EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
from the don't-get-distracted dept
As Gary Fung is seeking a rehearing of the IsoHunt case in the 9th Circuit, two amicus briefs were filed yesterday. The first from the EFF and the second from Google. Neither brief suggests that Fung should get off as innocent, or that he did nothing wrong. Rather, both are worried about how the broad ruling by the court for the specific situation regarding Fung and IsoHunt will lead to further abuse by copyright holders and massive chilling effects on service providers. The EFF notes that while Fung/IsoHunt may have been bad actors, it appears that the court used this to go way overboard in creating new and dangerous standards for copyright.This Panel Opinion is a classic case of bad facts making bad law. Amicus Electronic Frontier Foundation does not file this brief to dispute the Court's factual conclusions regarding the conduct at issue in this case. However, the Panel Opinion went far beyond what was necessary to address that conduct. As a result, it has created new legal uncertainty for online service providers and their customers, undermining over a decade of legislation and jurisprudence designed to help reduce that uncertainty. A predictable legal environment has proven to be crucial not only the growth of the Internet generally, but the growth of innovative platforms for free expression, in particular. This case should not provide a vehicle to impede that development.In particular, they're quite (reasonably) worried at the court's broad interpretation of causation here, in which the court suggests that the most minor example of inducement can lead to liability for all infringement, even if the site had nothing to do with it.
Most important, the Panel Opinion adopts a "loose causation theory" that disconnects the scope of inducement liability from the defendants' acts—raising the troubling possibility that a single inducing act (such as a message to one customer) could open the floodgates to liability for third-party infringement entirely unrelated to that act. The Opinion's loose causation theory conflicts with fundamental common law principles of proximate cause essential to both predictability and fairness. The Panel's decision to depart from those principles was apparently based on the unfounded assumption that the Supreme Court's decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) requires it. Not so. First, Grokster expressly recognized that secondary liability under copyright derives from common law principles. Second, given that Grokster's specific inducement standard was imported from patent law, it is more likely that the Court also intended to import the analytical framework patent law applies where, as here, a service is capable of both infringing and non-infringing uses.Meanwhile, Google's focus is on the question of "financial benefit directly attributable" from infringing activities. The DMCA, of course, includes that as one of the prongs for testing whether or not a site gets safe harbor protections. Most courts have found that indirect profits don't make you lose safe harbors: i.e., if you're just making money on ads from a page that has infringing content, that's not "directly attributable". Most people recognize that for it to be "directly attributable" then it needs to be something like actually selling the infringing content, and the direct profits from that action need to be shown. Instead, copyright maximalists have tried to argue that if you have infringement on a site and some money is made (i.e., there are ads or affiliate links) then, that violates that prong of the test and you lose your safe harbors. Most courts have realized that's crazy. But the Fung ruling went very close to the maximalist view, and that (quite reasonably) has Google concerned. Specifically, it's concerned that the ruling could be read to mean that any "influence" a site has over content means it's liable for all of the content on the site:
There is a danger that this passage could be misconstrued to stand for a broader proposition that we do not believe the panel intended: that any time an online service provider is found to have exercised "substantial influence" over any user-submitted content on its service—no matter what that finding was based on—it thereby loses its DMCA safe harbor protections for all user-submitted content on the entire service. This is how some copyright plaintiffs have already tried to read the panel's ruling. In a recent submission to the Southern District of New York in the Viacom v. YouTube case, for example, the plaintiffs have asserted, citing the panel opinion, that this Court “made clear that where DMCA eligibility is unavailable due to the right and ability to control prong of the safe harbor, the DMCA defense is broadly lost as to all clips in suit.” Ltr. from Paul M. Smith to Hon. Louis L. Stanton at 2 (March 22, 2013) (attached as Ex. 1).As Google right notes, this would lead to "absurd results."
