Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EFF Assails YouTube For Removing "Downfall" Parodies

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the end-is-near dept.

Censorship 294

Locke2005 writes "In what promises to be one of the quickest threads to become Godwin'ed, YouTube has pulled scores of parodies of the 'Hitler Finds Out' scene from the movie The Downfall. Ironically, I had never heard of this movie before this — and now I want to watch it." Here is the EFF complaint. David Weinberger has posted some details on Google's Content Identification tool, which is being used in the shotgun takedowns.

cancel ×

294 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ich bin Hitler (5, Funny)

Looce (1062620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917790)

und ich bin erste!

(first post, thread is now godwinned)

Re:Ich bin Hitler (5, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917840)

it's easy to get around the content filter really.

how do people not bother? Just change the audio pitch by...I think it's 1 half step? Or 1.1 half steps? Once you do that, the automated scanner will not be able to find your video at all. It will sound practically identical, as well.

Just shows how pitiful the attempts by copyright groups are, since they don't even review the videos.

For video that relies on the graphic, you just have to create a single vertical line (maybe green or something, 1 pixel wide) going down the entire frame of the video, and then the graphic filter won't find it either.

Just shows ya, the more you try to stifle, less it works.

Re:Ich bin Hitler (5, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917844)

ahh, here it is. The how-to.

http://www.csh.rit.edu/~parallax/ [rit.edu]

Hitler's video got removed? (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917976)

That's rough, and on his birthday nonetheless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler [wikipedia.org]

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

Re:Ich bin Hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918136)

And every single video posted on that site has been taken down.

Yeah, you guys sure outsmarted Google.

Re:Ich bin Hitler (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918276)

Duh. The real question is, how long did those videos last before being publicized, and how long compared to other "illegal" streams of bytes.

Re:Ich bin Hitler (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918328)

Um, yeah -- kind of hard for them not to find a heavily linked site that detailed the methods for the workaround. And such a challenge for them to delete all the videos, including the one that contained 100% white noise. If you'd pull your head out of your ass for a moment, you might realize that he did outsmart Google and expose the means of bypassing automated filtering. Now that his pages is widely linked, of course they took down the videos linked from them--but the methods remain workable.

Re:Ich bin Hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918096)

Just how big dose your binder full of work arounds get before you address the root problem? Over the last decade mine is starting to look like an encyclopedia. I am thinking about setting up a wiki just to keep track. Christ almighty a work around for work arounds.

Re:Ich bin Hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918184)

a new common one is to swap the video right-left. gets right around it.

more advanced techniques could included minor audio/video processing.

i mean come on, this sort of thing is just the sort of challenge your average basement dweller revels in.

Happy Birthday Adolph (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917842)

,d88b.d88b,
88888888888
`Y8888888Y'
  `Y888Y'
    `Y'

#In Memory of Adolf Hitler#
We will always remember
and cherish you. Your
acts of selflessness
will be passed down from
generation to generation.
The lies that dishonor your
name will be vanquished.
You were a true patriot
and a lover of all men,
all races, all religions.
#In Memory of Adolf Hitler#

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?&sid=20721

its 4:fuckin:20 SMOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917994)

HAPPY 420!
TWO THOUSAND TEN!

Such a wordsmith! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917800)

Identifacition?

Really?

Re:Such a wordsmith! (2, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917966)

Identifacition?

Really?

What? That's a perfectly cromulent word that embiggens us all.

Hitler wouldn't dare run Spelljammer. (3, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917808)

I love those things. The Gencon Battletech one was the first one I ever saw.

Unfortunate (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917810)

Unfortunately, since "fair use" doesn't have a definition that allows a reasonable person to determine objectively "that is fair use" or "that isn't fair use" it means each instance is handled on a case by case basis and pretty much needs a judge to determine what is and is not fair use. Of course, the normal view is that "parody" is fair use. However, in a case like this - is the movie truly being parodied? It sucks that we don't have a solid litmus test for fair use that doesn't require litigation.

