Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

torrentfreak.com

111–120 of 161 posts

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

#111
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controversy or a move to normalize the sexualization of children? Some claim the latter. Generally speaking, film is a powerful medium through which things are normalized. Think of the shows and film that helped normalize homosexuality or promiscuity and shaped attitudes toward sex and sexuality (often through humor; levity is a powerful tool). They worked. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to make this happen, j…

I guess you have never seen the film Pretty Baby with Brooke Shields. Cuties is harmless compared to it.

Just because Hollywood has been doing this crap for a long time still doesn't excuse it. If anything one would hope it would make people less inclined to make excuses for them :/

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

#112

Normalization of pedophilia is occurring and Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, HN, and all of the usual suspects are complicit. There are now 3 TED Talks promoting pedophilia normalization.

“Normalization of pedophilia is occurring”

And where have you been for the last thousand years? Or the entirety of human history for that matter?

We are a pretty awful species. But if we can’t talk openly and honestly about how awful we are, we’ll never need to own our own awfulness, which means we’ll never have to try to be any better than that. Because it’s so much easier and politically expedient just to project all of our own personal awfulness onto the Other.

Thus, all good discussions should start in a mirror.

Also, fuck TED.

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

#113
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the only way to be "sure" (it's obvious fair use) is to go to court over it unless Twitter wants to be liable for these users' content by not honoring these takedowns.

And the punishment to Netflix once you win in court is just damages (good luck showing any actual serious large damages here) and legal costs... there should be a massive fine and a loss of DMCA Section 512 expedited takedown privileges if you use it incorrectly.

> loss of DMCA Section 512 expedited takedown privileges

No such privilege exists, so I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I suppose that you could put violators on a list where, for parties on that list, a 512 notice didn't require a takedown to stay in the safe harbor but triggered some other (new) process, like (for instance) notice to the user and defined-in-law period for the user to submit a counter-notice with a takedown only required to retain safe harbor against the copyrightbholder if no facially-valid counter-notice is received within a specified period, and the safe harbor against the user isn't applied if the takedown is done prior to the required opportunity to respond.

But that gets tricky to administer correctly (how long does DMCA-penalty-status last, how does it apply when third-party copyright agents like the RIAA are filing notices on behalf of copyright holders, is it the agent or the copyright holder that receives the penalty, etc., etc.)

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

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, wanting to denounce sexualization does not require showing over-sexualisation. It especially doesn't require the film maker doing it herself to these poor actresses. It doesn't matter how "subtle" it is, the movie is part of the problem. It's like making a movie denouncing puppy murders and then the entire movie is just the director shooting puppies. "But don't you get it? How can our movie be bad if it's denounc…

Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie. If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on…

>If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant...

You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead.

If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited.

It has nothing to do with the subjective reception of the film at all.

Specifically to this point, the actresses that played the young girls in the film all auditioned in front of the director, doing the sexually explicit dances behind closed doors, along with many others that didn't get the part. The creator of the film was a victim of sexual exploitation like this at a younger age.

Additionally, it is very common for victims of various traumas to inflict those traumas on others, and it's also common for them to be in denial about their motives for victimizing new victims in the same way they were victimized themselves.

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

#115
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…

"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?"

It is in fact both. Fair use is a defense in copyright claims and can only be determined by a court, so Netflix can legally claim they believe their IP s being violated and then fair use can then be used as a defense against that claim.

"The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment."

You are correct about the scope of the first amendment but still every user blocked can take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment. They will just lose.

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

#116
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except for the fact that I never said "arousing", I don't think we disagree. You're just not mortified by the recognition of what you see.

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

#117
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…

Article definitely written by a nonlawyer.

Author isn't American, but Dutch [1].

[1] https://torrentfreak.com/author/ernesto/

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

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie. If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on…

>If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead. If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited. It has nothing to do with the subjective recep…

Doing twerk in a movie when you are 11 years old and have support and context is not child exploitation. Especially given that twerk is a very small part of the actor work and of the film.

And there is nothing supporting the idea that the female director took advantage of those girls in any form.

Beside that, we read the film differently. To me this film is not really about pedophilia or child exploitation...

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

#119
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…

I've watched this movie and found it to be a very touching movie. It's a shame everyone seems to focus only on the children's sexualization when that, while definitely pushing the boundary a bit further than most people are used to, is clearly contrasted to the girl's otherwise incredibly childish behaviour the whole length of the movie, as well as her desire to escape oppression by her own family.

The girls are 90% of the time behaving like completely normal kids (screaming, jumping, playing around), even while wearing suggestive clothes that would be just quite normal in any primary school in most of the western world (at least until the second half of the movie, when the main character starts to slowly go a bit too far even for her own "cool" friends).

As the movie progresses, we see a young child who is already being indoctrinated into a religion she clearly has no desire to partake. She starts to realise her destiny as she sees how the life of her mother is basically centred around being a servant to her husband, to whom she got married when she was just a little older than herself (it's not clear how much older, but it's made obvious that it's not more than a year or two). Now, the husband is preparing to take a second wife, which makes her mom suffer profoundly... but as part of her culture, she must accept that the woman (as the movie explains in the beginning) must obey their husbands always, so she must even call friends and family to "proudly" announce the wedding, adding incredible insult to the injury.

It's against this background that she starts to seek the total opposite life, which she finds in a new friend who, as so many young western world girls, is obsessed with pop dancing and its overly sexualised tones.

To anyone who did not watch the movie, this is where the movie is coming from when it shows the girls behaving, I agree, completely inappropriately for their age... however, that's so common nowadays that I find people who claim to be shocked by this to be turning a blind eye to our society.

Do you really think 11-year old children seeing the kind of dance we find everywhere will not try to emulate that, having basically no idea that they are emulating sexualised behaviour? I think this is the root of the problem which people conveniently ignore. Is it normal for a 17 year old girl to behave like that on TV? How about 20?

The funny thing is : I am a conservative, I just don't like hypocrisy. If you don't want to see children dressing and dancing as portrayed in the movie, ask yourself why you think it's ok for women not much older to do so, openly, and how you expect children to "know" it's something that they shouldn't do (even while you watch it eagerly).

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring or not requiring showing stuff does not make things bad or wrong... What you show or not show, the way you show it just make a different movie. If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... Those fetishist should see a doctor for being excite by this, and can find plenty of other exciting material on…

>If you make a good movie denouncing dog mistreatment, that is good. The fact it may sexually excite some people mistreating dogs is not really relevant... You've missed the point. If you kill puppies to make a movie denouncing dog mistreatment, the puppies are dead. If you exploit children to make a movie denouncing exploiting children, the children are still exploited. It has nothing to do with the subjective recep…

How can you compare real child abuse to young actresses, with the permission of their parents, dancing around like they normally do anyway? You really think the actresses are traumatised after this? Why?!?

Trying to blow things out of proportion is actually a huge disservice to actual cases of child abuse. Please don't do that.

Post reply on HN