151–160 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Declare your billable rate in the counternotice as $1000/hr and use that as a basis for compensatory damages.
There is a cap. Also, you can't get reimbursed unless you're an actual lawyer - no pro-se.
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…
“In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at LumenDatabase.org.”
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.
> loss of DMCA Section 512 expedited takedown privileges if you use it incorrectly Not gonna happen. It would cut copyright bots off at the knees since they're currently designed to err on the side of false positives over false negatives and that's the way the media cartels want it. You would have to break the RIAA and MPAA's hold over Congress first, and good luck with that. You can't vote them out because they own…
No more avengers? Meh. More youtube-dl's? Hell yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stranger things have happened Everyone could just ignore the movie because it’s not that interesting
Or we can condemn it for the filth it is and the blatant attempt to normalize absolutely disgusting behavior. People love to dismiss slippery slope arguments, but we see time and time again "oh, we only want X" soon turns into Y, Z and infinity and beyond. People are amazed that Harvey Weinstein got away with what he did for so long. Matt Lauer - the lists go on. Hell do we even need to talk about Roman Polanski or i…
We're at the bottom of the slope, there is nothing "being" normalized we're way past that point by the standard of whatever is triggering you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/dancin…
> because you're wrong
I'm okay with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
In addition, a large portion of sexual abuse is from family, and the parents of child actors don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to not abusing their children, and show business in general doesn't have the best track record on this either. Remember Corey Feldman?
> You really think the actresses are traumatised after this?
Yes.
> Why?!?
I think children being told to perform sexually explicit dances while in revealing dress for the enjoyment of adults (the nuances of such enjoyment will be lost on the child) will likely have a negative effect on their mental health later in life and yes, is a traumatizing experience, because they are being coerced into performing a sexual act, the likes of which they cannot understand or consent to due to their age. It doesn't matter if the coerced sexual act is stated to be in opposition to coerced sexual acts: the child has no choice! I shouldn't have to explain this!
If Taxi Driver could make a movie about sexual exploitation of young women without forcing Jodie Foster to literally dance in undress I think we can hold other filmmakers to the same standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody should use legal instruments in disputes. That's the only option in a civilized society, otherwise Netflix could use hired mercenaries to physically target people it doesn't like.
I'll rephrase it for him so it can satisfy your pedantry: "Except Netflix is using a DMCA takedown request, a legal instrument, to remove the disputed content illegally, because they do not own the copyright to the taken down works ."
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why does the permission of their parents matter, even in the slightest? Do parents have the right to marry away their pre-pubescent daughters in our society? In addition, a large portion of sexual abuse is from family, and the parents of child actors don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to not abusing their children, and show business in general doesn't have the best track record on this either. Remem…
If you interpreted what was done in that movie using this description you're just projecting your own sick fantasies on it. When the girls finally performed for adults, they disapproved of it... a normal movie watcher would also have been a bit shocked (which was the intention of the movie makers) and would not enjoy their dance sexually unless they have a freaking pervert mind.
> because they are being coerced into performing a sexual act
You need to understand that dancing with the supervision of parents and honest adults, all the while given support and freedom to refuse to do anything they or their guardians did not approve, is NOT being coerced into a sexual act. There was no coercion. there was no sexual act. They absolutely did not perform sexual acts or anything close to it. Dancing is NOT a sexual act... if you think it is, you need to seek help.
> I shouldn't have to explain this!
When you start thinking that your own beliefs are so obvious you shouldn't need to explain them, is when you know you're no longer using reason in your arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the permission of their parents matter, even in the slightest? Do parents have the right to marry away their pre-pubescent daughters in our society? In addition, a large portion of sexual abuse is from family, and the parents of child actors don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to not abusing their children, and show business in general doesn't have the best track record on this either. Remem…
> perform sexually explicit dances while in revealing dress for the enjoyment of adults If you interpreted what was done in that movie using this description you're just projecting your own sick fantasies on it. When the girls finally performed for adults, they disapproved of it... a normal movie watcher would also have been a bit shocked (which was the intention of the movie makers) and would not enjoy their dance s…