Slashdot Mirror


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.

18 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You have to be a corporation or at least something else that we may reasonably expect a campaign contribution from. Where have you been that you don't know that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy by grahammm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please see a doctor. Even with ear plugs, you ought to hear that wooshing sound.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      We would like to make clear on behalf of our client, Anonymous Coward, that the mistranscription of "Colombia" as "Columbia" was purely an inadvertent administrative error, which was subsequently acted upon by computer without further human interaction. Therefore as Anonymous Coward is in fact the copyright holder of the work "first ten word draft of script for documentary 'Colombia'", the perjury penalties under the DMCA do not apply. Have a nice day.

      With best regards,
      The Lawyers

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. Standard shite by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  3. Solution by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have a significant penalty for an invalid complaint.

    1. Re:Solution by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Solution by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer corporate death penalty. The company is instantly dissolved Loses it's corporation status and opens up all Board and executive members to be 100% liable and suable.

      Government agents then dismantle the company and sell it off for it's assets within 30 days of the ruling.

      That right there will overnight make all corporations stop acting like assholes.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Solution by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the sociopath would hunt down and torture the family members of the employees. What we found was the vigilante.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  4. 5-year old video by Sigma+7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recall seeing a Youtube video where someone did the exact same pixel-invasion scenario. It starts with someone dumping an old TV, which then releases it's angry pixel payload, followed by space invaders who hit various cars, pac man who eats the subway stations (converting the staircases into just a few pixels), tertis blocks that remove floors of buildings, arkanoid paddles that remove bricks from a bridge, and finally ends with a bomb that turns the planet into one black pixel.

    Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I'm sure Columbia has their claim, but some indie beat them by five years As usual, it's a big publisher doing a keyword search without thinking about the consequences.

    1. Re:5-year old video by p.g.king · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Columbia picture is acknowledge as being based on that film (and based on French director Patrick Jean's 2010 short film of the same name)

  5. Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury? by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if it is possible to bring a Class action lawsuit against Entura (and Columbia Pictures)? IANAL but there seems to be a class here. By filing DMCA claims, Entura have committed themselves to a legal document (even if that is an electronic document). Surely, if the claims in the document are clearly false, then Entura have committed multiple acts of perjury (as each claim is a legal statement invoking the DMCA). As Vimeo counts the DMCA claim against the user, even if that claim is proved invalid, then the users can show that they have suffered harm to their reputations.

  6. Re:DMCA reform by Khyber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "It does, but it only applies if the false claim is false in the sense that it wasn't filed by the copyright holder or someone they appointed to represent them."

    Incorrect. You must sign under penalty of perjury that ALL CLAIMS MADE are accurate and made in good faith.

    I file DMCAs quite often, so I know the whole rote already.

    The claim made by the corporate representative is neither made in good faith (likely done automated) nor accurate.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. Can't copyright titles by Mybrid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:sign only that you represent author, not infrin by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  9. Re:DMCA reform by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently, part of the problem is that Vimeo has a DMCA copyright 'strikes' system where a certain number of 'strikes' gets your account deleted and you're banned from the site. It seems that the main issue here, other than the hassle of filing a DMCA counter-claim, is that when you get the DMCA claim pulled, Vimeo will put your video back on their site but, they do not remove the 'strike' from your record. The short version is that if you get enough bogus DMCA claims against your account they will delete your account and ban you from their service even though you did nothing wrong beyond happening to name something you created too close to a name a major studio chooses to use in the future.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  10. Sue them for Libel by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hasn't Entura committed libel, and can't they be held accountable for that?