throbber
Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 296-11 Filed 03/24/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 10
`
`to the Declaration of Chenyuan Zhu
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 10
`
`to the Declaration of Chenyuan Zhu
`
`

`

`Has copyright become a new weapon against online media? - Coda Story
`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 296-11 Filed 03/24/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`DISINFORMATION
`
`Has copyright become a new weapon against
`online media?
`Fake accustations have led to video reports on Azerbaijan being
`pulled from YouTube
`
`BY KATIA PATIN
`
`8 JANUARY 2018
`
`DISPATCH
`
`YouTube’s copyright rules are being abused by the Azerbaijan government in an attempt to censor content from the global video-sharing site according to one of
`the country’s few independent news services.
`
`The Meydan TV network says four of its video reports, which highlighted allegations of official corruption, were removed on the grounds that they infringed
`YouTube’s copyright rules. And under the Google-owned giant’s terms, this brought the channel close to being taken off the site altogether.
`
`YouTube is one of the few remaining mediums Meydan TV has for reaching audiences in Azerbaijan. The government blocked its website last year, and it has
`also jailed the network’s journalists.
`
`It produces dozens of videos about a wide range of issues. But the channel’s director, Emin Milli, says it was just four pieces that were targeted — which included
`reports on the financial dealings of the country’s autocratic president Ilham Aliyev and his family, the state oil company and allegations of police abuses. “These
`were not just some random videos,” he says. (Disclosure: Meydan TV is a member of Coda’s network of editorial partners). And Milli is adamant that the network
`either owned all the footage itself, or had the rights to use it.
`
`Meydan TV says it was a company called Muse Network — which partners with YouTube and helps channels promote their content — that filed the complaints.
`The company is actually based in Turkey, but has an office in the Azeri capital, Baku. However, Milli is convinced that the Azeri government was behind the
`intervention. “It was so organized. It was so systematic.”
`
`Muse Network’s Baku office says the accusations are unfounded (see update below). “The state does not engage in such small work,” said its Azerbaijan director,
`Shahriyar Taghizade, in a series of text messages. “This is wrong thinking to blame the state in everything.”
`
`He also denied filing the copyright complaints against Meydan TV, saying they were due to an “automatic” technical error in YouTube’s systems. But he then
`restored the videos, which he pointedly described as: “lying and self-fiction fantasy films.”
`
`The same company also played a role in a similar incident involving the Azeri service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Last weekend, its staff
`discovered that six of its videos had been removed from YouTube after being flagged by Muse Network for alleged copyright violation. Ilkin Mammadov, director
`of RFE/RL’s Azeri service, says there was a note on the videos saying they had been “manually detected.” After complaining to the company, he says their videos
`were also restored.
`
`https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/information-war/has-copyright-become-a-new-weapon-against-online-media/
`
`1/2
`
`

`

`Has copyright become a new weapon against online media? - Coda Story
`Case 3:20-cv-04423-JD Document 296-11 Filed 03/24/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`Subscribe to Coda’s Newsletters
`Authoritarians muddy the conversation. We clarify it with journalism.
`
` Disinfo Matters
` Authoritarian Tech
` Oligarchy
` Infodemic
` Updates from Coda
` Fallout
`
`Your email address
`
`
`
`SUBSCRIBE
`
`The Azeri government has also blocked RFE’s website. And both media companies see their problems with alleged copyright infringement as part of a continuing
`government campaign against them. This is a new kind of online interference, according to Mammadov. “They create disruption for a few hours, and audiences
`run if they see you are blocked,” switching to different channels.
`
`But using copyright claims to disrupt content is a perfect tactic, according to Mammadov. Complaints can easily be overlooked and left unchallenged. But under
`YouTube’s policies that can amount to an admission of guilt. After three strikes, or violations, it can block a channel for good.
`
`Though both the RFE and Meydan TV videos have been restored, Milli is concerned that the threat to his network’s content remains. At the moment, he says
`YouTube is “failing badly” in policing its own rules.
`
`Correction and update: The original version of this article incorrectly stated that Muse Network is an Azeri company. Muse Network has asked us to make clear
`that it is a Turkish company based in Istanbul, with an office in Baku, Azerbaijan. In a statement, the company said an “irresponsible employee” in its Baku office
`had removed the Meydan TV videos and that it respects “the freedom of speech principle that YouTube embraces.” The statement added that all “necessary legal
`actions” were being taken against the employee.
`
`The story you just read is a small piece of a complex and an ever-changing storyline that Coda covers relentlessly and with singular focus. But we can’t do it
`without your help. Show your support for journalism that stays on the story by becoming a member today. Coda Story is a 501(c)3 U.S. non-profit. Your
`contribution to Coda Story is tax deductible.
`
`Support Coda
`
`Katia Patin is Coda's multimedia editor.
`
`@katia_patin
`
`
`
`Email
`
`MORE
`
`Dispatch
`
`https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/information-war/has-copyright-become-a-new-weapon-against-online-media/
`
`2/2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket