So the whole "good faith" part of a DMCA take down notice is, once again, confirmed as being irrelevant. There need to be severe repercussions for these kind of blanket take downs where not even a modicum of checking has been done to ensure that what you're taking down is actually infringing upon your IP.
I'd suggest a fine based on a day fine model. Just took down 300 sites/videos which have nothing to do with your IP and aren't infringing in any way whatsoever? A day fine per non-infringement. Feel free to explain to your shareholders why you've just given away nearly an entire year's worth of profits through sheer incompetence.
*edit: Mi spel guhd
1) the pixels movie in 2010 can be seen as an inspiration for the Sandler-ized recent release (though it can be argued Futurama was the original inspiration). So you're taking down your (possible) inspiration? Nice.
2) without seeing any but the 2010 film in YouTube, I'm still sure all would be better than sandler's film and his should be taken down.
3) pixels is such a generic word, how can you do a blanket DMCA on it? It's like taking down any song with Note in the title. Foolish.
Especially in gaming, there's hundreds if not thousands of games that use pixel in some way to promote the game
Pfft, that's nothing, have it be so that when a false DMCA is issued the company making the claim is suspended from using the service, all of their content becomes unlisted for a set period of time, and they're ads are removed from adsense.
This would make every major entertainment corporation in America shit itself in fear.
Google has fucking teeth and it pisses me off how they try to represent themselves as the good intentioned but limited company being bullied by the big corporate meanies.
That's such fucking bullshit. Guess I know which movie I won't be seeing in theatres now. (Let's be real though, I wasn't going to see it before this anyways)
the movie uses voxels, not pixels.
shouldn't they be sued for false advertising their movie?
I saw one review that said they hated it so much they were no longer rooting for Peter Dinklage in Game of Thrones.
This firm is the anti-piracy equivalent of patenttrolls.
In fairness to Google, they wouldn't really gain anything except a whole lot of liability if they started acting as an enforcement agency for DMCA abuse.
Sony actually acquired the 2010 short, and the film is directly based on it [source] so I would guess that the acquisition included distribution rights.
You're right though, it's such a generic word that I think the only time someone would get in trouble is by releasing a similar-looking film also called Pixels.
The law should allow places like Vimeo and YouTube to fine these people for false DCMA takedowns. After all, it's hurting their services and that's how they make money. Someone from the services in question should be allowed to take a quick skim over the video in question and see if it relates to the Pixels movie and be able to fine the DCMA requester if it doesn't.
They aren't enforcing anything they are merely putting in rudimentary safeguards to an automated service they provide that has consistently and maliciously been abused.
When I want to set the size of a form element I use pixels or percents. In our field it is a unit of measurement.
Sounds like blatantly false reports should have the chance of paying the fines/damages they would have demanded of the victim.
Blanket DMCA notices are ridiculous in the first place, but to issue one for anyone using such a common computer term as 'pixels' should be criminal. I understand these video hosting sites want to err on the side of caution, but come on, you have to draw the line somewhere. There needs to be a strike system for false DMCA claims as well so these companies will at least look at the videos they are filing a DMCA notice for, not just send a bot out with a search term.
Also, I thought titles couldn't be registered; at least /sub/writing and Tumblr are always saying that.
This sounds like a great name for the world's worst hair salon
Last, but certainly not least, Entura rounded off this disaster by taking down the official Pixels movie trailer, even though their very own notice lists their errors clearly.
They fucking DMCA'd themselves. WTF. ROFLMAO. LOL. OBGYN. NSA.
They aren't going after the name. They are trying to take down everything that says pixels on the off chance it is either a) the movie, or b) a game based on the movie without consent.
Literally a CAPTCHA.
It's pretty much a unit of measurement in anything relating to web development.
I patent a magical potion of immortality; when someone else actually produces it and starts making money, that's when I come in an reap my unjust awards. I had an idea, didn't follow thru, but gosh darn it I want money.
Man this is gonna be a tough time for the game "Pixel Piracy"..
You know if all these people affected sued these guys for filing false DMCA requests they would be out of money in no time and never do this kind of shit again.
What I am not getting here is how they can attack things created before their movie came out for having a similar name? I guess maybe I am missing the point but how do you pursue someone for infringing your copyright with material predating the existence of said copyright?
You can't. But dumb automated takedown systems often fire off DMCA notices for anything that has the phrase in the title on the assumption that it's pirated content, and the current DMCA system does not result in that negligent action earning them any punishment or penalty whatsoever.
It's not on purpose, it's just through not giving a fuck about collateral damage.
Where does this change need to be made? Is this something that Congress will need to deal with? Is anything in the works to get something like this done?
I've heard about these bogus claims for YEARS, but I haven't ever heard about what is being done about it!
He seems upset.
who the frakk would want to make a game from that movie
Media companies. Says it all really. Run by morons who are more interested in their bank balance than creativity.
uhh hate to tell you this but vimeo doesn't even run ads.
Found the uninformed savage.
4) 3D pixels are called voxels.
