Slashdot Mirror
"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.
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."
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?
You want to pirate an Adam Sandler movie? That is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
From TFA:
the new film from Adam Sandler, was a complete flop
Mod -1 Redundant.
I'm actually an 8/16-bit cow, with 4-bit waveform samples.
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.
lucm, indeed.
It is people like you who fuck up the moderation on this website.
Mod -1 Redundant.
lucm, indeed.
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?
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC