3 ms·
TFA mentions what the actual issue is (it's not simply spoiling people)
by nslsm 6mo ago
TFA mentions what the actual issue is (it's not simply spoiling people)
- fhdkweig 6mo agoIt really didn't. Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”. This distinction may matter, as a summary of a plot may not enjoy the same protection as a leaked video. Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions. I interpret that as they just didn't like that someone posted the summary, and they are trying to use the DMCA to do a job that wasn't intended by the law's creators.
- embedding-shape 6mo agoThis is what TFA seems to say: > Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”. Isn't that simply about spoiling people, or what's the "crime" here? The article also says "Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions", so I'm still unsure what the actual issue is, besides the misuse of DMCA.
- fhdkweig 6mo agoMost likely the culprit is someone on their staff that broke their NDA contract, but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. They are misusing the DMCA because it has higher discovery/subpoena ability.
- ddtaylor 6mo agoCan an NDA be used as justification for a DMCA? Has it happened before?
- autoexec 6mo ago> but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. If the videos posted to twitter were just summaries and not actual video of the unreleased show it seems unlikely that there was any copyrighted material being proliferated
- bitwize 6mo agoUnder the DMCA, you can claim copyright over damn near anything and force a provider to take it down. If there is any ambiguity as to whether you are the owner of the allegedly copyrighted material, like for example legitimate fair use, they still are required to take it down—unless the alleged violator files a DMCA counterclaim in which they must supply their legal name and address to the original claimant. This has been used to silence, or deanonymize, people who post unpleasant things about a powerful person or organization.
- autoexec 6mo agoA takedown from the entity hosting the content is one thing, but forcing them to give up someone's ID is another.
- stavros 6mo agoThe crime is that we're living in a society where different laws apply to corporations than to people. If a corporation doesn't like you, you're toast, no matter whether you're wrong or right. There are enough laws that they'll find something to nail you on.
- autoexec 6mo agoEven if they don't have a legal leg to stand on they can bankrupt you with legal fees and lawsuits dragged out until you're ruined anyway.