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

131–140 of 161 posts

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

#131

Post by [deleted] »

saurik wrote: post #128
dragonwriter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-noti…

Yeah: clearly to make that happen would require some kind of new process ;P. As for your questions, as clearly I am an angry Internet commentator being maximally punitive, the answers are simple: "everyone involved loses the ability to be de facto trusted forever" ;P. Of course, this makes no sense in practice, but neither does the status quo: the cost to Netflix for filing frivolous claims is essentially 0, and puts…

[deleted]

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

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

verroq wrote: post #6
saurik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Punitive damages is a thing.

> Punitive damages is a thing.

What is the cause of action here allowing damages, punitive or otherwise? Stating a copyright claim in a DMCA takedown notice based on a different reading of how the four factors of fair use, which the statute doesn't explicitly set standards for or any details on how they interact, differently than a court later interpreted them?

Sure, if the court viewed things your way Netflix would lose a copyright infringement case against you, but that's about it.

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

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

bluGill wrote: post #37
User23 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juries don’t like awarding them. The cases you hear about are newsworthy precisely because it’s so unusual.

If there were many of them either the supreme court or congress will likely limit them. That isn't to say either of the above think they are wrong so much as it is easy to see how they can be abused.

> If there were many of them either the supreme court or congress will likely limit them.

The Supreme Court has suggested a soft limit, suggesting, IIRC, that it is rare that an award of more than a single digit multiple of actual damages will satisfy due process analysis.

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

#134

Post by JetSpiegel »

axaxs wrote: post #124
hhas01 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“private areas” Really? Were they unclothed? If not, perhaps there’s a different message here that you may have missed? Go watch “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer”, which I believe you’ll find on Netflix too. You’ll totally cheer along when they murder the fat man, who completely deserved it BTW. Though if you’re still cheering when they watch the home video they made of themselves murdering that entire family, the…

Sorry, I don't want to see zoomed in shots of little girls' crotches, clothed or not, regardless of any context. I don't really have much more to argue about.

Then don't. Stop talking about The Film That Can't Be Named.

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

#135

Post by salamimonger »

I hope companies/recruiters are taking note of the posters in this thread. They aren't here to really talk about TFA and Netflix's actions. They are here to defend and rationalize the exploitation of underaged girls regarding the movie.

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

#136

Post by qgrgergfqgfev »

EricE wrote: post #106
qgrgergfqgfev wrote: post #84

It's pretty sad to read French and American reviews side by side, there is really something about America and taboo topics (can't show nipples on tv, can't swear on tv, etc.), perhaps due to religion?

So outside of America it's ok to have sex with children? Is that really where you are going with you "sick burn"?

did you actually watch the movie?

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

#137

Post by qgrgergfqgfev »

EricE wrote: post #101
qgrgergfqgfev wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch the movie, make your own opinion.

So the only way I can know if murder is bad is to try it? "You might like child sexualization - try it!" Oof.

don't be a sheep, make your own opinion

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

#138

Post by qgrgergfqgfev »

_28jh wrote: post #88
qgrgergfqgfev wrote: post #84

It's pretty sad to read French and American reviews side by side, there is really something about America and taboo topics (can't show nipples on tv, can't swear on tv, etc.), perhaps due to religion?

I'm all for religion if it means we can't show sexualized children on TV.

did you actually watch the movie?

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

#139

Post by drdeca »

croes wrote: post #77
drdeca wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and therefore ... ?

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

#140

Post by cutitout »

Igelau wrote: post #116
cutitout wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I do disagree with you say.

You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication".

I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.

Post reply on HN