Did You Embed The Leaked Trailer For Dark Knight Rises On Your Blog? Under SOPA, You May Face Jail Time
from the the-dark-knight-rises,-indeed dept
You may have heard that, over the weekend, the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises was leaked (eventually leading to the official release of the trailer). As tends to happen with these kinds of things, they spread pretty quickly and the video (which, let us remember, is an advertisement for the movie) went pretty viral, and lots of people were sharing it. Now, if you're normal and clueful, this is a good thing. If you're lawyers for Warner Bros., you flip out and start sending out legal notices. Rob Sheridan received one of these notices after he included the embed of one of the videos of the trailer on his Tumblr site. He pointed out how ridiculous it is that he's getting hit for merely embedding a video, since he doesn't host it at all, and it seems like the takedown notice should have gone to the folks actually hosting the video instead. Unfortunately, it's become equally popular to go after those who link to infringing content, usually relying on 512(d)'s requirements that "information location tools" "disable access" to the material once notified. Thus, Warner Bros notifies Tumblr, and there goes the video. Personally, this seems silly. A simple link or embed should never be seen as infringing, especially when it's easy enough to go after those actually hosting the video.That said, this whole incident should be a damn good reminder of why the felony streaming portions of SOPA in the House and S.978 (the felony streaming bill) in the Senate are pretty scary. Under those bills, Sheridan could have potentially faced many years in jail for his helping to promote this movie. Remember, the point of these bills is to make a willfully infringing "public performance" of such works a potential felony. It has to be for commercial advantage or private financial gain, but those can be broadly interpreted: if the purpose is to get people to your site and advertise yourself and your work.. that can be commercial advantage. It's willful, because everyone knew the video was leaked, and not legit at the time. But is it a public performance? Hell yes.
Courts have determined that links can be public performances, noting that:
the most logical interpretation of the Copyright Act is to hold that a public performance or display includes each step in the process by which a protected work wends its way to its audience.... Using the same approach, the court determines that the unauthorized “link” to the live webcasts that Davis provides on his website qualifies...So forget about worrying about Justin Bieber going to jail... start worrying about merely embedding the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises.
Is this really the kind of law that America needs right now?
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: dark knight rises, dmca, embeds, infringement, rob sheridan, sopa, trailers
Companies: warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Basically, don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I Declare WAR on the MPAA & RIAA !!!
Join in and jump into the frontline trenches and fight back with your wallets !
No Going to the Theater
No buying of new physical products
No buying of digital music tracks
No ITUNES,AMZ,Netflix,etc legal streams and files
Only But Used physical products and first go to your LOCAL USED STORE to help out your local Economy and not give a dime to MAFIAA.But used online when used products not available locally.
Join me and join my Army of Right !!!
Boycott them and they will get a nice gift from us as they wanted to give us a gift in Washington.
"I Swear to never allow a dime of my money to ever get into the hands of the MAFIAA again".
"I swear to uphold the boycott and not change my mind".
"I swear to uphold the Army of Right and to stick to the choice of stopping these Beasts who would steal our Freedom and our American Way of Life".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It will also help to avoid all sequels and remakes. 99% are not worth your time anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SO when a law comes in that says you can't criticize the government or you will be thrown in jail, it's OK because you just "don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about", right?
You have a brain, use it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Put another way, under the current laws, a DMCA complaint would require you to remove the embed from your website, which is clearly an indication of it's legal standing.
"SO when a law comes in that says you can't criticize the government or you will be thrown in jail, it's OK because you just "don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about", right?"
When we get to that point in the US, there will have already been an armed revolution. Sorry to bust your bubble, but people aren't going to take up arms to protect your right to be a dickhead online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One simple question. When it doesn't work and makes no dent in infringement. What do you do? There is nothing further you can ask for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, actually they are about narrowing those protections so people can't hide their true business models any longer. Like a lot of things in the real world, because people figured out a way to abuse the intent of the law without breaking it, the laws have to get changed accordingly. SOPA may be too strong and too far, but it's a solid response to the way content grafting business models have been created.