Imagine, for example, a video-hosting service that was otherwise eligible for the section 512(c) safe harbor, but that on one occasion commissioned a particular user to upload a video that, unbeknownst to the service, turned out to be infringing. A court might conclude that the service exerted a “substantial influence” over that instance of infringement and, if the service earned a direct financial benefit from it, there would be grounds for denying the safe harbor for a claim based on that video. But it would make no sense to thereby disqualify the service provider from DMCA protection across the board—even for countless other videos whose posting it did not control or from which it earned no benefit.But, of course, that's crazy (even if it's exactly what many maximalists actually do seem to want). Hopefully, the court is willing to revisit these issues and recognize that its original ruling went overboard because of the situations in this case, and that could unfairly mess up other legitimate offerings.
Likewise, consider a search engine eligible for protection under the section 512(d) safe harbor for linking to infringing material online. If one of the millions of links provided by the search engine pointed users to infringing material that had been authored by the search engine itself and that users were charged to view, a finding of control plus financial benefit might be warranted for that particular link. But, again, there would be no plausible basis for categorically depriving the service of the safe harbor for the millions of unrelated links it delivers to material that it does not control or financially benefit from.
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: causation, copyright, dmca, financial benefit, gary fung, inducement, liability, red flags, safe harbors, secondary liability
Companies: eff, google, isohunt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All smaller stances of non-compliance with the DMCA should make them automagically lose all others and be forced to pay the maximum damages possible, no? But the MAFIAA has nothing to fear, no? They never ever screwed up any artist, right? They never incurred in copyright infringement, right?
Hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just what piracy apologists would love to see and the court rightly has recognized the problem. This direct attribution theory would enable a website dedicated to infringing activity to immunize itself by offering a single non-infringing work. No rational court will ever accept this happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whereas people like you would prefer a completely law abiding site to be shut down because of a single infringing work that they had no knowledge of, because they might have made some revenue in a tangential, indirect way.
See, I can exaggerate too. Sadly, you'll probably just call me names because I don't see why sites that don't offer the content should be shut down for infringement. But then, I'm also someone who pays for content, not the "piracy apologist" figment of your imagination that you're obsessed with attacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just paying for content (assuming actually you do) doesn't mean you're not a piracy apologist. You and others here have a long history of excuse-making and defending the looters and criminals who illegally monetize the copyrighted creative output of others for their own personal gain.
[ 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: Re:
You simply don't know what you are talking about. SOPA required a judicial decision that a site met the standard of "dedicated to infringing activity". The hearing was pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the defendant website had all of the rights as any other civil litigant- including the right to defend themselves at an adversarial hearing.
And remarkably, people did mind. Because, like you; they were blinded in the FUD storm and duped in to believing what you currently believe.
Glad to have made a convert. Welcome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
PaulT has a point and your denial is rather telling. Google makes a pretty valid and sensible point along with EFF. Both of them recognize IsoHunt is at fault in some aspects and none of them are asking for the court to ignore it. They are, however asking the court not to ignore a long line of precedents and legislative stability and deliver a sensible, narrow ruling. The fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's not right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is still not a precise enough definition.
The deeper problem is that nobody believes you anymore. You are generally believed to be acting in bad faith because too often before you have used a nuclear weapon to kill a spider without concern for the vast collateral damage to the innocent people upstairs or many city blocks away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there's any liability for piracy, then that ipso facto is unreasonable to the Techdirtbaggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liability and even piracy are edge conditions over a fundamental disagreement over what government granted monopolies should cover, and how best to promote the progress of science, learning, culture, and innovation.
My personal feelings are that there should be zero government granted monopolies over any type of culture, idea, or information. While it may have worked well before the advent of general purpose computers and global networks, it no longer works in today's world where information can be infinitely copied, transmitted, distrubted, to nearly everyone, for little or no cost.
The issue is far more complex and nuanced than you will ever admit to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apox on thee, pesant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What needs to happen is the MPAA/RIAA need to compete with the 'pirates'. My downloading of films and TV has dramatically reduced since I got netflix, in fact most of my friends who used to torrent everything have netflix and torrent less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, you're too stupid to understand my actual opinions, which is why you launch moronic attacks like this. My ACTUAL statements tend to be either supporting new business models, pointing out that time is better spent offering content legally rather than trying to bankrupt or alienate your own customers and defending technology from those too stupid to understand it.
