4 ms·

Are there any good examples of copyright hypocrites? That is, companies which have spent great effort pursuing copyright infringement while infringing on copyri

Are there any good examples of copyright hypocrites? That is, companies which have spent great effort pursuing copyright infringement while infringing on copyright themselves. I don't consider Google to be largely this sort of company, as they've fought to expand access (when it's in their interest, at least). Companies like Disney come to mind, but they're not exactly the same. They often adapt works where the copyright has expired, while lobbying to prevent their own works from having their copyright expire. That is definitely unfair, but not quite the same.

will_brown 8y ago
>I don't consider Google to be largely this sort of company, as they've fought to expand access They have fought to expand access to other people’s protected property but make sure theirs is locked behind paywall. Think of all the copywrite violations on YouTube, from movies, tv shows, copywrite broadcasts of sporting events. Now try to watch episode 3 or beyond of YouTube Red (Premium) series Cobra Kai without signing up for the service and giving them your credit card. Do as I say, not as I do.
- tmpz22 8y ago
  There's also the scraping of third party sites to use as in-search cards within Google search, whilst having extensive scraping defenses for their own searches and charging for programmatic access to Google search...
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Third party sites only get scraped if they want, Google Search obeys robots.txt. There's nothing hypocritical about it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
maxxxxx 8y ago
What I hear from photographers is that movie and music companies/bands often take photos from the internet and use them without permission.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
WillReplyfFood 8y ago
Does Google open source it search algo? The data seems only want to be free - if its part of others work.
bobbyi_settv 8y ago
Universal argued in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. that King Kong's plot and characters are in the public domain and therefore they could freely use them in their remake of King Kong (the original being made by RKO Pictures). Then, in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., they sued Nintendo claiming that Donkey Kong is too similar to their character King Kong. Nintendo was successfully defended by the lawyer John Kirby and named one of their characters in his honor. It was actually a trademark case, not copyright, but still pretty hypocritical. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v....
toomanybeersies 8y ago
Musicians seems to be really bad at this. Red Jumpsuit Apparatus jumps to mind. They used a photo without permission, then proceeded to insult the photographer and tried to blackball him from being a concert photographer, then tried to insult him publicly on Twitter. The photographers main site is down, so this article will have to do: https://petapixel.com/2014/04/21/band-responds-worst-way-possible-stealing-photographers-work/ https://petapixel.com/2014/04/21/band-responds-worst-way-pos... Diplo did a similar thing: https://fstoppers.com/other/famed-music-producer-caught-photographer-drama-8452 https://fstoppers.com/other/famed-music-producer-caught-phot...
- stephen_g 8y ago
  Film studios also. I recall reading a whole lot of stories about indie bands who have had their music used in films without authorisation or licensing, and have a hard time getting recourse. Pretty bad look given how rabidly the film studios go against even individuals downloading their movies. Basically, I think when it comes down to intellectual property, many people are hypocrites (especially the ones who feel they’re big enough to not get seriously punished)
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    It's not really hypocrisy, so much as an expression of a value system that is essentially opportunistic and amoral. The true morality is greed-driven - make as much money as possible, unless/until some more powerful entity stops you. IP laws have been shaped by that morality. It has pulled them far away from their original intent, which was to reward creators. Large corporations regularly take advantage of their size and power to make sure that they, not the creators, receive value from the work. So if you're surprised that corporate lawyers can appear to contradict their own positions, it's possible you may not have understood what motivates corporate culture.
gaius 8y ago
they've fought to expand access (when it's in their interest, at least) Google is attempting to build a world in which the only way to monetise creative work is to put an ad on it. In this world only works that Google deems to be ad-friendly (and/or a good source of personal data) will be commercially viable. There is nothing altruistic about “expanding access”.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Google is attempting to build a world in which the only way to monetise creative work is to put an ad on it. Then why come out with YouTube Premium, and even buy a bunch of exclusive shows for it? Why does Google Play include paid music, books, shows and films?
nisse72 8y ago
About 10 years ago there was a widely publicized case of a small town policitician in the US, who had posted a nutty campaign video to his own website, and which later got picked up by a TV program (like AFV or somesuch). He thought it was great that his video was on TV, so he posted a video of it being shown on the program, something like 5 seconds of their introduction followed by 60 seconds of his own material. The TV network promptly sued him for infringing their copyright, and (I believe) lost. There would have been a fair amount of backlash as well. Unfortunately I cannot remember the names or places involved, so I'm getting nowhere with Google. Perhaps someone else will recognize this description and chime in.
- dmurray 8y ago
  That sounds like a textbook example of fair use: a small excerpt for the purpose of reporting. Interested to hear if you do have the details.
  - nisse72 8y ago
    I found the story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(filmmaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(filmmaker) http://www.dmlp.org/threats/viacom-v-knight http://www.dmlp.org/threats/viacom-v-knight
    - dmurray 8y ago
      Thanks. Tldr: he pointed out it was fair use and they dropped their DMCA claim.
Vinnl 8y ago
A Dutch anti-piracy group infringed on copyright in one of their campaign videos: https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-corruption-scandal-surrounds-anti-piracy-campaign-111201/?_ https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-corruption-scandal-surrou...

