8 ms·

Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

177 points by dmuino 14y ago

smsm42 14y ago
Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.
- gtCameron 14y ago
  What it looks like to me is that YouTube refuses to play the role of the judge. The role of YouTube in this dispute has been simply to provide a platform for the parties to work it out. YouTube is not the organization that is denying the fair use claim, Lionsgate is.
  - chii 14y ago
    except youtube is biased against the claimee and the system favours the claimer. The most likely reason would be because otherwise, the claimer's lobby groups could put pressure on youtube to do more than it currently does (say, they can no longer claim safe habour under DMCA). The claimee are the little guys, and they while large in numbgers, have little to no power in affecting youtube's policy. So its all down to money and economics. Therefore, a reasonable way to force youtube's hand is to make a big deal out of it, get as many people involved so that youtube feels more threatened by the actions of these small time remixers.
- zeidrich 14y ago
  I think fear has little to do with it. They put in an automatic system because of the fact that they need to deal with so many claims. It's not that they fail to acknowledge fair use, it's that they err on the side of being restrictive in every situation because the law tells them to do so. When a DMCA takedown is filed they need to respond by removing the purportedly offending content. It's not their responsibility to mediate or investigate the claim. The number of takedown notices submitted also make that impossible. On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith. Lionsgate doesn't have a claim of copyright ownership, the author has copyright. The author uses materials that were authored in a production that Lionsgate now has rights to, but the new production is a new work that uses elements that it has legal right to use. I think that the fact that they once claimed audiovisual copyright and then dropped that when the term expired and claimed a second time for visual copyright is evidence that they are abusing the automated controls of youtube and acting in bad faith. If they weren't, they would have been justified in delivering a legal copyright notification to have the video taken down when the first appeal was filed. Instead they dropped the claim and issued another, slightly different claim to abuse the mandated automated system.
  - georgemcbay 14y ago
    Google is full of smart people, certainly they could set up a system in which some videos are manually flagged as controversial but allowed specifically for situations like this, particularly in cases in which previous take-downs were successfully overturned.
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      There is no "controversial" in this kind of case. Either it's legal, or it's not. There is no "kinda legal but maybe not". While the inputs are not binary, the output definitely is. So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action. You could also try personal suits for tortuous interference with contractual relationships (Lionsgate is deliberately interfering with your relationship with Youtube). It may be viable in some states (others, definitely not). There are plenty of options here, youtube shouldn't be deciding this stuff any more than anyone else (for example github complies with DMCA requests, and counter-notifications, despite what they think of the actual situation).
      - georgemcbay 14y ago
        I'm not talking about things that are "kinda legal", I'm talking about situations where: Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use. Studio X files DMCA to Google. Google automatically disables the video Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved. (So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account) But at the point where the video is re approved Google should flag the video such that it was previously auto-disabled and found to be not infringing and thus redirect any future DMCAs on it to the manual review pile instead of the automatic pile. This would curtail studios using the automatic takedown process to fuck with people while adding a fairly minimal amount of work to Google's pile since most of the items that are taken down through the automatic DMCA process won't get re-approved in the first place.
        14y ago
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on fair use grounds. The authors dispute is with Lionsgate, not YouTube.
  - chc 14y ago
    > although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      I think there's a difference between quoting something in a review or as part of a presentation about film theory (or whatever), and quoting it in the context of a remix, where you're essentially engaging in fan-fiction first and commentary as a distant second (because the commentary is implicit and arguably subordinate to the entertainment function). Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30, PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't trying to monetize it directly, but the person is trying to build their creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and all revenue to the original creator. As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to themselves.
sigzero 14y ago
Buffy? Pfftt....how about Blade!
- jb17 14y ago
  You do realize that the video critiques gender roles in pop culture?
greenyoda 14y ago
The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo
- jessaustin 14y ago
  Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this video before. It's really well done, and indeed is an original and convincing critique of the insufferable Twilight series. This sort of speech can only take place in a context of fair use. They had to show Ed's pasty mug so they could stake him.
- hollerith 14y ago
  Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying! ADDED. Version without the pop-ups: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.mp4 http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...
  - javajosh 14y ago
    >Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying! Amen. I find it hard to get upset about the takedown notice when I want to take it down for melting my eyes. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but there it is. Thanks for the clutter-free link.
    - shardling 14y ago
      That was a tech demo for popcorn.js, showing how you could replicate the popup video feel. The bubbles are overlaid on top of the html5 video and controlled through javascript.
