"Pixels" DMCA Takedown Even Worse Than We Thought

ForgedArtificer writes: So we all know about the Pixels takedown on Vimeo, and that it was pretty bad in a lot of ways. But did you know that they took down the short film that inspired the movie? Turns out, the 2010 Pixels, which was taken off Vimeo due to copyright notice, was responsible for inspiring the entire Adam Sandler flick. Unlike Sandler's film, it's critically-acclaimed and has won awards. Talk about kicking someone when they're already down. First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs.

Comments

Opportunity

[fyngyrz]

This is an opportunity. Anyone who knows anyone in the media should make it a point to make a story out of this -- it plays as big guy robbing, then kicking, the little guy. An opportunity for the little guy to get their head above water, which -- at times -- can work out surprisingly well.

Of course, we know that's not what's happening; this is rote behavior by uncaring people resulting in unfortunate collateral damage.

It's just as wrong, but it isn't based on specific intent.

Copyright, patent and trademark -- all broken as hell.

And I say that as someone who makes a significant income from all three.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I know what I'm going to do. Pirate this movie. I hadn't planned to do so, but now I will, it and a dozen, no three dozen others.

Except the Waterboy. That movie is punishment enough.

Re:Opportunity

[mysidia]

There should be a class-action lawsuit from all content creators affected against the DMCA letter spewing company AND the studio who hired them for gross-negligence And copyright abuse.

They should seek to have creator's copyright interest in the new film struck down by the courts.

Re:Opportunity

[bmo]

but it isn't based on specific intent.

You're kidding, right?

Copyright trolls and the publishers that love the concept know exactly what they're doing.

There is no punishment for even malicious DMCA takedowns. It's "kill them all and let God sort them out" behavior.

--
BMO

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill them all and let God sort them out is precisely not having specific intent.

Re: Opportunity

[ColdWetDog]

You want to pirate an Adam Sandler movie? That is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Re:Opportunity

[Krishnoid]

Anyone who knows anyone in the media should make it a point to make a story out of this -- it plays as big guy robbing, then kicking, the little guy.

I think they already made a couple movies featuring a similar theme. Starring some ostensible comedian named ... Allan or Aaron or something ... Sandberg ? Kind of low-brow stuff, but popular nonetheless.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue them for Libel. There was no infringement and the Onus is that infringement deserve be treated as theft. Sue them for libelous claims that harm your existing work for the sake of their own personal gain.

Re:Opportunity

[bmo]

I disagree.

The specific intent is to do harm regardless of what's right.

It's not like the lawyers that work for these companies didn't go to school to learn about this region of the law specifically.

--
BMO

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Not particularly, the piracy is merely a necessity to teach a hard lesson.

I won't actually watch it myself.

Re:Opportunity

[Smallpond]

The 2010 film should file a claim of infringment against the Adam Sandler film and claim rights to all profits.

Re:Opportunity

[Nexus Unplugged]

Let them show the movie in theaters, but display small advertisements below the video with proceeds going to the creators of the 2010 film. Fair's fair, right?

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

just don't tell you cell mate that unless you can kick some ass.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a nose... My god! Look at the size of that thing!

Re:Opportunity

[jonwil]

I WAS thinking of seeing this film in the theater when it came out here in Australia but this news is enough to tip me into the "don't bother" camp. I will not go to see it in the theater, nor will I pirate it or otherwise see it (maybe I will see it in a few years when it shows up on free-to-air TV)

By all accounts the film is a piece of crap anyway (just like every other Adam Sandler film to date) so I am not missing out on anything...

Re:Opportunity

[Runaway1956]

That's my kind of idea. WTF do we, as a nation, put up with this kind of asinine shit? Boycott everything Hollyweird for a month, and we'll have their attention. "Play nice, or you're out of the pool, kiddies." Fuck Holloweird, and fuck most of the "entertainment" industries.

We really, really, REALLY need to support the independents, and tell the big boys to go to hell.

Re:Opportunity

[Runaway1956]

Which part of "kill them all" did you fail to understand? Are you a zombie, or just brain dead?

Re:Opportunity

[arglebargle_xiv]

From TFA:

the new film from Adam Sandler, was a complete flop

Mod -1 Redundant.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an opportunity. Anyone who knows anyone in the media should make it a point to make a story out of this -- it plays as big guy robbing, then kicking, the little guy.

Sadly, this is no opportunity. The media is corporate-owned, and their parent is usually part of the publishing industry. They know enough not to bite the hand that feeds them.

Re:Opportunity

[Forever Wondering]

IIRC, if someone files a takedown notice under the DMCA for a given work at a given website, the author of the work can file a counter notice under the DMCA with the website. Unless the original filer is willing to sue, the work can be restored. The DMCA does provide penalties for filing baseless/frivolous DMCA notices. And, the author can sue the filer.

The reason for the "hair trigger" effect is that if a DMCA notice is filed with a website, the website must remove the work quickly, or risk losing its "safe harbor" protections. To restore the work, the takedown must be withdrawn or the counter filed with the website.

In this case, if the Sandler film is too similar to the 2010 short film, it could be considered a derived work. That is, violates the copyright of the 2010 work. That would mean boatloads of cash for Patrick Jean.

That all said, DMCA abuse is obviously rampant.

Re: Opportunity

[amiga3D]

None of them are worth the bandwidth to pirate them. I'd rather watch grass grow.

Re:Opportunity

[amiga3D]

That shit actually made a profit?

Re:Opportunity

[CanEHdian]

There is no punishment for even malicious DMCA takedowns. It's "kill them all and let God sort them out" behavior.

And that was done *on purpose* to shield the "Rightsholders" from any harm (the strong worded "bla bla penalty of perjury bla bla" -- believed by some to be a check-and-balance -- in fact protects them too, namely that noone can run an extorton racket by make false claim of representing the "Rightsholders" -- to ensure any money flows in their direction and not some fraud).

There should be a "strike" system for takedowns too; x many false notices and you can only submit on paper, and this time on penalty of perjury that the work in question infringes on the work being claimed. That can eventually lead to JAIL TIME.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenue, not profits. Never go after Hollywood for profits, there never are any.

Re: Opportunity

[lucm]

So what's the master plan? Download the movie, put it on a USB stick and leave it on the subway? That should teach them.

That's like revenge porn without revenge or porn.

Re:Opportunity

[lucm]

We'll get to that, as soon as we're done with Wal-Mart, Monsanto, BP, Wall Street and the NSA. Lotsa people to kick out of pools lately.

Re:Opportunity

[lucm]

People can't even shoot drones hovering over their garden and filming their kids. We are a long way from killing copyright trolls.

Re:Opportunity

[lucm]

It is people like you who fuck up the moderation on this website.

Mod -1 Redundant.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually did pay a licensing fee to the creator of the short. Which doesn't excuse the rest of this BS, of course.

Re:Opportunity

[Cito]

You can't win

I had a YouTube video removed over similar issue.

I filed counter claim. I got served by some law office , I don't have money for lawyer, I tossed their paperwork in trash, I kept filing counter claims, I got a court date in California, but I'm in Ga. :-P

I just ignored them, eventually YouTube got tired of taking down then restoring then taking down then restoring so they deleted and gave a strike on my account which a strike bans you from monetizing for 1 year.

Oh well

Re:Opportunity

[rtb61]

Everyone misses the real intent, kill the competition. People can watch only so much so the pigopolists actively try to drive competing content off the internet when ever they can. Obviously the counter claim against a DMCA should not be civil but criminal because it involves fraud and the attempt to maliciously destroy another persons business by devaluing their content. The DMCA should be constitutionally challenge because it is being used to deny owners the copyright to their own content.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

You want an oppurtuniy? You have one right now at this very moment.
The only solution to the copyright/patent mess is to keep on sharing
till their business model is completely destroyed. Because they will
not stop until you terminate them.

Start by ripping and sharing all the physical media you own.
And do it over anonymous overlay networks such as I2P and Phantom.
That way you can share 24x7x365 without fear of the MAFIAA.
No one needs to feed the machine (with at least $9.50 to the machine and
$0.50 to the artist) and you can Bitcoin your money straight to the
artists that make a difference in your life.
The only thing these labels and distribution companies exist to do
is to tax both you and the artist and to payoff politicians.
SCREW THAT.
Crush these useless "intellectual property" companies once and for all.
Share and share at will my brothers!

*** Approved Tools ***
http://www.freebsd.org/
https://www.archlinux.org/
http://open-zfs.org/
https://geti2p.net/
http://code.google.com/p/phantom/
https://transmissionbt.com/
http://xiph.org/flac/
http://xiph.org/paranoia/
http://www.cdda2wav.de/
http://cdrtools.sourceforge.net/
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/
http://www.labdv.com/aacs/
http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html
http://www.dvdfab.cn/mlink/download.php?g=DVDFAB9
http://ffmpeg.org/

Quality is paramount, bandwidth and storage are cheap, therefore...
CD and DVD *must* be shared losslessly, as FLAC and VOB dirs only.
BluRay *may* be shrunk to DVD-9 iso/vob before sharing.
Don't waste people's time and quality by jacking around with other formats.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Without knowing exactly what you uploaded, we have no basis to consider if you were actually uploading infringing material or the "copyright owner" was carpet-bombing.

Like some level of expiry needs to be added to the DMCA, where in a "copyright owner" can not remove content that predates the copyright of the content they say is being derived.

For example, and I use this as an example that I indeed filed a counternotice for.

There is a company that publishes covers to songs, like covers that are basically low-grade shovelware covers. They sent a take down to an item that was published in 1988 for a cover produced a band in 2008. I recorded this track off the computer, but it was originally published in 1988, so there is absolutely no way this company has the rights to this track since the company that published the software which generates the track still exists, and they send send their own DMCA's under the ESA to sites that are pirating the games themselves. When I listened to this track off amazon.com I noticed that the cover-band must have also used a MT-32 or similar Roland synth for the first 5 seconds of the track, hence the false content ID match.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

That is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

mmm Jack Vance.

Re:Opportunity

[hackwrench]

No, no, you weren't reading the thread closely enough, "kill them all" is what copyright trolls are saying about anything that has even the barest semblance to their copyrighted piece.

