Textbook Publisher Pearson Takes Down 1.5 Million Teacher And Student Blogs With A Single DMCA Notice
from the 38-year-old-content-in-a-5-year-old-post-equals-1.5-million-dead-blogs dept
If there's one thing we've seen plenty of here at Techdirt, it's the damage a single DMCA takedown notice can do. From shuttering a legitimate ebook lending site to removing negative reviews to destroying a user's Flickr account to knocking a copyright attorney's site offline, the DMCA notice continues to be the go-to weapon for copyright defenders. Collateral damage is simply shrugged at and the notices continue to fly at an ever-increasing pace.Textbook publisher Pearson set off an unfortunate chain of events with a takedown notice issued aimed at a copy of Beck's Hoplessness Scale posted by a teacher on one of Edublogs' websites (You may recall Pearson from such other related copyright nonsense as The $180 Art Book With No Pictures and No Free Textbooks Ever!). The end result? Nearly 1.5 million teacher and student blogs taken offline by Edublogs' host, ServerBeach. James Farmer at wpmu.org fills in the details.
In case you don’t already know, we’re the folks not only behind this site and WPMU DEV, but also Edublogs… the oldest and second largest WordPress Multisite setup on the web, with, as of right now 1,451,943 teacher and student blogs hosted.Putting aside for a moment the fact that Pearson somehow feels that a 38-year-old questionnaire is worth $120, and the fact that the targeted post was originally published in 2007, there's still the troubling question as to why ServerBeach felt compelled to take down 1.5 million blogs over a single DMCA notice. There's nothing in the DMCA process that demands an entire "ecosystem" be killed off to eliminate a single "bad apple." This sort of egregious overcompliance gives certain copyright holders all the encouragement they need to continue to abuse the DMCA takedown system.
And today, our hosting company, ServerBeach, to whom we pay $6,954.37 every month to host Edublogs, turned off our webservers, without notice, less than 12 hours after issuing us with a DMCA email.
Because one of our teachers, in 2007, had shared a copy of Beck’s Hopelessness Scale with his class, a 20 question list, totalling some 279 words, published in 1974, that Pearson would like you to pay $120 for.
Making this whole catastrophe even worse is the fact that Edublogs already has a system in place to deal with copyright-related complaints. As the frontline for 1.5 million blogs, Edublogs is constantly fighting off scrapers and spam blogs (splogs) who siphon off content. The notice sent to Edublogs had already been dealt with and the offending post removed, but these steps still weren't enough.
So, yesterday, when we got a DMCA notice from our hosts, we assumed it was probably a splog, but it turned out it wasn’t, rather just a blog from back in 2007 with a teacher sharing some materials with their students...Well, there actually was a "word of warning." Farmer received the following notice that clearly states ServerBeach's DMCA policy, which, unbelievably, entails taking entire servers offline in order to "comply" with DMCA notices. For $75,000 a year, you'd think Edublogs would be entitled to a bit more nuance.
And the link they complained about specifically is still on Google cache, so you can review it for yourself, until Pearson’s lawyers get Google to take that down… or maybe Google will get shut down themselves ;)
So we looked at it, figured that whether or not we liked it Pearson were probably correct about it, and as it hadn’t been used in the last 5 years ’splogged’ the site so that the content was no longer available and informed ServerBeach.
Clearly though that wasn’t good enough for Serverbeach who detected that we still had the file in our Varnish cache (nevermind that it was now inaccessible to anyone) and decided to shut us down without a word of warning.
As for Pearson, it's a shame to see a zero-tolerance, all-uses-are-infringing attitude superseding any sort of educational benefit gained from being included in a teacher's class materials. Taking a look at the original post (below), it appears to be no different than a teacher photocopying course materials for attending students.
