How Much Does HBO Pay MarkMonitor To Send DMCA Notices Removing Its Official Content From Google?
from the and-why-does-this-keep-happening dept
We've seen plenty of ridiculous stories about bogus DMCA takedowns, but none get so ridiculous as the ones in which the content being demanded taken down is the officially released content. This often happens because of shoddy / clueless middlemen, as is the case with the latest example being passed around. HBO hired DtecNet / MarkMonitor to keep infringing copies of its works offline, and as TorrentFreak notes, the company sought to achieve this by sending a DMCA takedown notice to Google that demanded the removal of links to HBO's own website (as well as links to legitimate sites that included reviews of the show in question, Eastbound and Down).
My real question, though, is just how much is HBO paying DtecNet / MarkMonitor for this "service"? Not only is it making a complete mockery of HBO itself, but potentially killing search engine optimization value that HBO might have towards its legit and authorized content.
Also, isn't it comforting that DtecNet / MarkMonitor are going to be the ones responsible for going after people under the new six strikes program? Stories like this really add confidence to the idea that they're going to make a complete mess of the whole thing.
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: dmca, hbo, takedown
Companies: dtecnet, google, markmonitor
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go ahead Slime Warner and try to screw me.
First off I will try to Sue you and I will make the biggest possible noise over this.
Second if that don't work I will drop you in seconds and move to GWI here in Portland, Maine.
Fuck You and your Six Strikes Bullshit !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Six strikes" is not aimed at sophisticated users who use things like VPNs. "Six strikes" is targeted to discourage the low-hanging fruit: in particular, it is designed to discourage the unsophisticated user from allowing content to be UPLOADED from their home system.
Consider this statistical model:
There are 100 people using BitTorrent and allowing uploads from their computers. Everyone has access to the libraries of all 100 people. Under "Six Strikes," 20 users move to offshore VPN addresses for their torrenting, while 80 users just give up because VPNs are too complicated and they got tired of warning notices.
Now, the online pirate library only offers the collections from 20 VPN users, down from 100 general users. Shrinking the online pirate library by 80% is seen as a win for the content industries.
A digression:
The content industries now understand that there is no one magic silver bullet. Parallel initiatives are already putting pressure on cyberlockers, and (I predict) pretty soon VPN services which don't immediately cough up customer details will find it prudent to decline USA customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
VPN capability is already built-in to all the most popular torrent clients. You set it once and never have to again.
pretty soon VPN services which don't immediately cough up customer details will find it prudent to decline USA customers.
So starts another game of whac-a-mole.
When will you quit wasting time and money and give customers the content in formats and services they want at prices they are willing to pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. The 20 users that move to offshore VPNs were probably providing 99.9% of the content while the other 80 users were probably just leaching.
2. I doubt any VPN operating in a foreign country will stop taking US customers regardless of the international pressure put on them. The profit margin is very high and a lot of countries have half baked governments that couldn't and wouldn't bother with enforcement. Not to mention VPNs have a lot of legitimate uses.
Like every enforcement effort up to this point, a method of circumvention probably already exists and will be widely adopted the moment this goes live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but you have to remember the way Hollywood calculates damages in bittorrent cases.
Say you have one person seeding a movie to a hundred downloaders. Each of those 100 downloaders shared chunks of the file with the other 99 downloaders. So when one of the downloaders gets sued, the MPAA says they provided 99 illegal downloads. In total, those 100 downloaders are responsible for 9900 illegal downloads. It logically follows that by cutting off 80 illegal downloaders, Hollywood will sell 7200 more copies of their movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the VPN service isn't based in the US, US-based companies can't touch them legally without it not being cost-effective!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Any company that has the ability to control the US DoJ has the ability to attack anyone world wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This gives the impression that the commenter your replied to is aware that something could be done, but is highly unlikely as it would not be cost effective. I would agree with this sentiment.
Trying to take down some random Malaysian VPN service is probably not worth the cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
80% decrease LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [VPN out of Malaysia]
Offshore seedboxes will always be there, because there will always be companies that exist in locations that the **AA's (and their foreign brethren) won't be able to touch. Those are the systems that bring real speeds to torrents anyway. And the "library" doesn't shrink, since most of the low-hanging fruit aren't the ones doing the rips. Just the population of peers shrinks, possibly (but not likely, because you've affected the seedboxes not one bit) reducing the speeds.
