5 ms·

The EFF has trouble with understanding Copyright on a regular basis. No, really, I've been following them long enough (partially in agreement, partially out of

The EFF has trouble with understanding Copyright on a regular basis. No, really, I've been following them long enough (partially in agreement, partially out of balance against the content industry) to know they take a very extreme position - an outlier, almost a FUD type position - and work backwards to show how whatever instance they decry at the time is a terrible wrong, an indicator of the downfall of society, blah blah blah. They're habitual at this and it's pretty annoying. Commentary is protected speech. Parody is protected speech. Satire is not protected speech. As noted by delinka, if Samsung has a private agreement with YouTube regarding sending notices to take down infringing material that is outside of the "official" DMCA channels (ex ContentID), then that's bothersome but not necessarily a point of legal recourse. So, if Samsung points to a video and tells YouTube that the video violates YouTube's ToS based on point X or Y, then YouTube and Samsung can effectively side-step DMCA. That leaves the EFF with a handful of air in this case. The EFF has a worthwhile mission, but time and again I think they get a bit hysterical and disingenuous, which, to me, only backfires in the long run. YMMV.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Retric 10y ago
This is Parody due to the extreme nature of the explosions not Satire. So, while Satire is not protected* this is clearly not Satire making that point irrelevant. *Ed: I mean Satire is first amendment speech, but that does not make it fair use.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  No, it's probably commentary, but if you'd like to explain to me how by definition it's a Parody (based on the Four Factor test) then by all means I'd like to read it. Otherwise you're just asserting a point without any grounding, re: Fair Use. As in, what your opinion of Fair Use is may not be aligned with the law so let's have a look at that. The EFF is still a habitual abuser of language relating to Copyright, and I suppose that ticks off some people, but I fucking hate propaganda and they're guilty of it on a routine basis.
  - Retric 10y ago
    "while a parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, a satire uses the work to criticize something else, and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing" http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu... Clearly, this mod is making fun of the Nexus phone. Which then breaks the connection between Sony and the Videos. You don't have any rights to uses of a fair use derivative work.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      So if it was simply a video making of the phone or its likeness (a S7 by the way, not Nexus) by mocking its technical prowess and then showing an explosion as a "feature, not a bug" then sure it'd be parody. Self-referential. Using the S7 as a detonator? Much more like commentary, though it's toeing close to satire in that the notion of the reference (comedic/etc) is not targeted at the phone itself but in an alternate application. Like taking a tampon and shoving it up a person's nose as a way to stop bleeding from cocaine abuse and making an ad about it - that's not direct parody, and it's a lot closer to what's going on than some would like to acknowledge. I do know very well there's a lot of over-reach when it comes to Fair Use but picking bad examples, like the EFF loves to do and then jack up with all sorts of FUD end of the world rhetoric, doesn't help.
      - Retric 10y ago
        It's not using the phone as a detonator it's using the phone as the bomb. Here, they put the video back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE You are physically throwing these phones and they can then detonate like a bomb or on impact like a grenade. At one point they look down and several phones are on the ground, later on these phones blow up. It would be like SNL making a fake add about an updated Ford Pinto where they added 10 kg of C4 thus preventing it from catching fire. (warning cars now detonate.) Importantly, replacing the phone with an iPhone would not work as they are making fun of the defect. Thus, using the source material is directly required. AKA if you want to make fun of British people then using Sherlock homes is being lazy, but if you want to make fun of Sherlock homes you kind of need to reference him.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Retric 10y ago

This is Parody due to the extreme nature of the explosions not Satire. So, while Satire is not protected* this is clearly not Satire making that point irrelevant. *Ed: I mean Satire is first amendment speech, but that does not make it fair use.

6stringmerc 10y ago
No, it's probably commentary, but if you'd like to explain to me how by definition it's a Parody (based on the Four Factor test) then by all means I'd like to read it. Otherwise you're just asserting a point without any grounding, re: Fair Use. As in, what your opinion of Fair Use is may not be aligned with the law so let's have a look at that. The EFF is still a habitual abuser of language relating to Copyright, and I suppose that ticks off some people, but I fucking hate propaganda and they're guilty of it on a routine basis.
- Retric 10y ago
  "while a parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, a satire uses the work to criticize something else, and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing" http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu... Clearly, this mod is making fun of the Nexus phone. Which then breaks the connection between Sony and the Videos. You don't have any rights to uses of a fair use derivative work.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    So if it was simply a video making of the phone or its likeness (a S7 by the way, not Nexus) by mocking its technical prowess and then showing an explosion as a "feature, not a bug" then sure it'd be parody. Self-referential. Using the S7 as a detonator? Much more like commentary, though it's toeing close to satire in that the notion of the reference (comedic/etc) is not targeted at the phone itself but in an alternate application. Like taking a tampon and shoving it up a person's nose as a way to stop bleeding from cocaine abuse and making an ad about it - that's not direct parody, and it's a lot closer to what's going on than some would like to acknowledge. I do know very well there's a lot of over-reach when it comes to Fair Use but picking bad examples, like the EFF loves to do and then jack up with all sorts of FUD end of the world rhetoric, doesn't help.
    - Retric 10y ago
      It's not using the phone as a detonator it's using the phone as the bomb. Here, they put the video back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE You are physically throwing these phones and they can then detonate like a bomb or on impact like a grenade. At one point they look down and several phones are on the ground, later on these phones blow up. It would be like SNL making a fake add about an updated Ford Pinto where they added 10 kg of C4 thus preventing it from catching fire. (warning cars now detonate.) Importantly, replacing the phone with an iPhone would not work as they are making fun of the defect. Thus, using the source material is directly required. AKA if you want to make fun of British people then using Sherlock homes is being lazy, but if you want to make fun of Sherlock homes you kind of need to reference him.