Comments on: 20th Century Fox Having Bad Reviews Pulled Off YouTube

By: witness

witness — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:01:11 +0000

Yay for the Streisand Effect, but I’d be more concerned if it was a government doing this. So a studio got rid of a negative review – my God, the World is coming to an end. As if studios have never pressured anyone to write good reviews for them.

The vast majority of movie-goers and -buyers are influenced by word-of-mouth opinion from people they know, and marketing strength. Taking down one bad review from one of the myriad movie rating sites will not affect the movie’s revenue in any substantial way.

This is probably just part of a department dedicated to getting rid of all copyrighted content on YouTube. Just because an advert is distributed widely and for free by the studio, doesn’t mean that it loses its copyright.

Any movie-rating programme that is broadcast on television first has to get permission from the studio to broadcast any adverts.

By: COPYRIGHT FRIENDLY

TOOMY6 you need to do a little more research on copyright infringement and the parody/fair use exceptions. It doesn’t matter if you are making money off a copyright infringement (although that is part of the copyright intent) all that matters is that you have used material belonging to someone else without their permission. It’s not unlike taking your neighbors car without permission. The fact that you purchased a DVD of Family Guy in no way gives you the right to pull material off of it and use it for your own purposes. I mean you can go ahead and do so if you want but don’t be surprised that it gets pulled. After all copying protected material is illegal. Now, if your video was a parody of Family Guy (like say, dubbing a Flintstone’s soundtrack over a Family Guy animation) you might be right in being angry, but your description didn’t sound like a parody (of course I never saw it so I could be mistaken). Every single person who posts to YouTube is protected by copyright (including you) so be thankful that it exists.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:00:31 +0000

I glad I boycotted 20th Century Fox, because Fox doesn’t providing closed-captioning on special features. So… what?!

There is a best accessibility on the captioning and SDH (subttiled for the deaf and hard-of-hearing) on bonus features including: (Disney/Buena Vista since 2006 for Blu-ray and 2007 for DVD), Universal Studios since 2005, Weinstein Company since first DVD release has best accessibility policies than Paramount since (I think first DVD release with bonus material?) or Paramount/Dreamworks that make Fox would be profit will going down.
By the way, Dreamworks did good job for providing best accessibility including (bonus features started in 2001, especially previews since 2006) for captioning and subtitled in other language including “Bee Movie”, “Shrek 3″ and pre-Paramount/Dreamworks titles that which Dreamworks was with Universal Studios best than this present including Shrek trilogy, “War on the Worlds”, “Just Like Heaven”, “Wallace & Gromit” and list goes on after 2001 and beyond DVD releases.

By: toomy6

toomy6 — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:33:59 +0000

my video family guy brian griffin in love was taken off of you tube for the same reason and it was just some clipes from an episode on a dvd that i bought with some music in the backround
this is bull shit how was it copyrighting i didnt even get payed for it

By: what are you a pussy??

what are you a pussy?? — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:13:28 +0000

what are you a pussy??
just put it back up
on a different site if you have to.
you did nothing wrong so what are they gonna do about it??
send it to me i don’t mind putting it on my youtube account or something.

I mean big companies pull this shit all the time (kane&lynch any1?).
they’re fuckin criminals destroying free speech and journalistic indepence like this!

(note i’m dutch so it’s probably filled with grammar and spelling errors)

By: jasmine

jasmine — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:14:24 +0000

Fox is wonderful studio it is better than the best

jasmine
tech-chek.blogspot.com

By: Brendan

Brendan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:40:35 +0000

Anon, it’s not as much personal harm as much as it is infringement on our rights that are guaranteed to us by both the constitution and laws like the fair use law. If we were to let every corporatation sensor us then we would pretty much be letting them dictate what we say and where we spend our money, that’s not really something I’m that willing to give up- how about you?

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:11:41 +0000

Is there a lawyer in the house???????

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:15:46 +0000

Why on earth would he want to do a completely useless, time-consuming lawsuit for something that didn’t exactly take him a lot of time to make?

Seriously. Just let it be. Obviously, because the clips are covered by fair use, the review had every right to stay up–but YouTube can do whatever the hell it wants. It doesn’t even have to be taken down for Fox’s complains, it can be taken down for whatever the fuck YouTube wants to take it down for. Granted, it sucks that it was a bad review, but once you upload your videos to YouTube, even though it is your material, YouTube can take it down. Terminate it for no reason.

Not everything has to be resolved with a lawsuit, especially when it’s not something that caused personal harm to those affected.

By: Jefferson Coulter

Jefferson Coulter — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:47:54 +0000

If YouTube informed you that they were taking down your review because they recieved a DMCA takedown notice, then you should immediately send them a “putback” notice. Then, the burden will shift to 20th Century Fox to either file suit against you within 10 days or let the review go back up.