Most people just want some content in an easy method to use... Gimme a website, that has all the shows, music, and movies I want to listen to and watch, at a reasonable price (heck, I would pay $50/month for that, $75 if I can do it from my mobile) and I'm in. Make me go to multiple sites like the content asshats want me to do, and now you're annoying the hell out of me - the user.
But you probably already knew all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The likes of HBO are always quick to claim that it's "easy" to know what is and isn't infringing, but I'm pretty sure it isn't "easy" for Google to handle 50,000+ DMCA notices every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want it taken down, do it. Take down HBO's shit. Then, when HBO asks why, point to this, and make sure everybody hears your answer of "because you asked me to."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, if HBO and the likes are going to use such companies to 'root out the pirates', and are going to continue to claim that such companies would never make mistakes on what is and is not piracy, and so should always be taken at their word, then obviously the sites they highlighted are pirate havens and need to be removed from the search engine.
'Live by the sword, die by the sword' seems rather appropriate here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And so what if there are glitches?
I say that the artists should get just as much forgiveness as Big Search. Right now, Big Search makes millions of mistakes each day when it recommends illegally copied material to its customers. When someone points out this mistake with an obnoxiously complicated DMCA process, Big Search just says, "Ooops" and goes merrily on its way making more and more mistaken recommendations for law breaking.
So I say let's give the artists and copyright holders the same leeway. We're not asking for any more forgiveness, just the same flexibility that the billionaires at Big Search claim when they're caught.
I wish the system were perfect, but it's better than almost every other form of enforcement. There are people serving life sentences based upon a single eye witness. Well, this is certainly better than that.
This is why there's an appeals process. This is why people are given SIX strikes. If mistakes are made, they can be corrected. (Other criminals only get THREE before getting a life sentence.)
So man up. If you're getting caught a few times, I think the odds of a mistake get smaller and smaller. If you do the crime, do the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
You mean like looking the other way when big media uses proxies to rob everyone of their pay and pension using creative accounting?
or is like when big media talks about totally bogus numbers and say they are true?
or is like how big media gets laws passed that have no safeguards against abuse?
You are so full of shite dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Come on, bob. Comparing infringement to rape in the second sentence? I know you can get it done in the first if you try really, really hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Although you might notice that copyright infringement is the only member of that group that isn't a crime, which does sort of put it in a class by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
The point is, Google cannot filter copyrighted results out without this sort of thing happening. Here, DMCA notices were filed against HBO and against sites merely containing reviews of the show. And that was by a company HIRED BY HBO, not a third party search engine trying to index the entire Internet. If automatic filters were in place, would some of those review sites even know that they were mistakenly being censored? Would HBO file a lawsuit against Google for taking out their legitimate movie?
"This is why there's an appeals process. This is why people are given SIX strikes. If mistakes are made, they can be corrected. (Other criminals only get THREE before getting a life sentence.)"
You don't get life for shoplifting three times, or even six times. And from what I've seen, many providers won't even let you appeal until you're to the point of your account being suspended, you have to put up your own money to appeal, you don't get to argue in actual court, and some won't even let you use fair use as a defense.
"So man up. If you're getting caught a few times, I think the odds of a mistake get smaller and smaller. If you do the crime, do the time."
In case you didn't see, HBO was accused 6 times above. Enough to get them kicked off the Internet. I wonder how HBO would take it if they were actually kicked off until they managed to schedule an appeal.
"So I say let's give the artists and copyright holders the same leeway. We're not asking for any more forgiveness, just the same flexibility that the billionaires at Big Search claim when they're caught. "
It's not the same, though.
Filing a DMCA notice means you are making a legal declaration. When they file these notices recklessly, it means innocent people are being censored. I would rather see a hundred infringing sites stay up than one legitimate site taken down.