Re:Unfortunate (4, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917960)

I doubt it. Weird Al making a parody by basically having his band play the song and making new lyrics is just fine. However, directly using the entirety of the video from "The Downfall" is not going to be seen as fair use. Parody is protected, but that movie is also under copyright, and making a parody where the subtitles are the only original content and everything else is from the copyrighted work is not gonna fly in court.

Re:Unfortunate (2, Informative)

crossmr (957846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917998)

Whose line is it anyway often did that.
Weird Al also always asks permission and won't put it on his CD if asked not to (in the case of pitiful, but he released that for free since Blunt was okay with it but his label wasn't)

Re:Unfortunate (5, Informative)

fyrewulff (702920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918236)

He only does that because he's a nice guy though. Legally he could put any of his parodies on his CDs if he wanted to.

Re:Unfortunate (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918076)

The videos are using one scene, not the entirety. And people watch the videos *for* the subtitles.

Re:Unfortunate (5, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918300)

making a parody where the subtitles are the only original content and everything else is from the copyrighted work is not gonna fly in court.

It doesn't matter, for the purpose of determining fair use, how much additional material was added. Rather, it depends on how much of the underlying work was used, and how important that portion was to the underlying work. Your criterion is often invoked by infringers who legitimately claim that because they added so much to the portion used, their use was fair, and is just as often rejected by the courts, who don't care about that.

In any event, this isn't "the entirety of the video from 'The Downfall.'" The Hitler scene is just one part -- albeit a rather powerful part -- of an entire movie about the last days of the Nazis in Berlin during the war.

Of course, the thing that might trip them up is the ridiculous dividing line that the courts have been drawing between parody and satire. When a use is a parody, it makes fun of the underlying work itself, and therefore must draw at least somewhat from that underlying work, in order to come about. It is essentially commentary that ridicules the work, or is at least itself ridiculous. Imagine, for example, making fun of Mickey Mouse and Disney by having the Sorcerer's Apprentice scene from Fantasia involve Mickey summoning up a destructive horde of copyright attorneys. (We are indeed capable of reproducing by fragmentation; fear us) That could be a parody.

Satires, however, are making a point about society generally, or at least about something other than the underlying work. In that case, it doesn't absolutely need to borrow from an underlying work, and the courts have not been as generous to satire as they have been to parody. For example, there was a case in which someone was making fun of the OJ Simpson trial by using Dr. Seuss characters and artwork. Because the use wasn't commenting on the used material, but just borrowing it for an unrelated purpose (unless OJ was right, and the murderer was the Lorax or something), it wound up not being a fair use.

Now, I think this is a dumb distinction. The main issue should be whether the use is transformative, even if it doesn't 'need' to use the underlying work (although a showing of necessity should count for something, considering other doctrines, such as merger, where it is also relevant), along with the rest of the fair use analysis, in particular, the fourth factor (harm to the market for the underlying work). But that's what we're stuck with at the moment. And since most of the Downfall videos (though not all -- the one where Hitler is upset about how many Downfall videos there are would seem to be okay, ironically) don't make fun of anything that requires the use of Downfall in order to do it, things may not go well.

Now, how long until someone follows up on this, does a bit of research, and has Hitler upset about this particular aspect of Fair Use under US copyright law, citing the statute and caselaw? Perhaps Generals Keitel, Jodl, Krebs, and Burgdorf (the four guys that he has stay in the room) could each stand for one of the four prongs of the analysis?

Re:Unfortunate (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918372)

However, directly using the entirety of the video from "The Downfall" is not going to be seen as fair use.

Nobody is using the entirety of the video. They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.

Re:Unfortunate (2, Insightful)

pookemon (909195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918270)

It's pretty easy really. "Fair Use" - is where the author/creator/distributor/publisher is making shite loads of money.

JUST LIKE THE NAZIS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917812)

See, this is just how it started in Nazi Germany, with the removal of youtube videos!

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS! (4, Funny)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918026)

First they came for the Youtube videos, but I didn't speak up because I don't have any Youtube videos...

