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

Wed, Dec 21st 2011 7:17am — Mike Masnick

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.

85 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:27am

Simple thing: Don't link or embed the trailer from Dark Knight on your blog.

Basically, don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someantimalwareguy (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am

Re:
Further, boycott the movie and let it fail as it should...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:33am

Re:
But it's NOT illegal. It would become illegal though, but the point is that's silly, as you are with that comment.

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 thread ]
Karen in Wichita, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:36am

Well, that brings up an interesting defense
When you've got studios who deliberately "leak" their stuff *hoping* for that viral response, I can see a pretty good case for saying "I assumed distributing it was what the rightsholder intended." (And meaning it.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:37am

Re:
Yes. Because helping to advertise a film is such a horrible horrible crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:39am

Simple thing: Don't link or embed anything on your blog.

Basically, and you have nothing to worry about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:40am

Aiding the enemy
It's wartime. The MPAA and the RIAA are the enemy.

Anyone caught aiding the enemy shall be shot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:40am

Aren't the jails full already?
Lindsey Lohan continually violates her parole and is continually released early because the jails are full. Now we want to fill them up even more with bloggers and Beibers and average citizens all for sharing content?

Besides, once leaked, it becomes news in itself so how can that be made illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAJikMARCer (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:43am

Re:
So, someone out there breaks an embargo and releases a trailer (which are used for marketing purposes solely.) early.

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 thread ]
gorehound (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:45am

Re: Re:
You are a brother to my way of thinking.I am definately done with any MPAA/RIAA Material.I could now care less if the newest scifi tv show will get a 2nd season or that new cool btman flick or that new funny comedy,etc.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:48am

Re:
The whole point is that it's not always as painfully obvious what is official, leaked or officially leaked these days...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:48am

Extra, Extra, Read all about it... X's latest album leaked
We would love to tell you all about XXXX's latest album YYYYY, but due to criminal infringement inducement standards, we are not allowed to tell you anything other than "XXXX's' latest album was leaked and can be found on the ZZZZZZ (but we're not allowed to talk about that, so how about those 'unnamed sports team' they sure are doing great this year, too bad about 'that one guy we're not allowed to discuss'.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:52am

Re: Re:
Actually, pre-DMCA, it was illegal already, only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute. No matter how much Mike tries to push embedding a video as "not hosting it", it is still an act to add that item to your website and present it as part of your website.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:53am

Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
"When you've got studios who deliberately "leak" their stuff *hoping* for that viral response, I can see a pretty good case for saying "I assumed distributing it was what the rightsholder intended." (And meaning it.)"

How would you prove that in a court of law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am

Re: Extra, Extra, Read all about it... X's latest album leaked
As a follow up, I patent this idea. Once the news starts being 'fill in the blank' then I'll create a device (think old 'mad lib' books) that asks you to fill in a set of blanks ahead of time (4 names, 8 nouns, 2 proper nouns, 4 adjectives, 2 Cities, etc - these can be saved for later re-use for 'the lulz').

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:00am

Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
I know. I mean,duh! Everyone is guilty until proven innocent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:01am

Re: Re:
Zach, the choice to advertise the film should be the film owner's right, not yours. They don't choose what you eat for dinner and when you go to sleep, stop making choices for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:01am

Re: Re:
FANS are the ones who should be punished with jail time?

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 thread ]
MM_Dandy (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:02am

Re:
Basically, don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about.

Veoh was sued out of existence without ever breaking the law. Yup, nothing to worry about here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Planespotter (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:02am

Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
and the answer to your question is another question.

Given the content of this release why should you have to prove anything in a court of law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:02am

Re: Simple thing: Don't link or embed the trailer from Dark Knight on your blog.
but how do you know
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:07am

Re: 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?"

Because then lawyers will get paid. Why do you hate lawyers so much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:09am

Re: Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
in TAMs little sick twisted world, everyone who isn't a Hollywood corporation is guilty and can never be proven innocent. Never, ever, never!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:11am

Re: Re: Re:
So I shouldn't say anything about this movie that shall not be named since it's the owners right to advertise and not mine? So, no word of mouth campaigns?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:15am

Re: Re: Re:
"Zach, the choice to advertise the film should be the film owner's right, not yours."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:16am

So, no word of mouth campaigns?

