Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Youtube Your Rights Online

EFF Assails YouTube For Removing "Downfall" Parodies 294

Posted by kdawson
from the end-is-near dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Assails YouTube For Removing "Downfall" Parodies

Comments Filter:
  • by Looce (1062620) * on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @08:40PM (#31917790) Journal

    und ich bin erste!

    (first post, thread is now godwinned)

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @08:42PM (#31917808)
    I love those things. The Gencon Battletech one was the first one I ever saw.
  • Unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @08:43PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DurendalMac (736637) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @09:06PM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by crossmr (957846)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by larry bagina (561269)
        The videos are using one scene, not the entirety. And people watch the videos *for* the subtitles.
      • Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)

        by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @10:13PM (#31918300) Homepage

        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @10:26PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tepples (727027)

          They are using a clip that's less than 4 minutes out of a 178 minute film.

          True, but that doesn't necessarily make the 4 minutes free to use, especially for purposes other than making a comment on that particular film or its authors.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mabhatter654 (561290)

        Weird Al is still part of the "system" and doesn't have anything to do with Fair Use... He's on a big label and can get rights to whatever he wants. Remember MOST performers on the radio DON'T write their songs, and the "company" often owns them anyway. The company can license to whoever they want..."NOW", Kidz Bop, etc. The "performer" has nothing to say because they signed over ownership. What company executive is going to pass up easy money if Weird Al wants to riff on a song!

      • by Xeno man (1614779)
        Just because you haven 't seen the movie your self doesn't make a 4 minuet clip the entire movie. It's a 3 hour film.

        Also it doesn't matter how much of the original work is used, different subtitles change the entire context of the clip and there for is protected under fair use.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pookemon (909195)
      It's pretty easy really. "Fair Use" - is where the author/creator/distributor/publisher is making shite loads of money.
    • by symbolset (646467) * on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @02:46AM (#31919522) Journal

      Imagine if you will that Wm. Shakespeare had to contend with modern copyright law. He's only one example - any remembered artist will do. How much of the works of "Bard of Avon" would be permitted under current law? Actually, almost none of it. A sonnet or two. And because his unsourced output was so small we would not know of him at all. England's national poet would have been silenced by copyright law as we know it. Almost all of the stories he retold as plays would now be lost forever because they were derived from bardic tales or previous plays that would have been protected by copyright. We grant him great respect now not because he invented these stories, but because he told them well .

      Every play, each story, was derived or influenced - as was common in that day and should be common still - by the bardic tales passed down in oral tradition that today would be protected. It was in his wry telling of these tales, the wit that he added, that made them so durable that we know them still. If he had not retold them in his special way they would be lost to time. Today he would be Disney'd out of his art - as a great many grand geniuses are today being silenced by the tyranny of copyright monopolies.

      Every creative person needs to understand and acknowledge the source of their creation, or at least that they've built upon one. And they need to submit to a future where others build upon their work. We call this evolution culture. Modern copyright law admits no such culture. Each of them needs to understand that modern copyright law dooms them to ignominy, as our current masters of culture need new sales to drive their market numbers and this works against literary immortality. It's a Devil's bargain.

      And so, breeding a generation devoid of culture we reap what we sow. If kids can't adopt the culture of their parents because they're proscribed from experiencing what it was by copyright law, they will invent their own. These inventions will by necessity be primal. Primitive. Animalistic. That can be art, but it can't be durable art.

      So, artists and inventors are actually harmed by the current state of law. They should oppose it as it prevents their art from going viral and being a part of our culture.

      By preventing the natural course of social evolution through copyright law, we naturally regress to the primitive at an abhorrent rate. That's not the purpose of copyright enshrined in the US Constitution. The purpose of that clause was to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

    • Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcvos (645701) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @02:57AM (#31919584)

      I read an interview with the director of Der Untergang where he said that he liked all those Untergang parodies. Not every filmmaker has his pivotal scene become such a big internet meme, and he was very flattered by that, and tried to watch every one of them.

      Clearly he's not the one who calls these shot.

      • Re:Unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @07:31AM (#31921176)

        Clearly he's not the one who calls these shot.

        Well, think of the thousands of people who saw the original scene because of the parody, were drawn in by Bruno Ganz's amazing performance, and then went ahead and watched the full movie.

        If I was the director, I'd be happy with the amazing viral marketing.

  • Uh-oh!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pike (52876) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @08:43PM (#31917818) Homepage Journal

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

  • by Speare (84249) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @08:45PM (#31917824) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by Spasmodeus (940657) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @08:49PM (#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.

  • 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]
    • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @09:06PM (#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.
      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Joeseph64 (1538923)

      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.

      • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

          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.

    • 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.

  • 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

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by syousef (465911)

        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 FS

  • Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • 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?

    • by Sperbels (1008585)

      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.

