The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
from the catchy-and-stupid dept
On Thursday morning, the House Judiciary Committee held its latest in a long series of hearings concerning potential copyright reform -- sometimes referred to as "the Next Great Copyright Act" after the Copyright Office kicked off the process with a talk on that topic (I'd quibble with the word "great" in there given how things are going so far). The latest hearing focused on Section 512 of the DMCA, better known as the "notice and takedown" provisions, or, more broadly, as the "safe harbor" provisions, which (mostly) protect service providers from being held liable for infringement done by their users. You've heard all of the arguments concerning this on both sides before -- and we had a post describing 5 myths likely to come up during the hearings (which did not disappoint). If you missed it, you can live through the torture below:The idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again. This may sound good if you're not very knowledgeable about (a) technology and (b) copyright law. But if you understand either, or both, you quickly realize this is a really, really stupid solution that won't work and will have all sorts of dangerous unintended consequences that harm both creativity and the wider internet itself.
First, as was pointed out in the 5 myths piece, content itself is not illegal. It's actions concerning a piece of content. So, by doing a notice and staydown, you're guaranteeing that perfectly legitimate uses -- including both licensed uses and fair uses -- get blocked as well. That's because to determine if something is infringing, you have to view it in the full context. No matter how much some copyright maximalists want to believe that copyright is a strict liability law, it is not. The very same content may be infringing in some cases and not infringing in others. Not checking the context of each use would clearly block forms of perfectly legitimate expression. That's a big problem.
Second, and perhaps even bigger, is the fact that such a law would more or less lock in a few big players, like YouTube, and effectively kill the chance of any startup or entrepreneur to innovate and offer a better solution. Throughout the hearing, you hear people refer to Google's ContentID system -- which takes fingerprints of audio and video works and matches new uploads against it -- as an example of a proactive system "done right." Except, that system cost Google somewhere around $50 or $60 million to build. No startup can replicate that. And, even then, if you ask plenty of regular YouTube users, ContentID is really, really bad. It kills off fair use work all the time, it creates tremendous problems for legitimate and licensed users of content who suddenly find their content pulled and strikes on their account. It more or less proves that even if you have all the money in the world, no one can yet build a fingerprinting system that is particularly accurate.
If such a rule did get put in place, however, it would basically just guarantee that the few big players who could afford both the technology and the legal liability/insurance over the inevitable lawsuits, would be able to continue hosting user generated content. That's more or less ceding much of the internet to Google and Facebook. Considering how often copyright maximalists like to attack big companies like Google for not "sharing the wealth" or "doing their part," it's absolutely ridiculous that their biggest suggestion is one that would effectively give the big internet players more power and control.
The reality of the situation is that "notice and staydown" is really just SOPA 2.0 in disguise. The whole goal of SOPA was to basically to shift the issue of copyright infringement to the tech industry from the MPAA/RIAA. The idea was that if you add liability to the tech players, then it would magically force the tech companies to figure out a way to "clean up" infringement (leaving aside all the collateral damage). That's the same thing with "notice and staydown." The real issue is trying to shift the liability burden to tech companies.
It's the same story over and over again. The business model that the legacy players used to rely on has melted away in the age of the internet. Rather than truly adapt and change, they just get jealous of successful tech companies, and think that those companies somehow "owe" them money. And the best way to legally do that is to get politicians to magically place legal liability on those companies, so they have to pay up. Notice and staydown has nothing to do with actually stopping copyright infringement. It's about taking the burden off of the legacy players, easing the need for them to adapt and change, while trying to force big tech companies to pay up. The irony, of course, is that in the process it would harm much needed innovation from startups and entrepreneurs (the companies that the content creators really need the most) and lock in bigger, more powerful internet players.
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: 512, content id, dmca, judy chu, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, safe harbors, sopa, tom marino
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you honestly believe what the RIAA/MPAA want is going to help you then you are deluded. They want to be the only content distribution option available and if that happens then far fewer artists will be able to get their content seen and you will likely be one of those artists. and that harms, not helps, artists. It only helps the parasite distributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do something that cant be pirated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So many of bands that appeared after the year 2000 are either disingenuous (distort and rape the ideas of the bands they supposedly love), SUCK live, so nobody bothers with going to see them, or have no sound of their own, making them boring and stale like a piece of white bread that's been on the counter for 2 weeks.
