13 ms·

Netflix Targets Critical ‘Cuties’ Tweets with Copyright Takedown Requests

287 points by ikeboy 6y ago

michaelt 6y ago
The changes between the French and American posters for 'Cuties' [1] seem like a pretty obvious attempt to manufacture controversy under the "no such thing as bad publicity" approach to marketing. And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise. If Netflix have got more controversy than they intended to, this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=cuties+french+vs+american+poster&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=cuties+french+vs+american+po...
- madcow00 6y ago
  "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". I don't think the makers wanted to create a controversy -- especially on a sensitive issue like sexualisation of minors. This was more of a disregard on their part.
  - EricE 6y ago
    Accidental exploitation of children is still exploitation of children. And Netflix not only chose to carry it, but DOUBLE DOWN and defend it. Unacceptable.
- cutitout 6y ago
  The show is criticized for being essential erotic material for pedophiles, filled with up close shots of bums and panties of children. The American poster comes closer to that, but is still tame compared to the actual content, which is what this is about. > And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise. Compared to other stories, this one is already being penalized, and the top comment (yours) is about a total red herring. Ever since Elsagate I am just in awe at the collective ability to look the other way.
  - vmception 6y ago
    I don’t really buy the controversy I found that movie to be the lamest and most cringeworthy material and couldn’t watch more than 2 minutes of some of the clips The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile Has anyone noticed that? Actual pedophiles have plenty of actual explicit material from that age group and the older teenagers that could still land them in hot water but plenty more under they can just lust over, so what do actual pedophiles think? All I see are men on twitter doing a scene by scene breakdown of fairly benign but cringeworthy material of a dance scene that really is like that in the real world, is this really insight into what phantom pedophiles are turned on by? Is it the overprotective brother or father hoping for a different world? Or are these people having their own internal struggle with lust? Does it matter? I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards, it is just annoying child actors in an annoying plot because its just not that good, like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed
    - ravenstine 6y ago
      I don't know anyone who is concerned with pedophiles getting off on the film. Almost all the arguments I've heard against it are based on potential exploitation of the child actors and people generally being uncomfortable with overt sexualization of children.
    - cutitout 6y ago
      > The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile > Has anyone noticed that? How can I "notice" something you're just claiming, based on nothing, that doesn't even make sense on top of that? I'm not projecting my own discomfort at sexualized depiction of underage girls on a phantom pedophile, since I would assume such a pedophile wouldn't feel discomfort, but arousal. > I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards And if anyone disagrees, you speculate a bit, then say it doesn't even matter.. yet think your assessment matters. These aren't "community standards", these are yours. The suppression of how "the community" actually reacts speaks volumes in and of itself. > like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed I don't need anything for any Netflix stuff to be viewed. I simply call things as I see them. edit: and for the "men on Twitter" thing (as if there's not plenty men calling this a profound something or other), here's shoe0nhead's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  This got to the front page of HN because they're specifically using the DMCA against opinions Netflix dislikes. I don't think it has to do with the show specifically.
  - monkpit 6y ago
    But it does have the title in the headline, on the front page.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  Controversy or a move to normalize the sexualization of children? Some claim the latter. Generally speaking, film is a powerful medium through which things are normalized. Think of the shows and film that helped normalize homosexuality or promiscuity and shaped attitudes toward sex and sexuality (often through humor; levity is a powerful tool). They worked. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to make this happen, just a cultural trajectory. The backing of powerful and moneyed industry figures helps grease the wheels and deliver the same message very cheaply to millions, or billions, of people. The education system also plays a role, of course. It's just a shame that people aren't aware of how their attitudes are shaped by their environment, for good or for ill. Things we grow up with are merely taken for granted.