Re:Opportunity

[Forever Wondering]

Sorry to hear about your difficulties. Although, I didn't mention it in my original post, I'm not surprised to hear about such a scenario playing out that way, as I'm sure it's been done countless times to other people in similar circumstances.

Although the DMCA provides for some degree of dispute resolution, ultimately, it often boils down to having the money to spend on the legal process. Thus, even if you're in the right, you're forced to go to court. No doubt one of the "maneuvers" was getting the venue to be CA (vs. GA where you live and might have had a reasonable chance of showing up for your day in court).

As an intermediate step, I might have kept the legal papers, asked for a one hour consult with an attorney of your choice [or a legal aid rep, which is usually free]. Then, the attorney can usually tell you whether you have standing, what your realistic chances of success would be, how much process might cost, and you can both decide if it's worth it for you to pursue it in court or get the case dropped.

Note that when you get a legal consult, some less ethical lawyers will try to steer you to going through the full process, because, win or lose, they will make more money. But, ethical ones [they do exist] will be happy to give you their best advice for the one hour they will charge you for and not recommend that you go to court unless they're reasonably sure you have a winnable case.

Of course, finding an ethical attorney [and one that you trust] can be problematic. That's why legal aid might be the easiest/best first step. They usually have some good attorneys and usually don't have a [profit] axe to grind.

IANAL, so all of the above is just my layman's opinion, but I hope you find it useful in the future when youtube unlocks your account and you can create some unique videos and try to monetize them.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a class-action lawsuit from all content creators affected against the DMCA letter spewing company

No. The money you can get from a class-action is insignificant and not worth your time.
The affected content creators should pull out the same bullshit numbers that the copyright trolls do when they talk about potentially lost income and handle it individually.

Re: Opportunity

[serviscope_minor]

That's like revenge porn without revenge or porn.

Well the revange happenes because whoever inadvertently watch it will likely hold a deep grudge.

For a good review, Roger Ebert does an excellent hatchet job:

http://www.rogerebert.com/revi...

Re:Opportunity

[davester666]

The 'media' is owned by the same corporations doing this shit. You might find a independent station somewhere that will spend 30 seconds on it in their news broadcast as a 'funny mistake kind of thing' [because to cover it in a way that could make someone care about the situation would probably take 5 or 10 minutes or more]. But none of the major networks will cover this because:
1) they do it
2) they are owned by a company that also owns a bunch of other companies that also do it

And there is nothing you can do about it, because it is literally impossible to roll back copyright legislation.

Re:Opportunity

[T.E.D.]

Of course, we know that's not what's happening; this is rote behavior by uncaring people resulting in unfortunate collateral damage.

It's just as wrong, but it isn't based on specific intent.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The master plan is to download it, put it on a spare harddrive somewhere and let it be. That'll deprive the movie company of at least one full ticket price of money.

If enough people do this, none of which will ever actually watch the darn thing, the movie company will go bankrupt due to the losses incurred.

According to the movie companies' logic, that is.

And that logic is correct, is it not?

Re: Opportunity

[DrXym]

How about not pirating it? Make it clear that even when you can download this shit for absolutely nothing you still won't bother because the value of the movie doesn't even justify the effort of typing into a search engine.

Re: Opportunity

[DrXym]

The studio has probably figured a way of converting illegal downloads into a tax writeoff. If you want to hurt the studio, just ignore the movie entirely. It doesn't exist.

Re:Opportunity

[AmiMoJo]

I have found that the best tactic is to not only file counter-notices, but to then file your own DMCA take-downs against their content. Unfortunately some large companies are apparently immune to DMCA notices on YouTube, but many are not. For example, Sky News's live feed was taken down when their own parent company filed a DMCA notice over their coverage of the GOP debate.

Fight fire with fire. If they are claiming a clip you used isn't fair use then there isn't much you can do, but if they are claiming that some content you made is too similar to their own content then clearly that's because they are infringing your rights and you should scrub their shit off the internet for them. Hit the YouTube account, their social media accounts, their web host. There is no penalty for DMCA claims that don't stand up, so go nuts. Personally I like to rate-limit the notices, so that as soon as they deal with one another comes along and they have to file another counter notice. Only noobs file one notice with 100 URLs, when you can instead file 100 notices for 100 days. A trivial perl script can even automate the process for you.

Re: Opportunity

[JackieBrown]

For a good review, Roger Ebert does an excellent hatchet job

Roger Ebert died. It's another reviewer using his site now.

That said, I enjoyed the movie. It was good, dumb, fun and all the references just made it cooler

Re: Opportunity

[SuricouRaven]

That's my approach to the new Fantastic Four movie. I've seen it offered already, but I've heard such awful things from those who watched it that I'm not going to waste my time.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA does provide penalties for filing baseless/frivolous DMCA notices.

Sure it does. You know what the penalty is? Perjury. But the *only* part of the filing done under penalty of perjury is the part where the filer claims to be who they claim to be, so there's no penalty for falsely claiming that the work is yours when it is not, or infringes when it does not. *THAT* is why abuse of the DMCA is so rampant. There's a penalty if you aren't who you claim to be. There's no penalty for the rest of it.

In this case, if the Sandler film is too similar to the 2010 short film, it could be considered a derived work. That is, violates the copyright of the 2010 work. That would mean boatloads of cash for Patrick Jean.

The new film *is* a derived work of the 2010 short. In fact, the studio *licensed* the rights to make the film based on said short, so there's no question about whether it 'could be considered a derived work'. However, being a *licensed* derivative work, it doesn't violate the copyright of the short.

This is just another example of someone getting stupid and twitchy with a DMCA take-down notice, and it will *continue* to happen, because there's no *actual* penalty for doing it. (see above)

Re:Opportunity

[cdrudge]

The DMCA does provide penalties for filing baseless/frivolous DMCA notices.

No it doesn't. The only penalty the DMCA has for filing a false claim below:

'(vi) 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 in-fringed.

It's just perjury if the entity filing the claim isn't authorized by the rightsholder to file the takedown request. All they have to do is word the request such that it doesn't make any statements of facts. For example:

We are $IPService working on the request of $MovieStudio, legal copyright owner of $Movie. We believe the following URLs infringe on the rights of $MovieStudio:

$NonInfringingURL1
$NonInfringingURL2
$NonInfringingURL3

Presuming that $MovieStudio gave $IPService authorization to file the requests, all that they have done is said that they have a belief that the URLs infringed, not that they actually did.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The studio bought the rights to the short film, to make the big film.

Nothing "wrong" here per se, though it's pretty assy.

Re:Opportunity

[SuricouRaven]

I've faced action for copyright infringement on youtube three times.

The first was pretty clear: I'd used an old cartoon, still copyrighted, to practice video restoration. At the time it was a vault-and-underground cartoon only, not legally available - the uncut version of Steamboat Willie, the version where Micky Mouse savagely tortures a series of animals in order to make music from their agonized cries. About a year later Disney republished it and DMCAed mine - possibly because my restoration was actually better than theirs.

The second was another thing entirely: Content-ID picked up some 'infringing' music on another video. The music was actually a recording from so long ago it was expired even in the US - recorded 1914, plus the composer was dead more than 70 years at the time I uploaded it. A collecting agency had still claimed they owned it and submitted it to content-ID though, so youtube detected it as infringing. A DMCA notification can be counter-noticed, but not a content ID match: There is very little in the way of appeal for those, it's an almost entirely automated system

The third was another DMCA notice, though my usage in that case was clearly fair use: I'd taken about thirty seconds from a TV program episode, no sound, in order to make a joke about it. I find it more interesting that the entire episode had been uploaded without permission by other users. This notice didn't come from a bot: I personally offended someone at the studio to the point that, while they didn't bother pulling entire episode uploads, they still thought my joke in sufficiently poor taste to merit removal.

Re:Opportunity

[Jawnn]

That's my kind of idea. WTF do we, as a nation, put up with this kind of asinine shit?

We put up with it because we have no choice. We have long since given up our power as citizens in a democratic republic to control the actions of our system of law and government. Corporate money is in power now, and it is unlikely to be unseated until things get much, much worse.

Re:Opportunity

[Holi]

YouTube would only have taken it down once, That's how the law works. They file a claim YouTube takes it down, you file a counter claim, YouTube restores it. They are now protected from legal action. Obviously what you posted was infringing since it actually did go to court (and you defaulted because you're poor and wrong)

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need to do is leave the pool, drain it, trapping the other occupants, and then fill it with concrete.

Re:Opportunity

[budgenator]

Send DMCA take-downs to the movie theaters showing the digital form of the movie, the distribution company and the Internet provider that host the movie for the theaters to down-load. Then file suit, $250,000.00 per showing, never sue or sign a contract with a movie company based on profit, they never make a "profit".

Re: Opportunity

[GTRacer]

Um, why bother with the downloading at all? If you stay away, isn't that having the same effect? Actually, sine a number of content owners are now using piracy rates as an indicator of viewership (HBO and AMC, to name two) wouldn't you be giving the studios the impression they're doing something right?

As much as I'd love these brain-dead studios to waste money on more stupid, making Pixels 2 means some other marginal-but-original project may not get made...

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea, except that they blame less sales than projected as an increase of piracy and uses that to motivate a media tax on hard drives to offset the 'loss'.

Just ignoring companies that are willing to buy laws to ensure profits isn't enough. One needs to actively fight them.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to ignore it, but it's got an advertising budget. I don't watch the telly much, but I've seen the advert for the film at least three times in the past week.

I tend to boycott anything that's so heavily advertised anyway. Not to mention, I have zero desire to see -- or pay for -- anything Mr Sandler is in. (Not sure why he's in so damned many films. Is he supposed to be funny?)

Re: Opportunity

[tompaulco]

Not particularly, the piracy is merely a necessity to teach a hard lesson.

I won't actually watch it myself.

Piracy says that you like their movie but are too cheap and lacking morals to pay for it. To really send a message, don't watch it at all and don't even download it illegally.

Re: Opportunity

[stackOVFL]

Not a bad plan but given it's a Sandler film you'd probably just get ticked for littering.

