Netflix Targets Critical 'Cuties' Tweets With Copyright Takedown Requests (torrentfreak.com) 72
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Every week, Netflix sends out thousands of takedown requests, most of which target pirated copies of its movies and TV-shows. Yesterday, however, we spotted a series of copyright infringement notices with a different and rather uncomfortable theme. The streaming giant asked Twitter to remove dozens of tweets that included footage from the French coming-of-age film Cuties. This film hasn't been without controversy and the same can be said about the takedown requests too.
To provide some context, Netflix acquired the global distribution rights for Cuties and started promoting it this summer. This created quite some backlash as many people felt that the young actors had been sexualized after being filmed in all kinds of suggestive poses. We won't go into the various viewpoints on this topic or the lawsuit Netflix faces in Texas over 'lewd visual material.' Opinions from both sides are readily available all over the web, including social media. Netflix didn't cancel Cuties, however, but this week it actively started to pull Cuties clips from Twitter. Not just a handful, but several dozens. Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights. However, it is at least a bit peculiar that the company appears to have targeted only negative tweets. The good news is that the texts of the tweets remain online. We don't know if that is Twitter's decision or if Netflix had a say in it. The takedown requests, which are posted on Lumen, target the full tweet URLs. The flagged tweets, according to TorrentFreak, all condemn Netflix. "The language is quite harsh at times, including terms such as child exploitation, pedophilia, as well as repeated calls to cancel Netflix," it adds.
The company hasn't said why it's suddenly going after Cuties clips on Twitter. "The easy conclusion would be that Netflix is trying to shove these under the carpet," reports TorrentFreak. "However, there are still thousands of similar comments online, so that wouldn't be very effective."
To provide some context, Netflix acquired the global distribution rights for Cuties and started promoting it this summer. This created quite some backlash as many people felt that the young actors had been sexualized after being filmed in all kinds of suggestive poses. We won't go into the various viewpoints on this topic or the lawsuit Netflix faces in Texas over 'lewd visual material.' Opinions from both sides are readily available all over the web, including social media. Netflix didn't cancel Cuties, however, but this week it actively started to pull Cuties clips from Twitter. Not just a handful, but several dozens. Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights. However, it is at least a bit peculiar that the company appears to have targeted only negative tweets. The good news is that the texts of the tweets remain online. We don't know if that is Twitter's decision or if Netflix had a say in it. The takedown requests, which are posted on Lumen, target the full tweet URLs. The flagged tweets, according to TorrentFreak, all condemn Netflix. "The language is quite harsh at times, including terms such as child exploitation, pedophilia, as well as repeated calls to cancel Netflix," it adds.
The company hasn't said why it's suddenly going after Cuties clips on Twitter. "The easy conclusion would be that Netflix is trying to shove these under the carpet," reports TorrentFreak. "However, there are still thousands of similar comments online, so that wouldn't be very effective."
Fucking pathetic Netflix. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
cuties is for pedophiles ... it's rated to high for the age of the girls who star in it ... normalizing the sexualization of young children
Gotta give the Qanon's something to watch. Repeatedly. And then complain about. Then share with their friends and watch again. Then watch a couple more times to make sure they got all the naughty bits documented.
Re: (Score:1)
Fair Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is (Score:2, Insightful)
The only real solution to that is to host it yourself. But then you lose access to the platform provided by YouTube, Twitter, et al.
That said as others have pointed out just because my house is in a high traffic neighborhood doesn't give you the right to plant a sign on my lawn. T
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would Twitter host kiddy risqué content? Netflix can burn for it for all I care.
Ah, so Twitter only hosts the utmost of clean-cut content, right?
Forget the Kettle, that's the Pot calling the Black Hole out.
Social Media needs to burn if anyone actually cares. The Narcissist Generation of Professional Attention Whores is gaining momentum, and humanity won't like the end result of circling that piss-filled drain.
