60 Minutes Episode Is Pure Misleading Moral Panic About Section 230; Blames Unrelated Issues On It

from the oh-come-on dept

I have a browser open with about a dozen different bad and wrong takes on Section 230 that one day I may write about, but on Sunday night, 60 Minutes jumped to the head of the line with an utterly ridiculous moral panic filled with false information on Section 230. The only saving grace of the program was that at least they spoke with Jeff Kosseff, author of the book on Section 230 (which is an excellent read). However, you can tell from the way they used Jeff that someone in the editorial meeting decided "huh, we should probably find someone to be the "other" side of this debate, so we can pretend we're even-handed" and then sprinkled in Jeff to explain the basics of the law (which they would then ignore in the rest of the report).

It's almost difficult to describe just how bad the 60 Minutes segment is. It is, quite simply, blatant disinformation. I guess somewhat ironically, much of the attack on 230 talks about how that law is responsible for disinformation. Which is not true. Other than, perhaps, this very report that is itself pure disinformation.

What's most astounding about the piece is that almost everything it discusses has nothing to do with Section 230. As with so many 230 stories, 60 Minutes producers actually seem upset about the 1st Amendment and various failures by law enforcement. And somehow... that's the fault of Section 230. It's somewhat insane to see a news organization like 60 Minutes basically go on an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment.

The central stories in the piece involve people who (tragically!) have been harassed online. One case involves a woman that was falsely blamed by some nutjob conspiracy theorists of having brought COVID-19 to the United States. Because of that, she and her family received death threats, which is absolutely terrible, but has nothing to do with Section 230. 60 Minutes points out that law enforcement didn't care and said that the death threats weren't enough of a crime. But... uh... then shouldn't 60 Minutes be focused on the failures of law enforcement to deal with threats (which actually can be a crime if they fall into the category of "true threats")? Instead, somehow this is Section 230's fault? How?

And it gets worse. 60 Minutes trots out the bogeyman of "anonymous internet trolls," even though this comes right after 60 Minutes shows that the nutjob conspiracy theorist who started this has a name and is well known (as a nutjob conspiracy theorist). The whole setup here is bizarre. The death threats are awful, and if they are criminal, then the problem is with the police and the FBI who the show says did nothing. If they're not criminal, then they're not breaking the law. So, the reason there's "no one to sue" is not because of Section 230, but because no laws were broken. But that's not how 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley frames it.

Right about now you might be thinking, they should sue. But that's the problem. They can't file hundreds of lawsuits against internet trolls hiding behind aliases. And they can't sue the internet platforms because of that law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Written before Facebook or Google were invented, Section 230 says, in just 26 words, that internet platforms are not liable for what their users post.

Over and over again, the report blames Section 230 for all of this. Incredibly, at the end of the report, they admit that the video from that nutjob conspiracy theorist was taken down from YouTube after people complained about it. In other words Section 230 did exactly what it was supposed to do in enabling YouTube to pull down videos like that. But, of course, unless you watch the entire 60 Minutes segment, you'll miss that, and still think that 230 is somehow to blame.

The second half is basically more of the same. It talks about two more unfortunate stories that actually suggest Section 230 is working correctly. The first involves Lenny Pozner, who has been fighting back against insane conspiracy theorists who have gone after him since his son was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. But, again, Pozner's story shows that Section 230... works? After going on for a few moments about how legitimately awful Pozner's situation is, Pelley reveals that Facebook, YouTube and others have been super responsive to Pozner and are quick to pull down information that he, and a non-profit he set up, flag as problematic. The segment talks about how Pelley sent an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, and then admits that since then Facebook has been super responsive:

After the letter, a Facebook manager called Pozner.

Lenny Pozner: It began a relationship with Facebook that helped them learn about the material that is being posted on their platform and how it is abusive, defamatory

Scott Pelley: Have you seen a difference, a practical difference in Facebook?

Lenny Pozner: Yes, it's almost all gone.

So, um, why are we blaming Section 230 again? It sounds like the system is working. The same is true in the next story. Andy Parker, the father of the tragically murdered Alison Parker -- a reporter who was murdered by a fired co-worker live on air in the middle of an interview. Parker has wanted those videos off of social media. And... that's basically what happened.

Lenny Pozner flagged Alison Parker videos for YouTube to remove.

YouTube wrote us, "There is no place on YouTube for content that exploits this horrendous act, and we've spent the last several years investing in tools and policies to quickly remove it." YouTube told us it now prioritizes all requests from Pozner's HONR Network.

But 60 Minutes says this is proof that the platforms moderation doesn't work?

Andy Parker: I really expected them to do the right thing. their motto was, "Don't be evil." And for a while, they did a pretty good job of it. But now, they are the personification of evil.

Huh? What? But...?