  - pavlov 6y ago
    During the Hollywood Code years of 1934-68, American movie productions were strictly regulated on moral grounds to ensure they don't present positive views of homosexuality or promiscuity. Look at how well that worked. Anyway, that's irrelevant here because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing.
    - bpodgursky 6y ago
      > Look at how well that worked. That's a pretty thoughtless view. Maybe it did work, and it delayed gay marriage for two decades. Maybe it did work, and marriage rates would be 10% without a top-down media campaign, instead of the 50% it is today. Clearly it didn't WIN completely, but that argument's like saying "Well we've banned murder, and look at how well that worked!"... it's really hard to find natural experiments to test a thesis that these initiatives work or not.
    - cutitout 6y ago
      You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence. > because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. By engaging in it.. this isn't even a fig leaf, that's like posting insults and slurs to criticize insults and slurs, or saying "no offense, but $incredibly_offensive_thing". Even if that actually is the intention, that is irrelevant, the actions are what matters. > A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing. Nobody but the defenders of this even care about the marketing; it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children "grinding". Regardless of the attempts to frame it that way, "thinking of the children" isn't just a monopoly of hypocritical, puritan "outrage", it's also what any healthy adult does by default. Even (non-predator) animals in some cases treat the young of other species that way.
- emilfihlman 6y ago
  This is downplaying the content. Here's a good video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M
  - mondoshawan 6y ago
    Wow. Just... wow. I couldn't get past the third clip he shows in the review.
  - croes 6y ago
    Strange, can't find any downplaying. You know it's not only the movement that matters but the right body to do them. The same movement of a child and women have different effects, or would you think the same if it were stick figures?
    - will4274 6y ago
      I don't think the bodies and the movement are the only factors. The camera zoom, cropping, and background music is also relevant. I find a zoomed crop slow-pan camera shot on an 11 year olds crotch in jeans pretty strange. After having seen similar shots in numerous music videos involving adults, I tend to think it's sexual particularly when the background music is sexually charged I don't think "it's not an adult body, so it's not sexual" is a very compelling argument all-up.
      - croes 6y ago
        These similarities to music videos is a intended.
- hhas01 6y ago
  “this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes” The problem is, the prizes don’t just stop at Netflix. https://deadline.com/2020/09/cuties-director-death-threats-netflix-poster-backlash-ted-sarandos-called-apologize-1234569783/ https://deadline.com/2020/09/cuties-director-death-threats-n...
- AlbertoGP 6y ago
  Guess what, that Google search has fallen too: “In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at LumenDatabase.org.”
blendergeek 6y ago
> Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights. Isn't this textbook fair use? Nothing about these clips being shared on Twitter replaces the viewing experience of Cuties. The tweets are definitely transformative and provide a critique of the film. Doesn't copyright law explicitly permit this use of copyrighted works?
- jerf 6y ago
  Not only is it textbook fair use, this is exactly why copyright law has a fair use exemption. It does not exist for you to selectively manipulate the public commons by removing only negative reviews that happened to use small snippets of the original material. This is why reviews are protected. The DMCA is a bit broken this way; in theory it's balanced by the ability for these people to counternotice but in practice that's taking on an absurd amount of liability on a consumer to do so, so only a very foolhardy consumer would ever do it and it may as well not exist.
  - labawi 6y ago
    In theory, a DMCA notice requires a statement of Netflix good-faith belief, that the content is infringing, under the penalty of perjury, and should be triable - though good luck going after a G$ company.
    - nchelluri 6y ago
      What is a G$ company? I've never heard the term before.
      - pherrephatta 6y ago