And I'm just speaking of musicians here of all styles, very few bands of the styles I mentioned formed past the year 2000 have the integrity and talent than their supposed idols had. Paint It Black might be one of the rare exceptions at play here, everything else that's worth a shit these days that is new, from bands that formed 15 to 30 years ago.
A funny reason why these guys are still around and can tour the world and fill large clubs wherever they go : they weren't in it for the money from the beginning, DIY and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you need to learn how to convert those "opportunities to have your shit stolen" into a paying customer base.
A first step might begin with not being a asswipe and calling your potential customers "idiots". Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you talking about the people whose own creative work was taken down by false positives, or the talented programmer whose new business venture is made impossible by this kind of crap? Oh yeah, you idiots can only see one side of the story, and it's always the "I think someone robbed me so I have to rob everyone else as payback" side...
I also hope by "artist", you are either referring to someone other than you, or someone who doesn't write for a living, else I think I've found your problem, and it isn't pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am a content creator. My content (I prefer to think it's not shit, though you may disagree) is copied every day by various sites and reposted. Furthermore, as others pointed out, plenty of people seek to "interfere" with our advertising business model by using ad blockers and the like.
So, I know how it feels. And I also know that we have lots of other ways to connect with our fans and to build a business, and I'm incredibly THANKFUL for all that the internet has enabled in terms of ways to build up a supportive audience.
Why aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why aren't you?"
Why? Because he, and all like him, are ungrateful, entitled little shits that the law, legislators, and pro-copyright zealots keep propping up and enabling. "You are OWED!" they say, as if WE (the public, the consumer) somehow *forced* them to become "artists" and now owe them (AND THEIR GRANDCHILDREN, YEA UNTO THE 3RD GENERATION) not only an financial existence, but a lucrative one.
Please. Give me a break. DO something that people WANT. WORK at becoming skilled as an artist. BE GRATEFUL if you are even a LITTLE successful, because the road of the artist is paved with MANY failures. The fact that you are one of them is NOT an indication that new, more stringent laws are needed. It is JUST HOW IT IS. Live with it, or work at bettering yourself, or DO SOMETHING ELSE.
But please, for the love of all that's holy, STOP WHINING ABOUT PIRACY. PIRACY indicates people WANT your stuff, and is the LEAST of your problems. Obscurity is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your opinion <> everyone's opinion.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, duh, go fuck yourself. You're no artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If your art is any good, and you have a bit of luck, you will make a fortune off of your first work, Like J.K Rowling, but don't hold your breath, your work may never gain a large enough audience to make you a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can't convince people to pay you for your art, that is your problem and yours alone.
Being able to live from art is a privilege, not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are a plethora
If they're are truly in it for the art then you wouldn't give two shits about the money in the end.
If they're in it for the money perhaps they should go into politics instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
Real artists put out art for the worlds sake, not their wallets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
Really? So what you're saying is that if an album sells for the full retail price, you only get a tiny fraction of the net profit, and that you think this is everyone else's fault (including/primarily your audience)? Somehow I think you're missing a crucial link in the chain, and that maybe you should pay more attention to the wording in contracts before you sign them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt has a plethora of examples of alternative business models aside from "Don't let anyone copy and distribute my work until 70 years after I'm dead" under their "Business Models" tag. Read and learn, stop whining about your wish to make money from something you might not even be doing.
Copyright is not and never has been for the little guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, you didn't mean real theft, you meant "infringement".
BTW, publishers actually steal artist works all the time. They take your work, then charge their expenses against your royalties so that you hardly make a dime off it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
"See, the thing is even if this thing passes and it works, people will still infringe upon your copyrights. At least if we stop it it won't get a chance to ruin the internet"
Stealing shit (theft) means to deprive the rightful owner of said shit from use thereof. Making a copy of something doesn't necessarily destroy the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lots and lots of us completely understand this. We also understand that it's brazenly unfair to punish innocent people and companies because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this wont work because it will affect the world not just the US, so the government will step in to stop an international disaster.
i live in Australia btw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
idiots are people who clamor for public attention for career purposes while they simultaneously starve for the lack of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am, and many of my friends are too. Most don't particularly care about having their "shit stolen" (BTW it's not "stealing," it's "infringing"). Even those that don't like it at all find it at most a nuisance; it doesn't rank up there with (say) not getting people to shows, or being stuck with a bad label deal that earns them nothing.