That's when the report finally admits that the first couple profiled, falsely blamed for bringing COVID-19 to the US, also were successful in getting the video pulled down. And... then they still blame Section 230 -- the same Section 230 that enables YouTube to pull down those videos:

Scott Pelley: Based on what you've had to learn about all of these things, what do you think the solution could be?

Matt Benassi: This is really, really hard, right? 'Cause Section 230. When that was written, it was probably done with the intent that social media companies would police themselves in some manner. And social media companies haven't done that very well.

Except... the segment shows they did police themselves.

And then the segment ends in the most bizarre fashion, trying to at least nod towards the point that Section 230 being revoked would completely change the internet, but... I mean... this is just word salad:

But making social media liable would also mean Facebook, Twitter, even Wikipedia and Yelp, couldn't exist as we know them. President-elect Biden wants to revoke Section 230. The federal government is already suing to break up Facebook and Google. No one can say what social media 2.0 will look like or whether the innocent will ever be protected from a world wide web of lies.

What do the antitrust lawsuits have to do with Section 230? Why mention that? It's a total non sequitur. And getting rid of Section 230 does not "protect the innocent from a world wide web of lies." Because most lies are protected by the 1st Amendment, not 230. And in the rare cases they are not, that's an issue for law enforcement, not Section 230.

It's really becoming difficult to not believe that major media companies are, themselves, choosing to air blatant anti-internet propaganda. You may recall that one of the revelations from the Sony hack a few years back was that the big movie studios got together to plot out a strategy for undermining the internet, which included using media properties they own to run a smear campaign of reports and articles. Whether or not that's the intention, it certainly has the same effect here. CBS provides no disclaimer about the fact that it is owned by Viacom, one of the companies who was involved in that plot.

Nor does 60 Minutes note that its own site is protected by Section 230. Nor does the segment point out that Section 230 protects free speech online and protects users themselves. The brief clip of Jeff Kosseff just gives a basic description of part of the law, but not any of the important nuance (that Jeff knows and explains literally every day).

It's pure propaganda. And it's an online piece that seems to be suggesting (falsely) that without 230, we'd no longer have misinformation online. It's bonkers.

And, finally, it's insane that a news organization like CBS, which has faced many defamation cases over the years, is more or less promoting more defamation cases. I've never quite seen anything like it. But CBS/Viacom and 60 Minutes should be ashamed of putting on this garbage. It's not informing people. It's misinforming them.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, abuse, cbs news, crime, defamation, misinformation, moral panic, propaganda, scott pelley, section 230
Companies: cbs, viacom

Viacom's Copyright Bots Take Down 'Star Trek' Comic-con Panel Because These Bots Suck Out Loud

from the energize dept

We've argued for a long, long time that these automated copyright takedown bots that far too many media companies utilize are both broken and illuminate just how broken copyright takedown policies for streaming sites have become. The output of this broken system is shown when these bots take down totally legitimate content or when grifters abuse the system to try to take some measure of income away from small third-party streamers. But attempts at machine-based copyright enforcement are truly at their most satisfying when content companies employing these bots commit unintentional copyright seppuku.

This happens way more than you might think, but the latest version of this is Viacom briefly nuking its own Star Trek Comic-Con panel when the copyright borg misfired.

The panel included the cast and producers of Discovery doing a read-through of the first act of the season 2 finale, "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2." The "enhanced" read-through included sound effects, effects shots, and storyboard images meant to bolster the actors as they delivered lines from their living rooms and home offices.

Even if the presentation didn't look like a real episode of Discovery to the home viewer, it apparently sounded close enough: after the Star Trek Universe virtual panel began viewers began to lose access to the stream. In place of the video, YouTube displayed a content ID warning reading: "Video unavailable: This video contains content from CBS CID, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

While it's fun to laugh at the notoriously protective CBS for killing off its own stream, the reality is that even these instances are immensely frustrating. The fact is that instances like this should serve as an indication to CBS that something is very wrong with how it's operating when its attempts at copyright protection result in its own promotional material getting taken down, however briefly.

But the introspection never comes, changes are never made, and instead CBS goes on its merry way likely shitting out mistaken copyright enforcement at plenty of others. I'd say that it at least gives me items to write about, but I don't want to. The fact is that the system is broken, everyone knows it's broken, and we have yet to even begin doing anything about it.

In fact, these automagic filtering systems are in such wide use that this same stream has to be unblocked by more parties as well.

Unfortunately, it seems an array of media companies are each going to have to rush to correct the error in turn: two hours later, io9 reporter Beth Elderkin tweeted that a Cartoon Network panel livestream was pulled offline due to a copyright claim from Turner, Cartoon Network's parent company.

Again...broken. Beyond repair. And yet we're not going to even try to fix it, because something something protecting the artists.

