First they came for Hitler... Youtube takes down Hitler parodies | Hacker News Reader

First they came for Hitler... Youtube takes down Hitler parodies

reason.com

58 pointste_platt43 comments

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The marketing department of that studio should collectively fire themselves for gross incompetence, it is every good marketeers wet dream to have a scene from their movies go viral like that.

Millions of people that would have never even heard of the movie must have gotten interested in it simply because of the parodies.

Other companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get something like this going.

Perhaps that will fan the fire of publicity even more? (Although it will destroy goodwill.)

Briefly, but all those dead links are now pointing to a message that says the video got removed at the behest of the company that made the movie, that's a negative experience.

Well, now that 100+ million people heard of it, it's a good time to pull the sample and tell them to go buy it (yeah, I know, but consider a conversion rate of 0.01% ...)

P.S. I don't really care. Just pointing out that this one probably ran its course, and empty links may make them more money than handing out lollipops. Or not. Not MBA'ing this.

I think you're missing the point here, that's not just a 'sample' but a reworking of the original, either with subtitles (most of them) or with a voice over (a very few, but some really good ones).

So watching the movie is not going to give back the parodies.

You make money from a film about Hitler and you're worried about goodwill?

Oh vey

I certainly gained interest in the movie. However, I still haven't seen it, and now my desire to has dropped right back down. Dumb studio :-/

The movie is actually very much worth watching, it does a great job of showing 'executive isolation' at work. Less and less realistic information reaches the high command and the bunker scene is where it all comes crashing down, there is no longer any way to deny reality.

Wannabe CEOs would do very well to watch it, it's a pretty good lesson in what happens when you hire people that say 'yes' to you all the time and you fail to notice they're no longer giving you the cold hard facts.

I can offset your lack of seeing it. I rented it via Netflix solely because of the parodies. I wanted to see the real context, and for what it's worth, it was a good movie.

We don't talk about this much on HN, but people have motives other than money. It's possible that the people who invested tremendous effort into making a powerful film about a very serious topic just didn't want it to be co-opted to whine about Xbox 360, and were willing to pass up some revenue to prevent that.

Here is Hitlers reaction :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ

I liked the part when he talks about "fair use" :)

I started imaging a proper re-dubbing. "Aber Neiiiiin ..."

Wow, I'm impressed with how they actually make a good argument, while being hilarious at the same time.

> Cette vidéo n'est pas disponible dans votre pays en raison du non-respect des conditions d'utilisation.

= This video is not available in your country due to the terms of use.

I'm unhappy now

For you: http://rapidshare.com/files/379042067/kBO5dh9qrIQ.flv.html

(PS. Please don't download it unless you don't have another way to get it. rapidshare has a 10 download limit.)

The fact that the _Downfall_ producers didn't buy Youtube ads to pop up when the parodies were played just shows how stupid they are. I mean really! How else is a movie about Hitler, in German (!), going to get worldwide mindshare? Just goes to show all the luddite media knuckleheads aren't in Hollywood...

Buy ? They should have just asked to be given those slots for free in return for not asking to have the content taken down. Win-win.

Except of course that the content is fair use and the company has no right to issue a take down.

Why is it so surprising that a German movie on the last days of a German historical figure be shot in German ?

A majority of the worldwide mindshare you are referring to do not think in English. Yet they do watch Hollywood movies in English...with subtitles.

No it's surprising that it has international mindshare. .

Gehen Sie zurück und lesen, was ich schrieb. Dann denken Sie wirklich, wirklich hart ...

This is astonishing. The value of those parodies as advertising for the film must be enormous. Whatever one might think of the parodies, they certainly whet my appetite for seeing the movie.

And besides you untold others. Simply incredible.

I emailed Constantin (the movies producers) to ask them about this, clearly they must be aware of it and must be aware of the enormous 'hit' they scored with the parodies being a once-in-a-lifetime marketing gift.

I'm curious what their reasons are for this, even if it is automated they must have been aware of the effect the scene 'claim' would have on the parodies.

If I get a response I'll follow up.

This blog post is very misinformed. "YouTube" did not take down the videos. The copyright owner requested that they be removed.

The blog post seems to think that YouTube/Google should fight for the people who created/uploaded these parodies, but that's not YouTube's place.

If the owner/uploader of a parody wants to contest the takedown, they can do so (it's pretty easy to contest it if one of your videos is taken down due to this). The real problem is the copyright law is fuzzy when it comes to "fair use" and many people aren't willing to risk an expensive lawsuit just to keep a video on YouTube.

So send an angry letter to your congressman, not YouTube.

I don't have a congressman. It's all too easy to think that this is an American thing, but Youtube is a worldwide site, and hundreds of millions of people are not in a position to do anything about this.

edit: parodies are legally protected and if youtube is willing to profit of these things they should be willing to defend them.