Frankly, HBO should fire MarkMonitor, and the person who sent the notices should be investigated for possible perjury charges. A notice must contain "a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. " You cannot have a good faith belief if you don't even look at what you're signing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you do get life for shoplifting
Read on:
http://newsok.com/u.s.-supreme-court-vacates-oklahoma-womans-life-sentence-for-shoplifting/ article/3661551
http://consumerist.com/2010/06/27/man-sentenced-to-life-sentence-for-shoplifting/
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/09/fort-worth-man-gets-life-sentenc e-in-shoplifting-case-that-ended-in-death.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And you do get life for shoplifting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And you do get life for shoplifting
It is nothing like shoplifting, shoplifting you are taking something physical from a store that is a true lost sale piracy on the other hand is more like free promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And you do get life for shoplifting
Case 1 was grand larceny, and she had been convicted over 30 times. Convicted, not accused. And the sentence was overturned.
Case 2 involved a police chase, and he was charged with 3 felonies. Again, these were actual convictions, not merely accusations. And they guy had been convicted 10 times previously.
Case 3 involved a man's death - and even given that, him getting life was not appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And you do get life for shoplifting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And you do get life for shoplifting
If I accidentally cause the death of one person, it could turn his orphan into a Batman-esque anti-hero vigilante who, in turn, kills a bunch of "villans," whose orphans turn into Batman-esque anti-hero vigilantes who, in turn kill a bunch of "villans" etc etc....
So by commiting 1 count of 3rd degree manslaughter, I could actually be committing genocide!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
I agree 100%.
I have often seen this framed as a question like this:
"How much collateral damage of Free Speech is acceptable when enforcing copyright?"
That question is completely backwards in my opinion. Based on the Constitution where Free Speech is an unalienable right that is inherent to all people and copyright is merely something that Congress can enact laws about if they wish to, Free Speech is infinitely more important than copyright. Period.
The question should be this:
"How much collateral damage of copyright is acceptable when preserving the right to Freedom of Speech?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Easy to say something is not a big deal until you have to stand in those shoes yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
The same goes here. If we want blockbuster movies and sophisticated content, we need to share the development costs equally. We can't let piracy succeed.
I think a few mistaken strikes aren't a big deal. That's why we allow 6. Heck, I would go up to 20 or 30 just to make the loons around here happy. The pirates would exhaust those very quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
I plan to develop blockbuster movies and sophisticated content.
What's your bank account number Bob?
You have to "share in the development cost equally".
(Your words, not mine, boy.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Protip: Don't allow people to use "acceptable casualties" as a rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Here is hoping those few find their way to your internet account. Then we will see how not a big deal it is.
Funny how it is never a big deal when it's others, but when you are then one being wrongly accused the tune quickly changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Sure, so long as we share the profits equally too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Thank you for providing clear evidence that you're a paid maximalist shill, bob. I hope that Techdirt starts putting names above the cut soon to make your crap easier to ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Further, where is the content industries' acknowledgement of individual accountability? If they've got proof, and the presumption of guilt on their side, why not sue infringers directly? If they started convicting boatloads of infringers, then illegal file sharing would surely drop precipitously. It's a slam dunk, right bobby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
It's not the "artists", boy, it's Big Entertainment.
You're as bad at this as MarkMonitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
No, but false convictions end up requiring a change in the system. They did this with DNA testing and a lot of people who were initially "guilty" went free.
There's the issue, bob, you have a flawed system that could be improved to avoid targeting false positives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
Anything but. However, a point you'll overlook/ignore, along with the stooge saying "bob is right", is that mistakes like this show just how flawed and inaccurate their methods of identifying infringement are.
Which in turn has the negative effect of showing just how bad they'll be at identifying people committing infringement. A point that is beyond valid and one worth mentioning repeatedly til certain people realize IP addresses DO NOT equal people, something the courts have ruled on.
In point of fact, you should be slapped on principle. Since it was YOU last time who said IP addresses are more foolproof and hold more evidentiary (I'm making that word up, so it has been spoken so it shall be) value than fingerprints or DNA. Yeah, read that again. You said that. I hope your mother isn't alive to see you now, because otherwise she might have died of shame if she read that stupidity, written from the fingertips of something she gave birth to.
"Like a false rape conviction means we should stop prosecuting rape."
Ugh no. It means that we need to better develop the methods through which we prosecute others for rape, as well as go about increasing the effectiveness of rape kit tests. In addition to do a more thorough job investigating a crime and suspected individual before we start convicting them.
You're so stupid sometimes it hurts my head. Your analogies are terrible by the way. Copyright infringement. Rape. Yeah. Totally the same fucking thing. Or... you know, not.
"I say that the artists should get just as much forgiveness as Big Search."