        A billion dollar company. The term probably[0] comes from the application of metric prefixes to monetary values. 10^9 -> Giga (G) -> 1 000 000 000 10^6 -> Mega (M) -> 1 000 000 10^3 -> Kilo (K) -> 1 000 [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix
      - 6y ago
bavell 6y ago
Crap like this will continue to happen until we can figure out a better copyright and IP framework.
bhaak 6y ago
> Finally, as we hinted at before, even if Netflix is legally allowed to remove the Cuties trailers and clips from Twitter, that doesn’t make it right. It seems that the people who were targeted have a clear fair use defense. What is it now? Either Netflix is legally allowed to act like this or the twitter users are legally allowed under fair use. It can't be both right, can it? > “Is a clear violation of our First Amendment rights,” I wonder if he has ever read the First Amendment. The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sigzero 6y ago
  You would probably be surprised that the majority of people don't know that.
- User23 6y ago
  The first amendment doesn’t grant those rights, it merely enumerates and protects them. Just because it isn’t necessarily illegal doesn’t mean rights aren’t being violated.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  (Mis)using the law to suppress speech is violation of First Amendment rights since it is the state apparatus and power that is behind and so on by the law. Unfortunately the only way to claim fair use is trough courts.
- lewiscollard 6y ago
  > The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment. Except Netflix is using a DMCA takedown request, a legal instrument, to remove the disputed content. I don't think it's reasonable to completely write that off as "Twitter is a private company, First Amendment doesn't apply".
temptemptemp111 6y ago
Normalization of pedophilia is occurring and Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, HN, and all of the usual suspects are complicit. There are now 3 TED Talks promoting pedophilia normalization.
- drummer 6y ago
  Gotta agree, it won't surprise me if a few years from now pedophilia is going to be as 'normal' as homosexuality and all the trans stuff. Do you have links to the TED talks?
- cambalache 6y ago
  Yep, this crowd morality goes as far as you touch their salaries, so they will defend their actual or potential employees no matter what.
- hhas01 6y ago
  “Normalization of pedophilia is occurring” And where have you been for the last thousand years? Or the entirety of human history for that matter? We are a pretty awful species. But if we can’t talk openly and honestly about how awful we are, we’ll never need to own our own awfulness, which means we’ll never have to try to be any better than that. Because it’s so much easier and politically expedient just to project all of our own personal awfulness onto the Other. Thus, all good discussions should start in a mirror. Also, fuck TED.
tyingq 6y ago
The plot apparently centers around a bunch of 11 year old girls entering a twerking contest.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  And -- from what I gather from the coverage -- becoming disillusioned with the whole premise once the thrill of rebellion against parents is gone.
  - etc-hosts 6y ago
    correct, the documentary isn't about watching kids twerk for a few hours. it's really about how our culture, amplified by the internet, makes kids believe think twerking at 11 is a good idea, but the kids eventually reject it, and go back to being kids. You don't get this context if you watch just the first few minutes of it, or shouty media commentary about it.
    - mrits 6y ago
      I'm not sure how the plot to any porn is really relevant to if it is porn or not.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Only 1 kid rejects it.
    - Dirlewanger 6y ago
      Right, but I think what most people are pissed off about is the creator's hypocrisy. She says it's not about glorifying the sexualization of children...yet has multiple multi-minute takes of doing just that, when the point could have gotten across without doing so.
      - etc-hosts 6y ago
        I think she edited the documentary poorly, also I don't think it's a very good documentary. It did get everyone talking about the problems of media sexualizing(is that word?) kids. So maybe it's a great documentary! Not sure.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amadeuspagel 6y ago
There has to be some punishment for this kind of DCMA abuse.
- hinkley 6y ago
  I’ve been meaning to cancel a Netflix account for a while. This finally got me off my ass. I get pretty salty about abuse of Fair Use Doctrine and First Sale. One of the reasons EFF gets my donations.
protomyth 6y ago
If you are the CEO of a company and decide that this is the way to silence your critics because you made a mistake or you don't like what someone else says, then don't whine to the community when someone else does something to you. You showed your support for their tactics. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
