Lionsgate commits copyfraud, has classic "Buffy vs Edward" video censored

Discuss

55 Responses to “Lionsgate commits copyfraud, has classic "Buffy vs Edward" video censored”

  1. stasike says:

    There is update in the original article.
    The Youtube video has been reinstated and the 15 minutes penalty has been lifted.
    I wonder if Lionsgate was penalized somehow by Youtube, now that is is known that they DO abuse copyright.

  2. What evil rat bastard did this? Why would you combine two of the dullest franchises ever to grace a screen? May as well mash up paint drying with flies buzzing around a light shade!

    glad I’m not the only one who finds the copyright school bullshit insulting though. Especially considering the fact that copyright infringement put the site into the top spot that it currently enjoys today!

    Fuck ‘em, right in the ear!

    • Snig says:

      No, no, you’re mistaken.  Buffy good, Twighlight bad.  You don’t have to rewatch Twilight, but you should rewatch the first five seasons of Buffy a couple times until you realize your mistake.  Yes, right now.  We’ll wait.  

    • Not liking Buffy is like not liking Scream. You either haven’t watched it, or didn’t get it.

      • Fnordius says:

        Now now, don’t be dissin’ on me like that! Saying I don’t like Buffy because haven’t watched it, or didn’t get it” is just, well, wrong. Buffy (and Scream, for that matter) are like horseradish to me: I know and respect that others enjoy it, but it just ain’t my taste.

        • You didn’t get it then

          ;)

          • Fnordius says:

            So, because it’s not my taste means I don’t get it? Oh dear.

            Look, not every geek likes horror. Just like not everyone likes horseradish. Get over it. :P

          • I’m just messing – my point was merely that those are two often misunderstood pieces of media.
            Unlike Twilight, which is a masterbotory aid for teenage girls.

          • Incidentally, although I was taking the piss a bit – you kind of accidentally touched on my point.

            Scream isn’t so much a horror as a parody of a horror – Buffy, likewise, if not a bonafide parody as a lot of parody elements. That’s what I was getting at when by people not getting it. Regardless, of course, people are still perfectly entitled to not enjoy either :)

          • oasisob1 says:

            Anyone who doesn’t like horseradish either hasn’t tried it, or just doesn’t get it.

          • AnthonyC says:

            I… never thought of Buffy as horror. Interesting.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            So you made an announcement about how you Do Not Like something (which is always fascinating to everyone) and now everyone else needs to get over it?

          • Kramski says:

            Straight guys and lesbians don’t bone dudes, because they just don’t get it. They’re just too stupid to see why it’s great.

            ;)

          • Fnordius says:

            In reply to your reply to me, I thank you. I kinda figured you might be taking the piss, but deadpan humour does not carry well into UTF-8. 

            (insert smiley indicating amusement here)

            Cheers!

          • “deadpan humour does not carry well into UTF-8″

            90% of the things I type on a keyboard carry completely the wrong tone. It’s a curse of our times.

          • Lemoutan says:

             We need a Deadpan Font

        • Andrew Singleton says:

          I think everyone in this thread needs to settle down. S’like my family not liking bladerunner or zombieland. They don’t like it? Fine great room for all sorts of viewpoints. It only gets into ‘wrong’ territory when they get insulting about whati enjoy.

          That or i seriously need to readjust the sarcasm filters.

  3. I’m in a position where I’m going to have to start blaming YouTube for this.

    If they were having to remove videos because of some crazy Sharia law, because they were based in the Middle East – they’d move.

    They’re in a country with batshit crazy copyright laws – they should move.

    • Andrew Singleton says:

      To where? What country isn’t either behelden to batshit crazy copyright law or can’t get strongarmed by those that do?

      • Plenty of places – anywhere without DMCA is a good start.

        Copyright isn’t the problem, the application of it is.

        • oasisob1 says:

          The problem here is that the studios and youtube circumvent the DMCA with the contentID bs. The studios aren’t actually making DMCA claims (in most cases), so they can’t be punished. The studios are working within a system that youtube made, which favors studios, and fucks over uploaders. I think I’ve got that right?
          Also, if you don’t like Buffy, horseradish or Bladerunner, then you haven’t tried them or you just don’t get them. ;-)

          • You may well be on to something there.

            The reason it’s not being fixed though is because of YouTube – however you look at it they’ve become the rightful point of blame. The laws may be the root cause, but bought laws aren’t easy to change.

            I was avoiding the horseradish reference because although lying would be easy – I hate horseradish :(

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Hating horseradish might have a genetic component, in which case it would be correct to say that you just don’t get it.

    • Fnordius says:

      I think you might be on something here, as Vimeo has YouTube to thank for its rise in popularity.

      On a side note, if patent and copyright laws and things like that keep going like they are, we might see competition amongst nations to provide safe havens for tech startups. US law slamming you for a software patent? Resettle to Brazil. German GEMA complaining that the artist royalties are owed? Pull your servers from Germany and resettle to Switzerland.

      I’m actually kind of surprised that this doesn’t come up more often, as companies would then pay taxes where they relocated to.

      Enough side note rambling. For now.

