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.
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.
And still have to comply with the DMCA takedown notice, or have enough lawyers to hold back Viacom
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNHqX27hlz8
Pretty unfunny imo.
and organize the Everyone vs Everyone trial.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
In this case you are probably right, but this is not always an (affordable) option. In the past, I had to use Google Video to post a video of an event we held. Our current provider doesn't allow us to host the video ourselves, so I did the next best thing: upload it to Google Video.
Yes. The DMCA is fundamentally flawed. But that doesn't matter. There is no objective measure at the moment whether this video is infringing or not. If Viacom were to sue the creators directly, and made an argument as to why it infringes, then it would take a court to make the decision. Now, as long as the creators submitted the argument "It's clearly a parody" they'd win in court, but that hasn't happened yet.
Viacom probalby should have known that this is non-infringing, but their argument that they aren't in a position to make a legal judgement will be a decent defence in court.
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
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
But the default position shouldn't be to take down any work just because a lawer says it infringes. If Viacom prove in court that it's infringing or at least convince a judge that it should be removed pending a case then fine.
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?
The First Amendment applies only to actions by the government.
Everyone else is free to censor content spoken or published on their home grounds for whatever reasons they damn well chose. You are not entitled to a soapbox and a megaphone, a printing press or a web blog.
True. Unfortunately the drafters of the DMCA didn't consider that the down period might be a problem. The complete unfairness of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions has prevented other countries from using similar legislation.
Because very few legal downloads would make enough money to pay for the insane cost of commercial bandwidth these days. We just got a 5mb circuit for $1000 a month and that was a crazy steal of a deal.
Just because you don't find a joke funny doesn't make it any less of a joke. It just means that the person is bad at telling jokes. The question isn't whether or not the parody is funny but whether or not it was intentionally made as a parody, and as far as I can tell, it was.
Collector's Edition
The government passed a law that allows people to trivially infringe on the first amendment rights of others. If you don't think there's an action of government in there somewhere, you're not thinking.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
(1) When a site with a video gets hit hard by /. or digg, the vast majority of people would not be able to maintain it. Google's got plenty 'o cash to take care of the bandwidth for such situations.
(2) Plenty 'o people have no idea whatsoever how to go about getting their own video's hosted on their own site, irrelevantly of if they have the financial requirements to do so. Youtube is simple enough for everyone ("You") to use.
Between the options of not having the video accessible at all (due to not knowing how, or expecting it to be hit by /. or digg), and having it accessible with small chance of it being taken down - I'd take the latter, as would most people.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Seemed more like a parody of the media in general, and moveon.org especially. The end was hilarious. "That's the magic of online petitions."
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
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
Yes. The DMCA is fundamentally flawed. But that doesn't matter. There is no objective measure at the moment whether this video is infringing or not. If Viacom were to sue the creators directly, and made an argument as to why it infringes, then it would take a court to make the decision. Now, as long as the creators submitted the argument "It's clearly a parody" they'd win in court, but that hasn't happened yet.
The DMCA would not be so bad if it were actually enforced as written. As things are it's only being used in a one-sided manner such that large companies are able to suppress whatever they want with no repercussions and small content providers are not protected at all (and are in fact being silenced via misapplication of the DMCA). In order to compel someone to take down infringing content providers have to swear under penalty of perjury that they own the content. To date, although numerous examples of blatant violation exist, including takedown notices being issued for obviously original works and other work that the submitter does not own, no prosecutions seem to have occurred. This is also the first lawsuit I have heard of on such grounds; it is a wonder that more have not been submitted.
As for your bit about arguments being submitted in court, that is an odd bit of logic. TFA is about precisely that; to wit, the creators have submitted the argument, in court, that their video was wrongfully removed because it is in fact a parody. You don't even need to read the summary because this information is contained in the title of the slashdot article.
Viacom probalby should have known that this is non-infringing, but their argument that they aren't in a position to make a legal judgement will be a decent defence in court.
No, they have to be able to prove that they knew for a fact it was infringing. They are in a positioon to make a legal judgement and have done so wrecklessly. This is a blatant abuse of the DMCA which is covered in the statute itself. It's also an important case because this kind of abuse is far too frequent and comes of content providers not doing the due diligence required by the Act. It's about time someone cracked down on it; let's hope they make a fine example. Hang 'em high, judge! Hang 'em high!
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.
YESYESYESYESYESYES
Fair use guidelines have been on the books for 2 decades +
If they weren't sure, they shouldn't have filed the DMCA notice, where the swore under penalty of perjury that the video was infringing.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
WHy does it have to be on Google Video and YouTube though? Why not use other smaller providers like DailyMotions, PutFile, etc.? I am sure there are plenty of those from out of countries to avoid DMCA.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Maybe they might want people to actually watch the video. Downloading via torrent is a pain in the ass.
Why do you post on slashdot and not any of the other online tech forums?
I also believe they have to re-evaluate some of this every so often. So if there is something you don't agree with, like this particular thing, Look to see if something can be done to address it. My understanding is that they don't have to get anything passed like you congress critter who is more concerned about making campaign speeches and such.
If you don't see the instance of fair use, then your not committing perjury. And the difference between infringement and fair use is ht intended goal.
The thing is, you don't have to prove it is infringing at this stage, you have to prove you believe it is. Then the infringer has to say, I have a fair use exception to their copyright claim. Look here for some more on it.
Being that it is a parody doesn't necessarily make anything automatically fall into fair use. It has to actually say something that might be protected speech.
The fact the guidelines have been on the books for two years doesn't mean the copyright holder needs to lie down for anyone wishing to make a fair use claim. It is up to the infringer to show they are excepted from the law as their defense. I know this seems contrary to the innocent until proven guilty sentiment we commonly have. It is because all the laws on copyright are there to protect the copyright holder. Maybe something could be done in the future to change this. I doubt congress would though.
Uh, did you watch the video? It's obviously not a critical review, it's a satire in the same vein as the show. Al Franken is a satirist himself and is very similar to Colbert in some respects. MoveOn.Org is a left-wing political site. They may be criticizing the persona Colbert plays on his show but they're obviously doing it in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Whether it's protected by Free Speech or not, this is certainly more of a tribute than a parody.
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
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.
I do (Digg, newsgroups, etc.). Why do you ask?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Fair use guidelines have been on the books for 2 decades +
Aye. But they be more by way of guidelines...
If they weren't sure, they shouldn't have filed the DMCA notice, where the swore under penalty of perjury that the video was infringing.
They have every legal right to. They only swear that they are the copyright holders of the work allegedly being infringed.
But if they're not sure, the only way they have of naking sure is to sue the makers of the video and let the court decide. But to do that they have to follow thge procedure under the DMCA, which requires them to send a takedown notice and sue the party that posted the infringing work. This also requires that they identify the infringing party, which also requires a takedown notice.
They're using the law legitimately. It's the law that's wrong.