You're strawmanning (Score:2, Interesting)
Your strawman is that Twitter hosts things people reading your comment might disagree with (virtually guaranteed giving how much content is on Twitter). You can count on everyone agreeing with you that Twitter hosts bad things sometimes, and as such you built it as your strawman to attack my actual point.
As an added bonus you took a shot at social media in general because it's unpopular w
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're strawmanning (Score:5, Interesting)
my point is that Twitter has the right to host whatever they want, clean or not, so long as the content is legal.
And that "risqué" content on Netflix is currently hosted by a US company operating on US soil under US law, and is legal. Jack Dorsey found himself standing in front of lawmakers because he chose to not host "whatever they want". Ain't that simple, Jack.
Your strawman is that Twitter hosts things people reading your comment might disagree with (virtually guaranteed giving how much content is on Twitter). You can count on everyone agreeing with you that Twitter hosts bad things sometimes, and as such you built it as your strawman to attack my actual point.
You say risqué. I say bad. Both are legal. A lot of people want to see both Netflix and Social Media burn. And when massively public forums operating as Too-Big-To-Fail companies choose to remove or censor content, they find themselves standing in front of Congress regardless of "my lawn, my content" arguments. Your point has fallen rather flat here.
As an added bonus you took a shot at social media in general because it's unpopular with /.'s older audience (who prefers traditional web forums, having grown up before the Eternal September).
Suicide rates among 12 - 15 year old girls. Our children. Mass Narcissism feeding incredible attitudes in the workplace. Social Media morons hitting the internet viral lottery that the younger generation worships and mimics to fault. Swatting. Doxxing. Elections. Still think this is about "tradition"? I remember BBS forums, which are a far cry from even what you're assuming I'm talking about. Has fuck all to do with it, as does Eternal September. Jack Dorsey came back with half an ass, not a key to the city.
I remember not long ago when millions of men were mocking the Mike Pence policy towards not being alone in a room with another woman other than his wife. He was criticized and laughed at for his ultra-Christian view. Then the Me Too movement bolstered by ultra-modern feminism dropped like a bomb, and suddenly millions of men realized just how wrong they were to mock him, as corporate policies dropped that prevented extended eye contact between the sexes.
But hey, let's just keep assuming I don't like Social Media because of the grey in my beard, and not because I can see where this shit is going.
You're post is pretty well crafted for it's intended purpose. Be a shame if somebody with a lot of /. experience came along and pointed out all the tricks in it, rendering it moot...
It's a shame people assume so hard. Social Media continues to devolve into defining "hate" speech, censoring conservative views while championing progressive ones (we're up to 112 genders now), and generally creating mass censorship and chaos for all. Still think I'm shilling for one side or the other? Keep assuming. Wouldn't expect anything less.
Speaking of moot, enjoy your Rights. They'll be considered Wrongs soon.
You mean my right to put what I bloody well please (Score:2)
These ideas are being put in your head by wealthy Establishment types that want to take back control over the Internet. The goal is real simple, make it so they can sue anyone for anything on any website. Then Twitter, YouTube, et al stop allowing content to be posted without moderation done by the ones with enough money to sue. Everything you say on line will be vetted by lawyers owned and paid for by the Establishment a
Re: (Score:3)
on my own website? Then yeah, if we follow your line of logic I suppose your right. These ideas are being put in your head by wealthy Establishment types that want to take back control over the Internet. The goal is real simple, make it so they can sue anyone for anything on any website. Then Twitter, YouTube, et al stop allowing content to be posted without moderation done by the ones with enough money to sue. Everything you say on line will be vetted by lawyers owned and paid for by the Establishment and censored if it does not conform.
So we can minimize assumptions, I hate the fact that sensible leaders who want to preserve and protect our Rights are considering eviscerating Social Media. We all know what will happen if protections under 230 are reconsidered. You're right, there will be no point in hosting any public forum unless you simply love taking on the legal nightmare of being responsible for all content. Leaders are being forced to consider that because of blatant and obvious bias, that is usually and ironically surfing a fuck
Re: (Score:2)
We all know what will happen if protections under 230 are reconsidered.