Hosting it online may make the test infinitely distributable, but there's no indication this was the teacher's intent. One of several problems in copyright law is the fact that what appears to be fair use to the layman is usually illegal. And the unintended consequences of actions taken in good faith tends to include a ton of collateral damage -- damages which usually far outweigh any perceived losses from non-commercial infringement. Because of this, hosting companies tend to prefer harming a relationship with a paying customer to finding their safe harbors under attack. For the sake of a $120 paper, ServerBeach was more than willing to drop a $75,000/year customer. Despite all the whining, copyright still has plenty of power. Too bad it's so easily abused.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: beck's hopelessness scale, censorship, copyright, dmca, edublogs, takedowns
Companies: pearson
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Another perspective
What is even more SAD is that this is a questionnaire designed to help PREVENT SUICIDE. It's amazing that Pearson didn't even stop to think (before issuing the request for a DMCA notice) how horribly BAD, heartless and money grubbing it makes them look. I understand that copyrights have to be protected... but when did it become impossible to pick up the phone and call someone with a politely worded request? This has got to be horrible PR for Pearson ... that $120 is more important than disseminating material that could save lives. You know, SOME companies might actually think to themselves... "you know, this information is so important to get out - let's make it available for free and worry about making money off more extensive, supporting material." Who RUNS Pearson's PR department anyway? Do they even have one?Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, I don't really care if they do. It just means more people will be paying attention the next time I do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But you argue the system is "broken" if a judge has to determine what is fair use. Interestingly hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the way you boneheads constantly talk out of both sides of your mouth.
And If you think the DMCA sucks so bad, why aren't you lobbying to get it improved/modified? Getting Wyden and Lofgren on it?
Hmm?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I could do that. Clearly your country needs some babysitting. My own country has some problems right now, but I could probably spare some time to help the less enlightened.
(HINT: the Internet population is not exclusively American...bonehead)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, because it's not like they've ever tried to fix the DMCA...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6582
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
About 6-7 yards.
That's pretty good for you, tho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice linked article.. At 2003 I wasn't engaged on such issues, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hypocrisy cannot exist between the contradictory beliefs or statements of two different people don't share the same personhood, much less between several different people.
But while we're discussing it, the perspectives aren't mutually exclusive. Under the current system, it takes a court to determine it if there is an aggressive rightsholder trying to assert a copyright claim against a person who believes that their use is a fair use. However, it's broken that it has to get that far because the rightsholder should be able to determine that it's fair use and get over it instead of asserting a claim. But the system is set up so that the rightsholder has no incentive to allow fair use to go unchallenged and indeed has a monetary incentive to press every opportunity to assert copyright claims, even on material they don't own or in cases of clear fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There does seem to be a delusion that people who post here regularly are part of some kind of hive mind. I'm often attacked for things I've never said - some of which are the direct opposite of what I actually think - because Mike or some other regular commenter has said it in the past.
That's why there's so many attacks on people for being pirates, for example - they don't understand that it's perfectly possible to support copyright itself but also believe that the current system is broken and the current enforcement methods are unworkable. Some people honestly seem to believe that if you question the current system, you must therefore be supporting piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a delusion shared by only two or three people who have some unknown incentive to troll. We act all sensitive about it so they continue.
Now they COULD have an agenda to support copyright feudalism by any means necessary. There's an insane amount of money to be made if future law establishes that no property is ever owned by the purchaser or that companies have a right to profit. Maybe these trolls collect a small piece of an investment toward that. But honestly, this is the Internet and people don't need to be paid to troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's even possible to believe in neither copyright nor piracy. I think they're really incapable of understanding that, or at best unwilling to believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's quite simple. The system needs some form of due process to avoid problems like this and many other types of abuse. As it is right now, there's too much incentive to take down content in these ways even if the site in question was actually complying. Not acceptable - which ever way you slice it.
However, copyright maximalists and their defenders will usually come back with some kind of whining about how it should be obvious what's infringing and what's not. In cases like this, it's definitely not obvious and so a court needs to be involved. So, the system is broken - no due process before content is taken down and no way to know what's really fair use until after you take it to court (at your own expense after you've already had the content taken offline, of course).
It's quite clear and simple. Two separate issues, which when combined point to a broken system. No hypocrisy involved - if you bother to read the actual arguments being raised rather than attacking those who disagree, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most laws do not have exceptions that allow people to break the law in special circumstances. The fact that copyright law is loaded with exceptions called fair use, but those exceptions are non-specific and can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, means every copyright case should be resolved by a court.
The problem is that fair use is very broad and ill defined, so that many instances of what looks like copyright infringement are actually fair use, but neither the copyright holder or the person using the material are able to make that call.
If there were no such thing as fair use, the so-called "piracy apologists" wouldn't be demanding a judge determine if something were infringing because all use would be infringing. As it is, many uses of copyrighted material (including in this case, I would argue) are fair use and totally legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In order to illustrate my point about this being a community of individuals, I am going to speak in the first person here and not pretend to represent anyone else.
