YouTube Defeats Defamation Claim in ‘Remove-and-Relocate’ Case–Bartholomew v. YouTube

12 11 2017

YouTube has been sued numerous times for “removing-and-relocating” videos it thinks were promoted by spam. When it does a remove-and-relocate, YouTube takes down the video, discloses at the original URL that “This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service” with a link to YouTube’s “Community Guidelines Tips” page, and then allows the reuploading of the video at a new URL. The relocation of the video kills the existing comments, resets the view counter, and breaks any inbound marketing links, so it can vex uploaders–enough to occasionally make them litigious.

Some of the legal friction comes from YouTube’s imprecise disclosure about the removal. In the cases where YouTube suspected spamming to promote the video, YouTube didn’t technically remove the video because of “its content.” I still don’t understand why YouTube didn’t immediately fix this language to make it more general. Despite the language’s imprecision, the litigant’s real beef typically is with YouTube’s decision to remove the video, not the disclosure about the removal, and I think YouTube should have the right to police its premises as it sees fit.

Bartholomew experienced a remove-and-relocate.

more

Case citation: Bartholomew v. YouTube, LLC, 2017 WL 4988177 (Cal. App. Ct. Nov. 2, 2017). Superior court ruling.

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/11/youtube-defeats-defamation-claim-in-remove-and-relocate-case-bartholomew-v-youtube.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Ubisoft says DRM isn’t the reason Assassin’s Creed: Origins pushes CPUs

6 11 2017
Ubisoft is pushing back against reports that the DRM used in Assassin’s Creed: Origins is eating up significant CPU cycles and causing performance problems for many people playing the PC version of the game.

The explosive accusation comes from noted game cracker Voksi, who tells TorrentFreak that an analysis of Origins‘ binaries shows the game adds a protection method called VMProtect on top of well-known (and now easily cracked) Denuvo DRM. As the VMProtect webpage explains, its software protects crucial game code from cracking via mutation (i.e., obfuscating code with “garbage” commands and misdirected jumps) and virtualization (i.e., running the code in a self-contained “non-standard” virtual machine that is harder to analyze and modify).

Voksi alleges that Origins uses VMProtect’s virtualization protection, which “tank[s] the game’s performance by 30-40%, demanding that people have a more expensive CPU to play the game properly, only because of the DRM. It’s anti-consumer and a disgusting move.” In a Reddit thread, Voksi further detailed how breakpoint debugging of the code showed VMProtect’s code being “called non-stop” in the game’s core control loop.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/ubisoft-denies-pc-drm-is-slowing-down-assassins-creed-origins/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Supreme Court won’t hear Apple v. Samsung round two

6 11 2017
The colossal courtroom clash between Apple and Samsung over patents won’t be making a second appearance at the Supreme Court.

The two tech titans went at it in front of juries in San Jose over the course of two blockbuster trials, held in 2012 and 2014. Both times juries returned verdicts in favor of Apple—the first ordering Samsung to pay more than $1 billion in damages, the second ordering a payment of $120 million.

News today concerns the second verdict. In 2016, the $120 million verdict was thrown out entirely by a panel of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals. The judges said that patents on Apple features like smartphone autocorrect and “slide to unlock” were invalid in light of prior art.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/supreme-court-wont-hear-apple-v-samsung-round-two/and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



This lawsuit against a Cosby rape documentary is why fair use exists

6 11 2017

The production company that made The Cosby Show has sued the BBC (.pdf) over a documentary the British network aired about the rape allegations against Bill Cosby. Carsey-Werner, the production company that is the plaintiff in the case, says that the documentary is infringing its copyright because it uses eight audiovisual clips and two musical cues from The Cosby Show.

The documentary, titled Bill Cosby—Fall of an American Icon, was broadcast on a BBC channel in the United Kingdom on June 5 of this year. That was the same day that Cosby’s prosecution for one assault began in Pennsylvania. (The trial ended in a hung jury.) The UK production company that made the documentary, Sugar Films, is also named as a defendant in the case.

The complaint lists eight video clips that are used in the documentary. All are between seven and 23 seconds long, except for one clip that lasts 51 seconds.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/bbc-makes-a-doc-about-bill-cosby-rape-allegations-gets-sued-over-copyright/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Piracy site for science research dinged again in court—this time for $4.8M

6 11 2017

First came the $15 million fine a New York federal judge imposed on Sci-Hub, a scientific research piracy site that has freed tens of thousands of research papers from behind paywalls. That was in June, and the site’s overseas operator, Alexandra Elbakyan, said she’d never pay plaintiff Elsevier or stop the infringing behavior.

Now on Friday, a Virginia federal judge dinged the site for another $4.8 million for the same infringing behavior, this time from a lawsuit brought by the American Chemical Society.

The latest Friday order (PDF), like the previous order (PDF), demands that domain providers stop servicing Sci-Hub. The site has been playing a game of domain Whac-a-Mole for years in a bid to skirt US judicial orders.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/piracy-site-for-science-research-dinged-again-in-court-this-time-for-4-8m/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.