Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate

This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who knows what they are talking about.<p><pre><code> "Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."</code></pre>

The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use:<p><a href="http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo" rel="nofollow">http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo</a>

I think there is a real possibility that this maneuver could blow up in Liongate's face. Presumably there are some important decision-makers who take the argument for fair use seriously: that's why this dispute process exists in the first place. This video is an exemplar of what normal non-lawyer people would classify as fair use, if they're familiar with the concept at all. If Liongate's lawyers are willing to get in the mud over a few ad dollars (rather than the high-sounding crap we usually hear from the content industry), and they get their way, then clearly the system requires more protection for fair use. They might not have run this plan by all the suits at MPAA.

Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.

Takedowns on YouTube are, for corporations such as the record labels and movie studios, largely done under their ContentID system, not under the DMCA notice system. Google has a reputedly poor process for disputes that can lead to DMCA notices [1], but here it appears that the takedown was still ContentID rather than DMCA.<p>This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.<p>[1] <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-offers-a-meaningful-contentid-appeal-process/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...</a>

So they got advertisment money based off something that was 2/3 content owned by another big media company?

While I agree categorically with the necessity of allowing fair use, and the perniciousness of copyright cartels, I was nonetheless very tickled by this whine:<p>&#62;But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.

Google needs a policy against doing evil.

Doesn't look like fair-use to me.<p>The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But <i>if</i> the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.<p>Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.

&#62; This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like.<p>Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?

I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.

Buffy? Pfftt....how about Blade!