will_brown 8y ago

>I don't consider Google to be largely this sort of company, as they've fought to expand access They have fought to expand access to other people’s protected property but make sure theirs is locked behind paywall. Think of all the copywrite violations on YouTube, from movies, tv shows, copywrite broadcasts of sporting events. Now try to watch episode 3 or beyond of YouTube Red (Premium) series Cobra Kai without signing up for the service and giving them your credit card. Do as I say, not as I do.

tmpz22 8y ago
There's also the scraping of third party sites to use as in-search cards within Google search, whilst having extensive scraping defenses for their own searches and charging for programmatic access to Google search...
- icebraining 8y ago
  Third party sites only get scraped if they want, Google Search obeys robots.txt. There's nothing hypocritical about it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

maxxxxx 8y ago

What I hear from photographers is that movie and music companies/bands often take photos from the internet and use them without permission.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

WillReplyfFood 8y ago

Does Google open source it search algo? The data seems only want to be free - if its part of others work.

bobbyi_settv 8y ago

Universal argued in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. that King Kong's plot and characters are in the public domain and therefore they could freely use them in their remake of King Kong (the original being made by RKO Pictures). Then, in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., they sued Nintendo claiming that Donkey Kong is too similar to their character King Kong. Nintendo was successfully defended by the lawyer John Kirby and named one of their characters in his honor. It was actually a trademark case, not copyright, but still pretty hypocritical. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v....

toomanybeersies 8y ago

Musicians seems to be really bad at this. Red Jumpsuit Apparatus jumps to mind. They used a photo without permission, then proceeded to insult the photographer and tried to blackball him from being a concert photographer, then tried to insult him publicly on Twitter. The photographers main site is down, so this article will have to do: https://petapixel.com/2014/04/21/band-responds-worst-way-possible-stealing-photographers-work/ https://petapixel.com/2014/04/21/band-responds-worst-way-pos... Diplo did a similar thing: https://fstoppers.com/other/famed-music-producer-caught-photographer-drama-8452 https://fstoppers.com/other/famed-music-producer-caught-phot...

stephen_g 8y ago
Film studios also. I recall reading a whole lot of stories about indie bands who have had their music used in films without authorisation or licensing, and have a hard time getting recourse. Pretty bad look given how rabidly the film studios go against even individuals downloading their movies. Basically, I think when it comes down to intellectual property, many people are hypocrites (especially the ones who feel they’re big enough to not get seriously punished)
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  It's not really hypocrisy, so much as an expression of a value system that is essentially opportunistic and amoral. The true morality is greed-driven - make as much money as possible, unless/until some more powerful entity stops you. IP laws have been shaped by that morality. It has pulled them far away from their original intent, which was to reward creators. Large corporations regularly take advantage of their size and power to make sure that they, not the creators, receive value from the work. So if you're surprised that corporate lawyers can appear to contradict their own positions, it's possible you may not have understood what motivates corporate culture.

gaius 8y ago

they've fought to expand access (when it's in their interest, at least) Google is attempting to build a world in which the only way to monetise creative work is to put an ad on it. In this world only works that Google deems to be ad-friendly (and/or a good source of personal data) will be commercially viable. There is nothing altruistic about “expanding access”.

icebraining 8y ago
Google is attempting to build a world in which the only way to monetise creative work is to put an ad on it. Then why come out with YouTube Premium, and even buy a bunch of exclusive shows for it? Why does Google Play include paid music, books, shows and films?

nisse72 8y ago

About 10 years ago there was a widely publicized case of a small town policitician in the US, who had posted a nutty campaign video to his own website, and which later got picked up by a TV program (like AFV or somesuch). He thought it was great that his video was on TV, so he posted a video of it being shown on the program, something like 5 seconds of their introduction followed by 60 seconds of his own material. The TV network promptly sued him for infringing their copyright, and (I believe) lost. There would have been a fair amount of backlash as well. Unfortunately I cannot remember the names or places involved, so I'm getting nowhere with Google. Perhaps someone else will recognize this description and chime in.

dmurray 8y ago
That sounds like a textbook example of fair use: a small excerpt for the purpose of reporting. Interested to hear if you do have the details.
- nisse72 8y ago
  I found the story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(filmmaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Knight_(filmmaker) http://www.dmlp.org/threats/viacom-v-knight http://www.dmlp.org/threats/viacom-v-knight
  - dmurray 8y ago
    Thanks. Tldr: he pointed out it was fair use and they dropped their DMCA claim.

Vinnl 8y ago

A Dutch anti-piracy group infringed on copyright in one of their campaign videos: https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-corruption-scandal-surrounds-anti-piracy-campaign-111201/?_ https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-corruption-scandal-surrou...