Oscar-Nominated Filmmaker Misuses DMCA To Take Down Video Of Reporter Asking Him Tough Questions

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Tue, Jun 7th 2011 9:31am — Mike Masnick

And here we are with yet another example of someone using copyright for censorship. Stephan Kinsella points us to the news that Josh Fox, the Oscar-nominated filmmaker of the documentary Gasland, has apparently sent a takedown notice to YouTube, concerning a video of a reporter asking him some pointed questions about apparent omissions in the film. The reporter posted the 3-minute video to YouTube, which is almost entirely footage of him asking Fox questions at a screening. Early in the clip there is 26-seconds of footage from Gasland to provide the context of the questioning. This seems like a classic case of fair use, and yet if you visit the YouTube clip that the guy uploaded, you see this:

The journalist has now reposted the video to Vimeo, where he hopes it'll stay up (Update: and... just like that, it's gone too): It's almost impossible to construct a scenario where that's not fair use. Whether or not you agree with Fox or the reporter concerning issues of natural gas drilling and "fracking" (and I actually consider myself among those who is concerned about fracking -- the issue that Fox tried to highlight with his documentary), we should all agree that it's absolutely wrong and abusive to use the DMCA in this manner. The guy asked Fox some tough questions, and he answered them. He might not like how the video appeared but that's not a copyright issue. Issuing a bogus copyright takedown claim is an abuse of the law (for which there are penalties) and, even worse, makes him look like he's running scared from these questions and unwilling to deal with them further.

Fox is free to argue that the clip misrepresented him, misquoted him or otherwise was unfair or questionable, if he believes that's the case. He can argue that he didn't give good answers and would like to answer the questions more fully. But what he should not be able to do is to issue a totally bogus copyright claim on the video which is clearly fair use, and where he's obviously not using copyright law as intended, but as a way to silence a critic of his.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fracking, gasland, josh fox, videos

71 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:39am

It would seem that the real question would be the situation that the footage was obtained under. Was it during a public press conference, or was it under a more limited private circumstance that retained rights for the film maker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  Does it matter?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - KeithV (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    It doesn't matter. It's a brief segment used to frame the question. Perfectly fair.
    
    What I want to know is how you can get an Oscar nomination for blatantly lying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What I want to know is how you can get an Oscar nomination for blatantly lying."
      Ermm... That is kinda what you normally get them for... Documentaries are supposed to be the exception :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > What I want to know is how you can get an Oscar nomination
      > for blatantly lying.
      
      It worked for Al Gore and Michael Moore...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shamus, 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "What I want to know is how you can get an Oscar nomination for blatantly lying."
      
      Ask Al Gore.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  It would seem the real question is whether or not Anti-SLAPP statutes apply to this case. Saying that including a 26 second clip of a 1 hour 44 minute documentary as a part of a critique doesn't count as Fair Use is overbearing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  That's not a copyright issue, therefore, it's outside the scope of the DMCA (as far as I understand).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oops, just noticed this:
    
    "Early in the clip there is 26-seconds of footage from Gasland to provide the context of the questioning"
    
    Ignore me...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  There is no "limited private circumstance" that would give the interview subject rights over the interviewer's footage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:56am

Wow - that was quick.

One minute the Vimeo video is there. The next minute it's gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:56am

V:7/10
A:1/10

Transcript?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  English subs?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Krum, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:58am

Well That Was Fast...
Well that was fast; I just got a chance to watch it & then when I was attempting to share it I get this:

"Sorry, "Gasland director hides full facts" was deleted at 12:54:30 Tue Jun 7, 2011. Vimeo has removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Gasland Productions, LLC claiming that this material is infringing: Gasland director hides full facts. We have no more information about it on our mainframe or elsewhere."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: Well That Was Fast...
  Irony or stupidity? Pick one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re: Well That Was Fast...
    I think this is one of those special rare occasions where both can be picked, and still be correct.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Anon, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:05am

And it's gone
I see the message: Sorry, this video no longer exists for the Vimeo embed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta**, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:05am

***B-Z-Z-Z-Z!*** Wrong answer!
Vimeo video has been taken down. Gone! Done! Buried!

Anyone who has actually watched the video should be expecting men in black suits at their door with hypodermic needles filled with sodium anathol and being asked questions about bringing down the government and other terrorist activities.