Loose lips sink ships!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: Re:
GIVE IT TIME >_
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:21am

1. Upload legal video.
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 thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:21am

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, we know SOPA and PIPA is about removing DMCA protections, making examples to "educate the public", shutting down any current or future competition, jailing those nasty 13 year old pirates, and making things go back to the way they were in the 1980s.

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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:23am

Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget the public library.

It will also help to avoid all sequels and remakes. 99% are not worth your time anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:25am

Re: Re: Re:
"only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute"

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 thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:31am

Re: Re: Re:
Are you seriously that braindead or are you just a really really bad parody?

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 thread ]
Machin Shin, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:45am

Re: Re: Re:
Ok so yes I guess we can agree the trailer was copyrighted and bla bla bla. So the company was in it legal right to go after the people. The stupid part is that they are ATTACKING FANS. These companies attack people and then cry that they dont make as much money as they want and blame it on the "pirates" I can promise you that the people they attacked will no longer pay any money for this film where as before they would have. I can also say for sure that now others will avoid this film because of how they reacted. Instead of acting like a bunch of 2 year olds they could have gracefully come out and used this as more FREE PROMOTION of their film.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:03am

Re: Re: Re:
The first rule of The Dark Knight Rises is: you do not talk about The Dark Knight Rises.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:03am

Re:
That is much too easy to be a valid solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:07am

Re: Re:
Public performances are right now illegal under our criminal laws if certain pre-conditions are met, so anyone who thinks a new activity is being criminalized is just plain wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:09am

Re: Re: Re:
There's no such thing as a right to advertise, you're being silly again. Film owners have no control or right to control how I advertise their films for them.

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 thread ]
hothmonster, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:14am

Re:
Simple, pretend websites are paper, talk about the movie and the trailer but god forbid you actually show the trailer because because....LAW!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:16am

Re: Re: Re:
Please cite the law that made it illegal pre-DMCA to post a link or embed a video on your website that is hosted elsewhere online. You're not copying the video, so it's not copyright infringement. An embed means that, despite the superficial appearance that the video is a part of the website, the content is being hosted from another website. A link is a reference or an address, not a copy.

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 thread ]
hothmonster, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:16am

Re:
step 5 should be "furiously masturbate"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Please point us to the law that says linking to a copyrighted work is an act of infringement. Telling people where some content is, in no way infringes its' copyright, you seem to have made that up and convinced yourself that it is true.

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 thread ]
Ed C., 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Re:
Zach, the choice to advertise the film should be the film owner's right, not yours.

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 thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Make that six sigma are not worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:21am

Re:
I believe you are pulling from the same trolling handbook AC #1's comment... maybe you should start at the end and work backwards so it's not so obvious :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:21am

How many times do I have to tell you?
Try not being such a twat! You are so really an insufferable twat, and your neighbors probably hate you for it. STFU and FOAD, beyotch!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:23am

Re: Re:
Until foreskin catches fire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's already an insufferable twat, so he should be afraid of that. Instead, he revels in it. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Twat is as twat does.".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
P.S.

"...only the old safe harbor provision makes it very hard to prosecute the wrong parties."

There, ftfy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re:
Then it is not illegal really is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Well, that brings up an interesting defense
That is the point, it is difficult to know exactly the nature or status of something so frivolous.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: Re:
No it should not, if the film gets bad reviews they should not have a say on it, advertisement is an attempt to get SOME people to see it in some light, it is not an obligation on anybodies part and if people want to do it in a bad or good way it is the public and even other companies right to do so, this has something to do with First amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Re:
Well if it is illegal we don't need new laws do we, or are you people so incompetent that you can't make use of existing laws to do the job already?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anybody else seeing "The Dark Knight Rises" into a) The Void, 2) Oblivion, C) a Black Hole? The 'owners' seem to to be pushing in that direction.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes there is, is called First Amendment, anyone should not be stopped from spreading the word about something bad or good because others don't like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ummm, so we agree? :oD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
" It makes it hard to prosecute *innocent bystanders*,"

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 thread ]
bjupton (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:08am

I don't have anything else to add to the enlightened comments I've already seen posted, except holy shit, are these people mental.

The trailer? The advertisement?

Lunatics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, we know SOPA and PIPA is about removing DMCA protections, making examples to "educate the public", shutting down any current or future competition, jailing those nasty 13 year old pirates, and making things go back to the way they were in the 1980s. "

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mr Wilson, without DMCA, those things would have been considered illegal, as embedding in particular is a form of re-publication.

