51–60 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with plain old writing? No reason to use any of the work at all imo. Video editing takes an insane amount of time in my experience.
Different mediums touch people in different ways. It was a labor of love to produce the work no doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a difference between quoting something in a review or as part of a presentation about film theory (or whatever), and quoting it in the context of a remix, where you're essentially engaging in fan-fiction first and commentary as a distant second (because the commentary is implicit and arguably subordinate to the entertainment function). Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse,…
While a remix, it is also commentary on the work itself.
This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on…
Youtube is respecting the claims of copyright holders a lot more than it has to by law. 1. The entire pre-DMCA-takedown process (the first round of complaint and appeal) is not required by law. I think it's a good idea in general (it's nice to have a low-stakes option before you launch into the DMCA process) but the immediate presumption that the complainant is in the right is offensive. Something like "we will start…
And then, after your content has been down for a week and a half and finally goes back up, any new set of jerks (or as we saw here, maybe even just the same old jerks) can come along and file another takedown against the same content and it goes back down for another ten days or more.
I would say that it's amazing it doesn't see more abuse, except that it does. SEO companies and similar such scumbags regularly file fraudulent takedowns against their competitors. As far as I can discern, the process Hollywood employs to decide what to issue a takedown for comprises some combination of untrained monkeys and a random number generator. Wendy Seltzer wrote a paper detailing a whole slew of other such issues a couple years ago[1] but still nothing has been done to address it.
[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577785
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct.
In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video.
Which is exactly the point. The purpose of copyright is not censorship. That's why parody and criticism are the core of fair use.
I think the fair use factor that talks about the effect on the market for the work is kind of confusing if you don't have the context of the associated court decisions: It refers to whether the allegedly infringing work competes with the original, not whether it makes everyone stop buying the original through effective criticism.
> This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like. Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?
That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good solution can be found, some bad solution that solves that problem is the only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems for other people.
It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be convenient, the decidedly inelegant approaches currently on the books or theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece of political rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different mediums touch people in different ways. It was a labor of love to produce the work no doubt.
Well maybe, but I don't see why that gives the author the right to use someone else's work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube is respecting the claims of copyright holders a lot more than it has to by law. 1. The entire pre-DMCA-takedown process (the first round of complaint and appeal) is not required by law. I think it's a good idea in general (it's nice to have a low-stakes option before you launch into the DMCA process) but the immediate presumption that the complainant is in the right is offensive. Something like "we will start…
These seem like valid but relatively minor complaints. YouTube should fix them. But the heart of the problem lives in the DMCA. If jerks or idiots file a fraudulent DMCA take down, the content comes down before you have a chance to dispute it. Then, even if you do dispute it... the DMCA says it stays down for at least 10 days. Ostensibly to give the claimant an opportunity to file a lawsuit against you, but there is…
Doesn't look like fair-use to me. The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater. Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critiqu…
If you don't know what "fair use" is, you probably shouldn't be opining on this.
I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.
go back to reddit, please.