If that makes me a "piracy apologist", so be it - but don't pretend for a second that anyone else uses the same bullshit definition you do. You've lied to yourself so much, you can't even recognise people who should be allies - we're actually going after the same thing you claim to (supporting artists and helping them make money). It's just that my words don't depend on pretending it's still the late 90s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not a piracy apologist. I'm a fuckin' realist. I take a good long hard look at the world and come to a conclusion based on what I see. I don't live in a fantasy world where you constantly hear things we don't say. I am willing to pay money if I, the potential customer, deem the potential product or service to be of good value. I don't see anything wrong with infringing copyright because I have yet to see any argument that convinces me that only one person or corporation should have a legal monopoly over certain works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are a piracy apologist; a thief and greedy, self-serving douchebag. You don't get decide what is worth paying for and what you can simply take for your personal enjoyment. These experiences which are offered in exchange for compensation are not yours to decide whether to pay for. No one makes you buy anything; if you don't want to pay, do without. But instead you unjustly enrich yourself because you have an issue with copyright. That's not how law and society works. I don't believe you anyway. You strike me as a cheap, greedy freeloader who takes things of value because you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just the way Pirate Mike likes 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/img1893u.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/ 42/img1895br.jpg/
The first link is my gaming computer. I built it myself, after ordering and paying for all the parts. I was happy with paying because I deemed the prices being asked to be good value. I spent over 2000 euro on that one. I'm also planning on a home server with 20TB worth of hard drives, that also will set me back over 2,000 euro, plus a new gaming rig, this time all top of the line parts with full liquid cooling, rough estimate being 3-4 thousand euro.
The second link is just a random sampling of my PS3 and DS/3DS games. Yes, I do have a PX21 headset and DSS2. Liking them both so far. I used to have real 5.1 headsets but the simulated surround sound I get with this setup is far superior, since there isn't eight speakers jammed next to my ears.
o...how am I cheap and greedy? I've previously linked to my Steam account, and I have no problem with buying new games - I just love the option of being able to buy used (in fact, just yesterday I bought the Uncharted trilogy used for 60 euro. Would have been much higher if they were new).
So go on. Tell me again. How is it that I, a hard-working, tax-paying member of society doesn't get to determine what is good value for my money? I deem digital data to have a price of 0 because its well, digital. Freely copyable data, infinite in number. Once infinite in number, the price for a copy is zero. However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I DO NOT PAY. Steam offers freely copyable digital games for a price and I GLADLY pay, when the price is just right and I feel I am getting enough bang for my back.
So...have I shut you up for good? I've just countered EVERYTHING you say about us here at Techdirt. Want to continue calling me a thief?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm tempted to 'Funny' this one. Is that the term the old media industry would suggest putting in a hypothetical
expanded copyright law? I mean "unjustly enriching" does sound a lot more offensive than "looking".
Looking must be just what you meant as Rikuo, while mentioning "copyright infringement" didn't mention anything other than viewing and previewing.
Then again, Wonder bread may have been an injustice for diabetics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - infringed first, then later paid full price for it on Steam with DLC.
Dragon Age: Origins - Ditto. (Need I mention again that the bought copy refused to let me use paid for DLC for two weeks because of DRM?)
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky - I in fact bought this TWICE because I lost the first copy I bought.
Batman Arkham City with DLC
Deus Ex Human Revolution with DLC
Just a small sample of how these game companies are being unjustly enriched thanks to my breaking copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those developers who I don't pay? That just means I found your games worthless. As in, not worthy of my time or money. I paid for Xbox and PC copies of Mass Effect 1 and 2, but didn't even infringe for 3, because of how awful that one is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes I do. You are the one that doesn't decide how much you want to charge or what you want locked up for your own benefit. Arrogant prick.
These experiences which are offered in exchange for compensation are not yours to decide whether to pay for.
Fair enough. I've learned to go without. Arrogant as it be. Still YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOCK UP AND PREVENT FURTHER CREATION OF CULTURE. So I will breach your right as long as you breach mine. And I haven't even started to talk about the successive copyright reforms you lobbied for without ever asking me for input to reach a balanced and fair agreement.
That's not how law and society works.
Indeed. And that's why nobody respect your bought laws. Because that's not how society works.