Filed Under: automated takedowns, comic-con, copyright, self-own, star trek
Companies: viacom

Why Won't Creative Future's Members Comment About This Hollywood Front Group Smearing A Well Respected Law Professor?

from the a-tragically-rhetorical-question dept

If you look in the dictionary, the word "projection" has many different definitions. I find it particularly amusing that in Merriam Webster's dictionary, the following two are right next to each other:

• the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
• the display of motion pictures by projecting an image from them upon a screen

This is a story that kind of involves both of those definitions, because it's all about a front group, created and funded by Hollywood, very much "projecting" its own blame, guilt and responsibility onto one of the most respected and thoughtful copyright law professors. And... almost no one wants to comment on the organization's shameful tactics. Perhaps some of you might help in my ongoing efforts to get literally any of Creative Future's members to explain why it still supports the organization after its shameful smear campaign over the past few weeks and months.

Some of you may recall that during the run up to Hollywood trying to get Congress to pass SOPA, a terrible pro-censorship, anti-internet, mysterious Hollywood front group showed up called Creative America to advocate for SOPA. It was a Creative Disaster. While pretending to be a "grassroots" effort by "creatives," it came out that the organization was actually very much created by Hollywood's biggest studios:

CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, the Screen Actors Guild, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom, the Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Entertainment

The grassroots effort completely collapsed and Creative America received widespread mockery on the internet. In early 2014, the organization brought in new leadership and took on a new name: Creative Future, with the same Hollywood studios behind it, the same bogus "grassroots" rhetoric, but now lead by a former Hollywood studio boss. The board of Creative Future has remained staffed entirely by Hollywood big shots. The most recent filing from the organization shows that its Board of Directors includes: Alan Braverman (Senior VP and General Counsel at Disney), John Rogovin (Exec VP and General Counsel at Warner Bros.), Leah Weil (Senior Exec VP and General Counsel at Sony Pictures), Kimberly Harris (Exec VP of Comcast and General Counsel at NBC Universal), Jean Preweitt (CEO of the Independent Film & Television Alliance), Christa D'Alimonte (Exec VP and General Counsel at Viacom), Carl "Chip" Smith (Exec VP of Public Affairs for 21st Century Fox, at least until earlier this year when Disney took them over). It's notable that D'Alimonte only joined in April of 2017, at the same time as Michael Fricklas, who was Exec VP & General Counsel at Viacom, left both Viacom and the Creative Future board -- more or less confirming that Creative Future is a mouthpiece of the big Hollywood studios, and when one person leaves a studio (as Fricklas did), they're immediately replaced by a new person from Hollywood.

In other words, Creative Future is pure astroturf, and is 100% about representing the interests of Hollywood's biggest studios.

Over the last few years, it seems that Creative Future has gotten more and more unhinged in its conspiracy theory pushing. Earlier this year, for example, it attacked the DC think tank R Street, because it had provided a grant to us. Creative Future declared that this somehow proved that R Street was "anti-copyright," because (it claimed) we are "anti-copyright." This is wrong on so many levels -- in particular, because the R Street grant as specifically for our Working Futures project, and the money from the grant was used to pay authors to write creative science fiction stories. And, I would bet Creative Future's entire operating budget (of over $3 million) that the contract we gave to those authors (in which they retain the copyright to their stories and are told they can do whatever they want with those stories, including republishing them elsewhere) was a hell of a lot better than the contracts any of the companies on Creative Future's board signs with its "creatives."

But we're something of a sideshow here. The real anger from Creative Future over the past few years has been directed at EFF. For reasons that I cannot comprehend, a few extraordinarily confused Google haters, like to insist that EFF is a Google front group. Creative Future is one of the most vocal about this (see the above definition regarding projection). Creative Future actually is a Hollywood front group. The idea that EFF is a Google front group is crazy. Remember, EFF has regularly criticized Google's practices, including filing an FTC complaint about Google's privacy practices and is currently fighting hard against Google concerning how California's new privacy law will be implemented.

And, for all the talk of claims that Google "funds" EFF, Google gave EFF a grand total of $7,500 in 2018. That's out of the $15.1 million that EFF brought in, nearly $10 million of which came from individuals (either by themselves or their own personal foundations). In insisting that Google really funds EFF, Creative Future likes to point to various cy pres awards, in which a court forces Google to give money to EFF to atone for some sort of wrong doing. That's not, in any way, Google choosing to fund EFF. It's a court punishing Google over its failures, and having it fund EFF and others as punishment. Between Creative Future and EFF one of these organizations is a front group for a set of giant corporate interests, and it ain't EFF.

