They're certainly doing their best to make sure that the word "Pixels" is never associated with any form of entertainment.
The best part is that Pixels short film of old arcade characters attacking New York City is literally the video that the movie is based on.
Why don't companies look at the original upload date? How can it infringe on something that didn't even exist when the video was originally uploaded? Idiots!
Because they don't care and the penalties for abusing the DMCA act are minimal unless you go after someone powerful?
I don't know. Watching the spiraling descent of Adam Sandler's comedy career is kind of entertaining, y'know, in the same way that watching a toddler do a finger painting with SpaghettiOs can be entertaining.
And its award winning, while the full film is a pile of horseshit
EDIT: fat fingers
Fuck the MPAA and the RIAA
More like the standard for abusive DMCA is woefully shitty and generally unarguable in court.
You have to be able to prove without a doubt that the claimant wasn't making a claim "in good faith belief" that it was true.
All anyone has to say in court to a judge is "Oh we were really sorry, our automated pattern matching software made a mistake, we really thought all these claims were true!" and they get off scott free.
You'd have to get an actively pissed-off judge to find against them.
What really funny is that there is a futurama episode where the same thing happens and that episode aired in 2002
I have a plan. I am going to make a movie called "And The: An A Adventure" then file DMCA requests on anything with the words: And, The, An, A, and Adventure. I'm sure I'll be able to make a profit somewhere in doing this.
and sometimes after a hard day
you could say these soulless movies are the perfect complement to our soulless labor. they represent the exhaustion of entertainment for those too exhausted to be entertained. because it sounds funny to say, 'it's a good movie if you go through about 8 hours of hard labor beforehand.'
Honestly, today's copyright laws seem inefficient and outdated in the digital age. There must be a better way to support artists and protect their work.
Mia speaka di Uhhh Ooooohh!
Skata boo? SKKAAATTAAA BOOOOOO!!!
That was in New New York, totally different.
Seriously though, Vimeo is as much if not more at fault. They should know that people will abuse any system. They chose to let their content creators be helpless victims when it comes to abuse of their takedown system. This is clear from the fact that they have no recourse and that complaints end up being strikes.
Assholes exist, that is a brute fact of life. Letting them run free, fucking over your userbase is your own fault.
Isn't that "funny people"?
Yeah, I wish the article mentioned that. They took down the short film their movie is licensed and adapted from, claiming it violated their movie's copyright. That's beyond ridiculous and can only mean some moron at the anti-piracy firm had no clue what they were doing.
It's way too easy to have content you have nothing to do with taken offline via bullshit copyright claims.
Well, maybe if you added three silhouettes and some commentary, but it would be difficult.
because the DMCA requires people who have been affected by false claims to prove that those claims were made in bad faith. This is pretty much impossible, so companies just don't give a shit.
The people whose work is taken down are assumed guilty until proven innocent, while the false claimants are innocent until proven guilty.
maybe a pissed off judge will one day decide that claims must be filed by a human.
This summer the president is a dog!.... or a duck.. whatever, fuck you!
At least they took down the official trailer to that horseshit of a movie in the process.
Adam Sandler should make a movie about a fictionalized version of himself where he is going through a midlife crisis and feels bad about the decline of his movies. Him and the cast members of his original movies (Nick Swardson, Rob Schneider, etc.) make one last attempt to reignite Sandler's career.
Woah woah. Let's not go all Marx on everyone and talk about the alienation of labor and entertainment as an opiate for the masses.
With most of the entertainment industry: it's not about supporting artists & protecting their work it's about selling product.
Look fuckheads, that word was around way before this. You can't just come along and act like you own it. The last thing anybody wants to do is associate themselves with your shitty movie, so back off.
Is this like Candy® Crush® Saga® all over again?
I think that's exactly what needs to be done.
They don't really have a choice. The DMCA provides safe harbor status for Vimeo only if they comply with takedown notices and remove the videos. From there, it's up to the content owner to file a counterclaim. DMCA is a bad law for various reasons, not the least of which being that its premise is "shoot first, ask questions later" and carries a presumption of guilt.
I think I finally understand copyright law, its not whoever used the word first, its whoever has loads of money and influence that decides they own the thing.
I do find it kind of cute they think the world is so desperate to pirate some shitty unwatchable Adam Sandler movie.
For those wondering what the TransPacific-Partnership Agreement is, imagine this happening on an ultra-frequent massive scale, GLOBALLY.
I.e., some poor Sap in a poor country getting his artwork stomped on by smoking fat cats thousands of miles away from the comfort of their burgandy desks, crystal glasses of brandy in hand.
throw an of in there just to be sure.