You strike me as a cheap, greedy freeloader who takes things of value because you can.
That's called projection in psychiatry. I advise you to look for a specialist because what you said actually applies to yourself. Your damned public domain freeloader. Stop using the musical note and writing system and chords, it's public domain and belongs to the public. What a preposterous thing to make works that rely heavily on the public domain and then locking it up behind your bought laws. Disgusting piece of rotten garbage.
Ahem. Thanks.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re: Re:
Oh...you mean the games. Silly me, but last I checked, they were an arrangement of 1's and 0's on MY hard drives.
What is being taken? If I "take" a work from you and copy it on my computer, are you somehow harmed? Possibly, if I hogged up bandwidth if I copied it from your own computer, but not if I used bandwidth from someone else's, like a cyberlocker or a torrent. You still have your files. You still have every opportunity to try and convince me to buy.
Then again, I wouldn't pay for any of your works on principle alone. Knowing how you think, I'd have to agree to a licence where you can kick me in the nuts every time I played/turned a page/whaever. (Strange isn't it, how I've never been shown a licence agreement BEFORE I pay for content in a store?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not making any money when I infringe.
If by enrichment, he means I'm being mentally and emotionally stimulated by works...my god, the horror, the sheer nerve that I would better my experiences through consuming works. Quick, black out my eyes. Censor the works...wait, isn't that PRECISELY THE PROBLEM WITH COPYRIGHT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's never a consideration of the downturn in content quality or failure to provide what the consumer is looking for, piracy is always to blame.
They sound like a bunch of politically-controlled sheep who can't see the details and choose to lash out about one problem that's been made into a major issue because of loaded language and bought politicians.
Keep it up fellas, you make the rest of us look smarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for proving that you are worthless human being who puts himself above others. Just like Pirate Mike likes 'em. You fit in quite well here, Ninja. You and the other worthless pieces of shit that Mike draws in by the droves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll give you an example of why we the consumers decide the pricing: tomato prices skyrocketed here in Brazil recently to something around 8 times the usual prices. The response has been sounding: people stopped buying, tomatoes started decaying and resellers were forced to drop the prices down back to previous levels.
The main difference between this scenario and your precious copyright is that you have a MONOPOLY. Govt granted. No competition. And you don't care about anything but your own profits even going as far as not paying the artists and or preventing them from further creating by keeping their stuff locked up. So there are two things happening: people are giving their money to their favorite artists ROUTING around you and/or plain infringing and downloading the content.
Your fake moralism doesn't stick. I support my favorite artists. I just refuse to support a bunch of self-entitled thugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. There are plenty of substitutes as in your tomato example. Don't want to pay $10 for "Django Unchained"? Fine. Watch something else. Read a book, go to a play. There are tons of alternatives for your entertainment, just like there are alternatives to eating tomatoes.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really, you have to ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually do ask, because I can't see how reading comic books or playing video games automatically disqualifies me from having sex. Unless somehow you think you're still in the 1980'sand the only people playing computer games and reading comics are virgins living in their mother's basement (FYI, I don't, I live in a pretty sweet 2 bed apartment)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I don't like what Bob is offering for his tomatoes, I can go to Alice or Charlie and see what they're offering. It's tomatoes.
Not when I want to consume a specific work. Bioshock Infinite, for example, is being touted as being a great story, a modern critique on racism told in a pre-modern setting of sorts. I suppose I could go read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but its NOT THE SAME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, you seem to be believing their bullshit, so why even ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe that explains your distorted view of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go suck on your own teat if you want it so bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please provide your evidence for this, else accept that you are simply a stupid asshole, so obsessed with attacking anyone who doesn't bow down to your masters that you'll attack the very people who are paying them in the first place. It's sad that your type of delusional fool is the only type that is willing to defend these actions, that alone should be telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA
The shoot first, ask questions later mentality of the DMCA flies in the face of common sense. Good job Clinton....
Furthermore, just how many levels deep can you go with secondary liability. Why not just sue the entire world, I mean there's only a few degrees of separation between this guy and all of us, we must all be liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gee, blue is just a glutton for punishment isn't he? I wish I could be like Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and be told there's a mad dog in the street, whereupon he calmly takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Mike: it IS now nearly time for you to take responsibility and draw the line at outright threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
I wrote that knowing you wouldn't refute it. I wrote it because it is what you are, a mad animal who is destructive to those around him, mindless about the damage he causes as long as he gets to do what he wants.