If the removal was automated (which is definitely a possibility) then youtube should do a better job because clearly going by sound track or a significant part of the image alone is going to remove all kinds of stuff that have a legal status that is different than an actual copy.

And this would be protected if it was a parody of Downfall - what isn't protected is using a third party's work to parody something.

It's like the difference between a protest at city hall and a protest at the car dealer because they wont drive you to city hall.

The source the article cites [1] contains this sentence:

These videos were blocked by YouTube’s Content ID system, not taken down via DMCA notices

This probably means that neither YouTube nor Constantin Films took any active steps to take down the video. It was probably all automatic through content fingerprints.

It works like this: Content providers, e.g. Constantin Films, create fingerprints for their catalogue with a fingerprinting service, e.g. Audible Magic. Sites with user generated content e.g. YouTube check any uploaded content for a matching fingerprint. If anything gets identified as copyrighted content it gets blocked. I work at a video platform, and this is how we deal with copyrighted content.

Usually, this happens during upload, my guess is that YouTube started to use such a service at some point and now cleans their content, which takes some time.

I think the parodies are only collateral damage. One more reason to reform copyright.

http://openvideoalliance.org/2010/04/hitler-downfall-meme-ge...

Although I like some of these parodies, the self-pitying use of the Niemoller poem is really tasteless.

I can see the parodic value because we've all had the experience of being unreasonably angry at having our plans thwarted (and doing a downfall parody about the takedown itself is particularly witty). But expressing disappointment by parodying a lamentation about the holocaust....not funny. YMMV obviously.

Whether the parody defence applies here or not seems to me in my non-expert opinion to be an iffy issue, especially as it may apply in some jurisdictions but not others. There's certainly a case to be made, but why should youtube foot the bill for making it?

Anyone who is really upset about this and is sure that the parody defence will work is free to host their own Hitler parody and try to get themselves sued by the producers. I might even kick in ten bucks to your legal budget.

Of course the other issue here is less to do with parody and more to do with the Germans' legendary touchiness on the subject of Hitler. I remember when that film first came out there was some controversy about whether it was excessively "humanising" Hitler (as if Hitler were something other than human).

> There's certainly a case to be made, but why should youtube foot the bill for making it?

Because they made good money of it?

I'm guessing that whatever money gets dragged in by the ad clicks on Downfall parodies it isn't nearly enough to pay for a major copyright case.

But it's not just the downfall parodies, it's all parodies they'd be making a stand for.

Youtube should be willing to make a stand on this, clearly these have cultural value, and to lose them is a real pity.

Not really, it's a small subset of parodies. The parody defence is well enshrined in law in most justisdictions but it's a genuine legal question whether it applies in this case. IANAL but this parody is stretching the definition since:

a) It uses a not-insignificant slice of the original film (an entire scene, four minutes long iirc)

b) It changes nothing from the original except to add some subtitles. (Note that this means that someone who spoke German but not English would not be able to distinguish between this scene and an English-subtitled version of the original film)

c) Possibly the kicker: the target of the parody is not the film being copied. People making these videos aren't aiming to make fun of Der Untergang (which many of them have probably never seen), they're aiming to make fun of Xbox Live, or Apple, or Star Trek, or whatever. Wikipedia on "Parody" says:

"The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works.""

so you'd have to argue that the edits were intended as a commentary on Der Untergang, which seems iffy to me.

I think it parodies Hitler, not the movie.

Also, the movie was produced by a German company, so I think the Berne convention on copyright is what applies here, not the US supreme court, but I'm not quite sure, after all Youtube is an American company. The Berne convention does not mention 'fair use' or parody at all.

Regarding point "b)", I think you made your own point against yourself already: for most people, the scene is 100% different since they don't understand German. If I were to make a parody where I changed the words, I don't think it would be a valid argument to say "but for deaf people the scene is exactly the same!". Similarly, keeping the music and doing drastic changes to the visual you could argue "but to blind people its exactly the same!".

For most people the scene is the same since they don't understand German or English.

In any case my point about German speakers was subsidiary to my actual point: it's quite a small change to the original.

I love the it-was-an-automated-process defense. Something happened but I guess no one responsible for it because it was an automatic process. It's the contemporary version of the Nuremburg defense.

Zer computers ver only following orderz.

This title is offensive to the millions of people who died defeating that sonofabitch. The line "First they came for..." is about the need to defend those who cannot defend themselves because one day oneself might need to be defended. Referencing this line to refer to the most evil individual in human history is beneath contempt. I would think HN would want to be a little more aware of the implications of its headlines.

The title is genius. In case you didn't notice it means "First they came for [the people making videos parodying a movie about] Hitler...". But that wouldn't be as funny.

THEY CAME FIRST for the copyrighted Youtube videos, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a fan of lame soundtrack videos.

THEN THEY CAME for the Youtube old layout, and I didn't speak up because I kinda like the new layout.

THEN THEY CAME for my Hitler parody videos and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com