There has to be some punishment for this kind of DCMA abuse.
Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
51–60 of 161 posts
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#52The changes between the French and American posters for 'Cuties' [1] seem like a pretty obvious attempt to manufacture controversy under the "no such thing as bad publicity" approach to marketing. And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise. If Netflix have got more controversy than they intended to, this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. [1] htt…
This is downplaying the content. Here's a good video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M
Wow. Just... wow. I couldn't get past the third clip he shows in the review.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but I think what most people are pissed off about is the creator's hypocrisy. She says it's not about glorifying the sexualization of children...yet has multiple multi-minute takes of doing just that, when the point could have gotten across without doing so.
I think she edited the documentary poorly, also I don't think it's a very good documentary. It did get everyone talking about the problems of media sexualizing(is that word?) kids. So maybe it's a great documentary! Not sure.
Why do you keep saying the word "documentary?"
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
And -- from what I gather from the coverage -- becoming disillusioned with the whole premise once the thrill of rebellion against parents is gone.
correct, the documentary isn't about watching kids twerk for a few hours. it's really about how our culture, amplified by the internet, makes kids believe think twerking at 11 is a good idea, but the kids eventually reject it, and go back to being kids. You don't get this context if you watch just the first few minutes of it, or shouty media commentary about it.
It's not a documentary.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but I think what most people are pissed off about is the creator's hypocrisy. She says it's not about glorifying the sexualization of children...yet has multiple multi-minute takes of doing just that, when the point could have gotten across without doing so.
I think she edited the documentary poorly, also I don't think it's a very good documentary. It did get everyone talking about the problems of media sexualizing(is that word?) kids. So maybe it's a great documentary! Not sure.
But do we need a 'documentary' to tell us this is wrong? I would guess that most individuals would agree it's immoral regardless of where you are on the political spectrum albeit for possibly different reasons.
This is like making a movie about why dog fighting is bad and having a movie poster depicting dog fighting in a glamorous light but then having to watch the movie to show that's it's a problem. This is even worse though because children are more easily influenced by what is culturally acceptable. I know the whole 'save the children' is overused now but this is actually a situation where children really should be protected, and I as parent shouldn't have them assaulted by this.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
During the Hollywood Code years of 1934-68, American movie productions were strictly regulated on moral grounds to ensure they don't present positive views of homosexuality or promiscuity. Look at how well that worked. Anyway, that's irrelevant here because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacki…
You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence. > because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. By engaging in it.. this isn't even a fig leaf, that's like posting insults and slurs to criticize insults and slurs, or saying "no offense, but $incredibly_offensive_thing".…
> "it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children 'grinding'"
This is not the right criterion to evaluate a film's intent.
Action movies spend most of their screen time showing killing. Horror movies contain extended torture scenes. Gaspar Noé's "Irreversible" has a 10-minute extremely realistic rape scene, but it would be absurd to claim that it's a pro-rape film.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
And -- from what I gather from the coverage -- becoming disillusioned with the whole premise once the thrill of rebellion against parents is gone.
correct, the documentary isn't about watching kids twerk for a few hours. it's really about how our culture, amplified by the internet, makes kids believe think twerking at 11 is a good idea, but the kids eventually reject it, and go back to being kids. You don't get this context if you watch just the first few minutes of it, or shouty media commentary about it.
One thing my friends and I agreed on here is that many of the scenes at face value wouldn't be so bad if not for the camerawork. Fine, show kids dancing in a normal shot. Instead, they chose to deliberately zoom in on their private areas, even out-of-place doing so, which pushed it into creepy territory, regardless how the creator intended it.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Declare your billable rate in the counternotice as $1000/hr and use that as a basis for compensatory damages.
IANAL - but it seems unlikely that you can just claim an arbitrarily large hourly fee. Wouldn’t you need to justify those costs in some manner?
When an attorney charges $500+ per hour, they never seem to justify that fee. Corporate litigation expenses can easily be thousands of dollars per hour. You have multiple paralegals. Multiple associates, and perhaps a partner. A case that makes it to a courtroom can exceed thousands per hour.
I paid a trademark attorney for some work at it was $350 for about 15 minutes of work. $10k per hour would be a stretch, but $1000 an hour? Not particularly noteworthy.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence. > because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. By engaging in it.. this isn't even a fig leaf, that's like posting insults and slurs to criticize insults and slurs, or saying "no offense, but $incredibly_offensive_thing".…
> "it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children 'grinding'" This is not the right criterion to evaluate a film's intent. Action movies spend most of their screen time showing killing. Horror movies contain extended torture scenes. Gaspar Noé's "Irreversible" has a 10-minute extremely realistic rape scene, but it would be absurd to claim that it's a pro-rape film.
I said the intention is irrelevant. As I said in the bit you quoted, it's about the content.
Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests
#60> Finally, as we hinted at before, even if Netflix is legally allowed to remove the Cuties trailers and clips from Twitter, that doesn’t make it right. It seems that the people who were targeted have a clear fair use defense. What is it now? Either Netflix is legally allowed to act like this or the twitter users are legally allowed under fair use. It can't be both right, can it? > “Is a clear violation of our First A…
Article definitely written by a nonlawyer.