Even so, the "notice and staydown" provisions, if enacted, would harm us artists much worse than the original infringement. It would be a recipe for permanent censorship, and would make it impossible for anyone to form companies that might help us. It would consolidate the control of user-generated content into the hands of tech mega-corporations, the only ones who could afford to implement it, and require that those corporations have cozy relationships with the legacy industries whose business models depend upon screwing us over.
And that's just artists. It's just as bad, or worse, for the general public.
If you really do support artists - and not corporate copyright holders or big tech companies - then you should be against this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and you could always look at Trent Reznor / Moby / Radiohead / and how many other successful artists that believe that it should be about the music and getting paid comes second.
Does that mean that people are entitled to COPY your craft? Not at all, but that means it's up to YOU to reach them, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
For example, if someone steals a car from a dealership, than they lose a car, and incur a loss. But if someone made a copy of the car, using their own materials, than the dealership may, or may not have lost money "assuming" the person who copied the car, would have bought that car.
Copyright infringement is a fact of life on the internet (and 3d printers). It will be regardless of what laws are passed. it is up to the content creators to come up with fresh ideas to provide value added services and monitise that for an income.
DRM and automated takedowns only hurt legitimate users. Imagine if your online computer backup removed files you bought because someone else had claimed ownership. It has such a high potential for abuse it is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So here FTFY
you guys are idiots. i wish you understood how much it sucks to be a "content owner (read record label, movie studio, book publisher etc...)" with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.
I'm not advocating piracy but there's definitely two sides of the coin. Some artists like the free-play model that the Internet brings, it's great for discovery. Even established artists, sometimes don't mind that other people get their content, it usually means higher concert ticket sales etc... (Which the artist typically gets more money for anyways.) Metallica is an example of an artist that was against it, but if I recall they've changed their tune just a bit.
I think what people are most up in arms about for SOPA 2 is what happens with Fair Use. If I upload a video of my daughter singing to Let It Go (which I bought the Frozen album) playing in the background, then someone can have that pulled down. Is that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
Are you really so afraid of not making a few dollars in order to through the internet in the gutter? Shame on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you create something to be liked, to be sold, it's called doing business. Business and arts are very different things.
Therefore, having your shit stolen should not be your preoccupation,
or it should,
if you're a business man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I should know, I worked in the anti-piracy space for almost a half dozen years.
SOPA and its ilk are garbage, top to bottom, and attempts to legislate technology design, which is actually possibly the only thing more idiotic than your post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
instead of continuously aiding friends with the 'you scratch my back' syndrome, surely the important thing is to aid the nation and the budget, isn't it? we keep complaining about how so and so country has developed this or that, but it could have been us, except for the hindering the legacy companies do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did not realize money was being taken completely out of circulation because of this activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"before these politicians finally accept that to keep helping an old, legacy industry isn't the way forward?"
Politicians already know that these laws are bad for the public interest. The problem is that they are morally bankrupt and are looking after their own personal interests over the public interest. Like all the so many anti-competitive laws passed in this corrupt country these laws are purely a product of corruption. It's time we no longer tolerate this nonsense and demand IP laws be fixed in the other direction. The RIAA won't stop until there is no more user generated content and until there is nothing to compete with their monopolized prices. They don't care about stopping 'piracy' they don't want any competition at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know... I'm rather tired of blaming people as if that's going to solve the problem. This doesn't do anything to change the problems of copyright and censorship that have been occurring.
Like all the other many many anti-competitive laws, our existing IP laws (95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions) are purely a product of corruption
I think it's time to recognize that we have a systemic problem. It's a problem with copyright and it's only gotten worse over time.
The corruption is copyright, not the people that have an incentive to pursue it.
Politicians already know that these laws are bad for the public interest. The problem is that they are morally bankrupt and are looking after their own personal interests over the public interest.
Ok, but let's flip this around... how do you get a politician to care about this in the positive if we're too busy villifying their very being?
They don't care about stopping 'piracy' they don't want any competition at all.