Re:Opportunity

[quickhand]

I work for a major international newspaper. I'm interested in this subject and think this makes a good anecdote. In order for it to become a story I need some hard numbers that show large-scale malfeasance. If anyone has a lead on such data, let me know. No guarantees, but I'll try to pitch it to my editors.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you watch on TV?

I watch quite a bit and I have not heard of this movie outside of Slashdot.

I don't think Sandler is funny either, but you evidently watch things that people who like him also watch.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, let's take that logic to it's obvious conclusion.. if enough people do this, the studios wiill eventually be paying US full ticket price to watch it. I don't mind wearing earplugs and shades to watxch it all day. At 20$ per ticket price the "future's so bright I gotta wear shades" (® somebody or another some year)

Re: Opportunity

[doccus]

I'd love to ignore it, but it's got an advertising budget. I don't watch the telly much, but I've seen the advert for the film at least three times in the past week.

I tend to boycott anything that's so heavily advertised anyway. Not to mention, I have zero desire to see -- or pay for -- anything Mr Sandler is in. (Not sure why he's in so damned many films. Is he supposed to be funny?)

WHo is Adam Sandler? A tax writeoff for the studios? I only watch Poland television cooking shows , and Turkmenistan political broadcasts anyways ;-)

Re:Opportunity

[Enigma2175]

No. The money you can get from a class-action is insignificant and not worth your time.
The affected content creators should pull out the same bullshit numbers that the copyright trolls do when they talk about potentially lost income and handle it individually.

Yeah, class action suits almost never give a real benefit to members of the class. Most of the time the "compensation" is coupons to buy more merchandise from the same manufacturer that screwed you in the first place. No thanks, Iomega, your zip drive already made me lose my data -- why would I want to buy another one from you?

Re: Opportunity

[doccus]

Not particularly, the piracy is merely a necessity to teach a hard lesson.

I won't actually watch it myself.

Piracy says that you like their movie but are too cheap and lacking morals to pay for it. To really send a message, don't watch it at all and don't even download it illegally.

Wow!! THat's a message even a lazy guy like me can send. Do NOTHING! Yay!!

Re: Opportunity

[doccus]

UNless it's loudly, and obviously, pirated, it doesn't even exist. That's the big problem with digital material. Otherwise, (and this is precisely what the bean counters in their offices do, actually) the studios can just pull a number of projected losses out of a hat .. "well, for this to have been the summer's big hit it should have sold 850,000 copies, so since we only sold 50,000, then 800,000 must have been downloaded". Never mind that only 30,000 *were* downloaded because word got out that it was pure shite.. if the bean counters say it was 800,000, then that's the number they'll take to congress to show how "unfairly" they've been treated. After all, it's congress, so they can fling the crap across the room and it'll stick to any bills those maroons in the US house introduce, and in parlaiment's, as well, every time...

Re: Opportunity

[serviscope_minor]

Roger Ebert died. It's another reviewer using his site now.

TIL :(

Well, the new reviewer is at least giving good hatchet jobs too.

Re:Opportunity

[sinrakin]

I also think that this sounds like libel. IANAL obviously, but it also sounds like things other things people commonly sue for, like "interference with business relationships" or "destruction of reputation". Certainly if having the bogus claim filed causes the hosting site to block your account or prevent you from posting additional content just because of the claim being filed. Is there some explicit protection in the law against being sued in this way?

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not lose focus on the real culprit here, the DMCA. The most draconian law ever written. Period.

Re:Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had two videos flagged by Content-ID.

One was a recording of a public performance of a song which had long since left copyright protection, but someone was asserting claim over reproduction of a specific orchestra performing that same song. I pointed out that the recording of a non-protected performance of a non-protected song does not infringe on the rights of a specific performer performing their own rendition of the same song.

The other was a home video with the stereo playing in the background. I pointed out that incidental capture of ambient music does not constitute copyright infringement.

I fought and won both of them.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're NOT going to see "start wars:the force awakens"?

Re:Opportunity

[SuricouRaven]

I tried, and youtube never even responded to my appeal.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately, that is probably a tax write off as well.

Studio: "Movie had no receipts due to no one watching. Massive consumer disinterest."
Tax Lawyer: "But you spent all that money to make, you deserve some compensation. I smell a tax write off in the form of losses"

Re:Opportunity

[preflex]

By all accounts the film is a piece of crap anyway (just like every other Adam Sandler film to date)

Actually, Punch-Drunk Love was an excellent film. It wasn't just a good movie in spite of starring Sandler, he was actually pretty good in his own right.

Re:Opportunity

[Forever Wondering]

Thanks for the cite. Trying to get the full text of the law can be exhausting. I found PLAW-105publ304.pdf but the indents make it hard to find things. Cornell law publishes an html variant that is a bit easier to find things in.

Most action is about proving infringement. But, in the sentence it also talks about ownership [and being an authorized agent for the owner]. In certain cases, people have tried to claim ownership of something they didn't actually own (e.g. tried to [re]copyright something that was in the public domain). So, in that case, infringement or not, the question is did the filer actually own the work at all. Since the affirmation is about "owner" rather than "alleged owner", misrepresentation of ownership seems [to me] to be clear cut.

There are other parts of that apply: DMCA 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)(v)

Also, consider "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

This is currently under appeal at the 9th circuit appeals court, but the 2008 ruling was that filers must consider "fair use" before filing.

Re:Opportunity

[Drathos]

With Hollywood Accounting, every movie is profitable while at the same time being a loss.

Re: Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the spare hard drive going to purchase a ticket but will no longer? Can't see how that would deprive them of a movie ticket.

Hand the hard drive to someone standing in movie theater line and then you're talking.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The more often this happens, and the higher profile, the greater the chance that someone might finally wake up, and/or pull their head out.

Counter DMCA notice

[Todd Knarr]

The situation seems ripe for him to file a DMCA notice against all of Columbia's official film sites and materials. He can prove his film existed before Columbia's was even started, and he has Columbia's admission (in their DMCA notice against his work) that their work is similar enough to his for infringement to occur.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps amusing, but ultimately counterproductive.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[CCarrot]

Perhaps amusing, but ultimately counterproductive.

Potentially lucrative, though. Would be nice to hoist the bastards on their own petard for once.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Travis Mansbridge]

The DMCAs are directed at Vimeo, and it's Vimeo's responsibility to stand up for non-infringing content, or it's their right to remove the content from their site for no good reason. I doubt they'd comply with an individual's request to have all of a major producer's works removed in the same way they'd comply with a major producer's request to have various individuals' works removed.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[quantaman]

The situation seems ripe for him to file a DMCA notice against all of Columbia's official film sites and materials. He can prove his film existed before Columbia's was even started, and he has Columbia's admission (in their DMCA notice against his work) that their work is similar enough to his for infringement to occur.

Except he doesn't own the copyright to the short anymore, Sandler's production company who made the 2015 Pixels film does.

Now they made a really crappy movie based on the original short, but they had the legal right to do so.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

did he sell them the rights, or are you saying that by making a rip off they acquired the rights?

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[quantaman]

did he sell them the rights, or are you saying that by making a rip off they acquired the rights?

I'm saying they own the rights as in they bought them from the guy who made the film. I'm not sure how much of a corporate hack you'd have to be to think the studio acquired the legal rights to an independent film by ripping it off without consent of the creator.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

Vimeo received the notice. That are forced to take down the content regardless of the merits, and pass the buck to the content author to handle.

Otherwise they will see themselves in the deep end of the law.

Not fun, but now is the author responsibility to make a counter claim, and with that, request Vimeo to reactivate the content.

This process basically forces both parts to identify themselves and remove the "carrier" (Vimeo in this case) from the case.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, Google ignores bogus complaints all the time.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[jklovanc]

References please. Google brings things up when counter claims are filed. Otherwise they loose their protection from suits.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Rockoon]

...forced to take down the content regardless of the merits...

required by law.

... Vimeo to reactivate the content.

not required by law

Vimeo is required to remove content, but is never required to restore content.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

He should sue Columbia for all of the income (not profits) that they took in on this film. After all, they stole it from him...;

Re: Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

If a proper counter-notification is sent, the material must be reinstated.

Re: Counter DMCA notice

[adolf]

^^this

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[T.E.D.]

Except he doesn't own the copyright to the short anymore, Sandler's production company who made the 2015 Pixels film does.

In which case, they also have the right to submit the takedown notice for it. If they don't want what is now their 2010 movie distributed on that service, it probably ought to be their right to remove it.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[FilmedInNoir]

Google ignores censorship requests those are a world apart (at least until TPP finally gets approved) from DMCA notices.

Re: Counter DMCA notice

[Cederic]

Really? I can force Vimeo to post my content?

If proper counter-notification is received then Vimeo can safely reinstate the content without being directly liable for any infringement.

That doesn't mean that they're obliged to do so. It's their site, they can choose not to host my content whether it's infringing copyright or not.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what is missing from the blurb is that the creator of Pixels sold the rights to Adam Sandler. It is still wrong that his original work was taken down by a DCMA claim but he can't sue Columbia over them infringing on his work. http://news.moviefone.com/2010/05/14/adam-sandler-buys-movie-rights-to-viral-hit-pixels/

Re: Counter DMCA notice

[sjames]

All too often, the site will NOT put it back up. Instead they invoke their right to reject any content for any reason or for no reason (look at the fine print).

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[KGIII]

They still own the copyright to the original work - as far as I understand it. I read a couple of different articles last night and another popped up this morning - they could all be mistaken, however. Anyhow, they licensed the rights to make a derivative which does not remove any of the original short maker's rights except in that case for that specific movie.

Re:Counter DMCA notice

[budgenator]

Google just pointed to Patrick Jean's film "Pixels" and they are both up on Youtube and Vimeo where it is currently listed as a "Staff Pick". I intend to blow-up my social-media and refer to Sandler/Happy Madison as cyberbullying Patrick Jean through their bulldog proxy Entura International and Columbia Pictures. These Holliwierd type are extremely narcissistic, and Sandler is real quick to play up Family Values in his films, hitting him up as a cyber-bully will hurt his ego.

Re: Counter DMCA notice

[Rockoon]

^^this

...is a lie

Re: Counter DMCA notice

[adolf]

Upon further reading: You're right. Thanks!

