Slashdot Mirror
Viacom Sued Over YouTube Parody Removal
A self aware computer input device writes "Just a week after Viacom sued Google over copyrighted material, MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films LLC have sued Viacom claiming the cable network company improperly asked the video-sharing site YouTube to remove a parody of the network's 'The Colbert Report.' Couple this with the iFilm fiasco reported earlier, and you have to question how a company like Viacom can cry foul when it can't even accurately account for its own copyrighted material."
I know I like to cry fowl when I see a turkey of an article like this one.
Why dont people learn to just foot the bandwidth bill themselves so they have control over it.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Those vultures at Viacom have a full-fledged plan to feather their nests by hatching lawsuits -- and it looks like some people are getting soar about it. Hiring those legal eagles to flip them the bird won't come cheep, though.
Bah, the RIAA probably egged them on in the first place.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Viacom have adequate reason to believe that this infringes copyright. Obviously the creators of the parody disagree. they have the right to disagree. Settling these disputes is what the legal system is for. I don't think the creators of this video have a strong enough claim that this was deliberate misrepresentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNHqX27hlz8
Pretty unfunny imo.
and organize the Everyone vs Everyone trial.
Viacom's complaint is exactly what's stated in the headline--that they CAN'T POSSIBLY track all the content they want taken down.
They want to shift the burden of policing to the website operator.
The law:
Copyright violator puts material on website without proper rights to do so.
Copyright holder complains to website operator.
Website operator immediately takes down material, then follows up as appropriate.
Courts, whatever follow.
In exchange for certain protections (and they made out like bandits, but it's still not enough), the industry's lobbyists agreed to bear the weight of policing when the DMCA was finally passed in 1998.
What Viacom wants:
Website operator is responsible for making sure material in violation of license never appears on their site.
If this ever happens, copyright holder gets one biiillllion dollars (well, 1.6, but you get the pinky anyhow).
Well, that, or viacom just gets to dictate terms to google when they finally partner up.
As the google/youtube lawyer said this morning on NPR--this is something they should take up in the Congress, not the Courts.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
.....Viacom gets a Wag Of The Finger!
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
MoveOn....ewwww...*shudder*
http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6169765.html?tag=yt
While I'm a supporter (and member) of the EFF, I don't see the strategy in not filing a counter-notice. Under the DMCA, if a copyright holder files a DMCA takedown notice (Section 512), the service provider has to take down the content and notify the account holder. The account holder can file a counter-notice explaining why the content is not infringing, then 14 days after the counter-notice, the content can be put back if no lawsuit has been filed. (See http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi)
S ince the method of restoring content is well established, why didn't MoveOn.org/EFF use it? Why was no counter-notice filed?
Slashdot editors do not:
* Check for dupes
* Actually edit obvious typos/grammar issues
* Remove obvious troll postings
* Read TFA to see if the summary is accurate.
Slashdot editors do:
Apparently, I've been a Slashdot editor all this time and never noticed!
The DMCA is probably the single worst piece of legislation on the books. Clearly no one took the prototype and demonstrated how to abuse it prior to issue.
... and that's the fundamentally-bad part. To quote Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!"
However, the Constitution of the US is all about how the gub'ment interacts with the people. It has little to with how people interact with each other (anti-discrimination elements are an excption.) The government says I have a right to bear arms. That does not imply that you are powerless to prevent me from bringing a sidearm into your home or place of business. It only means that the government (and it's agents) are restricted in what they may do regarding my firearms.
Similarly, the government is obligated to provide a level playing field for the citizens regarding freedom of speech, liberty, pursuit of hapiness, etc, etc. The executive summary is basically "The government may not demonstrate a bias." You however, are free to "bias" all you like. If you run a coffee shop, and allow customers to use an open mic on "political rant night," you're not obligated to allow anyone equal time. You're not an agent of the state, so those rules don't apply directly to you. If someone takes the stage and says something you don't like, you may ask them to leave. If they don't, they're trespassing and you have the option of bringing in law enforcement folks. Said individual may cry "I'm being oppressed" at the top of his lungs, but an individual (you, the coffee-shop owner) is not held to the same standard as the government. Granted, tossing someone out on open mic night is probably a bad move with respect to the customer base, but that's an image-issue, not a government-regulation one.