      • Indeed. After I peed myself laughing at the "Blu-Ray beats HD" version, I went out and bought TWO copies of the movie, one for me, and one for my mother-in-law, who was in the Hitler Youth and worked as a German air traffic controller during the war. She swears it's the damnedest thing she's ever seen. The first time we watched it with her, we ended up listening to three hours of stories afterwords.
    • by PitaBred (632671)

      Posts like this deserve more than +5

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I'll admit that intellectual property kills culture a little bit. Right after you admit that unbridled sharing kills culture a lot more.

      Besides, as you pointed out, leaving these clips up could be a form of advertisement. The only problem is if the free advertisement ends up being a substitute for the non-free whole package. So, the concept of intellectual property, and sharing small portions (or small parodies) of the work, are far from mutually exclusive.

      that if there were no such thing as intellectual pr

  • by ffflala (793437) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @09:18PM (#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".

    • 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.

      • by bsane (148894)

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

        You're right if you mean pure genius! Both are free advertising on top of free advertising. I had never heard of Downfall until they sent their takedown notices, now I've watched this parody _and_ I kind of want to watch the movie.

  • Mine's still up (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @09:22PM (#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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @10:24PM (#31918364) Homepage

      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).

    • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...next up, the creators of Zero Wing request YouTube take down the All Your Base videos.
  • Der Untergang (Score:5, Informative)

    by cosm (1072588) <thecosm3@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @09:39PM (#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.
    • Re:Der Untergang (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Trapezium Artist (919330) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:44AM (#31920086)

      It is indeed a fantastic film, highly recommended.

      Being married to a German, having lived in Berlin for seven years, and with both my kids having been born there, I have long felt that it's absolutely incumbent upon me to really try and understand what happened in 1930s and 1940s Germany, rather than continuing to hide behind the simplistic "we won, you lost, you killed lots of Jews, Germans are bad" attitude that was drummed into most of us growing up in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s.

      That's not to condone or forgive anything at all, but it's important that we understand why a deeply civilised nation went so catastrophically off the rails in the first half of the twentieth century, if only to look inwards and ask ourselves, each and every one of us, what would it take for me to go down a similar road. Only then, I believe, can you try and avoid it. Again, it's too trivial to say "never" without thinking about it: we're all human and all capable of extreme actions in extreme circumstances, I believe.

      In that regard, Der Untergang is a truly crucial addition to the literature (be it written or visual) on this very important topic.

  • by adbge (1693228) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @09:52PM (#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]
  • 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.
  • by Proudrooster (580120) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @10:16PM (#31918314) Homepage
    Send them an email and let them know how you feel about the takedown! zentrale@constantin-film.de
  • In related news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Col Bat Guano (633857) on Tuesday April 20, 2010 @10:24PM (#31918362)

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

  • 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 a

  • They haven't pulled mine yet! Maybe my crappy rip has something to do with it, or low view count.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RockoTDF#p/a/u/0/ZTEQmipAvIM [youtube.com]
  • by plopez (54068)

    Seems an appropriate date for this story.

  • Because a parody video of Hitler as Steve Jobs discovering the loss of the iPhone 4G prototype just must be made.

  • The more you tighten your grip, Copyright Dogs, the more content will slip through your fingers.
  • The "Hitler reacts to iPad's release" was one of my all-time favorite parodies. I simply can't believe Youtube removed it. Hey, Google, you're smart guys, this move is wholly out of character.

  • I'd bet that part of the problem (both in this case, and ones like it) comes from an attorney or an in-house legal department wanting to show that it's earning its pay. As mentioned elsewhere, the director likes the parodies, so this obviously wasn't prompted by him. No one in a strictly-financial part of the company would have started it, either, unless they were monumental idiots, since obviously no one is going to pay a license fee to do one of these parodies. But the legal folks get to put this down on
  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @07:22AM (#31921078)

    http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/19/201255 [slashdot.org]

    See plenty of their clips (legally & for free) here:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/montypython?blend=1&ob=4 [youtube.com]

    Since the director of the film apparently *likes* the parodies, why not organise a competition, with a YouTube channel for the winners?
    Yipee, instant good karma for the movie industry, (for a change), instead of this Streisand effect boomerang.
    All the parody clips will be back, or posted elsewhere, within minutes anyway....

  • by FiloEleven (602040) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @02:14PM (#31929088)

    In reality, the bunker scene depicts Hitler reacting furiously to the news that the war is lost as Soviet troops close in on Berlin. The internet parody leaves the video and audio intact, but replaces the subtitles with Hitler reacting to ridiculous every day events, like having his xBox live account canceled, or finding out that Michael Jackson died.

    I don't see how this qualifies as parody when the only thing changed is the subtitle text. The clips are humorous when done well, and an argument might be made for fair use, but this is not parody. Parody requires imitation, whereas this is closer to annotation.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...