Your video, Hitler orders a DMCA takedown, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think this is getting out of hand when the director of this movie himself has been down with them. Either way, the clips are specifically protected by copyright law under parody. More fuel for the DMCA is stupid fire.

FFS, I would have not even known about this movie (and I wound up getting it) if it were not for these videos!

I can almost hear a thousand youtubers rushing to make a "Hitler finds out about DMCA request" video.

That would be, if they are in the US, of course...
Luckily, some of us couldn't care less about DMCA, and can do whatever pleases us with our DVDs.

>> ^spawnflagger:

Unfortunately, you are both breaking the law. Specifically the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act), which states that you cannot circumvent any encryption on media. Even if it seems like "fair use", or you say "but I own the DVD!" - doesn't matter. This law is poorly worded for the consumer, and only crafted to support lawsuits by the large media studios. Even the simple DeCSS code used on DVD, which was beaten within months, counts as encryption, so "ripping" DVDs is therefore illegal.

Unfortunately, you are both breaking the law. Specifically the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act), which states that you cannot circumvent any encryption on media. Even if it seems like "fair use", or you say "but I own the DVD!" - doesn't matter. This law is poorly worded for the consumer, and only crafted to support lawsuits by the large media studios. Even the simple DeCSS code used on DVD, which was beaten within months, counts as encryption, so "ripping" DVDs is therefore illegal. CopyLeft was sued for printing t-shirts with the DeCSS source code on them. It also brought about a case of the first "illegal prime number".

(I suppose if you are preserving the DeCSS encryption on the ripped-to-hard-drive copy it might be a legal backup falling under fair use, but I am not a lawyer)

Anyway, that's why there aren't any legal programs to archive all your movies to hard drive (free and widely available does not equal legal). Which is also why most of those dvd's and blu-rays include a separate Digital Copy that includes a lower res, pre-encoded, DRM'd, version of the movie transferable via iTunes or WMP.

I wish that movies had a separate licenses for the content than for the media. If you saw the movie in the theater, you should get a discount on the DVD (or digital iTunes/etc). If you own the DVD, then you should get a discount on the blu-ray.

My biggest gripe with pure-digital media is the lack of a 2nd hand market. You can't sell used iTunes downloads. (at least not a-la-carte. there was a case of a successful sale of an entire iTunes account transfer on ebay)

>> ^deathcow:

I find decoding the content, followed by making a new disc without them, to be very efficient.


>> ^Psychologic:

It usually isn't just for bypassing previews. I back up all of my DVDs on an external mirrored hardrive. Besides protecting against scratched dvds, I can watch any of the movies from any computer in the house over the wireless network without having to keep up with the physical DVDs.
There is plenty of free software that bypasses DRM, and cutting out previews and unwanted extras reduces the size noticably. The only way the process would take close to an hour is if the video is being compressed (calculation intensive). If it's a straight copy then it takes less than 20 minutes and only requires user input at the very beginning.

For what it's worth, nothing in the summary or the video mentions the DMCA. Community guidelines are a whole different matter...and primarily a matter of the website's terms of service, rather than law.

>> ^gwiz665:

But deliberate misuse of the DMCA is a felony. Not by youtube, but by the one accusing falsely.
>> ^
Payback:
Youtube is a company. It can delete or keep anything it wants. If something is "mistakenly" taken down, the only reason it gets put back up is for appearance's sake. No laws are being broken by a take down, whereas several may be broken by leaving a video up. Simple logic.

But deliberate misuse of the DMCA is a felony. Not by youtube, but by the one accusing falsely.

>> ^Payback:

Youtube is a company. It can delete or keep anything it wants. If something is "mistakenly" taken down, the only reason it gets put back up is for appearance's sake. No laws are being broken by a take down, whereas several may be broken by leaving a video up. Simple logic.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Oh yeah, that's true. I thought you were talking about a software app lockdown a la the iPhone.

Apple tried licensing the OS in the 90s and it failed pretty hard. Most Macheads would say that the reason Macs "just work" is because the software and hardware is so well matched. Windows has to support so many configurations, drivers and computer types that it's a jack of all trades - master of none.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Apple makes Apple computers with Apple operating systems that only run on Apple-approved hardware. It's a DMCA violation to attempt to work around this. Microsoft dreams of this kind of control over their platform, but if they even think too long about ways to do it, someone drags them into court.

I compare Macs to appliances. You would not buy a DVD player and consider rewriting the firmware; a Mac and its OS are no less unified. That's not a critique on their capabilities, it's just to say that it's all one package.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Well, now that's just a ridiculous statement. How are Macs any more an "application console" than a Windows PC?

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
The debacle that is the App Store is obviously far worse, but even on their desktop systems they still have unparalleled control over the platform. A Mac is more of an application console than a computer.

There are pluses and minuses to that, of course, but that's how I sees it.

Apple makes Apple computers with Apple operating systems that only run on Apple-approved hardware. It's a DMCA violation to attempt to work around this. Microsoft dreams of this kind of control over their platform, but if they even think too long about ways to do it, someone drags them into court.

I compare Macs to appliances. You would not buy a DVD player and consider rewriting the firmware; a Mac and its OS are no less unified. That's not a critique on their capabilities, it's just to say that it's all one package.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Well, now that's just a ridiculous statement. How are Macs any more an "application console" than a Windows PC?

