6 ms·

Sony blocks Sintel on YouTube

96 points by Morgawr 13y ago

bdcravens 13y ago
When I was picking between a PS4 and an XBox One (I'm a casual gamer at most), Sony's actions like this over the years are what swayed me to get the XBox; I just couldn't in good faith support Sony. No, it's not lost on me that the XBox is made by Microsoft: I think that says alot about my opinion of Sony.
- _cbb1 13y ago
  ...And Microsoft's actions are better then Sony?
- cdash 13y ago
  I doubt Sony even took this down themselves but was youtube's automated fingerprint scanner.
  - nailer 13y ago
    Interesting. What do you think would have triggered it?
  - Buge 13y ago
    If you look at the tweet, it says the Youtube video was matched to a Sony video that had Sintel in the name. So Sony submitted a Sintel video to Youtube saying "this belongs to us, take down anything that matches it."
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      This happens all the time on YouTube with all sorts of video. For instance, any time something happens with space, news channels end up flagging public domain NASA footage as their own.
    - jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
      Remember that we're talking about digital video/audio fingerprints here, so it's not just a case of "someone uploaded a video with Sintel in the name". The question is why Sony would be uploading a copy (or a content ID fingerprint) of an open-source work to YouTube and claiming it as their own. YouTube's ContentID would appear to be Working As Designed. The problem is that Sony would appear to have falsely claimed title to a work that is not theirs. It's for Sony to work it out, and for the uploader to quickly and immediately hit the 'dispute' button, which effectively then moves the situation back to Sony to "put up or shut up". I'm not sure that the best way to deal with this situation - which is clearly an error and nothing more - is to run directly onto twitter and start screaming about there being no better reason to support open movies and urging everyone to "donate now" though.
- Nux 13y ago
  Next time buy a Steam box ;-) I'm not sure Sony's actually worse than Microsoft, which says enough about both.
- f00_ 13y ago
  Corporations are often made up of more than a hundred thousand people, divided between thousands of things. I highly doubt anyone that has anything to do with SCEI had anything to do with anyone in Sony Corporation. I don't understand how people have opinions on a fucking corporation. I don't think Jack Tretton is yelling at the legal department of another company. Besides, the consoles basically act as brand identity tools for Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft's gaming divisions only posted a small profit for 5 years and Sony only posted a profit during the height of the PS2.
- hrktb 13y ago
  I understand the sentiment, but I think it's a mistake to think as Sony as one entity. I don't mean this is in the "there's scumbags and there's good people too" rosy way, Sony is really not one corporation but a constellation of indepedantly acting entities. The Xbox business unit and the Windows unit are in the same organisation. Sony's playstation unit and movie business are not even the same company.
camus2 13y ago
Happened to me twice, songs that i created all by myself,without any samples or whatever were blocked on youtube because a third party claimed some copyrights on this,and there is nothing I could do. Youtube has serious issues with abusive take downs.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Didn't you file a counter notice?
  - emidln 13y ago
    I've done this with home videos (the counter notice) and it was summarily rejected and ignored by YouTube. My solution is to stop using YouTube.
    - viseztrance 13y ago
      A few years ago, I created a Vimeo account for a company I used to work with at the time. It was used to upload a video that similarly was found to contain copyrighted content. Vimeo deleted the account on the spot. So as bad as YouTube can be, it can get worse.
    - sroerick 13y ago
      Bittorrent distrobution is the future. I want a version of Popcorn Time that blocks all releases by major movie studios.
keithpeter 13y ago
Is this the unintended outcome of some kind of automated/algorithmic recognition process?
danmaz74 13y ago
If this has no merit, wouldn't it be possible to sue Sony for libel?
- espadrine 13y ago
  An entity that files false copyright claims can face legal consequences: > Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences. That said, this was probably a ContentID claim, which means the video / audio stream matched something similar-looking from Sony according to software designed by Youtube, in which case Sony isn't liable. That system is plagued by false positives since day 1. In which case, since Youtube users agreed to the TOS, no, they are not allowed to sue for libel: > YouTube shall not be liable to you for […] the deletion of […] any Content […] maintained or transmitted by or through your use of the Service https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html
  - danmaz74 13y ago
    Thanks for the explanation
  - Tobu 13y ago
    That TOS bit only protects YouTube, to the extent that it's applicable. It doesn't protect Sony.
    - neohaven 13y ago
      ContentID is not the DMCA.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        The DMCA is not the only law that holds companies responsible for their actions.
pyalot2 13y ago
Proof that the system is broken and needs to be abolished.
bananas 13y ago
Sony really don't need bad press at the moment. They are circling the drain. Time to make a big thing about this and push them over the edge. Nothing I've had from them has been anything but pain for the last 15 years.
- _cbb1 13y ago
  This sounds like your opinion that comes off as a fact...
  - bananas 13y ago
    Let's list it then shall we: We've had DRM hell, lots of proprietary crap (media formats/interfaces/software), impossible to get parts for most machines after a year (I've repaired a lot of Sony kit), poor support, stuff that doesn't actually work properly ever, screwing of Linux PS users, massive leaks of data, shoddy engineering at best, predatory behaviour as a media publisher and possibly the worst user interfaces of any devices ever. Who haven't they pissed off?
    - zwegner 13y ago
      Don't forget those rootkits... (For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...)
      - bananas 13y ago
        Damn I missed one. Thanks for the reminder :)
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      Until I got halfway through your comment I thought you were talking about Apple...
      - vitd 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tibbon 13y ago
There really needs to be a process of recourse against companies that overzealously flag things to have them removed. Yes, its often an automated process- but are we so far down the path of automation that there is no responsibility any more?
- MWil 13y ago
  512(f) + evidence
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    I seem to recall reading that (1) the DMCA is not being used for YouTube takedowns (YouTube has its own takedown process that doesn't have a possible penalty of perjury), and (2) an automated process won't ever meet the bar for penalties under the DMCA. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, and I'd love to see someone turn the tide with a solid victory against a false DMCA or non-DMCA takedown. Corrections welcome.
    - bo1024 13y ago
      I believe this is right.
    - MWil 13y ago
      (1) yeah, that doesn't sound right to me. a DMCA takedown notice by any other name is still a DMCA takedown notice. the specifics that you might find in the statute are the floor (a minimum) so of course YouTube is free to develop their own takedown process that goes above and beyond but it doesn't mean it's somehow opted out of the copyright statutory scheme. (2) Never say never.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        What I mean by (1) is that if you ask a mutual friend to display a picture I took in her gallery, I ask her politely to take it down, and she voluntarily complies with my request, the DMCA wasn't involved at all. This is how I understand the arrangement between YouTube and the 800lb copyright gorillas.
NotOscarWilde 13y ago
I've also faced a YouTube content ID match the other day. In my case, it was a bit more warranted -- a 30 second clip of a 2003 episode of The Simpsons, which I wanted to be able to refer to. Content ID matched it, I filed a dispute citing fair use, somebody from Fox submitted a DMCA takedown. Yet while I say "being more warranted" it still holds that such a citation is legal in my country. I would really welcome services that are able to work internationally and yet will make it easy for me to share information based on the laws of the country I live in. (The reason for the services being international is simply the wish that they'd survive -- we have seen time and again that local websites die down as a large international one (YouTube, Facebook) picks up more and more users.)
nullc 13y ago
I have a Big Buck Bunny upload to youtube (from some codec testing) and every couple months some copyright troll flags it and tries to collect advertising revenue, which also takes down the webm version of the video (because until recently youtube couldn't put ads on those). Fixing it wastes hours of my time and youtube never stops the trolls or even responds to my requests for information about them so _I_ could take them to court.