I have always believed that fair use needs to be strengthened. Fair use rights are a very important aspect of copyright, and without the very idea of copyright would be untenable. A person should not have to go to court and face a judge as well as all the expenses and time associated with doing so just to claim their fair use rights. Imagine what it would be like if a teacher had to spend 3 months defending themselves from criminal copyright charges every time they wanted to distribute a handout to their class of 21 students.
On the other hand, it should require a judge to approve of an action that shuts down 1.5 million blogs. There should be no easy way for censorious douchebags to silence the voices of millions of people just by sending a legal nastygram that costs and risks them nothing (go ahead and show me one case where someone was prosecuted for abusing DMCA).
Of course, this is just the opinion of one person. I'm sure my belief that a judge should be required for some things and not other things makes everyone a hypocrite. And to justify your piracy apologist comment, I'm just going to throw it out there that Redbeard wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We saw this same scenario a year or so ago; if you want to have a blog on a site like this, you need to read the TOS.
And the warnings they send you.
Anyone with half a brain knows that it's possible for this to happen with people like ServerBeach, and you need to get your own domain if you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. And on top of that, we must change bad law to make feasible a less oppressive stance for ServerBreach and encourage the development of alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
make that at least two...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you argue the system is "broken" if a judge has to determine what is fair use. Interestingly hypocritical.
Not sure what's hypocritical about that at all. Seems entirely aligned if you believe in the importance of free speech. You should always err on the side of allowing speech -- which is the case with both of those positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, it is up to the company sending the DMCA notice to determine fair use. Unfortunately, for companies such as Pearson, there is no such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Probably, but the DMCA notice says they can file a counter-notice if the original DMCA claim is incorrect. Well it looks to me like the claim is correct, and it's ServerBeach's response to it that's inappropriate. Their policies don't seem to cover that scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and that is exactly how it will continue until someone has the balls to introduce a system whereby those issuing false take downs are penalised to the same extent as those that infringe. the problem is it will go against the way the entertainment industries work. they want to be able to issue take downs, even when they know full well they are false, will do irreparable harm but costs them nothing and can get away with doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IOW, what has happened to most of the people that post on this piracy-apologism blog?
Hmm?
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This wasn't a false takedown. It was a legally legit takedown of a post that a teacher assumed was fair use.
The moral of this story is that the system stifles free speech when it works AS DESIGNED.
We need copyright in general, but the current application of old copyright law to digital communications (equating all digital communications with mass distribution) was oppressive from the get go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another perspective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
\sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
This is typical wild over-reaction here at Techdirt, just use ANY angle to attack copyright, no matter how strained. You write hundreds of words to undermine copyright without any actual criticism of the bad policies at Edublogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Once again "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Arguing with out_of_the_blue also qualifies for the above statement. You guys are stuck in a loop, hit escape now for your own sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
You can thank the copyright holders (mostly the music/movie industry) for creating this climate of fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Yet when has any hosting company challenged a notice like this? It would be nice if ServerBeach actually stood up and said they're not going to turn off 1.5 million blogs for the sake of a publication made in the 1970's.
But, again, it's "safer" to nuke the customer than risk the safe harbor laws and getting sued themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
That your kind can't see how incredibly unbalanced the situation has become and that things must change to disable the possibility of such a scenario is getting everyday more obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Frankly, it's copyright holder's fanatical crusade that's created that fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Instead, they spout some "Zero Tolerance" BS and thump their chest like they doing good, instead, they are hurting their brand and their customers. It's the same crap that public schools face.
Maybe ServerBeach should just, I dunno, setup a system that can easily 404 that page with the offending information?
Hopefully ServerBeach dies, they don't deserve any business after this fiasco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Ironically, they're reflecting the same attitude the labels have towards their consumers, which is assuming some of them are criminals without any real evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
This is specifically referring to the abuse of the DMCA system and one company's overreaction to it, not copyright.
Stop generalizing the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Shame on you, and shame on the copyright monopolists. This type of action is why people ignore copyright, and your type of comment is why people will ignore it more and more every day, until copyright laws are changed or removed from the law books.
Remember the monopoly was only granted very recently and was supported by the majority, but with the advances in technology the copyright laws are just holding innovation back. And to come on here and say that this site is supporting copyright is crazy, they have pointed out where a publisher has used the dmca to take down content and how it has affected 1.5 million people, that is news and should actually be headline news as it is another reason copyright needs to be abolished, hiding the wrongs that copyright does is not the way to move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
SERIOUS breeches of THE LAW , like copyright infringement are punishable for life + infinity...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
And besides, once we've abolished copyright and the entire American creative industry, that'll give other nations the chance to excel and fill up the void we leave behind. Can you say Korean police dramas at 8 PM, Nigerian soap operas at 9 PM, and the latest flick from Bollywood at 10? That sounds like a good, wholesome American Wednesday night primetime programming schedule to me! Let's get going on this whole "ban the copyright" movement... yee ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
False dichotomy. Abolishing copyright would NOT tear down your "backbone," categorically. And it is NOT that big a part of the economy. Its sizeable, but the auto industry going under would have dwarfed all media by several times.
People would still create, media companies would still exist, Disney would still steal 100+ year old stories and remake them in their image. People have created since the dawn of man, they will create with or without copyright. They will even find ways to be paid for it without copyright, guaranteed. Do you really think that if copyright disappeared EVERY SINGLE creative industry and person would just throw up their hands and go "oh well, FUCK IT now!" and just stop? ALL of them? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
The "backbone of the American economy" is a fallacy too. The MPAA/RIAA's obnoxiousness to freedom of creation is way disproportionate to what the value they do bring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
"Great idea. Let's abolish copyright and tear down a big part of the backbone of the American economy. Why pay writers and authors and actors and directors? Let them go become useful members of society and work in farming or manufacturing. God knows, the world needs more corn. We already have enough books."
Except that writers, authors, actors, and directors (or let's just call them, collectively, 'artists') aren't making a single penny more than they already were with these DMCA take-downs. Only the publishers, producers, and labels (i.e. people who most certainly did not, in any way, create the content being infringed upon) profit off of this total eradication approach to said unlicensed content.
In fact, artists are far more likely to be WORSE off as a direct result of such take-downs because all it ends up doing is make it so that from the moment the content is taken down until the rest of eternity, they (or more specifically--their work) can no longer be discovered by anyone, EVER! End of story. Only those who were aware with a particular piece, prior to its disappearance, will ever know it existed. Final scene? Any targeted artists' fan-base can only shrink, and never grow.
Seriously, if it is the artists, their due credit, earnings, or simply their overall well-being that your heart is truly concerned for... well, then... I'm sorry to tell you, you're paddling in the wrong direction, pal.
The irony here, when you look at the full spectrum of actions being taken and the real-world impact the whole series of events results in... it is blatantly obvious that the true scum-bag, undeserving, thieving, 'PIRATES' in this shipwreck of a tale are the corporate copyrights holders of other peoples' work they are claiming as their own.
Incidentally, for anyone who may have always wondered or not otherwise had a very concrete idea of what exactly the term 'selling out' means -- the previous statement is the deep-rooted meaning of that phrase and is exactly why the greater majority of artists have so much contempt for fellow artists who wind up being one. Sell out artists willingly agree to sign away their rights of ownership (and thereby 100% of the credit for making) to their work to some irrelevant party or entity that did not creatively contribute to the growth of said work (at least not intentionally) in the least. To just give that right away for nothing more than one, single, big, fat, immediately accessible, lump sum, wad of cash--It's an insult to humanity, is what it is. And back to the troll touting their misguided perception of ethics: Come on... really? The people offering the most support to those that actually deserve to gain anything out of the work? The people doing the most to help bring any kind success to exactly who it should go to? The very people doing nothing more malicious or invasive or destructive than merely openly exposing themselves and their honest admiration of someone else's talent to the world? THOSE are the unethical people? Come on... REALLY?
Honestly, when the 'product' is any form of art, more than at any time, NO ONE should be granted or even be allowed to obtain ownership rights of something they had no part in bringing into existence. Descendants can be appropriately compensated through contract arrangements without revoking the credit their predescesors rightfully earned for anything so anyone about to jump in with that rebuttal as though it were valid can bury that impulse right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Well, ignoring for now that you seem to have missed that most of those words were critical of Pearson and the DMCA rather than copyright (reading comprhension is still the enemy of certain people here it seems), which bad policies are you talking about?
Both articles seem to suggest that the DMCA request was dealt with and complied with in a timely manner, and the original article stressed that EduBlogs have even developed tools specifically to deal with the problems they face.