Never heard of "Pixels"

[Anonymous Coward]

So no, we don't "all" know.

Re:Never heard of "Pixels"

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Well, unless you're reading Slashdot on a Vectrex, you're looking at pixels.

Re: Never heard of "Pixels"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you watch Pixels in 3D, does the title change to Voxels?

Re:Never heard of "Pixels"

[Oligonicella]

He said "Pixels", not "pixels".

Re:Never heard of "Pixels"

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have my Vectrex all boxed up!!!! Minesweeper!!!

Text book

[Anonymous Coward]

A textbook case as to why anyone that issues a DMCA take down should be held liable. Probably a good case for regulation of DMCA and paying a fee to issue a DMCA take down.

Re:Text book

[quantaman]

A textbook case as to why anyone that issues a DMCA take down should be held liable. Probably a good case for regulation of DMCA and paying a fee to issue a DMCA take down.

Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down, the only wronged party I can think of is Google who had to go through the pain of a pointless DMCA request.

This is one of the more comical cases that demonstrates how random DMCA takedowns are, but if you want a textbook case use the takedown of an independent film from 2006.

Re:Text book

[drinkypoo]

Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down,

No, their own material is among the material they're taking down.

Re:Text book

[quantaman]

Liable to whom? It's their own material they're taking down,

No, their own material is among the material they're taking down.

You're a level too high in the abstraction :)

The AC didn't seem to be referencing the takedown requests as a whole, they seemed to be referencing the request for the 2010 Pixel short specifically, which the studio owns.

I referenced the takedown of the 2006 independent film, also among the whole pile of takedowns in this batch, but a specific notice that is obviously wrong.

Re:Text book

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

the only wronged party I can think of is Google who had to go through the pain of a pointless DMCA request.

I think you're confusing Vimeo and YouTube.

Re:Text book

[quantaman]

the only wronged party I can think of is Google who had to go through the pain of a pointless DMCA request.

I think you're confusing Vimeo and YouTube.

No confusion, I was just too lazy to parse the full summary :)

Re:Text book

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cool, run your mouth anyway.

Re:Text book

[BronsCon]

Welcome to Slashdot. God, I love this place.

Re:Text book

[suutar]

does the studio own it, or does the studio have a right to create a derived work? I have not heard that they actually purchased the short, just that they got permission to make a movie. If all they have is the permission, then they have no right to take down the short.

the original intent

[circletimessquare]

of intellectual property was to protect the little guy with the good idea from being abused by the big guy with the deep pockets

the intent has been completely subverted and destroyed and now intellectual property simple serves as another club the big guy with deep pockets can use to rob the little guy with the idea

the concept of intellectual property, the very notion of it, is completely logically and morally bankrupt, and must die

now i'm no air head optimist, i may never see it happen in my lifetime. it's a slow change. but remember the printing press led to some radical changes in society. when education became cheap, a middle class grew from the previously illiterate serfs, and this class demanded power, giving rise to modern concept of democracy. it took centuries

likewise, the internet is going to radically change society. and it will also take centuries for all the implications of a new disruptive technology to work it's way out. just like the printing press

aristocrats then whined "not fair" like some do today as the changes begin. but on the contrary: the radical changes are all about making it more fair, for more people

give it time

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideas are valuable. So, people want to control them.

Morally bankrupt or not, the inclination to maintain control over valuable things is part of human nature. You are fighting a very steep uphill battle.

Re:the original intent

[ScentCone]

Except that the little guy can register his works, he and his family can enjoy exactly the same duration of copyright, and pursue (as many have, to the tune of millions of dollars) punitive infringement damages in court. Your narrative is phony.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

More fair for more people...that's a laugh!

We are currently in a transitional phase of our technological adolescence, of course. This phase is marked by an unusually large middle class. This creates the illusion that things are getting better for everyone, albeit slowly. In fact, this large middle class has been steadily shrinking over recent decades, with no end in sight.

Eventually, we will be back to a two-class economy, with an elite group of wealthy aristocrats at the top, and teeming masses of poverty-stricken indigents at the bottom. The only difference is.....the state of technology will be such that the wealthy elites no longer need the labor from the poor class in order to survive.

When that happens, the poor will be eliminated. An international war will take care of most of them...the remaining ones will be forced to turn to crime to survive, which will result in them spending the rest of their lives in jail (and hence unable to breed). That is where humanity's final generation of poor people will end.

Then, and only then, will the majority of humanity thrive in the technological utopia.

Re:the original intent

[Whatsisname]

There never was an original intent to "intellectual property" as you think it does because it doesn't exist in the US. Instead, we have patents, copyrights, and trademarks, three different sets of laws with three different purposes.

For patents, there was never any intention about protecting 'the little guy', it was to discourage secrets and to enrich the public domain, by making a bargain in exchange for disclosing of secrets. Prior to patents, many technological acheivements were kept secret and when the inventor died or guild disbanded, the knowledge went to the grave with them.

If intellectual property ever had an original intent, it would be to confuse people into thinking of all three of those sets of laws as the same thing, and to compare them to physical goods. It seems to have worked on you.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

the concept of intellectual property, the very notion of it, is completely logically and morally bankrupt, and must die

Intellectual property is a false property right, in the same way that slavery was a false property right.

Eventually, we realized that the freedom of mankind was more important than the financial health of plantation owners.

And, eventually, we will realize that the freedom of our ideas is more important that the financial health of publishing corporations.

We live in a strange time in history. We understand that people must be free, but we inexplicably fail to realize that a person is not truly free unless his ideas are free as well. Future generations will look back on us for our barbaric, immoral selfishness -- in the same way that we look back on the American slave trade for their barbaric, immoral selfishness.

Re:the original intent

[circletimessquare]

controlling information is the impossible battle

saying you can't control it is my position

Re:the original intent

[circletimessquare]

- he said, under a story showing the exact opposite

Re:the original intent

[circletimessquare]

the recent shrink of the middle class is awful. it mostly has to do with morons who think socialism is pure evil and the man with lots of money can do no wrong. this will change as more and more feel the negative economic effects of what kind of society this blindness results in

the nordic countries and canada show you can guarantee people basic standards of living and still be capitalist. capitalism is not automatically full social darwinism. because you won't let people lose their house because they get cancer, or that we educate people born in the ghetto well, does not mean capitalism has been destroyed and evil socialism wins

it's a retarded false choice believed by people who never think about this issue and act with an almost religious conviction about economic concepts they don't even understand the fucking basics of. the best societies are a *mix*. capitalist, with social safety nets, or socialist, with a capitalist engine. these societies are richest and happiest. the loser miserable societies are the ones that are ideologically "pure"

anyway, this all off-topic. this topic is not part of the conversation about intellectual property

we defeated the plutocrats before, in the gilded age, and got workplace safety, work week caps, end to child labor, etc. next we will get government child care, generous parental leave, good wage minimums, etc.

we will get that, we really will. the morons are dying off or waking up about the mindlessness of cold war era propaganda about "evil socialism." universal healthcare, cheaper (much much cheaper) and better quality care, as realized in canada, japan, germany, australia, france, etc.: all of our fucking capitalist democratic peers, is not the same fucking thing as the USSR with gulags, even though so many brain dead fucking retards in the usa believe this for some low iq reason

my point is simply: don't be so spooked and grow a fucking backbone. plutocrats are just rich morons, look at donald trump for example. there's nothing to be scared of, we beat the losers before, we'll beat them again. just beat the fucks and stop being such a defeatist weak piece of shit scared of his own shadow

Re:the original intent

[circletimessquare]

do you see the story you are commenting under?

do you see any problems there?

good!

now try commenting again, this time actually commenting on the actual fucking reality of the topic

thanks

Re:the original intent

[circletimessquare]

well said

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

the recent shrink of the middle class is awful. it mostly has to do with morons who think socialism is pure evil and the man with lots of money can do no wrong.

Socialist: noun. A person who believes that a businessman with lots of money and power will inevitably become evil, while a politician with lots of money and power is incorruptible.

Re:the original intent

[Kjella]

of intellectual property was to protect the little guy with the good idea from being abused by the big guy with the deep pockets. the intent has been completely subverted and destroyed and now intellectual property simple serves as another club the big guy with deep pockets can use to rob the little guy with the idea

Oh please, we started messing with that system not them. Instead of buying a copy so the "little guy with the idea" got his royalties we started mass copying stuff for free, which fucked them both over. Maybe their contracts weren't very nice, but it doesn't matter if there's nothing to share. Since then it's been an arms race between those who want to copy and those who want to prevent copying, with both sides playing dirty.

The music industry seems to have found its shape with streaming though, games have Steam so the only hardcore lock down fans seem to be the movie industry. But we broke CSS, we broke AACS, when their 4K BluRay protection cracks hopefully they'll say enough is enough.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

As always, you argue against strawpeople of your own imagination. People aren't against Socialism because they hate poor people, they're against having their lives are controlled by the government. There are reasonable balances that some countries have found, but there are also countries like Greece who spent more than they had and then got screwed by their creditors. I'm sure you'll rant "that proves capitalism is evil!" now, but it just proves that you can't live off of things taken from others or you get yourself in trouble.

Re:the original intent

[el_chicano]

Socialist: noun. A person who believes that a businessman with lots of money and power will inevitably become evil, while a politician with lots of money and power is incorruptible.

Not sure if you are trying to be serious or funny but Albert Einstein disagrees with you:

The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? [1]

Nope, to a socialist a "politician with lots of money and power" is a corrupt symbol of free market capitalism, as seeking money and power are the primary goals of self-interested capitalists. Einstein again:

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals... The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. [2]

If you are trying to be serious then you really don't know shit from shinola. Funny you definitely are not.

[1] [2] Why Socialism?

Re:the original intent

[el_chicano]

We live in a strange time in history. We understand that people must be free, but we inexplicably fail to realize that a person is not truly free unless his ideas are free as well.

Free? What are you smoking?

This computer cost me money, the internet connection cost me money, the electricity to run the who shebang cost me money. Are you going to reimburse me the costs I have to bear in order to access your speech? Because if you don't then your speech is not truly free, at least not to me.

