Did You Embed The Leaked Trailer For Dark Knight Rises On Your Blog? Under SOPA, You May Face Jail Time

from the the-dark-knight-rises,-indeed dept

You may have heard that, over the weekend, the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises was leaked (eventually leading to the official release of the trailer). As tends to happen with these kinds of things, they spread pretty quickly and the video (which, let us remember, is an advertisement for the movie) went pretty viral, and lots of people were sharing it. Now, if you're normal and clueful, this is a good thing. If you're lawyers for Warner Bros., you flip out and start sending out legal notices. Rob Sheridan received one of these notices after he included the embed of one of the videos of the trailer on his Tumblr site. He pointed out how ridiculous it is that he's getting hit for merely embedding a video, since he doesn't host it at all, and it seems like the takedown notice should have gone to the folks actually hosting the video instead. Unfortunately, it's become equally popular to go after those who link to infringing content, usually relying on 512(d)'s requirements that "information location tools" "disable access" to the material once notified. Thus, Warner Bros notifies Tumblr, and there goes the video. Personally, this seems silly. A simple link or embed should never be seen as infringing, especially when it's easy enough to go after those actually hosting the video.

That said, this whole incident should be a damn good reminder of why the felony streaming portions of SOPA in the House and S.978 (the felony streaming bill) in the Senate are pretty scary. Under those bills, Sheridan could have potentially faced many years in jail for his helping to promote this movie. Remember, the point of these bills is to make a willfully infringing "public performance" of such works a potential felony. It has to be for commercial advantage or private financial gain, but those can be broadly interpreted: if the purpose is to get people to your site and advertise yourself and your work.. that can be commercial advantage. It's willful, because everyone knew the video was leaked, and not legit at the time. But is it a public performance? Hell yes.

Courts have determined that links can be public performances, noting that:
the most logical interpretation of the Copyright Act is to hold that a public performance or display includes each step in the process by which a protected work wends its way to its audience.... Using the same approach, the court determines that the unauthorized “link” to the live webcasts that Davis provides on his website qualifies...
So forget about worrying about Justin Bieber going to jail... start worrying about merely embedding the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises.

Is this really the kind of law that America needs right now?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:27am

    Simple thing: Don't link or embed the trailer from Dark Knight on your blog.

    Basically, don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Someantimalwareguy (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:33am

      Re:

      Further, boycott the movie and let it fail as it should...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        gorehound (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:45am

        Re: Re:

        You are a brother to my way of thinking.I am definately done with any MPAA/RIAA Material.I could now care less if the newest scifi tv show will get a 2nd season or that new cool btman flick or that new funny comedy,etc.
        I Declare WAR on the MPAA & RIAA !!!
        Join in and jump into the frontline trenches and fight back with your wallets !
        No Going to the Theater
        No buying of new physical products
        No buying of digital music tracks
        No ITUNES,AMZ,Netflix,etc legal streams and files
        Only But Used physical products and first go to your LOCAL USED STORE to help out your local Economy and not give a dime to MAFIAA.But used online when used products not available locally.
        Join me and join my Army of Right !!!
        Boycott them and they will get a nice gift from us as they wanted to give us a gift in Washington.
        "I Swear to never allow a dime of my money to ever get into the hands of the MAFIAA again".
        "I swear to uphold the boycott and not change my mind".
        "I swear to uphold the Army of Right and to stick to the choice of stopping these Beasts who would steal our Freedom and our American Way of Life".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Another AC, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:33am

      Re:

      But it's NOT illegal. It would become illegal though, but the point is that's silly, as you are with that comment.

      SO when a law comes in that says you can't criticize the government or you will be thrown in jail, it's OK because you just "don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about", right?

      You have a brain, use it!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:52am

        Re: Re:

        Actually, pre-DMCA, it was illegal already, only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute. No matter how much Mike tries to push embedding a video as "not hosting it", it is still an act to add that item to your website and present it as part of your website.

