HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! Looking for something to read instead? Check out our new Working Futures anthology »
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! Looking for something to read instead? Check out our new Working Futures anthology »

The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Another day, another example of copyright being used as censorship. As you may have heard, there was a bit of controversy this weekend when talk show host Ellen DeGeneres attended the Dallas Cowboys game with former President George W. Bush. This made lots of people quite upset as they argued that being friends with Bush was either support for "tolerance of hate and discrimination" or an effort at "whitewashing... his manifest crimes." Others argued, as Ellen did, that there are good reasons to be kind to people you fundamentally disagree with.

Wherever you come down on that debate, hopefully you can agree that, no matter what, the Ellen Show was wrong to use a copyright claim to take down a transformative video, created by Rafael Shimunov, that took Ellen's "be nice to each other" monologue about the situation and superimposed images on the back screen of what appears to be scenes of devastation in the Middle East that came about from President Bush's policies. This is, of course, classic fair use. Taking a bit of video (1 minute and 46 seconds) from Ellen's show, and using it in a transformative way to provide commentary and criticism of Ellen's speech. Even if you think it's unfair or heavy handed, it still should quite clearly be protected by fair use. But, instead:

That's the original tweet posting the video, showing that it has been "disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner."

Of course, in response to this, a whole bunch of folks are now reposting the video on Twitter. So far, (as I type this), they've mostly remained online -- which at least suggests that the original takedown was not an automated takedown notice or machine recognition situation, but a deliberate report. Indeed, other tweets suggest that the "social media manager" of The Ellen Show sent a DMCA takedown over the video.

It's possible (likely?) that this lower level staffer just thought she was stopping "copyright infringement" (and maybe didn't even realize the transformative nature of the video), but it still highlights the incredible censorial powers of copyright law and the DMCA, in which, by mere accusation, the content may get deleted -- especially regarding a time-sensitive and politically relevant discussion.

Still, as happens when these situations come about, tons of people are now reposting the video:

Perhaps this is something that Ellen might want to discuss with Barbra Streisand the next time she has Streisand on her show...

Filed Under: censorship, commentary, dmca, ellen degeneres, fair use, george w. bush, political speech, transformative
Companies: the ellen show, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Phaedrus (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:31am

    So can we finally change the name ..

    from the Streisand to the DeGeneres effect?

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

  • identicon
    A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:53am

    It's not DMCA but they could argue it falls afoul of defamation law because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what it takes to be a war criminal.

    Although torture policies may be pretty close....

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

    • identicon
      A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:13am

      Re:

      ... Anyway there's an argument to be made that defamation isn't fair use since by your description it doesn't actual document war crimes, just the horrible effects of war.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

        Re: Re:

        What was defaming?

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

        • identicon
          A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          War criminal is a legal term and it is laid out in the Geneva conventions for the United States. Other countries have the International Criminal Court but that is not US law. By the description of the video from the article it doesn't show actual war crimes. It shows horrible and regrettable effects of war that fall short of war crimes.

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "War criminal is a legal term"

            It also has colloquial definitions, which the actions in the video fit.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              War criminals a term that was made back when some giant dongle who eliminated a whole line of haircuts and mustaches and quite frankly a badass sounding name “Adolf mean noble wolf thanks for making the 40s horrible for everyone”

              Now it’s some guy who got in Because people liked his dad “or Florida” and his Vice President probably made more policy then he himself did.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "War criminal is a legal term"

            Whether a legal term is used, or not, has little or nothing to do with the determination of defaming.
            The statement in question is most likely opinion, that is my opinion fwiw.

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

          • icon
            Samuel Abram (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Using that logic, I cannot call former New York City Policeman Daniel Pantaleo a murderer because he has never been found guilty of the death of Eric Garner. Your argument is invalid.

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

            • identicon
              A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It's a grey area. If he was acquitted and you kept calling him a murderer in the press or something he could sue you for defamation. Since he's never been charged he may or may not actually find a court who would listen to his lawsuit.

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

              • icon
                Samuel Abram (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:46am

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

                But Pantaleo wasn’t charged to begin with. And neither was Bush 43 for war crimes. Do crimes not exist if nobody will prosecute them?

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

                • identicon
                  A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:51am

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

                  First: "Innocent until proven guilty" which is why in the professional press you see the word "alleged" all the time.

                  Second: If he wanted to sue then he may or may not be able to find a court that wouldn't throw out his case given the circumstances but decisions could go either way.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:14am

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

                  "Do crimes not exist if nobody will prosecute them?"

                  Apparently so, in the minds of those who benefit, however the rest of us disagree.

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

              • icon
                Matthew Cline (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:51pm

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

                So after OJ Simpson was acquitted he could have sued everyone who still called him a murderer?

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

                • identicon
                  A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:05pm

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

                  I don't know about everyone.

                  Some people such as news organizations or people distributing flyers for commercial/political reasons... yes.

                  There are other instances such as private speech where he shouldn't be able to find out that was said and he wouldn't suffer damage from it. Probably not in that case.

