grand Theft Audio screen capture video that had the grenade model substituted for a cell phone. No way you could argue you own copyright on that.
nailer 10y ago
Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns. Eg, during the takedown process, have something like: > [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content. > [ ] I understand that incorrectly flagging satirical or commentary videos that mention my trademarks but do not infringe upon my trademark rights may delay response to future infringement filings. Or something similar. IANAL. Complainants must tick the boxes to be able to submit.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Has it changed the financial incentives? If not, why would it change the results?
  - nailer 10y ago
    That's why we have 'I understand incorrectly flagging may delay response' which would change the financial incentives. If Samsung waste Google's time with false takedowns of satirical content, Google won't be able to respond to, eg, companies marketing fake Galaxy phones or similar as fast as they would otherwise. Likewise if trolls incorrectly flag videos critiquing them Google won't be able to respond as quickly to someone just pirating their material.
    - cortesoft 10y ago
      I think the person you are responding to's point is what does Google gain by changing its takedown procedure? Does Google really care if they take down some non-infringing content? Is it going to hurt their traffic that much?
      - emp_zealoth 10y ago
        Google is working hard to make content creators quit. Lack of real recourse against false flagging and takedowns, new "advertiser friendly" rules, the new hero system (top 10 or so most downvoted video on youtube, absolutely the worst ratio If they really start pushing on enforcement of this bullshit there will be nothing for me to watch there, just shitty non-content nonsense. AvE is not PC, EEVBlog also is not PC, Louis Rossman swears in his videos, singsing streams are full of racial jokes, stereotypes and the like.
teekert 10y ago
I love such news, their comment threads are the best source of funny Note 7 jokes :) I can't find it now but I saw an image of a terrorist with a Note 7 belt under his jacket. Nice. Why can't they think of a fun way to deal with this PR disaster, how hard can it be? Jeez what are they thinking??
- awqrre 10y ago
  Samsung probably gave ideas to terrorists
mooveprince 10y ago
Dear Samsung, Still lot to do -https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/obama-roasts-samsung-over-burning-phones/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/obama-roasts-samsung-over-...
jMyles 10y ago
I love you all. :-) Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system so that these claims will be more costly to the claimant. We need to break open the head here, people! We're scientists, right? Step back from your political ideologies and your fears and tell me what the real problem is with this biological system. Right: it's that a single actor can make the decision to censor these things. It's fundamentally a weak link problem. Whether or not we fix DMCA, which I'm sure we will, we need to fix the problem that the weak link exists in the first place. A centralized Youtube will not do for the information age. Our organism must build immunity such that, no matter the tantrums of the state, nobody is capable of giving in and handing over the lollipop.
- jnagro 10y ago
  i'm interested in joining your fight club
- the8472 10y ago
  step 1: roll out IP multicast step 2: ...
  - teekert 10y ago
    Start sing https://ipfs.io/ https://ipfs.io/
- clarry 10y ago
  I can't fix the problem so it's up to you. Good luck. Increasingly, we live in a world of corporate ownership. Not private property.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Or more precisely, a world of rent-seeking instead of innovation. Society's consumption is constantly shifting away from traditional corporate interests. However, the one thing people will always need to consume is housing. I think this is why we're seeing property prices skyrocket - people with money realize the best and safest place for their money is property since it will always be in demand.
andrewclunn 10y ago
Internet censorship concerns, video games, faulty technology, and a big tech firm threatening legal action... No wonder this is top ranked on Hacker News.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
merb 10y ago
The good thing is, that after they blocked it. It appears EVERYWHERE in the news, so EVERYBODY see's it. Instead of some people (gamer community). The block backfired.
Jabbles 10y ago
Update: video(s?) is back up: http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-note-7-bomb-v-1788042206 http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-...
- bronson 10y ago
  The video appears to have had a few tens of thousand views before Samsung's complaint. Two days later, it's nearing 1.4 million views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE Nice job Samsung!
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  It really is superb parody.
Keverw 10y ago
I don't know what's the most abused laws are, but I'd say copyright would probably be in the top 10 list if there was such a list. I wish people who abuse copyright takedowns repeatedly would get a large fine. Then the fine should be split between the uploader and service provider. Plus the takedown abuser should have to pay all legal fees on top of the fine.
gok 10y ago
Why would Google want to leave up a video that ridicules their top hardware partner? YouTube isn't a public service.
- vkou 10y ago
  There are plenty of videos on YouTube that are scathingly critical of Google, Google's partners, Google's vendors, Google's products, Google's policies, and Google's employees.
- logicallee 10y ago
  According to a recent UN report to be released in a few months and which I've gotten an advanced copy of, YCombinator is the worst organization in the history of modern civilization. That was a satirical sentence. Now let's examine your argument as applied directly to this very comment. Why is it in YCombinator's (the organization that runs this forum we're both posting in) interest to "keep up" this comment, which is obviously satirical by being over-the-top. Because the default is "keeping up." They would be crazy to remove it, which won't happen. The situation might be different if this were a new account not making a valid, albeit satirical, point. The fact that "YCombinator is not a public service" is not right, because yes, in some ways, Hacker News is a public service in a sense, and so is YouTube. Maybe not exactly, but it is not highly administered to promote only a single thought. Note: I want to add the disclaimer that I really actually don't have negative feelings about YCombinator, in case someone misunderstands. I'm literally just making a point by showing that just because they run this service doesn't mean they would remove a comment like this one. You need really, really good reason to remove something. By default things stay up.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    I've been downvoted, but I think people didn't get my point at all. There is no way that YCombinator is removing this comment, just because they host this platform, and for emphasis I pretend to be critical. There is no WAY youtube would remove a video of an exploding samsung, just because samsung is a partner.
