Judge Censors Popular Mexican Documentary, Which Critiques Judiciary; Director Then Complains About 'Piracy'

from the funny-how-that-works dept

SinkDeep alerts us to the news that a very popular Mexican documentary, called Presumed Guilty (Presunto Culpable in Spanish) has been censored by the courts, after one person who appears in the movie complained that he never gave permission. The movie itself is a documentary shedding some light on the Mexican judiciary, following the case of the wrongful conviction of Antonio Zuniga for murder, based on flimsy evidence. The complaint came from one of the witnesses in court, who claims he never gave permission to the filmmakers. The filmmakers claim that since he appeared at a public trial there was no need to get permission — and lots of people, including local and federal government officials are claiming that they disagree with the court’s ruling.

Apparently, some are ignoring the order to stop showing the film, and the entire film has shown up on YouTube, where its racking up plenty of views. On top of that, the censorship order has made the movie popular among people selling bootlegs.

Of course, SinkDeep also notes that even with all of this helping the movie get a lot more attention, the producers are complaining about this “piracy.” Apparently they’ve been complaining on Twitter that people shouldn’t watch the unauthorized versions, even as they’re fighting the courts who have censored the original version. On top of that, this morning, the director successfully issued a takedown to remove the film from YouTube. Of course, this seems like a perfect place where a filmmaker might encourage more people to see a movie, just as it’s been censored. It’s too bad the reaction is the same typical “but, but, piracy!” reaction.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Judge Censors Popular Mexican Documentary, Which Critiques Judiciary; Director Then Complains About 'Piracy'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
22 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

All the publicity in the world (and all the free views) don’t mean much if by the time you get things settled in court, you have a product that nobody is going to pay to see anymore because they all saw it already online for free.

The rights owner should make that choice, not a bunch of basement keyboard warriors.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“The rights owner should make that choice, not a bunch of basement keyboard warriors.”

Well, unfortunately, it is not his choice to make. Anyone minimally knowledgeable is capable of putting a movie up on youtube. There are millions (billions?) of people with that ability. There are hundreds of thousands that are willing to do that. There is demand for it. You’d have more luck trying to stop a tidal wave with a tennis racquet.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re:

you have a product that nobody is going to pay to see anymore because they all saw it already online for free.

I have several copies of Freedom Downtime that I bought from 2600. This is despite the fact that they made the entire video available free online, and even have a statement on the video saying that they welcomed people to copy and distribute the video. I’ve purchased many products that were available for free, and I know I am not alone in doing so (2600 has sold a lot of copies of Freedom Downtime.) So, your “nobody will buy because it is available for free” just doesn’t seem to really work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Perhaps he has to!

Is it at all possible that the director is legally obliged due to the court order to take all reasonable steps to prevent the documentary being viewed.

That could well include issuing DMCA takedown notices, as the courts would “expect” a rights holder to do with infringing material.

Anyone know if this could be the case

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...