What you say has little merit given the history of your comments first off. Secondly, the artists aren't the ones making the mistake here. It's the people the copyright holders (HBO in this case, who are most definitely NOT "the artists") are having file the DMCA notices on their behalf. Secondly, they shouldn't get ANY forgiveness. Why? Because they give none. "Google SHOULD KNOW what is or isn't infringing!" That's the line you and others and the copyright holders tote out repeatedly. Yet, here we have evidence of the people they send out on their behalf obviously not fucking knowing what is or isn't infringing. (THEY'RE FILING DMCA TAKEDOWNS AGAINST HBO'S OWN SITES FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!)
" Right now, Big Search makes millions of mistakes each day when it recommends illegally copied material to its customers."
Absolutely and completely untrue, and pure opinion on your part. Google DOES NOT make millions by doing that. They do however make billions off of ad revenue generated from ads, which is their primary business.
Nor do they "recommend" anything to anyone. People use Google's search to search for anything/everything. Google just indexes the web. Like a phone book. And returns search results as relevant to what was searched for. Nothing more, nothing less.
"When someone points out this mistake with an obnoxiously complicated DMCA process, Big Search just says, "Ooops" and goes merrily on its way making more and more mistaken recommendations for law breaking."
I've commented in response to you before and listed the steps involved in filing a DMCA takedown through Google. "Obnoxiously complicated" is NOT at all what the process is. Unless you A. Can't read B. Are a fucking idiot C. Don't know anything about your own products or who you work for or on behalf of. It literally is 6 steps long. Gives you options to select from. It couldn't be easier. Unless you just want a button placed on every single link and word and item on the web saying "infringing content", with instructions to "CLICK THIS BUTTON TO IDENTIFY INFRINGING CONTENT" (which you'd need because you are obviously too stupid to follow step by step questions and make appropriate selections as given from a preset list).
"So I say let's give the artists and copyright holders the same leeway."
No. I say otherwise. Because if they're going to accuse people of something, then the onus is on them to prove their in the right. If they can't get their own act together they have no right to demand the same of others. That's how things work in society. Before you wag your finger you better make sure someone can't wag theirs at you.
"We're not asking for any more forgiveness, just the same flexibility that the billionaires at Big Search claim when they're caught."
Actually, you just asked for forgiveness. And again, with the Google bit. Google DOES NOTHING WRONG. They index the web. That's it. What's put out there they have no control over. Get that through your goddamn skull.
"I wish the system were perfect, but it's better than almost every other form of enforcement."
Mhm. This is the part where I ask if your mother routinely abused alcohol or drugs while pregnant with you. Did she? Because only an idiot thinks this is better than literally almost every other form of enforcement around. So this is better than gathering evidence in the form of DNA or fingerprints (which are unique to every single person)? God, I hate you.
"There are people serving life sentences based upon a single eye witness."
True. But as any good prosecutor will tell you, evidence you can see, hold or feel is a thousand times better than any witness. Because witnesses can be wrong.
"Well, this is certainly better than that."
Wow. You just compared this to witnesses putting innocent people in prison. So you've literally just barely stepped over the "bob thresh hold for approval". Tard.
This isn't better than that. This is the equivalent. If not worse.
"This is why there's an appeals process."
If by appeals process you mean, "pay to appeal the strike, but you're only allowed the defenses we allow you to use" then I guess that's an appeals process. Definitely a joke of one. That's not an appeals process though, not by any legal stretch of the definition.
"This is why people are given SIX strikes. If mistakes are made, they can be corrected."
Uh, no. Those "mistakes" actually CAN'T be "corrected". See previous reply to your other sentence.
"(Other criminals only get THREE before getting a life sentence.)"
Yes, but they also GET any of a plethora of defenses, in addition to which their convictions must be BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Which IP addresses are not.
"So man up. If you're getting caught a few times, I think the odds of a mistake get smaller and smaller. If you do the crime, do the time."
Copyright infringement, except on a commercial scale, is NOT a crime. At least not one punishable by jail time. So it's not the equivalent of real crime, and definitely not worth of saying that stupid line you used to close your stupidity with.
Okay, but running with that. Since HBO up above has 6 (SIX) marks against it, HBO is no longer allowed access to the internet. Sounds fair, right? I mean you're arguing for six strikes against some, why not against others? Either the rules apply to all or they apply to none. You can't mix and match as suits you or your biased outlook.