Re:JUST LIKE THE NAZIS! (2, Funny)

The Redster! (874352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918338)

Then they came for the ISP's, but I did not speak up because

Uh-oh!! (5, Funny)

Pike (52876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917818)

Wait till Hitler finds out about this!!! woooooohhh boy!!

Re:Uh-oh!! (5, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918050)

Yeah, he's pretty pissed [youtube.com] .

Re:Uh-oh!! (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918052)

He has. Cue links to Hitler as a Meme video...

BBC already wrote good article on this (4, Informative)

Speare (84249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917824)

The BBC article on "The Downfall" viral video craze. [bbc.co.uk]

A good summary of the whole story of the meme before the YouTube action.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (0)

Botched (1314867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917888)

Is meme now a buzzword? Because I'm failing to see how this in any way qualifies as one.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917918)

No, meme is now a meme; memes are the new buzzwords.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (2, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918022)

something posted in 5000 different iterations on the internet, with dream of humour = meme, no?

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (1)

Botched (1314867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918070)

No. A meme is not a fashion or a fad. Fad is the proper term.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (3, Informative)

adbge (1693228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918128)

No. A meme is not a fashion or a fad. Fad is the proper term.

The term Internet meme, pronounced meem, is used to describe a concept that spreads quickly via the Internet.[1] The term is a reference to the concept of memes, although this concept refers to a much broader category of cultural information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme [wikipedia.org]

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918402)

As the description says, a meme [wikipedia.org] is a concept or an idea, preferably one that provides insight or a new way of doing things. Now if the original poster had said Internet Meme, then you might have a point, but only meme was used.
"Let's make parodies of Hitler having a spaz" is pretty weak as ideas go. It's pretty derivative of MST3K (which goes back to the late 80s before either the Internet or the use of the word meme became mainstream). There's also not much in the way of memetic evolution possible with doing parodies of a clip of a Hitler spaz from a particular movie. Now if making MST3K-style parodies of sequences from movies becomes really common for everything from Gone with the Wind to Monty Python or Adam Sandler movies, then you might have a genuine Internet meme. But this at best qualifies as a memetic codon.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918204)

The word is only 30 years old; it doesn't make any sense to pedantically insist on an exact definition.

Re:BBC already wrote good article on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918142)

Where have you been on the internets all this time?

Man (0, Redundant)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917832)

When Hitler finds out that YouTube has taken down all the Downfall parody videos, he's gonna be hella pissed!

Downfall is a really good movie (2, Interesting)

Spasmodeus (940657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917846)

...but difficult to watch if you're squeamish about real-world evil.

The parodies that I've seen, though (of the approximately 700,000 of them on YouTube) are hit and miss, though I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of thing that's defensible as fair use.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917868)

I did watch this movie - on YouTube, 10 minutes at a time!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918032)

The same scene over and over does not count.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917884)

The funny part is, I never would have heard about the movie(and subsequently bought a copy on DVD) if not for the Youtube parodies. Free advertising? Bah!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (1)

lee1026 (876806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918014)

wouldn't this story generate even more free ads?

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (5, Funny)

VTI9600 (1143169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918018)

Yeah! I never would have heard about the movie and subsequently downloaded it from The Pirate Bay if not for the Youtube parodies too!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918132)

"Yeah! I never would have heard about the movie and subsequently downloaded it from The Pirate Bay if not for the Youtube parodies too!"

I would ditto that, but I can't quite bring myself to dedicate 12 to 20 hours of bandwidth so that I can watch some movie that I may like or not. I'm sure not going to spend MONEY on it!!

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918178)

12-20 hours? What the fuck? I downloaded 12 GB in less than 12 hours, and I'm on a fairly crappy plan. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your torrent settings.

Re:Downfall is a really good movie (1)

luke_z3 (1000836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918374)

Netflix - It's how I can keep up with the movies -- especially those that I would not have otherwise had the chance to see -- and not fill up my limited physical (and hard disk) space with movies I watch once and put away. Downfall *is* good, but I don't feel like I'd be obtaining any more value if I were to purchase my own personal copy of it (or any other movie).