Would you mind clarifying why you're holding EduBlogs responsible for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
This story is not an over-reaction.
The Solution is for a Teacher & Student Revolt over these Big Content Ripoff Companies and go total Open Source.
Fuck The Establishment !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You confound bad management at "hosting company, ServerBeach"
Can't? Then sit the fuck down son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That whole story smells fishy to say the least.
Was Edublog's ecosystem particularly loaded with copyrighted stuff in general ?
Any financial ties between Pearson & ServerBeach that could explain this ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note that there's no discussion about the allegedly infringing material being removed - unless you provide a DMCA counter-notice, your entire server is offline.
That's just fucking insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any site of any sort should move their business from ServerBeach. Their overreaction demonstrates that none of their customers are safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/how-a-single-dmca-notice-took-down-1-45-milli on-education-blogs/
http://wpcandy.com/reports/video-user-manuals-accuses-wpmu-dev-of-copyright-infr ingement-in-open-letter/#comment-267071
http://wpcandy.com/reports/james-farmer-responds-to-accusati ons-of-copyright-infringement/
http://wpcandy.com/reports/joost-de-valk-accuses-wpmu-dev-of-copyrigh t-infringement/
http://wpcandy.com/reports/james-farmer-responds-to-accusations-of-copyright-infring ement/
http://fitzroyalty.net/2013/09/04/incsub-breaches-australian-employment-law/
http://fitzroyal ty.net/2013/09/04/incsub-threatens-defamation/
Very Un-Australian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why you should not host in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why you should not host in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is why you should not host in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why you should not host in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
A second reading also intrigued me with "scrapers and spam blogs (splogs) who siphon off content"! -- WELL, WELL! It's about time for it to be recognized here at Techdirt that using content created by others is at the very least unethical!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
Tell that to the recording industry who do nothing but use content created by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
Btw, you're a fucking moron.
Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
No need for swearing but then that is all people like you know how to do well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
"...using content created by others is at the very least unethical!"
Record labels use things created by others. Maybe little boy blue should be more specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
Such an absolute statement. All I can say is you are an idiot, moron, stupid turd of a human being to say something like that.
You really do live up to your name, hasn't_got_a_clue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
You immoral piece of trash. You really are the dregs of humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
You really don't read this site at all, do you? Using content created by others can certainly be (but is not always) unethical. This position has been stated often over the years here. I'm surprised you missed that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
Notice how I just republished your words without your explicit permission. I assumed you'd be OK with it because of where I found them and you no doubt will agree. See how easy it is to use content created by others?
I have the right to make that call in this case and many others.
But yes, SOMETIMES it's unethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote with your wallet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vote with your wallet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
======
In reference to Edublogs, who has recently professed how much they love us and will never leave, we tried numerous attempts to reach them and discuss the complaints against the blogs with them. We never want to lose business, but we have a responsibility to honor the AUP (DMAC) policy when a client is not responsive. It puts all customers in jeopardy when people do not comply (We can get shut down and fined). We even extended the response time from 24 to 48 because we really wanted to help them. See his comment at the bottom. (and we can NEVER going into a client�s content and disable certain parts. That is up to each client to manage that�
http://wpmu.org/serverbeach-takes-1-45-million-edublogs-offline-just-12-hours-after-sending-throug h-a-lame-dmca-notice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Wpmu-Wordpr ess-Mu-PluginsThemesAndNews+%28WPMU.org+-+WordPress+MU+plugins%2C+themes+and+news%29
========
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the best way to get rid of a bad law?
In Rhode Island it is illegal to sell both toothpaste and a toothbrush to the same person on a Sunday.
In Boston it is illegal to bathe without authorization of a physician.
In the US the DMCA is not a big enough travesty, we need SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the best way to get rid of a bad law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sauce for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sauce for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sauce for the goose
The problem is the copyright system Unless you enforce copyright, you have no right, so Pearson is forced to send out notes on anything it sees, regardless of how dickish it is.
But also ServerBeach handled this particular case badly. They did not deal with Edublog well at all, a couple of phone calls would have sorted it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sauce for the goose
That's not true; you're thinking of trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course...
Ever wonder why colleges are charging $10k for 12 credits? And what does the government do? Nothing. Why? Oh, yeah. Because they're rich. Amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes a sledge hammer has been used to crack a nut, but convenience has allowed the concentration of services which allowed the a single hit to do that much damage.