May I make a suggestion? Go castrate yourself. For the good of mankind, you shouldn't be allowed to even attempt to procreate. Lest you (further) pollute the gene pool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
boB gets smacked down yet again. I just love a good ole online ass-kicking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
A strike in the ISP world means receiving a DMCA complaint from a third-party on behalf of a copyright owner because the third-party detected supposed-infringing data being sent to or from an IP address. There is no due process.
So I have to agree with any original poster: kick HBO off the Internet and let them follow your mythical Six Strike appeal process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
What the hell is a "copyright denier"? I don't remember anybody claiming "copyright never happened!" They'd have to be nuttier than you...
"Right now, Big Search makes millions of mistakes each day when it recommends illegally copied material to its customers."
That's not a mistake, it's a search algorithm working exactly as it's supposed to, by finding the stuff people want the most. If you broke that functionality (and I know you'd love to), search engines would be useless. It'd be like digging up all the roads to prevent criminals driving.
"I wish the system were perfect, but it's better than almost every other form of enforcement. "
Except for the complete failure to reduce piracy. Other than that it's awesome...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, the whole system must be bad.
At least to Mike Masnick; if it means stopping Google from continuing to exploit people via piracy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The reason Mike Masnick doesn't point out the fact that these are an infinitesimal number of mistakes out of all the notices sent, is because he is an intellectually dishonest piracy apologist and a paid shill for Google- a robber-baron corporation that exploits artists via piracy.
And everyone knows it.
[ 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: Re:
This is the only time anyone has ever said this ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, nobody knows it. I don't think even the trolls really believe it. I keep asking for the proof of these accusations, and not a single person has been able to provide it, so it's all empty bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And let's not forget policy laundering operations like the EFF that allow Google to get a tax deduction for their lobbying fees. Does Mike get paid by them? He sure quotes them as if they're gospel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah. This has to be one of Lowery's sycophants since he keeps echoing all that baseless crap from that silly Trichordist site. (btw: maybe if you had learned more than 3 chords you would have lasted a little longer, just sayin')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That last bit about more than 3 chords though. Hilarious. Heck, you can learn 3 chords and last a long time (The Ramones, Green Day, The Kinks, etc). So it takes an exceptionally untalented individual to sink a 3 chord ship as quickly as Lowery did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$0. We haven't used Google AdSense in quite some time. Even when we were using, it wouldn't have paid for a nice dinner between you and I for what we got from that for a month. Google ads = crap payouts.
And ask him who funded his Future of Journalism conference. These are public things.
"Funded"? Not really. Google let us use their space and provided snacks/drinks for attendees. If they didn't do it, we had two other offers too. Wouldn't have been a big deal, but Google had a nice space.
Let's just say, even if we added up the value of the space they gave us and the food and all of the Google adsense revenue from that year (and that was 3 years ago already), Google "revenue" represented less than half of one percent of all of our revenue.
If you think I'm influenced by that, you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah geeze. I missed this part. The answer is NO. I don't get paid by EFF. I don't always agree with EFF and have said so when I don't agree. But, mostly, I do agree with them, and I think they do good work so I talk about it when I see them doing good stuff.
But no money has ever exchanged hands... except for (1) about four years ago, Floor64 donated some money TO EFF and (2) late last year I went to an EFF event, and I paid $20 to go.
In other words, I've given them money. They've never given me any money.
Furthermore, if you actually looked at the details, EFF is not funded by Google. Very very very very little EFF money comes from Google. Yes, there was a LEGAL SETTLEMENT in which Google was FORCED to give some money to EFF and others, but that was because EFF OPPOSED Google on one of its privacy violation issues.
You really need to work harder at your conspiracy theories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, yes, they are.
EFF could not exist w/o its funding from Google shell companies.
Why do you lie so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From that URL it's obvious that you are just full of bs. Corporate donations amounted to 460k over a total of 3,676k so a little more than 10%. Unless we pretend all companies and foundations mentioned in the report are ALL Google shell companies and Google detains 100% of ALL of those guys then it's pretty much BS.
