Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CNN Uses DMCA Against Parody

Posted by michael on from the not-funny-anymore dept.

Anonymous Coward writes "Big corporate media also likes to use the DMCA to shut down web sites. Here is a blogger site which is under threat from CNN. CNN wants to shut down The National Debate becuase of a one web page parody."

33 comments

  1. Parody by keiferb · · Score: 3, Funny

    IANAL, obviously. Isn't parody protected under some sort of constitution something-or-other?

  2. Listen... by Your_Mom · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...

    "DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

    To be ontopic, here are some mirrors of the parody in question:

    Mirror 1
    Mirror B
    Third Mirror
    Mirror Cuatro

    --
    Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
    1. Re:Listen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

      "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

      No conflict here.

    2. Re:Listen... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...

      Um, no. A true liberal beleives in free speech for everyone, even those he or she disagrees with. Thus you find the ACLU defending the free speech rights of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups.

      However, it's worth noting that this parody seems to have directly copied the CNN content, including the logo, genuine CNN headlines, and even a CNN copyright notice. There are some valid issue heres - but they could be easily remidied by the parodiest (by making up their own close-but-obviously-bogus logo, removing the copyright notice that attiributes the content to CNN, etcetera.)

      So: the parody itself, 100% free-speech. (Stupid, but free speech.) The stuff surrounding the parody on the page, though, CNN has genuine copyright and trademark claims about.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Listen... by booch · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the mirrors. Now that I've seen the page in question, I think CNN has some legitimate claims. Sure the article is parody, but it's not clear until you start reading the text. Just looking at the rest of the page, it is a complete copy of CNN's site. I think the National Debate did copy a bit too much to be covered by the parody exception.

      As for liberals having to decide whether this is good or bad, I think liberals are much more likely than conservatives to stand up for what they believe even when it helps their "enemies". I think this is part of the reason that the Democrats have lost some of their edge in recent years.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    4. Re:Listen... by Your_Mom · · Score: 1

      Um, no. A true liberal beleives in free speech for everyone, even those he or she disagrees with.

      A true US citizen believes that as well (as I do, and I'm 'conservative'). I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about liberals, I was cracking a joke about the rabid-liberal-ABB crowd that seems to inhabit /.

      Quite frankly, while the text is mildly amusing, overall the joke is about a 5/10

      --
      Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
    5. Re:Listen... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...
      "DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

      I may disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it. That is a sentiment seen all too rarely from the right.

      Need I remind you that "liberal" groups such as the ACLU defend not only the KKK and NAMBLA, they actually wend to far as to defend RUSH LIMBAUGH! One of the most conservative ALCU bashers there is.

      While I dissagree with the site, I would still gladly defend them. Sadly in this case the site does indeed appear to have stepped over the line. They may have writen a parody news story, they plopped it in the middle of a GENUINE copy/paste CNN news page. Even the Freepers generally acknowledge this once you get down to post 44 and after. The DMCA is an abomination that needs to be eliminated, but even without the DMCA this guy has a problem. While I dissagree with the site, I would be glad to see him fix it with a new parody logo and fixing the copyright notice and maybe a few other tweeks and re-post it. While I dissagree with the site, I would be gladly work up a pardy logo to assist him if he were to call for assistance.

      And needless to say, the site would have the same problem had it been an anti-Bush parody. I expect would have atrracted the exact same response from CNN.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Listen... by A1kmm · · Score: 1

      CNN is not losing anything from the parody, no matter how close it is to the original site(assuming it is a parody). They are merely using copyright law to suppress criticism.

      The real loser here, regardless of who you support, is the general public. The rich minority controls the press, the executive and legislative governments of many countries, and they use their wealth to threaten lawsuits and suppress anything they don't like even in the absence of any legitimate case.

      --
      X-Has-Sig: yes
    7. Re:Listen... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      And add to that a disclaimer on the bottom of the page indicating that it's a parody - the same thing that magazines will often to do distinguish a parody as such from their normal content (unless they happen to be a humor magazine where the content can be assumed to be parody). Yes, parody should be an affirmative defense to trademark infringement (although copyright infringement is less clear, I believe the protection parody provides in that case is substantially weaker). But no, that doesn't just mean you can do whatever you want and say it's a parody.


      Given that I can't see the original page in question here since it's been taken down again, it's hard to say much about it definitively. But I stand by the guy's rights to run an appropriately labelled parody, even if he is a right wing fucknut.

  3. It's okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the takedown notice:

    Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that this Notice is accurate

    So this Kari L. Moeller lawyer will be done for perjury, right? Right? That's the only way to discourage these types of harrassments.

  4. DMCA and Trademarks? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act dealt with Copyright infringement, not Trademark violations. So is CNN claiming that they actually wrote the parody story?

    I don't think the DMCA gives them any take-down rights over Trademark disputes.

