Comments on: We Have Put-Back: Super Bowl Warnings Back Online

By: Peter Murray

Peter Murray — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:23:17 +0000

Following up on Jesse’s comment, it does appear that is is unavailable again on YouTube. The Chronicle of Higher Education has an update describing how the content was put back and then taken down again. (http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1930/a-professor-attempts-a-goal-line-stand)

By: Jesse

Jesse — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:19:24 +0000

Odd - when I go to the linked page on March 13th to see the video, it still says “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Football League”.

By: chris newman

chris newman — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:44:09 +0000

I’m not sure I get what you mean about the purported asymmetry as to how much a notifier v. counter-notifier has to swear to. As I read the statute, a notifier has to include a statement that: “the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Which means that they have to swear out a good faith belief that the use they’re asking to have taken down isn’t fair use.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:19:43 +0000

billb: that’s one of the tough questions of 512, but you could say that a claim denying fair use was “misidentification” of the material as infringing, or “mistake” by the service provider in responding to the incorrect takedown.

jake: I’m not claiming a right to YouTube’s server space, merely hoping that their policies will be freely chosen, not the product of improper pressure from copyright claimants.

By: jake

jake — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:00:06 +0000

I’m not a lawyer in any sense of the word, but what allows Wendy to act like she is entitled to youtube.com’s server space and bandwidth? One would think their ownership of the domain/hosting allows them to dictate what they would like to display (or in this case, not display) on their site. Not trying to troll, just genuinely curious.

By: billb

billb — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:31:13 +0000

What if I have a good faith belief that the material was taken down as the result of deliberate and intentional disregard of my fair use rights by the copyright holder or his agent? Does that constitute a mistake under 512(g)? :)

By: tlr

tlr — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:12:01 +0000

I’m not entirely sure whether to congratulate or not… ;-) Let’s assume, for a second, that the video hadn’t been put back. What would your next step be?

By: Wendy

Wendy — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:52:30 +0000

Thanks Jim,
I appreciate your contributions to the e-voting and copyright debates.

By: NewsFlashMusic

NewsFlashMusic — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:50:40 +0000

I don’t know why the big fuzz about this Super Bowl prolbem.

By: Jim March

Jim March — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:20:01 +0000

Well I sure as hell could:

http://www.equalccw.com/liebold.html

My site was the only continuous survivor of the Diebold DMCA flurry. And I wasn’t just posting the memos, but full downloadable install sets of GEMS.