ServerBeach probably calculated that a law suite would cost much more than they get from their client, and so took the safetst route for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
with great power comes zero responsability
I bet the politicians who voted this said to themselves, hey these guys aren't in politics, we can trust them to do the right thing without holding a stick back to punish abuse, because we all know economy thrives on fairness, principles and ideology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: with great power comes zero responsability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: with great power comes zero responsability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: with great power comes zero responsability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A teaching moment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A teaching moment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pearson didn't ask for millions of pages to be taken down. They asked for pretty much 1 page. The choice to take it all down is not theirs, it is the hosting company.
Moreover, what the hosting company is in fact within the scope of their hosting agreement, and a manner in which they can choose to limit their liability. Anyone hosting with them is pretty much dead from the neck up if they accept these sort of terms.
If there is any legal issue here, it's the site owner to the hosting company, and nothing else. Pearson is not at fault for flagging content with the DMCA. Fair use claims are the rebuttal to a DMCA notice, not something the right holder needs to determine themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This shoot first, blindly and "because I can" with no accountability is the reason why DMCA should be dismantled. It is destroying the web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Me: I agree let's get rid of the DMCA.
You: Wait, whoops. That means US websites, servers and providers no longer have protection against copyright infringement claims.
Me: Care to rethink your position, Einstein?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Two quick points on this:
1. When people talk about DMCA reform, they generally mean the crappy parts like the anticircumvention clauses.
2. Even if we did roll back the law and got rid of the DMCA completely, you're wrong that it would mean service providers have "no protection" against such claims. It would wipe out the safe harbor that allows them to easily dismiss such cases, but in no way means they're automatically liable. As we've seen, even in cases where the safe harbor is lost (such as by not registering a DMCA agent), that doesn't mean they're not protected:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120312/13240918081/new-ruling-old-righthaven-case-m akes-two-important-points-protecting-fair-use-secondary-liability.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you know that no one would listen to you.
Because you know that the "reforms" (sic) that you want aren't anything remotely close to the spirit and intent of the law.
Because you're intellectually dishonest. Pathologically so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick involves himself in politics, you whine that he's lobbying.
Masnick doesn't involve himself in politics, you whine that he's a pussy and he's a pathological liar.
There's no pleasing stuck-up idiots like you, just like how you think pirates only download music from the Top 20 and irreparably damage independent labels at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm scared of being lynch-mobbed by IP-propagandists already teaming the lace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, no. It is partially Pearson Publishing's faul, as well as other copyright holders like them.
Were they not so tempermental and seemingly vindictive, such a thing wouldn't have happened. Now you might say but how is it their fault? Simple. They intimidate others to the point of complete and total fear of any possible repercussions should they not immediately act on a DMCA notice, up to and including "far and beyond what is required by law".
An interesting point as well. Google through YouTube actively takes down infringing material when notified, as well as has created the ContentID system (on their own dime) to pro-actively allow for the removal of unauthorized content, as well as monetizing any/all content (that isn't taken down). And that STILL isn't enough for the copyright holders.
Despite not being required to even comply with the DMCA, Megaupload did so. And look at them.
I could list countless other examples where companies are going above and beyond what is required by the law and where corporations like Pearson Publishing are still calling for their heads because "they aren't doing enough" (despite doing all required by the law).
So yeah, don't play that card. Some will never be happy. Copyright holders being first in that line of never being pleased.
And that's overlooking the important fact that everything they push for and demand they want others to foot the bill for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That was the choice of the hosting company, not Pearson. Pearson did not disconnect the client.
"Despite not being required to even comply with the DMCA, Megaupload did so. And look at them. "
BULLSHIT. Mega would disactivate links, but leave the original material on the server with as many other links that pointed to it still active. They didn't handle DMCA properly, they just tried to do legal avoidance of responsiblity.
"I could list countless other examples where companies are going above and beyond what is required by the law and where corporations like Pearson Publishing are still calling for their heads because "they aren't doing enough" (despite doing all required by the law)."
Please do. I need a laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Better safe than sorry. Could it be that this overreaction was caused by overaggressive copyright efforts? See how you didn't address the point?
BULLSHIT. Mega would disactivate links, but leave the original material on the server with as many other links that pointed to it still active. They didn't handle DMCA properly, they just tried to do legal avoidance of responsiblity.
Because if more than a user uploaded the same file they'd only keep one copy to save storage space. One of the users could have gotten the file through legit means (ie: I have a CD and downloaded the mp3 from TPB instead of riping). There's no way they could know exactly who had legitimate ownership. Keep failing, keep failing.
"I could list countless other examples where companies are going above and beyond what is required by the law and where corporations like Pearson Publishing are still calling for their heads because "they aren't doing enough" (despite doing all required by the law)."
Youtube for starters. Don't laugh too much, you'll look even more stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, that's not true.
- Lenz v. Universal Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since the law is unclear, the copyright holder is well within their rights to issue a DMCA on things that they have not authorized. The person using the material then replies "we disagree, we feel it is fair use" and the matter can go to court if the rights holder feels the need. That notice and counter notice should be enough to remove liability for the hosting company.
The issue here is that the hosting company, rather than dealing with their client in a fair manner, and rather than giving their client time to make a reasonable reply, instead cut them off, period. Lay the blame where it belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not my argument, it's the argument of the court in Northern California.
Regardless, you're right, fair use is certainly not a black-and-white affair. What the case says is required, is a good faith effort to determine that the use is not fair, before a DMCA takedown notice is sent.
The issue here is that the hosting company, rather than dealing with their client in a fair manner, and rather than giving their client time to make a reasonable reply, instead cut them off, period.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around. Pearson was partially at fault by not considering fair use before issuing the takedown (especially since "multiple copies for classroom use" are explicitly mentioned as a fair use).
Still, regardless of whether Pearson's takedown was legit or not, the actions of ServerBeach are certainly outside of the realm of reason, and certainly were not required by any law. They unquestionably deserve the lion's share of blame for this situation. On that we agree.
It's interesting to me that if this action was undertaken or required by the government, then it would certainly be considered a violation of the First Amendment. Yet many people justify similar actions by the government (e.g. the ICE seizures) without thinking that it involves the First Amendment at all. Many copyright maximalists have advocated that this be standard operating procedure with whatever they think "pirate sites" happen to be at the moment.
But that's not relevant to this particular story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-correcting....
Meanwhile, in reality, the peasants go on gnawing on the crusty loaf of apathy... and an academic publishing company congratulates itself for not "losing" more money by helping to foster an appreciation for education in students that might one day result in the kinds of adults who might actually read and buy academic or educational books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pearson did what was right and legal, the host did exactly what they told them they would do, sounds like the people themselves are to blame
but don't let that detract you from screaming about the bad copyright man and how a publisher took down 1.5 million...blah blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What part of "The notice sent to Edublogs had already been dealt with and the offending post REMOVED, but these steps still weren't enough. " do you not understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's free, isn't it?
Fyi...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA notices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Beck's Hopelessness Scale
2) I might as well give up because there�s nothing I can do to make things better for myself
3) When things are going badly, I am helped by knowing that they can�t stay that way for ever
4) I can�t imagine what my life would be like in ten years
5) I have enough time to accomplish the things I most want to do
6) In the future I expect to succeed in what concerns me most
7) My future seems dark to me
8) I happen to be particularly lucky and I expect to get more of the good things in life than the average person
9) I just don�t get the breaks, and there�s no reason to believe that I will in the future
10) My past experiences have prepared me well for my future
11) All I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness rather than pleasantness
12) I don�t expect to get what I really want
13) When I look ahead to the future I expect I will be happier than I am now
TRUE/FALSE?
14) Things just won�t work out the way I want them to
15) I have great faith in the future
16) I never get what I want, so it�s foolish to want anything
17) It is very unlikely that I will get any real satisfaction in the future
18) The future seems vague and uncertain to me
19) I can look forward to more good times than bad times
20) There�s no use in really trying to get something I want because I probably won�t get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pearson's GREED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok NOW you all know how to do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@115
or LExx Sci fi
OR stargate SG1 sci fi
or ....
farscape
or ...ya i guess we dont need america no more.....they say your so expensive to do business with people will make movies and tv anywhere but america, what little is made is what?
Survivor
pawn shop crap
game shows
gee can we have more of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What constitutes infringing content?
