180

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SnotFlickerman 122 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

Surelly if you're knowingly sending a false copyright notice that's the Crime of Fraud and thus the actual people doing it and those ordering are Criminally Responsible for those action?!

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 10 hours ago

At minimum, you should lose the right to make a claim again for a fixed period of time, which increases exponentially for each additional false claim.

[-] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 54 points 18 hours ago

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

[-] SnotFlickerman 14 points 18 hours ago

Had me in the first half.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 7 points 18 hours ago

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.

[-] 69420@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

I'd be OK with literal neutering in this case.

[-] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

i vote for literal and metaphorical neutering

[-] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 3 points 17 hours 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

[-] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

legitimate rightsholders

Oxymoron. There is no such thing.

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

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.)

[-] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
180 points (100.0% liked)

Television

2439 readers
490 users here now

Welcome to Television

This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.

Other Communities

Television Communities

A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.

Rules:

  1. Be respectful and courteous to all members.
  2. Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
  3. Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
  4. Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
  5. Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
  6. Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.

Matrix Link

List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS