"Pixels" DMCA Takedown Even Worse Than We Thought 272
ForgedArtificer writes: So we all know about the Pixels takedown on Vimeo, and that it was pretty bad in a lot of ways. But did you know that they took down the short film that inspired the movie? Turns out, the 2010 Pixels, which was taken off Vimeo due to copyright notice, was responsible for inspiring the entire Adam Sandler flick. Unlike Sandler's film, it's critically-acclaimed and has won awards. Talk about kicking someone when they're already down. First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs.
Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an opportunity. Anyone who knows anyone in the media should make it a point to make a story out of this -- it plays as big guy robbing, then kicking, the little guy. An opportunity for the little guy to get their head above water, which -- at times -- can work out surprisingly well.
Of course, we know that's not what's happening; this is rote behavior by uncaring people resulting in unfortunate collateral damage.
It's just as wrong, but it isn't based on specific intent.
Copyright, patent and trademark -- all broken as hell.
And I say that as someone who makes a significant income from all three.
Re: Opportunity (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I know what I'm going to do. Pirate this movie. I hadn't planned to do so, but now I will, it and a dozen, no three dozen others.
Except the Waterboy. That movie is punishment enough.
Re: Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
You want to pirate an Adam Sandler movie? That is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Re: Opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
So what's the master plan? Download the movie, put it on a USB stick and leave it on the subway? That should teach them.
That's like revenge porn without revenge or porn.
Re: Opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
The master plan is to download it, put it on a spare harddrive somewhere and let it be. That'll deprive the movie company of at least one full ticket price of money.
If enough people do this, none of which will ever actually watch the darn thing, the movie company will go bankrupt due to the losses incurred.
According to the movie companies' logic, that is.
And that logic is correct, is it not?
Re: Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I'd love these brain-dead studios to waste money on more stupid, making Pixels 2 means some other marginal-but-original project may not get made...
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a class-action lawsuit from all content creators affected against the DMCA letter spewing company AND the studio who hired them for gross-negligence And copyright abuse.
They should seek to have creator's copyright interest in the new film struck down by the courts.
Re:Opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
The 2010 film should file a claim of infringment against the Adam Sandler film and claim rights to all profits.
Re: (Score:3)
That shit actually made a profit?
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Revenue, not profits. Never go after Hollywood for profits, there never are any.
futurama did it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They actually did pay a licensing fee to the creator of the short. Which doesn't excuse the rest of this BS, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Send DMCA take-downs to the movie theaters showing the digital form of the movie, the distribution company and the Internet provider that host the movie for the theaters to down-load. Then file suit, $250,000.00 per showing, never sue or sign a contract with a movie company based on profit, they never make a "profit".
Re: (Score:3)
That's my kind of idea. WTF do we, as a nation, put up with this kind of asinine shit? Boycott everything Hollyweird for a month, and we'll have their attention. "Play nice, or you're out of the pool, kiddies." Fuck Holloweird, and fuck most of the "entertainment" industries.
We really, really, REALLY need to support the independents, and tell the big boys to go to hell.
Re: (Score:3)
We'll get to that, as soon as we're done with Wal-Mart, Monsanto, BP, Wall Street and the NSA. Lotsa people to kick out of pools lately.
Re:Opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The money you can get from a class-action is insignificant and not worth your time.
The affected content creators should pull out the same bullshit numbers that the copyright trolls do when they talk about potentially lost income and handle it individually.
Yeah, class action suits almost never give a real benefit to members of the class. Most of the time the "compensation" is coupons to buy more merchandise from the same manufacturer that screwed you in the first place. No thanks, Iomega, your zip drive already made me lose my data -- why would I want to buy another one from you?
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
but it isn't based on specific intent.
You're kidding, right?
Copyright trolls and the publishers that love the concept know exactly what they're doing.
There is no punishment for even malicious DMCA takedowns. It's "kill them all and let God sort them out" behavior.
--
BMO
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, if someone files a takedown notice under the DMCA for a given work at a given website, the author of the work can file a counter notice under the DMCA with the website. Unless the original filer is willing to sue, the work can be restored. The DMCA does provide penalties for filing baseless/frivolous DMCA notices. And, the author can sue the filer.
The reason for the "hair trigger" effect is that if a DMCA notice is filed with a website, the website must remove the work quickly, or risk losing its "safe harbor" protections. To restore the work, the takedown must be withdrawn or the counter filed with the website.