M'XL("`CF?%```W-U2YT>'0`;57+;MQ&$+SK*_H8`8)C)4YLG0+96,.+
M*(GAE9%S+]DD)TO.T/, 0PYL_(_X]?XFK9TB+&UN`(%([7=5573W[[P^%/_-+AU>W=[H(N?G@IU>F*KF^>/[O$ZWUG`GU($J)QUK+Q
M0I 6SP808R#7$U.-1G^(D-LX4(D$+WMA8.0%ZXI=K+YD"KVTJ2^G\E9
MH6/^\P1\^^;\)-42*F^.$FAVR1/':&*JA1KG\\F1P 3^)H&=CJS[5QK8471*'/'_^[AUY"`1ZC3X(W=/"#;8-P.M'@'RD("SZC@!),":Z
M(E6XZB@`46R51=V_>[_[\?7MW6' W&]ZN+VE/O7,GY9G8UUJHG30I*LQD8D>=
M&X78`LS&+@7#84`I7?RDQ8-xNT@>
M]*=B2[53LH% \/>@P?!53%*#Y+'N8@?9-I?KZDOSNQZR$,BUJG4$>N>SB[)QZH
MDWZ46H=WLF[*OGT-&C9H!RW-PCYD@%\4H& amp;.H%^M2VU$T0YX"5Y4;1B2SR[XN(N";
MTZPP1HU#M+Z:9:>%U`;]T;S'LI$1B]0">O@5$YI"=A9/1;A%I_D
M$*A UQ)VN#Q2C",N8[*@+AGE9"8$\:[M%]?:#`I878]5Z[N-49$"?WC>+#R@S#-=%Z^>SP2LVBK)]%#B:T'"EWP;?Z^F%"I?S= 7C@-I6[+.GV
M1#9VLQW7-\LU\,V5F.-?,ZSW'^"7440=;[,%NQ7IA[I-4=^:CAV"R+T?7^`CN90/8M!P``
`
What about when you put "begin 644 survey.txt.gz" at the start and "end" at the end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks, too bad, we need a cash pool
Too bad.
What we need is a cash pool from which to draw funds to set up hosting providers with saner DCMA takedown response policies - and, the deep pockets to make them stick in the face of the publishing giants and the short-sighted hosting providers.
Is such a thing kickstartable?
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish them
Patents should be abolished.
Let us not create scarcity. Let us create improvement for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the teacher posted it for the world to access, it was probably fair use.
This is the sort of sentence that makes people afraid to act for fear of litigation, and doesn't really hold up. Here's fair use summed up in a pop song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tWhKeb-fUQ
In the context of education, a teacher can copy/distribute anything s/he acquired legally, and it constitutes fair use (provided it's for a lesson--it's contextual). The only thing the teacher could have done that might have made it a copyright infringement is if s/he made it available to the world at large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unless the teacher posted it for the world to access, it was probably fair use.
In the context of education, a teacher can copy/distribute anything s/he acquired legally, and it constitutes fair use (provided it's for a lesson--it's contextual).
That doesn't mean he can't be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for it though. Sure, the fair use defense would probably hold up in court, but where does that leave the teacher? Unless it's a law professor, in a huge hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pearson and ServerBeach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pearson and ServerBeach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their actions were appropriate, just the limited amount of time to comply is in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Root Causes of this DMCA are ...
Would you like to fix this problem? Then strike at the root and thereby address a very large host of problems of this nation in the modern era. Informed rational action can, occasionally, have widely beneficial effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been very helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Actually, no. It is partially Pearson Publishing's faul, as well as other copyright holders like them.
Were they not so tempermental and seemingly vindictive, such a thing wouldn't have happened. Now you might say but how is it their fault? Simple. They intimidate others to the point of complete and total fear of any possible repercussions should they not immediately act on a DMCA notice, up to and including "far and beyond what is required by law".
An interesting point as well. Google through YouTube actively takes down infringing material when notified, as well as has created the ContentID system (on their own dime) to pro-actively allow for the removal of unauthorized content, as well as monetizing any/all content (that isn't taken down). And that STILL isn't enough for the copyright holders.
Despite not being required to even comply with the DMCA, Megaupload did so. And look at them.
I could list countless other examples where companies are going above and beyond what is required by the law and where corporations like Pearson Publishing are still calling for their heads because "they aren't doing enough" (despite doing all required by the law).
So yeah, don't play that card. Some will never be happy. Copyright holders being first in that line of never being pleased.
And that's overlooking the important fact that everything they push for and demand they want others to foot the bill for.