- ecspike 14y ago
  I was a fan of Pop-Up Video so I enjoy the aesthetic.
ajanuary 14y ago
So they got advertisment money based off something that was 2/3 content owned by another big media company?
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Which "they" are you referring to, Lionsgate?
  - ajanuary 14y ago
    Correct.
    - jessaustin 14y ago
      In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video.
      - betterunix 14y ago
        ...and after seeing that Lionsgate is abusing my country's legal system like this, I will be sure not to give them a single cent of my money. If these companies want to know what it really means to "lose sales," we should show them by boycotting.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video. Which is exactly the point. The purpose of copyright is not censorship. That's why parody and criticism are the core of fair use. I think the fair use factor that talks about the effect on the market for the work is kind of confusing if you don't have the context of the associated court decisions: It refers to whether the allegedly infringing work competes with the original, not whether it makes everyone stop buying the original through effective criticism.
      - pi18n 14y ago
zokier 14y ago
I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  He's been responding, and responding to counter-responses, and then responding to secondary-takedowns, then counter-responding to secondary takedown denials for quite a while. I think it's appropriate to bring this into the public view.
  - dromidas 14y ago
    Yeah he definitely did the due diligence before bringing it public... On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an "American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly impossible though. http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/ http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/
    - jgeralnik 14y ago
      Direct link to the video: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.mp4 http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36... or http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.webm http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...
    - whatusername 14y ago
      The pop-up video played fine (without the popups) on my iPad.
- Natsu 14y ago
  He's gone through multiple rounds of appeals and much legal wrangling. Exactly how patient would you recommend being?
- beedogs 14y ago
ghubbard 14y ago
This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who knows what they are talking about. "Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."
- Tichy 14y ago
  But what does it mean? What is an official recommendation by the Copyright Office - an actual license to reuse stuff? Or just a recommendation with no legal consequences at all? So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?
jessaustin 14y ago
I think there is a real possibility that this maneuver could blow up in Liongate's face. Presumably there are some important decision-makers who take the argument for fair use seriously: that's why this dispute process exists in the first place. This video is an exemplar of what normal non-lawyer people would classify as fair use, if they're familiar with the concept at all. If Liongate's lawyers are willing to get in the mud over a few ad dollars (rather than the high-sounding crap we usually hear from the content industry), and they get their way, then clearly the system requires more protection for fair use. They might not have run this plan by all the suits at MPAA.
cjensen 14y ago
Doesn't look like fair-use to me. The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater. Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.
- ryusage 14y ago
  > This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work. It's definitely fair use.
  - cjensen 14y ago
    Was the screening with the on-screen captions?
    - ryusage 14y ago
      As to that, I have no idea. However, I would argue that the video is absolutely fair use even without the captions. Ignoring that its status as a critique is not strictly necessary for it to be fair use, the video would still be a critique without blatantly spelling out its point in words.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- appleflaxen 14y ago
  It's surprising how much weight the community gave your opinion, because the truth is that it really doesn't matter what your opinion is. My comment isn't meant to be snarky; it's meant to point out the /ultimate/ absurdity of our copyright system - that you literally /cannot determine/ if something is or is not fair use without a judgment. As in a judge. So while you make important points about the presence or absence of commentary, the fact that the video was transformed /at all/ means that it's no longer a determinable question.
natmaster 14y ago
Google needs a policy against doing evil.
discountgenius 14y ago
> This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like. Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale? That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good solution can be found, some bad solution that solves that problem is the only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems for other people. It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be convenient, the decidedly inelegant approaches currently on the books or theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece of political rhetoric.
- scotty79 14y ago
  It can be easily fixed by removing phrase "copyright infringement" from the language. Then content providers could easily protect themselves from anyone copying content produced by them, by not producing that content. People who know how to make money of the content production without government issued monopoly on copying will step in to fill the gap (if there'll actually be any gap).
pervycreeper 14y ago
While I agree categorically with the necessity of allowing fair use, and the perniciousness of copyright cartels, I was nonetheless very tickled by this whine: >But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.
bjustin 14y ago
Takedowns on YouTube are, for corporations such as the record labels and movie studios, largely done under their ContentID system, not under the DMCA notice system. Google has a reputedly poor process for disputes that can lead to DMCA notices [1], but here it appears that the takedown was still ContentID rather than DMCA. This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-offers-a-meaningful-contentid-appeal-process/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...