racl101 6y ago
Pedos gonna pedo.
qgrgergfqgfev 6y ago
It's pretty sad to read French and American reviews side by side, there is really something about America and taboo topics (can't show nipples on tv, can't swear on tv, etc.), perhaps due to religion?
- identity0 6y ago
  I'm all for religion if it means we can't show sexualized children on TV.
  - hhas01 6y ago
    Yup, keep them all in the sacristy where they belong; neither seen nor heard. #Spotlight #Boston #Conservative #Hypocrisy
    - identity0 6y ago
      Huh? I never said anything supporting organized religion and I'm not sure how this is relevant. You do realize society can choose an ideological system that doesn't include pedophelia, right? It's not one or the other.
      - hhas01 6y ago
        What people say and what people do are not the same thing. Society, when given a recent choice, declared outrage for the children then promptly chose the institution. Any other business with a child abuse record the length of the Catholic church’s would be publicly shunned, closed down, and its assets sold off to compensate its many, many victims. And yet, it’s as strong as ever; a bastion of conservative establishment “do as I say not as I do”. Look, this is not hard to understand: the increasingly fascistic US Right and its Qanon sturmtrupplers are using their “deep state cannibal pedophiles” narrative (amend as appropriate) as a modern-day blood libel in which to paint all their enemies. Mignonnes is simply one more convenient hook upon which to hang the greater attack. To fixate on the film is just one more layer of misdirection, to keep people angry, active, and blind to the big picture. You cannot understand anything until you understand that. There is nothing innately anti-pedophile abould US Conservative culture; if anything, it’s proved one of the great hiding places for abusers (51st Speaker of the House, anyone?), precisely because it controls what gets said publicly and what is kept private, cultivating and misdirecting popular rage onto its political enemies, and edging ever closer to repeating the great atrocities of history, from the blood libel-stoked slaughters of first European Jews by Catholics, then of those Catholics by the new Protestants, through to the ethnic executions of the Bosnian war and the wholesale genocide of Rwanda, and everything inbetween. Now I consider myself European despite being stuck here on reactionary backwards Airstrip One. My granddaddy was Antifa back in Africa and Italy. I also know firsthand how much damage one can do just by choosing a pleasing lie over a painful truth. I have few illusions about how bad things can get, and all it take to get it underway is for enough people to buy into a Big Lie to justify everything that comes next. I have the limitations but also the benefits of an outside perspective on what’s happening in the US right now, and I’m legit worried for the future of our whole damn planet as a large chunk of America charges proudly towards a Russia-like one-party state. If you don’t wish to repeat humanity’s bloody history (which I can assure you won’t spare the children from anyone else) then you really need to start paying attention to who is spinning the popular narratives and to what goal. Starting in a mirror—because if you can’t be brutally, rigorously honest with yourself about your own understanding and motives, then what makes you think you can defend yourself from others’ deceptions any better? https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/10/watching-netflixs-cuties-survivor-pedophilia/616731/ https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/10/watching... https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/blood-libel https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/blood... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26875506 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26875506 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5eFubO_iLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5eFubO_iLM -- “Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.” – William Pannapacker
aaron695 6y ago
The anti-Cuties thing is QAnon. Netflix are in a war companies aren't used to dealing with. This feels like an idiot contracted company has screw this up. It's such clear fair use under critical review it's hard to see Netflix thinking this would be a good idea when they have shows that do reviews like this. And Lawyers. And some understanding of internet battles.
salamimonger 6y ago
I hope companies/recruiters are taking note of the posters in this thread. They aren't here to really talk about TFA and Netflix's actions. They are here to defend and rationalize the exploitation of underaged girls regarding the movie.
scoot_718 6y ago
Everybody should be abusing DMCA takedowns until the mechanism is removed from law.