Go research what the situation was before section 230 was passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is almost nobody but me and one other guy (AmiMoJo I think his/her name is) see it coming. And every time we point out what they're up to we get modded into pulp by free speech absolutists who think there'll be a troll's paradise where their shit posts don't get modded down if only we can do away with S230 of the CDA.
I see it coming too. And the funny thing is that I consider myself to be a "free speech absolutist." I just include a website's free speech in that. I don't like the idea of someone else telling me what data I must host in my own database server at my own expense. That idea even seems insanely anti-conservative to me. It's basically "bake the cake" but coming from the right.
The sad part was I had started to lean towards the right around 2014-ish when I was growing tired of more and more anti-science rhetori
Re: (Score:2)
Since you mentioned starting a media company - I recall hearing years ago that was his original intent with the presidential campaign. It was to be a publicity stunt to promote the TV news channel he was launching. His lawyer registered a trademark for it prior to the 2016 election.
It might be easy, with all that's happened since, to forget how totally plausible this is. I'd seen him show up on Fox News with some regularity during the Obama years, talking about birth certificates. You could tell he loved ge
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum. I feel like his attitude is much the same as Kanye West's run for president this year. Not really in it to win it, to stay relevant and stay in the headlines. I wouldn't be surprised if he personally approved Kanye's run in the hopes that it'd keep a couple dozen black guys and failed hipsters from voting Biden. "That sounds like a great idea, Mr. West. You know, I think we're really a lot alike. Go get 'em!"
Re:You mean my right to put what I bloody well ple (Score:4, Insightful)
If Trump chose to use any other platform, literally everyone including the media would sign up to continue to hear the bullshit that comes out of his mouth. Even people who hate him with a passion are addicted to it (love to hate). So Twitter's censorship is not a threat to him at all. He's wealthy enough to start his own media company if he wanted to, and it would probably make billions given how successful various independent media start-ups have been in the last couple of years.
And you think this is a good thing, how? Think the bullshit spewed by ultra-progressive views is any better? We're up to 112 genders now, and those that elevate feelings over all get so offended over facts that searching for a former Olympic athlete on the wrong search engine will get you banned-for-life for "deadnaming". Cancel Culture will become a legally recognized religion as the ultimate weapon for both sides to abuse. Perhaps you have also failed to see the end result of this.
I think his feud with the media + social media might even be symbiotic. The more they censor and "fact check" the more his base gets riled up, so good for him. The more he complains about it, the more PR and attention they get, and the more they stay relevant.
Great. So, we've already watched the MSM replace every journalist with a Hype and Bullshit Ratings Pimp, whose very job is to generate ratings now, truths be damned. Just say whatever gets ratings now. And that stupid shit has now elevated to the highest positions in the land. See where this is going yet? We're almost at the end.
That said, both the left & right want the ability to control and regulate, and probably for the exact same end, which is what you said (the ability to go after anyone for anything). They're just using different excuses to get it. One wants to pass hate speech laws and the other wants big tech to bake them the metaphorical cake.
I think the irritation towards the left has far more to do with censorship, but it doesn't really matter who started it or why. The bottom line is we're getting ready to allow this insanity on both extreme ends to initiate the Free Speech vs. Hate Speech debate, and we watch our Rights circle the drain, because My Platform. Again, doesn't matter who or what started it, extremists will end our Rights. We went 200+ years without having to legally define "hate". Now we're watching the Left censor and Cancel the Right, forcing them to another platform, where the Right will censor and Cancel the Left. The Hype and Bullshit Pimps will pour gas on that fire to further Divide a Nation, equally as culpable. We will define "hate" alright. Many different flavors of it, destroying Free Speech in the process.
The end result of all of this, is exactly what I see. Don't assume we're any smarter as a Nation now than we were in 1861. America has been dumb enough to devolve into a Civil War before. It can happen again. And yeah, it can easily happen over this shit.
So here I am. The outsider.
Yes. Sadly, we are in the tiny minority in a sea of People, and Agent Kay said it best when talking about the differences between a person and people. Peace, won't be able to remain an outsider for long. That's not just sad. It's horrific. The worst part of it? This hate happens at the highest levels in our country, as if our leaders almost want this to happen. Is our unending addiction to warmongering Greed that bad? Perhaps We the People, should have fucking acted upon a sitting President's dire warnings to a Nation. There was more than one reason a five-star battle-worn General said it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how you got modded "insightful" when you put words in my mouth and then went on an extremist tirade of an attack. I guess I'll reply though I'm not sure it's really worth it since you sound kind of unhinged.
And you think this is a good thing, how?
I offered no opinion as to whether it's good or bad. It's a neutral observation about the facts of reality that Twitter censorship is not a threat to Trump. That's neither good nor bad. It's just a fact.
Think the bullshit spewed by ultra-progressive views is any better?
No. I don't think bullshit coming from anyone is good. See the difference between you a
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how you got modded "insightful" when you put words in my mouth and then went on an extremist tirade of an attack. I guess I'll reply though I'm not sure it's really worth it since you sound kind of unhinged.
And you think this is a good thing, how?
I offered no opinion as to whether it's good or bad. It's a neutral observation about the facts of reality that Twitter censorship is not a threat to Trump. That's neither good nor bad. It's just a fact.
Right, and it's just a fact that Jack Dorsey was chewed out by Congressional Lawmakers because of massive censorship of corruption involving a Presidential candidate during an election. Perhaps you can now explain exactly how the fuck that is not a threat to the current Presidency.
If you feel like I'm attacking you here, for now I am. You will see clearly later that we're on the same side. But for now, you owe me an answer. A US Presidential election is waiting as you dismiss one-sided political censor
Re: (Score:2)
To me it seems that this effectively creates a 2nd kind of DMCA which provides the frame work to allow even more censorship where the criteria isn't "copyright" any more but rather "I don't like that".
In the future things would be similar to what Netflix did here, but with Netflix being on meth amphetamines. Then they don't even need to call "copyright" if t
Mod geekmux up. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Dorsey found himself standing in front of lawmakers because he chose to not host "whatever they want". Ain't that simple, Jack.
It is under current law, until and unless Sec.230 of the CDA is blown away. He got hauled in to talk to lawmakers for the purposes of political theater.
On topic, use of clips for the purpose of criticism is explicitly protected as fair use, and the standard for the length of the clip is "as long as necessary" for the purpose of the criticism. So these takedowns are unlawful right on their faces.
Re: (Score:2)
This has very little to do with Twitter which is clearly all over the place with mass censorship, as you would expect. This is about Netflix being as dumb as fuck and running the Epstein special (mass child molester and extortion specialist) just before the cuties show, making people far more aware of child molester and then showing sexual child exploiting content. The primed the kickback and then go it. They were as stupid as fuck running both shows in a similar time frame and are paying the price.
It woul
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Interesting)
If these people are located in the USA, then it should be entirely clear cut. If not, maybe they live somewhere where free speech doesn't exist.
In the USA, forget just "short clips", that's one of the criteria in the USA for determining fair use but in this case it seems to hit on pretty much all criteria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:[8]
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
They're using short clips for the purpose of making a criticism (1 & 3) and they are not profiting financially by appealing to the same market (4)
Seems insanely clear-cut and everyone impacted should have no problem with their counter-notice. Unless this falls under a non-USA jurisdiction in which case I have no idea.
Oblig IANAL disclaimer.
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly fair use. Fair use, however, has nothing to do with this as Netflix has not sued Twitter or the users who posted the content for copyright violations.
If it made it to court, fair use would certainly be a valid defense but it hasn't.
Re: (Score:3)
They've initiated the process. The next step is for these users to file a counter-notice, as I said in my original comment. At that point if Netflix does not choose to litigate (and they probably won't because they'll lose and their lawyers have to know that) then the issue goes away. The fact that it is fair use is completely relevant because that's the grounds under which these users can file a counter-notice, inviting Netflix to get the lawyers involved because "You ain't got a claim here."