  4. adam says:

    Universal did not get penalized in the dancing baby case. The only thing that happened in 2008 was that the judge said that considerations of fair use were required prior to sending a takedown notice. The case is still before the court. Most recent development is that Judge Fogel said he’s not willing to decide good-faith/knowing misrepresentation without sending it to the fact-finder. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/after-five-years-dancing-baby-youtube-takedown-lawsuit-nears-a-climax/

    There were damages assessed however in a previous case: Online Policy Group v. Diebold, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

  5. howaboutthisdangit says:

    At the very least, YouTube should force all Lionsgate lawyers and executives to complete that copyright education course.

    There should also be some sort of banhammer for repeat DMCA abusers.

    • That_Anonymous_Coward says:

      They gave it lipservice in writing the law, but corporations don’t suffer any penalties for swearing under the penalty of perjury because they just need a good faith belief.
      It would be awesome if a court ruled a good faith belief is not enough, and these corporations would be paying huge fines daily for all of the bogus DMCA things they send out every day.

      • Surely this isn’t good faith though? They were quite clearly playing the DMCA game – if a lawyer doesn’t know about fair use that’s not ‘good faith’, that’s incompetence.

      • adam says:

        A court cannot rule that good faith is not enough. It is in the statute, and courts are bound to apply the law. see 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3)(A)(v). 
        The question arrises though: what is “good faith?” Courts have diverged on whether subjective belief is sufficient, or a stricter objectively reasonable belief standard is required. Also, there is no provision for fines, but rather, only actual damages (including costs and fees though). see 17 U.S.C. §512(f).

    • That’s the problem with DMCA, you can’t start ignoring it, because that’d put YouTube in a very shaky legal situation. They should just prosecute instead, as the this clearly wasn’t in ‘good faith’ and there are provisions in place for exactly this reason.

      Someone just needs to grow some balls.

    • Don says:

      So, crowdsource a legal team that sues Lionsgate lawyers and their ilk?  I don’t imagine EFF has time to take all these cases.

  6. Haven’t seen the video since I refuse to watch it unless I am positive that Edward gets staked.  

  7. littlebrother says:

    Could some make a mashup of vampires and this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE

  8. bkad says:

    I want to thank BoingBoing for posting things like this. Whatever news sites I am reading, they are apparently not the ones that cover things like this, so I really rely on you guys to keep me up to date on pop and Internet culture. The copyright discussion is interesting too, but I don’t know how to fix that problem. 

  9. Tarliman says:

    What if everyone were to refuse to pay for anything Lionsgate produced for thirty days? Or boycott the opening weekends of their movies, and go see them later? Movies are judged as success or failure based on the opening weekend accounting, so if you screw the opening weekend, the studio goes down in flames.

  10. Damien DeBarra says:

    How about crowdfunding the cash for Jonathan McIntosh to get Lionsgate to court?

  11. sarvin says:

    Clearly the government needs to step in with some sort of video-ban. I’m ok with people making and watching videos of Buffy but not Twilight. 

  12. SuperMatt says:

    It occurs to me that part of the problem is the Youtube terms of service.  Don’t we run into similar things on twitter or facebook?  When we allow a large company to own all of our content, we will be subject to their whims.

  13. dhmspector says:

    How is is that repeated willful misuse of the DCMA does not result in criminal charges against these media companies?  Try doing that as a regular citizen and see what happens.   

    It seems to me the only way to deal with the is to make it too painful for the individual lawyers, and where possible their firms to participate.  File complaints with the state bar associations both against the individuals and their firms.  Knowingly participating in an illegal act (e.g., filing false DMCA takedown notices for works you have no legal claim to, or misusing the law to harass, intimidate or threaten) is a death sentence for a lawyers who are, in fact, officers of the court.

  14. Peter says:

    The company claims that since he refused to let them make money off of his creativity, they had “no choice” but to have it censored from YouTube.

    I seem to recall somebody recently writing an article about just this sort of philosophy and the problems with it.

  15. austinhamman says:

    “the ‘audiovisual’ elements in the video were fair use, but the ‘visual’ elements were not” that actually hurt my brain every time i think about it, it’s like a robot in a scifi show being given a paradox and exploding, that’s how my head feels now. i just have to keep saying ‘don’t think about it,don’t think about it,don’t think about it’
    this is worse than loki’s wager, i….gaaah

  16. artnmr says:

    Hi, this is Art Neill from New Media Rights, the organization that helped Jonathan fight the takedown.  We’ve been doing this work for 5 years on a shoe-string budget.  We help folks directly, one-to-one.

    We have 2 attorneys right now (who wear all the hats), but we have enough inquiries and
    work for a much larger staff.

    If you and others are interested in supporting this kind of work, consider supporting us.  We are scrambling to find foundation/donor partners to make sure our services exist past April.

    If someone has a question they can email us at support@newmediarights.org

    Website:

    http://www.newmediarights.org

    Secure donation form.

    http://www.kintera.org/autogen/home/default.asp?ievent=1034481

  17. adonai says:

    Huh, I’d actually downloaded this from Youtube a few weeks back to show someone who didn’t have net access. At least I’ll be able to mirror it when Lionsgate inevitably send a takedown again.

  18. benher says:

    I hate that dopey smarmy “Meh” face that youTube sticks up.
    Are they trying to convince their users that somehow they are some sort of hapless victim / innocent party? It mocks us all, the Meh-face!Sorry if it’s a bit off topic, but I had to post this somewhere on the Internet before I die.

Leave a Reply