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."

Comments

You Tube link

[had3l]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNHqX27hlz8

Pretty unfunny imo.

Re:Fair use is subjective

[EzInKy]

Did you even watch the video? It is obviously a critical review. Think of the ramifications if all a corporation has to do to stop negative reviews of their products is file a DMCA takedown notice. There is no way in the world that protecting somebody's imaginary "property" is more important than protecting the first amendment.

Submitter misses the point.

[karlandtanya]

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.

Re:Fair use is subjective

[an.echte.trilingue]

It is obviously a critical review.

Um, no, it is obviously a parody. It attacks Colbert for claiming to tell the truth, which in turn is his parody of organizations like fox news. Colbert is a joke, and this is a joke on that joke.

I am going to venture a guess that you have never actually seen the Colbert Report, or that you never watched the video. What some of his videos and then rewatch the parody. It makes a lot more sense.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jht ml?ml_video=&ml_collection=70004&ml_gateway=&ml_ga teway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show &ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Fml_collection%3D 70004&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Re:Editing still apparently optional on /.

[Goaway]

Modded "Funny"? I guess it is funny, like laughing at the village idiot, but I wasn't making a joke, I was just repeating Taco's message here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174297&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14502339#145024 84

Re:Two wrongs don`t make a right

[Sique]

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. Which responsibility are you talking about? To take down works where a copyright holder claims infringment? They do that. To reinstall them if the uploader files a counter notice disputing the claims on infringment? They do that. So where is YouTube at wrong? They just comply with the DMCA.