How dare you all sound off about free speech and claim to be American!!! We need to follow our government blindly and trust that they shall point us the way through the storm. We need authoritarian rule! We need to give up our rights as human beings. It's the only way to be American!

And while you're at it, read my name!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bugmenot (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:06am

What is wrong with you?
They used of the logo and the film maker's name without his permission.

those people were not able to light their water on fire before the fracking started, and now they can.

citing studies in other parts of the world, at other times in history is complete BS and a ridiculous tactic.

The clown asking questions is a buffoon and an idiot.

He is using non-sequiturs, taking things out of context, and it will be interesting to follow the money on him.

The documentary is scientifically sound and the guy is not lying. If you have to do your -own- research, then do it.. but the fact is the fact..

Besides, what the hell is wrong with you people? do you really want those chemicals pumped into the ground and contaminating your water? seriously.. are you stupid?

well, you don't have to answer that.. but I can tell you this.. if you try that "drill baby drill" s***t and that fracking in the great lakes region of the upper midwest.. you're going to learn about second amendment solutions really quick.. so good luck.. we like our water here, and we are only trying to protect your water supply, so quit your whining and convert to a free competition economy so we can have new energy sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: What is wrong with you?
  And yet...despite all your rambling, none of that has anything to do with the DMCA abuse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: What is wrong with you?
  Since when do you need someone's permission to say you dissagree with them? The only reason you can't use a logo is when you are pretending to be associated with the owner. Using it to identify something is completely kosher.
  
  Are you stupid? What the heck do the goods and bads of fracking have to do with the price of rice?
  This story is about censorship, not fracking, thats just the backdrop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: What is wrong with you?
  They used of the logo and the film maker's name without his permission.
  
  None of which is infringing on copyrights.
  
  those people were not able to light their water on fire before the fracking started, and now they can.
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  citing studies in other parts of the world, at other times in history is complete BS and a ridiculous tactic.
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  The clown asking questions is a buffoon and an idiot.
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  He is using non-sequiturs, taking things out of context, and it will be interesting to follow the money on him.
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  The documentary is scientifically sound and the guy is not lying. If you have to do your -own- research, then do it.. but the fact is the fact..
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  Besides, what the hell is wrong with you people? do you really want those chemicals pumped into the ground and contaminating your water? seriously.. are you stupid?
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  well, you don't have to answer that.. but I can tell you this.. if you try that "drill baby drill" s***t and that fracking in the great lakes region of the upper midwest.. you're going to learn about second amendment solutions really quick.. so good luck.. we like our water here, and we are only trying to protect your water supply, so quit your whining and convert to a free competition economy so we can have new energy sources.
  
  Which has nothing to do with the copyright claim.
  
  Again, as I said, I have my concerns about fracking, and I agree that some of the questions, and even the video edits may have been questionable. But none of that means it's okay for the filmmaker to abuse copyright law to take down the video.
  
  I find it stunning and disgusting that you would so misread what I wrote. I even noted in the post that I have my concerns about fracking. And you then still claim that I support it? What's wrong with *you*?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - no one, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
    I think the person is using "you" generally, not at "you" specifically.
    
    I think also you might be wrong about the copyright claim, I think you need permission to use actual footage from a film. A lot of people don't care, because in the film industry "any publicity is good publicity", but if someone wants to call you on it it is their choice.
    
    I think this is a "fair use" of copyright law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - no one, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      They guy should just re upload the video without the logo and the footage so everyone can see how fully full of it he is in his fallacious arguing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      I think also you might be wrong about the copyright claim, I think you need permission to use actual footage from a film. A lot of people don't care, because in the film industry "any publicity is good publicity", but if someone wants to call you on it it is their choice.
      
      I think this is a "fair use" of copyright law
      
      You are wrong. The whole point of fair use is that it allows you to use works without permission.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      I think also you might be wrong about the copyright claim, I think you need permission to use actual footage from a film. A lot of people don't care, because in the film industry "any publicity is good publicity", but if someone wants to call you on it it is their choice.
      
      Umm...no you don't have to ask for permission. The the whole purpose of copyright's fair use clauses are so you don't have to ask for permission to use small snippets in order to critique or comment on the work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - no one, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
        Well.. there is some reason he was granted the right to call them on it, so it might be good to find out how he was able to get it done.
        
        Heck, I had a lot of original work up on a facebook page I had made.. it was all original, there was nothing borrowed, in any way, at all.. and they took it down for some kind of copyright issue or something.. when i asked them about it, they told me to get a lawyer..
        
        maybe someone just did not want people to read my writing, maybe it was someone who felt as though I was their competition and just lied to get my stuff removed from FB.
        
        I do not know, I will never know. FB will not respond or return my material to me even privately.
        
        So maybe the film maker is being a douche, or maybe he has a good reason.. Your concerns are valid.. but I hope there is a way to get to the whole issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
        Well.. there is some reason he was granted the right to call them on it, so it might be good to find out how he was able to get it done.
        
        The whole point of this article is that this appears to be a misuse of the DMCA takedown procedure to censor something the filmmaker didn't like.
        
        Heck, I had a lot of original work up on a facebook page I had made.. it was all original, there was nothing borrowed, in any way, at all.. and they took it down for some kind of copyright issue or something.. when i asked them about it, they told me to get a lawyer..
        
        You might be confusing Facebook's TOS with copyright law. If FB's TOS is like most, they can remove your material whenever they want for any reason (or no reason).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
        Well.. there is some reason he was granted the right to call them on it, so it might be good to find out how he was able to get it done.
        
        It's easy to know "how it was done." Under the rules of the DMCA, the site receiving the takedown notice has tremendous incentive to remove the video, or they could face liability themselves. So they have little incentive to determine if the copyright claim is legit. They just remove. The user then has the right to counternotice, but during that time, the content is still removed.
        
        Heck, I had a lot of original work up on a facebook page I had made.. it was all original, there was nothing borrowed, in any way, at all.. and they took it down for some kind of copyright issue or something.. when i asked them about it, they told me to get a lawyer..
        
        Tough to know the specifics of your situation without detail, but Facebook, as with YouTube and Vimeo is required to accept counternotices, and if there is no lawsuit filed within 10 business days, they're supposed to put the content back up.
        
        I do not know, I will never know. FB will not respond or return my material to me even privately.
        
        Did you file an official DMCA counternotice?
        
        So maybe the film maker is being a douche, or maybe he has a good reason.. Your concerns are valid.. but I hope there is a way to get to the whole issue
        
        We know the issue: he filed a bogus DMCA takedown. That's known as copyfraud, and doing so can result in him having to pay fines.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vbevan (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
        I'm confused as to why he doesn't just file a counternotice to youtube and be done with it. It's like 3 clicks and the video is back up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RikuoAmero (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      Didn't you read what Masnick wrote? About fair use? You can use short clips of anything copyrighted as part of a journalistic effort e.g. in this case, 26 seconds of a movie to provide context to the question. In that case, you don't need permission.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      fair use includes sampling, which is why major media outlets can post a percentage of a copy righted work with out being subject to fees and fines.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
    I suspect that what is wrong with him, is he desperately needs to spew his "points" out, regardless of the topic at hand, and he did a Google search on the word "fracking", to find every comment page that mentions it. He probably barely skimmed the article, so he could make the first line relevant, and everything after that was cut & paste.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
    The amount of real DMCA violations every day dwarfs outliers like this yet you find the need to bitch.
    
    You're a huge piracy apologist Masnick, and a steaming pile of hypocrisy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      The amount of real DMCA violations every day dwarfs outliers like this yet you find the need to bitch.
      
      OK, so you are saying the DMCA takedown provisions are working mostly like they should. OK, good, that's a start.
      
      When DMCA takedown procedure is being misused to stifle speech, then yes, it should be pointed out and brought to the forefront. Censoring of speech is not the purpose of the DMCA and the vigil against that should be continued.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HothMonster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      I don't think anyone has a problem with legitimate DMCA takedowns but blatant abuse of the system is blatant abuse of the system.
      
      I apologize that you can't adapt to the state of the world. I know its probably your mothers fault, but I apologize anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ikarushka (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      Do you know how many millions of people don't have access to drinking water? Yet you find it OK to close your eyes on this issue and bitch about an insignificant incident? Hypocrisy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      Really, TAM? That's the best you can come up with? Try harder please.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      The amount of real DMCA violations every day dwarfs outliers like this yet you find the need to bitch.
      