Yeah, that. But I think the audience would see "voxel? Is that some German film?" Hmm, maybe they wouldn't go then. And the world would be better off
I was thinking a taste of their own medicine. For every confirmed false takedown, mob all of their media we can find with false takedown requests. I would imagine that a couple thousand flags for google to sort through, as well as the time and resources the company has to go through would get these laws changed in a hurry.
No, don't. It's not worth your pixels.
Also, nobody uses Vimeo, so they wouldn't even notice the boycott.
px is pixel in this case.
Go to the app store on your phone. Go through the apps.
The goal is to make a shitty game, slap some ads on it, brand it similar to whatever is possibly popular and wait for ad revenue to roll in.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
Each "potential sale" amounting to trillions, kind of like what Hollywood claimed against Napster.
Where does this change need to be made? Is this something that Congress will need to deal with?
Pretty much. Until the DMCA has punishments for false claims in place, there's no reason to not throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. At the moment it's written so that you need to prove "bad faith" on part of the group sending the takedown.
but the movie is based on pixels from games, not what tech the movie has.
I don't think they need to worry about people pirating that piece of crap.
Nah, the formatting is correct, I just like to enclose source links within square brackets for aesthetics.
And let's be real, Dinklage isn't in acting so he could be some profound star. He's in it to make money
Not exactly correct. He's turned down a lot of midget exploitation gigs because he wants to be taken seriously and not seen as just a little person. He is in it for the money, of course, but he's got standards.
thanks for you contribution
Ah, selling drugs and using a nice burner phone. Smart choice.
Pixels are extremely common in web development. Every time you specify how big something is, you're either measuring it in pixels or as a percentage of the total available screen area.
I guess that guy was out of his xelement.
Yeah? Let's see how they like a taste of their own medicine.
This is Entura international, bag of dicks: http://entura.co.uk/
This is Entura, a nice and entirely different company: http://www.entura.com.au/
And this is the movie The International: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963178/
Now where's one of these magic letters?
That is not at all the way copyright law is supposed to work. Something has to be a copy or a derivative work in order to be infringing. Using the same generic term does not make something a derivative work. Anything created beforehand is by definition not a derivative work.
However, the way copyright law, specifically the DMCA works, is that a host must take down content immediately if the copyright holder claims, under penalty of perjury, that the content is infringing. No trial takes place, no court is involved. The poster can file a counterclaim, and then if there's still a dispute, it can go to trial.
There really needs to be stiff penalties for taking down non-pirated content under the pretense of piracy prevention. These groups should be made cautious enough to at least watch the content they are taking down first. If there is NO penalty for this then the cheapest, easiest option is to cast a wide net on anything that might possibly be targetable.
I hope nobody every makes a move called "The."
Can't be. The story from Futurama was actually entertaining.
I believe DMCA has a "good faith" clause, but it has the teeth of a newborn.
Companies like google and vimeo should be able to disallow these people to claim copyright if they abuse it, like they have in this and many other cases.
Huh. This doesn't sound so bad. Sony has its own Youtube channels, and a lot of music on Vevo. Why don't we start now?
Suppose you invent a new drug that treats <insert disease>. It cost €12b to research and develop, but only costs €0.04/pill to manufacture. Are you telling me you should only factor in the manufacturing costs when deciding the sale price?
I have another idea, if you abuse your copyright then you should be declared a copyright troll and lose your intellectual property completely. That is how you scare a company.
Sony, this is the company that put CD rootkits in to their customers computers and had to order by the courts to remove them, then hide another rootkit in the uninstaller, retracted linux from the ps3, infect blu-ray standard with cinavia DRM, sued children for rooting devices, the list goes on for ever. They are anti-consumer scum that succeed through lies and deception.
Huge fines are the only thing that most companies give the slightest fuck about. Every decision is a cost analysis and fuck morality, ethics or just not being a sociopathic sack of shit. Are the likely fines less than the price of fixing an issue? Then fuck it, we'll soak up the fines and screw the lives we've ruined.
No, I'm not at all disillusioned from working in finance, why do you ask?
This is stupid, who would want to pirate such a bad movie?
No no, it is not actually that easy, pointless patents with no actual chance of producing anything are turned down. Unless you happen to be good friends with some judge (any judge from Texas usually does the trick) then you can file whatever crap patent you want and succeed.
I've done a little bit of Android development and I've seen pixels used in relation to measurements. I'd imagine it's the same for web development.
What's even more infuriating is the things in the movie aren't even 'pixels', they're 'voxels'.
Everything has upfront costs to produce. A new car model needs engineers to design it, prototypes need to be built and tested. Movies aren't special in that regard. However, once a new car model is made the company has costs for each individual car they manufacture. Movies on the other hand do not have extra costs added with each digital copy they sell.
Movies (and music, novels, games...) have unlimited supply, which puts them at an advantage over industries that produce physical goods and services. Yet they want the exact same protections as these other industries.