        Put another way, under the current laws, a DMCA complaint would require you to remove the embed from your website, which is clearly an indication of it's legal standing.

        "SO when a law comes in that says you can't criticize the government or you will be thrown in jail, it's OK because you just "don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about", right?"

        When we get to that point in the US, there will have already been an armed revolution. Sorry to bust your bubble, but people aren't going to take up arms to protect your right to be a dickhead online.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, we know SOPA and PIPA is about removing DMCA protections, making examples to "educate the public", shutting down any current or future competition, jailing those nasty 13 year old pirates, and making things go back to the way they were in the 1980s.

          One simple question. When it doesn't work and makes no dent in infringement. What do you do? There is nothing further you can ask for.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Yes, we know SOPA and PIPA is about removing DMCA protections, making examples to "educate the public", shutting down any current or future competition, jailing those nasty 13 year old pirates, and making things go back to the way they were in the 1980s. "

            No, actually they are about narrowing those protections so people can't hide their true business models any longer. Like a lot of things in the real world, because people figured out a way to abuse the intent of the law without breaking it, the laws have to get changed accordingly. SOPA may be too strong and too far, but it's a solid response to the way content grafting business models have been created.

            Don't blame the rights holders - blame the sites that abused the law.

            As for "making no dent in infringement", we will see. Clearly, enough of the content grifters are scared, so their business models will likely change - which will clearly make a difference in infringement.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Another AC, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "No, actually they are about narrowing those protections so people can't hide their true business models any longer."

              Not this B.S. again. This has been debunked so many times it's getting tiresome.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I always chuckle when I see you AC's using the term 'content grifter'. Who thought that one up for you? Was it Chris Dodd? Or maybe it was Karl Rove?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                JMT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                When they all start using the same old, seldom-used word at the same time, it looks like they're working from a pre-prepared script, which kills their credibility. I don't think they realise how silly it looks.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              A Monkey with Atitude, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              AT THIS POINT FUCK THE RIGHTS HOLDERS TOO... YOU KEEP PUSHING AND PUSHING AND DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU TRAMPLE.. SO FUCK THE RIGHTS HOLDERS, THE COPY-TARDS, AND ALL THE REST I AM DONE WITH YOU...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Don't blame the rights holders - blame the sites that abused the law.


              No thanks, I'll keep blaming the content industry that refuses to adapt rather than the legitimate businesses that have found working business models that operate within the confines of the law. The content industry is 100% responsible for the situation they find themselves in. \

              Consumers asked for reasonable things like being able to pay for content once and experience on the multitude of platforms available... the industry said no.

              Consumers asked for content to be delivered to them at the same time as everyone else... the industry said no.

              Consumers asked for the content they pay for to be priced reasonably to reflect the huge savings from digital distribution platforms... the industry said no.

              Consumers asked for a product that is easy to use without burdensome restrictions and warnings treating them like criminals... the industry said no.

              So what happened? The consumer decided that if the industry wouldn't provide what the market demands then they would find it elsewhere. The industry is absolutely to blame, and your zealotry in defending their failures is laughable.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute"

          No, it doesn't. It makes it hard to prosecute *innocent bystanders*, as it should. Nothing in the DMCA stops you from prosecuting the people who actually infringe copyright, it just stops you from hitting easy targets who have nothing to do with the action. It lets you target the person sending hate mail or letter bombs, it just doesn't let you sue the post office instead just because that's easier.

          Why are simple concepts so beyond you people?

          "a DMCA complaint would require you to remove the embed from your website, which is clearly an indication of it's legal standing"

          Ah, so you admit that tools already exist to take the material down without the need to prosecute innocent 3rd parties. What were you complaining about again?

          "people aren't going to take up arms to protect your right to be a dickhead online."