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is if Netflix does decide to sue the cost to the victim will be huge. They will need legal representation that they have to pay, and then if they win they can try to claw it back but that could take months or years.
There needs to be a lower risk way of dealing with spurious copyright claims.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually fair use absolutely does have to do with this; at least in theory, you're legally required to do a fair use analysis before you issue a DMCA takedown notice.
In fact there can be trouble if you don't do a fair use analysis, but that's only going to bite you in the ass if you just flat out say you didn't do one: all you really have to do is claim you did the analysis and you don't believe it was fair use.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that platforms like Twitter are not obliged to uphold the free speech of their users. So they do what seems most opportune, and that is comply with the take-down requests to avoid being sued by Netflix. In effect, censorship is mostly private these days. Even if Twitter and similar services might not have an interest of their own in silencing people, it is simply cheaper and easier to bow to the pressure. So while they have no spine whatsoever, they are at least not actively evil.
Netflix, on
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that platforms like Twitter are not obliged to uphold the free speech of their users.
True
So they do what seems most opportune, and that is comply with the take-down requests to avoid being sued by Netflix
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think Netflix can sue them unless they were to ignore the DMCA all together in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that one of the intents of the DMCA was to make it easy for people to settle copyright disputes privately when 3rd parties were involved as service providers. The CDA also offers some protection here since they are not considered the publisher of content that someone else posted, even on their own platform. Again, IANAL, but I think that as long as Twit
Re: (Score:1)
Libtard to English translation:
"Shut up! It's okay if we silence you off the internet because I don't like you! It'll never happen to -ME-!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the wonderful thing about the DMCA. The hosting party doesn't give a shit and just takes stuff down. If something is actually fair use then it's up to the posting party to file a DMCA counter claim. Then the original party has the option to reply with a court filing or the content goes back up after 14 days.
It's one sided, it absolves the hoster of all liability, and the end result will be a 14 day old tweet buried under a mountain of irrelevance. Fuck the DMCA.
No. Just fucking no. (Score:3, Informative)
this week it actively started to pull Cuties clips from Twitter. Not just a handful, but several dozens. Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights.
No. Just fucking no. Using copyrighted material for the purpose of commentary and criticism is fair use.
Re: (Score:1)
this week it actively started to pull Cuties clips from Twitter. Not just a handful, but several dozens. Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights.
No. Just fucking no. Using copyrighted material for the purpose of commentary and criticism is fair use.
I agree with you.
How else can a critic point out good stuff and bad stuff in a movie if they can't show a frame or a fair use length clip (15 seconds, but I could be wrong) from the production??
It's comparable to filing a lawsuit in court and the judge tossing it out for lack of evidence...but the claimant was prevented by the defendant from providing the evidence.
How do newspaper movie reviews avoid video? (Score:2)
How else can a critic point out good stuff and bad stuff in a movie if they can't show a frame or a fair use length clip (15 seconds, but I could be wrong) from the production??
As for "a frame", I'm under the impression that the notices of claimed infringement that Netflix sent to Twitter were about video clips, not stills. As for "a fair use length clip", how do reviews of movies in printed newspapers and magazines "point out good stuff and bad stuff in a movie" without showing even one second of video?
trump is right (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter isn't pushing anything here. Twitter is just the medium. Netflix is the one issuing DMCA take-down requests to Twitter.
Private company... yada yada (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Private company... yada yada (Score:5, Insightful)
> Censorship has its proper place
Bullshit.
WHO decides WHAT to censor?
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh at taboo subjects because weren't insecure about learning a different perspective.
Once you start with the excuse that "some" things are OK to be censored then it quickly becomes a slippery slope that will constantly be moving towards fascism removing fundamental rights of free speech, fair use, and critical analysis.
It is FAR better to allow people to be able to freely express their opinions and ignore it, then to outright ban it just because your insecurity feels the need to micromanage people expressing a different opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship has its proper place
Bullshit.