But Creative Future has its bogeyman, and so when news came down that EFF had appointed renowned and incredibly well-respected copyright law professor Pam Samuelson to be its new board chairperson, Creative Future went on the attack. It first published a hilariously full of "projection" blog post accusing Samuelson of being "anti-copyright." It's not even remotely worth debunking each of the points, other than to note that not a single one of them is accurate. It repeatedly frames reasonable positions taken on copyright as extreme. It takes statements of opinion -- including the claim independent artists (you know, the ones not supported by Creative Future's esteemed board of legacy Hollywood big shots) are put at "some disadvantage" in fighting piracy -- as "lying to lawmakers." What? It also (perhaps no surprise) claims that Samuelson's reasonable arguments regarding the copyrigtability of APIs in the Oracle/Google fight proves she's anti-copyright.

That last one is particularly stupid, given that Samuelson has been among the most knowledgeable experts on questions regarding the copyright of interfaces since before Google existed, and the idea that siding with Google in the Google/Oracle case is "anti-copyright" suggests a near total lack of understanding on the topic.

There's a lot more in there, but nearly all of it is projection a la the top definition that I quoted at the top of this article. Creative Future is a front group. Creative Future regularly lies. Creative Future always defends Hollywood's biggest studios, and not the interests of independent artists.

In response to this fact-free smearing of such a respected professor, Microsoft (who no one would ever claim is "anti-copyright") told Creative Future to remove its name from Creative Future's list of "members." Microsoft has chosen not to comment publicly on this issue, but two separate sources confirmed to us that the decision to leave Creative Future was 100% in response to the smearing of Prof. Samuelson, which people at Microsoft believed to be beyond any reasonable standard of decorum, even if the company still supports Creative Future's mission. Most organizations might stay quiet when receiving a rebuke like that, but Creative Future instead tried to brand Microsoft as anti-copyright, because apparently facts are completely optional in the delusional world of Hollywood.

Creative Future then decided to run a second article smearing Samuelson, literally blaming her for Microsoft deciding to disassociate itself with the organization:

We’re also unhappy because she asked Microsoft why their logo was on CreativeFuture’s website. In response, Microsoft emailed us asking us to remove their logo. Of course, we did so.

This statement is somewhat telling. For all of Creative Future's attempts to describe the hundreds of organizations on its website as "members," it seems quite clear that most of them are not "dues paying" members. They just have their logo on the website.

With that in mind, I began to wonder what were some of the other organizations on that same page of logos, and what they felt about their name being associated with flat out lies being used to smear one of the most respected law professors in the world. There are hundreds of logos on the page. Over the past few weeks I've contacted somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty of those members to ask for any comment on the situation. Below are all their comments.

...

Ha ha, just kidding. Not a single organization was willing to comment on the record. The vast majority completely ignored my request. A few sent back generic "no comments." One said the situation was "complicated." Oh really? The most startling to me, however, were the organizations on the list whose focuses are entirely about promoting women's voices, and fighting back against stereotypes about women. I figured, at the very least, those organizations -- including Women in Film, Women Make Movies and the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media -- would at least have something to say about an organization put together by Hollywood's biggest studios smearing such a respected female law professor.

But, nope. None of them wished to comment -- even after it was pointed out that Microsoft had left Creative Future over this mess.

Other organizations that I thought might have a bit of a spine, but who refused to comment: Alamo Draft House (I will find other places to watch movies, thanks), the American Film Institute, Comscore, Crackle (do they still even exist?), IMAX, the Jim Henson Company, Legion M, Miramax (you'd think, post Harvey Weinstein, they'd be more open to recognizing issues, but nope), National Hispanic Media Coalition (this one's especially disappointing, as they've been a staunch ally on net neutrality, and even posted a guest post on Techdirt earlier this year), PodcastOne, the Tribeca Film Institute, and many, many more.

And, of course, none of the giant Hollywood studios, which set up Creative Future and hide behind its "edgy" attacks on people, wanted to comment either. I wonder why, Disney, ComcastUniversal, Viacom, Sony, and Warner Bros., might want to ignore the fact that an organization that they set up and control, is out there smearing respected law professors? Actually, I don't wonder at all.

Anyway, I recommend that people scan Creative Future's big list of "logos" and see if you recognize any. Feel free to ask them (politely, of course) why they're willing to have their name associated with an organization smearing such a well-respected professor with outright lies?

In the end, though, this all comes down to pure projection -- and not the one that involves a screen. Creative Future is a front group for big businesses, pretending to be a "grassroots" group for creatives. As such, it can't even imagine that there really are legitimate organizations like EFF that are actually focused on protecting individual rights and are actually supported by individual members. And thus, they feel the need to project Creative Future's own sins upon such organizations. It also can't imagine that someone like Prof. Samuelson, with her decades of clear, careful, nuanced, and thoughtful writing and advocacy on better copyright law (i.e., copyright law that protects everyone's rights, not just big Hollywood studios, and includes in that the public's rights), could possibly come by her positions honestly.