Don't blame the rights holders - blame the sites that abused the law.
As for "making no dent in infringement", we will see. Clearly, enough of the content grifters are scared, so their business models will likely change - which will clearly make a difference in infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not this B.S. again. This has been debunked so many times it's getting tiresome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No thanks, I'll keep blaming the content industry that refuses to adapt rather than the legitimate businesses that have found working business models that operate within the confines of the law. The content industry is 100% responsible for the situation they find themselves in. \
Consumers asked for reasonable things like being able to pay for content once and experience on the multitude of platforms available... the industry said no.
Consumers asked for content to be delivered to them at the same time as everyone else... the industry said no.
Consumers asked for the content they pay for to be priced reasonably to reflect the huge savings from digital distribution platforms... the industry said no.
Consumers asked for a product that is easy to use without burdensome restrictions and warnings treating them like criminals... the industry said no.
So what happened? The consumer decided that if the industry wouldn't provide what the market demands then they would find it elsewhere. The industry is absolutely to blame, and your zealotry in defending their failures is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it doesn't. It makes it hard to prosecute *innocent bystanders*, as it should. Nothing in the DMCA stops you from prosecuting the people who actually infringe copyright, it just stops you from hitting easy targets who have nothing to do with the action. It lets you target the person sending hate mail or letter bombs, it just doesn't let you sue the post office instead just because that's easier.
Why are simple concepts so beyond you people?
"a DMCA complaint would require you to remove the embed from your website, which is clearly an indication of it's legal standing"
Ah, so you admit that tools already exist to take the material down without the need to prosecute innocent 3rd parties. What were you complaining about again?
"people aren't going to take up arms to protect your right to be a dickhead online."
Ironically, the rules you call for will at least stop your ability to be an anonymous jackass online. I wonder if you'll be the same asshole without the shelter of anonymity to hide behind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people linking to and embedding something that was obtained illegally, and are attempting to profit from it (by making more money, getting more visitors, whatever).
"Ah, so you admit that tools already exist to take the material down without the need to prosecute innocent 3rd parties. What were you complaining about again?"
That is for the third parties. The problem is that it is "post offence", which means that unless someone says "take it down", they keep running it. The liablity should be attached as soon as it is posted, not after they have run it for a while, gotten a DMCA, and finally gotten around to taking it down. They profit from it, they should be liable. That is the reason the safe harbors are not working!
"Ironically, the rules you call for will at least stop your ability to be an anonymous jackass online. I wonder if you'll be the same asshole without the shelter of anonymity to hide behind?"
Paul T (you are the only one, right dickhead?), I don't sign my name here because it isn't a requirement. Why should I? I don't see your full name, address, phone number, and such attached to your posts. Like it or not, you are a prick because you too are anonymous right now. Are you going to be such a prick if you had to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people connecting those illegal phone calls and are attempting to profit from them.
It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people delivering those illegal parcels and are attempting to profit from them.
It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people accepting those illegal anonymous classified ads and are attempting to profit from them.
It's too bad that they aren't innocent bystanders, they are people renting cars to armed robbers and are attempting to profit from them.
Am I doing it right?
"The problem is that it is "post offence", which means that unless someone says "take it down", they keep running it."
How are they to know that it's illegal otherwise, since the idiots who run the corporations can't even get it right 100% of the time?
"They profit from it, they should be liable."
Yes if they do so WHILE AWARE of the infringement. Hence the warning aspect of the DMCA before further prosecution. This isn't hard.
"Paul T (you are the only one, right dickhead?)"
Yes, twatface, I'm the only one with that initial on my surname.
As a matter of fact, i would have no problem attaching my full name to my posts if required to, and have received numerous friend requests on Facebook and other services as a direct result of my posts here. I sadly refused (FB is mainly a way for me to keep in touch with people I know in real life), but I'm clearly not hard to track down based on the information I offer openly here. I have nothing to hide, and stand behind my opinions.