                  IANAL and you should ask someone who has more expertise in defamation law about obscure aspects of the law in that area if you want a more complete answer about how publicly you have to speak for it to be defamation.

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

                  • icon
                    Tanner Andrews (profile), 12 Oct 2019 @ 10:44am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; further clarification

                    Some people such as news organizations or people distributing flyers for commercial/political reasons... yes [OJ Simpson could sue people calling him a murderer]

                    Yes, he could.

                    He would lose in most states, but he could sue. In some states there may be an anti-SLAPP law which applies and which would allow the person sued to recover judgment for their fees, but that is by no means certain. Neither is collectability.

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

                    • identicon
                      A Guy, 12 Oct 2019 @ 11:13am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; further clarification

                      You are either not a lawyer also, an incompetent lawyer, or a liar.

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

                    • identicon
                      A Guy, 12 Oct 2019 @ 12:26pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; further clarification

                      I looked it up and decided my comment was a bit harsh. The fact he is a public figure means he may or may not prevail in court just like the other instances discussed here but he could probably make a prima facie case for defamation before it went to the jury.

                      An acquittal of criminal charges is usually all you need as evidence to sue for defamation if someone says you are guilty of a crime.

                      Accusing him of being a killer (not that I have any way to know either way) is far safer because it is not a crime that has to be proven in court.

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

              • icon
                Tanner Andrews (profile), 12 Oct 2019 @ 10:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; clarification

                If he was acquitted and you kept calling him a murderer in the press or something he could sue you for defamation

                Just to be clear, however, there is no assurance that he would prevail on the merits. If he cannot prove that he did not do that with which he was charged, then in most states he would lose.

                Acquittal is not proof that one did not do it. Conviction, surviving any appeal, can be used as evidence that one is guilty, but it does not work the other way.

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

                • identicon
                  A Guy, 12 Oct 2019 @ 11:15am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; clarification

                  It absolutely does work the other way around. You also may be a foreigner with no double jeopardy protections in your country like Italy. That may be valid advice from an Italian lawyer.

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

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 12 Oct 2019 @ 12:38pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:; clarification

                    It absolutely does work the other way around.

                    "Not guilty" is not the same thing as innocent. A not guilty verdict only demonstrates that the person was not convicted of the crime, not that they didn't commit it. For example, the evidence was not sufficient to meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In a defamation suit, it would be up to the two parties to prove by preponderance of the evidence whether the statement(s) were, among other requirements, false*. The plaintiff couldn't simply point to an acquittal as proof and then it's done, though presumably that would weigh in their favor.

                    * assuming the case wasn't dismissed for another reason before it got to that point

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

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:30pm

            "war criminal is a legal term"

            Yeah, it was a common argument at the time that mores and ethics didn't exist except under the authority of a justice system that would prosecute them. It's legal was the going argument to justify, well, a lot of terrible policies.

            Abu Graib, black sites, extraordinary rendition and the CIA Extrajudicial Detention and Interrogation Program were entirely legal, and Donald Rumsfeld himself declared that according to US policy, waterboarding is not torture. I'm not sure we've ever bothered to make a policy change to firmly establish otherwise, though the US has claimed not to torture countless times (we outsourced our torture as well as declaring our methods not torture.)

            This all served as precedent to note that wiretapping and mass surveillance were (and still are) legal under American law, so are drone strikes which still are killing innocent civilians in foreign theaters of conflict at alarming rates. Techdirts archives serve as a painful reference source as to how it all unfolded in the aughts.

            Maybe we shouldn't depend on established systems of justice to tell us what is right or wrong. They sucked at it sixteen years ago, and they suck at it even more now.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:37am

      Re:

      Not defamation, as shown by the many bad defamation suits being covered here and elsewhere. Not that it prevents people from still thinking defamation is any time someone says a mean thing.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:41am

    I must say, watching the MSM and liberal rehabilitation of Junior has been very entertaining, He went from the most hated man alive who stole the election to being the kindly old grandpa; giving candy to Ms Obama, dancing with kids, painting his feet.
    Haha, that old rascal, always getting himself in cute situations.

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

    • identicon
      A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:46am

      Re:

      Junior will always have a positive following by some for going after the world trade center attack perpetrators

      I am too conflicted about his legacy to have a strong opinion

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:06am

        Re: Re:

        "Junior will always have a positive following by some for going after the world trade center attack perpetrators"

        What a shame he then went on to start a needless war based on lies that cost more American lives than 9/11 did, along with a huge cost of civilian lives and destruction of American values in the process.

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

        • identicon
          A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I disagree that he started the war.

          I also disagree that it is needless.

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, that's your prerogative, but I very much disagree based on the evidence at hand.

            Either way, he would be viewed a lot more positively by a lot more people had he stuck to Afghanistan.

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

            • icon
              Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 3:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              He had no business being there given that the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. It's like me beating you up because Blue said something to annoy me.