This whole episode has been revealing. Not about Prof. Samuelson or EFF. But it's said an awful lot about the type of people who run the major Hollywood studios. Alan Braverman, John Rogovin, Leah Weil, Kimberly Harris, Jean Prewitt, Christa D'Alimonte and Chip Smith: this cowardly attack is on you. If you'd like to actually provide a real comment on this nonsense you've helped create, you know how to reach me.

Filed Under: alan braverman, chip smith, christa d'alimonte, hollywood, jean preweitt, john rogovin, lies, pam samuelson, projection, smear campaign
Companies: cbs, comcast, creative future, disney, eff, google, microsoft, nbc universal, sony pictures entertainment, viacom, warner bros.

Filipina Girl From New Zealand Takes Her Slime Show International After Fending Off Nickelodeon Lawsuit

from the slimeballs dept

Update: As a reader helpfully pointed out in the comments, the original source article for this post incorrectly suggested that Weischede had defeated Viacom in a legal battle. In the link included in the comment, which provides far more detail, it turns out that this was resolved when Viacom dropped its opposition as opposed to having it defeated. I have left in the original post and inputted this update for the sake of clarity.

You may not recall the name Katharina Weischede, but we wrote about this Filipina teenager from New Zealand back in 2018, when Viacom decided to oppose the 13 year old on trademark grounds because she dared to make and sell "slime" as a business. More specifically, Katharina has earned the nickname in New Zealand of "Slime Princess", which is what she applied for in her trademark application. Viacom opposed the application, citing that its Nickelodeon division has trademark rights for "slime" in the country already.

It was an absurd opposition on every level, from Katharina's company carrying something like a $20k valuation at the time, to the overly broad mark which Viacom was purporting to be protecting, to the pure PR nightmare that was getting into a legal battle with a bright teenager looking to start a fun business.

And, to make the whole thing worse, The Slime Princess (TM) defeated Viacom at the trademark office.

Katharina, however, stood her ground and started an campaign via a Givealittle page to raise money for a legal battle with the entertainment giants to keep her trademark. According to her, the support she received from kids and adults all over New Zealand have really inspired her to fight for her passion.

After a grueling legal battle, Katharina prevailed in court and has slain the giant that threatened her kingdom of slimes. Nearly two years after the case, she now continues to make her own creations of slimes and builds an army of fans and supporters via her own platforms and networks to continue bringing smiles in the faces of young kids and even adults.

And, far from simply taking the win and staying silent, she is taking her show on the road. Katharina is visiting the Philippines to share the story of her business, including the legal struggle with Viacom, to other young entrepreneurs. At 13, she has a legal victory over a massive entertainment company on her belt, not to mention her story in starting her own business at that age to begin with. It's a cool story and one that hopefully will highlight to others that standing up to big businesses is in fact possible.

She will be staying in the country for a few days to meet with kids, share her stories, play with them and make fun slimes.

“It’s going to be a an amazing experience here. I’ve always looked forward to sharing it with the kids here in the Philippines. I dreamt of experiencing it here, and now I am here, this is going to be different and special.”

Slime-on, Slime Princess (TM).

Filed Under: katharina weischede, new zealand, nickleodian, philippines, slime, slime princess
Companies: viacom

Nickelodeon Is Opposing A 12 Year Old New Zealand Girl's 'Slime' Trademark For Some Reason

from the you-can't-do-that-in-new-zealand dept

Viacom has decided to take its trademark bullying game international and possibly against the most sympathetic target it could find. Nickelodeon, owned by Viacom, has decided to oppose the trademark registration of a 12 year old girl in New Zealand, claiming its trademark on the word "slime" is too important. Katharina Weischede has managed to build up an online brand in New Zealand for producing and playing with "slime." She made a business out of it and attempted to trademark "slime princess", only to find Nickelodeon opposing it.

What started off as a hobby had by late 2017 become a home-based business called "Slime Princess". Now known by her friends, family and even strangers as the "Slime Princess", she eventually decided to trademark her business's name. However, Katharina was met with opposition by Viacom, the owners of children's entertainment channel Nickelodeon. After applying to trademark "Slime Princess" earlier this year, Katharina received a letter from Viacom opposing the trademark. According to the New Zealand Intellectual Property office, Viacom has trademarked the word "slime".

Everything about this is absurd. We can start with how unlikely it would be for any confusion to exist between Weishede and Nickelodeon, move on to the very generic and broad mark that Viacom apparently holds in New Zealand, take a turn to point out that Weishede's business has something like $20k in valuation, and finish off by simply pointing out the PR nightmare that is the parent company of a kids' network battling a 12 year old at the trademark office.

The good news is that Weishede appears to be a very bright young woman.

Aside from running her business, Katharina is interested in becoming a human rights lawyer.

This case was "a great start to show people that you fight for what you believe in", she said. "I wanted to fight because I made this and it's not just about the slime. It's the brand itself. People don't only come for the slime, they go and see me."