Keep lying, it won't magically become the truth ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you know how to tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving. ajs' lips move when reading or writing(ass-kissers find it especially hard to break this habit).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you lie so much and why are you so obsessed with singling out Google? They are just one of many companies who fund the EFF, not to mention thousands of individuals, but only a liar or moron would claim they were the only important funder.
Unless you have sources that prove the "shell" claims you made, which I'm sure any non-lying moron would have to hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your mind, perhaps, but not in reality. Honestly, all this does is show that you have no clue what you are talking about.
EFF could not exist w/o its funding from Google shell companies.
Laughably false as others have shown.
Why do you lie so much?
Yeah, considering the proof already shown below is that you're the liar here, let's ask you that question. Do tell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
"Yup, the whole system must be bad." - Couldn't agree more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, more than 6 on this one request. 6 of them were just extremely blatant because they were for HBO ITSELF. But many of the others were for reviews of the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is the issue we bring up all the time. How can one be expected to go through 2.5 million per week?
It is like a DMCA DDoS attack.
At what point do the requests overcome Google's ability to check, then when the backlog goes past the time frame allowed, blammo. Lawsuit, and some studio says see they left it up there take away their safe harbors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There you have 5 more, 50% and increasing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dare him to find infringing content on that website there.
The IGN one I also believe has nothing infringing.
OMG out the 23 maybe about 5 have infringing content LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, six blatantly obviously incorrect citations out of 23.
We have only the word of the people who claimed that HBO was pirating it's own content that the other links are genuinely infringing. Bearing in mind that in filing for DMCA takedowns on their list of 23 links, 6 of which were HBO's own domain this company's representative claimed under penalty of perjury to the best of their knowledge that HBO was infringing it's own content on their own website, their word is worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope, 6 blatantly legal version of the content. 5 hits from the blog site hitfix.com, where people are reviewing the series. 2 hits from IGN, reviewing the series. I can't be bothered to go through all the links - but that's 13 blatantly obviously incorrect links - 6 that are clearly legal versions of the stream, and 7 that have no content on them at all. They're not only clearly fair use, but they don't even contain the content being targeted in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now we look at the others that are obviously blog entries, and thus most likely fair use or advertising, there are 7 that appear to fall into that category, that is another 30.4% that are probably in error.
So out of the 23 listed, 13 or 56.5% appear to be bogus take downs.
If you would like to have me research more I can, but on the face of what is shown here it looks like more than half are incorrect, not "6 out of thousands".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why?
Because the rest of the pages are likely nothing but infringing links.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A class in statistics may be of value to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A class in statistics may be of value to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, your accusation that they were just cherry-picking the results to try and make the claim look worse might, might have had some potential had it not simply been the first page they presented, and even then, the fact that HBO's own website was among the ones targeted by the DMCA claim would blow that idea out of the water, as that demonstrates quite clearly that the company filing the claim is much more interested in maximizing the number of sites they file against, and doesn't particularly care about accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
After reading your comment, all I could picture was a frustrated cop, after having trashed three houses in a row, telling a superior that if they just continue dismantling houses, surely they will find some illegal drugs somewhere in one of the houses on the block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does that even mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It means that lots of people on the content-industry side decided on a strategy of Google-bashing after they concluded that Google drove the anti-SOPA protest and was their most powerful antagonist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
@Mike et al. ¿Where did my first/last words go? I thought with all the site changes that they were all gone but see now they still exist.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While HBO gets FREE publicity via Google-created searches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine, I won't watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't have cable, I have Netflix. If something's not on Netflix, it means I have to go seek it out, which I probably won't do because there's always something else to watch on Netflix. Even pirating is more work than Netflix, which is why I don't bother.
There's nothing HBO can do to get me to pay for cable, and then pay more for their channel. Nothing. Unfortunately, their business is being a premium cable channel. Creating original content comes second, and it's too bad for their content that it can't live in the rest of the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact it more resembles a kangaroo kourt. With built in errors to accuse, vested interests to find you guilty, where you come into the process already being condemned as guilty.
Accuracy and fairness have nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All the pretending that legal issues are involved is false. The only issue is does a company want you as a client or not. And, they can use any procedure they desire to ascertain if or if not they want you.
The fact that you are inconvenienced is of no concern to any ISP. Their only concern is can they make a profit by providing you a service. This is not a hospital, water company, or electrical power company that as a condition of their being a monopoly they must provide life supporting services service.
