MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy
from the huh? dept
The delusions of the MPAA are really impressive sometimes. For years, they've been pushing to make search engines like Google liable for blocking sites they don't like. That was a key provision in SOPA -- that it would force "information location services" to disappear links to sites deemed "dedicated" to infringement. Of course, as we've noted, it was only after SOPA failed that Hollywood finally started using the tools already available to it to ask Google to remove links to infringing works. At the same time, we noted that the fact that Google is now processing an astounding 2.5 million DMCA takedown notices a week suggests that something is really, really broken. We meant copyright law itself -- but our good friends at the MPAA went in the other direction, and suggested it showed how Google needs to do more, and how artists are overly burdened by the DMCA:There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows. According to Google, they receive 2.5 million takedown requests per week – and that data does not even include YouTube, where an enormous amount of infringement takes place. That means that by Google’s own accounting, millions of times each week creators are forced to raise a complaint with Google that the company is facilitating the theft of their work and ask that the infringing work or the link to that work be removed. Often, even when the links are removed, they pop right back up a few hours later. That’s not a reasonable -- or sustainable -- system for anyone....Now, I agree that it's difficult for copyright holders (often not the actual creators, as the MPAA falsely implies) to have to monitor and track all of this stuff. That's a big burden. But... the MPAA ridiculously implies that there are only two options here: (1) "Creators" keep filing DMCA takedowns or (2) Google has to do more. That ignores reality in multiple ways. First off, the staggering number of bogus takedowns highlights the key point that we've made all along, which is that the only party who actually knows if a work is infringing is the copyright holder -- and even then, they often seem to get confused. Somehow thinking that a third party with no direct knowledge can somehow do more or should be more responsible is a little silly.
We couldn’t agree more with Google that this data shows that our current system is not working – for creators, or for Google. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that it also confirms the important role that Google has to play in helping curb the theft of creative works while protecting an Internet that works for everyone. We look forward to continuing to work with them to tackle this urgent challenge.
But the bigger issue is that this assumes -- as the MPAA always seems to assume -- that the only response to infringement is "more enforcement." What it seems to refuse to consider is that there's another path: it's the path in which the MPAA studios stop focusing so much on beating everyone with a stick, and start fixing the broken parts of their business model. Time and time again the evidence shows that if you offer people what they want, at a reasonable price, and with convenience, they pay -- and the "problem" of copyright infringement shrinks to being minimal (or, in some cases, it actually helps you). So, a rational individual or organization would look at the scale of the "problem" that the MPAA is talking about, along with all of the historical data on how little enforcement does to get people to actually buy -- and realize that perhaps that strategy is a mistake. Even the MPAA admits in this very post that the works often pop back up online.
Maybe -- just maybe -- the problem isn't search engines not doing enough, but rather the strategy that focuses on the stick of enforcement, rather than the carrot of providing consumers more of what they want. I recognize it's a crazy idea, especially at the MPAA -- where they have a whole freaking division of "content protection" VPs who need to justify their giant salaries, rather than a division for helping filmmakers embrace useful business models -- but it seems like a more productive path forward.
Oh, and one other thing. Could the MPAA stop with its bullshit claims that enforcing copyright couldn't possibly have an impact on free speech? This blog post has this in it:
One thing that’s important to make clear in any serious discussion about tackling online theft: absolutely no one is advocating for the restriction of speech on the Internet. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of the Internet, and a cornerstone of the film community, which has spent the last century advocating for artists to be able to express themselves freely on the screen. Removing infringing works online isn’t limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish.If the only thing taken down due to copyright claims was "infringing works," they'd have a point. But it's not. Copyright claims are used all the time to censor or take down sites or content that people just don't like. That's the concern. The massive expansion of copyright law and broad tools like the DMCA's notice-and-takedown lead to massive amounts of collateral damage that -- absolutely and without question -- infringe on free speech rights. Until the MPAA is willing to acknowledge that simple fact, it's difficult to take the organization seriously.
