So a professional critic is the last person you’d expect to use copyright to try to squelch someone else’s fair use rights. But that’s exactly what happened last month, when James Grubb, a journalist from VentureBeat, used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to censor a critic just for highlighting a few paragraphs of his work on Twitter.
On May 2, VentureBeat’s gaming section published Grubb’s review of a forthcoming video game, Red Dead Redemption II. His opinions on the game weren’t shared by everyone, which is no surprise. Another video game critic, Jake Magee, took a shot at Grubb on Twitter, suggesting he only liked games that contained “progressive political posturing.” Alongside that criticism, Magee posted screenshots from Grubb’s review—his goal was to show his followers the text that, as he saw it, supported his point.
That was apparently too much for Grubb, who promptly sent a DMCA notice to Twitter over the matter. Twitter soon slapped black boxes over the images that Magee had posted. It wasn't until several days later that the boxes were removed and the post was restored.
What justified this copyright takedown, in Grubbs’ view? First, Grubb said that Magee posted his entire article in a screenshot, a post which, in his view, “crosses the line of acceptable fair use.” Grubb also suggested that he wouldn’t have taken legal action if Magee had simply included a link to his article.
[...] Journalists and critics should know the basics of fair use. It’s a right that their work relies on. At the very least, before a professional critic uses the DMCA to have another critic’s material removed, a double-take is needed on fair use.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by idiot_king on Saturday June 09 2018, @10:43PM (3 children)
...not. DMCA is exactly the type of crap Marx was talking about when he criticized capitalist entities for influencing the state so they can essentially bash people over the head with laws. It creates a sociopathic society, and this is just one small example of it in action.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Sunday June 10 2018, @08:15AM (2 children)
And yet it was the Marxist identity politics shill that used it.
Shocked I tell you. Shocked.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 10 2018, @02:39PM
It's almost as though identity politics is anti-Marxist. The Trotskyists are no fans of identity politics.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday June 10 2018, @10:22PM
Marxist doesn't mean what you think it means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09 2018, @11:13PM
Squelch speech and information transfer. Seems to be working as designed.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 10 2018, @12:06AM (4 children)
The real heart of the matter: don't quote my work unless you are also feeding my ad viewer stream.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Sunday June 10 2018, @08:45AM (3 children)
It also gives him the option to change the review to help curb potential backlash.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 10 2018, @11:20AM (2 children)
Unless people still use the Wayback Machine: http://archive.org/web/ [archive.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by boltronics on Sunday June 10 2018, @06:14PM (1 child)
You're assuming the Wayback machine cached the article that quickly, that robots.txt was configured to permit it, and that Grubb doesn't update the robots.txt file to have it removed again - which would be a lot quicker to do than all the paperwork for a DMCA takedown.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 10 2018, @06:28PM
If Grubb even knows about the Wayback Machine.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday June 10 2018, @12:14AM
Well, did he?
(Sorry, not dirtying my cache and routers with anything vaguely twitter related just for this bitchy cat fight.)
And if he didn't, then the DMCA takedown demand was false. [aaronkellylaw.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday June 10 2018, @12:15AM (3 children)
No it isn't. You have to see/read the work yourself, but you don't need to also disseminate those text or images with your review, which is where fair use would come in.
I can tell you why I thought Justice League was rubbish without showing you any part of it (although, admittedly, not as wittily or insightfully as a professional critic would). Newspapers print film, book, and TV reviews without using any images or text from the works, and I've seen plenty of YouTube reviews that do the same.
The page with Grubb's review on it does show two images and has a link to the trailer, but neither are referred to in the review itself, which stands alone.
The last person I'd expect to use copyright in this fashion would be a copyright abolitionist.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday June 10 2018, @12:19AM (2 children)
Also the DMCA request in question was because, apparently, someone posted and critiqued a screenshot of Grubb's entire review. Film critics on TV don't get to show entire films. Was using the DMCA justified? Probably not. But this whole "oh the irony!" cry isn't quite the perfect comparison that the author of this article seems to want us to believe.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 10 2018, @10:25AM (1 child)
Which the filer of the DMCA takedown later admitted was an incorrect assertion. Apparently at the time they were too blinded by indignant rage to notice that 30% is not the same as 100%. Either that, or they believe that hyperbole is as good as fact in the eyes of the law.
As an aside, that the article was a review of the game is also an incorrect assertion. I read it, and it's an opinion-piece on what the author thinks the narrative of the game "should" be like. At no point was there even any hint that the author had actually played the game.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday June 12 2018, @03:50AM
Isn't there things in the DCMA where making false accusations is actually opening them up to punitive punishments? Something about them being made in bad faith and the like? It would seem that he would have little leg left to stand on if it were counter-sued and taken to court no? I always wonder this about the "million URL list" type things that Google and so on get - but the argument there might well be "Sorry, that one URL just got caught up in the rest of the LEGITIMATE list, your Honor...." But this seems to be a single "Take this down!" case which would be much harder to argue if clearly in the wrong - which it seems to be?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 10 2018, @12:57AM
Some hillbilly with no clue started a live YouTube stream of FOSS USGS Swarm software which shows earthquakes on a waterfall type display. This asshat sent takedown notices to everyone else doing the same, including verified scientists streams of the USGS software. The guy even asks for donations to build a new server for it. Totattaly bullshitting all 100 viewers on his stream while the thousands that watched the other ones were left with a message saying "This content has been removed due to a copyright claim by Spectronet".
(Score: 1, Troll) by Snotnose on Sunday June 10 2018, @02:06AM
There was a famous singer when I was a kid, can't remember her name. Carole something,... hmm, Janis?..... Joni?.....
Oh yeah, Barbara. Streisand if I recall. Never liked her music, she was too tied into the jews. Gentiles? Bah. Soul sucking racists, the bunch of 'em
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.