[novas0x2a]

If it was a content id takedown (which it sounds like it was, and Ars thinks so too), the DMCA is not involved at all; Google's content id system allows takedowns that do not use the DMCA system and thus do not expose the filer to a perjury charge. Google might penalize the company some other way, but it doesn't seem like it from the outside.

[knowtheory]

Well, I'm not sure I condone this behavior, but the Fox News thing to do here is for NASA to blackball Scripps, and to refuse to grant them interviews or access to their events.

[ars]

Isn't Content ID automatic? Could be Scrips just says yes automatically to every hit generated by Content ID.

[knowtheory]

That doesn't absolve Scripps of their responsibility to make sure that the content going into their system isn't owned by someone else.

If one were the sort to blackball others, the fact that an algorithm did it for them, on the basis of data that they fed in is essentially no excuse for me.

[ars]

> that the content going into their system

I thought it was a mistaken identification? I.e. it was youtube's fault, not Scripps.

[knowtheory]

“We apologize for the temporary inconvenience experienced when trying to upload and view a NASA clip early Monday morning," a Scripps spokesman told Motherboard. "We made a mistake. We reacted as quickly as possible to make the video viewable again, and we’ve adjusted our workflow processes to remedy the situation in future.”

[ars]

I repeat myself: "Could be Scrips just says yes automatically to every hit generated by Content ID."

So they have some responsibility for saying yes (i.e. their workflow was select all, yes), but it was youtube that misidentified the video, not that Scrips uploaded a video from NASA into content ID as you wrote.

[prawn]

If NASA is putting info up freely, couldn't Scripps just incorporate that into its media regardless?

[ktizo]

If they are not guilty of perjury, then surely they are guilty of some kind of commercial fraud. Could action be taken from that angle?

[lmm]

Google are free to take down any video they like for any reason, including "this other company asked us to". It's entirely up to the contract between them and Google (which I haven't read) whether they're subject to any penalties for asking Google to take down something they didn't actually own.