Side note: For people like me that don't care about "bonus features" like director commentary in movies, streaming video is where it's at. I'm trying to do my part to support those services, especially since I don't have to sit through movie previews before getting to the content like I would if I had purchased a DVD or Bluray.

Hitler finds out that... (1)

cntThnkofAname (1572875) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917848)

ich ein berliner

Re:Hitler finds out that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917872)

ich ein berliner

You're a doughnut? Come to daddy...

Re:Hitler finds out that... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917910)

shut up cunt.

my collection is the most extensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917854)

please support my channel:

http://www.youtube.com/hitlerscollection

Well what does the director have to say about it? (5, Informative)

yamamushi (903955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917882)

This is rather stupid, considering the director of Downfall watches them and likes them. In fact, in his own words "I think I've seen about 145 of them! Of course, I have to put the sound down when I watch. Many times the lines are so funny, I laugh out loud, and I'm laughing about the scene that I staged myself! You couldn't get a better compliment as a director." http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/01/the_director_of_downfall_on_al.html [nymag.com]

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (3, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917962)

I wouldn't worry about this. Youtube very happily takes down whatever, but just go back in a few weeks and it's up again. Just off the top of my head, here's a clip about Ron Paul [youtube.com] that Fox had taken down [flickr.com] , there are a multitude of Simpson's clips [youtube.com] up there now and for a long time when youtube first started those were all being taken down, and IIRC at one point musicians or the RIAA were forcing people to take down homemade music videos that people had posted. Eventually whoever is issuing the notices will get tired and give up. Sure you can try to do this, but it's a lot like trying to keep the tide from washing your sand castle away, it's a hopeless battle.

By the way, I saw this movie in the theater for a foreign film festival. It made it all the more funny to see the viral videos start popping up since I remembered the scene vividly and it's a pretty powerful movie. Although, I saw it with a German girl and her comment was that Hitler movies were passe in germany since so many had been made. I thought it was good though.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917988)

Just to emphasize my point. The version linked to in the Parent's post about Hitler finding out that Michael Jackson is dead is taken down [youtube.com] , but a quick search of "hitler michael jackson's death" yields one that has been missed [youtube.com] and is still there (I don't know if it's the original though).

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (3, Interesting)

Joeseph64 (1538923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917982)

This is rather stupid, considering the director of Downfall watches them and likes them. In fact, in his own words "I think I've seen about 145 of them! Of course, I have to put the sound down when I watch. Many times the lines are so funny, I laugh out loud, and I'm laughing about the scene that I staged myself! You couldn't get a better compliment as a director." http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/01/the_director_of_downfall_on_al.html [nymag.com]

Well... The article also ends with the director saying "If only I got royalties for it, then I'd be even happier." But removing the videos from youtube wouldn't help him with getting royalties, so yeah. It is rather stupid. He'll probably get less money now since the videos were essentially free advertising for the movie.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918002)

The article also ends with the director saying "If only I got royalties for it, then I'd be even happier." But removing the videos from youtube wouldn't help him with getting royalties, so yeah. It is rather stupid.

Doesn't youtube have a revenue-sharing system for MAFIAA-sourced content? I know that some stuff they take down saying that the MAFIAA told them to block it and some stuff they tell you (when you post it) that its OK because they have some sort of agreement with the copyright owner of the original materials.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918012)

To continue with my point (I hit submit instead of preview) - I bet the reason the director can't get any royalties is because his contract with the studio doesn't mention youtube clips so the studio gets to keep any money generated all for themselves. That's the kind of bullshit that "hollywood accounting" is famous for.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (1)

VTI9600 (1143169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918056)

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire. As another commenter noted, he's not getting royalties either. So, yeah, I'd probably not care about people distributing my IP without authorization if I had no way to make any more money for it either.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918084)

Parodies are directly protected under fair use. So he can scream and yell about it, but youtube is just proving with an automated system it has no clue.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918212)

Legally speaking, you're right. That doesn't mean it's the right thing.