177 points by dmuino 14y ago

Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.

gtCameron 14y ago
What it looks like to me is that YouTube refuses to play the role of the judge. The role of YouTube in this dispute has been simply to provide a platform for the parties to work it out. YouTube is not the organization that is denying the fair use claim, Lionsgate is.
- chii 14y ago
  except youtube is biased against the claimee and the system favours the claimer. The most likely reason would be because otherwise, the claimer's lobby groups could put pressure on youtube to do more than it currently does (say, they can no longer claim safe habour under DMCA). The claimee are the little guys, and they while large in numbgers, have little to no power in affecting youtube's policy. So its all down to money and economics. Therefore, a reasonable way to force youtube's hand is to make a big deal out of it, get as many people involved so that youtube feels more threatened by the actions of these small time remixers.
zeidrich 14y ago
I think fear has little to do with it. They put in an automatic system because of the fact that they need to deal with so many claims. It's not that they fail to acknowledge fair use, it's that they err on the side of being restrictive in every situation because the law tells them to do so. When a DMCA takedown is filed they need to respond by removing the purportedly offending content. It's not their responsibility to mediate or investigate the claim. The number of takedown notices submitted also make that impossible. On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith. Lionsgate doesn't have a claim of copyright ownership, the author has copyright. The author uses materials that were authored in a production that Lionsgate now has rights to, but the new production is a new work that uses elements that it has legal right to use. I think that the fact that they once claimed audiovisual copyright and then dropped that when the term expired and claimed a second time for visual copyright is evidence that they are abusing the automated controls of youtube and acting in bad faith. If they weren't, they would have been justified in delivering a legal copyright notification to have the video taken down when the first appeal was filed. Instead they dropped the claim and issued another, slightly different claim to abuse the mandated automated system.
- georgemcbay 14y ago
  Google is full of smart people, certainly they could set up a system in which some videos are manually flagged as controversial but allowed specifically for situations like this, particularly in cases in which previous take-downs were successfully overturned.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    There is no "controversial" in this kind of case. Either it's legal, or it's not. There is no "kinda legal but maybe not". While the inputs are not binary, the output definitely is. So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action. You could also try personal suits for tortuous interference with contractual relationships (Lionsgate is deliberately interfering with your relationship with Youtube). It may be viable in some states (others, definitely not). There are plenty of options here, youtube shouldn't be deciding this stuff any more than anyone else (for example github complies with DMCA requests, and counter-notifications, despite what they think of the actual situation).
    - georgemcbay 14y ago
      I'm not talking about things that are "kinda legal", I'm talking about situations where: Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use. Studio X files DMCA to Google. Google automatically disables the video Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved. (So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account) But at the point where the video is re approved Google should flag the video such that it was previously auto-disabled and found to be not infringing and thus redirect any future DMCAs on it to the manual review pile instead of the automatic pile. This would curtail studios using the automatic takedown process to fuck with people while adding a fairly minimal amount of work to Google's pile since most of the items that are taken down through the automatic DMCA process won't get re-approved in the first place.
      - 14y ago
anigbrowl 14y ago
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on fair use grounds. The authors dispute is with Lionsgate, not YouTube.
- chc 14y ago
  > although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    I think there's a difference between quoting something in a review or as part of a presentation about film theory (or whatever), and quoting it in the context of a remix, where you're essentially engaging in fan-fiction first and commentary as a distant second (because the commentary is implicit and arguably subordinate to the entertainment function). Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30, PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't trying to monetize it directly, but the person is trying to build their creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and all revenue to the original creator. As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to themselves.

sigzero 14y ago

Buffy? Pfftt....how about Blade!

jb17 14y ago
You do realize that the video critiques gender roles in pop culture?

greenyoda 14y ago

The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo

jessaustin 14y ago
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this video before. It's really well done, and indeed is an original and convincing critique of the insufferable Twilight series. This sort of speech can only take place in a context of fair use. They had to show Ed's pasty mug so they could stake him.
hollerith 14y ago
Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying! ADDED. Version without the pop-ups: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.mp4 http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...
- javajosh 14y ago
  >Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying! Amen. I find it hard to get upset about the takedown notice when I want to take it down for melting my eyes. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but there it is. Thanks for the clutter-free link.
  - shardling 14y ago
    That was a tech demo for popcorn.js, showing how you could replicate the popup video feel. The bubbles are overlaid on top of the html5 video and controlled through javascript.
ecspike 14y ago
I was a fan of Pop-Up Video so I enjoy the aesthetic.