...and you are...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The DMCA does not require you to remove a link. That's just the way that overly cautious hosting companies have acted because having to defend against a lawsuit, regardless of its invalidity, is its own financial punishment.
"people aren't going to take up arms to protect your right to be a dickhead online."
Then you should be afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue for links (and embeds) is that many site owners (such as Ninjavideo) try to play the "we don't host it" card, by uploading to third party "file hosts". It's a dodge, nothing more, and it has been exposed as such. As soon as you remove the safe harbor provisions (they didn't apply to videos the admins uploaded themselves) they were done UNDER EXISTING COPYRIGHT LAW.
Thanks for playing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You blather on about site owners and the Ninjavideo example, but what about a non-uploader, non-host individual who posts a link to a video on someone else's website? You say that embedding is re-publication, but you don't provide any legal citation for this claim. You don't understand how embedding works apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if we grant that it was illegal, then you seem to be contradicting yourself. If it was illegal, then the DMCA made it legal (given certain provisions) with the safe harbours, wouldn't you agree? Your definition of illegal seems to be 'what the law allows unless I disagree with it'.
Finally, I guess you're amending your point of view to be:
When a law comes in that says you can't criticize the government or you will be thrown in jail, it's OK because I hope it won't come to that.
I agree, much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute the wrong parties."
There, ftfy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many times do I have to tell you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here we have, in a nutshell, how divorced these people are from both reality and how new technologies can actually sell their movies.
Fine, we won't sell you movie for you. Just don't come whining to us about "piracy" when it under performs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So I should not participate in word of mouth promotion of a film I love because the copyright owner hasn't given me permission? Is that what copyright law has come down to? And you think this is right?
Why is it illegal for me to promote a film I look forward to watching? Me sharing the trailer or hosting screen captured images of the trailer is not going to diminish the the revenue of the actual film. In fact, my sharing those things will only increase the revenue.
I am sorry that real life does not mesh with the fantasy world you have created in your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Petulance is a behavior that is barely tolerated in children. Why is it acceptable in lawyers? Could it be that lawyers have found a way to monetize childlike behavior?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suddenly, I feel the urge to watch a Gaspar Noe film, play The Elder Scrolls 4 and watch a Disney movie...
Thanks Warner :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can *ask* you to stop telling everyone how good the film is, but they can't make you stop. Just accept it and stop making things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only reason not to let others advertize the film for you for FREE, using the exact same advertizing that you created and/or approved, is because you want to force producers to pay you millions for the privilege. If they could have others do it, at no cost to themselves, then they'd have no reason to keep paying your exuberant ad fees, which is mostly paid to yourself for the ad channels you already own. Can't have that now, can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FANS of the movie find it, get excited and start sharing it. So you feel the FANS are the ones who should be punished with jail time? For being excited about a movie that they'll likely go see in the theater, perhaps multiple times, and later buy the DVD or BR? They are driving excitement for the movie. They should be punished because it's not on schedule? Go after the person or company that leaked it early. But even then do THEY deserve jail time?
This is the ridiculousness of SOPA that Mike is trying to point out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's war. Hollywood is destroying the American way-of-life.
Anyone spreading Hollywood propaganda is a traitor.
Hollyood's FANS shall be interned in concentration camps for the duration of hostilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Veoh was sued out of existence without ever breaking the law. Yup, nothing to worry about here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple thing: Don't link or embed the trailer from Dark Knight on your blog.
if say its on YouTube and you link to an advert promoting a film why would you suspect that it was illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only is this "law" completely and utterly arbitrary, in that it's existence serves not to make life better or safer for anyone but only to line a few more pocketbooks... it's also absurd.
I edit movie trailers for a living. When one of my pieces is released online, I often post it on my website, blog, and share it with friends on Facebook.
Under SOPA, I could go to jail for this.