Besides, how much money can you really make off of YouTube videos? Not much, I'd wager, for variations on one movie.

Re:Well what does the director have to say about i (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918302)

Well really it's stupid regardless of what the director has to say. I could imagine the director taking it all very seriously and being upset that people were making fun of his movie or making light of Hitler's actions. Still, forcing these clips to be taken down would be stupid.

These parodies aren't being done for profit. They're not competing with the movie. They're not taking away from the movie. Nobody is going to watch these clips and say, "Well I don't need to see this movie now." This isn't what copyright was created for.

The whole thing might even be covered under the first amendment as parody.

MS Flight SImulator X parody (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917890)

There use to be an MS Flight Simulator X parody that was roll over on the floor hilarious with a constant stream of in jokes about the frustrations of Flight Simulator enthusiasts with the last, initially buggiest (still not all bugs resolved) and resource hungry version of the simulator. On initial release you had to do all sorts of tweaking to get a usuable system. Two service packs and an addon pack later it was more usuable but still many hobbiests were divided between FS2004 (the previous version) and FSX. Nothing quite like watching Hitler going off his nut with subtitles about being told the scenery and aircraft addons from the previous version didn't work or bugs that caused you to lose your pilot history.

You have to understand that some hobbiests go to extremes to build their machines, and buy hardware and software for flight simulation like no other game. Not unusual to have an outlay of many thousands on hardware and software. I never quite went very far, but I did build a 3 screen gaming machine with Flight Sim as the primary use, and I do have a couple of expensive joysticks, yoke and rudder peddals. Extreme examples see people building cockpits in a rented warehouse to create a simulator worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with the development team disbanded and Microsoft killing the Flight Simulator franchise that lasted decades, people are STILL releasing addons and there are entire companies of paid developers still working to produce new addons.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918008)

Wow! Something totally un-MS related and some fucktard still finds a way to slip it into the conversations. What a fucking zealot.

You, sir, make those Jehovah Witness kooks look like mere amateurs.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody (1, Redundant)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918130)

Wow! Something totally un-MS related and some fucktard still finds a way to slip it into the conversations. What a fucking zealot.

Actually I wrote extensively against Microsoft's DRM on FSX in number of places including the MS Flight Sim newsgroup at the time. It's the second hit if you type in FSX and DRM into Google. I totally hate that they killed off the franchise. Don't let reality get in the way of your anonymous name calling though.

By the way you should get a refund on your education. You clearly fail comprehension: You don't understand how a parody of FSX based on a movie is related to the topic of parodies of that movie.

You, sir, make those Jehovah Witness kooks look like mere amateurs.

Well lets insult a religious group as well as a tech company while simultaneously ranting about a post being off topic. I sincerely hope you're trolling because otherwise you are just too stupid for words.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918024)

Why not move to X-plane or flightgear?
Seems like a better solution for players and the developers that want to make addons for them.

Re:MS Flight SImulator X parody (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918318)

Why not move to X-plane or flightgear?
Seems like a better solution for players and the developers that want to make addons for them.

Many many reasons
- They are STILL not as sophisticated or feature complete. Some of it is extreme. Joystick support is still not as easy as it should be in Flightgear.

- Momentum - not nearly as many addons now means its harder to get the ball rolling

- Both simulators keep changing even in minor releases. Makes it difficult for part time content creators to keep up, and less worthwhile when you know a new version will break it. Well FSX isn't fantastic for backward compatiblity - one of many mistakes, but FS2004 runs most FS2002 planes, and often only minor changes are needed to get an FS2004 plane to work in FSX

- Small changes and tweaks are very easy in FS2004 compared to X-Plane or Flight Gear. Everything but the physical model - from effects to air traffic, even scenery is somewhat easier in FS2004. Repainting is relatively easy too.

Ridiculous (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31917896)

Some of these parodies should be in the Smithsonian.