sidcool 10y ago
Such attempts have rarely gone successful in past. May be the Streisand effect will be known as Samsung effect
vlunkr 10y ago
I feel like the best thing Samsung could do for themselves right now from a PR perspective is just apologize and shut up.
mattnewton 10y ago
Oh boy, Streisand effect in full swing. Block a YouTube video and now get to the front page of the BBC.
- shostack 10y ago
  That's the part I don't get. Presumably they have a PR team that aren't idiots with the money they have. Surely they had to have thought this might happen, right? Right?!
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    I imagine it's separate teams. Everyone is probably doing everything they can as fast as they can.
- stevarino 10y ago
  Sadly I don't think Samsung has to worry about the Streisand effect: how much worse can it really get for them? This is just damage control for their products not to become complete jokes.
  - fizgig 10y ago
    But Samsung has now become a joke for trying to take down the original jokes. I don't see how anyone at, or working for, Samsung felt this was in the company's best interest.
jaimehrubiks 10y ago
So this means that Samsung could ask that any video which shows their phones to be removed from the internet? Because it is a copyright claim...
abdias 10y ago
It's a funny story but also shows how pathetic (IMO) some companies and organizations become. They just don't realize the cat is already out the bag. "Damage control" should not be used for censorship. This is clearly fair use (satire). And in general about YouTube and similar companies: This is what happens when the court principle of innocent until proven guilty is inverted to be guilty until proven innocent. There is a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, and Google (and other companies) should adhere and respect the intentions behind it.
jamesjyu 10y ago
I even heard Obama making a quip about the Note catching fire. Are they going to send him a reprimand as well? :)
joesmo 10y ago
This is why we need strict, very harsh penalties for abuse of copyright (and patent laws). This has NOTHING to do with copyright, yet these Samsung assholes file claims with Youtube? How about 1% net revenue fine for every wrongful copyright claim (like, but not limited to, a bad DMCA claim), increasing by 1% (with no limit other than at 100% you lose the business) for every wrongful subsequent claim? But of course, this will never happen. Personally, I see these kinds of attacks as justification for piracy and the willful disobedience of our incredibly stupid laws (in the US).
robertjwhitney 10y ago
Boy, this is really going to blow up in their face.
zelon88 10y ago
Have they never heard of the Streisand effect?
vermontdevil 10y ago
Like it'll work? With Halloween coming up, expect plenty of pics and videos of people wearing Samsung Note 7 wrapped around them as a suicide vest.
Pyxl101 10y ago
Here are a couple of the videos with what I believe is the content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enK5XGETCZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enK5XGETCZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAM94W23Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAM94W23Q
jmclnx 10y ago
I guess Samsung will keep a lonely Sony company on my "do not buy list", too bad. BTW, in the US, last I heard Parodies is a protected form of speech. So I think DoctorGTA has the law on his/her side (assuming he is living in the US).
siculars 10y ago
These people are so dumb and just don't get "it." Samsung is so dumb, they are very dumb, for real. So dumb, so dumb, so dumb, so.... they climbing in your windows trying to rape your GTA and youtube accounts. ([0]) All this is going to do is encourage tens of thousands of young kids to figure out what things like "DRM", "free speech", "EFF", "privacy", "copyright" and the like mean. Maybe we get a few good lawyers out of this, a lot of great parody and a lot of great art. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAKsaQOCpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAKsaQOCpQ
technifreak 10y ago
Maybe this has nothing to do with DMCA and more to do with Samsung spending millions of dollars in advertising on Youtube (speculation). If one of your major sponsors threatens to pull back advertising dollars, that supports your platform, maybe you bow to their requests. Maybe.
zeroer 10y ago
I never would have seen the video without the 'block'. Thanks Samsung, that was funny!
frostirosti 10y ago
This is the abuse of the copyright system people warned about and YouTube downplayed.
aerialcombat 10y ago
Typical Samsung
DarkIye 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- exodust 10y ago
  No shit. Is that the best you can do? Link to Wikipedia for the Streisand effect when the story already explains what that is? I might follow your lead and add links to Wikipedia's entry for... GTA V: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V The BBC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC and Youtube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube Just in case anyone out there has NFI what these are.
hyperhopper 10y ago
There seems to be a lot of people saying the government should do something about this. Keep in mind, this is not related to DMCA or copyright at all: this is a software system in use by a private company. No laws were broken, it is just extremely scummy behavior.
Gaelan 10y ago
Better title: Samsung sends copyright claim for exploding Note 7 parody videos
smegel 10y ago
How do you say Streisand Effect in Korean?
Vaebn 10y ago
Naturally I now want to see all of them.
haterz187 10y ago
I would love a note 7
beedogs 10y ago
Samsung must really not want to be in the mobile phone business anymore. The dim-witted actions they're taking in regards to these videos will only turn more people off. I for one will never consider a Samsung product now, and not just their mobile phones. They're set to join Sony on my relatively short "do not buy" list.

