Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 161 posts

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#71

Post by CobrastanJorji »

germinalphrase wrote: post #41
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #32

Earlier 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?

It's a very odd system. If you can prove you usually charge clients $1000/hour, then you can probably force the other side to pay you that fee. It therefore follows that if you think you have a very good chance of recovering legal fees, you may want to actively seek the best and most expensive lawyer possible, both to help your chances of victory and to punish your opponent if and when you win. Of course, this option is not available to people who cannot already afford the most expensive lawyer.

When the President got his legal fees paid by Stormy Daniels, his most expensive lawyer was charging about $850/hour. The judge cut it back, not because the lawyer was too expensive hourly, but because he felt the lawyer had billed too many hours.

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#72

Post by mikestew »

bhaak wrote: post #7

> 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…

The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies.

But if the government passes a law allowing private companies to SLAAP other parties into silence, that's a-okay, huh? Hey, it's not the government (directly) doing it!

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#73

Post by will4274 »

croes wrote: post #66
emilfihlman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is downplaying the content. Here's a good video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M

Strange, can't find any downplaying. You know it's not only the movement that matters but the right body to do them. The same movement of a child and women have different effects, or would you think the same if it were stick figures?

I don't think the bodies and the movement are the only factors. The camera zoom, cropping, and background music is also relevant.

I find a zoomed crop slow-pan camera shot on an 11 year olds crotch in jeans pretty strange. After having seen similar shots in numerous music videos involving adults, I tend to think it's sexual particularly when the background music is sexually charged

I don't think "it's not an adult body, so it's not sexual" is a very compelling argument all-up.

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#74

Post by labawi »

jerf wrote: post #8
blendergeek wrote: post #2

> Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights. Isn't this textbook fair use? Nothing about these clips being shared on Twitter replaces the viewing experience of Cuties. The tweets are definitely transformative and provide a critique of the film. Doesn't copyright law explicitly permit this use of copyrighted works?

Not only is it textbook fair use, this is exactly why copyright law has a fair use exemption. It does not exist for you to selectively manipulate the public commons by removing only negative reviews that happened to use small snippets of the original material. This is why reviews are protected. The DMCA is a bit broken this way; in theory it's balanced by the ability for these people to counternotice but in practice…

In theory, a DMCA notice requires a statement of Netflix good-faith belief, that the content is infringing, under the penalty of perjury, and should be triable - though good luck going after a G$ company.

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#75

Post by cutitout »

Igelau wrote: post #69
yaypolitics wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile Ah yes, the old “people who have a problem with pedophilia are the real pedophiles”

That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to the heart of why they see it this way when others don't is an interesting question. There's an ugly implication of the "I know it when I see it" standard -- something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to b…

> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting.

If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself.

> The self-disgust this causes is

an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#76

Post by skitout »

cutitout wrote: post #18
michaelt wrote: post #9

The 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…

The show is criticized for being essential erotic material for pedophiles, filled with up close shots of bums and panties of children. The American poster comes closer to that, but is still tame compared to the actual content, which is what this is about. > And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise. Compared to other stories, this one is already being penalized, and the top comment…

The director said she did want to denounce over-sexualisation of young girls with this movie. I (and 2 of my friends, feminist women) think she managed to do it, with a relatively good and a relatively subtle movie.

Talking about over-sexualisation of young girls require to show stuff linked to... over-sexualisation of young girls, to show some aspect of reality... But if you find this movie erotic, well the problem is you, not the movie !!!

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#77

Post by croes »

drdeca wrote: post #70
croes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the content of Irreversible is a 10 minutes rape scene, so what's your point?

It doesn’t seem obvious that such a scene has any value, so I’m not sure that the assumption that it does is a great foundation for an argument.

For Irreversible it's the main cause of the following actions or better the preceding actions because the plot evolves in reverse.

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#78

Post by croes »

will4274 wrote: post #73
croes wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange, can't find any downplaying. You know it's not only the movement that matters but the right body to do them. The same movement of a child and women have different effects, or would you think the same if it were stick figures?

I don't think the bodies and the movement are the only factors. The camera zoom, cropping, and background music is also relevant. I find a zoomed crop slow-pan camera shot on an 11 year olds crotch in jeans pretty strange. After having seen similar shots in numerous music videos involving adults, I tend to think it's sexual particularly when the background music is sexually charged I don't think "it's not an adult bo…

These similarities to music videos is a intended.

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#79

Post by kmeisthax »

blendergeek wrote: post #2

> Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights. Isn't this textbook fair use? Nothing about these clips being shared on Twitter replaces the viewing experience of Cuties. The tweets are definitely transformative and provide a critique of the film. Doesn't copyright law explicitly permit this use of copyrighted works?

Yes - in fact, the fact that they're negative makes it more fair use. Hell, there's a right-wing YouTuber who got away with reposting an entire left-wing YouTuber's video and just changing the title. The title change alone made it fair use and the left-winger who sued the right-winger now owes the right-winger money for filing such a frivolous lawsuit.

Re: Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

#80

Post by xwdv »

tyingq wrote: post #22

The plot apparently centers around a bunch of 11 year old girls entering a twerking contest.

Also in the movie was blowing up a condom, talking about their brothers dicks and how big they are, photographing and sharing their genitals, an attempted murder, and getting caught by security guards and having to escape by dancing their way out and suggestively implying an offer to fellate one of the guards who may be a suspected pedophile.
Post reply on HN