Constantin Films, just like any other company run by idiots, certainly enjoys the free hosting of their movie trailers and whatever else they have to promote their stupid movies.

this is the what intellectual property means: (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917944)

the impoverishment of our culture

no story, no art, is ever original. it all borrows or reinvents or reinterprets something that came before. and if the thread of our cultural output is artificially taxed strained and stamped out for demands for cash, then all of us, all of our lives, are less rich for that

maybe content creators would understand that parodies like this downfall clip actually create interest in the original, and are really just a form of advertisement. instead, imagine all the culturally relevant art that we will never see and can never see the light of day because a greedy selfish system would rather lock art behind lock and key, where it earns no cash, rather than let it get out there and bloom, and create more art, and create more COMMERCE

art, music, movies, all creative output has the unique property of being richer when it is allowed to flow freely and freely intermingle. why do we have to lead less rich cultural lives only because some fucking trolls in the bank vault can't see that? that if there were no such thing as intellectual property, the ancillary streams they could tap in the free flow of cultural output would be richer sources of cash than their feeble and failed approaches to control what they cannot and will never be able to control?

Re:this is the what intellectual property means: (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918062)

maybe content creators would understand that parodies like this downfall clip actually create interest in the original, and are really just a form of advertisement.

Too true. Youtube and these parodies must have driven rentals and sales of the DVD through the roof.

Bad Example (1)

VTI9600 (1143169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917954)

I like the EFF and all, but its a little hard to take them seriously considering the example video [youtube.com] they use in TFA. Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.

It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles

Define: Parody (1)

GeigerBC (1056332) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918118)

From Merriam-Webster: Parody - a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. Seems like the example videos with the altered subtitles fits that description to me.

Re:Bad Example (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918188)

Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.

I'm pretty sure the production qualities of the original are not a factor in determining fair use. There's amount and substantiality of the part of the work used (which is based on the whole movie, not the clip), effect on market for original work (zip or net positive), purpose of use, and nature of the work. Parody is an especially strong fair use; things have been found to be fair use when they used substantially all of the work allegedly infringed. The example video had all four factors in its favor.

It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles

It woulod be more like you taking 10 minutes of Avatar and changing the subtitles in a somewhat cleverer way than that. You should do it; Avatar cries out for it in spots. If I were doing it I'd concentrate on the idea that the Na'vi were somehow totally superior because they were all hooked into the ecosystem, yet it's the humans were the ones who could travel in space, grow new bodies, and teleoperate them. Or, I might patch in the Aldebarran scene from Star Wars and suggest that's what would have happened shortly after the movie ended.

Re:Bad Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918274)

Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.

Let's go through the factors:
              1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
It's nonprofit, so this goes in favor of fair use.
              2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
It's a Hollywood movie, so this goes against, but only slightly.
              3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
It's a couple of minutes out of a two hour film, so not very much.
              4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
This is the most important factor. And if one single person watches one of these parodies instead of buying the movie, the infinite improbability drive will send us to the other side of the universe.

Why not Godwined? Why the apostrophe? (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31917984)

It's a damn good movie. Bruno Ganz in the man. That role too some courage.

sounds like a bad business decision (4, Interesting)

ffflala (793437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918030)

Sure, hardly anyone posting a youtube vid will be interested in licensing the scene. It's short sighted to consider only that aspect, and think of it as lost revenue. This meme is a big one. If properly nurtured, it could ensure future rental revenue in the way that only cult movie status can.

I also only --and legally-- rented the movie after watching the Xbox Live parody. The movie was a large international success upon its release, but it didn't make my radar. The parodies are can be so funny because the banality of the fake subtitles is so incongruent to the remarkably powerful acting.

My thought process went from "this is hilarious" to "wow what a great scene... I need to watch this movie".

Re:sounds like a bad business decision (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918140)

Just this minute I showed my GF a Downfall parody. It was her first. The first thing she said after it was over was "Wow, that looks like Downfall is an interesting movie. We should get it."

I can only conclude the the guy that thought Takedowns for Downfall was the same guy who thought "New Coke" was a good idea.