In this case, if the Sandler film is too similar to the 2010 short film, it could be considered a derived work. That is, violates the copyright of the 2010 work. That would mean boatloads of cash for Patrick Jean.
That all said, DMCA abuse is obviously rampant.
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
You can't win
I had a YouTube video removed over similar issue.
I filed counter claim. I got served by some law office , I don't have money for lawyer, I tossed their paperwork in trash, I kept filing counter claims, I got a court date in California, but I'm in Ga. :-P
I just ignored them, eventually YouTube got tired of taking down then restoring then taking down then restoring so they deleted and gave a strike on my account which a strike bans you from monetizing for 1 year.
Oh well
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Without knowing exactly what you uploaded, we have no basis to consider if you were actually uploading infringing material or the "copyright owner" was carpet-bombing.
Like some level of expiry needs to be added to the DMCA, where in a "copyright owner" can not remove content that predates the copyright of the content they say is being derived.
For example, and I use this as an example that I indeed filed a counternotice for.
There is a company that publishes covers to songs, like covers that are basically low
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to hear about your difficulties. Although, I didn't mention it in my original post, I'm not surprised to hear about such a scenario playing out that way, as I'm sure it's been done countless times to other people in similar circumstances.
Although the DMCA provides for some degree of dispute resolution, ultimately, it often boils down to having the money to spend on the legal process. Thus, even if you're in the right, you're forced to go to court. No doubt one of the "maneuvers" was getting the ven
Re:Opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
I have found that the best tactic is to not only file counter-notices, but to then file your own DMCA take-downs against their content. Unfortunately some large companies are apparently immune to DMCA notices on YouTube, but many are not. For example, Sky News's live feed was taken down when their own parent company filed a DMCA notice over their coverage of the GOP debate.
Fight fire with fire. If they are claiming a clip you used isn't fair use then there isn't much you can do, but if they are claiming that some content you made is too similar to their own content then clearly that's because they are infringing your rights and you should scrub their shit off the internet for them. Hit the YouTube account, their social media accounts, their web host. There is no penalty for DMCA claims that don't stand up, so go nuts. Personally I like to rate-limit the notices, so that as soon as they deal with one another comes along and they have to file another counter notice. Only noobs file one notice with 100 URLs, when you can instead file 100 notices for 100 days. A trivial perl script can even automate the process for you.
Re:Opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
I've faced action for copyright infringement on youtube three times.
The first was pretty clear: I'd used an old cartoon, still copyrighted, to practice video restoration. At the time it was a vault-and-underground cartoon only, not legally available - the uncut version of Steamboat Willie, the version where Micky Mouse savagely tortures a series of animals in order to make music from their agonized cries. About a year later Disney republished it and DMCAed mine - possibly because my restoration was actually better than theirs.
The second was another thing entirely: Content-ID picked up some 'infringing' music on another video. The music was actually a recording from so long ago it was expired even in the US - recorded 1914, plus the composer was dead more than 70 years at the time I uploaded it. A collecting agency had still claimed they owned it and submitted it to content-ID though, so youtube detected it as infringing. A DMCA notification can be counter-noticed, but not a content ID match: There is very little in the way of appeal for those, it's an almost entirely automated system
The third was another DMCA notice, though my usage in that case was clearly fair use: I'd taken about thirty seconds from a TV program episode, no sound, in order to make a joke about it. I find it more interesting that the entire episode had been uploaded without permission by other users. This notice didn't come from a bot: I personally offended someone at the studio to the point that, while they didn't bother pulling entire episode uploads, they still thought my joke in sufficiently poor taste to merit removal.
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't. The only penalty the DMCA has for filing a false claim below:
'(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
It's just perjury if the entity filing the claim isn't authorized by the rightsholder to file the takedown request. All they have to do
Re:Opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no punishment for even malicious DMCA takedowns. It's "kill them all and let God sort them out" behavior.
And that was done *on purpose* to shield the "Rightsholders" from any harm (the strong worded "bla bla penalty of perjury bla bla" -- believed by some to be a check-and-balance -- in fact protects them too, namely that noone can run an extorton racket by make false claim of representing the "Rightsholders" -- to ensure any money flows in their direction and not some fraud).
There should be a "strike" system for takedowns too; x many false notices and you can only submit on paper, and this time on penalty of perjury that the work in question infringes on the work being claimed. That can eventually lead to JAIL TIME.