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 thread ]
Danny (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:40am

Re:
Thanks for the link Mike. I was the 44th person to "like" that link on my Facebook site. The coward I am responding to is clueless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, actually they are about narrowing those protections so people can't hide their true business models any longer."

Not this B.S. again. This has been debunked so many times it's getting tiresome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:44am

The Felony Streaming Bill is pure evil. Everyone keeps looking at jail time like it means something. The jail time is a slap on the wrist compared to the life-long scar a felony on your record creates.

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 thread ]
Danny (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:47am

Poison fruit
This is just stupid. The studio has placed the trailer up in Apple's iTunes site for viewing and is encouraging--right there on the page--people to tweet links back to that page.

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 thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:52am

Re:
Then how do I use the internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always chuckle when I see you AC's using the term 'content grifter'. Who thought that one up for you? Was it Chris Dodd? Or maybe it was Karl Rove?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 21 Dec 2011 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll repeat my request since you didn't actually address it: Please cite the law that made it illegal pre-DMCA to post a link or embed a video on your website that is hosted elsewhere online. I'll settle for a pre-DMCA court ruling even.

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 thread ]
A Monkey with Atitude, 21 Dec 2011 @ 1:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AT THIS POINT FUCK THE RIGHTS HOLDERS TOO... YOU KEEP PUSHING AND PUSHING AND DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU TRAMPLE.. SO FUCK THE RIGHTS HOLDERS, THE COPY-TARDS, AND ALL THE REST I AM DONE WITH YOU...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 1:16pm

Obviously the studios and their tame sharks are too effing stupid to follow a link.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"a) The Void, 2) Oblivion, C) a Black Hole?"

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 1:26pm

Re: 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"

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 thread ]
VK, 21 Dec 2011 @ 3:18pm

Heres an idea.
Don't go watch the new movie. Boycott Warner Bros. These media giants act like they run the world, but you know they're doing it with YOUR money, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you seriously believe what you're saying here bothers me. Wake up. We have arrived at that point which you are speaking of as if it's a fairy tale. Censorship is real and it is happening right in front of your eyes, but you're choosing to ignore it because you don't want to believe it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When they all start using the same old, seldom-used word at the same time, it looks like they're working from a pre-prepared script, which kills their credibility. I don't think they realise how silly it looks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re:
Push the button to access drink holder, turn on monitor, watch what the corporations broadcast to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel Lee, 21 Dec 2011 @ 4:18pm

Re:
You're an idiot.

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 thread ]
Ares, 21 Dec 2011 @ 4:25pm

Mein Gott... I'm an uninformed idiot who dosen't know exactly what this SOPA thing is, but it's another one of those cases where the lawmaking people don't understand how the internet works, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon J Green, 21 Dec 2011 @ 5:08pm

But they can't lose any money from a trailer...?
The reason the big studios instigated all these ridiculous litigations in the first place was to try and stop people not paying for their works. How are the studios loaing anything from a free trailer that would never properly generate revenue anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 5:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't blame the rights holders - blame the sites that abused the law.

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 thread ]
Me, 21 Dec 2011 @ 6:47pm

Re: Re:
People's current views on congress aside, if the US ever got into a situation where a law was going to pass saying we can't criticize the government or we'll be jailed, we will have -much- bigger problems on our hands. that is to say, if the american people were dumb enough to allow that kind of thing to even make it off the drawing board then there really is no hope left for humanity (as opposed to now where people usually only -think- there is no hope left for humanity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vondross, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:11pm

Re: Aren't the jails full already?
While the Jails are in-fact full, typically from "minor drug" users(Pot, and the like), and the convicted individuals are released at an almost stunning rate ... that part doesn't actually matter to our system.

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 thread ]
Brett, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:44pm

Given the fact that Rob Sheridan was one of the major players in the Nine Inch Nails: Year Zero viral marketing campaign in '07 (one that everyone seems to be modeling from INCLUDING - but not limited to - TDKR) ...WB might want to check themselves before they wreck themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:36pm

Warner Bros. and GoDaddy Shut Me Down Over TDKR
Same thing happened to me, but Warner Bros and GoDaddy shut my site down for four hours.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:32pm

If you think it was "leaked" by someone not related with the movie you are dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:37pm

We have to put a stop to promotional videos being used for promotion! It's ruining our media industry!
:P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 5:21am

So let me get this straight. Someone hires and puts up a giant screen in Times Square, and starts (illegally) showing the latest Batman movie, or whatever. (Hosting/publishing)

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 thread ]