606 points by Lio 10y ago

msh 10y ago

Is there a major mobile phone producer with lower morals than Samsung?

lallysingh 10y ago
Are there morals in mobile phones?
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  capitalism has no morals.
pearjuice 10y ago
Apple comes to mind.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Your getting downvoted beacuse morals only apply to people in the same social caste as you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
  - akerro 10y ago
    This thing is called "suicide net", plenty of images of them on Google Image, eg here http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FOXCON-APPLE-SUICIDE-NETS.jpg http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FO... If some people find them moral, maybe they will find this a bit less moral: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/c...
  - gambiting 10y ago
    And I am sure that employees working at factories that make parts for other manufacturers absolutely never kill themselves due to their work, and that foxconn never supplies parts for anyone else but Apple? Let's be realistic for a second.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      From the wiki "Fell from apartment building[11] after losing an iPhone prototype in his possession.[12] Prior to death, he claimed he was beaten and his residence searched by Foxconn employees."
      - gambiting 10y ago
        And if Apple used any other factory in China it wouldn't have happened? Or are you saying that Apple murdered someone?
        clarry 10y ago
        > And if Apple used any other factory in China it wouldn't have happened? It could have happened in another factory. However, it surely wouldn't have happened in every single factory. And it shouldn't have happened in any factory. If large corps like Apple are in a position to influence a change such than things like this do not happen in the factories they rely on, then perhaps it is their moral responsibility to do so. If not them, who else would do it?
        gambiting 10y ago
        The government of the country those factories are operating in, perhaps???
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        So manifest destiny is your arugment essentially?
  - burger_moon 10y ago
    Foxconn and their awful employment treatment are brought to you by the profits of more than just Apple however. Perhaps that's why people have a knee jerk reaction to singling out a tech company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Major_customers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Major_customers
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      That's relative morality, not morality.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    From your link (emphasis mine): "The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time as well as all 50 states of the United States."
- msh 10y ago
  How are their morals worse than samsung? I don't remember them trying to bribe a president.
turblety 10y ago
Maybe not a mobile phone producer, but certainly YouTube has morals at least the same as, if not lower than Samsung. We really need to fight these censorship issues before it's too late.
- neolefty 10y ago
  It's an automated system designed to comply with the DMCA. Give it a few days for manual intervention to shake things out, then judge.
amelius 10y ago
Sony?