Perjury (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the perjery line isn't overlooked. It's written in a way that makes it functionally useless. It's only perjery if you don't represent the person who is claiming that their copyright is infringed. It doesn't matter how wild your claims of ingringement are.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone misses the real intent, kill the competition. People can watch only so much so the pigopolists actively try to drive competing content off the internet when ever they can. Obviously the counter claim against a DMCA should not be civil but criminal because it involves fraud and the attempt to maliciously destroy another persons business by devaluing their content. The DMCA should be constitutionally challenge because it is being used to deny owners the copyright to their own content.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sue them for Libel. There was no infringement and the Onus is that infringement deserve be treated as theft. Sue them for libelous claims that harm your existing work for the sake of their own personal gain.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree.
The specific intent is to do harm regardless of what's right.
It's not like the lawyers that work for these companies didn't go to school to learn about this region of the law specifically.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who knows anyone in the media should make it a point to make a story out of this -- it plays as big guy robbing, then kicking, the little guy.
I think they already made a couple movies featuring a similar theme. Starring some ostensible comedian named ... Allan or Aaron or something ... Sandberg ? Kind of low-brow stuff, but popular nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3)
I WAS thinking of seeing this film in the theater when it came out here in Australia but this news is enough to tip me into the "don't bother" camp. I will not go to see it in the theater, nor will I pirate it or otherwise see it (maybe I will see it in a few years when it shows up on free-to-air TV)
By all accounts the film is a piece of crap anyway (just like every other Adam Sandler film to date) so I am not missing out on anything...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
From TFA:
the new film from Adam Sandler, was a complete flop
Mod -1 Redundant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is people like you who fuck up the moderation on this website.
Mod -1 Redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we know that's not what's happening; this is rote behavior by uncaring people resulting in unfortunate collateral damage.
It's just as wrong, but it isn't based on specific intent.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Counter DMCA notice (Score:5, Interesting)
The situation seems ripe for him to file a DMCA notice against all of Columbia's official film sites and materials. He can prove his film existed before Columbia's was even started, and he has Columbia's admission (in their DMCA notice against his work) that their work is similar enough to his for infringement to occur.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
Vimeo received the notice. That are forced to take down the content regardless of the merits, and pass the buck to the content author to handle.
Otherwise they will see themselves in the deep end of the law.
Not fun, but now is the author responsibility to make a counter claim, and with that, request Vimeo to reactivate the content.
This process basically forces both parts to identify themselves and remove the "carrier" (Vimeo in this case) from the case.
Re: (Score:3)
References please. Google brings things up when counter claims are filed. Otherwise they loose their protection from suits.
Re: (Score:2)
^^this
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I can force Vimeo to post my content?
If proper counter-notification is received then Vimeo can safely reinstate the content without being directly liable for any infringement.
That doesn't mean that they're obliged to do so. It's their site, they can choose not to host my content whether it's infringing copyright or not.
Re:Counter DMCA notice (Score:5, Insightful)
The situation seems ripe for him to file a DMCA notice against all of Columbia's official film sites and materials. He can prove his film existed before Columbia's was even started, and he has Columbia's admission (in their DMCA notice against his work) that their work is similar enough to his for infringement to occur.
Except he doesn't own the copyright to the short anymore, Sandler's production company who made the 2015 Pixels film does.
Now they made a really crappy movie based on the original short, but they had the legal right to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
did he sell them the rights, or are you saying that by making a rip off they acquired the rights?
I'm saying they own the rights as in they bought them from the guy who made the film. I'm not sure how much of a corporate hack you'd have to be to think the studio acquired the legal rights to an independent film by ripping it off without consent of the creator.
What exclusive rights were bought? (Score:3)
The question was whether Sony acquired exclusive rights to exhibit the original short or just the right to make an adaptation. The action described in the featured article is justified for the former, not the latter.
Re:What exclusive rights were bought? (Score:4, Interesting)
My understanding, from reading a few articles now, is that they licensed ONLY the ability to make a single derivative work. They have no rights beyond their work - including none over the original short.
Ehm, he is the executive producer of the new movie (Score:3)
Patrick Jean is the executive producer of the 2015 movie, Columbia did not just rip him off. Why would he file a claim against his own film sites an materials?
Re:Ehm, he is the executive producer of the new mo (Score:4, Informative)
Executive Producer credit is often given out as as an honorary title for some less-defined role in the film production; often that role is only to be "famous name on credits." I suspect that Patrick Jean (and the others involved in the original short) got the credit as part of selling the rights to make the adaptation.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps amusing, but ultimately counterproductive.