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: copyright, dmca, strategy, takedowns
Companies: google, mpaa
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And then here is an experiment for the next six months. Stop playing with release dates and geographic restrictions for six months. Give windowing a 6-month vacation. While you are at it, provide Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other streaming services some decent programming for the period. See if profits climb or piracy rates plummet. A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And then here is an experiment for the next six months. Stop playing with release dates and geographic restrictions for six months. Give windowing a 6-month vacation. While you are at it, provide Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other streaming services some decent programming for the period. See if profits climb or piracy rates plummet. A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The costs are another burden that prevents films making a profit, and therefore no share for the artits./s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alternative Headline
MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That There is Unmet Demand For Our Product And We Will Provide the Market With What It Wants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Links are not infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meanwhile the pirates embrace new technology/solutions to get what the MPAA (et al) doesn't want them to have.
MPAA claims that the pirates are winning. Hmmm I wonder why?
What would the pirates have left if the MPAA embraced new technology and made up for lost revenue via ads, and other internet based money making schemes? Is the MPAA afraid they'd make enough to actually have to pay artists if they did that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, it is. It's just that it's not unconstitutional to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So, how many of those complaints are invalid almost off the bat due to either the use being clearly allowed or the claim being for content not owned or the content claimed not even appearing on the site in question? If it's anything more than 10% (and it's more than that), that number starts going down fast. Also filter out duplicate claims and I'd be surprised if even half the amount are legitimate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Instead what did they do? They didn't listen to our warning that if they give MPAA a finger they'll take the whole arm, and then some. And now this is exactly what's happening. Google made it easier for them to send more DMCA notices, and no what do they do? Of course, they ask for MORE!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gangnam Style wouldn't have even made a mention in the US if people had not made a bajillion plays on it and PSY let them get away with it. Sounds like his creativity and hard work paid off in the name recognition he has now. Isn't that why people make art, to get their name out there and known to the world at large?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Criminals obey gun control laws in the same manner politicians follow their oath of office."
I would like to append that with ..."or entertainment industry executives adhere to logic, reason, or honesty."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gangnam in the usa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've went from buying around $500 a year to nothing and its remained at that level for years. I see no value in DRM other than a hindrance. I also believe most entertainment to be priced too expensively.
Since I am not exposed to new music I have no desire to buy new stuff. In the process they've poisoned radio and are working hard on doing the same to the internet. Should the day come that I see no value in the internet, I'll cut that bill too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The world has changed though. They are no longer in control. Any moron with an Internet connection can rip apart their work and do as he pleases.
Naturally, they aren't happy, and instead of embracing technology and giving those morons a reason to buy, they try to fight the technological tide.
Well, history is littered with the debris of civilizations that failed to adapt to new technologies. The *AAs will soon become part of the debris.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
There's no way Megaupload Mike can construe the Google results as supporting his notions for getting around copyright "legally", so he's off barking up another tree for distraction.
Here's Mike's actual calculation: $100M movie + 1 up-loader + manyfile hosts + many links sites + unlimited down-loaders = infinite goods!
Notice what's left out? Any proportionate rewards for those who created and produced the content!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawsuite Coming?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Facilitation implies intent. Google's intentions are not to encourage copyright infringement, but to index as much of the World Wide Web as possible. This necessarily includes indexing infringing content and pages containing links to that content. All Google is doing is making note of what's out there to be found. To call this facilitation (or, indeed, contributory infringement) is both dishonest and unfair to Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuite Coming?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
Who said anything about a 97.5% accuracy rate? That Google has complied with 97.5% of all DMCA takedown requests does not in any way suggest that 97.5% of requests are legitimate. Google doesn't get to decide what is or is not infringement: they either comply with proper DMCA takedown requests or they face liability for their users' content.
But I'm sure you know that already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
1) anonymous up-loaders have a "right" to transfer ("share") whatever data they wish to wherever they wish because it's not commercial infringement;
2) so that commercial scale file hosts can claim they're NOT infringing copyright because have no knowledge as to whether full-length movie data is copyrighted and NOT "fair use" -- with the extra twist of can't have such knowledge because are too many files to check! -- meanwhile, with the draw of providing for free someone else's valuable copyrighted content, the file hosts directly sell premium access speed plus get advertising revenue;
3) so that links sites announcing the infringing but "free" content can also draw eyeballs to advertising for income;
4) so that anonymous down-loaders can get the valuable content for free.