Mine's still up (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918054)

I received a "Notice of potential infringement" from YouTube very soon after posting this one [youtube.com] a week ago. The video, which had initially been accessible, was pulled from the site.

There was an option to appeal the takedown notice, and I filled it out, providing as a reason "Parody is a recognized fair use under US copyright law." I'm actually not sure if you can play the fair-use card when using the content owner's IP to mock an unrelated subject, but in any event, the appeal seemed to be accepted by YouTube, because access to the video was restored within a few hours.

So, for what it's worth, if your video gets pulled by Youtube, try filling out the appeal form.

Re:Mine's still up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918230)

Link or if did not happen!

Re:Mine's still up (3, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918364)

So it sounds as though you're going to want to read over 17 USC 512(g), which covers this sort of thing.

Long story short, the idea is that if material is taken down due to a DMCA notification, which service providers (including YouTube, given how that term is defined in the law) obey in order to be protected from lawsuits regarding things other people do with their service, it can be put back up in a way that continues to protect the service provider. But the two opposing parties are made aware of each other so that they can hash the issue out in court, possibly with the court ordering that the material be taken down again.

Here's the relevant subsection:

(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.--

(1) No liability for taking down generally.-- Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

(2) Exception.--
Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider--

(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material;

(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.

(3) Contents of counter notification.--
To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

(4) Limitation on other liability.--
A service provider's compliance with paragraph (2) shall not subject the service provider to liability for copyright infringement with respect to the material identified in the notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C).

Re:Mine's still up (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918426)

There was an option to appeal the takedown notice, and I filled it out, providing as a reason "Parody is a recognized fair use under US copyright law."

That's a common misconception, largely due to the press doing its usual poor job of reporting Supreme Court decisions (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.). An accurate statement of the law is that parody may be fair use. Basically, the district court said parody was fair use. The appeals court said it wasn't. The Supreme Court said it could be--it's one of the things you consider when considering that nature of the work, and send the case back down to the district court to try again.

Glad they got on that before anybody saw them.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918086)

...next up, the creators of Zero Wing request YouTube take down the All Your Base videos.

When will they learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918108)

I BOUGHT this movie on DVD because I ran into the "Hitler Gets Banned From XBox Live" video on YouTube. I'd never heard of or seen it before, but after I stopped laughing, I realized that the acting was incredible, and I sought to find out what movie it was. A quick google later and I was at WalMart, with the DVD, in a checkout line.

I very rarely buy movies and I don't watch TV, so how do production companies think they're going to reach me? YouTube is free advertising that actually managed to find my eyeballs.

Corporate interference with Free Speech again... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918120)

I know there's at least one remixed Downfall video on YT that was a serious part of political discussion in Australia ("Alex Hawke Liberal Party Downfall"), and removal of that is interfering with 'Free Speech' in its intended sense. Deleting that video is deleting political history. Bad Thing.

Mirror of "Hitler Finds out his videos are removed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918122)

is here: http://bit.ly/bDciiN

Parody Is Protected Speech (1)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918124)

At least in the U.S. it is -- not sure about the free speech laws of other countries. These videos are clearly parodies and riffs on the original. In no way are the people who are creating these things portraying themselves as the director of Downfall or the producer of that film. Is the question that they are using a too large portion of it for the parody?

+1 Correct (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918156)

These automatic content detectors CANNOT evaluate whether or not the content is used under Fair Use. AFAICT, they have no copyright-based justification for removal of these videos. If this is in response to anything DMCA-related, the video submitters can strike penalties against YouTube or the complaint party if this is a bogus takedown of protected content, right?

Incidentally, I had no idea what the name of the parodied move was until this /. story. I've wanted to check it out.

Next up.... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918134)

A parody of Hitler reacting to finding out Youtube deleted his video upload?

Or possibly of Hitler finding out people have been posting parodies about him and outraged, demanding his 2nd in command, Mr. Eric Schmidt do something about that.