She has set up a page to collect money for the legal fees to fight this. Her family is also backing her and she is working with a lawyer, who is hinting at the fact that Viacom certainly didn't have to go the route of fighting a trademark battle with a 12 year old.

Katharina's lawyer, Alex Lee, said the 12-year-old had worked very hard to build up her profile and her brand.

"This is a young girl's dream," he said. "If in fact the other party wanted to find a way to work with her that's great but certainly, we wouldn't want to think the idea is to prevent a young teenager who already has a profile with a particular brand from being denied her rights."

And finding a way to work with her is exactly what Viacom should be doing here, or it risks tarnishing the reputation Nickelodeon has worldwide over the "threat" of a bright 12 year old young woman. Best of luck winning that PR battle.

Filed Under: katharina weischede, new zealand, slime, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: nickelodeon, viacom

Facebook Takes Down Post Critical Of Indian Film For Copyright Violation, Even Though It Was An All-Text Post

from the copywrong dept

We should all know by now that Facebook's reliability to handle copyright takedown requests is... not great. Like far too many internet platforms these days, the site typically puts its thumbs heavily on the scales such that the everyday user gets far less preference than large purported rights holders. I say "purported" because, of course, many bogus takedown requests get issued all the time. It's one of the reasons that relying on these platforms, when they have shown no willingness to have any sort of spine on copyright matters, is such a mistake.

But few cases are as egregious as that of Leo Saldanha, a well-known environmental activist in India. When I tell you that Saldanha had a Facebook post taken down over a copyright notice, you must certainly be thinking that it had something to do with environmental activism. Nope! Actually, Saldanha wrote an all-text mini-review of an Indian film, Padmaavat, which was taken down after the distributor for the film claimed the post infringed on its copyrights. Here is the entirety of his post that was taken down.

“In my view, #padmaavat is a bore fest. Halfway the movie was coming to an end, I felt. But then woke up to the cruel fact there still was the other half, and it involved the horribly cruel act of mass suicide. There is something horribly wrong about a film, when a man’s voice reasserts, that this gory act was to protect ‘Bharat’s swabhimaan, or something to that effect.”

“The whole movie has one plot: of owning a woman. And all the characters conspire to subordinate women. True, this is a mythological account of times far in the past. But that one statement after the movie emphasises horrendous social mores of a medieval time and contextualises it as relevant to our times. Movies like these aren’t made with innocent intentions. Ranveer Singh is an incredible actor!”

Seriously, that text is the entire post. And I have to say that it's quite tame as far as movie reviews go, not to mention fairly relevant from a movie critique standpoint. This wasn't someone dumping on the movie for fun. Saldanha had a well thought out point, no matter of whether anyone might agree with the content of his argument. Certainly nothing in that is copyright infringement by any measure.

Yet Viacom 18 issued the takedown request and Facebook complied. Not only did it comply, in fact, but when Saldanha pushed back on Facebook trying to figure out what the hell was going on here, the only reply from the site was to warn of a perma-ban for repeated infringement and a recommendation to get Viacom 18's permission to post his review. Saldanha, to put it lightly, was not pleased with this response.

Speaking to TNM, Saldanha says that he is deeply offended by the messages he received from Facebook and the allegation that he had violated anyone’s rights on any social media platform.

“Anyone should be free to express in any form, their views about public matters. This includes the right to agree, disagree and the right to dissent. I also maintain that I have never used threatening language while offering my opinion on any issue that is public, or of any public person. The fact that Facebook pulled down my post is a serious issue. This only shows that Facebook leans towards those with financial muscle. Viacom18 clearly does not want critical views for the movie,” Saldanha says.

There are all sorts of ways this could have happened -- but none of them make either Viacom 18 or Facebook look good. The most immediate theory would be Viacom 18 abusing copyright law to take down a negative review -- and Facebook assisting without a good reason. A more charitable (though still terrible) explanation would chalk it up to (once again) horrible automated systems flagging anything mentioning Padmaavat and falsely assuming it's infringing. And, again, Facebook assisted this without good reason. No matter what it's yet another example in our increasingly long list of cases where copyright is used for censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, film review, india, leo saldanha, movie review, padmaavat, takedown
Companies: facebook, viacom, viacom 18

Intellectual Property Fun: Is Comedy Central Claiming It Owns The Character Stephen Colbert?

from the stephen-colbert-stephen-colbert-stephen-colbert dept

For years, when Stephen Colbert was on Comedy Central, he actually would discuss intellectual property issues with surprising frequency, including taking on SOPA back when it was a thing. Perhaps this is because he has a brother who is an intellectual property lawyer (who apparently works for the Olympics, which is not very encouraging). So it's interesting to see that Colbert is now claiming that a lawyer from Comedy Central or Viacom (he's not entirely clear) has contacted CBS to say that it holds the rights to the "character" of Stephen Colbert.

