Originally Posted by fuzzybass
YouTube allowed the video to be taken down in the first place.
Originally Posted by Reslivo
Still parody, thus still Fair Use.
I really do not believe there is any case for copyright infringement here.
You'd need to prove that it's parody first. If I were Mr. Bitwit's lawyer, that's definitely the angle I'd take, but it's not an easy argument to make given just how much of the video is from the original copyrighted source with no commentary. If the reaction video had been cut such that only the highlights, the parts that Kyle responded to explicitly, were present, he'd have a better case. But as it stands the majority of the video is simply the original with no transformation that would reasonably qualify as fair use.
Originally Posted by neurotix
If passive commentary (usually under the form of parody) of what is essentially a full, unedited work were copyright infringement, then how could things like Mystery Science Theater 3000 exist? (I'm no fan of it, just old enough to remember it and have seen it on TV a long time ago.)
That isn't a rhetorical question, but a serious one. I would imagine that maybe the creators of that show got permission, I also recall that most of the movies they parodied were extremely old (maybe the studios that made them no longer existed).
Still, commenting on a full work while including it is something that has been done basically since the dawn of time (or Western Civilization) as far as I know- I'm pretty sure there's a rich history of this in literature. Didn't a lot of philosophers do full commentaries on things like Homer? What is worse: including parts of the material, which can then be quoted out of context and used to argue points that are the exact opposite of what the original work says, with no way of telling from the commentary... or the full thing?
I agree with the other people, this causes a "chilling effect" and stifles free speech, and it is always the big guy (e.g. media conglomerates) going after small folk, never the other way around. And I have nothing against the free press or media, being extremely liberal myself, but this is a dangerous precedent. That's enough political stuff though, don't want to get an "infringement" here. >.>
That's exactly what happened: they acquired rights to the movies featured in MST3k. Contrast with the creators' newer project, Rifftrax. They have not
acquired the rights to any films that their trax riff on, but because the only material that Rifftrax distributes is their own original audio to be played simultaneously with the film you yourself obtained separately, it's fine. At worst it might fall under trademark infringement or something depending on the characters or entities they talk about, but that would actually fall under fair use because it's such a minute part of the original work.
The idea of copyright is a recent one, so ancient Greece isn't too applicable here. Previously the rights to the work went to the printer rather than the author, i.e., they went to the person who made the physical product rather than the person who came up with the ideas. "Quoting out of context" is a silly thing to worry about. If you're a pundit trying to stir crap up, then neither you nor your audience actually care. If you're writing something more intellectual, then you've cited your sources and your audience is smart enough to find them, and you're probably honest enough to not intentionally misrepresent the original work. Plus, it's bad writing to include bits you aren't responding to or critiquing. Finally, if the original work needs to be presented in its entirety to not be quoted out of context, it's kinda crap lol.
As for censorship. What
was censored here? Because I haven't seen anything of intellectual or informative worth lost. Nobody's ideas were censored because there aren't any in the first place. As incorrect as it was, the Verge's video was superior in terms of effort and editing and was a fully original work. Bitwit's video would not exist without it and cannot stand on its own merits, because without the copyrighted work it's only a couple minutes long. They aren't censoring criticism or ideas because they only DMCA'd one video in the first place with neither.