So here's Mike's actual calculation: $100M movie + 1 up-loader + many file hosts + many links sites + unlimited down-loaders = infinite goods!
[A similiar symbiotic sequence is in peer-to-peer networks: omit specific file hosts, and only links sites get advertising revenue.]
Note that except perhaps (one time) for the up-loader, NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content. But ALL depend upon getting FREE content: it's a "business model" that can ignore the "sunk (or fixed) costs" for a $100M movie to focus only on bandwidth costs EXACTLY as in Mike's "can't compete" piece! -- I say that's NOT coincidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In a world with greater creator access to fans and fewer gatekeepers, where creators=copyright holders they will be at a significant disadvantage. The AA's have costly, sophisticated operations that lead to these filings. How would a small creator/copyright holder hope to protect her work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The other side of the coin means something too. By their logic, if google was less successful, infringment and priacy could have been stamped out already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuite Coming?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121211/16152021352/dmca-copyright-takedowns-to-google-increa sed-10x-just-past-six-months.shtml
"The company also claims that it does the ensuing takedown in an average of just six hours -- even with having someone review each and every takedown, and even rejecting a few. They reject about 2.5% of takedown notices."
You're not arguing with me on this point, but with The Masnick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am
Mike isn't changing anyone's opinion, either. He has nothing except assertions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am
Where's your data?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Links are not infringing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
But I'm sure you knew that already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
Einstein was correct: human stupidity is truly infinite. You are living proof, ootb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about Google asks the MPAA and RIAA to build and provide them with access to a definite database containi9ng copies of all their copyrighted works, along with the computing powers to make matches to copyrighted works. This database to also include details of which sites are licensed to have copies of the works, along with details of the copyright holders. The search engines could then feed them links for verification before they indexed them.
I can see the MPAA and RIAA claiming that it is too expensive and would take too long to set up such a system. The search engines could then tell the MPAA and RIAA to go away until such time as they provide the tools needed for them to do as they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google those websites that are infringing.
But aside from all that. Can we all stop distorting facts to serve a purpose. No one here at Techdirt wants those that provide us with great entertainment to not get paid for doing so. We all want those people doing the work of creating the next Ice, Ice Baby song or the next 49.5 Shades of Off White to get paid a worthy sum of money for bringing us those points of entertainment. They did the work and thus should get paid.
But too often in the pursuit of the top level goal we distort facts to our liking.
Sure the MAFIAA does it more than any group. They have shown time and time again it is not about profit for their members but profit for their bottom line. But it is also not acceptable to just say people are going to copy so deal with it.
Techdirt has does a good job of presenting alternative ways for content creators to make money. And it seems to a degree that some are listening.
So in some way, shape or form the content creators need to be informed of new ways to leverage their content for monetary awards. The MAFIAA should lead that charge to educate and inform.
You know why they won't? (This is the main reason why the MAFIAA sticks to its outdated stance) Because they can't control the flow of money to the content creators.
They have no way to make sure they get their cut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't that kind of the failsafe SOPA offered? Judicial review and an adversarial hearing?
Maybe you could pose what would be a fair and effective way to deal with infringement instead of criticizing any enforcement avenue available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
End the monopoly and the infringement goes away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, or almost no, depending on which version of SOPA you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's skipping ahead a bit. There is no fair way to enforce unfair laws. Step one is to make the laws fair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds to me as if their specifically attacking a culture, no just one or two individuals, but in their own words, millions.
What for?
Profit?
Control?
Profit/control Vs culture
Its time these corp heads get together to design a system where all media is imediatly available worldwide, with an option to pay per view for those who want it, but to imitate the "consume as much as you want aspect", a cheap and affordable monthly subscription is what you'll need, and to maximize customers.