287 points by ikeboy 6y ago

The changes between the French and American posters for 'Cuties' [1] seem like a pretty obvious attempt to manufacture controversy under the "no such thing as bad publicity" approach to marketing. And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise. If Netflix have got more controversy than they intended to, this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=cuties+french+vs+american+poster&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=cuties+french+vs+american+po...

madcow00 6y ago
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". I don't think the makers wanted to create a controversy -- especially on a sensitive issue like sexualisation of minors. This was more of a disregard on their part.
- EricE 6y ago
  Accidental exploitation of children is still exploitation of children. And Netflix not only chose to carry it, but DOUBLE DOWN and defend it. Unacceptable.
cutitout 6y ago
The show is criticized for being essential erotic material for pedophiles, filled with up close shots of bums and panties of children. The American poster comes closer to that, but is still tame compared to the actual content, which is what this is about. > And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise. Compared to other stories, this one is already being penalized, and the top comment (yours) is about a total red herring. Ever since Elsagate I am just in awe at the collective ability to look the other way.
- vmception 6y ago
  I don’t really buy the controversy I found that movie to be the lamest and most cringeworthy material and couldn’t watch more than 2 minutes of some of the clips The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile Has anyone noticed that? Actual pedophiles have plenty of actual explicit material from that age group and the older teenagers that could still land them in hot water but plenty more under they can just lust over, so what do actual pedophiles think? All I see are men on twitter doing a scene by scene breakdown of fairly benign but cringeworthy material of a dance scene that really is like that in the real world, is this really insight into what phantom pedophiles are turned on by? Is it the overprotective brother or father hoping for a different world? Or are these people having their own internal struggle with lust? Does it matter? I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards, it is just annoying child actors in an annoying plot because its just not that good, like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    I don't know anyone who is concerned with pedophiles getting off on the film. Almost all the arguments I've heard against it are based on potential exploitation of the child actors and people generally being uncomfortable with overt sexualization of children.
  - cutitout 6y ago
    > The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile > Has anyone noticed that? How can I "notice" something you're just claiming, based on nothing, that doesn't even make sense on top of that? I'm not projecting my own discomfort at sexualized depiction of underage girls on a phantom pedophile, since I would assume such a pedophile wouldn't feel discomfort, but arousal. > I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards And if anyone disagrees, you speculate a bit, then say it doesn't even matter.. yet think your assessment matters. These aren't "community standards", these are yours. The suppression of how "the community" actually reacts speaks volumes in and of itself. > like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed I don't need anything for any Netflix stuff to be viewed. I simply call things as I see them. edit: and for the "men on Twitter" thing (as if there's not plenty men calling this a profound something or other), here's shoe0nhead's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
This got to the front page of HN because they're specifically using the DMCA against opinions Netflix dislikes. I don't think it has to do with the show specifically.
- monkpit 6y ago
  But it does have the title in the headline, on the front page.
bobthechef 6y ago
Controversy or a move to normalize the sexualization of children? Some claim the latter. Generally speaking, film is a powerful medium through which things are normalized. Think of the shows and film that helped normalize homosexuality or promiscuity and shaped attitudes toward sex and sexuality (often through humor; levity is a powerful tool). They worked. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy to make this happen, just a cultural trajectory. The backing of powerful and moneyed industry figures helps grease the wheels and deliver the same message very cheaply to millions, or billions, of people. The education system also plays a role, of course. It's just a shame that people aren't aware of how their attitudes are shaped by their environment, for good or for ill. Things we grow up with are merely taken for granted.
- pavlov 6y ago
  During the Hollywood Code years of 1934-68, American movie productions were strictly regulated on moral grounds to ensure they don't present positive views of homosexuality or promiscuity. Look at how well that worked. Anyway, that's irrelevant here because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    > Look at how well that worked. That's a pretty thoughtless view. Maybe it did work, and it delayed gay marriage for two decades. Maybe it did work, and marriage rates would be 10% without a top-down media campaign, instead of the 50% it is today. Clearly it didn't WIN completely, but that argument's like saying "Well we've banned murder, and look at how well that worked!"... it's really hard to find natural experiments to test a thesis that these initiatives work or not.
  - cutitout 6y ago
    You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence. > because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children. By engaging in it.. this isn't even a fig leaf, that's like posting insults and slurs to criticize insults and slurs, or saying "no offense, but $incredibly_offensive_thing". Even if that actually is the intention, that is irrelevant, the actions are what matters. > A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing. Nobody but the defenders of this even care about the marketing; it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children "grinding". Regardless of the attempts to frame it that way, "thinking of the children" isn't just a monopoly of hypocritical, puritan "outrage", it's also what any healthy adult does by default. Even (non-predator) animals in some cases treat the young of other species that way.
emilfihlman 6y ago
This is downplaying the content. Here's a good video on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M
- mondoshawan 6y ago
  Wow. Just... wow. I couldn't get past the third clip he shows in the review.
- croes 6y ago
  Strange, can't find any downplaying. You know it's not only the movement that matters but the right body to do them. The same movement of a child and women have different effects, or would you think the same if it were stick figures?
  - will4274 6y ago
    I don't think the bodies and the movement are the only factors. The camera zoom, cropping, and background music is also relevant. I find a zoomed crop slow-pan camera shot on an 11 year olds crotch in jeans pretty strange. After having seen similar shots in numerous music videos involving adults, I tend to think it's sexual particularly when the background music is sexually charged I don't think "it's not an adult body, so it's not sexual" is a very compelling argument all-up.
    - croes 6y ago
      These similarities to music videos is a intended.
hhas01 6y ago
“this seems like a pretty clear case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes” The problem is, the prizes don’t just stop at Netflix. https://deadline.com/2020/09/cuties-director-death-threats-netflix-poster-backlash-ted-sarandos-called-apologize-1234569783/ https://deadline.com/2020/09/cuties-director-death-threats-n...
AlbertoGP 6y ago
Guess what, that Google search has fallen too: “In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at LumenDatabase.org.”

blendergeek 6y ago

> Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights. Isn't this textbook fair use? Nothing about these clips being shared on Twitter replaces the viewing experience of Cuties. The tweets are definitely transformative and provide a critique of the film. Doesn't copyright law explicitly permit this use of copyrighted works?