WHO decides WHAT to censor?
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh at taboo subjects because weren't insecure about learning a different perspective.
Censorship has is proper place. The owners of the platform being used decide.
Say you're running a cross stitch forum. Some asshole starts posting graphic snuff videos. Removing their posts and banning their account is censorship. It is right and proper censorship. It's going to continue, no matter how much whining is done by you absolutists. DEAL WITH IT. Absolutism is extremism. Stop it.
Once you start with the excuse that "some" things are OK to be censored then it quickly becomes a slippery slope that will constantly be moving towards fascism removing fundamental rights of free speech, fair use, and critical analysis.
Not all slopes are equally slippery.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is power. For censorship to be possible, someone needs to make the decision as to what is permitted and what is to be censored, and they must have an effective apparatus in place to enforce their judgement. It can be an individual, or a committee - but either way, who are you going to trust? Who would you give the button with the power to erase any view they didn't like? It's also difficult to hold censors accountable, as their decisions cannot be reviewed without access to the very material the
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "private company... yada yada" here. There is just the fucking DMCA, and no one here would ever contest that it wasn't a bad law.
This isn't an "any kind of censorship" issue, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with any of the social media actions we've been talking about in the past few years. I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you just don't know the difference rather than the possibility that you're using an unrelated issue to push your agenda.
Legally they can do this? Absolutely not. (Score:2, Informative)
"Legally the company is allowed to do this of course, as they own the rights."
Legally they ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT allowed to do this without first doing a good-faith fair use analysis to determine whether the tweets are actually infringing. Critical tweets that use a selected excerpt of copyrighted material for the purpose of making their point are ABSOLUTELY fair use and it's absurd to suggest that they could in good faith determine otherwise.
Unfortunately there's LITERALLY ZERO RECOURSE for bad faith DMCA tak
Streisand Effect (Score:1)
I really hope people jump on this and start to spam every corner of social media with negative commentary and "copyright infringing material". As many have pointed out, these fall in the category in fair use and any media giant that tried to censor commentary using this method deserves the fallout and the time/$ they will waste on these sorts of actions.
I would look way more favorably on Netflix if they took this as an opportunity to create an open discussion on why Cuties is controversial
Re: (Score:2)
"we advise that the next segment may contain content that some people may find disturbing" - then no-one, ever, says "you're right, I will turn the TV off for 5 mins"
Nope I dumped network news years ago for just this reason, tell me now without a breathless "after this message" or GTFO. Dumped on a few tv series for lazy cliff hanging season endings as well. I stream/pirate what I want when I want, no commercials and its wonderful, may they rot in hell.
Re: (Score:1)
Time to change the First Admendment (Score:2)
Twenty First Century version:
What is Netflix thinking? (Score:2)
The controversy had died down. This is throwing gasoline on the embers.
Are they trying to cause a Streisand Effect?
You see what you know (Score:2)
The flagged tweets, according to TorrentFreak, all condemn Netflix. "The language is quite harsh at times, including terms such as child exploitation, pedophilia, as well as repeated calls to cancel Netflix," it adds.
I haven't seen the show or any clips of it. I think people are just projecting their own fears or experience. The more familiar they are with pedophilia, the more pedophiles they see hiding behind trees and around corners.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a movie, not a show. Made in France. I've only read the summary, which I shall make into an even shorter summary for you:
The main protaganist is an eleven-year-old girl from a very conservative Muslim family - one of those veil-wearing, barefoot-and-pregnant type cultural backgrounds, in which any hint of sex is a sin and women are property. Despite the best efforts of her family to raise an allah-fearing, submissive women, protagonist finds little engagement in religion - but she is very concerned wit
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen the show or any clips of it...
https://maxpatriot.com/wp-cont...
I believe that creating a film featuring children, dressed like strippers, spreading their legs and touching their crotches, cross a line or two.
Netflix is doing the right thing (Score:3)
I commend Netflix for their efforts to remove their child pornography from social media.
Netflix (Score:1)