So I say again: you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that brings up an interesting defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
How would you prove that in a court of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
Given the content of this release why should you have to prove anything in a court of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
Because then lawyers will get paid. Why do you hate lawyers so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
Copyright is not exact science, is not black and white and there is a pretty good chance that anyone including those versed on the law wouldn't know what is or not infringing for a fact there is no tools to help out either, there is no databases to consult, there is no simple rules and trying to create liability for something so ephemeral is just asking for it to be abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, and you have nothing to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aiding the enemy
Anyone caught aiding the enemy shall be shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't the jails full already?
Besides, once leaked, it becomes news in itself so how can that be made illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't the jails full already?
What does matter, if I am remembering my research from various Criminology course work, are the court fee's ... penalties ... and ongoing costs that convicted felonies and criminals have to pay. The more people they circulate in and out of the jails, means more revenue for them; and while the costs for surveillance of "early releases" can factor in ... it usually doesn't weigh to heavily on the revenue.
These aren't the "true numbers", just an example.
If your prison can contain 3000 people, and you are at that limits with the introduction of 500 new inmates (coming in to the prison) ... you have to release 500. The 500 that are released, for the new 500 coming in, are than able to pursuit employment and can pay the bills they have occurred through penalties (court) and court costs.
So you have gained 500 new revenue streams, while retaining the same cost of the 3000 housing. The issue of surveillance for those 500, in the digital area of ankle bracelets (trackers) and other hi-tech equipment isn't even really a factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extra, Extra, Read all about it... X's latest album leaked
I can't wait until all the news is a bunch of 'fill in the blank' type statements because everyone is too afraid of having their company shut down if they actually say anything about anyone.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extra, Extra, Read all about it... X's latest album leaked
The device will then fill in the blanks in the news stories with the words from the list, could make for some news casts that would actually be interesting to watch.
"Yesterday 'Jimmy Joe Bob' was seen speeding past the 'chicken coop' in his 'girlfriend Betty Jo' and boy did he have his 'foot' in it..."
Remember, If you build it, I will sue..... (or they will come, something like that.... it's all so confusing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loose lips sink ships!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Convince people to embed legal video.
3. Swap out legal with Illegal video.
4. Send extortion letter threatening jail time...
5. ?????
6. Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The trailer? The advertisement?
Lunatics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You will never have a good job, get a loan, join the military, attend a major college... in essence you will be restricted for the rest of your life. No pursuit of profit should warrant such a destructive force applied to HUMAN lives.
Shame on ANYONE who posted something that sounds like "just don't embed anything on your blog." Yes, that is a fail-safe way to avoid problems... it is also a fail-safe way to be trained like a damn dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poison fruit
The only financial harm done by linking to the rogue trailer is hat you aren't driving traffic to the iTunes store.
Very Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or... they know the difference but they're just trying to hurt as many customers as possible because pissing off customers is obviously good for business.
Oh wait, that's still effing stupid.
Or they figure that they will make more money by strong-arming customers for money they don't have or putting them into jail so they can't make more.
Y'know, that's pretty effing stupid too.
OK, let's go for effing stupid and leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heres an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they can't lose any money from a trailer...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner Bros. and GoDaddy Shut Me Down Over TDKR
I wasn't hosting the video, just the embed code.
I actually think WB didn't even bother to look.
-Matt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NY Times writes about this, telling people where this performance is ('linking' to it). Maybe they even include a nice little infogram to show where Times Square is ('abetting infringing').
Some enterprising person with rooftop access can see the screen from a distance, and puts a telescope on the roof - when people ask, he shows them how they can look at the screen with the telescope, almost as if in Times Square. (Embedding)
So who do you sue? The guy with the telescope? How is he 'infringing'?
The NY Times writer? How are they 'infringing' or even contributing to infringing?
The public in Times Square - are they 'infringing' by viewing an 'unauthorised performance'?
The company that hired out the giant screen - are they 'infringing'?
The company (or city government) that owns the spot that the screen is on - are they 'infringing'?
No. Only the guy who is displaying the movie is infringing. So tell me, why would links or embeds (which are only a graphical form of link) be 'illegal'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]