If you're not at all familiar with Colbert, this will take some unpacking. For many years, Colbert hosted a TV show on Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) called The Colbert Report, in which he played a pompous/clueless TV news blowhard... also named Stephen Colbert. A big part of the conceit was that this was a character, quite different than the actual Stephen Colbert in real life. More recently, Colbert ended that show, to move to network TV to take over David Letterman's old slot, where it's now the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Importantly, on the Late Show, Colbert insisted that he was leaving "the character" of Stephen Colbert behind and would actually be himself, Stephen Colbert. Got that?

In the last few months, however, there have been some concerns that this new network non-character Colbert wasn't performing well in the ratings -- and part of the blame placed on that was the fact that he was no longer using the character of Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report.

“Late Show” has had trouble finding the funny. That’s not surprising, given how reliant his Comedy Central show was on the character he played: a smug, self-absorbed conservative talk host. That character is gone now, and now the hunt is on for what works with the “real Stephen.” Some of the standing bits toss off some good one-liners, including a fake confessional booth where Colbert admits to nonsensical sins. But too many set-ups fall flat. The “cold open” at the start of the show could develop into a keeper but at the moment it feels forced and ends abruptly, rather than naturally flowing into the title sequence.

Perhaps because of this, and as an attempt to boost ratings, last week at the Republican Convention, Colbert did two things -- he brought Jon Stewart on to return to the main desk to do a story on Donald Trump... and he brought back the Stephen Colbert character: Except... according to (not a character... we think...) Colbert, some bigwig lawyer, at Viacom or Comedy Central has called up the lawyers at CBS to say they can't do that any more. I'm almost surprised that Colbert didn't have his brother on to talk about this, but perhaps his brother is busy sending nastygrams to companies telling them they can't tweet about the Olympics. Either way, Colbert's "solution" to this issue is to say that the character of Stephen Colbert from the Colbert Report will no longer appear on his show... but instead, there will be a character named Stephen Colbert who is the other (character) Stephen Colbert's "identical twin cousin." You can see it all in the video above, which also concludes with Colbert bringing back one of his popular Colbert Report segments "The Word," which is now rebranded as "The Werd."

Of course, with Colbert, it's never entirely clear how much of what he says is serious or not, so it's possible that this is all a ploy to boost the ratings. However, usually when he does these things, they're at least based on a kernel of truth. And, if that's the case, it'll be interesting to see if the Viacom/Comedy Central lawyers take exception to this workaround. It would certainly be a fun lawsuit to see them arguing over which forms of Stephen Colbert Stephen Colbert can use...

Filed Under: characters, colbert report, intellectual property, late show, stephen colbert
Companies: cbs, comedy central, viacom

TV Industry Starts Running Fewer Ads To Combat Netflix, Cord Cutting

from the evolving-dinosaurs dept

Historically, the cable and broadcast industry has responded to Internet video competition in the only way a mammoth legacy industry knows how: denial, dirty tricks, price hikes, more dirty tricks, and more denial. And instead of giving customers what they want (lower prices, ad skipping technology, more flexibility in programming packages) they've arguably often made things worse -- like stuffing more ads into every viewing hour.

Nielsen data suggests that ad time per hour on has gone up from 14:27 to 15:38 minutes per hour on cable, and 13:25 to 14:15 minutes per hour on broadcast -- since 2009. When all the ads wouldn't fit, they'd just edit or speed up the programs, or utilize more product placement. All while raising rates on consumers at four times the pace of inflation. But there's a small indication that the cable and broadcast industry may have finally started realizing they can no longer get away with this in the Netflix age.

With ratings in free fall and cord cutting (and "cord never") numbers giving some executives indigestion, Discovery and Fox recently acknowledged they've been running fewer ads during their prime time programming. Time Warner last week also declared it had seen the light, acknowledging it was going to lessen the ad load specifically on its networks aimed at Millennials:

"We know one of the benefits of an ecosystem like Netflix is its lack of advertising,” Howard Shimmel, chief research officer at Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting, said in an interview. “Consumers are being trained there are places they can go to avoid ads."

Even Viacom, which had been leading the charge to stuff more ads in each hour, appears to have suddenly realized that something has to change:

"Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman talked about cutting ad loads during an investor conference in September. Viacom has been working on non-Nielsen metrics to sell advertising as more of its younger viewers watch on non-traditional platforms..."With those kicking in we’ll be in position—we’ve been talking to a lot of advertisers about it, which they like—to reduce ad load in primetime across our networks, which will improve the consumer experience and drive pricing," Dauman said.

Granted we're not out of the deep, dark denial woods quite yet. These companies may be cutting ad load but they're just charging more for the same ads, hoping they can rebalance the books and ignore the Internet video revolution waiting in the wings. Many other execs still see cord cutting as a bit of a fad, one that will reverse itself once Millennials procreate. The reality is that you'll know the cable and broadcast industry is finally taking Internet video seriously when they do the one thing most of the industry's execs are utterly terrified of: competing on price.

