Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

rebelliouspixels.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#61

Post by georgemcbay »

DannyBee wrote: post #45
georgemcbay wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is full of smart people, certainly they could set up a system in which some videos are manually flagged as controversial but allowed specifically for situations like this, particularly in cases in which previous take-downs were successfully overturned.

There is no "controversial" in this kind of case. Either it's legal, or it's not. There is no "kinda legal but maybe not". While the inputs are not binary, the output definitely is. So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action. You could also try personal suits for tortuous interfe…

I'm not talking about things that are "kinda legal", I'm talking about situations where:

Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use.

Studio X files DMCA to Google.

Google automatically disables the video

Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved.

(So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account)

But at the point where the video is re approved Google should flag the video such that it was previously auto-disabled and found to be not infringing and thus redirect any future DMCAs on it to the manual review pile instead of the automatic pile.

This would curtail studios using the automatic takedown process to fuck with people while adding a fairly minimal amount of work to Google's pile since most of the items that are taken down through the automatic DMCA process won't get re-approved in the first place.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#62

Post by AnthonyMouse »

anigbrowl wrote: post #58
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree wholeheartedly about the shortcomings of the DMCA, and am not sure what sort of equitable mechanism could make those problems go away.

We could start by not making censorship the default: If a notice is received, notify the poster of the video that it will be removed in e.g. 24 hours if they don't submit a counter notice. Then it comes down after the grace period if they don't identify themselves and file a counter notice consenting to the jurisdiction of at least one U.S. federal district court, but if they do then the content stays up until a court says otherwise. And given that filing a counter notice is a de facto invitation to be sued, infringers who submit them improperly will have to answer for it in court, which should reduce the number of people willing to do so. On the other hand, in cases like the one in question here, the facts will have to go through the copyright holder's actual lawyers and a federal judge before any censorship occurs, which should do a good job stamping out fraudulent take downs as well.

In reality this is how the legal system works for almost everything else: First you ask nicely, and if the parties can't agree then you go to court. But in most cases the party in the wrong (at least in theory) knows that they'll lose in court and so concedes immediately and everything works as it ought to without taxing the court system.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#63

Post by chii »

anigbrowl wrote: post #17
chc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?

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,…

> I think this is pretty weak sauce ... DJing falls far short of musicianship.

Why do you think this? A good remix requires just as much ingenuity, just as much creative juices, as an original work. In fact, a remix might require even more ingenuity, because of the constraints of the remix. Of course, there are people who claim to be remixing, but is just putting things thoughtly side by side. But then again, you have original works that are also rubbish.

To me, the eye of the law should treat remix and originals exactly the same - works in their own right. A remix may have derivative works from else where, but as long as it is fair use to a reasonable person, it should be considered as an original.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#64

Post by chii »

gtCameron wrote: post #3
smsm42 wrote: post #2

Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.

What it looks like to me is that YouTube refuses to play the role of the judge. The role of YouTube in this dispute has been simply to provide a platform for the parties to work it out. YouTube is not the organization that is denying the fair use claim, Lionsgate is.

except youtube is biased against the claimee and the system favours the claimer.

The most likely reason would be because otherwise, the claimer's lobby groups could put pressure on youtube to do more than it currently does (say, they can no longer claim safe habour under DMCA). The claimee are the little guys, and they while large in numbgers, have little to no power in affecting youtube's policy.

So its all down to money and economics. Therefore, a reasonable way to force youtube's hand is to make a big deal out of it, get as many people involved so that youtube feels more threatened by the actions of these small time remixers.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#65

Post by chii »

ajanuary wrote: post #32
danielweber wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making money doesn't mean "not fair use." Just like not making money doesn't mean "fair use."

By 'they' I mean Lionsgate. For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then Buffy's copyright holders should too. Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.

> Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.

that's not true - the author of the work should get revenue should they decide to (but only if they decide to). Lionsgate is not the author of the work. Some components of the work are from the copyrighted works owned by lionsgate, but that is due to fair use, and thus lionsgate has no claim on the copyright of the remix containing some of their stuff.

Fair use does not mean no revenue (nor does revenue even come into the argument!).

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#66

Post by ajanuary »

chii wrote: post #65
ajanuary wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By 'they' I mean Lionsgate. For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then Buffy's copyright holders should too. Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.

> Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all. that's not true - the author of the work should get revenue should they decide to (but only if they decide to). Lionsgate is not the author of the work. Some components of the work are from the copyrighted works owned by lionsgate, but that is due to fair use, and thus lionsgate has no claim on the copyright of the remix containing some o…

By neither I mean Liongate and the owners of Buffy.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#67

Post by analog »

chc wrote: post #57
analog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well maybe, but I don't see why that gives the author the right to use someone else's work.

AFAIK transcribing the movie could also be copyright infringement. You're effectively reproducing a portion of their work either way -- one in text form, the other in video form. Fortunately for critics, both are widely held to be fair use if done purely for the purpose of commentary and not done excessively.

Quote and use screengrabs or short clips sure. 100% of your 'commentary' is composed of the original material, questionable imo.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#68

Post by Tichy »

ghubbard wrote: post #14

This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who knows what they are talking about. "Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."

But what does it mean? What is an official recommendation by the Copyright Office - an actual license to reuse stuff? Or just a recommendation with no legal consequences at all?

So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#69

Post by pi18n »

jessaustin wrote: post #21
ajanuary wrote: post #12

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.

I was wondering if Twilight was really that bad or if they had cherry-picked dialog. Every moment cut in from Twilight was painful.

Re: Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

#70

Post by scotty79 »

discountgenius wrote: post #42

> 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?

It can be easily fixed by removing phrase "copyright infringement" from the language. Then content providers could easily protect themselves from anyone copying content produced by them, by not producing that content.

People who know how to make money of the content production without government issued monopoly on copying will step in to fill the gap (if there'll actually be any gap).

Post reply on HN