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    1. Re:DMCA and Trademarks? by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think they're claiming they own the images, which are pretty clearly ripped right from cnn.com

  5. wait... by BigChigger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but CNN is a bastion of liberalism. You mean a liberal organization is violating someones free speach rights! But that can't be! According to all the liberals, they would never do anything like this!!

    BC

    1. Re:wait... by Jahf · · Score: 1

      This was modded insightful? Saracastic perhaps, but even then it is redundant to other posts.

      Anyway ... strange thing is that while I'm a liberal (not capitalized and I'm a Libertarian more than a Democrat), I read the page and saw it as a jab at -both- candidates fairly equally.

      CNN is biased, I agree (though no more so than Fox News, and to my mind less so). However I think if this page had been a rip-off of CBS, NBC, ABC or perhaps even Fox they would have probably had the same from the hip legal attitude.

      Fact of the matter is all the broadcast media outlets are big enough to try something like this. Just because a lawyer sends a note demanding that the ISP yank the page doesn't mean that lawyer necessarily expects it to happen. Look at a court case sometime and notice how many feints are tried on the hope that just one works.

      Besides, as noted elsewhere the parody could have been easily protected by a very few HTML and image edits. Change the copyright to something not-quite-CNN, alter the CNN logo slightly, remove the advertisers images. Done. I've seen other CNN parodies that did this and were never threatened. Seems to me that CNN does have some ground to stand on ... not due to the content but rather due to the presentation.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    2. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a european perspective, CNN and Fox are both so far right it isn't funny anymore... and that's the probably-watered-down CNN and Fox we get on the Astra satellite TV channels!

    3. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if only CNN was a bastion of liberalism...

    4. Re:wait... by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Its all relative, my good friend.

      I find all US media conservative. I know people who think FOX News is liberal (you know they do have that Colmes fellow on there).

      As previously mentioned, true liberals defend free speech at all costs. Most of what passes for liberalism (and conservatism) these days is simply partisan loyalty.

    5. Re:wait... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      To be fair, a corporation is obliged to their shareholders to protect their trademarks, since if they don't, they stand to lose rights to them. Now, agreed, this is a parody which should be protected, but according to many other posters, this item was too deceptively similar to a real CNN story, and 95% of the HTML was verbatim copied from CNN, and apparently there was no obvious notice or demarcation of the parody itself.


      The rights to parody are limited. Before you run a parody of a large, popular brand on the public internet, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the law and jurisprudence on parody rights. But hey, what do you expect from one of these right wing blogger nutjobs?

  6. Where are the... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Trolls telling us that freenet's only use is for kiddyporn traders? Their bullshit would be amusing right about now...

  7. Indistinguishable from a real CNN story by bsdbigot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Unfortunately, the exact parody in question is not currently available. I did find it interesting that one or more of the commenters (on both sides, mind you) suggested that the story was too real and thus unable to distinguish as parody. I fail to see how this is DMCA related, though; am I missing something, or wouldn't the blogger have had to defeat some CNN protection mechanism or be releasing information about protection processes at CNN to be guilty of a DMCA violation? (I'm too lazy to go read the DMCA, again, so somebody just tell me, please)

    I think that libel would be a better case for CNN to make; certainly they are aware of what happened to Diebold recently? It would certainly make me think twice before seeking relief under DMCA.

    The blogger should have done this parody on CBS, instead. Oh, wait, lying about and manufacturing information, nevermind. Then it really would be indistinguishable from real life.

    --
    main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,- 1,-100};for(I=l=0;l<10+0;put
    1. Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story by dougmc · · Score: 1
      I think that libel would be a better case for CNN to make;
      Yes, but to get a site taken down for libel, you have to go to court and get a temporary restraining order (which might be hard to do) until the real court date -- it's not as nice, fast and easy as a DMCA takedown order.

      In any event, as another poster suggested, the DMCA covers copyright, not trademarks (yet the letter mentions trademarks, you'd think the CNN lawyers would know better.) Like you, I can't see the site, but I can guess that a parody site might actually infringe on somebody's copyright, even though they didn't write the parody itself, by using logos and pictures from their site. (And even so, such use might very well constitute fair use. But I don't think the DMCA cares about fair use, all it cares about is getting a site taken down immediately, at least until somebody will stand up and take responsibility for the site.)

    2. Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a mirror:
      http://moorelies.com/extras/CNNpoll.html

    3. Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how this is DMCA related, though; am I missing something, or wouldn't the blogger have had to defeat some CNN protection mechanism or be releasing information about protection processes at CNN to be guilty of a DMCA violation?

      The DMCA is a big law with several horribly dysfuctional sections. The DMCA is generally equated with the anti-circumvention provisions, but in this case they are discussing the internet TakeDown process. Someone can file an essentially bogus TakeDown notice and have anything removed for the net.