          Ironically, the rules you call for will at least stop your ability to be an anonymous jackass online. I wonder if you'll be the same asshole without the shelter of anonymity to hide behind?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            " It makes it hard to prosecute *innocent bystanders*,"

            It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people linking to and embedding something that was obtained illegally, and are attempting to profit from it (by making more money, getting more visitors, whatever).

            "Ah, so you admit that tools already exist to take the material down without the need to prosecute innocent 3rd parties. What were you complaining about again?"

            That is for the third parties. The problem is that it is "post offence", which means that unless someone says "take it down", they keep running it. The liablity should be attached as soon as it is posted, not after they have run it for a while, gotten a DMCA, and finally gotten around to taking it down. They profit from it, they should be liable. That is the reason the safe harbors are not working!

            "Ironically, the rules you call for will at least stop your ability to be an anonymous jackass online. I wonder if you'll be the same asshole without the shelter of anonymity to hide behind?"

            Paul T (you are the only one, right dickhead?), I don't sign my name here because it isn't a requirement. Why should I? I don't see your full name, address, phone number, and such attached to your posts. Like it or not, you are a prick because you too are anonymous right now. Are you going to be such a prick if you had to do that?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people linking to and embedding something that was obtained illegally, and are attempting to profit from it"

              It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people connecting those illegal phone calls and are attempting to profit from them.

              It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people delivering those illegal parcels and are attempting to profit from them.

              It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people accepting those illegal anonymous classified ads and are attempting to profit from them.

              It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people renting cars to armed robbers and are attempting to profit from them.

              Am I doing it right?

              "The problem is that it is "post offence", which means that unless someone says "take it down", they keep running it."

              How are they to know that it's illegal otherwise, since the idiots who run the corporations can't even get it right 100% of the time?

              "They profit from it, they should be liable."

              Yes if they do so WHILE AWARE of the infringement. Hence the warning aspect of the DMCA before further prosecution. This isn't hard.

              "Paul T (you are the only one, right dickhead?)"

              Yes, twatface, I'm the only one with that initial on my surname.

              As a matter of fact, i would have no problem attaching my full name to my posts if required to, and have received numerous friend requests on Facebook and other services as a direct result of my posts here. I sadly refused (FB is mainly a way for me to keep in touch with people I know in real life), but I'm clearly not hard to track down based on the information I offer openly here. I have nothing to hide, and stand behind my opinions.

              ...and you are...?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Please cite the law that made it illegal pre-DMCA to post a link or embed a video on your website that is hosted elsewhere online. You're not copying the video, so it's not copyright infringement. An embed means that, despite the superficial appearance that the video is a part of the website, the content is being hosted from another website. A link is a reference or an address, not a copy.

          The DMCA does not require you to remove a link. That's just the way that overly cautious hosting companies have acted because having to defend against a lawsuit, regardless of its invalidity, is its own financial punishment.

          "people aren't going to take up arms to protect your right to be a dickhead online."

          Then you should be afraid.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            He's already an insufferable twat, so he should be afraid of that. Instead, he revels in it. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Twat is as twat does.".

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Mr Wilson, without DMCA, those things would have been considered illegal, as embedding in particular is a form of re-publication.

            The issue for links (and embeds) is that many site owners (such as Ninjavideo) try to play the "we don't host it" card, by uploading to third party "file hosts". It's a dodge, nothing more, and it has been exposed as such. As soon as you remove the safe harbor provisions (they didn't apply to videos the admins uploaded themselves) they were done UNDER EXISTING COPYRIGHT LAW.

            Thanks for playing!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              MrWilson, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'll repeat my request since you didn't actually address it: Please cite the law that made it illegal pre-DMCA to post a link or embed a video on your website that is hosted elsewhere online. I'll settle for a pre-DMCA court ruling even.

              You blather on about site owners and the Ninjavideo example, but what about a non-uploader, non-host individual who posts a link to a video on someone else's website? You say that embedding is re-publication, but you don't provide any legal citation for this claim. You don't understand how embedding works apparently.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Another AC, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Please point us to the law that says linking to a copyrighted work is an act of infringement. Telling people where some content is, in no way infringes its' copyright, you seem to have made that up and convinced yourself that it is true.