turblety 10y ago

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

jnagro 10y ago
You're right. Satire is fair use.
- thinkMOAR 10y ago
  Unless you do satire about dictators and parties alike. And samsung is behaving a bit weird about this all.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is. Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned. Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks. Copyright does not protect basic look and feel. There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves. This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    >This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone. I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place. If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing. You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways. I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-billions-of-views-youtube-video-goes-viral-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-bill... Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringement-facebook-content-id-celebrities-2015-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringeme...

warrenmiller 10y ago

methinks this will only lead to the barbra streisand effect.

jnagro 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]
corobo 10y ago
I'd not heard of it until now. Streisand is in full effect. I've also grabbed a copy of the mod in case they decide to abuse copyright to take that down too, pretty sure I can upload it to sites faster than they can DMCA them. The real lesson here is don't make exploding phones.
- milankragujevic 10y ago
  I have to bitch about Samsung once more, because their batteries are absolute shit and puff up even if charged with their original charger in the original phone, and so innocently the batteries' warranty is 6 month but they puff up and decrease in capacity dramatically after 7-8 months of use.
  - dasboth 10y ago
    I have to agree. I should have learned my lesson after the Galaxy S2 Mini I had, but I went and got the S4 Mini anyway. I regret it now - after 18 months it barely lasts a day with me not doing much with it and gets very hot. Last Samsung I bought for a long time, that's for sure.
    - JoelBennett 10y ago

felipelemos 10y ago

Like this? https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xAfsxiA9aBytq0/source.gif https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xAfsxiA9aBytq0/source.gif

jnagro 10y ago

Satire is fair use. Someone should sue Samsung, Get Lawrence Lessig on this!

raverbashing 10y ago
This is the correct answer
adrr 10y ago
US government just needs to enforce laws against corporations abusing the DMCA. Samsung committed perjury by saying they hold the copyright to these videos.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Not quite. Samsung claimed they own the copyright to some work, and that this video is in violation of such copyright (for example, the videos could include a photo or text owned by Samsung). I don't think the perjury clause applies if they're just wrong about the latter.
  - adrr 10y ago
    They claimed copyright on a Grand Theft Audio screen capture video that had the grenade model substituted for a cell phone. No way you could argue you own copyright on that.

nailer 10y ago

Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns. Eg, during the takedown process, have something like: > [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content. > [ ] I understand that incorrectly flagging satirical or commentary videos that mention my trademarks but do not infringe upon my trademark rights may delay response to future infringement filings. Or something similar. IANAL. Complainants must tick the boxes to be able to submit.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Has it changed the financial incentives? If not, why would it change the results?
- nailer 10y ago
  That's why we have 'I understand incorrectly flagging may delay response' which would change the financial incentives. If Samsung waste Google's time with false takedowns of satirical content, Google won't be able to respond to, eg, companies marketing fake Galaxy phones or similar as fast as they would otherwise. Likewise if trolls incorrectly flag videos critiquing them Google won't be able to respond as quickly to someone just pirating their material.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    I think the person you are responding to's point is what does Google gain by changing its takedown procedure? Does Google really care if they take down some non-infringing content? Is it going to hurt their traffic that much?
    - emp_zealoth 10y ago
      Google is working hard to make content creators quit. Lack of real recourse against false flagging and takedowns, new "advertiser friendly" rules, the new hero system (top 10 or so most downvoted video on youtube, absolutely the worst ratio If they really start pushing on enforcement of this bullshit there will be nothing for me to watch there, just shitty non-content nonsense. AvE is not PC, EEVBlog also is not PC, Louis Rossman swears in his videos, singsing streams are full of racial jokes, stereotypes and the like.

teekert 10y ago

I love such news, their comment threads are the best source of funny Note 7 jokes :) I can't find it now but I saw an image of a terrorist with a Note 7 belt under his jacket. Nice. Why can't they think of a fun way to deal with this PR disaster, how hard can it be? Jeez what are they thinking??

awqrre 10y ago
Samsung probably gave ideas to terrorists

mooveprince 10y ago

Dear Samsung, Still lot to do -https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/obama-roasts-samsung-over-burning-phones/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/obama-roasts-samsung-over-...

