CNN Uses DMCA Against Parody

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."

Comments

Listen...

[Your_Mom]

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

Re:DMCA and Trademarks?

[bradkittenbrink]

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

Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story

[Anonymous Coward]

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

CNN is right, but for the wrong reasons

[DDumitru]

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.

Why DMCA?

[brunes69]

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.

Re:Why DMCA?

[EtherMonkey]

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.