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

              • identicon
                A Guy, 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:47am

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

                They weren't all from Saudi Arabia and they aren't thought to have been sponsored by the Saudi government in any way or we wouldn't try to help them. Some were from all over the world especially if you look at the networks that assisted with the attack not just the hijackers on the planes.

                I have no information about Iraq in particular and you shouldn't construe that as me having evidence of an Iraqi's complicity.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:05am

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

                  "They weren't all from Saudi Arabia"

                  Nor were they from Iraq.

                  "Some were from all over the world"

                  But mainly Saudi. Likewise, over 90 nationalities were killed in the 9/11 attacks, but you wouldn't know that anyone but Americans were involved from the general reaction to it.

                  "I have no information about Iraq in particular"

                  Yet, you stated that it was not needless and that you knew that it wasn't Bush who started it. Interesting...

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

                  • icon
                    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:55am

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

                    Bin Laden was Saudi and apparently his family were friends of the Bushes and spirited out of the country on the day of the attacks. https://www.denverpost.com/2006/09/11/bush-ties-to-bin-laden-haunt-grim-anniversary/

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

                    • identicon
                      A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:02am

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

                      The "Bush did 9/11" theory is one of the dumber theories people have tried to push on the internet. (Including Bush knew Osama ever.) I don't even have to look at the link to know it's real "fake news". It's right up there with the thermite in the world trade center and the missing plane at the crash site "evidence". You should look at the relationship between the United States and Osama Bin Laden during the Clinton years before you try shoveling that crap.

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

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:26am

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

                        I don’t think Wendy was saying Bush in any way caused the 9/11 attacks, nor do I think she was saying that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden knew each other personally. She was saying their families were old friends.

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

                    • identicon
                      A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:33am

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

                      I did click on the link and read it. Stories like that are the reason Trump supporters can keep a straight face while yelling "fake news" and "reporters are propagandists" to everyone.

                      There were 1 or 2 facts that were true but the reporter stretches them to ridiculous lengths without providing other context that provides a more accurate picture of the timeline and circumstances surrounding the events. Some of the claims are just completely false.

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

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:03am

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

                        Some of the claims are just completely false.

                        Which ones?

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:17am

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

                          What I was thinking of when I wrote that was "America's worst day". We have had earthquakes, hurricanes, and military battles with larger death tolls than sept 11.

                          It was a bad one, though the author didn't even google whether there were objectively worse days in US history.

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

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:55am

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

                            "there were objectively worse days in US history"

                            The trick is, that's not something that can be objectively stated.You seem to be picking purely "number of casualties", but if the author is thinking in more subjective terms you can't really compare facts.

                            Similarly, you can't reject the claim as "completely false", because the subjective impact on the author is very much true, even if you personally do not share it.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "I disagree that he started the war."

            Which one?

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 5:12pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Bush was the one that started things.
              But he was not the one who decided what got started.
              “Cough Cheney “cough” “rummy” cough”

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

          • icon
            Ed (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Then you're either ignorant or deluded.

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

        • identicon
          A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          American values haven't changed all that much either

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "American values haven't changed all that much either"

            But the number of things you accept that violate those supposed values has certainly increased. Values mean nothing unless you defend them, and sadly more people seem willing to ignore violations so long as it's their political team doing the violating.

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

            • identicon
              A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The internet means we are more aware of longstanding issues, not a fundamental change of behavior by those in power.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:18am

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

                "not a fundamental change of behavior by those in power."

                You are claiming that things have not changed in the past three plus years?

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

                • identicon
                  A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:30am

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

                  Historically we haven't swung to any new extremes based on past governmental behavior. I'm not saying that everything is good because of that but the bad things are bad in a way the US has dealt with before.

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

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:37pm

                    Historically we haven't swung to any new extremes based on past governmental behavior.

                    The sitting president of the United States openly solicited a foreign country to interfere with a U.S. election (i.e., he asked China to investigate a political rival). He did so with the implied goal of using that interference to aid in the winning of his next election.

                    I can’t recall any other presidential candidate or any other president ever asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on their political rivals so that person can better win an election — never mind doing it on camera for the whole world to see and hear. So do you still believe things haven’t swung to “any new extremes”?

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

                    • identicon
                      A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:55pm

                      Re:

                      I have read brief sentences and paragraphs about what our founding fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin) may have done with the British and especially the French government to dig up dirt before.

                      There are stupid enough stories to be somewhat similar to Trump asking for assistance in that way but I don't even care to read the longer descriptions of the allegations of those long ago events or even look for them again.

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

                      • icon
                        Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:42am

                        Re: Re:

                        Can we please agree that what's been going on since Carter's administration has broken with norms accepted by the public since before then?

                        When I was a kid, I expected people in public office to conduct themselves with dignity and propriety, and to be removed from office if they didn't -- see Profumo for details. He spent the next few decades rehabilitating his image via charity work after messing about with a "good time girl" who also played footsie with Russian spies.

                        During the Thatcher administration, any MP (even Cabinet members) who stepped out of line got chucked out of office pretty damn quick. I'm thinking of philanderer Cecil Parkinson here.