Potentially lucrative, though. Would be nice to hoist the bastards on their own petard for once.
the original intent (Score:5, Interesting)
of intellectual property was to protect the little guy with the good idea from being abused by the big guy with the deep pockets
the intent has been completely subverted and destroyed and now intellectual property simple serves as another club the big guy with deep pockets can use to rob the little guy with the idea
the concept of intellectual property, the very notion of it, is completely logically and morally bankrupt, and must die
now i'm no air head optimist, i may never see it happen in my lifetime. it's a slow change. but remember the printing press led to some radical changes in society. when education became cheap, a middle class grew from the previously illiterate serfs, and this class demanded power, giving rise to modern concept of democracy. it took centuries
likewise, the internet is going to radically change society. and it will also take centuries for all the implications of a new disruptive technology to work it's way out. just like the printing press
aristocrats then whined "not fair" like some do today as the changes begin. but on the contrary: the radical changes are all about making it more fair, for more people
give it time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- he said, under a story showing the exact opposite
Re: (Score:3)
There never was an original intent to "intellectual property" as you think it does because it doesn't exist in the US. Instead, we have patents, copyrights, and trademarks, three different sets of laws with three different purposes.
For patents, there was never any intention about protecting 'the little guy', it was to discourage secrets and to enrich the public domain, by making a bargain in exchange for disclosing of secrets. Prior to patents, many technological acheivements were kept secret and when the i
Re: (Score:2)
do you see the story you are commenting under?
do you see any problems there?
good!
now try commenting again, this time actually commenting on the actual fucking reality of the topic
thanks
Re:the original intent (Score:5, Insightful)
the concept of intellectual property, the very notion of it, is completely logically and morally bankrupt, and must die
Intellectual property is a false property right, in the same way that slavery was a false property right.
Eventually, we realized that the freedom of mankind was more important than the financial health of plantation owners.
And, eventually, we will realize that the freedom of our ideas is more important that the financial health of publishing corporations.
We live in a strange time in history. We understand that people must be free, but we inexplicably fail to realize that a person is not truly free unless his ideas are free as well. Future generations will look back on us for our barbaric, immoral selfishness -- in the same way that we look back on the American slave trade for their barbaric, immoral selfishness.
Re: (Score:2)
well said
Re: (Score:2)
of intellectual property was to protect the little guy with the good idea from being abused by the big guy with the deep pockets. the intent has been completely subverted and destroyed and now intellectual property simple serves as another club the big guy with deep pockets can use to rob the little guy with the idea
Oh please, we started messing with that system not them. Instead of buying a copy so the "little guy with the idea" got his royalties we started mass copying stuff for free, which fucked them both over. Maybe their contracts weren't very nice, but it doesn't matter if there's nothing to share. Since then it's been an arms race between those who want to copy and those who want to prevent copying, with both sides playing dirty.
The music industry seems to have found its shape with streaming though, games have
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. By the time mass copying even became available, copyright had already been pushed to more than 3 times the original (and reasonable) 28 years. Hollywood accounting was already a thing and double platinum albums that were supposedly still 'recouping' (that is, no royalties yet paid to the artists) had happened. The Girl Scouts were already sued for singing camp songs and nobody dared sing Happy Birthday in a commercial setting (even though evidence suggests the copyright was exhausted nearly a cent
Intellectual property is taxes and regulation (Score:2)
I wonder how easy it would be to convince some of our more rabidly anti-tax population to start treating intellectual property as both taxes and regulation. If you compare the price of an out of copyright book, or an expired patent drug, to its government-granted-monopoly version, you can get a dollar amount for the tax. And the regulation is, of course, the restriction on freedom that comes with protecting intellectual property. Each new copyright or patent granted, is itself a new tax and a new regulation
Re: (Score:2)
controlling information is the impossible battle
saying you can't control it is my position
Re:the original intent (Score:4, Interesting)
the recent shrink of the middle class is awful. it mostly has to do with morons who think socialism is pure evil and the man with lots of money can do no wrong. this will change as more and more feel the negative economic effects of what kind of society this blindness results in
the nordic countries and canada show you can guarantee people basic standards of living and still be capitalist. capitalism is not automatically full social darwinism. because you won't let people lose their house because they get cancer, or that we educate people born in the ghetto well, does not mean capitalism has been destroyed and evil socialism wins
it's a retarded false choice believed by people who never think about this issue and act with an almost religious conviction about economic concepts they don't even understand the fucking basics of. the best societies are a *mix*. capitalist, with social safety nets, or socialist, with a capitalist engine. these societies are richest and happiest. the loser miserable societies are the ones that are ideologically "pure"
anyway, this all off-topic. this topic is not part of the conversation about intellectual property
we defeated the plutocrats before, in the gilded age, and got workplace safety, work week caps, end to child labor, etc. next we will get government child care, generous parental leave, good wage minimums, etc.