I've played by the rules. Everyone else here on Techdirt has, and all we get in return is you biting at our ankles and calling us thieves. Last I checked, that isn't exactly a way to encourage good behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
In a sane world, what I do makes perfect sense, because then only works of quality end up enriching their authors. Instead, we have a system where you must pay for every work, or be threatened with hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros and jail-time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
All this blog does is make the case for more copyright enforcement. Nice job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "Rikuo": "takes out a shotgun and squeezes the trigger."
Does your boss know you spend all day trolling on this blog?
Do you even have a job?
Are you even a real person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
I love how Big Search likes to mix together accidental infringement with an ongoing business where the guys makes money day in and day out. Somehow there's no difference between a kid who infringes once on a school project and a massive assembly line for infringement like IsoHunt. We must let IsoHunt do whatever they want because, lord knows, we might somehow hurt a kid's chance to work on a school assignment.
The law deals with intent all of the time and the law is not interested in de minimus. But IsoHunt is not de minimus. It was a big factory for large scale, industrial-grade infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
You and your ilk lost all claim to a moral superiority when a young girl's Winnie The Pooh laptop was confiscated and the father was extorted for a few hundred quid to get it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
It's not too hard to see if you pull your head out of your ass and look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
In fact, according to this article
http://torrentfreak.com/obsessed-with-google-copyright-holders-130415/
Google received nearly 1.5 million DMCA notices for links to KickAssTorrents while KickAssTorrents itself received "only" just near 300,000.
If infringing links are only such a small percentage, why is it Google being handed DMCA notices in record numbers when the actual websites they're being told not to link to are relatively unscathed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
In fact, according to this article
http://torrentfreak.com/obsessed-with-google-copyright-holders-130415/
Thanks for making my point. Google's search volume is 100 BILLION per month. Do the math.
http://searchengineland.com/google-search-press-129925http://searchengineland.com/google-se arch-press-129925
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Copyright holders are screaming that KickAssTorrents is an evil evil piracy site. So instead of KAT receiving the vast overwhelming majority of DMCA notices, they instead dump a truckload of them at Google, merely for pointing people to where the torrents are. Oh yeah, and this is actually assuming the DMCA notices are correct in every way, which as we've seen here on Techdirt is not the case. Speech is taken down on the whim of those who can't get their own house in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
A counter-notice helps deal with ONE accusation, and that's if the content is put back up at all. It does nothing to help with the second, third, fourth, ad nauseum accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
As does a DMCA takedown notice,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Yes, yes I have. And the system is grade-A Bullshit. The dispute should always be between the uploader and the "copyright" holder. At best, the service provider should be an intermediary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
In the early days, the VCR was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing. Should we have killed it?
In the early days, cable TV was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing.
Ditto for the MP3 player. And the photocopier. And radio. And the DVR.
You think we should have shut all those products down, rather than allow the markets to actually develop around them?
It's not too hard to see if you pull your head out of your ass and look.
You should try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
For someone who claims to be against piracy, you sure tie yourself up in some interesting knots defending it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
You...actually admit Google isn't dedicated to infringing? Holy shit...I never thought I'd see the day.
Well, if Google isn't dedicated to infringing...THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU AND YOUR ILK CONSTANTLY ATTACK IT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Hmm. I don't seem to remember Viacom ever making that argument when they sued Youtube (owned by Google) for 1 billion dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
That's the best you've got? And a pitiful ad hom attack, too. Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
You were talking about things that YOU unilaterally declared "dedicated to infringing activity" and I was pointing out how when people like you declare such things, you often fail to recognize how many technologies really started out that way, but were allowed to grow into legitimate tools. But, rather than let that happen, you want to shut them down.
For someone who claims to be against piracy, you sure tie yourself up in some interesting knots defending it.
You consider me explaining how radio, the VCR, the DVR etc. all made the industry you represent more money is "tying myself in knots defending piracy"?