Provide many payment methods, cash for monthly vouchers sold in retail would'nt be a bad idea for the less developed areas
Untill i start hearing these kind of subjects being brought up by "media providers", i will just assume them to be anti human rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
There is a giant leap of faith (and failure in logic) to try make those two equivalent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not on Topic
Should their not be some fine or cost to for invalid take downs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
*IF* psy had been a MAFIAA-type asshole, he'd have a locked-down, faintly amusing ditty/video that NO ONE beyond korea would have seen, much less gone viral...
instead, he lets it escape into OUR collective culture and it blows up beyond his -or anyone's- wildest expectation...
WE DID THAT...
REPEAT: WE did that, *NOT* some crappy record label, *not* some PR droids, *not* some massive disneyesque media campaign polluting every corner of our culture: WE did it, simply by LIKING it...
psy was just either smart enough, generous enough, or simply said WTF, and *allowed* what happened to happen...
in a VERY REAL sense, that song is OURS, WE made it what it is... (as is the case with ALL culture: WE own it, WE make it, WE decide what is 'good'/'bad'/'new'/'old'/whatever...
WE do, NOT you, Mr. Bigshot media execudroid POS...
we don't NEED gatekeepers deciding what we do/don't like, we need them to get the hell out of the way and let US define OUR own culture...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yah right, I would love to see all the judges in the United States process 10 million requests a month.
The answer is obvious they wouldn't be able to and you be complaining again that you need more legal tools.
How about you face reality and see what everybody else already noticed.
Copyright the beloved glorious artificial granted monopoly is not sustainable anymore.
At the very least it needs to be toned down so infringement have a very narrow scope, because right now it is obvious that there are no amount of money or man power that will make this work in a free open society in its current form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am
What have you done with your life?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Interesting point. The human rights of creators to profit from their creations is enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations of human rights. No where is your right to get whatever you want, whenever you want it mentioned. So if you want to talk about human rights, let's first talk about creators who already have recognized rights that are being violated every day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
It is absolutely unacceptable that George Lucas became a gazillionaire off of Star Wars, yet the guy who played Darth Vader hasn't seen a dime because the movie hasn't profited yet.
THAT'S why you can't make a profit on your $100M project. It's doomed from conception because of the toxic environment you would perpetuate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because you are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Links are not infringing
No need for suspicion. The page from Google's Policy by the Numbers blog (quoted in the original Techdirt post) says specifically that these are regarding "search results that link to allegedly infringing material."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree with you on the "ignorance is a bliss".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like any file locker that takes files from others?
Emails that tell others where to find something that may or not be illegal?
Blogs that point to somewhere where someone think it is illegal?
Don't beat around the bushes, just say you want to censor the internet because you want your monopoly intact no matter what the cost of it and that is all you care about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weird How it Goes One Way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why SOPA didn't have strict punishment for wrong accusations to discourage abuse?
After all if you do it wrong shouldn't you be responsible for your acts or that is just one way street for you people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here are three changes that make this problem go away:
1) Make everything non-transferable, but waivable;
2) Make the exclusivity last two years ONLY;
3) Revoke all Perceptional Property up until that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you going to protect artists from fans that share their work with each other?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
-Due process. Both sides are allowed to present their case before any action is taken.
-Punishment for abuses of the system. Currently there isn't any, therefor there is no reason at all for the people abusing the system to stop.
-Evidence based legislation/laws/punishment. If an agency/company/person is going to claim that someone, or some company is costing them thousands, millions or billions of dollars, it should be a requirement that they provide verifiable proof, from multiple sources, before their claims are accepted as accurate and any actions are taken based upon their claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yes, ignore that parts that you don't like. Because that doesn't make the government hypocritical at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The "right to profit from their creations" is not the same as the "right to copyright."
Creators don't have any "human rights" above and beyond what other workers have. Creators' human rights are served equally as well with, say, work-for-hire arrangements - the same kind that every other worker on the planet has.
Also, some of the "human rights" that are "enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations" (the so-called "moral rights") are rights that are not recognized by the U.S., among others.
The general comments from the U.N., specifically regarding these rights, says this outright:
So, when someone downloads a Hollywood movie without paying for it, they're not violating anyone's human rights.