we will get that, we really will. the morons are dying off or waking up about the mindlessness of cold war era propaganda about "evil socialism." universal healthcare, cheaper (much much cheaper) and better quality care, as realized in canada, japan, germany, australia, france, etc.: all of our fucking capitalist democratic peers, is not the same fucking thing as the USSR with gulags, even though so many brain dead fucking retards in the usa believe this for some low iq reason
my point is simply: don't be so spooked and grow a fucking backbone. plutocrats are just rich morons, look at donald trump for example. there's nothing to be scared of, we beat the losers before, we'll beat them again. just beat the fucks and stop being such a defeatist weak piece of shit scared of his own shadow
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Socialist: noun. A person who believes that a businessman with lots of money and power will inevitably become evil, while a politician with lots of money and power is incorruptible.
Not sure if you are trying to be serious or funny but Albert Einstein disagrees with you:
The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? [1]
Nope, to a socialist a "politician with lots of money and power" is a corrupt symbol of free market capitalism, as seeking money and power are the primary goals of self-interested capitalists. Einstein again:
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals... The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. [2]
If you are trying to be serious then you really don't know shit from shinola. Funny you definitely are not.
[1] [2] Why Socialism? [monthlyreview.org]
Reminds me of the The Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the bit in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where ...
"The simplistic style is partly explained by the fact that its editors, having to meet a publishing deadline, copied the information off the back of a pack of breakfast cereal, hastily embroidering it with a few footnotes in order to avoid prosecution under the incomprehensibly tortuous Galactic copyright laws. It is interesting to note that a later and wilier editor sent the book backwards in time through a temporal warp and then successfully sued the breakfast cereal company for infringement of the same laws."
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me that copyright law is basically "Dibs".
I'm all for incentivizing innovation*, but the current system is hilariously incompatible with today's increased... infectivity. Anyone proposing it would get weird looks, then pauses and "What? How's that going to work? Data is a contagion, not a conscious entity we can order around."
*Faster innovation. Innovation couldn't actually stop because, hey, data is contagiou
Dupe story (Score:2)
We already had this story [slashdot.org] ...
As another posted pointed out
And ... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone must really like Chris Columbus. Terry Gilliam was slated to direct "Harry Potter", and would have been ideal for such a quirky British thing, but when it looked like it would be a high profile movie Chris Columbus was given the job, presumably to raise the profile of Chris Columbus.
Given that "Home Alone" is the only thing he'd directed before that which was not instantly forgettable I can't see why anyone thought he could make better fil
Typo - original director skipped over (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that there is vast talent with the cast of this new one, just pointing out that Chris Columbus managed to produce a dud despite having Robin Williams on tap.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow, didn't realize he directed "Bicentennial Man". I guess I must be in the minority -- I thought it was charming and under-rated.
Chris seems to be quite hit-and-miss. His earlier work is decent; his later work quite lacking. What is strange is that he has definitely has been involved in some popular, but not good movies:
1. He worked with Robin Williams before when he directed:
* 1993 Mrs. Doubtfire
2. I see his claim to fame [imdb.com] wast that he was a nobody until he wrote "Gremlins (1984)" and Steven Spiel
Re: (Score:2)
As for writing and producer roles - not what I was discussing. If a movie fails or succeeds it's hard to say whether it was due to the writer or producer. Some utterly shocking writing has been saved by good direction and performance, and vice versa.
Justice (Score:4, Funny)
I would say Dinklage should punch Sandler in the nuts, but that may already be the plot of the movie. Anyone seen it to confirm?
Not sure what's up, here (Score:5, Interesting)
I just went to vimeo and searched for "pixels".
Lots of content with "pixels in the title, including the original short.
Perhaps someone at vimeo woke up, or perhaps someone at entura has been reading /. or other tech news sites.
Has anyone got a screen grab of that search returning nothing, or DMCA takedown notifications?
the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics for (Score:2)
the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics for the use of the suffix.. lympics.
