Isn't this textbook fair use? Nothing about these clips being shared on Twitter replaces the viewing experience of Cuties. The tweets are definitely transformative and provide a critique of the film. Doesn't copyright law explicitly permit this use of copyrighted works?
The DMCA is a bit broken this way; in theory it's balanced by the ability for these people to counternotice but in practice that's taking on an absurd amount of liability on a consumer to do so, so only a very foolhardy consumer would ever do it and it may as well not exist.
The term probably[0] comes from the application of metric prefixes to monetary values.
10^9 -> Giga (G) -> 1 000 000 000
10^6 -> Mega (M) -> 1 000 000
10^3 -> Kilo (K) -> 1 000
It is relatively harder to argue fair use in the use of Playboy images or porn clips than non-"adult" material. Because the image/clip itself undermines the market value of the work, regardless of the motivation or intent of the critic.
The Supreme Court has suggested a soft limit, suggesting, IIRC, that it is rare that an award of more than a single digit multiple of actual damages will satisfy due process analysis.
What is the cause of action here allowing damages, punitive or otherwise? Stating a copyright claim in a DMCA takedown notice based on a different reading of how the four factors of fair use, which the statute doesn't explicitly set standards for or any details on how they interact, differently than a court later interpreted them?
Sure, if the court viewed things your way Netflix would lose a copyright infringement case against you, but that's about it.
I paid a trademark attorney for some work at it was $350 for about 15 minutes of work. $10k per hour would be a stretch, but $1000 an hour? Not particularly noteworthy.
When the President got his legal fees paid by Stormy Daniels, his most expensive lawyer was charging about $850/hour. The judge cut it back, not because the lawyer was too expensive hourly, but because he felt the lawyer had billed too many hours.
This alone feels like it could solve so many problems.
Not gonna happen. It would cut copyright bots off at the knees since they're currently designed to err on the side of false positives over false negatives and that's the way the media cartels want it.
You would have to break the RIAA and MPAA's hold over Congress first, and good luck with that. You can't vote them out because they own both sides. We're talking about multiple multi billion dollar companies here, when they go to congress with demands they get it. That's how we got the DMCA and ludicrous 120 copyright terms in the first place.
Obviously... trust me: I know that nothing I want is ever going to happen (and my having become a politician years ago--one who successfully sits on various elected boards and commissions--has only made that more clear to me, not less ;P).
No more avengers? Meh. More youtube-dl's? Hell yes.
No such privilege exists, so I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
I suppose that you could put violators on a list where, for parties on that list, a 512 notice didn't require a takedown to stay in the safe harbor but triggered some other (new) process, like (for instance) notice to the user and defined-in-law period for the user to submit a counter-notice with a takedown only required to retain safe harbor against the copyrightbholder if no facially-valid counter-notice is received within a specified period, and the safe harbor against the user isn't applied if the takedown is done prior to the required opportunity to respond.
But that gets tricky to administer correctly (how long does DMCA-penalty-status last, how does it apply when third-party copyright agents like the RIAA are filing notices on behalf of copyright holders, is it the agent or the copyright holder that receives the penalty, etc., etc.)
Debatable. A good faith case can be made that its not.
> Nothing about these clips being shared on Twitter replaces the viewing experience of Cuties.
"Replacing the viewing experience" isn't necessary to be outside of fair use, and the work at issue is probably the trailer itself, not Cuties. Which matters a lot when you look at the "amount and substantiality" prong of fair use analysis.
> The tweets are definitely transformative and provide a critique of the film.
Sure, I don't think anyone would argue that the purpose prong of fair use is in dispute.
> Doesn't copyright law explicitly permit this use of copyrighted works?
There is very little explicit about the "fair use" defense; even how the four prongs of the test interact isn't explicit.