THIS is what we should be focusing on. THIS is where we fight to get these people out of power. So long as they have the ear of the politician and their wallets, they can make the rules. So fighting for competition to their regimes is what should be the focal point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Milton Friedman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That might have something to do with it, but I think half of it is the manufactured glamour of those industries. The tech-clueless morons pushing this stuff would either find working with tech companies boring or incomprehensible - they literally can't understand the industries. But, wave a celebrity in front of their faces and even the dumbest of them can not only understand, but want to be a part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politically Toxic
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go take some anti-anxiety medications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know you're being sarcastic, but it once again displays your sick double standard. Whenever we write about anything you insist on a very literal reading of every word -- and when we call you out on your bullshit claims, you weave between everything by insisting that you never actually said what you clearly said.
So, here, no one has said that the "entire burden" should be "placed upon the shoulders of rights holders." You're flat out lying, because you're a dishonest individual by nature.
What we are saying -- and have stated clearly -- that the various ideas and concepts, such as "notice and staydown" that seek to place a huge liability burden on third party intermediaries is stupid, unworkable and has tremendous collateral damage.
The *reason* (as you would know if you actually understood these things) that the burden is on the rightsholder is because they're the only ones who can know if the work is actually infringing. A third party does not know, as was clearly demonstrated in the Viacom/YouTube case. A notice and staydown provision doesn't just burden unrelated third parties for no reason other than that your friends don't know how to adapt, but (more importantly) it creates a massive barrier to the very innovation that is HELPING creators make more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As Mike indicated - you are probably being sarcastic here, but I am curious if you have an argument as to why the burden shouldn't fall to the rights holders.
I'm also curious about something else. Would you be opposed to a system where the rights holders provide (at their own cost) a comprehensive database of copyrights that includes all licensing schemes and approved uses to Google? It would have to be constantly updated and maintained by the rights holders, of course, and the system would also have to have some sort of mechanism to deal with Fair Use.
Would you consider such a compromise in a system where Google picks up the tab for actually filtering and removing, but the rights holders pick up the tab for providing Google the information to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like it, you'll have to come after me, not anyone else.
Same thing.
I look forward to you deciding to put your beliefs into action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sue the bastards!!! Surely that's the path to victory!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like it, you'll have to come after me, not anyone else.
Ummm. That is exactly what I'd do.
Same thing.
No. Not at all.
I look forward to you deciding to put your beliefs into action.
If you kick me then you would most assuredly would see me in action - mainly beating you down like a rabid dog in the street.
But seriously, how is this even close to what we are talking about? Wouldn't me going after your shoe manufacturer because they "facilitated the kicking" be closer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's your real name and where do you live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well one is a mental cripple. The other, well ok, not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah. Not gonna happen. I'm not giving some anonymous moron on the internet with obvious sociopathic tendencies my info. I was born at night, but not last night.
But, I will give you a hint - the motto for the area I live is: "Where the weak are killed and eaten."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not even close. If it were the same thing, then we'd see people clamoring to require shoe manufacturers do something to prevent people from repeatedly kicking others in the balls.
As it is, the receiver of the ball-kick and the victim of infringement both have the same recourse right now -- go after the people who actually committed the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone is found guilty of ball kicking they are kept from repeating their actions via incarceration.
Infringers simply do it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, if someone is found guilty of infringement, they have to pay absolutely insane amounts of money due to statutory damage awards. And if their infringement is criminal, then yes, they are incarcerated.
The ones who "simply do it again" are the ones that aren't caught... just like you wouldn't be incarcerated if you kicked me in the balls and weren't caught.
By the way - comparing the infringement of a statutory monopoly right, with physical violence against someone? You're a douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither of which has anything to do with the essential point: why does any of this justify saddling innocent third parties with any portion of this burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
Your arguments are invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your suggestion may very well have merit, but it too would likely fall short in attempting to strike a fair balance.
Bear in mind that not every notice receiving entity under the current DMCA regime is a general purpose search engine like Google, Yahoo, etc., etc. Many information service providers specifically hone in on infringing content, encouraging the users of its services to "have at it to their heart's content". It seems to me that situations such as these (and almost certainly others) should require in the interest of fairness a shared responsibility/burden.