96 points by Morgawr 13y ago

When I was picking between a PS4 and an XBox One (I'm a casual gamer at most), Sony's actions like this over the years are what swayed me to get the XBox; I just couldn't in good faith support Sony. No, it's not lost on me that the XBox is made by Microsoft: I think that says alot about my opinion of Sony.

_cbb1 13y ago
...And Microsoft's actions are better then Sony?
cdash 13y ago
I doubt Sony even took this down themselves but was youtube's automated fingerprint scanner.
- nailer 13y ago
  Interesting. What do you think would have triggered it?
- Buge 13y ago
  If you look at the tweet, it says the Youtube video was matched to a Sony video that had Sintel in the name. So Sony submitted a Sintel video to Youtube saying "this belongs to us, take down anything that matches it."
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    This happens all the time on YouTube with all sorts of video. For instance, any time something happens with space, news channels end up flagging public domain NASA footage as their own.
  - jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
    Remember that we're talking about digital video/audio fingerprints here, so it's not just a case of "someone uploaded a video with Sintel in the name". The question is why Sony would be uploading a copy (or a content ID fingerprint) of an open-source work to YouTube and claiming it as their own. YouTube's ContentID would appear to be Working As Designed. The problem is that Sony would appear to have falsely claimed title to a work that is not theirs. It's for Sony to work it out, and for the uploader to quickly and immediately hit the 'dispute' button, which effectively then moves the situation back to Sony to "put up or shut up". I'm not sure that the best way to deal with this situation - which is clearly an error and nothing more - is to run directly onto twitter and start screaming about there being no better reason to support open movies and urging everyone to "donate now" though.
Nux 13y ago
Next time buy a Steam box ;-) I'm not sure Sony's actually worse than Microsoft, which says enough about both.
f00_ 13y ago
Corporations are often made up of more than a hundred thousand people, divided between thousands of things. I highly doubt anyone that has anything to do with SCEI had anything to do with anyone in Sony Corporation. I don't understand how people have opinions on a fucking corporation. I don't think Jack Tretton is yelling at the legal department of another company. Besides, the consoles basically act as brand identity tools for Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft's gaming divisions only posted a small profit for 5 years and Sony only posted a profit during the height of the PS2.
hrktb 13y ago
I understand the sentiment, but I think it's a mistake to think as Sony as one entity. I don't mean this is in the "there's scumbags and there's good people too" rosy way, Sony is really not one corporation but a constellation of indepedantly acting entities. The Xbox business unit and the Windows unit are in the same organisation. Sony's playstation unit and movie business are not even the same company.

camus2 13y ago

Happened to me twice, songs that i created all by myself,without any samples or whatever were blocked on youtube because a third party claimed some copyrights on this,and there is nothing I could do. Youtube has serious issues with abusive take downs.

