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.
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
The 2010 film should file a claim of infringment against the Adam Sandler film and claim rights to all profits.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."