If you truly want free speech why don't you get a soapbox and start ranting on the street corner next to your county courthouse. At least that way you will spare the rest us sucking on the teat of our corporate overlord Slashdot from having to hear your drivel...

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

government child care, generous parental leave

I'm not sure about these. Why should those who don't have kids subsidise those who do? If you're worried about poor people not being able to afford to look after their children, then subsidise poor people (through negative income tax, basic income, etc.) enough to pay for child care and to take unpaid leave, and let them decide if they want to spend it raising kids or not.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's called "argument from authority." Einstein was a physicist, not a politician. Unless we're talking about spherical voters of uniform density, I don't think it really helps out here. Socialism was really popular in his day. So much so that a certain charismatic politician ran on a platform of National Socialism and got his country to do whatever he wanted. But we'll just ignore that, because whatever you say it's never a true Scottsman.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

(mrchaotica (681592) posting anon because I moderated)

You and the grandparent are both half-right, but are arguing past each other:

The grandparent is right that "intellectual property" as a concept does not actually exist, and that copyrights and patents have very little in common. (In fact, to use the term "intellectual property" is to capitulate to the ideological framework of the opposition, so I recommend you quit using it.) He's also right that what they do have in common is that their explicit purpose is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," not "to protect the little guy with the good idea" (that was a side effect).

You, however, are correct that copyright (and to a lesser extent, patent) law's intent has been subverted by those with deep pockets. Copyright has indeed failed "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" both because it is used as a cudgel to destroy true innovators while protecting large publishers, and because it simply isn't actually necessary -- as proven by the existence of the vast quantity and quality of public-domain and permissively-licensed works on the Internet.

Re: the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the bit where the maker of the 2010 short already got paid, in the form of a license fee from Sandler. So, uh, kinda *exactly* how copyright is supposed to work.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are corruptible regardless of the economic system, whether it's full-on laissez-faire capitalism, some reasonable balance of socialism, or full-blown communism. I don't understand your joke. As long as a democracy is informed, attentive, and skeptical of their politicians, we can identify and get rid of the corrupt ones. It's not a perfect system, but I don't see how businesspeople are somehow inherently more trustworthy, especially when they can try to buy politicians and influence the process in their own ways.

Re:the original intent

[shihonage]

The recent shrink of middle class is created by the Obama administration, which absolutely hates the middle class. Obamacare is a wealth redistribution system disquised as a common good. Just like any previous historical attempts to distribute wealth, it suffers from a fatal flaw - the takers have no limit on how much they take, so it will bleed the middle class dry.
But thanks for your disjointed attempt at gaslighting, Mr. Lenin.

Re: the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet *had* the potential to change things when it was a mostly anarchic decentralized network. Now it's centralized and everything aggregates around a handful of major players. It has been completely subverted and turned upside-down. It's not going back to what it was, ever. The "revolution" is over.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't Socialism. At least not by any actual definition of socialism. They ran under the *name* of national socialism, but that's not the same thing as running on a *platform* of national socialism. Unless, of course, you think that North Korea[1] actually has a democratic republic government[2].

[1] North Korea's actual name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
[2] The form of government under which the United States of America was formed. (Sadly, we've devolved to a corporate oligarchy at this stage.)

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the little guy doesn't have an army of expensive lawyers at his disposal. Your narrative is naive.

Re: the original intent

[Cederic]

The anarchic decentralised network still exists. It just doesn't get the mainstream attention.

This may be a good thing.

Re: the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

And that payment gives Sandler the right to remove the 2010 short from the internet?

Re:the original intent

[KGIII]

No. They were socialists and trended towards fascism as time progressed. They certainly were socialists and this should not be seen as a slight. Just because one person of color commits a crime does not mean all people of that color are criminals. By every definition they were socialists and, by all accounts, this changed. Even the Soviet Union was socialist, albeit in a very obtuse manner, and they were just as bad as Hitler - Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people including lots of Jews. This is not a black eye against socialism - it is a black eye for the people involved.

I am a Libertarian, a Classic Libertarian which is the sane group without Ayn Rand or the crazy Republicans, and even I recognize that no one form of pure political or economic ideology has been or will be effective. You can not have pure socialism, capitalism, democracy, republic, or libertarianism. It will not work at any scale large enough to matter because we are humans. They all fail...

What is needed is a blend of the above ideals to create an actually working system. Moderation is actually a very important thing. Each needs to be countered by its opposite and regulations need to ensure this is so. Let me know when you find a country that hits the 500 year (or even half that) mark without needing the reset button at least once and not being controlled by threat of violence as a colony. Hell, even those tend to revolt.

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait, you are saying we can pick and choose the best parts of each system instead of using a 100% pure economical system? So we can have limited socialism through safety nets insuring everyone gets their basic needs met while still having the capatist motivations of wealth and success to insure a strong economy? That's crazy, I'm sure the old rich white guys in charge would never allow that to happen.

Re:the original intent

[tepples]

There never was an original intent to "intellectual property" as you think it does because it doesn't exist in the US. Instead, we have patents, copyrights, and trademarks, three different sets of laws with three different purposes.

I agree that the term is misused, but I disagree that the concept "doesn't exist in the US." It's been in the United States Code since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 added 47 USC 230.

Re:the original intent

[BronsCon]

You clearly have no idea how marijuana works. Go smoke a joint, then get back to me. If it makes you lazy, smoke a different strain the next night; lather, rinse, repeat, until you find the strain that works for you. There are hundreds, it may take some time.

Re:the original intent

[sjames]

Nonsense. By the time mass copying even became available, copyright had already been pushed to more than 3 times the original (and reasonable) 28 years. Hollywood accounting was already a thing and double platinum albums that were supposedly still 'recouping' (that is, no royalties yet paid to the artists) had happened. The Girl Scouts were already sued for singing camp songs and nobody dared sing Happy Birthday in a commercial setting (even though evidence suggests the copyright was exhausted nearly a century ago). Valenti had already made wild claims in court that the VCR was like the Boston Strangler.

Screwy DRM schemes on VHS and software existed for a decade before anyone outside of a university even knew there was an Internet.

Is it any wonder that respect for copyright was low to non-existent by the time the internet came out was at a low? Then came the huge damages that were clearly meant for the operations that made many thousand copies in a warehouse and sold them as legitimate, not for someone who shares 2 copies over a torrent. Then the mass lawsuits where the plaintiffs clearly didn't care if the named defendants actually owned a computer, much less iof they actually shared the media in question as long as they were able to squeeze money out of them. Now throw in the scummy manufacturers who abuse the DMCA to keep you from repairing your own hardware and refilling ink carts and I think it's fairly clear which side fired the first shot and remains the more aggressive,

Re:the original intent

[Anonymous Coward]

you mention the theory of patents. Of course, there isn't much in the way of evidence that this was really the case (actually, evidence is contrary) and first-to-file patent systems are not about disclosure, but winning the race to file for the obvious. My favorite was when Microsoft filed for a patent based on an Apple product (a shame I can't remember the patent or the product anymore). This was before the US switched to first-to-file so Apple was able to win a patent. Why didn't Apple file a patent? Because it hadn't occurred to them it would be patentable. The patent system, in practice, is about a race to file for patents you can use as leverage against competitors, and to prevent competition (by having necessary patents and refusing to license other than to entrenched business with whom you have cross licencing agreements). Sometimes people will make absurd claims, like saying that patent issues are related to rapidly advancing technology. History says otherwise (both revolver and cotton gin come to mind).

Copyright was intended to protect a publisher so that if a publisher decided to print something there would be no competition to undercut them on price. The author didn't even enter into it (though the pretext of "to enrich culture/the arts" is sometimes mentioned to garner support it is not what copyright was ever about). This is why books, music and movies -- for individual works -- can only be purchased from one publisher. There is no competition -- I can't make a differently mastered DVD of another publisher's content (like, say, making a Disney movie accessible instead of consumer-hateful) because copyright -- the "right" to make a "copy" resides with the publisher.

Trademark is the *only* imaginary property that is not intended to solely benefit a company at the expense of society. It has a real benefit for purchasers because it helps to increase their confidence in the product they are purchasing. When I buy a Ford branded vehicle I know it was designed, engineered and manufactured to Ford's standards. I know (to a point) what I'm buying. Which is a far cry from the situation if any fraudster could sell chromed crap and slap whatever brand they wanted to on it.

Patents and copyright just need to go away. Trademark is fine.

Re:the original intent

[david_thornley]

The National Socialist German Workers' Party, from the time it became noticeable, had socialist and nationalist wings. It is incorrect to say that the party was socialist at any time it actually mattered. (I don't think much at all is known of the party before Hitler joined.)

The nationalist wing took power (Goering was making nice with big industrialists, not a socialist thing to do), and got rid of the socialists (some by murder) in the mid-30s.

In any case, GGP claimed that a certain politician ran on a National Socialist platform and gained power. At that point, the NSDAP was in no way socialist. (Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf why you don't change the propaganda when the reality changes, and so why the Socialist and Workers' stayed in the party name.)

Reminds me of the The Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy

[Darth Technoid]

Reminds me of the bit in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where ...

"The simplistic style is partly explained by the fact that its editors, having to meet a publishing deadline, copied the information off the back of a pack of breakfast cereal, hastily embroidering it with a few footnotes in order to avoid prosecution under the incomprehensibly tortuous Galactic copyright laws. It is interesting to note that a later and wilier editor sent the book backwards in time through a temporal warp and then successfully sued the breakfast cereal company for infringement of the same laws."

Dupe story

[UnknownSoldier]

We already had this story ...

As another posted pointed out

The indie short was shot by Patrick Jean, who then sold the rights to Sandler and Columbia. He was slated to direct, but turned the job over to Chris Columbus as the budget grew.
* http://uk.businessinsider.com/...

And ...

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

Re:Dupe story

[ForgedArtificer]

I posted this because the original didn't detail the relationship between the 2010 Pixels and the 2015 Pixels.

It may have been brought up in the comments, fair enough, but the comments aren't the story. Not even remotely.

Re:Dupe story

[whoever57]

If the original was legally uploaded by the copyight holder, then surely Vimeo's terms give them the right to continue hosting the original video?

Re:Dupe story

[dbIII]

but turned the job over to Chris Columbus as the budget grew

Someone must really like Chris Columbus. Terry Gilliam was slated to direct "Harry Potter", and would have been ideal for such a quirky British thing, but when it looked like it would be a high profile movie Chris Columbus was given the job, presumably to raise the profile of Chris Columbus.
Given that "Home Alone" is the only thing he'd directed before that which was not instantly forgettable I can't see why anyone thought he could make better films than Terry Gilliam - so somebody really likes him. Once again we see the original director, possibly a far more talented one or at least with an approach that will deliver something better than "Bicentennial Man" when supplied with a vast budget and vast talent.

Re:Dupe story

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe, but does Vimeo's care enough to fight for this video. i doubt it. let the interested parties sort it out and get out of the way.

Justice

[Sponge Bath]

I would say Dinklage should punch Sandler in the nuts, but that may already be the plot of the movie. Anyone seen it to confirm?

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I hear, even reading about the movie is like a punch to the nuts. Ouch!

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I have dont insert your quarter dont waste that period of your life, Ask for you money back even if your pirated the movie. Technically it could constitute a cruel and unusaul punishment.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the main plot, but he does it at least twice.

Ehm, he is the executive producer of the new movie

[Ecuador]

Patrick Jean is the executive producer of the 2015 movie, Columbia did not just rip him off. Why would he file a claim against his own film sites an materials?

Not sure what's up, here

[dwywit]

I just went to vimeo and searched for "pixels".

Lots of content with "pixels in the title, including the original short.

Perhaps someone at vimeo woke up, or perhaps someone at entura has been reading /. or other tech news sites.

Has anyone got a screen grab of that search returning nothing, or DMCA takedown notifications?

Re:Not sure what's up, here

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, WTF? You can't copyright a title.

Especially a one-word title that's a commonly used term.

There are some people who said my film 2001: A Space Odyssey was similar to Stanley Kubrick's. I mean, that's the sort of petty critical niggling that's dogged my career!

Dirty Laundry

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that not infringing upon Marvel, Disney, and the Punisher franchise? Oh that's right the CP holders aren't being douches about it.

the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics for

[Joe_Dragon]

the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics for the use of the suffix.. lympics.

Time to copy right the letter E be used on line and issue an DMCA take down to each web site that uses it that did not pay the fee of $0.00012 per use.

Who is Adam Sandler?

[Sla$hPot]

Is he a regular part of Southpark?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

THIS is why automated takedown-delivering bots

[v1]

should be illegal. OR they should remove the protection from countersuit in the event of an improper takedown for automated systems. "The exemption applies to human error. If you remove the human from the process, the safehaven no longer may be applied."

Re:THIS is why automated takedown-delivering bots

[amiga3D]

Yes! Outlaw the fucking bots! Giving takedown rights to a fucking piece of code is a shitty idea.

Re:THIS is why automated takedown-delivering bots

[quantaman]

should be illegal. OR they should remove the protection from countersuit in the event of an improper takedown for automated systems. "The exemption applies to human error. If you remove the human from the process, the safehaven no longer may be applied."

Proposed fix. For every takedown you post you also post a $1000 bond, if someone challenges it they post $10 back (since you're probably dealing with giant corp vs little guy). Whomever backs out of the dispute first loses their bond.

Now I can see three main complications
1) A big studio is far more capable of handling a lawsuit, so even if a very clear case they could try to bully independents so they don't pay out (but I doubt they'll care about the $1000).
2) Studios still win fair use cases since they have so much court power.
3) It means DMCA notices are only a tool for the big boys since they're the only ones with the capital to burn.

Still it should wipe out the automated DMCA bots making flat out ridiculous takedowns.

Re:THIS is why automated takedown-delivering bots

[Anonymous Coward]

4) This creates a huge overhead (who's going to accept and process all those bonds?) which has to be well-managed and paid for, somehow.

What exclusive rights were bought?

[tepples]

The question was whether Sony acquired exclusive rights to exhibit the original short or just the right to make an adaptation. The action described in the featured article is justified for the former, not the latter.

Re:What exclusive rights were bought?

[KGIII]

My understanding, from reading a few articles now, is that they licensed ONLY the ability to make a single derivative work. They have no rights beyond their work - including none over the original short.

deCss

[Anonymous Coward]

heres a fun FACT the original WinDVD (Pre masturbation) would open the video and decode the dvd just by drag and drop in windows explorer.

Re:Ehm, he is the executive producer of the new mo

[edjs]

Executive Producer credit is often given out as as an honorary title for some less-defined role in the film production; often that role is only to be "famous name on credits." I suspect that Patrick Jean (and the others involved in the original short) got the credit as part of selling the rights to make the adaptation.
 

Bullshit Slashdot Posting

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the linked article says the company bought the rights to that short film. You can't infringe on yourself so it's really stupid that it was targeted along with one of their own trailers, but in no way is it kicking a little guy when he's down.

First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs.

That sentence is completely false.

I've never had a Slashdot account, can stories be modded down? Is so then please do so.

Re:Bullshit Slashdot Posting

[Khyber]

You assume the editing staff, such as it is, actually bothers to do any fact-checking.

Re:Bullshit Slashdot Posting

[plcurechax]

You assume the editing staff, such as it is, [...]

You assume there is an editing staff that cares, let alone does copy-editing.

This was settle recently, monkeys cannot be staff.

Didn't they just provide evidence against them?

[gurps_npc]

It is undisputed that the short film came first.

If they claim that the short film is so similar to theirs as to require a DMCA takedown, then by definition, their long film is so similar to the short one that they are in violation of it's copyright.

I would counter sue them right away for the entire profits from Pixel. Whoops, forgot I was talking about the movie business, where they claim no profits (Return of the Jedi officially has 0 profits - and they wonder why people feel fine downloading their movies). Make that for their entire INCOME.

Re:Didn't they just provide evidence against them?

[SuricouRaven]

They are not violating the copyright of the short film: They purchased the rights from the original creator. The studio's lawyers aren't so stupid as to leave such a gaping liability when it can be closed by delivering some indy producer a small bag of money and a contract to sign.

Re:Didn't they just provide evidence against them?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're giving lawyers way too much credit

Color Me Surprised

[steelfood]

Guess who owns Columbia Pictures?

You got it: Sony.

It's yet another black mark for the company that can't seem to stop shitting all over their public image.

Re:Color Me Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I donno, they sound like Nazis to me.

Thought crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry for committing these thought crimes. I did not know it was illegal to have creative ideas.
Sure, I knew those ideas would be stolen. But I was not aware that made me liable for lawsuits.

Who wins? Big business and their big lawyers.

Re:Reminds me of the The Hitchhiker's Guide to Gal

[Falos]

Reminds me that copyright law is the grownup, federal version of "I saw it first!"

Reminds me that copyright law is basically "Dibs".

I'm all for incentivizing innovation*, but the current system is hilariously incompatible with today's increased... infectivity. Anyone proposing it would get weird looks, then pauses and "What? How's that going to work? Data is a contagion, not a conscious entity we can order around."

*Faster innovation. Innovation couldn't actually stop because, hey, data is contagious.

Counterclaims

[jklovanc]

How many of counterclaim notices have been filed? Use the system against the claimants. File a counterclaim and the content must be put back if a suit is not filed in court.

Crying about take down notices without filing counterclaims is just stupid. A take down notice is not the end of the story.

Re:Counterclaims

[Anonymous Coward]

But the key point of this is that even if the content owners file a counterclaim and it is upheld, the DMCA claim is still noted on their Vimeo account and can even lead to termination of the account. Yes, this is Vimeo's problem, but Entura/Columbia shouldn't be sending out false DMCA claims in the first place.

Re: the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics

[jklovanc]

The sequence "lympics" is so commonly used in words.

Can you fund a lawsuit with Kickstarter?

[RogueWarrior65]

Seriously, somebody should put up a lawsuit on Kickstarter or Gofundme or something.

Nothing to be seen here

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, they bought the rights to the original short. They can certainly take it down and they are entirely correct that they are the rights holder to it (which is all that DMCA requires). Using DMCA on a film that was uploaded with permission by the previous copyright holder might mess with Vimeo's terms of use -- no idea. But the only one could complain there is Vimeo itself.

Re: the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they lose the exclusive right to the name when they stopped the games in 394 until some time a couple of years ago?

Re:ILLEGALS GET THE FUCK OUT

[ZorinLynx]

No, I believe that only the criminals should be deported immediately. Including that guy.

Obligatory Screed

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Slap a Social Security levy on motion picture royalties.
2. Trim SS OAB eligibility according to the Karl Martell Plan. ... ...
5. FTFY

Re:Pixels is for 8-bit cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually an 8/16-bit cow, with 4-bit waveform samples.

Go to IMDB, give it 1 star and a nasty review

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough Slashdotters did this, they might notice. Also hit Amazon and whatever other sites have film reviews.

Otherwise...

Re:Go to IMDB, give it 1 star and a nasty review

[Anonymous Coward]

anything with Adam Sandler in it deserves a -10000000000 rating IMHO
He obviously has a few friends in Hollywood because he has zero talent as an actor.
I hope that this flick bombs.

Re:Go to IMDB, give it 1 star and a nasty review

[Anonymous Coward]

Which will be deleted en-masse, as always happens when the content owner complains the "reviews" are fake.

Don't like it? Do something about it. Write to your government representative using pen and paper. Dweebs like you do nothing, but moan or suggest the least effort via a click. Get off your lazy arse and start engaging people in power for once. Or are you too scared to put your real name to it? Thought so. Scardy-chicken, bwarrk, bwarrk, cluck clucking coward.

Re: Go to IMDB, give it 1 star and a nasty review

[Anonymous Coward]

Write to a government official? Are you crazy? I had a family, a mortgage and bills to pay and a job. I can't risk a visit from law enforcement. Seriously, a stupid movie is not worth my life. I'm sorry for you if you think it's worth yours.

Re:Go to IMDB, give it 1 star and a nasty review

[Opportunist]

It did. But not because of this copyright troll. Simply for the one and only reason a movie should bomb: It stinks like the week old socks of a bum.