You're also leaving out the other portions of that section on human rights. All humans, everywhere, have the right: "To take part in cultural life; [and] To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications."
When what you "want" is culture, then you absolutely do have a human right "to get whatever you want, whenever you want it." And it says so right in the U.N. human rights resolution.
Techdirt already examined this issue in depth. I suggest you actually read the article, and the U.N. human rights declarations themselves. Both make it clear that you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
We also should not overlook Article 19:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Then again, they seem much more interested in controlling Google than they are in getting rid of piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?
If the above is true, could a class action lawset by filled on behalf of all of the registered users of the site? Popular sites would become very expensive to send improper DMCA takedowns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
'Criminals obey gun control laws in the same manner politicians follow their oath of office.'"
This is absolutely off topic but I have to say it: Criminals don't shoot up schools and movie theaters. They have too much to lose, i.e their drug money, stolen goods, rapes, whatever.
Semiautomatic-gun bans don't protect us from criminals. They protect us from noncriminals who feel overwhemingly compelled to start breaking the law. Noncriminals who snap break the gun control law and we get them before they proceed to breaking the murder law.
Anyway, thanks for indulging me and boo on the MPAA and all that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.
Checking...and discovering over half the notices are false/inaccurate, boy.
Do your research.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps we have less than zero trust left after years of hearing that everything some legacy company doesn't like is "dedicated to infringing activity."
So face it. Your industry has completely blown its chance forever to be respected as a fair arbiter of deciding what is actually infringing. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Or, you know, adapt as we've been telling you to do for a decade or more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
You ARE talking about movie/tv studios and record companies, right, boy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who are "AA's"?
Alcoholics Anonymous?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
By MPAA logic...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?
You're looking for the 1st amendment - which is freedom of speech.
My opinion would be yes, but I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.
Obviously I won't waste my time with the original troll post, but this idea that everyone who watches something "should have paid ... whoever produced the content" does not come from or support the industry.
When lobbyists talk about "digital theft" they mean lost sales. The idea is incorrect in context, but out of context, as "NONE paid and this is bad," it's gibberish. People enjoy commercial-subsidized and subscription-based video and music (and even nonprofit free video and music) all the time and the industry loves it. They want to get paid, not get customers to pay. As always, trolls aren't helping content creators.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the "Manager's Amendment" of SOPA, a website is "dedicated to infringing activity" if it has U.S. users, and:
The words are particularly weaselly: "primarily," "limited purpose." There's no hard-and-fast rule. If the site offers 60% infringing content, 39% copyrighted-but-not-infringing content, and 1% public domain content, is it "dedicated to infringing activity?" It certainly could be.
Also note the words "marketed" and "promoted." Any site that said "Download free movies!" in its marketing campaign could meet this standard, whether or not any infringement actually occurred at all.
There was no explicit "judicial threshold." The law was completely vague. It would have been horrible had it passed.
a hearing provides the opportunity for the site owner to challenge whether their business meets that standard.
All of the actions taken by SOPA and PIPA required notice only. No hearing would have been required.
That includes actions regarding domain name registrars, search engines, and payment processors. You would have been "disappeared" from all of these, prior to any kind of adversarial process.
And those registrars, search engines, and payment processors would also have been targeted by judicial action - something you conveniently ignore.
So, let's stop spewing the SOPA/PIPA apologia. They were both abominable bills, and it's good for everyone that they died a horrible, screaming death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe you could pose what would be a fair and effective way to deal with infringement instead of criticizing any enforcement avenue available."
SOPA was opposed because it was not fair or effective.
Seems to me that this criticism DOES propose a fair and effective way to deal with infringement. You just don't like the idea of fairness in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The troll was the one who proposed that SOPA would have addressed tens of millions or individual files. Are you saying the troll opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it?
This is like a funny LOTR outtake in which Gollum confuses himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?
To be fair, the 4th Amendment often comes up in prior restraint cases where First Amendment-related seizures are concerned.
But, yeah, that wouldn't apply to bogus takedown notices.
