Anti-Piracy Firm Sends Out Wave of Takedown Notices For Using the Word 'Pixels'

An anonymous reader writes: Columbia Pictures recently released a movie called Pixels to widespread ambivalence. As part of the movie industry's standard intellectual property defense strategy, it hired anti-piracy firm Entura International to try to police infringing downloads. The firm went at the task with vigor, hitting Vimeo with DMCA takedown notices for anything with the word "Pixels" in it. As you might expect, this disrupted a number of independent filmmakers and organizations who did nothing wrong, and in most cases picked a name for their video long before the new movie came out. Even worse, it's incumbent upon the owners of the targeted videos to prove that their content does not infringe upon Columbia's. Even if they get it restored, simply being targeted counts against them in Vimeo's eyes. And of course, Entura is unwilling to help.

Comments

Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest a DMCA takedown notice against Columbia pictures filed by anyone using the name previously. Or must one be rich to use government enforcement agencies as one's lapdog?

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, jail time for Columbia pictures employees and their agents. You must sign under penalty of perjury that you know the infringement to be true. Time to get them in jail where they belong.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[grahammm]

Columbia claim that the works for which they send takedown notices violate the copyright in their new movie. As the works concerned were created and put online before the movie was created, then one of two things can be true. 1) The works do not violate the claimed copyright, or 2) If copyright has been violated, then it is the Columbia movie which violates the copyrights in the earlier work(s). In either case the takedown notices are invalid and abuse of process.

Standard shite

[wbr1]

When are we collectively going to stand up and say that the real pirates are the ones who steal our culture from us piece by piece? People who then have the audacity to push out drivel like 'pixels' and call it culture?

Re:Standard shite

[wxxy___]

The people who decided that any video labeled pixels belongs to them and is to be removed from the internet. Thats who.

The entire intellectual property debate is backwards.
The so called creators aren't the ones who are doing the plebs a favor when ip enters the public domain. It is the public who are doing the creators a favor by pretending that thoughts are equatable to actual property. Once a thought leaves somebodys fruity little mind its no longer theirs. You can think up a unique set of words or a cartoon mouse, but once it is out of your head, I can say those words or draw that mouse. The only reason you can stop me, is because society decided it is worth pretending that those ideas are the same as actual property so that creators will be able to both eat and create.

The problem is that this idea has gotten twisted beyond the breaking point. To the point that people believe ownership of ideas is the same as owning a rock, and people who are sick of literally paying forever to protect the ideas of dead men from being used freely, are the parasites.

DMCA reform

[Lord Bitman]

I don't like most of the DMCA in principle, but I expect I wouldn't even care about it, if it just had some clear built-in penalty for making a false claim (eg: 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid)

Re:DMCA reform

[ACDChook]

Then I think the correct procedure now would be for everyone to file DMCA claims against the Vimeo accounts of the movie studios. Get their accounts deleted and banned for a change.

Another example

[Roodvlees]

Of how broken this system is. Wish I had mod point to upp some of the responses here.

Solution

[Andy Smith]

Have a significant penalty for an invalid complaint.

Re:Solution

[Dog-Cow]

Better solution: hunt down the employees of Entura and torture them to death. Paying out money is a cost of doing business. Risking one's life is a whole 'nother game.

Re:Solution

[currently_awake]

When making suggestions on how to fix a problem, remember your enemies will want to use it against you. Holding the board/executives legally liable for all criminal corporate activity should suffice. A corporate death penalty would effectively prevent non-profits from fighting the good fight (ex. EFF).

Can't copyright titles

[Mybrid]

Can't copyright titles and 'pixel' as a word is too generic to trademark. Ignore the take down.

http://www.writersdigest.com/e...

Q: Iâ(TM)ve been working on a book and the title is very importantâ"I use it as the URL for my blog, for a weekly column I write, etc., and I want people to identify it with me. Can I copyright a title so others canâ(TM)t use it? â"Anonymous

A: Copyrights cover works fixed in a tangible format, but because titles are typically short, they donâ(TM)t fall under copyright protection. So no, you canâ(TM)t copyright a title to a book, song or movie. But you can trademark a title, which may give you the protection you seek.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office states that a trademark protects words, phrases, symbols or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others. Brand names like Pepsi, Xerox and Band-Aid are all protected. So is the Nike âoeswoosh.â But more relevant to us, book titles such as The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter and the Sorcererâ(TM)s Stone are trademarked.

Unlike copyright protection, which is granted the minute your work is written down, trademarks arenâ(TM)t handed out so freely. In fact, if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office doesnâ(TM)t consider your title (or brand) a distinctive mark that is indisputably distinguishable from others, you will not be granted trademark protection. This is why you see so many books with the sameâ"or very similarâ"titles. Many of the terms are considered too generic or arbitrary to warrant protection.

Trademarks are not only intended to protect the creator, but also the consumer. Trademarks keep others from confusing a well-known work on the bookstore shelves with others. For example, Harry Potter is such a popular, distinguishable character by J.K. Rowling that youâ(TM)d expect any title with his name in it to be written by her (or, at least, a book approved by her). Itâ(TM)s not only her work, but itâ(TM)s become her brand.

So if you use the title of your book as the title of your blog, column, etc., it could be considered your brand identifier. And if you find success, you could qualify for trademark protection.

Re:sign only that you represent author, not infrin

[TheReaperD]

IANAL but, it seems reasonable that the courts could impose some penalty for robo-signing the DMCA take-down notices as they are legal documents. Even the big banks had to pay huge penalties and redo mountains of legal paperwork for doing the same thing (robo-signing legal documents).

Tell them what you think

[dristoph]

Here's their website, with a contact email address posted conveniently on the front page:
http://entura.co.uk/