ajanuary 14y ago

So they got advertisment money based off something that was 2/3 content owned by another big media company?

ghshephard 14y ago
Which "they" are you referring to, Lionsgate?
- ajanuary 14y ago
  Correct.
  - jessaustin 14y ago
    In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      ...and after seeing that Lionsgate is abusing my country's legal system like this, I will be sure not to give them a single cent of my money. If these companies want to know what it really means to "lose sales," we should show them by boycotting.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video. Which is exactly the point. The purpose of copyright is not censorship. That's why parody and criticism are the core of fair use. I think the fair use factor that talks about the effect on the market for the work is kind of confusing if you don't have the context of the associated court decisions: It refers to whether the allegedly infringing work competes with the original, not whether it makes everyone stop buying the original through effective criticism.
    - pi18n 14y ago

zokier 14y ago

I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.

ghshephard 14y ago
He's been responding, and responding to counter-responses, and then responding to secondary-takedowns, then counter-responding to secondary takedown denials for quite a while. I think it's appropriate to bring this into the public view.
- dromidas 14y ago
  Yeah he definitely did the due diligence before bringing it public... On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an "American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly impossible though. http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/ http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/
  - jgeralnik 14y ago
    Direct link to the video: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.mp4 http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36... or http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.webm http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...
  - whatusername 14y ago
    The pop-up video played fine (without the popups) on my iPad.
Natsu 14y ago
He's gone through multiple rounds of appeals and much legal wrangling. Exactly how patient would you recommend being?
beedogs 14y ago

ghubbard 14y ago

This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who knows what they are talking about. "Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."

Tichy 14y ago
But what does it mean? What is an official recommendation by the Copyright Office - an actual license to reuse stuff? Or just a recommendation with no legal consequences at all? So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?

jessaustin 14y ago

I think there is a real possibility that this maneuver could blow up in Liongate's face. Presumably there are some important decision-makers who take the argument for fair use seriously: that's why this dispute process exists in the first place. This video is an exemplar of what normal non-lawyer people would classify as fair use, if they're familiar with the concept at all. If Liongate's lawyers are willing to get in the mud over a few ad dollars (rather than the high-sounding crap we usually hear from the content industry), and they get their way, then clearly the system requires more protection for fair use. They might not have run this plan by all the suits at MPAA.

cjensen 14y ago

Doesn't look like fair-use to me. The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater. Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.

ryusage 14y ago
> This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work. It's definitely fair use.
- cjensen 14y ago
  Was the screening with the on-screen captions?
  - ryusage 14y ago
    As to that, I have no idea. However, I would argue that the video is absolutely fair use even without the captions. Ignoring that its status as a critique is not strictly necessary for it to be fair use, the video would still be a critique without blatantly spelling out its point in words.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
appleflaxen 14y ago
It's surprising how much weight the community gave your opinion, because the truth is that it really doesn't matter what your opinion is. My comment isn't meant to be snarky; it's meant to point out the /ultimate/ absurdity of our copyright system - that you literally /cannot determine/ if something is or is not fair use without a judgment. As in a judge. So while you make important points about the presence or absence of commentary, the fact that the video was transformed /at all/ means that it's no longer a determinable question.

natmaster 14y ago

Google needs a policy against doing evil.

discountgenius 14y ago

> This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like. Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale? That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good solution can be found, some bad solution that solves that problem is the only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems for other people. It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be convenient, the decidedly inelegant approaches currently on the books or theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece of political rhetoric.
scotty79 14y ago
It can be easily fixed by removing phrase "copyright infringement" from the language. Then content providers could easily protect themselves from anyone copying content produced by them, by not producing that content. People who know how to make money of the content production without government issued monopoly on copying will step in to fill the gap (if there'll actually be any gap).

pervycreeper 14y ago

While I agree categorically with the necessity of allowing fair use, and the perniciousness of copyright cartels, I was nonetheless very tickled by this whine: >But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.

bjustin 14y ago

Takedowns on YouTube are, for corporations such as the record labels and movie studios, largely done under their ContentID system, not under the DMCA notice system. Google has a reputedly poor process for disputes that can lead to DMCA notices [1], but here it appears that the takedown was still ContentID rather than DMCA. This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-offers-a-meaningful-contentid-appeal-process/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...