Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos

Post by jhasse » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #12

Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns. Eg, during the takedown process, have something like: > [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content. > [ ] I…

Post by matthewmacleod » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

Grazester wrote: post #13

turblety wrote: post #4

By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

I wonder if in the mod Samsung's name and Galaxy brand was used and if they would have a case therefore.

Post by milankragujevic » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

corobo wrote: post #15

warrenmiller wrote: post #6

methinks this will only lead to the barbra streisand effect.

I'd not heard of it until now. Streisand is in full effect. I've also grabbed a copy of the mod in case they decide to abuse copyright to take that down too, pretty sure I can upload it to sites faster than they can DMCA them. The real lesson here is don't make exploding phones.

Post by revelation » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #24

nailer wrote: post #12

Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns. Eg, during the takedown process, have something like: > [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten content. > [ ] I…

Two things (IANAL too, this applies to US only, etc.): 1) As I understand it, parody is not inherently non-infringing, it's just one factor that weighs in favor of a judge finding that a use is non-infringing. 2) I doubt that the DMCA allows a provider to punish copyright owners in this way (though this might be applied to YouTube's mechanisms that go beyond DMCA requirements). The law requires that "the service prov…

Post by parent5446 » Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 2:11 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #27

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things (IANAL too, this applies to US only, etc.): 1) As I understand it, parody is not inherently non-infringing, it's just one factor that weighs in favor of a judge finding that a use is non-infringing. 2) I doubt that the DMCA allows a provider to punish copyright owners in this way (though this might be applied to YouTube's mechanisms that go beyond DMCA requirements). The law requires that "the service prov…

But that's the whole point, this probably wasn't a DMCA complaint. Google and YouTube on the pressure of rights holders have put in place a completely parallel system that offers the accused no legal recourse. They just need to go back to all DMCA. Then at least someone with pockets deep enough can challenge these fraudulent requests.