jMyles 10y ago

I love you all. :-) Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system so that these claims will be more costly to the claimant. We need to break open the head here, people! We're scientists, right? Step back from your political ideologies and your fears and tell me what the real problem is with this biological system. Right: it's that a single actor can make the decision to censor these things. It's fundamentally a weak link problem. Whether or not we fix DMCA, which I'm sure we will, we need to fix the problem that the weak link exists in the first place. A centralized Youtube will not do for the information age. Our organism must build immunity such that, no matter the tantrums of the state, nobody is capable of giving in and handing over the lollipop.

jnagro 10y ago
i'm interested in joining your fight club
the8472 10y ago
step 1: roll out IP multicast step 2: ...
- teekert 10y ago
  Start sing https://ipfs.io/ https://ipfs.io/
clarry 10y ago
I can't fix the problem so it's up to you. Good luck. Increasingly, we live in a world of corporate ownership. Not private property.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Or more precisely, a world of rent-seeking instead of innovation. Society's consumption is constantly shifting away from traditional corporate interests. However, the one thing people will always need to consume is housing. I think this is why we're seeing property prices skyrocket - people with money realize the best and safest place for their money is property since it will always be in demand.

andrewclunn 10y ago

Internet censorship concerns, video games, faulty technology, and a big tech firm threatening legal action... No wonder this is top ranked on Hacker News.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

merb 10y ago

The good thing is, that after they blocked it. It appears EVERYWHERE in the news, so EVERYBODY see's it. Instead of some people (gamer community). The block backfired.

Jabbles 10y ago

Update: video(s?) is back up: http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-note-7-bomb-v-1788042206 http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of-gta-v-...

bronson 10y ago
The video appears to have had a few tens of thousand views before Samsung's complaint. Two days later, it's nearing 1.4 million views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE Nice job Samsung!
erikpukinskis 10y ago
It really is superb parody.

Keverw 10y ago

I don't know what's the most abused laws are, but I'd say copyright would probably be in the top 10 list if there was such a list. I wish people who abuse copyright takedowns repeatedly would get a large fine. Then the fine should be split between the uploader and service provider. Plus the takedown abuser should have to pay all legal fees on top of the fine.

gok 10y ago

Why would Google want to leave up a video that ridicules their top hardware partner? YouTube isn't a public service.

vkou 10y ago
There are plenty of videos on YouTube that are scathingly critical of Google, Google's partners, Google's vendors, Google's products, Google's policies, and Google's employees.
logicallee 10y ago
According to a recent UN report to be released in a few months and which I've gotten an advanced copy of, YCombinator is the worst organization in the history of modern civilization. That was a satirical sentence. Now let's examine your argument as applied directly to this very comment. Why is it in YCombinator's (the organization that runs this forum we're both posting in) interest to "keep up" this comment, which is obviously satirical by being over-the-top. Because the default is "keeping up." They would be crazy to remove it, which won't happen. The situation might be different if this were a new account not making a valid, albeit satirical, point. The fact that "YCombinator is not a public service" is not right, because yes, in some ways, Hacker News is a public service in a sense, and so is YouTube. Maybe not exactly, but it is not highly administered to promote only a single thought. Note: I want to add the disclaimer that I really actually don't have negative feelings about YCombinator, in case someone misunderstands. I'm literally just making a point by showing that just because they run this service doesn't mean they would remove a comment like this one. You need really, really good reason to remove something. By default things stay up.
- logicallee 10y ago
  I've been downvoted, but I think people didn't get my point at all. There is no way that YCombinator is removing this comment, just because they host this platform, and for emphasis I pretend to be critical. There is no WAY youtube would remove a video of an exploding samsung, just because samsung is a partner.

sidcool 10y ago

Such attempts have rarely gone successful in past. May be the Streisand effect will be known as Samsung effect

vlunkr 10y ago

I feel like the best thing Samsung could do for themselves right now from a PR perspective is just apologize and shut up.

mattnewton 10y ago

Oh boy, Streisand effect in full swing. Block a YouTube video and now get to the front page of the BBC.

