6 thoughts on “The Downfall Of The Thousand-Video Reich”
I guess they decided it was more important to follow their lawyers advice to protect their copyrighted material rather than realize the best advertisement for “Downfall” were the parodies.
There’s no legal basis to take down protected fair use examples, such as parodies. This is well established in law and YouTube is merely betting that none of their users earns enough money delivering pizzas from their mom’s basement to afford suing them over the violation of their first amendment rights.
Marsh vs Alabama clearly protects individual constitutional rights in company towns or company owned communities. Even the AOL case, which pared Marsh back a bit, only limited commercial speech (in that case, spam email) and not fair use or political speech.
Furthermore Barnes vs Yahoo requires that internet service providers enforce their terms of service equally against all users, which, more than just protecting the rights of those who claim they were victimized, but gives the provider a responsibility to determine the facts of the case before acting, in accordance with law. YouTube is clearly not complying with any of this.
There’s no legal basis to take down protected fair use examples, such as parodies. This is well established in law and YouTube is merely betting that none of their users earns enough money delivering pizzas from their mom’s basement to afford suing them over the violation of their first amendment rights.
There is no First Amendment right to have a video on Youtube.
As bored as I was with the meme, I’m sorry to see it go. It occasionally had hysterical moments. But YouTube has the right to disallow it, even for no good reason. Same as Comedy Central has the right to censor “South Park.” I may disagree with both, but it isn’t a Constitutional issue.
Well, I hope the Hitler videos find another place, such as Vimeo. They’re the greatest internet tradition next to lolcats.
“I guess they decided it was more important to follow their lawyers advice to protect their copyrighted material rather than realize the best advertisement for “Downfall” were the parodies.”
This is certainly true in my case. My first exposure to the movie at all was the first parody about Hitler’s XBox Live account being suspended. It wasn’t long after that that I decided to watch the film itself; I rented it, enjoyed it, and then bought the DVD.
I wonder whether the reason for the action isn’t that they fear “copyright infringement” per se (in the sense that people will see parts of the film without paying for it) but that the nature of the parodies themselves are unpleasant to the creators of the original film.
I guess they decided it was more important to follow their lawyers advice to protect their copyrighted material rather than realize the best advertisement for “Downfall” were the parodies.
There’s no legal basis to take down protected fair use examples, such as parodies. This is well established in law and YouTube is merely betting that none of their users earns enough money delivering pizzas from their mom’s basement to afford suing them over the violation of their first amendment rights.
Marsh vs Alabama clearly protects individual constitutional rights in company towns or company owned communities. Even the AOL case, which pared Marsh back a bit, only limited commercial speech (in that case, spam email) and not fair use or political speech.
Furthermore Barnes vs Yahoo requires that internet service providers enforce their terms of service equally against all users, which, more than just protecting the rights of those who claim they were victimized, but gives the provider a responsibility to determine the facts of the case before acting, in accordance with law. YouTube is clearly not complying with any of this.
There’s no legal basis to take down protected fair use examples, such as parodies. This is well established in law and YouTube is merely betting that none of their users earns enough money delivering pizzas from their mom’s basement to afford suing them over the violation of their first amendment rights.
There is no First Amendment right to have a video on Youtube.
As bored as I was with the meme, I’m sorry to see it go. It occasionally had hysterical moments. But YouTube has the right to disallow it, even for no good reason. Same as Comedy Central has the right to censor “South Park.” I may disagree with both, but it isn’t a Constitutional issue.
Well, I hope the Hitler videos find another place, such as Vimeo. They’re the greatest internet tradition next to lolcats.
“I guess they decided it was more important to follow their lawyers advice to protect their copyrighted material rather than realize the best advertisement for “Downfall” were the parodies.”
This is certainly true in my case. My first exposure to the movie at all was the first parody about Hitler’s XBox Live account being suspended. It wasn’t long after that that I decided to watch the film itself; I rented it, enjoyed it, and then bought the DVD.
I wonder whether the reason for the action isn’t that they fear “copyright infringement” per se (in the sense that people will see parts of the film without paying for it) but that the nature of the parodies themselves are unpleasant to the creators of the original film.