Time to copy right the letter E be used on line and issue an DMCA take down to each web site that uses it that did not pay the fee of $0.00012 per use.
Re: (Score:2)
The sequence "lympics" is so commonly used in words.
THIS is why automated takedown-delivering bots (Score:3)
should be illegal. OR they should remove the protection from countersuit in the event of an improper takedown for automated systems. "The exemption applies to human error. If you remove the human from the process, the safehaven no longer may be applied."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Outlaw the fucking bots! Giving takedown rights to a fucking piece of code is a shitty idea.
Re: (Score:2)
should be illegal. OR they should remove the protection from countersuit in the event of an improper takedown for automated systems. "The exemption applies to human error. If you remove the human from the process, the safehaven no longer may be applied."
Proposed fix. For every takedown you post you also post a $1000 bond, if someone challenges it they post $10 back (since you're probably dealing with giant corp vs little guy). Whomever backs out of the dispute first loses their bond.
Now I can see three main complications
1) A big studio is far more capable of handling a lawsuit, so even if a very clear case they could try to bully independents so they don't pay out (but I doubt they'll care about the $1000).
2) Studios still win fair use cases since they hav
Didn't they just provide evidence against them? (Score:2)
If they claim that the short film is so similar to theirs as to require a DMCA takedown, then by definition, their long film is so similar to the short one that they are in violation of it's copyright.
I would counter sue them right away for the entire profits from Pixel. Whoops, forgot I was talking about the movie business, where they claim no profits (Return of the Jedi officially has 0 profits - and they wonder why people feel fine downloading their movi
Color Me Surprised (Score:2)
Guess who owns Columbia Pictures?
You got it: Sony.
It's yet another black mark for the company that can't seem to stop shitting all over their public image.
Counterclaims (Score:3)
How many of counterclaim notices have been filed? Use the system against the claimants. File a counterclaim and the content must be put back if a suit is not filed in court.
Crying about take down notices without filing counterclaims is just stupid. A take down notice is not the end of the story.
Can you fund a lawsuit with Kickstarter? (Score:2)
Seriously, somebody should put up a lawsuit on Kickstarter or Gofundme or something.
Ob. Futurama ripoff (Score:2)
Bad summary (Score:2)
Please don't use the word 'inspire' in the same sentence with 'Adam Sandler flick'.
Voxels (Score:2)
Meh, should have been called 'voxels' anyway.
This Slashdot article is completely wrong (Score:2)
Argh (Score:3)
Why aren't we googlebombing 'Pixels' (Score:2)
.. in articles like this to link to the Vimeo short movie?
violate his work? He got paid (Score:2)
If you want to control something, don't sell it. If you sell it, it's no longer yours.
There's no reason to feel pity for this guy because he whored out his work.
stupid, but.. (Score:2)
ofcourse the DMCA of everything with the word pixels in them is beyond normal and all video's should be restored as soon as possible as the DMCA has no viable claim..
But the quote "First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs." is BS ofcourse as Columbia/Happy madisson bought the rights to the property and therefore they can do whatever they want with it (IMHO it's not really possible to do a full feature on the premise of the short anyway, so
"under penalty of perjury" (Score:2)
Don't DMCA takedown notices count as sworn statements? I remember something along the lines of "I swear under penalty of perjury that the information in this document is correct". If the takedown request is actually wrong, isn't this actionable? Is perjury punishable in a civil court?
Shows the DMCA is poorly written (Score:3)
This kind of use of the DMCA should be seen in the same light as swatting (calling SWAT round to somebody's house on false info).
My plan... (Score:3)
Wow, I feel as if a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders... Oh wait, I was already avoiding Sandler movies. Still..
Re: (Score:2)
A textbook case as to why anyone that issues a DMCA take down should be held liable. Probably a good case for regulation of DMCA and paying a fee to issue a DMCA take down.
Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down, the only wronged party I can think of is Google who had to go through the pain of a pointless DMCA request.
This is one of the more comical cases that demonstrates how random DMCA takedowns are, but if you want a textbook case use the takedown of an independent film from 2006 [torrentfreak.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down,
No, their own material is among the material they're taking down.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confusing Vimeo and YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confusing Vimeo and YouTube.
No confusion, I was just too lazy to parse the full summary :)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I believe that only the criminals should be deported immediately. Including that guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said "Pixels", not "pixels".
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the editing staff, such as it is, actually bothers to do any fact-checking.