jerf 6y ago
Not only is it textbook fair use, this is exactly why copyright law has a fair use exemption. It does not exist for you to selectively manipulate the public commons by removing only negative reviews that happened to use small snippets of the original material. This is why reviews are protected. The DMCA is a bit broken this way; in theory it's balanced by the ability for these people to counternotice but in practice that's taking on an absurd amount of liability on a consumer to do so, so only a very foolhardy consumer would ever do it and it may as well not exist.
- labawi 6y ago
  In theory, a DMCA notice requires a statement of Netflix good-faith belief, that the content is infringing, under the penalty of perjury, and should be triable - though good luck going after a G$ company.
  - nchelluri 6y ago
    What is a G$ company? I've never heard the term before.
    - pherrephatta 6y ago
      A billion dollar company. The term probably[0] comes from the application of metric prefixes to monetary values. 10^9 -> Giga (G) -> 1 000 000 000 10^6 -> Mega (M) -> 1 000 000 10^3 -> Kilo (K) -> 1 000 [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix
    - 6y ago

bavell 6y ago

Crap like this will continue to happen until we can figure out a better copyright and IP framework.

bhaak 6y ago

> Finally, as we hinted at before, even if Netflix is legally allowed to remove the Cuties trailers and clips from Twitter, that doesn’t make it right. It seems that the people who were targeted have a clear fair use defense. What is it now? Either Netflix is legally allowed to act like this or the twitter users are legally allowed under fair use. It can't be both right, can it? > “Is a clear violation of our First Amendment rights,” I wonder if he has ever read the First Amendment. The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sigzero 6y ago
You would probably be surprised that the majority of people don't know that.
User23 6y ago
The first amendment doesn’t grant those rights, it merely enumerates and protects them. Just because it isn’t necessarily illegal doesn’t mean rights aren’t being violated.
ReptileMan 6y ago
(Mis)using the law to suppress speech is violation of First Amendment rights since it is the state apparatus and power that is behind and so on by the law. Unfortunately the only way to claim fair use is trough courts.
lewiscollard 6y ago
> The First Amendment deals with the government, not private companies. If this were true, every user blocked from Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit could take those companies to court for violating the First Amendment. Except Netflix is using a DMCA takedown request, a legal instrument, to remove the disputed content. I don't think it's reasonable to completely write that off as "Twitter is a private company, First Amendment doesn't apply".

temptemptemp111 6y ago

Normalization of pedophilia is occurring and Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, HN, and all of the usual suspects are complicit. There are now 3 TED Talks promoting pedophilia normalization.

drummer 6y ago
Gotta agree, it won't surprise me if a few years from now pedophilia is going to be as 'normal' as homosexuality and all the trans stuff. Do you have links to the TED talks?
cambalache 6y ago
Yep, this crowd morality goes as far as you touch their salaries, so they will defend their actual or potential employees no matter what.
hhas01 6y ago
“Normalization of pedophilia is occurring” And where have you been for the last thousand years? Or the entirety of human history for that matter? We are a pretty awful species. But if we can’t talk openly and honestly about how awful we are, we’ll never need to own our own awfulness, which means we’ll never have to try to be any better than that. Because it’s so much easier and politically expedient just to project all of our own personal awfulness onto the Other. Thus, all good discussions should start in a mirror. Also, fuck TED.

tyingq 6y ago

The plot apparently centers around a bunch of 11 year old girls entering a twerking contest.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
And -- from what I gather from the coverage -- becoming disillusioned with the whole premise once the thrill of rebellion against parents is gone.
- etc-hosts 6y ago
  correct, the documentary isn't about watching kids twerk for a few hours. it's really about how our culture, amplified by the internet, makes kids believe think twerking at 11 is a good idea, but the kids eventually reject it, and go back to being kids. You don't get this context if you watch just the first few minutes of it, or shouty media commentary about it.
  - mrits 6y ago
    I'm not sure how the plot to any porn is really relevant to if it is porn or not.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Only 1 kid rejects it.
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    Right, but I think what most people are pissed off about is the creator's hypocrisy. She says it's not about glorifying the sexualization of children...yet has multiple multi-minute takes of doing just that, when the point could have gotten across without doing so.
    - etc-hosts 6y ago
      I think she edited the documentary poorly, also I don't think it's a very good documentary. It did get everyone talking about the problems of media sexualizing(is that word?) kids. So maybe it's a great documentary! Not sure.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

amadeuspagel 6y ago

There has to be some punishment for this kind of DCMA abuse.