If you can demonstrate that Viacom (or anyone else) is acting as an agent of the state, then you've got a valid claim of Nth Ammendment violation. That would be a government action by proxy, and I would fully expect any judge to get extremely angry at a government agency attempting such an end-run. Otherwise, it's just the DMCA being an overly-broad piece of crappy legislation. It could probably be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it horribly infringes on fair-use under copyright law. But that's a totally different fight. Perhaps that's the one Google wants to fight - "In order to exercize my fair-use rights, I'm required to obtain a circumvention device (my PC) and to disable the kindergarden-grade protection measure." That's a shell game - in order to have these rights over here, you're required to break this other law. The situation allows the government to arrest you for exercizing your rights
Even when the kettle is calling the pot black, two wrongs don't make a right. Viacom may be a hypocritical tattletale in this case but it doesn't absolve YouTube of responsiblity. The submitter is silly to suggest this.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Viacom have adequate reason to believe that this infringes copyright.
On what basis do you make such an assertion?
And on what basis would they get around 17 USC 201(a):
I don't think the creators of this video have a strong enough claim that this was deliberate misrepresentation.
By Definition, a DMCA notice must include "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 infringed." Emphasis added to point out how serious the misrepresentation is, even if it isn't deliberate. IAmALaymanNotALawyer, but someone else claiming "under penalty of perjury" that they are the rightful copyright holder to a parody you created sounds like almost enough for a Slander of Title lawsuit. (Alas, it probably isn't.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I think the funniest thing Colbert could do would be to get on his show and rant with (mock) fury at the audacity of someone daring to PARODY his oh-so-serious show. The more he rants about how parody is wrong and un-american, the funnier it would be.
If they don't get video from a respected site like Google Video, they will get it from ISOHunt or a relative. IMO.
viacom - gootube = pattern of abuse
/bye karma
viacom - ifilm = isolated incident
slashdot = grasping at straws for news
The parody protection doesn't apply just to funny material. They may have no comedic talent, but that doesn't mean that a parody isn't still protected.
>>It isn't you guys who don't know the difference ... between to, too, and two...
Yeah, that's almost as bad as when people use "between" to differentiate a choice amongst three or more options.
"I'm a Laver, not a Phyto[plankton]"
With a name like "MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films LLC" they can;t possibly be a bit full of themselves, could they?
Someday we will evolve beyond the mind cancer known as politics.
WHOOSH! To the person who modded me offtopic: Read the fucking first line. Oh you get it now? Good.
Hopefully won't be modded troll for this post, it's never nice to have something pointed out to you that you missed before.
I don't have any sympathy for the dipshits who had their stupid, boring, lame clips removed because they chose to use misleading keywords like "Colbert" and "Daily Show" to get attention.
The government made the laws protecting the copyright of the person expressing it. Viacom is acting by proxy according the the wishes of the government. Fair use in speech has often resided under the principle that according to the constitution that you have freedom of speech (1st ammendment) but this free speech doesn't include the right to copy my speech. This is illustrated by the specific inclusion of the mandate that congress should take steps to protect copyrights and patents.
Now when congress makes a law concerning limiting the rights to use something based on the original interests of the person responsible for that something, they have provided Viacom with all their rights to that something. This is how Viacom is acting as an agent of the government or rather using instruments of the government to set the preference. So fair use exists to ensure free speech isn't being thwarted or back doored by other obligations imposed on the government. But it is quite clear that the fair use is supposed to be saying something other then what the copyright holder has already said (repeating my speech)unless it is a matter of political expression or news worthy.
Could you imagine the first person who said "bush lied, people died" having a copyright on it that prevent anyone else from saying it or writing it? Or worse yet, forced them to oay a fee to repeat it? It is a complete concept and idea outside the mere use of words, It is likely copy-write-able in the first usage and context. But more importantly, I could claim ownership to it and prevent anyone else from freely using it by acts of the government. Without fair use making exceptions in this way, I could effectively use the government to stop any and all serious opposition to my cause by thinking of every possible damaging slogan and copy writing it.
And unfortunately, your correct, it is a trap. A parody in itself doesn't make something fair use. It has to say something that would be considered free speech and not necessarily repeating my speech for other goals. This is why currently, the protection is on the copywirte holder and the infringer has to claim an exception to it. As for the DMCA, it only considers the rights of the copy holder and not the free speech because it is a separate entity. If you really want to see a crappy piece of legislation, just imagine congress trying to determine what speech is free and what isn't.
In order to compel someone to take down infringing content providers have to swear under penalty of perjury that they own the content.
Moderators, please stop modding people up for perpetuating this misunderstanding about the DMCA. In a takedown notice, the only thing declared under penalty of perjury is that the person sending the notice is authorized to act on behalf of the organization in whose name the notice is sent.
Yeah, almost... but since the 5th meaning of the word "between" is "5. among: sharing the responsibilities between the five of us." I'm not sure if it's quite as bad. http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=betw