I'm sure we could think of some way of mocking Google about this, they kind of deserve it, due to their evil, unjustified, indiscriminate takedowns of user content.

Der Untergang (4, Informative)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918148)

To anybody that hasn't seen this movie, it is a great artistic portrayal of Der Fuhrer in his final days, and provides insightful dialog regarding the mentality of the Reich's higher ups during the final days. It is an extremely dark and gritty movie, but the angle it presents is something alot of American history books and entertainment tend to neglect.

I saw the original movie, Der Untergang [imdb.com] , which is its original German name, in my German Studies class in high-school, and recommend it to anybody interested in more than just Godwin's Law. Watch it. Must See.

Excellent film (1)

Seth Morabito (2273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918160)

I have to agree with some of the other commenters -- it really is an excellent film. I think it's a testament to how engrossing it is that when I got to the infamous scene, I wasn't distracted or amused by its association with all of the YouTube clips I'd watched, because I was fully engaged with the film and the story by that point.

And yes, I would likely never have seen or even heard of this film without the YouTube parodies. They made at least one DVD sale right here.

Downfall is an incredible movie (1)

Degro (989442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918200)

The man playing Hitler in that movie does an amazing job. It's very chilling.

EFF's own parody video... (3, Informative)

adbge (1693228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918208)

The EFF has a parody video up about this type of thing happening. It seems to have been posted before Youtube started pulling them down, so it's almost prophetic.

The clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzUoWkbNLe8&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com]

Anyone have a link to the Cloud Computing Episode? (1)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918278)

First off, this is total spinelessness on Youtube's part. This type of content is CLEARY PROTECTED BY THE PARODY as part of US copyright law. I need to watch the "Hitler Find out his Cloud Applications" episode and never downloaded it. If you have a link or reupload it, please reply to my post.

Coming soon: (0, Redundant)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918286)

Parody about Hitler complaining at Youtube's stupid copyright policies - in 3... 2... 1...

Send them an email and let them know how you feel! (2, Informative)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918314)

Send them an email and let them know how you feel about the takedown! zentrale@constantin-film.de

In related news... (2, Interesting)

Col Bat Guano (633857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918362)

Hitler's relatives sue Constantin films for copyright infringement of his private conversations while in the bunker.

Tie to Gov't Publication Service, Please? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918366)

Earlier today I saw this most worthwhile project by Google to publish Government takedowns and data requests:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/20/197254/Google-Enumerates-Government-Requests [slashdot.org]

Now this article makes me ponder...

Open Letter to Google/YouTube:

I can totally dig that the volume of possible copyright infringement -- and hence the volume of takedown notices -- on YouTube is enormous. So large that automated processing is effectively required to keep compliance costs at a manageable level.

So how about publishing the takedowns? Maybe a CSS feed with just the links to the video pages with the removal notice for starters. If that goes smoothly, perhaps you could work toward publishing the takedown requests and the identities of the requesting agents.

I think it is reasonable for the content-generating community to accept that you are a business with real cost management needs to meet. It would be a nice turnabout to the content-generating community for you to make the data available for us to analyze, to enable us to see if patterns of abuse are developing. Just as copyright infringement effectively becomes a cost you must deal with, takedown abuse also becomes an expense to you. This sort of approach would allow you to crowd-source the analysis and mitigation of such abuse. I am sure there are plenty of fair-use nazis out here who would love to help.

Win/Win my friends, that's what it's all about.

Thanks for your consideration,

Bob

Time to FUCK these bastards over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31918386)

Torrent link:
http://torrage.com/torrent/667ECBE6AEEFBCCE1E971B0AB16D3271EB9F3DC4.torrent [torrage.com]

Download it, spread it, send it to everyone you know and discourage anyone from ever buying a legal version of this move. Let's make sure this retarded business moves costs them thousands of times more than they were losing from Youtube paradies.

This is insane (1)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31918398)

Someone tell the producers of The Downfall that they cannot godwin use of the godwin clip. Its like dividing by zero, the consequences are never worth it no matter how badly you want to do it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?