I know that monkey! His name is Donkey!
This is pretty much impossible
Bullshit. This organisation did not even attempt to ensure copyright of the material was actually owned by their clients. In fact they broke copyright law by illegally asserting copyright over material that was obviously not theirs.
You can't get much more "bad faith" than that.
They asserted that they had the copyright over material that wasn't theirs, which is exactly what the pirates do.
Umm I'm pretty sure that happened in 3002. Get your facts straight.
And that judge will be kicked out the next day because someone powerful didn't like it...
You sure told them!
Now all I need to do is make something by the tittle of "bank" and sue all the banks! Wait, those laws are only there to protect the powerful and rich, nevermind .
I make YT videos. I was hit by a false DMCA claim last week by Activision. I submitted my rebuttal which would be reviewed in 10 days. On the 3rd day one Activision's lawyers emailed me saying that if I deleted it they would release the claim. I deleted it because copyright strikes destroy your channels search results. On the 10th day, the claim was found to be invalid by Youtube. Activision committed a crime and suffered zero consequences. It's not just Vimeo doing this stuff.
They literally auto-DMCA'd every video with "Pixels" in the title. Either the person who issued the DMCA on such a simple argument needs a real talking to, or they just didn't give a fuck
That is actually called:
The Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules
edit: thanks for the gold! this rulez!
They don't give a fuck. There are no repercussions to issuing a false DMCA notice unless it can be proven the filer knew it to be false. The fact that their own promotional content was taken down is a point in their favor when they reply with "oops, our mistake".
Uh oh, reddit is going to receive a DMCA takedown notice for his comment now.
You think this is bad?
Just wait until the TPP gets forced through...
A woman named An Pile from the town of Horseshit.
My passion is hating King with a passion
They asserted that they had the copyright over material that wasn't theirs,
It's in fact perfectly legal to do that, as long as you purport to have done while thinking "in good faith" that it was theirs. As in, "honest mistake, gov'nar!"
Donkeys aren't monkeys, quit messing with my head!
I have a simple sollution to this problem: if you make a DMCA claim against somethign that predates the start of your work of art then the DMCA works backwards and whoever issued the DMCA is now guilty of copyright infingment against whoever they issued the DMCA against.
Adam Sandler is potentially a brilliant actor I think, Punch Drunk Love, Funny People and Spanglish are good examples, but I think he finds it somewhat difficult or is embarrassed by it or something and at some point realised he doesn't need to do anything uncomfortable and can just make shoddy movies with his friends and still provide for his family, which you can't really blame him for, but when I think of Adam Sandler I'm disappointed because of the potential talent being wasted.
I hope there's a scenario where you broke your leg in the woods and had to make a tourniquet out of the Paul Blart DVD case.
Starting Rob Schneider?
Actually, when you submit a DMCA you attest under penalty of perjury that you've reviewed the content and it infringes...
This will only stop when victims of fraudulent DMCA claims start pursuing the perjury issue.
He was really good in Punch Drunk Love. He needs to do more serious movies with directors who know how to draw out his inner pain.
Yes, when your animated kids holiday movie features a scene with a group of deer eating the contents of a Port-a-Potty, then smiling at the 'camera' with human shit in their teeth, you've definitely taken things to an insane level of stupid.
i just feel like its a bit messed up that they can make a crappy bot to hand out these notices incorrectly and the only thing anyone can do is comply...
fuck this whole system, it only makes everything worse
Aren't all the pixels in that Adam Sandler film actually voxels though?
Isn't that the plot to Funny People?
Given that DMCA notices are sworn on penalty of perjury, it's time that the government start charging these companies and the individuals making blatantly false claims with perjury.
Rob Schneider is... Rob Schneider
Mystery science theater 3000
It's now a web production known as Riftrax
Even though I knew you were talking about words, I admit I had to read that several times before understanding
Out. Of. Control.
These fuckers need to be stopped.
Fuck you Adam Sandler. Your movies suck and now you have become one of them.
The future is going to be fucked, because it's very likely that these practices are going to only get harsher.
It's an Adam Sandler movie, so I'm honestly not sure where you're getting the idea that it would be a comedy.
I refuse to see it so that Peter Dinklage remains untarnished. Little Tiptoes was enough shit for anyone's career.
The problem with suing big companies is that they can drag the case on and on until the plaintiff has no money to pursue further legal action.
Perhaps is it why they want it to disappear, to make think that they're doing original content.
And The: An A of Adventure.
He got us all pumped up, and then said
so back off
That's pretty weak.
Can't copyright a word. You can Trademark it, but that doesn't fall under DMCA.