And, yes, before you issue a takedown notice, you're supposed to take fair use into account. But all that's required is a pre-takedown good-faith belief that it's not fair use, and you're off the hook. It doesn't actually have to fail a fair use analysis (or even be what a reasonable person would believe fails a fair use analysis).
It's one of the many ways the deck is stacked in copyright holders' favor when it comes to the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are you ready for the secret?....
They just have to remove their eyes. YES! It is THAT simple. It's not just anyone's eyes mind you, it is only a solution for those people that are afraid of piracy.
You see, their eyes facilitate the data about piracy, if they don't have the data, then there is no piracy! Otherwise what would the point of putting pressure on Google to stop piracy. Google not able to stop the practice of piracy, it can only to provide information about people practicing piracy.
OH! I appear to be on a roll with great ideas, I just thought of how to help the RIAA with piracy!....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Somehow I can't see the MPAA dedicating a division to promote abandoning the MPAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Never mind Google, if the Internet went away, piracy would continue, it is all too easy to exchange files directly (via bluetooth) or via flash storage. In fact these routes probable exceed the Internet now as a means of piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I so hate the MAFIAA.
Love to see Google charge them extra for all those DMCA Takedown Notices that are false.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder
IF they are, they they are paying for EACH notice sent.
Even at $0.01 each, someone is getting some GOOD MONEY..
You know they hire another company to do it, even if its was CREATED by the MPAA/RIAA..AND A WAY TO show THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING, at least paying SOMEONE to do the job..
IS this a reason to find another way to charge Artists MORE MONEY for their services..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Implicate the criminals at the USPS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Correct, nobody's ever referred to that as some sort of right. It's only been pointed out, at length and with plenty of back-up data, that not doing that these days is a terrible business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
One "o" for a start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The IP cartels need to get lost. IP extremists act as if they're entitled to free IP privileges when they're not and they don't want to sacrifice anything but they want the rest of the world to make these huge sacrifices just to enforce their IP privileges. If IP law is such a huge burden on everyone else (everyone else being who these laws should serve) then they should get lost. The public is being denied many useful services because of these laws and that's not acceptable (ie: Megaupload among many others).
IP lengths keep getting ridiculously extended at the will of IP extremists who provide campaign contributions and revolving door favors in return. I can go on about how these laws exist solely for the interests, at the will, of IP extremists and not the public. These laws are not about the public interest and they should be abolished. I want IP laws abolished. I want govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies gone, I'm sick and tired of mainstream media propaganda being used to brainwash the public and keep them ignorant. I'm sick and tired of Internet services in the U.S. costing more than many other countries and being much slower with all sorts of limitations (ie: caps). I'm sick and tired of cable costing a fortune to provide nothing but commercials. I'm sick and tired of broadcasting spectra monopolies denying me my natural right to broadcast on various frequencies as I please simply so that broadcasters can bombard us with advertisements. This needs to change. Our plutocratic social structure needs to change. Govt. established taxi cab monopolies need to go away. All patents need to vanish. All of the many many anti-competitive laws need to disappear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because for true crime there is always a way to touch the other side.
Now lets play your silly game.
So you are ok to censor news of crimes to help the police them?
You are ok with knews reporting and pointing to crime isn't you, why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We see right through you, AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course the most entertaining outcome of this is the left-hand/right-hand incidents...where they issue a take down notice on their *own*, supposedly legitimate YouTube channel over infringing content. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am
Trolling a blog with all the maturity and logic of a toddler tantrum isn't enough?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And availability of guns *does* make a difference. If there are loads of legal guns around, gun deaths happen, either by accident or
Oh look, drug laws aren't working. Why not just let anyone buy and distribute whatever drugs? Even in school...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"This product is not legally available in this area. Failure to comply within 5 business days legalizes all local infringements of said product."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
RIAA and MPAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Takedown Methodologies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google says 97% are valid takedown requests. OTOH Google are trying to say that DMCA notices can only be made by corporations, not the individual:
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=4155
if you want to focus on misuse of the DMCA system look no further than the lying turds at Google HQ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is how most of Hollywood marketing keeps their job. This is why it won't go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]