Ob. Futurama ripoff

[TeknoHog]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Adam Sandler is doing this himself

[Anonymous Coward]

He thinks Hollywood is Jewish?
So does everybody.

No need to go to IMDB and give it 1 star

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie is bad enough that that's what it's getting anyway.

Owned not Pwnd

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that the film in question is actually owned by the people requesting the takedown?
The film Pixels is not ripping off this short film, it is a licensed remake of it.
Columbia Pictures bought the rights to the original in order to do the Adam Sandler travesty of film making. Whatever the outcome it is theirs and they can do with it as they please.

That said, I think that Pixels will be looked back upon as this generation's "Plan 9 from Outer Space", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space

Bad summary

[PPH]

Please don't use the word 'inspire' in the same sentence with 'Adam Sandler flick'.

futurama did it

[ganjadude]

didnt the futurama episode come out before that movie as well?

Voxels

[sbaker]

Meh, should have been called 'voxels' anyway.

I will repeat this again

[roman_mir]

Will repeat this here again: patents and copyrights must die.

Government must not be in business protecting any business or any individual. The socialist/Marxist/fascist collectivist retards have created this situation of corruption and abuse and they must be stoppedm. All works, businesses and individuals must survive on their own and on their own merits. If something or someone does not serve enough purpose in a free market capitalist economy and none would even provide them charity, there should not be any kind of government oppression directed against anybody to 'save' those people, businesses and business models.

Government must be put in its place and we will put it there.

Re:I will repeat this again

[Anonanonaon]

That would allow the biggest companies free reign to steal creative properties from the little guy.

There's nothing wrong with creating laws to counter monopolies.

Monopolies are the end result of an unrestrained Free Market.

Monopolies kill the Free Market; no matter how great or valuable a new product or service is, no matter how much people might want it, it isn't just competing based on its merits, but it is also competing against corporate regulations which are no less powerful than government regulations. The regulations are just a different type -and you can't vote to change them.

The solution is not what you suggest; a fixed, black & white nuke-the-concept approach. The solution requires on-going balance. The Free Market is based on the idea of allowing living systems to function naturally. But in all living systems, (like oxygen and blood flow regulation in the human body), we need to be smart and constantly willing to observe and adapt according the needs of the system.

Arguing that we should not regulate is like arguing for cancerous growths to dominate.

Re:I will repeat this again

[roman_mir]

You are absolutely wrong, the 'biggest companies' dominate and steal from 'the little guy' today, except today they have the nuclear option in their hands already - government compliance with the wishes of the biggest companies.

To allow Free Market to exist is the exact opposite of creating monopolies by using government intervention, you are providing a wonderfully ironic example of Orwellian type of doublespeak here.

The on-going balance in the Free Market is provided by the market participants, not by anybody with special powers, like that of governments. The only cancer that is destroying society is government oppression and lack of individual freedom is exactly like lack of oxygen to the brain.

Re:I will repeat this again

[Opportunist]

You ARE aware that copyright pretty much IS granting a monopoly of (commercial) use, right?

Re:I will repeat this again

[Anonanonaon]

You are absolutely wrong, the 'biggest companies' dominate and steal from 'the little guy' today, except today they have the nuclear option in their hands already - government compliance with the wishes of the biggest companies.

Stop it with the "Absolutely" thing. That's animal thinking and you're a human. This isn't simple.

You are quite correct in the second part of your statement; We don't regulate in favor of the people; essentially we lost the war and no longer have a government of the people, (except in name). The Free Market allowed monster corps to reach cancer status, and the government is simply an extension of them. The parasites won.

Happens all the time. Human bodies are Free Market systems, and lots of us get cancer. Good health is hard without knowledge, and even then it takes work.

In principle, regulation both works and is necessary. It's a simple fact of life. You *must* regulate in human society. If you don't, the meanest man with the most guns dominates. So we regulate that situation; we organize groups to post watch at the fence. We could refrain from regulating anything, from organizing; let the Big Man win, perhaps as he ought because he's the biggest. Heck, if we didn't regulate anything, we wouldn't even have guns to worry about, because technology is entirely about regulating reality into the shapes we want.

But we're not monkeys. We're humans.

And we regulated reality into fences and gun shapes. Basic law enforcement is just more regulation of the Free Market. You must understand this, and I think you do. You're just frustrated with the bullshit state of affairs and are grappling with "What Went Wrong??".

What went wrong is that we didn't regulate properly. We didn't do enough of it in the right ways; we didn't have the necessary knowledge to keep pathogens out of our government. Nobody has yet figured out how to screen for psychopaths and greedy, self-serving assholes. Like, ever. So we see empires rise and we see them fall due to this failure. No human establishment has ever throughout history managed to sustain itself.

The Law of the Jungle, (Free Market) works fine in the Jungle, because it doesn't have to worry about abstract thinking and frontal lobe intelligence. It's just muscle and claws. But Humans are more than just muscles and claws, and unless we want to revert to being jungle animals, (no thanks; I like living in a house and having cars and computers and sail boats), we cannot pretend that we don't have intelligence. -Intelligence is ALL about regulating things; making deep choices rather than simply following the four Fs; Fight, Flight, Feed & Fuck impulses.

Maybe one day Life will work out how to use that new power without flying off the rails and destroying itself, but so far it's still working through the upgrade.

What Free Market people are feeling is anxiety about leaving behind a system which worked. The Jungle worked. But the Jungle isn't for humans anymore. We outgrew the old bedroom, grew new brain structures and moved out.

Re:I will repeat this again

[roman_mir]

Wrong, you are the monkey, in need of a leader to beat the crap out of you when you misbehave. We are humans and ensuring that we have our individual freedoms instead of communal mob mentality is what makes us humans.

Re:I will repeat this again

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if every product constitutes its own market.

Changes in DMCA need to happen

[strstr]

The way providers respond to DMCA needs to change. Essentially a DMCA take down notice does not ensure the claim is valid. And two, there is no actual need to respond to it, other than for the provider to inquery with the user who owns and uploaded the content. If the user hosting the content disagrees that they should take their content down, they are legally allowed to keep it online. The dmca take down notice filer then has to utilize due process, the courts to sue the person if they truly believe they were right to keep the content online.

The hoster does not need to take action on dmca take downs besides passing the notice to the user to reject or comply with. Its the law. So we should be asking why providers are actually taking down the content before giving people a chance to screen the claim, and to make determination if they in fact are legally using the content.

In the interest of due process there are also many exceptions that ensure fair use and 1st amendment rights which trump copyright and trademark. This ensures a persons right to have the issue brought to trial, if the company or person trying to take the content offline wants to invest in the issue.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Liars, it's still on Vimeo

[ayesnymous]

Right here: https://vimeo.com/10829255

This Slashdot article is completely wrong

[ayesnymous]

"First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs." No, Patrick Jean isn't being violated at all - he licensed the movie to Happy Madison: http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/...

Re:This Slashdot article is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* first sane person around here.

If people did their research a wee bit more prior to falling for the click bait they'd know better.

Perjury

[Dynamoo]

The "perjury" aspect is always overlooked. If they claim contains the "perjury" line (which it should) then the person making it should face jail time. Simple.

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

Perjury is in the claim but it only covers that the person filing the claim is a representative of the copyrighted work he claims is being infringed. It doesn't matter if the claim is completely false, it doesn't even have to be filed in good faith.

Re:Perjury

[serviscope_minor]

No, the perjery line isn't overlooked. It's written in a way that makes it functionally useless. It's only perjery if you don't represent the person who is claiming that their copyright is infringed. It doesn't matter how wild your claims of ingringement are.

Re:Perjury

[suutar]

The only part that's subject to perjury is being a copyright holder or agent thereof (essentially, the part that's easy for a corporation but hard for a random citizen). The rest of it (stating that a particular work infringes) is a "good faith" assertion, so unless you can find some way to definitively prove _bad_ faith, they can always just say "oh, my bad, no foul"... ignoring that the target has already been taken down, had to file a rebuttal, and possibly had to go to court.

Re:Perjury

[david_thornley]

Everybody who posted on this article is a copyright holder, since the postings are reasonably long and original. I don't know if anybody ever got a copyright registered on a Slashdot posting, but since the original public domain destruction treaty copyright has been automatic.

Therefore, I could legally file DMCA notices claiming that on-line things infringe on my copyright of this post. (If you did it, it would be perjury, of course, since I haven't authorized anybody to enforce my copyright here.)

Re:Perjury

[suutar]

Technically, yes, you could. It would be an interesting experiment, and I would be very interested to know the results.

Argh

[Greyfox]

How the hell am I supposed to boycott the movie any more than I already was because it was an Adam Sandler movie? I'm already not seeing it as hard as I can!

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

they started mass producing items which cost them aobut 10 cents ot make literally and when a few people found out that , that 29.99 cdr of crap pop music was just 10 cents well you know then what started....

THE INDUSTRY GOT SO GREEDY IT WAS CRAZY////

they did it to themselves over and over and slowly we will no longer need any actors or musicans....
go ahead keep your copyrights the technology of animation and AI will render all this 100% MOOT , they fear it and will try to slow this but you cant hinder the future....

Why aren't we googlebombing 'Pixels'

[trawg]

.. in articles like this to link to the Vimeo short movie?

Re:Why aren't we googlebombing 'Pixels'

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, because it got taken down, I suppose.

Crowd-Sourced Revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

We can all file small claims court suits against any theater showing this movie. The cost to them of sending lawyers to defend themselves will be high.

The suits can be for anything. It doesn't matter.

I smell a lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell a lawsuit against both the enforcement dog and Columbia Pictures. *I* knew this was stupid 2 days ago, and surely Columbia did too. They are being willfully ignorant of the situation and are going out of their way to restrict the trade of another copyrighted film, and are violating someone else's copyright (and doing it on purpose). Cue the lawyers in (1-2-3) Litigate!

Intellectual property is taxes and regulation

[penguinoid]

I wonder how easy it would be to convince some of our more rabidly anti-tax population to start treating intellectual property as both taxes and regulation. If you compare the price of an out of copyright book, or an expired patent drug, to its government-granted-monopoly version, you can get a dollar amount for the tax. And the regulation is, of course, the restriction on freedom that comes with protecting intellectual property. Each new copyright or patent granted, is itself a new tax and a new regulation.