They're also happy to change the purpose of copyright. When the concept of copyright was first introduced into law, copyrights had much shorter terms and according to the US Constitution the main purpose was (still is) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
The benefit to society was the goal, not the benefit to the artist/inventor. Inventors and artists received protections for their work only because it was thought that this would encourage them to invent things/create art.
But today industries have successfully spread the idea that inventors and artists should benefit indefinitely from their work. Lots of people agree with this now and will tell you that it's theft to download a classic song from 30 years ago. The Constitution hasn't changed though, copyright terms have been extended but the original intent of copyright protections is still written the same.
I have no problems with movies getting the same legal protections as physical goods, but in return studios should set in advance a fixed amount of copies they intend to sell. They should be taxed accordingly and should not be allowed to exceed that set number of copies. They want the benefits of physical goods industries, they should bear the burdens as well. Of course they will never agree to that, because they want movies to be treated like finite physical goods when it suits them, but like infinite digital goods when that suits them too.
Gotta get the supreme court justice to roll a D20 on that. "If it rolls higher than 15, you don't have to pay."
"Ooooh, your incompetence has come into the public eye! You have to pay the fine, and are disbarred!"
Lets all go watch a pirated version instead.
Their choice of name willl give tons of 'fun' for a long while...
Reminds me of some dev that was planning on doing a pirate themed game. He said that he googled 'pirate music' and his reaction was essentially 'I dont know what I expected'.
That is the single most eviscerating review of a movie I have seen in a very long time.....
This is why these things need to be tackled at the governmental level. The alternatively is, rather obviously now, corporate plutocracy.
The should be sued for false advertising based on the fact that they called it a movie, rather than a stain on the collective souls of all mankind.
Volume + pixel = voxel
According to Wikipedia the Adam Sandler movie IS based off the Pixels short film.
PIXELS! PIXELS! PIXELS!
We could try and give Youtube a Reddit Hug. Just spam them with the same complain email from all our accounts, until they do something. We could also crowdfund hiring John Oliver to do a video about it.
Best way for us to get Vimeo to pay attention would be a widespread boycott of their services. A week or two of their site traffic hitting rock bottom, and subsequently their ad revenues, and they might start to take the user base seriously.
Hopefully, that would get Google on board, but I fear they may just be too big to care.
Vox from volume and el from element
My partner and I have been working on an indie game called Pixel longer than the 2015 movie has even been in development. I know "pixel" isn't the same word as "pixels" so it may not matter, but if there is ever an issue, we can definitely prove we predate them.
Our booth at MomoCon was actually right by the Pixels booth, which resulted in confusion. Some press even called our game "Pixels" in their coverage.
picture + element = pixel
Only if you were dealing with the honest part of the patent office, which I've been told exists. But some of the patents that got through, like:
The little draggable bit in the bottom right of a chatbox being clickable so as to drag it and resize the chat box, got patented. The computer used to do so likely runs Windows, which had draggable windows for years before for that patent was dated. But it was so basic noone ever thought to patent 'drag to resize'. No way I believe that whomever accepted that didn't know 'drag to resize' was an existing technology, regardless of there not being a patent on it already, it already existed made by a different company you would not even need to look away from the screen to verify that.
In stark contrast to that when small startups try to get their ideas patented they get rejected because they did not know the proper channels to go through to bribe their way to a patent.
(arguably, there are a lot of startups with shitty ideas though, if I had to read through 100s of them each day I would probably get overzealous with the [DECLINED] stamp as well)
shit, i think i just got lawyered...
Isn't that movie a rip off of a story from futurama??
Vo from volume...
Vox is Latin for voice.
Three strike policy?
If you keep giving shit claims, they clearly don't understand copyright, so why should they have the rights to it?
YARR I HEAR THEY BE A BAY WITH ALL THE PIRATE'S BOOTY A MAN COULD WANT
if I had to read through 100s of them each day I would probably get overzealous with the [DECLINED] stamp as well
played papers please, can verify
Protip: Switch the parentheses and the brackets!
DON'T MAKE ME DOWNLOAD THIS CAR!
I'm just impressed that the two bands 'The The' and 'A' haven't had their lawyers shut down 90% of the internet.
Given who John Oliver works for, I doubt we'll ever see a DMCA abuse episode.
I'd suggest a fine based on a day fine model
I'd suggest that's useless. I would suggest instead that a DMCA takedown notice is considered true under penalty of perjury and if a takedown notice is sent out incorrectly (even by an honest mistake), SOMEBODY connected with sending the notice goes to jail for a couple of weeks. I bet you would find these notices would stop overnight.
The DMCA has provisions for significant penalties for false takedown notices. It pisses me off no end that it's almost never enforced.
I was under the impression voxels are named for 'volumetic pixels'.
If it's that easy, then the patent for a magical potion of immortality is already owned by someone else.
Which is still a unit of measurement. It simply happens to be one that's relative and not absolute.
So was the original short video that Pixels eventually evolved...err, devolved into.
I think the audiences that would go see this movie probably don't know what the fuck a pixel is either.