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
The debacle that is the App Store is obviously far worse, but even on their desktop systems they still have unparalleled control over the platform. A Mac is more of an application console than a computer.

There are pluses and minuses to that, of course, but that's how I sees it.

>> ^brycewi19:
Sorry, can't upvote bad quality of a recording off a tv.


Swapped for a better quality TV recording embed. There's only so much of those around, before CBS DMCA's them all...

Changed the embed. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by Drax:
This version of the video isn't playing for many people (me included). The HD version does work however...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dbmzzd87uE&fmt=18

Avoiding the DMCA issues (unfortunately as said before, its a broken law and YouTube has to act like a dick because of what it dictates) YouTube still has other problems in usability that has come up recently.

My biggest gripe is that "Whats Related" on the side bar AND at the end of the video no longer shows ratings anymore. Far too often I've clicked on a video thats just spam with lots of views, but if I saw its 1 starred rating I could have avoided it.

Google paid alot of money for the site, and its still burning through money unless things have changed recently through the extra advertising I imagine they are worried more about making the site finally turn a profit. YouTube got popular fast because honestly it had lots of stuff that it should not have had in the first place (Napster syndrome?) but once they got rid of it all, it became a site with a very low signal to noise ratio. Clearly, there is still good material left as evidenced by the sift here but finding it can be a pain in the ass.

Probably a good reason to say why I look around here alot more than just randomly browsing YouTube.

>> ^Croccydile:
Upvote for a shining example of why the DMCA is/was fucking retarded.
Despite the "penalties" for an inappropriate use of takedown notice, I don't think there has been a single case ever where this has been applied. There have been counter-claims used before to get the material posted back, but it seems to be a rare occurrence.
The problem lies within say YouTube taking the video down, and being required by the DMCA to keep it down for a peroid of time (a week?) for a DMCA counter-claim to be processed if necessary. Unless you kick and scream about it like this guy is doing, everyone forgets about it and moves on because of the cool off period. If it ever got past step 1, the amount of money involved to take someone to court over a misfiled claim would bankrupt most people. By then the culprit will just go "LOL, sorry" but the damage will already have been done.
In short, its an extremely easy way for corporations to censor because of this setup. You have almost zero options as the little guy (it was designed this way on purpose!) since YouTube (or any other hosting company) has to follow the DMCA no matter how bad the law is.
Whats even worse is when places outside the US comply to the DMCA blindly despite having no legal obligation to do so whatsoever. Disgusting.


Well said man, i've always had this problem about the legal system. It works the same way for big businesses etc. - you make them rich, then the moment you cross some vague line that cuts their profit by even a penny, they have a team of legal experts on hand which they don't have to pay extra for cos they're already on-hand. All they need to do is come and say something that sounds worrying to you, and you now have to either submit or spend your money to defend yourself when you may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

The legal system is absolutely fucked in this way - it benefits people with money. If you don't have it, you can't defend yourself from people who do; you either conform to their desires, or spend money to find out if they're even telling you the truth. If you think about it, throwing around false accusations could be part of an accepted system to generate extra income for the legal professions. When one person makes a false accusation, another person needs to be hired so you even know where you stand.

Imo, there ought to be heavy, heavy penalties (perhaps massive fines or jail time) for threatening false legal action. A couple of examples of a legal professional going to jail for years or bankrupt because he threatened someone with some trumped up nonsense at the request of a fatcat would go a long way. These people should not be allowed to go around bullying people in this "free" world in which we live. They should be concerned that they'll never see their family for a few years, that'd make them think twice before pushing people around with green paper.

Well thank you for that bit Unfortunately I was not aware of that particular case. I am glad though what the EFF has been doing to help defend against the DMCA but to me it seems like the law is lopsided in favor of corporations.

Perhaps I worded myself wrong when I meant penalties I was referring to a company not only being found guilty of using the DMCA for false claims but also being fined in a court. I should probably be glad that the pendulum is finally swinging the other way over the past decade towards the consumer. (Or is it? Just slightly?)

"Despite the "penalties" for an inappropriate use of takedown notice, I don't think there has been a single case ever where this has been applied."

See the public YouTube case of VenomFangX vs. Thunderf00t.

That's just how one false DMCA claim was handled (oddly enough, very similar situation - creationist wanted to stifle free thinker's free speech). There are many more where the DMCA's misuse has seen consequences, and some big names have had to say they were wrong. The EFF would probably be a good place to look, since they're usually involved wherever the DMCA is being invoked, and often, they help with legal expenses of those falsely accused of DMCA infraction (although both Thunderf00t and DonExodus2 both found pro bono help - it seems when it comes to the DMCA and getting a sure-fire case win, you can expect lawyers to come out of the woodwork to your aid).

If you file a DMCA notice on youtube, you are expected to sue the uploaders. If you don't, that's pretty much a given that you're not using the DMCA the way you're supposed to. By law, youtube has to share the takedown letter to the uploader (and they do), so that they can prepare for a lawsuit or counter-suit as the case may be.

Don't get me wrong. The DMCA was a horrible piece of legislation that proves that lawmakers are lazy, incompetent, and just plain out of touch with how the majority of this country thinks. But there's some teeth built into the bill to keep it from being used as a way to stifle free speech. If you're caught misusing the DMCA, you expose yourself to both legal and civil damage. If you cannot pay for your false claims, you can have an injunction placed against you from filing any further DMCA claims.