Group Admins
No AdminsScience VS AIDS denialism
Public Group active 12 years, 2 months agoOne of the problems inherent in almost any kind of censorship — even censorship that’s valid in the first place — is function creep.
Think of a smart solution to block illegal images of child sexual abuse, and someone will wish to use it to block piracy sites, etc. Pressure ISPs to install parental-control filters, and shortly the infrastructure has been used to block extremist videos and other “harmful content”. And so on. It’s all well intentioned, but censorship with great motives can still make a mistake.
Here’s one such example. The fantastically named Myles Power is a science blogger from Middlesbrough. His web site features oodles of educational YouTube videos, from how to extract DNA from strawberries to producing a fundamental jet engine at house.
He got his beginning — or at least a bulge up the YouTube standings — after being requested by Google’s video website to become something called an “EDU guru”, which essentially means they flew the Brit to San Francisco to educate him how better to share his passion for science education online.
All outstanding stuff, as well as a great example of using the internet to teach and inspire.
Tomorrow, nonetheless, he’s in danger of having his entire YouTube station of science instruction videos yanked, following a DMCA takedown request.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a US law that gives websites “safe harbour” from copyright claims if they act fast to take down infringing content when notified by the owner. Quite simply, if someone posts, say, Miley Cyrus’ whole catalogue of songs on YouTube, her record label can request Google to delete the videos. As well it should (not least to halt her spread).
Due to the epic scale of managing this — a lot of folks post a lot of infringing content — much of the procedure is automated. Any individual or organisation can file a claim of infringement through Google’s website for the search results or YouTube content. They’re assumed to promise only if they possess the information, or are acting to the owner’s behalf, and, naturally, as long as their claim is valid. If you cherished this article and you also would like to acquire more info with regards to house of numbers documentary kindly visit our webpage. However, there’s nothing stopping someone from filing a claim against, for example, PC Pro’s own channel, even though we weren’t infringing anything (which we aren’t, so don’t get any thoughts), and we’d be forced to react to prevent trouble.
And that’s what happened to Power — though he’s not exactly uploading pop songs. Alongside his educational work, he creates Bad Science-style videos debunking wrong science beliefs. His most recent has focused on an AIDS-denying documentary, which has brought the interest of the group behind the film. That group has issued multiple DMCA takedown notices requesting the content be removed from YouTube — which Google has obediently done. And because he’s had so many criticisms, the remainder of Power’s content — unrelated to that particular documentary — is also in danger of being pulled.
Put simply, it’s censorship by copyright law.
Power does have a recourse, aside from hoping journalists will hassle Google enough to sort this problem out. He is able to file a “counter-notification” via a link directly in his account — but this takes ten days to procedure. The initial claims against his account strike on 7 February, and because he’s had so many complaints (all from the same source) his account is in danger of termination on 18 February.
To stop the process, it seems he is able to file a “valid” counter-presentment, and expect YouTube and Google agree with him. Power’s lovers, meanwhile, have found other ways to react, notably uploading his videos to other sharing sites, to make sure they stay accessible regardless of YouTube’s final decision.
There’s another drawback to Google’s system, nonetheless. It isn’t the internet giant’s mistake, but as the counter-notice is a legal document, it includes your “personal info” — making it a handy means to track down private details of your critics, in the event you intend to harass them further (though there’s no suggestion that’s the motivation in Power’s case).
The simple fact remains that the educational blogger — one that is flown around the world by YouTube itself in recognition of the worth of his uploads — is being forced to fight paperwork conflicts and PR skirmishes thanks to misuse of the DMCA, when he should be teaching kids how to (safely) burst things in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
This isn’t the first time this has occured, and it surely won’t be the last. Google has sought to draw attention to the specific situation, publishing every copyright notice it receives via the Chilling Effects website, but what’s really wanted is an improved system for stopping harassment via DMCA.
Copyright dilemmas need dealing with, but any law that allows content to be banned for an excellent reason can be mistreated to remove something for the wrong motives. We must build in protections at the beginning of such a procedure, instead of enabling teachers to be pushed off YouTube.