          Even if we grant that it was illegal, then you seem to be contradicting yourself. If it was illegal, then the DMCA made it legal (given certain provisions) with the safe harbours, wouldn't you agree? Your definition of illegal seems to be 'what the law allows unless I disagree with it'.

          Finally, I guess you're amending your point of view to be:

          When a law comes in that says you can't criticize the government or you will be thrown in jail, it's OK because I hope it won't come to that.

          I agree, much better.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Another AC, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            P.S.

            "...only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute the wrong parties."

            There, ftfy!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:21am

          How many times do I have to tell you?

          Try not being such a twat! You are so really an insufferable twat, and your neighbors probably hate you for it. STFU and FOAD, beyotch!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Then it is not illegal really is it?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The fact that you seriously believe what you're saying here bothers me. Wake up. We have arrived at that point which you are speaking of as if it's a fairy tale. Censorship is real and it is happening right in front of your eyes, but you're choosing to ignore it because you don't want to believe it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:07am

        Re: Re:

        Public performances are right now illegal under our criminal laws if certain pre-conditions are met, so anyone who thinks a new activity is being criminalized is just plain wrong.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well if it is illegal we don't need new laws do we, or are you people so incompetent that you can't make use of existing laws to do the job already?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Me, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:47pm

        Re: Re:

        People's current views on congress aside, if the US ever got into a situation where a law was going to pass saying we can't criticize the government or we'll be jailed, we will have -much- bigger problems on our hands. that is to say, if the american people were dumb enough to allow that kind of thing to even make it off the drawing board then there really is no hope left for humanity (as opposed to now where people usually only -think- there is no hope left for humanity.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:37am

      Re:

      Yes. Because helping to advertise a film is such a horrible horrible crime.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:01am

        Re: Re:

        Zach, the choice to advertise the film should be the film owner's right, not yours. They don't choose what you eat for dinner and when you go to sleep, stop making choices for them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So I shouldn't say anything about this movie that shall not be named since it's the owners right to advertise and not mine? So, no word of mouth campaigns?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Zach, the choice to advertise the film should be the film owner's right, not yours."

          Here we have, in a nutshell, how divorced these people are from both reality and how new technologies can actually sell their movies.

          Fine, we won't sell you movie for you. Just don't come whining to us about "piracy" when it under performs.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          GIVE IT TIME >_

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Are you seriously that braindead or are you just a really really bad parody?

          So I should not participate in word of mouth promotion of a film I love because the copyright owner hasn't given me permission? Is that what copyright law has come down to? And you think this is right?

          Why is it illegal for me to promote a film I look forward to watching? Me sharing the trailer or hosting screen captured images of the trailer is not going to diminish the the revenue of the actual film. In fact, my sharing those things will only increase the revenue.

          I am sorry that real life does not mesh with the fantasy world you have created in your head.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Machin Shin, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ok so yes I guess we can agree the trailer was copyrighted and bla bla bla. So the company was in it legal right to go after the people. The stupid part is that they are ATTACKING FANS. These companies attack people and then cry that they dont make as much money as they want and blame it on the "pirates" I can promise you that the people they attacked will no longer pay any money for this film where as before they would have. I can also say for sure that now others will avoid this film because of how they reacted. Instead of acting like a bunch of 2 year olds they could have gracefully come out and used this as more FREE PROMOTION of their film.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Colin, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The first rule of The Dark Knight Rises is: you do not talk about The Dark Knight Rises.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Anybody else seeing "The Dark Knight Rises" into a) The Void, 2) Oblivion, C) a Black Hole? The 'owners' seem to to be pushing in that direction.