No wonder your industry is so fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
As noted, piracy is a behavior not a technology. And it's a behavior you laughably claim to oppose while desperately supporting it on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Look, YOU raised the claim that certain sites were "dedicated to infringement" based on how much infringement used their tools. I merely pointed out how your definition was ridiculous.
I'm still waiting, though: would you ban those technologies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Also known as "obeying the law". Incredible.
The only reason there's a "hole" in the law is because the law has been twisted by you and your friends into something that makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of understanding of technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
If you capture on a single, large antenna and rebroadcast it to multiple customers- you pay a rebroadcast fee. But Aereo uses thousands of tiny, individual antennas to avoid paying the rebroadcast fee.
Please tell me why you think by virtue of using multiple, single antennas that Aereo shouldn't have to pay the same fee.
The intent of the law is to compensate the owner of content for its rebroadcast. And here you are if full piracy apologist mode making excuses for these grifters making money off of content they haven't paid a dime to rebroadcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Where exactly did he make excuses?
I'm not being facetious, I'm just trying to wade through your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Well, good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
In fact, that's not always true. Generally speaking, it's not infringement if the rebroadcasting "is not made by a cable system."
The limitations and exemptions are in 17 USC 111.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Well, 111(a)(1) explicitly exempts "the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment," so I imagine they're doing it. Other people are exempt as well, including certain carriers, educational instructors, government bodies, or nonprofits.
The point is that Congress set up those rules and "fees" (actually, statutory licenses) specifically for cable companies. They do not apply to everyone.
So when you say Aero should pay "the same fee," you are saying - arbitrarily - that they should follow the laws that were created for a different type of company. And you seem to be doing so for no reason other than making you and/or your friends some money.
Incidentally: it's entirely possible that certain rebroadcasters could do exactly what you suggest, completely legally, but don't. They want to also carry the non-free-over-the-air content that is being produced by the same parent companies, so they work out a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
No it wasn't.
In the early days, cable TV was similarly "dedicated to infringing activity" as nearly every use was infringing.
No it wasn't.
Ditto for the MP3 player.
No it wasn't.
And the photocopier.
No it wasn't.
And radio.
No it wasn't.
And the DVR.
No it wasn't.
Getting sued does not constitute being dedicated to infringement.
And piracy isn't a technology. It's a behavioral defect.
Do you ever tire of being a ridiculous buffoon? I mean we all enjoy mocking and laughing at you, but I'm genuinely curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
The very first MP3 player, the Diamond Rio, it's makers were sued, over copyright infringement.
This is pretty basic stuff you must know when stepping up to try and debate copyright. What you just did is like being in a gay rights debate and falling victim to what is called the "Leviticus Trap" (where those who espouse hating guys based on what is in Leviticus have not read and do not follow the other laws as written there, such as not wearing cloth of two different threads).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Mike said that the VCR was viewed as being this great evil piracy machine at its time. You said no. I replied with a quote from the head of the MPAA, a guy who actively pushed against the VCR every way he could.
So what's your point? Are you going to admit you were 100% wrong, and more to the point, if you were previously aware of the quote, knew you were wrong EVEN AS YOU SAID "No, It was't"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Don't forget that Mr. Rodgers had to come out and say that the piracy that the MPAA feared was a GOOD thing to get Congress and the SCotUS to side with the Betamax and VCR over the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
What *do* you know about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Probably knows you are the world's slimiest piracy apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
With your credibility destroyed through your own actions, no-one believes anything you say. Mike Masnick possibly is a piracy apologist. However, since it is you saying it, I therefore choose to believe him over you. He is trustworthy and has a proven track record of credibility. You don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
If they ever get their way people would not have to listen to your ravings because their would be no web sites that allow anonymous postings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Both briefs state that they are concerned that the ruling could be too broadly interpreted, and should be dialed back to make sure only these "bad guys" get targeted. But, hey, congratulations on ranting about the exact fucking opposite of what the article/ briefs say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
"The sign of a democracy is a society in which it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be gaoled."
The law deals with intent all of the time and the law is not interested in de minimus.