This is incorrect. Pixels lost a lot of money. Paul Blart 2 made money, but it wasn't a huge hit. Check the box office numbers.
MPAA aside, I won't be posting on Vimeo anytime soon. This level of blind compliance with an obviously-flawed DMCA takedown is disappointing to me. I note that other video sites don't seem to have experienced this: I doubt the fail lawyers just went after Vimeo.
If any version of SOPA is made law, you can look forward to more of this censorship. This effort should be pointed to to emphasize exactly what is wrong with the MPAA and RIAA.
Is anybody really pirating this shit, anyway?
Is King the new Zynga?
Never delete a rebuttal. Ever.
Also, use the email to sue activision.
Or crystal desks with brandy glasses of burgundy in hand!
You're a Lawyer.
You could take this case. You know this case will last 10 years. You know they'll probably try a change of venue on you to make you spend thousands of dollars on travel costs alone. You know they'll nickpick every word you put into every document. You know they have politicians in their pockets.
You might get lucky and find an angle that will result in you winning in 10 years. But you know your opponent can use the politicians it's bought to pass legislation to close that angle before you get a ruling.
So you have a 10% chance of making $50,000 for 10 years of very hard work. I know you'll see "million dollar settlement" in the papers. But on appeal, and there will be many many appeals, that number will be dwindle down.
So yeah, as a Lawyer you're just gonna say fuck it. I'm not going to risk it.
Quotes around the word "of" would have made things easier.
Youtube should, in the interests of protecting their own business, file legal claims of malicious DMCA abuse for each and every time this happens. Youtube is big enough to cover any court fees, and when they win, they would be able to recoup those losses from the losing side. The number of DMCA requests Youtube receives would ensure that they could pick and choose which cases to escalate, picking their battles with much greater care than the MPAA and thusly winning the war. Eventually, the scattergun approach would die.
Or the time Bethesda sued Mojang for "Scrolls".
Or maybe those movies pay shit money.
Because awful reviews have harmed his career so much in the past...
His terrible films continue to make a profit, so they continue to be made.
You and I and people who can think without moving their lips, we have known for years to avoid his movies. There apparently exist, however, millions of people who see Adam Sandler on a movie poster and think to themselves "Going to see that movie at the cinema is a good use of my time and money". As long as those people exist (and who the hell are they, anyway?) there will be more Adam Sandler movies made.
And isn't the comedy actually a horror?
For future reference, contacting EFF might be in your best interests.
the short film should file a dcma for ALL pixel related trailers.
That was different. Bethesda, like any other company, is legally required to take action in order to preserve their trademarks and copyrights. When they "sued" Mojang, it was a formal business method of establishing official dialogue. They didn't make the issue painful or lengthy for Mojang, were not malicious in their actions, and made sure things were relatively amenable afterwards.
It's kind of like having a fence and a no-trespassing sign on your yard, catching a kid sneaking in to recover their lost ball/frisby, sitting down with the kid's parents, and making sure everybody's on the same page and nobody does anything that will get them in trouble. The big jerks will call the cops on every little thing to the point of themselves being a public nuisance (like blanket DMCA notices), while the good ones will follow appropriate channels to ensure everything's on the level and nobody's maliciously breaking rules.
Dude I just like playing some vidya after work
No, but you can fund some assistant DA with a bag full of cash to run against the judge. Then, create a Superpac to destroy the judge for some decision where the judge didn't give someone the maximum sentence. Judges normally don't raise alot of money so a few big donors is basically all you need.
"Do you want hardened criminals on the street? A vote for Judge Smith is a vote against for murders. Can you really trust Judge Smith? Paid for by citizens for responsible responsibility"
*Source: I spent 10 years in state politics, in my state this is exactly how it worked.
"We made a movie with a very common word in the title, we now own said word!"
I was gonna say, Pixels is flopping badly.
When was it ever not? Copyright was originally about protecting the work so that the artists can be supported by selling product.
That's not to say the current system isn't busted in significant ways, but it always was and would ever be about "selling product", specifically who controls duplication (establishing value) and distribution, (ensuring the revenue stream) of a product for sale at the discretion of its creators.
Except copyright law is what will allow the victims of this anti-piracy group to sue the pants off them.
They illegally asserted copyright over materials that weren't theirs. That's piracy.
It's only a maximum fine of $25,000 per violation, and I doubt there's been enough easily provable violations to bankrupt the MPAA. However, enough violations could pierce the corporate veil and impose prison sentences on top of the fine, and that could be effective.
With things like SOPA and such continually being pushed, no doubt.
It's horrible if that's what you mean