You may wish it otherwise and in some future time it may be different but as of now, today, these ISP are well with in their rights to refuse service for any reason, some reason, whim, or no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ISPs within their rights to refuse service
The RIAA didn't like all that bad publicity: isn't that a leading cause why the record companies stopped the lawsuit campaign?
The Center for Copyright Information seems to have its blinders on, pretending these news stories are not going to happen. There's going to be a lot of finger-pointing between the content industry and the ISPs.
Pass the popcorn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except, you are wrong, many jurisdictions now claim that internet access is indeed a right. Even child molesters can't be denied access to the internet, or even to social media.
In MANY parts of the country there are VERY limited options for internet. Where I live I have two options. Cable and Satellite (due to trees this isn't really an option for me). The former is outrageously priced, is indeed a monopoly in my area and the latter is priced even higher, and has a ton of issues that make it incompatible for me to use.
Further, there is NO WAY for them to KNOW that what I download (or uploaded) is infringing content, no way to prove that it was even me, or an authorized user on my system. What if one of the systems in my house has a viruses and is being used as a torrent host without my knowledge. (Yes, that is far more common than you think). I could easily accumulate '6 strikes' without even doing anything wrong (unless you count unknowing having a virus as wrong).
Currently a lot of malware is targeted at gathering usernames and passwords and sending out spam. There is already existing software that sets up torrents to seed music and movies. Under this plan that will blossom, and probably become a goal for many illicit organizations.
Now throw in the fact that more than 50% of the time they get it wrong and there are going to be a whole lot of people that are getting strikes that should not be. I hope you amass a few of them, then come back and sing the same tune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Sooner the Better
God, let's hope so.
The sooner this kind of stuff (six degrees of striking) fails and is abandoned, the better off everyone will be.
Foward to the days when the legacy web-enabled entertainment industry is trying to prevent people from getting neural implants loaded with all the world's entertainment and knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/deltamaker/deltamaker-an-elegant-3d-printer-0?ref=live
Doing that kind of reference to another musician, writer, videomaker, movie maker or anything related to arts would probably land the people who dared say they took advantage of something others did in hot water with the law.
Those engineers are living the true American dream, where they can freely create and innovate and be rewarded for their work, while also honoring those that enabled them to get that chance.
This reminds me why I love open source, is because we all work for something and the benefits become localized, we all benefit from it, not just a bunch of self centered selfish bastard crooks that lost sight of what is right and what is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See AFACT vs iiNet.
If filesharing is so evil and destructive, why would AFACT pay someone to create more of it?
Oh to prove that an ISP needed to do more to protect its memberships copyrighted material, that AFACT went ahead and pirated.
The founder had ties to one of the **AA EU offshoots and made a pretty penny when it was sold to MarkMonitor.
MarkMonitor was acquired by Reuters Thompson, and the founders made a pretty penny.
This is a cottage industry, people working in/with the **AA's feeding their delusions that this time the snake oil will work. When the people working for you can't be distinguished from the "enemy" except for the name tag something is seriously wrong.
See also - ICE, TSA, DHS, DoJ, etc.
Google has been compiling a list of the bad takedowns, and making the material public. I expect very soon they amount this abused program is costing them will be brought to the forefront. The cartels spend thousands and expect everyone else to pay millions to "protect" their IP... the system is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll then spend more money on MarkMonitor, believing the above to be the result of evil, evil pirates, and eventually shut down all online traces of themselves and go bankrupt.
One can dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://insidehboshop.hbo.com
http://www.hitfix.com/
http://ign.com/
Alleged infringement apparent(could find lots of free downloads links, not clicked to see if they worked):
http://heroturko.me/
http://hotfilerock.org/
http://icefilms.info/
http://icrazyfrog.co m/
http://inspirez.net/
http://imastudios.com/
http://img5.forumwizard.net/
Looking at it, apparently the error rate is 30%.
A third of what DtecNet / MarkMonitor finds is garbage.
In what court of law 70% certainty is allowed to be accepted?
Apparently DtecNet / MarkMonitor high tech detection system is based entirely on GREP technology LoL
Now where is my check?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Honest" ppl "scam" $ from HBO, and smart ppl watch it for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
http://www.dl4all.com
http://www.freerardownload.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And so what if there are glitches?
CrazyWarez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]