DanBC 13y ago
Didn't you file a counter notice?
- emidln 13y ago
  I've done this with home videos (the counter notice) and it was summarily rejected and ignored by YouTube. My solution is to stop using YouTube.
  - viseztrance 13y ago
    A few years ago, I created a Vimeo account for a company I used to work with at the time. It was used to upload a video that similarly was found to contain copyrighted content. Vimeo deleted the account on the spot. So as bad as YouTube can be, it can get worse.
  - sroerick 13y ago
    Bittorrent distrobution is the future. I want a version of Popcorn Time that blocks all releases by major movie studios.

keithpeter 13y ago

Is this the unintended outcome of some kind of automated/algorithmic recognition process?

danmaz74 13y ago

If this has no merit, wouldn't it be possible to sue Sony for libel?

espadrine 13y ago
An entity that files false copyright claims can face legal consequences: > Misuse of this process may result in the suspension of your account or other legal consequences. That said, this was probably a ContentID claim, which means the video / audio stream matched something similar-looking from Sony according to software designed by Youtube, in which case Sony isn't liable. That system is plagued by false positives since day 1. In which case, since Youtube users agreed to the TOS, no, they are not allowed to sue for libel: > YouTube shall not be liable to you for […] the deletion of […] any Content […] maintained or transmitted by or through your use of the Service https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html
- danmaz74 13y ago
  Thanks for the explanation
- Tobu 13y ago
  That TOS bit only protects YouTube, to the extent that it's applicable. It doesn't protect Sony.
  - neohaven 13y ago
    ContentID is not the DMCA.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      The DMCA is not the only law that holds companies responsible for their actions.

pyalot2 13y ago

Proof that the system is broken and needs to be abolished.

bananas 13y ago

Sony really don't need bad press at the moment. They are circling the drain. Time to make a big thing about this and push them over the edge. Nothing I've had from them has been anything but pain for the last 15 years.

_cbb1 13y ago
This sounds like your opinion that comes off as a fact...
- bananas 13y ago
  Let's list it then shall we: We've had DRM hell, lots of proprietary crap (media formats/interfaces/software), impossible to get parts for most machines after a year (I've repaired a lot of Sony kit), poor support, stuff that doesn't actually work properly ever, screwing of Linux PS users, massive leaks of data, shoddy engineering at best, predatory behaviour as a media publisher and possibly the worst user interfaces of any devices ever. Who haven't they pissed off?
  - zwegner 13y ago
    Don't forget those rootkits... (For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...)
    - bananas 13y ago
      Damn I missed one. Thanks for the reminder :)
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    Until I got halfway through your comment I thought you were talking about Apple...
    - vitd 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tibbon 13y ago

There really needs to be a process of recourse against companies that overzealously flag things to have them removed. Yes, its often an automated process- but are we so far down the path of automation that there is no responsibility any more?

MWil 13y ago
512(f) + evidence
- nitrogen 13y ago
  I seem to recall reading that (1) the DMCA is not being used for YouTube takedowns (YouTube has its own takedown process that doesn't have a possible penalty of perjury), and (2) an automated process won't ever meet the bar for penalties under the DMCA. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, and I'd love to see someone turn the tide with a solid victory against a false DMCA or non-DMCA takedown. Corrections welcome.
  - bo1024 13y ago
    I believe this is right.
  - MWil 13y ago
    (1) yeah, that doesn't sound right to me. a DMCA takedown notice by any other name is still a DMCA takedown notice. the specifics that you might find in the statute are the floor (a minimum) so of course YouTube is free to develop their own takedown process that goes above and beyond but it doesn't mean it's somehow opted out of the copyright statutory scheme. (2) Never say never.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      What I mean by (1) is that if you ask a mutual friend to display a picture I took in her gallery, I ask her politely to take it down, and she voluntarily complies with my request, the DMCA wasn't involved at all. This is how I understand the arrangement between YouTube and the 800lb copyright gorillas.

NotOscarWilde 13y ago

I've also faced a YouTube content ID match the other day. In my case, it was a bit more warranted -- a 30 second clip of a 2003 episode of The Simpsons, which I wanted to be able to refer to. Content ID matched it, I filed a dispute citing fair use, somebody from Fox submitted a DMCA takedown. Yet while I say "being more warranted" it still holds that such a citation is legal in my country. I would really welcome services that are able to work internationally and yet will make it easy for me to share information based on the laws of the country I live in. (The reason for the services being international is simply the wish that they'd survive -- we have seen time and again that local websites die down as a large international one (YouTube, Facebook) picks up more and more users.)

nullc 13y ago

I have a Big Buck Bunny upload to youtube (from some codec testing) and every couple months some copyright troll flags it and tries to collect advertising revenue, which also takes down the webm version of the video (because until recently youtube couldn't put ads on those). Fixing it wastes hours of my time and youtube never stops the trolls or even responds to my requests for information about them so _I_ could take them to court.