I wish I could kill you every time you use your keyboard to express your twisted and disgusting beliefs. I wonder if I'll be punished for this intent. Not. Because your Martian version of the law isn't applied here.
But IsoHunt is not de minimus. It was a big factory for large scale, industrial-grade infringement.
Neither EFF nor Google disagree that IsoHunt is at fault at some point. But you fail at reading comprehension so I'll leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
The "could be read" worry does not mean will be. You guys always go the extremes of fear while calling everyone else "maximalists".
MONEY is the ONLY point: Google wishes its gravy train of drawing eyes to ads by ripping content from everyone else to continue.
A "predictable legal environment" there means LACK of law, not a consensus worked out in cases.
^^^ My clone army rises! Thanks for the help: I was busy. But you need training: put up a BIG subject line with some caps, and DON'T mis-spell or leave it unpunctuated.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Every "new business model" here requires first getting valuable products -- especially money and labor -- for free.
05:24:41[g-577-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
And that right there is the scariest thing that's ever come out of your mouth. You want Google to pro-actively delete links to speech, when they have no way of knowing what the speech is, whether it is in fact infringing (pretty easy to name a jpeg Infringing_Movie_1080p.mkv), all because your bosses don't want to try a business solution to a business model problem.
Even if all the links are infringing copyright, SO. FUCKING. WHAT? Movies keep on breaking records every year. Music, books, comics, etc. The stated goal of copyright, the creation of new content, HAS BEEN FULFILLED. At this point, its superfluous and downright destructive to society to keep copyright on the law books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
But, of course, links can never infringe copyright. They can only point to things that infringe copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Yes, it is, just about. I'm quite mild. YOU on the other hand, above mention getting a shotgun and shooting me like a "mad dog". CEASE THREATENING ME, SONNY. Quit trying to shut me, if you value free speech so much.
Now, as to your tiny stupid point: Google is already deleting links. And yet the world has not ended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Those two titles may have warped my fragile little mind. Sorry if I now feel an insane urge to
1) Find a shotgun (haven't got a clue where to find one in Ireland)
2) Find out who hasn't_got_a_clue is (impossible unless I hack Techdirt's servers, find his IP address and...how does an IP address lead to identifying individuals again?)
3)
4) Profit!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
And you wonder why you are still a virgin??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Oh right...trolling Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
And yet you can't provide evidence. It takes an insanely ignorant person to believe this. Just look at the sheer amount of SKU's (products in Amazon etc), help pages, forums, blogs, social media etc etc etc links and compare to 3 or 4 million torrents (and corresponding links) in The Pirate Bay. How many BILLIONS of pictures are uploaded daily in Instagram, Tumblr, Blogger, how many millions of tweets, blog posts are linked every damned second? Even private trackers would find most of its links not infringing because the forums often overshadow the torrent posts themselves.
You are full of shit ootb =)
You are NOT required to let them build up until reach numbers large enough to bring a lawsuit.
I'd love to see you pro-actively filter 70+ hours of videos uploaded to youtube alone. Millions of photos uploaded to several services (and I'm only barely scratching the surface of the web). Please, entertain me trying. And don't throw the automated bullshit at me, it's been proven enough times that it DOES NOT work.
On a side note I've been noticing some contradiction in some of your posts so I'm inclined to think you are trolling on purpose. That would explain why you religiously read a site that you keep disdaining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
You're only just now figuring that out? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
Also, damned missed /i =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
a: It's the only way he can get anyone to talk to him.
b: He's being paid to, which simply makes him some content holder's paid bitch.
c: All of the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google finds "millions of unrelated links" to infringing content,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. THIS is why I read few Techdirt comments!
Mike Masnick even makes a rare appearance to do some easily refuted assertions. -- And note that he doesn't admonish Rikuo for an actual threat.
Nice cesspit ya got here, Mike. You know, you sniped elsewhere accusing ME of polluting the site, but you NEVER make such remarks to any of your vile fanboys! In fact, I've complained often about the pollution from your fanboys. THEY CAN MAKE THREATS AND YOU JUST IGNORE IT. You've even got the worst troll, Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", writing for you! Phooey on you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow. THIS is why I read few Techdirt comments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]