Fox 'Stole' a Game Clip, Used It In Family Guy and DMCA'd the Original (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: This week's episode of Family Guy included a clip from 1980s Nintendo video game Double Dribble showing a glitch to get a free 3-point goal. Perhaps surprisingly the game glitch is absolutely genuine and was documented in a video that was uploaded to YouTube by a user called 'sw1tched' back in February 2009. Interestingly the clip that was uploaded by sw1tched was the exact same clip that appeared in the Family Guy episode on Sunday. So, unless Fox managed to duplicate the gameplay precisely, Fox must've taken the clip from YouTube. Whether Fox can do that and legally show the clip in an episode is a matter for the experts to argue but what followed next was patently absurd. Shortly after the Family Guy episode aired, Fox filed a complaint with YouTube and took down the Double Dribble video game clip on copyright grounds. Perhaps YouTube should also be blamed for this.

Comments

Ok, why?

[drakaan]

Why should YouTube also be blamed for this? Why should they be blamed for following the takedown process that the MPAA/RIAA forced upon them?

Re:Ok, why?

[taustin]

Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases. A DMCA takedown notice isn't a criminal case. The only thing that matters here is statutory law.

The correct response to this kind of abuse is to track down the lawyer who signed his name to the takedown notice (it's not valid takedown notice without it) and prosecute him for perjury (since he swore under penalty of perjury that it was accurate and that he represented the copyright holder).

The first time a lawyer gets prosecuted for perjury, we'll see a hell of a lot less abuse of DMCA takedown notices. If it ever happens, which isn't likely.

Re:Ok, why?

[amicusNYCL]

The problem is that the DMCA (being written by the copyright industry for the copyright industry) provides no punishment, no discouragement for invalid claims.

That's true, that's the problem. There's a solution, though. Google has a net income of over $16 billion and a market cap of almost $500 billion. I would love for them to put up an 8 figure bounty to a lobbying firm that can get sane copyright laws pushed through Congress.

The current situation is a great example. Any human at Fox, when faced with this case, would admit that they do not own the copyright. But they're using software which doesn't know the difference. The software is sure that they own the copyright, because it was programmed like that, so why shouldn't Fox get hit with a penalty if they're using that software knowingly? If they don't want a penalty, then they need smarter software. They need a way of identifying their own source material with a series of flags which says which sections they do and do not own the copyright on, and smarter software to look at those and skip the sections where they can't enforce copyright. Otherwise, there needs to be a penalty in the DMCA for people or companies submitting repeated false positives. One penalty could be that section about the penalties for not immediately removing the material are waived for all complaints submitted by the party in question, pending a formal review of the submitted complaint. Maybe a year to respond to the initial complaint would be a good starting point.

Re:Ok, why?

[Firethorn]

I think they should DMCA that episode that contains the offending clip wherever it might be found.

Re:Ok, why?

[slazzy]

I just had a bunch of revenue stolen on my youtube videos. The copyright claim was based on my audio, but the audio I was using was youtube's own free music. The system is out of hand. I would have complained but the link doesn't work. For videos, ALWAYS put on a watermark to help prove your ownership.

Re:Ok, why?

[omnichad]

Don't want to awaken the beast (Nintendo). Nintendo has been issuing their claims on gameplay videos and taking all the ad revenue.

Re:Ok, why?

[mythosaz]

Fox could easily air material owned by them produced well before the date of a YouTube video - something they purchased from the archives or another company, or featuring music recorded decades ago - thus rendering simple date checking useless.

Re:Ok, why?

[Onuma]

Nearly half of all lottery winners go bust within 5 years of receiving their winnings. They might be rich, but it is only in a very transient sense; it's not wealth.

You're basically inserting your "fairness" bullshit into an economic argument. It's sanctimonious, and reeks of someone who has no idea about economics, business, or capitalism.

What is fair? Who determines the price of a product or service? Who determines wages?

You can find many examples of extraordinarily wealthy entrepreneurs who began with little or nothing, worked diligently, saved money, and started their businesses leading to [eventual] success. The fact that you have not done so belies your entire, weak argument.

Re:Ok, why?

[Travis Mansbridge]

Actually, the way the DMCA is written, YouTube is supposed to follow the DMCA takedown request essentially blindly while any appeals are supposed to be filed by the user directly. I feel the same way as you, though, that the site hosting the material should have some responsibility. I'm sure the MPAA feels something similar about YouTube's responsibility for infringing content..

Payback

[tnk1]

The only right and proper response is, when the original video returns to YouTube, to DMCA the Fox video. It will likely last a microsecond due to Fox lawyers being all over it, but they deserve to have to deal with that shit.

Re:Payback

[omnichad]

Nintendo has been stealing/claiming ad revenue for recently made gameplay videos. I wouldn't draw any attention to myself if I was hosting a Nintendo gameplay video.