            Petulance is a behavior that is barely tolerated in children. Why is it acceptable in lawyers? Could it be that lawyers have found a way to monetize childlike behavior?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "a) The Void, 2) Oblivion, C) a Black Hole?"

              Suddenly, I feel the urge to watch a Gaspar Noe film, play The Elder Scrolls 4 and watch a Disney movie...

              Thanks Warner :)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Another AC, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          There's no such thing as a right to advertise, you're being silly again. Film owners have no control or right to control how I advertise their films for them.

          They can *ask* you to stop telling everyone how good the film is, but they can't make you stop. Just accept it and stop making things up.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ed C., Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Zach, the choice to advertise the film should be the film owner's right, not yours.

          The only reason not to let others advertize the film for you for FREE, using the exact same advertizing that you created and/or approved, is because you want to force producers to pay you millions for the privilege. If they could have others do it, at no cost to themselves, then they'd have no reason to keep paying your exuberant ad fees, which is mostly paid to yourself for the ad channels you already own. Can't have that now, can we?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          No it should not, if the film gets bad reviews they should not have a say on it, advertisement is an attempt to get SOME people to see it in some light, it is not an obligation on anybodies part and if people want to do it in a bad or good way it is the public and even other companies right to do so, this has something to do with First amendment rights.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      MAJikMARCer (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:43am

      Re:

      So, someone out there breaks an embargo and releases a trailer (which are used for marketing purposes solely.) early.

      FANS of the movie find it, get excited and start sharing it. So you feel the FANS are the ones who should be punished with jail time? For being excited about a movie that they'll likely go see in the theater, perhaps multiple times, and later buy the DVD or BR? They are driving excitement for the movie. They should be punished because it's not on schedule? Go after the person or company that leaked it early. But even then do THEY deserve jail time?

      This is the ridiculousness of SOPA that Mike is trying to point out.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:01am

        Re: Re:

        FANS are the ones who should be punished with jail time?


        It's war. Hollywood is destroying the American way-of-life.

        Anyone spreading Hollywood propaganda is a traitor.

        Hollyood's FANS shall be interned in concentration camps for the duration of hostilities.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      The whole point is that it's not always as painfully obvious what is official, leaked or officially leaked these days...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MM_Dandy, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:02am

      Re:

      Basically, don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about.

      Veoh was sued out of existence without ever breaking the law. Yup, nothing to worry about here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:02am

      Re: Simple thing: Don't link or embed the trailer from Dark Knight on your blog.

      but how do you know
      if say its on YouTube and you link to an advert promoting a film why would you suspect that it was illegal?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:03am

      Re:

      That is much too easy to be a valid solution.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Danny (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:40am

      Re:

      Thanks for the link Mike. I was the 44th person to "like" that link on my Facebook site. The coward I am responding to is clueless.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Daniel Lee, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 4:18pm

      Re:

      You're an idiot.

      Not only is this "law" completely and utterly arbitrary, in that it's existence serves not to make life better or safer for anyone but only to line a few more pocketbooks... it's also absurd.

      I edit movie trailers for a living. When one of my pieces is released online, I often post it on my website, blog, and share it with friends on Facebook.

      Under SOPA, I could go to jail for this.

      So I say again: you're an idiot.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Karen in Wichita, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:36am

    Well, that brings up an interesting defense

    When you've got studios who deliberately "leak" their stuff *hoping* for that viral response, I can see a pretty good case for saying "I assumed distributing it was what the rightsholder intended." (And meaning it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:53am

      Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense

      "When you've got studios who deliberately "leak" their stuff *hoping* for that viral response, I can see a pretty good case for saying "I assumed distributing it was what the rightsholder intended." (And meaning it.)"

      How would you prove that in a court of law?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:00am

        Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense

        I know. I mean,duh! Everyone is guilty until proven innocent!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:09am

          Re: Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense

          in TAMs little sick twisted world, everyone who isn't a Hollywood corporation is guilty and can never be proven innocent. Never, ever, never!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:02am

        Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense

        and the answer to your question is another question.