      Lots of people die of natural causes every day - that doesn't mean that murder should be ignored as statistically insignificant ?
      
      (Or are you simply being sarcastic - hard to tell really).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: What is wrong with you?
  those people were not able to light their water on fire before the fracking started, and now they can.
  
  Sorry, but I have to bite...why were people trying to light their drinking water on fire before they knew that fracking was starting? Because this statement implies a comparison.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:10pm
    
    Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
    That's not how you start your weekend?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - no one, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
    my guess would be that the water tastes like methane now, since it is flammable, also, if you watch the video, the actual documentary.. you will see that people became VERY sick and have suffered permanent illness AFTER the fracking started. but that provides context and science, so it is unpopular with the Palinistas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
      Palanistas...whatever...just questioning. Plus lots of people get sick permanantly where there is no fracking. Unless it is tracable to the "exposure" to the gases, which I am sure they found a bunch of doctors to agree with...even released a published study in a reputable journal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:33am
  
  Re: What is wrong with you?
  "I think he's wrong, therefore censoring him is okay by me!"
  
  Nice to know where you stand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: What is wrong with you?
  My name is David L., CEO of Halliburton. The word Fracking is trademarked by our corporation, so you have no right to use it publicly without our permission. Therefore I kindly ask Mike Masnick to remove the above comment on trademark dilusion basis. Thank you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 12:42pm
    
    Re: Re: What is wrong with you?
    Definitely a typo,
    
    you should have written "trademark delusion"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:10am

with no concrete technical data, it's kind of a douche line of questioning, along the lines of...

Why didn't the BP oil documentaries show all the oil that naturally is released into the ocean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:21am
  
  Re:
  with no concrete technical data, it's kind of a douche line of questioning, along the lines of...
  
  That may well be, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the copyright issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - iamtheky (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Im sorry, didnt realize we were restricted to copyright commentary, i was just here to point out the douche.
    
    but thanks for replying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - D. Hope-Ross (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You can make whatever comments you like. Just don't be surprised when you get called out for being offtopic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - iamtheky (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That may well be, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the copyright issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:22am

Question - without seeing the actual notice how are we to accept the word of someone, who has the mission of painting this director in a horrible light, at face value?

The notice on the screen refers to New Video. Do you think maybe just maybe they have lawyers? OR a desire to get more attention?
"Marketed and distributed in the U.S. by New Video."
http://www.newvideo.com/docurama/gasland/

I mean controversy is fun and a seller and everything, but seriously all reports of the director being behind it source to 1 guy. Funny didn't see a copy of the notice on his website, just a claim about someone he thinks is an evil liar to begin with.

The issue of frakking aside, have we really fallen into this trap so easily? Us vs Them mentality rules everything nowdays, and just helps reenforce the idea we gotta get them before they get us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OzarkTroutBum, 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:31am

Meh....
If I wanted to watch highly edited videos purposely cut to prove a political ideology then I'd head over to Breibart's site and watch some Shirley Sherrod and James O'Keefe videos.

If Phlegm is as interested in the truth as he claims, then let him release the entire unedited video exchange and lets see where it goes from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ikarushka (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:41am

I have not seen Gasland, but I have a feeling that this documentary narrator's name is Barbara Streisand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viln (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:47am

Well...
Elsewhere I saw comments attributed to the "journalist" in question stating they intended to hire lawyers. It's up to them not to stop at getting the video reinstated, but to attempt to prosecute the misuse of DMCA take-down. Even if it doesn't amount to much, getting it into the limelight will draw attention to Fox's actions and hopefully scare others away from using the big red easily-reachable "censor" button youtube and other providers make available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:17am

Missing the point...
Guys, many of you are missing the point of this post. What is being reported here is the misuse of a DMCA take-down notice to get the video pulled. It's REALLY not about whether the guy making the video was right or wrong.

Think of it this way... You own 40 acres of prime Florida land and I want to buy it. Why can't I use "eminent domain" to force you to sell it? Because while eminent domain is a valid option in some cases, it's not valid for me to use it that way - just like using the DMCA to pull down this video isn't valid when used the way it was used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re: Missing the point...
  Why can't I use "eminent domain" to force you to sell it?
  