                        Then Bill Clinton got a public spanking for messing with Lewinsky. I know that some of his accusers had their little bits on the side at the same time, but I didn't know it then. The point is, politicians who misbehaved were SEEN to be punished for breaking the rules (Clinton still has to put up with jibes about his conduct). These days, anything goes. There's no bottom where vice and graft are concerned and, for those at the top of the greasy pole, no consequences.

                        Am I the only one who totally needs to see some toerag get impeached if only to preserve the idea that doing Naughty Things has consequences? Nobody should be above the law, but today they are.

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

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:30am

                        Re: Re:

                        There are stupid enough stories to be somewhat similar to Trump asking for assistance in that way but I don't even care to read the longer descriptions of the allegations of those long ago events or even look for them again.

                        Then we have no obligation to take what you say to be in any way factually accurate.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:59am

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

                    "Historically we haven't swung to any new extremes"

                    Putting ones head in the sand does not make the threat go away. I realize that lying to one's self can help but in the end makes you crazy. So it's better to be honest and face reality, or at least that is what many try to do.

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

            • icon
              Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yep.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

      Re:

      Bush 43 is no saint.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:43am

        Re: Re:

        I've never met a saint. Do you know any?

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

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 8:17am

        Re: Re:

        Compared to 45, anyone would look like a saint.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, I remember that billboard back in 2009 where W is smiling and asking Miss Me Yet?

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

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:38pm

            I hate myself for saying this, but I would rather have Dubya in the White House again if that would get Trump out of it.

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

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 3:08pm

              Dubya instead of Trump

              The thing is President Bush was awful enough for us to bicker about torturing and massacring innocent Muslims, but not awful enough to drive us towards radical reform.

              Hopefully Trump is awful enough for us to make that change. And I'd rather have him for four more years to compel us to set the nation right, than someone like Biden or Harris who will serve as a band-aid on a deep-festering wound.

              It may be too late anyway, and unless the Democrats sweep in 2020 and then make good on immense overwhelming reforms, we may still see someone even worse than Trump in 2024 or 2028 when not enough has changed and elections are still rigged.

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

              • icon
                Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 5:46am

                Re: Dubya instead of Trump

                I can totally see that, Uriel. Instead of rooting out corruption, it's okay if our guy does it.

                The Neocons are the worst shower I've ever seen in terms of their attitudes to People Who Are Not Like Us. The more openly fascist politicians, etc., wear their stinking evil on their sleeves but the Neocons are able to get enough makeup on the pig to make it pass for almost human. Their ability to present themselves as the adults in the room (with little in the way of challenge) is what keeps them in power. We need to be more willing to call them out on their crap.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:08am

                Re: Dubya instead of Trump

                "unless the Democrats sweep in 2020 and then make good on immense overwhelming reforms"

                It would benefit everyone if the corporate world were to resist the urge to stomp any and all efforts to effect positive change. I find it difficult to believe the corporate world thinks everything is just fine as it is. Why are they so petrified of any change? They blame the stockholders demands for profit, I think there is more to it.

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

  • icon
    restless94110 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:02am

    Hypocracy Much?

    And not a word in your article about the exact same issue of Trump's use of Nickleback?

    Wow, what a blind man.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 6:57am

    It is difficult, if not impossible, to see something as being “transformative” when all that appears to have been done is overlay one video over another and without any change whatsoever to the video secured by copyright. Unless, of course, one is simply anti-copyright and misses no opportunity to rail against this longstanding law.

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

    • identicon
      A Guy, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:09am

      Re:

      Since it's being discussed here it is now "newsworthy" as fair use. There are many ways things can become fair use.

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

    • identicon
      Rocky, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:13am

      Re:

      The video is a form of social commentary which counts as transformative.

      Someone could have taken the DeGeneres video and replaced her face with a derp face throughout and it would have been transformative even though it would take minimal effort.

      Unless, of course, one is simply pro-copyright and misses no opportunity to use copyright as a corporate censorship-tool.

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:24am

        Re: Re:

        Someone could have taken the DeGeneres video and replaced her face with a derp face throughout

        But given that they never bothered to actually do that operation, how you figure it was transformative? The operation you call as "minimal effort" is still burdensome enough that these clowns never bothered to do it. If the operation "is possible" doesnt mean the clowns actually did that or even contemplated of doing it.

        I could have taken the video and burned the vhs tapes in my backyard, and that would remove illegal status on my pirate collection, but since that haven't yet happened, any amount of "could have taken" does not apply.

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

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          But given that they never bothered to actually do that operation, how you figure it was transformative?

          "Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work."

          That's how.

          https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character,

            This somehow also applies even if the clowns did nothing to further this purpose or character?

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

            • identicon
              A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 6:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              How is changing the purpose and character from what it was initially to slandering Ellen and Bush not different?

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 7:43am

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

                How is changing the purpose and character from what it was initially to slandering Ellen and Bush not different?

                Copying only selected part of a work is still considered copyright infringement, even though the selection process has some innovative elements recarding which clips were chosen and what content was discarded. But the amount of original content in such content selections is not high enough to qualify for separate copyright. Same happens with the purpose and character determination, a mere content selection or restricting the scope or size of the content copied does not transform the purpose and character, given that it's only an intersection of the behaviour that was already included in the original work.

                As described other place in this thread, the extension of the scope using other author's works is not considered good enough for transformation either. So both set intersection, and scope extension has been ruled out from the consideration. What remains is actually original work where slowly exploring the problem space results in entering completely new areas which wasn't available in any of the base products the video relies on.

                Of course news publishers might have some deadlines to meet, given that they need to output tons of news items in very short amount of time, so such publishers are not required to invent the news themselves, but instead they should examine the world around them and find newsworthy items to publish. But it shouldnt be just republishing what other news agencies have found out, but also do their own research on newsworthy phenomenons in the world, usually the reporters need to have their own camera equipment so that they can get the best view of the president for their publication. They also need to apply for permissions to meet the president, and that permission is very easy to lose, given that the president can only meet the most important publications that are available in the world. And once they have received newsworthy view of president's hair, they can sell it to other publications according to whatever rules president's office has placed for the presidential clips. But anyway, permission is always (somehow) required for these operations.

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

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:32am

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

                  You're (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that this was not just an excerpt from the video, but had commentary added to it. This is what changed the nature and purpose of the work.

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

                  • icon
                    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:43am

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

                    You're (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that this was not just an excerpt from the video, but had commentary added to it.

                    Sure, but placing some idiot talking about a movie clip does not remove the copyright infringement. Adding any (even original) content to a copyight infringing work does not remove the infringement.

                    All of youtube thinks that if they comment or critisize existing work, they don't need to follow copyright's limitations at all. This seems to be false, given that fair use analysis only happens after both parties have spent millions in lawyers fees.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:48am

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

                      "Sure, but placing some idiot talking about a movie clip does not remove the copyright infringement."

                      Except, the law literally states that it does do that. Fair use provisions say that commentary/review makes it fair use.

                      "This seems to be false, given that fair use analysis only happens after both parties have spent millions in lawyers fees"

                      I repeat, I'm glad I live in the real world and not the nightmare in your head.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:52am

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

                        repeat, I'm glad I live in the real world and not the nightmare in your head.

                        This millions number comes from oracle vs google java api copyright fight, their literally spent millions before courts even considered their fair use arguments.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:58am

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

                          "This millions number comes from oracle vs google java api copyright fight"

                          Ah, so a completely different and vastly more complicated case than the one we're actually talking about?

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:02am

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

                            Ah, so a completely different and vastly more complicated case than the one we're actually talking about?

                            Both google and oracle are experts at complicated (software) logic. If they cannot figure out a way to avoid millions in lawyers fees, then noone can.

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

                            • icon
                              Toom1275 (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:56am

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

                              Actually, the solution is simple, in theory.

                              All that was needed was for Oracle to not be dirty, lying thieves.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 1:51pm

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

                              Well, unless one side is intent on finding a pretext to get their hands of some of the other sides money, and apply you type of infringement analysis. Google did not copy any code, but the minimum, that is the APIs, to keep to the Java Standards.

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

                    • icon
                      nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:18am

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

                      I'm curious why you keep insisting on misunderstanding fair use. It's been explained to you repeatedly, and yet you keep mischaracterizing it. Do you have a job that involves reliance on enforcement of copyrights, or work that is threatened by people making fair use of copyrighted materials? I don't think you're just too dumb to get it, so I'm trying to think of a motivation. Perhaps you just cannot stand to admit you were wrong.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:32am

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

                        Do you have a job that involves reliance on enforcement of copyrights

                        I'm author of some software (that never generated any money even after years of work)

                        or work that is threatened by people making fair use of copyrighted materials? I

                        Competitors that use illegal or dubious practises to get their product more popular than what ordinary authors can do are a threat to the author's (future) income. For example, if wikipedia decides to publish millions of documents, its a clear competitor which eats our popularity. When we find out that they didn't create the content themselves, but instead auto-licensed the content, it means that they're doing something evil that is not available to us. Same issue is with youtube, they didn't create the content that made them popular.

                        so I'm trying to think of a motivation.

                        Europe doesn't have fair use available in the same way as US have. We actually need to follow copyright to the letter, even if it feels draconian.

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

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 11:29am

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

                          Competitors that use illegal or dubious practises to get their product more popular than what ordinary authors can do are a threat to the author's (future) income.

                          Except we're talking about things that are fair use. Someone copying your work without adding anything to it, and using it in the same way you use it is not going to be fair use. So you are once again ignoring how fair use works.

                          Europe doesn't have fair use available in the same way as US have.

                          Perhaps you have just been assuming you know more about US fair use than you actually do. Maybe learn more about it before making yourself look uninformed. Europe does have some form of fair dealing exceptions, but I don't really know how it works.

                          We actually need to follow copyright to the letter, even if it feels draconian.

                          So do people in the US. Fair use is not some extralegal action that lets people get away with crimes. It is part of the law, and someone relying on a fair use exception to copyright protection is obeying the law.

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

                          • icon
                            tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:15pm

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

                            Except we're talking about things that are fair use.

                            Fair use has a reputation of being "ignore copyright" kind of law. Everyone who seems to use it, had some kind of grudge against the rules that copyright is enforcing. They don't bother to ask for permission, but instead they want to use the work without compensation. If they happen to get a license to the product, they fail to follow the limitations that the license places on any lilcensees. So it's more "ignore copyright" than actually trying to follow the law as originally intended.

                            When is the last time you read the license and started following all the rules that it enforces? If copyright's rules sound draconian to you, why would the more burdensome license's rules be any better?

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

                            • identicon
                              A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:20pm

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

                              This is actually an easy one.

                              Fair use comes directly from supreme court precedents that limit copyright to comply with free speech. If you don't like free speech get out.

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

                              • icon
                                tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:38pm

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

                                Fair use comes directly from supreme court precedents that limit copyright to comply with free speech.

                                If free speech is the actual issue, why would all the people who rely on fair use exceptions go there to get "ignore copyright"? They don't seem to be concerned about their speech being somehow suppressed, but instead they simply don't want to follow (any) draconian rules since they feel rule following is somehow pressuring them to do stuff that they don't want to do.

                                What exactly is the free speech issue this "ignore copyright" is solving?

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

                                • identicon
                                  A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 12:54pm

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

                                  "If you don't like free speech get out" really is the rest of that.

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

                                • icon
                                  nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:44pm

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

                                  What exactly is the free speech issue this "ignore copyright" is solving?

                                  Assuming by "ignore copyright" you mean fair use, and that's an honest question, and you are actually willing to read with an open mind and learn:

                                  "Copyright, which is also grounded in the Constitution, gives the rightholder an exclusive legal right over his work, allowing him to restrict access to it, prevent others from using or reproducing it. If this were all there was to copyright law, a rightholder could certainly use his exclusive rights to block criticism and discussion, stifling free speech. Without proper safeguards, copyright law could conflict with the right to freedom of speech by giving the rightholder censorship rights."

                                  https://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/the-first-amendment-and-copyright-law-cant-we-all-just -get-along/

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

                            • icon
                              nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:42pm

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

                              Fair use has a reputation of being "ignore copyright" kind of law. Everyone who seems to use it, had some kind of grudge against the rules that copyright is enforcing.

                              This sounds like a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions that have no grounding in reality and reflect - in my opinion - a near total ignorance of what fair use is and what it's used for. Which is exactly what I would expect from you at this point.

                              They don't bother to ask for permission, but instead they want to use the work without compensation.

                              There is no need to ask permission or provide compensation when making fair use of a work.

                              If they happen to get a license to the product

                              Totally different topic, since licensing and fair use are more or less mutually exclusive.

                              When is the last time you read the license and started following all the rules that it enforces?

                              All the time - every time I use a software library I find on the internet. What is your point?

                              If copyright's rules sound draconian to you, why would the more burdensome license's rules be any better?

                              How is that relevant to a discussion about fair use?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      All you have done is place one word after another, describing the transformation, and then denying it is transformative, no sense to be found there.

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

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:15am

      Re:

      It is difficult, if not impossible, to see something as being "transformative" when one fails to recognize the purpose of copyright as explained in the Constitution, or is blind to the fact that the background video is the commentary. Unless, of course, one is simply a copyright maximalist who misses no opportunity to rail against any use clearly allowed by the longstanding fair use rules.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 8:18am

        Re: Re:

        Perhaps you might consider doing the persons here a favor by explaining to them the purpose underlying Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. I suspect your response would likely reveal where your understanding of the law went off the tracks.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:32am

      Re:

      How's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along, Slonecker?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 8:59am

      Re:

      You could just save everyone some time and write "I don't know what transformative means."

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:46am

      Re:

      Where did you get the idea that the video must be changed in order for the use to be transformative?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 11:15am

        Re: Re:

        Caselaw, among others.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 12:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Got any case citations?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          “I don’t have to give you the proof! Go read it! It’s written in books! You just won’t read it! It’s all over the Internet! Go read it! I have the proof.”

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:16pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yawn...more musings from yet another person unashamed to weigh in on matters for which he or she possesses no substantive experience. Have you even read for comprehension any of the provisions set out in Title 17 of the USC?

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

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:56pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Have you even read for comprehension any of the provisions set out in Title 17 of the USC?

              Title 17 is pretty big. What part exactly specifies requirements for fair use with regard to video editing?

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

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:59pm

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

                §107 explained, according to copyright.gov :

                Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

                Which does not seem to exclude changing the context of content counting as transformative.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:04pm

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

                  Perhaps you missed the fact that no change was made to the expression contained in the original work. To my knowledge, no court has to date expanded the concept of transformation to the breadth you and others here so glibly toss around like you actually know what you are talking about.

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

                  • icon
                    Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:39pm

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

                    took Ellen's "be nice to each other" monologue about the situation and superimposed images on the back screen of what appears to be scenes of devastation in the Middle East that

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

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 6:01am

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

                    Perhaps you missed the fact that no change was made to the expression contained in the original work. To my knowledge, no court has to date expanded the concept of transformation to the breadth you and others here so glibly toss around like you actually know what you are talking about.

                    "Libraries that provided a search engine company (Google) with books to scan were protected by fair use when the libraries later used the resulting digital scans for three purposes: preservation, a full-text search engine, and electronic access for disabled patrons who could not read the print versions."

                    Obviously they didn't change anything about the text.

                    "A publisher of monster magazines from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s sued the creator and publisher of a book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos... The district court determined that the use was transformative. The use was for a biography/retrospective of the artist, not simply a series of covers of magazines devoted to movie monsters."

                    Again, no change to the art.

                    "A seven-second clip from the Ed Sullivan TV show was used in a staged musical history (“The Jersey Boys”) based on the career of the musical group the Four Seasons. The use was transformative (“Being selected by Ed Sullivan to perform on his show was evidence of the band’s enduring prominence in American music,” the judge wrote in the ruling. “By using it as a biographical anchor, [the defendant] put the clip to its own transformative ends.”)"

                    How many of these do you need?

                    "In White v. West Publishing, the district court ruled that legal databases such as Westlaw and Lexis could incorporate legal briefs into their databases, as such searchable use of court-filed documents was transformative (and therefore excusable as a fair use). The use was transformative because the lawyers created the briefs to assist their clients, but the legal services were using the briefs as research tools."

                    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html

                    And you still have not provided a scrap of evidence for your claim that the video must be altered in order for the use to be fair use. Clearly this is because there is no such evidence, but would you be willing to admit that?

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:35am

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

                      You are conflating traditional fair use analysis with transformativeness.

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

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 11 Oct 2019 @ 10:04am

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

                        You are conflating traditional fair use analysis with transformativeness.

                        "The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that "transformative" uses of copyrighted work can deeply affect the analysis of the first factor."

                        The first factor being nature and purpose of the use. What is the "traditional fair use analysis" that you refer to that doesn't take transformativeness into account?

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

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 10:27pm

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

                  Given critique and commentary of a piece all but require said piece to stay mostly the same to work it would be quite the stretch to say that adding commentary to highlight an apparently contradiction wouldn't qualify given such a use would easily meet the first and second parts of the definition(adding new content in the form of critique/commentary, with the purpose of that new content to examine/deconstruct the original work), and probably meet the third(it's possible someone could check out a critique rather than the original, but given the significant different the numbers are likely very low.)

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

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yawn...more musings from yet another person unashamed to weigh in on matters for which he or she possesses no substantive experience.

              An excellent self-description. Bravo.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2019 @ 8:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It's funny how you're so self-assured that you don't feel a need to actually put forth any argument.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2019 @ 7:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The internet is my proof

            • LOL
              That's funny!

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

      • icon
        tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:55am

        Re: Re:

        Where did you get the idea that the video must be changed in order for the use to be transformative?

        There's well grounded principle that copyright infringement does not disappear if you include other content to the same pirate collection. It's based on definition of "attach", i.e. merely collecting video clips to same folder or filesystem and making a bigger collection, does not remove the copyright infringements included in the collection. Illegal status of your pirate collection does not disappear if you include more (illegal) content to the collection.

        Making another video clip that contains pirated clips as subpart is very very near this "folder attach" operation.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "There's well grounded principle that copyright infringement does not disappear if you include other content to the same pirate collection"

          You've been quiet for a while, but sadly, you haven't acquainted yourself with reality during your absence.

          Here in the world the rest of us inhabit, fair use is a thing, and if something is fair use it is not pirated. Creating a transformative work is therefore not piracy under the terms of what you're addressing, thus everything you said is wrong.

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

          • icon
            tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Here in the world the rest of us inhabit, fair use is a thing, and if something is fair use it is not pirated.

            To determine piracy, you just need to identify "one" element of copied or pirated content, and it makes the whole collection of copyrighted works fall into illegal status.

            Once you've got illegal status on the collection, extending it to other content is easy.

            Creating copyrighted works is tricky business, you actually need to use your lawyer-hat more than authors normally would want to use.

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

            • icon
              tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 4:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You just need to identify "one" element of copied or pirated content, and it makes the whole collection of copyrighted works fall into illegal status.

              Let me still explain the scope externsion idea. It's based on the fact that piracy collections are usually composed of multiple items coming from different authors. One author working alone, can only identify piracy of his own works, and status of the other content in the collection remains unknown, given that the author cannot check whether other authors have granted licenses to the content. Thus the scope extension is needed so that individual authors can claim the pirate collection to be illegal when identifying single element of pirated content in the collection.