        Given the content of this release why should you have to prove anything in a court of law?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:07am

          Re: Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense

          "Given the content of this release why should you have to prove anything in a court of law?"

          Because then lawyers will get paid. Why do you hate lawyers so much?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:36am

        Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense

        That is the point, it is difficult to know exactly the nature or status of something so frivolous.

        Copyright is not exact science, is not black and white and there is a pretty good chance that anyone including those versed on the law wouldn't know what is or not infringing for a fact there is no tools to help out either, there is no databases to consult, there is no simple rules and trying to create liability for something so ephemeral is just asking for it to be abused.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:39am

    Simple thing: Don't link or embed anything on your blog.

    Basically, and you have nothing to worry about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:40am

    Aiding the enemy

    It's wartime. The MPAA and the RIAA are the enemy.

    Anyone caught aiding the enemy shall be shot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:40am

    Aren't the jails full already?

    Lindsey Lohan continually violates her parole and is continually released early because the jails are full. Now we want to fill them up even more with bloggers and Beibers and average citizens all for sharing content?

    Besides, once leaked, it becomes news in itself so how can that be made illegal?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Vondross, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:11pm

      Re: Aren't the jails full already?

      While the Jails are in-fact full, typically from "minor drug" users(Pot, and the like), and the convicted individuals are released at an almost stunning rate ... that part doesn't actually matter to our system.

      What does matter, if I am remembering my research from various Criminology course work, are the court fee's ... penalties ... and ongoing costs that convicted felonies and criminals have to pay. The more people they circulate in and out of the jails, means more revenue for them; and while the costs for surveillance of "early releases" can factor in ... it usually doesn't weigh to heavily on the revenue.

      These aren't the "true numbers", just an example.

      If your prison can contain 3000 people, and you are at that limits with the introduction of 500 new inmates (coming in to the prison) ... you have to release 500. The 500 that are released, for the new 500 coming in, are than able to pursuit employment and can pay the bills they have occurred through penalties (court) and court costs.

      So you have gained 500 new revenue streams, while retaining the same cost of the 3000 housing. The issue of surveillance for those 500, in the digital area of ankle bracelets (trackers) and other hi-tech equipment isn't even really a factor.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:48am

    Extra, Extra, Read all about it... X's latest album leaked

    We would love to tell you all about XXXX's latest album YYYYY, but due to criminal infringement inducement standards, we are not allowed to tell you anything other than "XXXX's' latest album was leaked and can be found on the ZZZZZZ (but we're not allowed to talk about that, so how about those 'unnamed sports team' they sure are doing great this year, too bad about 'that one guy we're not allowed to discuss'.

    I can't wait until all the news is a bunch of 'fill in the blank' type statements because everyone is too afraid of having their company shut down if they actually say anything about anyone.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:54am

      Re: Extra, Extra, Read all about it... X's latest album leaked

      As a follow up, I patent this idea. Once the news starts being 'fill in the blank' then I'll create a device (think old 'mad lib' books) that asks you to fill in a set of blanks ahead of time (4 names, 8 nouns, 2 proper nouns, 4 adjectives, 2 Cities, etc - these can be saved for later re-use for 'the lulz').

      The device will then fill in the blanks in the news stories with the words from the list, could make for some news casts that would actually be interesting to watch.

      "Yesterday 'Jimmy Joe Bob' was seen speeding past the 'chicken coop' in his 'girlfriend Betty Jo' and boy did he have his 'foot' in it..."

      Remember, If you build it, I will sue..... (or they will come, something like that.... it's all so confusing)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:16am

    So, no word of mouth campaigns?


    Loose lips sink ships!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    AJ (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:21am

    1. Upload legal video.
    2. Convince people to embed legal video.
    3. Swap out legal with Illegal video.
    4. Send extortion letter threatening jail time...
    5. ?????
    6. Profit!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    bjupton (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:08am

    I don't have anything else to add to the enlightened comments I've already seen posted, except holy shit, are these people mental.

