A CBS spokesperson rushed to the defense of the network’s censorship apparatus, giving statements to industry trade publications like Variety and Deadline, claiming that CBS Studios had actually financed and secretly produced the public-access episode in collaboration with Monroe Community Media. “As is our regular practice, we send copyright notices to unauthorized websites that post copyrighted content from CBS and our network/studio talent,” the spokesperson asserted, insisting the copyright enforcement was simply routine intellectual-property protection.

But that explanation raised more questions than it answered. Nothing in the broadcast identified CBS or Paramount as producers. There was no corporate copyright message at the end of the hour; instead, an independent, Chicago-based studio was listed as the production company. Colbert also spent much of the episode openly mocking Paramount and CBS in ways that strongly suggested they were not exactly thrilled with the project. So viewers were understandably skeptical that the corporation had lovingly funded an anti-corporate guerrilla comedy special only to immediately suppress its circulation online.

After a backlash erupted, CBS quickly retreated, announcing it would “waive further enforcement” pending additional review.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 147 points 5 months ago (22 children)

False copyright notices should be instant major fucking fines all the way up to complete dissolution of the compay.

We are going on thirty years of this DMCA shit and all it's ever been used for is a back door for corporations to silence critics.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    That’s not true, corporations have also used it to steal from legitimate rightsholders

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Judges should be required to neuter the prosecution when they are clearly using the expense of the legal system to strongarm someone.

    Not...like...literally neuter. I mean if the defense is financially limited and could only afford a single lawyer and a couple paralegals, then the prosecution should be limited to the same resources. Maybe by reviewing billed hours or something. Idk.

    Otherwise the prosecution is just a big bully.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    In these cases it’d probably have to be the defense that’s neutered. Usually the way it works is a corporation uses something they may or may not have the rights to use in a video they post to youtube or similar, then the original gets copyright striked because the content id recognizes it from the corporate media it’s there to protect. The original rightsholder can try to contact support (if there even is any) but they usually will just say get fucked. At that point you’d have to sue google/the infringing corpo which would probably cost more than they’d make anyways

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    rightsholders

    How do you shold a right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    legitimate rightsholders

    Oxymoron. There is no such thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Agreeing with you would mean not believing that AI is stealing from artists. Just saying.

    (I think a lot is wrong with copyrights and especially patents, and am all for breaking them in some circumstances, but not totally abolishing them.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Agreeing with you would mean not believing that AI is stealing from artists.

    Right. How could it be when no theft has occurred?

    It isn't stealing anything from anyone and artists have been making art long before the concept of property was even invented.

    If you need a reason to justify the trendy "AI bad" narrative, there are plenty of others to choose from that aren't total bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    Whilst capitalism exists, there is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Typical, acting as if capitalism is already over, it's not.

    Until the game can be broken, you gotta play it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    CBS can go fuck itself. BOYCOTT Skydance/Paramount.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Friendly reminder that boycotts are about financially hurting the target. There are ways to enjoy the entertainment you like without funding the bastards 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    And do not watch the show that replaced Colbert, nor any of its guests. Make it career poison to be on that show. Do not even mention the name, it's just "The shitty show that replaced Colbert."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 5 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 45 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    On Friday, the president posted an artificial intelligence-generated video from the official White House account featuring Trump grabbing Colbert from his late-show set and throwing him into a large dumpster while dancing to the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.”

    “Colbert is finally finished at CBS. Amazing that he lasted so long! No talent, no ratings, no life. He was like a dead person,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “You could take any person off of the street and they would be better than this total jerk. Thank goodness he’s finally gone!”

    I know I should be used to this sort of thing by now, but reality is so weird.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If he had no talent and no ratings ... Why do you care?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Because he's a malignant narcissist. In his head he's the center of the world and nothing else matters. And being a TV personality himself, ratings are the ultimate expression of that, because if eyes are on him instead of anyone else, then it justifies his own narcissism in a feedback loop. Anything that threatens that is a threat that he's psychologically incapable of accepting, and he gets engaged. How he's got dementia and is untouchable, so the filter is long gone, so he lashes out publicly about it. He cares because he has to, because cognitive substance is unbearable, and the reality of someone being popular who also challenges his delusions is something he literally cannot stand. Trump is a maladaptive excuse of a human being and he can't ever admit to being anything but the best, most important person in the world, and being president of the US is the ultimate concrete expression of that in his head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You're mistaking Trumpland for reality. Unfortunately they overlap, so while you and I live in reality and Trump lives in Trumpland, what happens in Trumpland it directly infects reality. I meant to say effects reality but to be honest, I think "infects" is a better word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    I'm not sure if you understood what I meant. I'm not saying I agree with what Trump wrote, or that his opinions are somehow shaping my reality. I am saying that the objective reality of a United States President, one of the most powerful people on the planet, taking the time to write insecure and childish social media posts directed at a television show host is weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Wouldn't sending takedown notices for material whose copyright is not yours be the Criminal Fraud?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    Anti-corporate guerilla you say?

    The spirit of Harambe lives.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I was watching it when the take down took affect, and still haven't watched like last 15 or so minutes. Since i couldnt find it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Reports of Bari Weiss being big mad about the jokes made at her expense are very satisfying to me

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/tvmovies@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    The gall of Paramount/CBS to issue DMCA takedown requests for intellectual property they don't even own. Smh my head.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Watched it last night. Some good laughs in there. Also a compelling show in a different way without an audience or much laughter from not having one. Felt a little more cozy but still on the level. Jack White added some good lines, as well.

  • source