Filed Under: ads, cord cutting, tv
Companies: discovery, netflix, news corp., viacom

Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube

from the funny-how-that-works dept

As you may recall, back in 2007, entertainment giant Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, arguing that it was nothing more than a piracy site. Of course, Viacom's case faltered, badly, when it was later revealed that over 100 of the videos it listed as infringing had been... uploaded by Viacom employees as part of a marketing strategy. That act alone showed that even Viacom employees recognized the site had "substantial noninfringing uses." After seven years of battling it out in court, the two sides finally settled last year. However, it does seem noteworthy that Paramount Pictures, the major Hollywood movie studio that is owned by Viacom just announced that it had posted over 100 of its own movies for free on YouTube in their entirety.

This is important for a variety of reasons, but most of all it shows that, once again, when legacy entertainment firms learn how to embrace new technologies, rather than sue them, they're better off. Legacy entertainment companies have basically tried to sue or kill every new technological innovation that somehow challenged new business models. They sued over radio, television, VCRs, cable TV, MP3 players, DVRs and internet video. And yet, once they learned how to use each of those, they realized how great these platforms were in helping to distribute, to promote and to monetize their works.

If Viacom had succeeded in its lawsuits and killed off YouTube, would these movies be available for free online today? I think most people would agree the answer is "no way."

This is a big part of the reason why I get concerned about attempts to shut down businesses that some insist are "nothing but piracy sites." The VCR was "nothing but a piracy tool." The MP3 player was "nothing but a piracy tool." Radio was "nothing but a piracy tool." And YouTube was "nothing but a piracy site." And yet... given the chance to grow and to innovate, these services show that they are successful because they're providing a better product. Suing them out of existence takes away opportunities like this, where companies learn that they can benefit from these (often free!) services to better promote, distribute and monetize their own works. It's easy to think that something that is often used for infringing works in the early days is never going to be anything useful or legitimate, but that ignores the history of innovation in this space. Every new innovation originally looked like a piracy tool. Until it no longer did. Perhaps, rather than trying to kill off every new service, Hollywood should take a lesson and realize that maybe it should be figuring out better ways to embrace them early on, rather than many years later.

Filed Under: copyright, free, free movies, innovation, movies, piracy sites, promotion, youtube
Companies: google, paramount pictures, viacom, youtube

Paramount Pictures Goes After The Codfather Fish Shop Over A Fish That Looks Like Marlon Brando

from the it's-just-business dept

Before I started paying attention to trademark issues as a part-time living, I'm pretty sure I would have thought that it would take quite a bit to get a big company's lawyers firing off threat letters and legal actions. You know, like an actual threat, or a violation of trademark that had been brought to the company's attention by confused members of the public. Instead, it too often appears that the lawyers for large companies scour the world for any-might-be-possible trademark issue that can be acted upon, like a schizophrenic pouring over the newspapers in search of that secret code the government is using to control our minds.

How else do you explain when Paramount Pictures decides to fire off a cease and desist letter to The Codfather Takeaways fish and chips restaurant in New Zealand because their sign includes a cartoon fish that resembles Marlon Brando?

As part of its signage, The Codfather Takeaways has adopted Brando's Don Corleone character in the style of a fish. Paramount, owner of the trademark The Godfather, is not impressed and through lawyers has instructed the shop to stop. But Danielle Stuart, co-owner of The Codfather, reckons Paramount is being mean spirited and says both the name and insignia are staying. Stuart was in the final stages of registering The Codfather trademark when she received a letter from Paramount Pictures' lawyers opposing the application and also asking them to stop using "The Godfather stylisation".

You can see the signage in the background of this picture of the owners.

When asked, the owners admit to the inspiration the film provided for the name and the signage, but say they're confused why Paramount is targeting them because they sell goddamn fish and not movies.

Stuart said she could understand Paramount being grumpy if she was planning to open a world-wide chain of Codfather Takeaways, but she was not.

"We are just a little fish and chip shop in a small corner of the world."

Not small enough, my dear, because the beautiful minds at Paramount are always searching for any violation. Now, there are a couple issues here. First, nobody anywhere at any time is going to think a New Zealand fish and chips shop is somehow affiliated with a Hollywood movie studio. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Second, I defy anyone to draw a fish without it looking like Marlon Brando. It can't be done.

And finally, why the hell is Paramount bothering with this to begin with? There are any number of restaurants and chains called "The Codfather." A fish that looks like Brando really makes this one a priority?

Filed Under: codfather, confusion, fish, godfather, likeness, marlon brando, new zealand, trademark
Companies: codfather takeaway, paramount, viacom