    The trailer? The advertisement?

    Lunatics

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:44am

    The Felony Streaming Bill is pure evil. Everyone keeps looking at jail time like it means something. The jail time is a slap on the wrist compared to the life-long scar a felony on your record creates.

    You will never have a good job, get a loan, join the military, attend a major college... in essence you will be restricted for the rest of your life. No pursuit of profit should warrant such a destructive force applied to HUMAN lives.

    Shame on ANYONE who posted something that sounds like "just don't embed anything on your blog." Yes, that is a fail-safe way to avoid problems... it is also a fail-safe way to be trained like a damn dog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Danny (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:47am

    Poison fruit

    This is just stupid. The studio has placed the trailer up in Apple's iTunes site for viewing and is encouraging--right there on the page--people to tweet links back to that page.

    The only financial harm done by linking to the rogue trailer is hat you aren't driving traffic to the iTunes store.

    Very Hollywood

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    Obviously the studios and their tame sharks are too effing stupid to follow a link.

    Or... they know the difference but they're just trying to hurt as many customers as possible because pissing off customers is obviously good for business.

    Oh wait, that's still effing stupid.

    Or they figure that they will make more money by strong-arming customers for money they don't have or putting them into jail so they can't make more.

    Y'know, that's pretty effing stupid too.

    OK, let's go for effing stupid and leave it at that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    VK, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:18pm

    Heres an idea.

    Don't go watch the new movie. Boycott Warner Bros. These media giants act like they run the world, but you know they're doing it with YOUR money, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ares, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 4:25pm

    Mein Gott... I'm an uninformed idiot who dosen't know exactly what this SOPA thing is, but it's another one of those cases where the lawmaking people don't understand how the internet works, isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Simon J Green, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:08pm

    But they can't lose any money from a trailer...?

    The reason the big studios instigated all these ridiculous litigations in the first place was to try and stop people not paying for their works. How are the studios loaing anything from a free trailer that would never properly generate revenue anyway?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Brett, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:44pm

    Given the fact that Rob Sheridan was one of the major players in the Nine Inch Nails: Year Zero viral marketing campaign in '07 (one that everyone seems to be modeling from INCLUDING - but not limited to - TDKR) ...WB might want to check themselves before they wreck themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:36pm

    Warner Bros. and GoDaddy Shut Me Down Over TDKR

    Same thing happened to me, but Warner Bros and GoDaddy shut my site down for four hours.

    I wasn't hosting the video, just the embed code.

    I actually think WB didn't even bother to look.

    -Matt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 3:32pm

    If you think it was "leaked" by someone not related with the movie you are dumb.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 7:37pm

    We have to put a stop to promotional videos being used for promotion! It's ruining our media industry!
    :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Dec 29th, 2011 @ 5:21am

    So let me get this straight. Someone hires and puts up a giant screen in Times Square, and starts (illegally) showing the latest Batman movie, or whatever. (Hosting/publishing)

    The NY Times writes about this, telling people where this performance is ('linking' to it). Maybe they even include a nice little infogram to show where Times Square is ('abetting infringing').

    Some enterprising person with rooftop access can see the screen from a distance, and puts a telescope on the roof - when people ask, he shows them how they can look at the screen with the telescope, almost as if in Times Square. (Embedding)

    So who do you sue? The guy with the telescope? How is he 'infringing'?
    The NY Times writer? How are they 'infringing' or even contributing to infringing?

    The public in Times Square - are they 'infringing' by viewing an 'unauthorised performance'?

    The company that hired out the giant screen - are they 'infringing'?

    The company (or city government) that owns the spot that the screen is on - are they 'infringing'?

    No. Only the guy who is displaying the movie is infringing. So tell me, why would links or embeds (which are only a graphical form of link) be 'illegal'?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This