  Because you don't have the right political connections yet. You simply need to donate a little more to your local councilmember's next campaign.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Missing the point...
  > You own 40 acres of prime Florida land and I want to buy it.
  > Why can't I use "eminent domain" to force you to sell it?
  
  Now you can.
  
  Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
taoareyou, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:35am

Won't Bother Watching
Based on the director's actions, he has no credibility in my perception so I have no desire to watch his documentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- no one, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: Won't Bother Watching
  Yes,
  
  because the last thing you'd want to do is know what you're talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OzarkTroutBum, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:15pm

I think the issue is Phlegm Macleer is attempting to use this footage, name and images to promote himself and in turn his own film.

He isn't really a journalist per se and so far his only claim to fame is an unsuccessful "produced for personal profit" film based on attacking another highly successful film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ArkieGuy (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re:
  So, before Roger Ebert was well known (ie, when he "really wasn't a journalist" yet), any bad reviews he gave were illegal if he included a 26 second clip in the review?
  
  That fails both the smell test and the definition of "fair use" under copyright law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OzarkTroutBum, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If Mr Ebert used that 26 second clip in an edited version in an attempt to slander the movie or its producers for his own personal profit then I'd guess yes.
    
    I suppose it boils down to whether you personally believe what Phlegm is attempting constitutes as fair. Apparently the Gasland people do not believe that what Phlegm is attempting is fair.
    
    Maybe Phlegm just needs to go make a better movie so he doesn't have to rely on attacking other more successful films in order to promote his own work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I suppose it boils down to whether you personally believe what Phlegm is attempting constitutes as fair. Apparently the Gasland people do not believe that what Phlegm is attempting is fair.
      
      That is not how fair use works. I would suggest reading up on what fair use means. It is not at all determined by whether or not the copyright holder believes it is "fair."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  What part of fair use requires being a journalist or not for profit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:26pm

Documentaries
I used to think that watching documentaries is a valuable learning tool. Over the last ten years or so, it has become clear that they should only be viewed as a different form of entertainment.

I don't have a particular view on the practice of fracking; but I do know that I will be no more enlightened after watching this documentary. They are tools to espouse a particular opinion, not to objectively present facts. If you believe they're objective, you're falling for their deception. They're persuasive documents, not informative documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no one, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:44pm

If the Gasland guy is doing something wrong, that is not cool..

but I have seen both the Doc. and also the little spooge fest the LNG paid-off guy made, and it was BS. It was all edited and manipulated and out of context using unrelated anecdotes to prove a non-point. So if Gasland found a way to use copyright infringement properly, i do not blame them.

No, if Gasland is using DCMA to censor, that is not right.. but if giant dinosaur technology man has any legitimacy, he will release something else, and present some science and fact, and not try to capitalize on his butchery of someone else's hard work.

Also, no one has to like the documentary, or agree with it, or even drink water, they can just die of thirst, that is the right of anyone.

Anyone should have the right to drink methane and all the fracking chemicals they want. I would never stop a Palinista or a Tea Partier from drinking all the trimethylbenzene they want to, that's fine. Have at it. Say hi to Jesus.

Also, dickwipe sounds like he is from somewhere else, and does not have to drink the water here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:05pm

Nobody would have gave a rat's behind about any of this...

But enter DMCA and I can only assume that Mr. Fox, in fact, does suck.

Pulling the DMCA card is getting like the 'race' card. It's overused and use of said 'card' makes you appears as though you are a cok-goblin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:10pm

Surprise!
Is ANYONE surprised by a move like this....really? Laws exist to facilitate business, let that read profit, NOT to facilitate the dissemination of truth. Remember, profits are an entitlement and are therefore protected by law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephan Kinsella (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:21pm

Frack copyright
I suspect the concerns about fracking are overblown as they usually are in these cases. But I am not sure this is an "abuse" of the law, since it's a straightforward application of it. the law itself is unjust and the fair use standard is ambiguous (though I agree in this case it's pretty easy), and the surrounding legal procedures for takedowns etc. are just being used here. The problem is the law, and the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:54pm

So much talk but...

WHERE IS THE INTERVIEW? Link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]