              Thus creating copyrighted content, you need to be aware that single element of pirated content can ruin your whole work, even if you spent years finetuning the work.

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

              • identicon
                A Guy, 14 Oct 2019 @ 4:55am

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

                That isn't even close to what the U.S. Supreme court has said. You are either ill informed or arguing about foreign law.

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

                • icon
                  tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:09am

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

                  That isn't even close to what the U.S. Supreme court has said.

                  The supreme court needs to focus on the paperwork that is provided for them. They probably considered completely different question.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:14am

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

                "Thus creating copyrighted content, you need to be aware that single element of pirated content can ruin your whole work, even if you spent years finetuning the work."

                Well, since you're completely wrong, I can only say that, thankfully, the real world isn't as idiotic as the one you've invented.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "To determine piracy, you just need to identify "one" element of copied or pirated content"

              No, you apply the full law, which includes a fair use defence to allow something that would otherwise be considered infringing.

              "Creating copyrighted works is tricky business"

              Given that almost everything is automatically assigned a copyrighted status unless otherwise deemed infringing, it's really not. The selling it is the hard part, as your well documented failures should have shown you.

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

              • icon
                tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:25am

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

                No, you apply the full law, which includes a fair use defence to allow something that would otherwise be considered infringing.

                That only happens after you've been marked criminal and your reputation was ruined in local newspapers.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 5:57am

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

                  "That only happens after you've been marked criminal"

                  For breaking civil law, and before you've been allowed to use the defences allowed to you by the very law you're supposed to have broken?

                  Again, I'm glad reality does not conform to your delusions.

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

                  • icon
                    tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 10:23am

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

                    For breaking civil law, and before you've been allowed to use the defences allowed to you by the very law you're supposed to have broken?

                    Yes, the logic goes as follows:
                    1) newspaper gets a hint that a company breaks copyright law
                    2) newspaper checks the information by comparing the products in question
                    3) the company gets a chance to comment on the allegations
                    4) newspapers have a deadline to meet, so publish date on the information has been set as the next monday
                    5) your company reputation is ruined

                    There's no legal process or proper defences in this process. A qualified judge is not involved until alot later....

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 8:21pm

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

                      A qualified judge is not involved until alot later....

                      Thanks for confirming that oftentimes, copyright law is enforced by people you deem unqualified.

                      Still waiting for your Minecraft mansion? In the States, those are generally only given out after a period of getting on your knees and holding your breath.

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

                      • icon
                        tp (profile), 14 Oct 2019 @ 9:13pm

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

                        Still waiting for your Minecraft mansion?

                        Sad part about the mansion is that everyone involved had their chance to help me with the mansion plans. A digital copy of mansion plans was only thing required. and we didn't even get that, much less anyone qualified for building a working mansion.

                        If youtube and wikipedia can get millions of people helping with their future plans, howcome my poor web site gets noone? Given that youtube or wikipedia already have their plans in good shape, can't they afford to borrow few of their millions of plan developers for my mansion's plans? And I didn't even need to talk about children playing minecraft...

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 9:51am

      The amount of effort put into a transformative work is not relevant to whether it is transformative.

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

  • icon
    Rico R. (profile), 10 Oct 2019 @ 10:20am

    The penultimate embedded tweet in this article now has ALSO been taken down due to a DMCA Notice.

    When I say, “Be kind to one another,” I don’t mean only the people who think the same way you do. I mean, “Be kind to everyone.”

    Tell me how taking down a transformative video with copyright because you don’t like it’s message doesn’t fly in the face of this message? Ellen DeGeneres, you’ve got some explaining to do!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 2:19pm

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2019 @ 7:40pm

      Re:

      There's something about copyright law that basically turns the brain of whoever uses it into lukewarm tapioca pudding.

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

  • identicon
    tp, 14 Oct 2019 @ 2:42am

    Its not transormative...

    Taking a clip from star wars movie and adding a face of some idiot explaning what exactly is happening in the movie scene is not a transformative usage of the video clip. Users still perceive it as a ripoff of the movie and that is not transformative.

    Your video about president Bush seems to have the same issue. Taking someone elses video clip is still illegal copyright infringement, even if you "attach" it with tons of your own content. Mixing and matching of unlicensed content to your own video is still "usage of unlicensed content". The issue is that attaching other content to your pirated videos does not remove the copyright infringements. Only removal of the pirated sections can do that.

    If your video shows face of president Bush without obtaining license from whoever recorded the video, it's still called copyright infringement.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2019 @ 3:38pm

    Predictably, the EFF has criticized what it considers the ease by which DMCA takedowns may be filed, noting that a complainant should take fair use into consideration before issuing a takedown notice.

    Importantly, and something largely lost here, it offers no opinion on whether or not the use of the video was a fair use. The author of the article here tosses around the term “transformative” as if its applicability here is beyond any dispute. Perhaps the author would be proven correct after a trial on the merits, but in this instance predicting the ultimate outcome is quite difficult, with strong arguments supporti

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.