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.

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.

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.

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.

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