Re:Intellectual property is taxes and regulation

[SuricouRaven]

The "rabidly anti-tax population" are also rapidly pro-business. The notion of any item of value not being owned by someone makes them feel nauseous - it's almost communism.

violate his work? He got paid

[YesIAmAScript]

If you want to control something, don't sell it. If you sell it, it's no longer yours.

There's no reason to feel pity for this guy because he whored out his work.

Re:violate his work? He got paid

[Anonanonaon]

So you're saying.., if I buy a copy of Pixels I can rip and share it as much as I like and ignore any takedown notices?

Good to know!

Re:violate his work? He got paid

[Opportunist]

Have you seen the movie?

Trust me. They can't have paid enough to not consider it a violation of his original work.

This is legit

[idontusenumbers]

Watch the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... At the end there's a link to www.patrick-jean.com, where the new movie shows front and center. The wikipedia page for the new film, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., credits Patrick Jean. Looks like Columbia Pictures purchase the rights to the original film. Worst case, Columbia Pictures can be seen as jerks for taking content off the internet that people want to see. It's totally legal, however.

Re: the Spellympics is being sued by the Olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

The Olympics have bought a special law in many countries where anyone is bared from using a name similar to Olympics.
This law was needed because normal trade mark law does not protect against using a common name for all industries.

Typo - original director skipped over

[dbIII]

Once again we see the original director skipped over, possibly a far more talented one or at least with an approach that will deliver something better than "Bicentennial Man" when supplied with a vast budget and vast talent.

I'm not suggesting that there is vast talent with the cast of this new one, just pointing out that Chris Columbus managed to produce a dud despite having Robin Williams on tap.

Re:Typo - original director skipped over

[UnknownSoldier]

Oh wow, didn't realize he directed "Bicentennial Man". I guess I must be in the minority -- I thought it was charming and under-rated.

Chris seems to be quite hit-and-miss. His earlier work is decent; his later work quite lacking. What is strange is that he has definitely has been involved in some popular, but not good movies:

1. He worked with Robin Williams before when he directed:

* 1993 Mrs. Doubtfire

2. I see his claim to fame wast that he was a nobody until he wrote "Gremlins (1984)" and Steven Spielberg optioned it. He also directed:

* 1990 Home Alone

3. He also wrote:

* 1985 The Goonies"
* 1985 "Young Sherlock Holmes

4. He was also (executive) producer on:

* 2009 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
* 2005 Fantastic Four
* 2004 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (producer)
* 2002 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (executive producer)
* 2001 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (executive producer)

Re:Typo - original director skipped over

[dbIII]

Yes, compare that hit and miss list with a director that proved he could do this sort of movie with an attention getting short (this story) and Gilliam, whose only "failure" still sells DVDs.
As for writing and producer roles - not what I was discussing. If a movie fails or succeeds it's hard to say whether it was due to the writer or producer. Some utterly shocking writing has been saved by good direction and performance, and vice versa.

Abolish the Trademark system!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a class action suit to let them know they can't take our away freedoms over OUR words.

stupid, but..

[SuperDre]

ofcourse the DMCA of everything with the word pixels in them is beyond normal and all video's should be restored as soon as possible as the DMCA has no viable claim..
But the quote "First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs." is BS ofcourse as Columbia/Happy madisson bought the rights to the property and therefore they can do whatever they want with it (IMHO it's not really possible to do a full feature on the premise of the short anyway, so no wonder it turned out like this, and let's not forget who bought the rights, Sandler, so you knew in advance what kind of humor the movie would entail)..

"under penalty of perjury"

[Punto]

Don't DMCA takedown notices count as sworn statements? I remember something along the lines of "I swear under penalty of perjury that the information in this document is correct". If the takedown request is actually wrong, isn't this actionable? Is perjury punishable in a civil court?

Re:"under penalty of perjury"

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but your memory isn't quite right. A DMCA take down notice only claims (under perjury) that the agent is duly authorized by the copyright holder and that the copyright holder does in fact hold the claimed copyright.

For example, if you record some original music and upload it I can file a DMCA take down notice that claims *your* uploaded material infringes *my* copyrighted work. As long as I do in fact hold a copyright to the work I claim in the notice (which is *not* the same as claiming copyright on the allegedly infringing file) I have not perjured myself.

In point of fact, I can file claims in bad faith, citing unrelated works as infringing on my copyrighted work and the ISP/OSP *must* pull those files (remove access to them). The "protection" offered by the DMCA in this case is that *you* can file a counterclaim where you state (with penalty of perjury) that you hold copyright on the allegedly infringing work and that it is not infringing. The ISP/OSP *may* restore access to the allegedly infringing file. As the injured party, *I* can then take you to court, or let it rest. From a legal perspective, *you* have not been injured and have no grounds for a lawsuit. Technically, you would have legal recourse, but it is limited (much less streamlined) and my liability approaches zero the richer I am.

It is clear who bought and paid for the DMCA...

Re: Pixels is for 8-bit cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, that was actually pretty funny.

When (bad) algorithms rule

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Yes, this is "rote behaviour" but only indirectly by people.

A side issue (aside from the obvious one concerning online rights) is how we are increasingly putting our lives in the hands of algorithms. I'm pretty sure the "decision" to file the DMCA notice was made by software scanning for occurrences of the word "pixels" possibly in proximity with other terms like "movie" or "comedy". The damage is done before the "programmer" of this sorry algorithm finds out that there are other movies out there dealing with pixels and comedy.

Now imagine if the possibility of you getting a job, or worse staying out of jail, hinge on software that analyses your online presence for the use of dangerous terms like "kill" or "blow up" in close proximity to words like "president" or "building". Too much sci-fi?

Should not have posted on Vimeo

[Anonymous Coward]

Vimeo plays around so that you can't use their site if you have Flashblock installed. They deserve to lose all the good content, and go into bankruptcy.

RICO?

[Martin Spamer]

On the fact of this Columbia behaviour appear to be a clear example of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for Perjury, Fraudlent instruments (DMCA Notices) and best of all even copyright infringement by claiming copyright on material that they don't own.

Re:RICO?

[KGIII]

All of which need to be prosecuted by the State. In other words, shit in one hand and wish in the other - see which one fills up quickest. There is absolutely zero chance of this seeing the inside of a criminal court with the correct (to us) parties on the defendants side of the room. No prosecutor will touch this, in any state or at the federal level, no matter how much we ask. I believe that there is a mechanism for a citizen to submit a recommendation to a grand jury? That will not even work. They just are not going to do it.

I think it is going to need somebody with financial liberty to get the attention of the powers that be. It is going to take someone who is willing to be noisy, pay out the ass, and is capable of appearing sane on television. I do not make videos, or even know how really, or I would make some generic storyline videos and put them up as bait. I'd have to make sure that they are completely free of copyright (maybe make them absurd) and included only original music. Then, when they are found and removed due to a DMCA request, I could claim lost income or income potential and, maybe, defamation of character. I could then sue (which is nothing at all like a criminal case) and potentially urge a State representative to take up the case criminally.

time to burn Hollywood down

[Anonymous Coward]

not for that, I just like to burn things.

Oh wait, looks like somebody already took care of that...

Shows the DMCA is poorly written

[John Allsup]

It should be a requirement that somebody filing a DMCA takedown should at least be able to show reasonable cause for believing the work to be a rights violation, with penalties for abuse. That is, if lawyer writes a letter (automated or not) it should be possible for the owner of the work to request justification and, if no satisfactory justification is forthcoming, get compensation.

This kind of use of the DMCA should be seen in the same light as swatting (calling SWAT round to somebody's house on false info).

My plan...

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

I pledge to avoid all Adam Sandler movies forever!

Wow, I feel as if a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders... Oh wait, I was already avoiding Sandler movies. Still..

Copyright in pre-1972 sound recordings

[tepples]

The music was actually a recording from so long ago it was expired even in the US - recorded 1914

For this one, they might actually have a case. Copyright in sound recordings first published before 1972 is under state law, not federal law. U.S. copyright law does not supersede state copyright in sound recordings until 2067.

I'd like to buy a vowel...

[wardrich86]

I'd like to buy a vowel... an "E"

Re: Pixels is for 8-bit cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I hate to engage with T. Trollington Trollingworth like this, but I have to admit I kind of liked this one too. Though I think I would prefer that the 8-bit cows say "MU" instead of "MO".

Fast Future Forward...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until they come to terminate the human clones that are unlicensed copies.

Somebody Please make that into a movie.

Re:Ehm, he is the executive producer of the new mo

[Destoo]

I read somewhere he received a six figures payment for right to the concept.
I'm still trying to find a credible source, but it would not surprise me as the usual payment is around 250k for book rights.

the story is ... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than not giving away movies FOR FREE I don't see what the crime is here.

I don't work for free. I don't expect content creators to either.

Re:the story is ... ?

[lucien86]

Every Adam Sandler movie is a war crime. What do you think they play to terrorists who don't crack under water boarding?

Cat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could anyone create a movie "cats" (oh wait, something like this exists), and DMCA-takedown all cat-videos? Meow!

great movie

[DrKarlEvanHallowell]

Adam Sandler is a genius of comedy

The original short was NOT taken down

[KnightOfTheHunter]

The short film titled "Pixels" that was taken down from Vimeo was NOT Patrick Jean's original short film. It was another film from 2006 that is unrelated to Jean. Jean's film is still plenty alive. Do your homework, internet.

Re:The original short was NOT taken down

[KnightOfTheHunter]

If you actually read through the links in the original post, it is pretty obvious.

Scenario ripe for plaigarizing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also recently illustrated in the "Gentlemen Broncos" scenario. Author is plagiarized by larger talent, who is then sued for copyright infringement of HIS OWN WORK. More hilarious due to the fact of a banana python pooping all over a white-clad Mike White.

Date restriction

[Roodvlees]

Even though I think DMCA should not exist at all, maybe we can curb the damage a bit.
Make it so DMCA's only apply to video's created after the claim was submitted (taking the release of the IP would require actual work).