shostack 10y ago
That's the part I don't get. Presumably they have a PR team that aren't idiots with the money they have. Surely they had to have thought this might happen, right? Right?!
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I imagine it's separate teams. Everyone is probably doing everything they can as fast as they can.
stevarino 10y ago
Sadly I don't think Samsung has to worry about the Streisand effect: how much worse can it really get for them? This is just damage control for their products not to become complete jokes.
- fizgig 10y ago
  But Samsung has now become a joke for trying to take down the original jokes. I don't see how anyone at, or working for, Samsung felt this was in the company's best interest.

jaimehrubiks 10y ago

So this means that Samsung could ask that any video which shows their phones to be removed from the internet? Because it is a copyright claim...

abdias 10y ago

It's a funny story but also shows how pathetic (IMO) some companies and organizations become. They just don't realize the cat is already out the bag. "Damage control" should not be used for censorship. This is clearly fair use (satire). And in general about YouTube and similar companies: This is what happens when the court principle of innocent until proven guilty is inverted to be guilty until proven innocent. There is a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, and Google (and other companies) should adhere and respect the intentions behind it.

jamesjyu 10y ago

I even heard Obama making a quip about the Note catching fire. Are they going to send him a reprimand as well? :)

joesmo 10y ago

This is why we need strict, very harsh penalties for abuse of copyright (and patent laws). This has NOTHING to do with copyright, yet these Samsung assholes file claims with Youtube? How about 1% net revenue fine for every wrongful copyright claim (like, but not limited to, a bad DMCA claim), increasing by 1% (with no limit other than at 100% you lose the business) for every wrongful subsequent claim? But of course, this will never happen. Personally, I see these kinds of attacks as justification for piracy and the willful disobedience of our incredibly stupid laws (in the US).

robertjwhitney 10y ago

Boy, this is really going to blow up in their face.

zelon88 10y ago

Have they never heard of the Streisand effect?

vermontdevil 10y ago

Like it'll work? With Halloween coming up, expect plenty of pics and videos of people wearing Samsung Note 7 wrapped around them as a suicide vest.

Pyxl101 10y ago

Here are a couple of the videos with what I believe is the content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enK5XGETCZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enK5XGETCZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAM94W23Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAM94W23Q

jmclnx 10y ago

I guess Samsung will keep a lonely Sony company on my "do not buy list", too bad. BTW, in the US, last I heard Parodies is a protected form of speech. So I think DoctorGTA has the law on his/her side (assuming he is living in the US).

siculars 10y ago

These people are so dumb and just don't get "it." Samsung is so dumb, they are very dumb, for real. So dumb, so dumb, so dumb, so.... they climbing in your windows trying to rape your GTA and youtube accounts. ([0]) All this is going to do is encourage tens of thousands of young kids to figure out what things like "DRM", "free speech", "EFF", "privacy", "copyright" and the like mean. Maybe we get a few good lawyers out of this, a lot of great parody and a lot of great art. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAKsaQOCpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAKsaQOCpQ

technifreak 10y ago

Maybe this has nothing to do with DMCA and more to do with Samsung spending millions of dollars in advertising on Youtube (speculation). If one of your major sponsors threatens to pull back advertising dollars, that supports your platform, maybe you bow to their requests. Maybe.

zeroer 10y ago

I never would have seen the video without the 'block'. Thanks Samsung, that was funny!

frostirosti 10y ago

This is the abuse of the copyright system people warned about and YouTube downplayed.

aerialcombat 10y ago

Typical Samsung

DarkIye 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

exodust 10y ago
No shit. Is that the best you can do? Link to Wikipedia for the Streisand effect when the story already explains what that is? I might follow your lead and add links to Wikipedia's entry for... GTA V: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V The BBC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC and Youtube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube Just in case anyone out there has NFI what these are.

hyperhopper 10y ago

There seems to be a lot of people saying the government should do something about this. Keep in mind, this is not related to DMCA or copyright at all: this is a software system in use by a private company. No laws were broken, it is just extremely scummy behavior.

Gaelan 10y ago

Better title: Samsung sends copyright claim for exploding Note 7 parody videos

smegel 10y ago

How do you say Streisand Effect in Korean?

Vaebn 10y ago

Naturally I now want to see all of them.

haterz187 10y ago

I would love a note 7

beedogs 10y ago

Samsung must really not want to be in the mobile phone business anymore. The dim-witted actions they're taking in regards to these videos will only turn more people off. I for one will never consider a Samsung product now, and not just their mobile phones. They're set to join Sony on my relatively short "do not buy" list.