hinkley 6y ago
I’ve been meaning to cancel a Netflix account for a while. This finally got me off my ass. I get pretty salty about abuse of Fair Use Doctrine and First Sale. One of the reasons EFF gets my donations.

protomyth 6y ago

If you are the CEO of a company and decide that this is the way to silence your critics because you made a mistake or you don't like what someone else says, then don't whine to the community when someone else does something to you. You showed your support for their tactics. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

racl101 6y ago

Pedos gonna pedo.

qgrgergfqgfev 6y ago

It's pretty sad to read French and American reviews side by side, there is really something about America and taboo topics (can't show nipples on tv, can't swear on tv, etc.), perhaps due to religion?

identity0 6y ago
I'm all for religion if it means we can't show sexualized children on TV.
- hhas01 6y ago
  Yup, keep them all in the sacristy where they belong; neither seen nor heard. #Spotlight #Boston #Conservative #Hypocrisy
  - identity0 6y ago
    Huh? I never said anything supporting organized religion and I'm not sure how this is relevant. You do realize society can choose an ideological system that doesn't include pedophelia, right? It's not one or the other.
    - hhas01 6y ago
      What people say and what people do are not the same thing. Society, when given a recent choice, declared outrage for the children then promptly chose the institution. Any other business with a child abuse record the length of the Catholic church’s would be publicly shunned, closed down, and its assets sold off to compensate its many, many victims. And yet, it’s as strong as ever; a bastion of conservative establishment “do as I say not as I do”. Look, this is not hard to understand: the increasingly fascistic US Right and its Qanon sturmtrupplers are using their “deep state cannibal pedophiles” narrative (amend as appropriate) as a modern-day blood libel in which to paint all their enemies. Mignonnes is simply one more convenient hook upon which to hang the greater attack. To fixate on the film is just one more layer of misdirection, to keep people angry, active, and blind to the big picture. You cannot understand anything until you understand that. There is nothing innately anti-pedophile abould US Conservative culture; if anything, it’s proved one of the great hiding places for abusers (51st Speaker of the House, anyone?), precisely because it controls what gets said publicly and what is kept private, cultivating and misdirecting popular rage onto its political enemies, and edging ever closer to repeating the great atrocities of history, from the blood libel-stoked slaughters of first European Jews by Catholics, then of those Catholics by the new Protestants, through to the ethnic executions of the Bosnian war and the wholesale genocide of Rwanda, and everything inbetween. Now I consider myself European despite being stuck here on reactionary backwards Airstrip One. My granddaddy was Antifa back in Africa and Italy. I also know firsthand how much damage one can do just by choosing a pleasing lie over a painful truth. I have few illusions about how bad things can get, and all it take to get it underway is for enough people to buy into a Big Lie to justify everything that comes next. I have the limitations but also the benefits of an outside perspective on what’s happening in the US right now, and I’m legit worried for the future of our whole damn planet as a large chunk of America charges proudly towards a Russia-like one-party state. If you don’t wish to repeat humanity’s bloody history (which I can assure you won’t spare the children from anyone else) then you really need to start paying attention to who is spinning the popular narratives and to what goal. Starting in a mirror—because if you can’t be brutally, rigorously honest with yourself about your own understanding and motives, then what makes you think you can defend yourself from others’ deceptions any better? https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/10/watching-netflixs-cuties-survivor-pedophilia/616731/ https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/10/watching... https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/blood-libel https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/blood... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26875506 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26875506 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5eFubO_iLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5eFubO_iLM -- “Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.” – William Pannapacker

aaron695 6y ago

The anti-Cuties thing is QAnon. Netflix are in a war companies aren't used to dealing with. This feels like an idiot contracted company has screw this up. It's such clear fair use under critical review it's hard to see Netflix thinking this would be a good idea when they have shows that do reviews like this. And Lawyers. And some understanding of internet battles.

salamimonger 6y ago

I hope companies/recruiters are taking note of the posters in this thread. They aren't here to really talk about TFA and Netflix's actions. They are here to defend and rationalize the exploitation of underaged girls regarding the movie.

scoot_718 6y ago

Everybody should be abusing DMCA takedowns until the mechanism is removed from law.