      But even setting aside any DMCA issue, the problem here is that a parody news story was plopped in the middle of a genuine copy-paste of an entire CNN page. Logo, copyright notice, everything. The parody story itself is fine, but in my oppinion the framing has stepped over the line. He should have created a CCN (Conservative Criticism Network) logo or something, fixed the copyright notice, stuff like that.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. CNN is right, but for the wrong reasons by DDumitru · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you look at the page on a mirror and examine is closely, it looks like the source HTML came straight from a "real" CNN page and the new story was cut and pasted in. Even the ads are real.

    So, technically, the parody site does violate the copyright of CNN for the HTML "code" on the page. This is more than just layout as it includes javascript and even content management comments. Even the links were copied intact so that they are now broken. Basically, a lazy parody site that would not take the time to create an "original" parody and just cut and pasted instead.

    Now, I still think that CNN is being incredibly "stupid" in pursueing this. I also think that the DMCA is dumb (on a lot of grounds in addition to) not requiring that the nature of an infringement be specified in a complaint.

    So I think thenationaldebate just needs to be a little less sloppy and not just use "save as" with other peoples web sites. Make it look like who you are parodying, but write it yourself.

    1. Re:CNN is right, but for the wrong reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think a bunch of HTML code can be considered copyright-protected. HTML is trivial, such a page wouldn't meet the requirements of "creative content".

  9. Why DMCA? by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The DMCA applies only to cases whereby an encryption / obfuscation method was broken in order to facilitate copyright infringement. If there is no encryption involved, there is no need for the DMCA as standard copyright law applies.

    Regardless of the merits of the case or not, it is a cut and dried copyright case. It has nothing to do with the DMCA whatsoever, since the page is not encrypted. Seems like whoever filed the complaint has no clue what they are doing.

    1. Re:Why DMCA? by EtherMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      DMCA applies only to cases whereby an encryption / obfuscation method was broken

      No, that is not true. Have you actually RTF-Legislation? Perhaps you should take a peek at Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, paying particular attention to Title II, where it establishes liability limits for service providers that follow the new rules. Among these rules is that the service provider "in the instance of a notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."

      So, under Title II of the DMCA, a service provider is not required to comply with a so-called DMCA infringment/takedown notice, but if it elects to ignore or defy such a request, the service provider looses its limited liability protection under DMCA.

      Furthermore, if the mirrors are an accurate repesentation of the original parody site, IMHO CNN has a valid case regarding copyright infringement.

      IANAL, but this article on parody and fair use says: "The Copyright Act in Section 107 enumerates four "fair use factors" that must be analyzed to determine whether a particular use of a copyrighted work, such as a parody, is fair use. These factors are the (1) purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercially motivated or instead is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) nature of the copyrighted work; (3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in the newly created work in relation to the copyrighted work; and (4) effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

      1. I don't know if you can consider this a commercial use: the author's site does sell advertising space, but does not charge specifically to view this parody.
      2. The nature of the copyrighted work is the entire look, feel, layout and design of the CNN website, which certainly qualifies as a creative work as well as intellectual property.
      3. The worst issue against the parody is that except for the article text itself, 100% of the page is copied directly from CNN.
      4. This individual parody has nil effect on the value of CNN's copyrighted work. But the domino principal applies and the value of CNN's copyrights can become eroded, one parody at a time.
      I think that Mr. Cox is going to have an uphill battle trying to get First Admendment protection for his parody in its current state. Perhaps if he spent some time developing his own similar, but oviously different look and feel for the page, he might get away with it. But in its current state, I think a judge will give benefit of the doubt to CNN.
      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
  10. Legitimacy? by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We keep seeing stories about abuses of the DMCA on slashdot, but I am left wondering if there are cases where the DMCA has been used fairly, and if so, how many.

    I know it's off-topic, but I am curious.

    ~UP

    --
    Eat the Path.
    1. Re:Legitimacy? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Well, to think of the DMCA being used fairly, you'd have to at least acknolege it as law. Personally I think the DMCA was used to get around constitutional amendment rights in the persuit of tougher copywrite laws. I think many would say that for this reason, the DMCA can not be used fairly.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  11. CNN has been a potty mouth recently by ravenspear · · Score: 1

    I mean, just look at the type of content they are trying to pass off as "news."

  12. C&D Letters Are Not A Creature Of The DMCA by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Big corporate media also likes to use the DMCA
    > to shut down web sites.

    Copyright owners could send cease and desist letters in the absence of the DMCA. The difference is that without the DMCA they could also sue the site operator even if he took the purportedly infringing material down immediately.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  13. 9/11 DVD | My Pet Goat vs WTC | Booker Elementary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've created a DVD featuring a 44 minute timeline of 9/11 events. It contains Booker Elementary footage split-screened against WTC events.

    A am tracking bitTorrents of this DVD called "20041102.Last.Chance") at...
    http://20041102lastchance.dyndns.org:6969

    The DVD is 4.7GB, but I've also just started tracking a 23MB QT of just the classroom timeframe (from the DVD, this too is split-screen).

    Blog with screenshots at...
    http://20041102lastchance.blogspot.com