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

Parody

[keiferb]

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

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:Listen...

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

It's okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

DMCA and Trademarks?

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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.

Re:DMCA and Trademarks?

[bradkittenbrink]

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

wait...

[BigChigger]

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

Indistinguishable from a real CNN story

[bsdbigot]

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.

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.

Legitimacy?

[Undefined Parameter]

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

C&D Letters Are Not A Creature Of The DMCA

[John Hasler]

> 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.