I know much of what I have said is likely perceived as "Mom and apple pie", but real life situations are only rarely so cut and dry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This assumes, incorrectly, that the only "recourse" is to issue a takedown. That's simply false. As you note, filing takedowns may be ineffective for some. But there are much better options: figuring out ways to use that interest to your advantage.
Almost every artist we've seen who has tried this strategy has found it pays off a hell of a lot better than trying to keep works hidden from fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I admit there are aspects of current copyright law I believe are ill-advised and should be significantly scaled back, if not eliminated altogether. In some cases it would be a herculean task given interlocking international agreements, but just because it would be difficult is no good reason to throw up one's arms and feign hopelessness.
[ 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: Re:
Given the gargantuam number of content the industry just cannot charge as much for it as in the system of yesteryear. To keep up with today's realities they need to offer there content in a timely manner, for a reasonable price without restrictions. If they don't, no takedown process ever will increase sales.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is well-nigh impossible for rights holders to take down all of their content on the web. It means that the task is, by its nature, well-nigh impossible. That doesn't mean it is unfair to rights holders. It means rights holders are demanding the impossible.
What rights holders want to do is shift the burden from this impossible task from themselves onto third parties. Third parties who do not have any beneficial interest in the copyrights, hence no beneficial interest in preventing infringement. That would be manifestly unfair to those third parties.
it is clear that the information is infringing
You can't tell if content is infringing just by looking at it. The exact same content can be infringing or authorized. The only people who are in a position to know this are the rights holders (and sometimes even they are wrong - look at the YouTube/Viacom case, or the Dajaz1.com seizure).
Many information service providers specifically hone in on infringing content, encouraging the users of its services to "have at it to their heart's content".
If you're actively encouraging infringement, then the DMCA doesn't apply to you, and you can be sued out of business. Many already have been. So, these entities already bear the burden for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://voxindie.org/DMCA-ignored-and-broken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok. But highlighting inadequacies in the current system still doesn't prove that the burden needs to be laid upon the service providers who rely on the DMCA safe harbors.
If you want really want a semblance of fairness, here are my suggestions:
- Return copyright back to "opt-in". If you value your work enough to want the protections of copyright, take 5 minutes to register it.
- Use a sliding scale fee for copyright registration. Free at first, but increasing amounts for renewals. This would allow works to begin to fall into the Public Domain like they should. This would also offset the cost of creating a whitelist database in my next bullet.
- Create a central "copyright whitelist" that is constantly updated with information from the rights holders as to copyright status, licensing schemes and approved uses.
- Keep the safe harbors for service providers with the stipulation that they keep filtering and removing unauthorized content that isn't on the whitelist. Anything that isn't registered on the whitelist is considered unprotected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe a notification prior to takedown where the supposed infringer has an opportunity to declare their belief that their usage is Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you have misunderstood some of my comments. I have not stated that burdens be shifted form rights holders to service providers. What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.
My solution? Let these discussions play out, and then review what is discussed with an open mind. There will never be a perfect process that cannot be abused by persons on both sides of issues, but at the very least such a process should reflect fairness for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. But there are many pushing that exact argument and I don't quite understand the logic.
What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.
I'm not convinced it's unjust myself. First, the rights holders are the ones benefiting from the exclusivity that copyright grants. Why shouldn't they shoulder the majority of the burden? That's the question I'd like answered.
Second, you seem to be implying that your example shows that our current system can be unfair to the rights holders. Perhaps you're right. But it's because it's a reactionary game of wac-a-mole. Why not attacking the problem from the opposite way with a whitelist type of system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.
2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.
3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. I'm just sorta spitballing here and just wondering if something like a whitelist system would even work.
1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.
I'm not sure, really. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids maybe?
2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.
It would require that the rights holders are proactive in keeping their licensing information updated and there would a million details to work out, for sure. But is it possible?
3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.
My thought would be that any takedown would require a notification and some time period for a response from the supposed infringer. The supposed infringer could then declare their belief that the use is Fair Use which would leave the content in place until told otherwise by a court, like it is currently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Creating the records is not difficult, but identifying the work, and any legal uses etc. is difficult because their is no single object or place that someone can point at and say I own it. Further problems arise in fair use of a licensed use of a work, or re-uses of a CC licensed work that includes bits under a different license.
A further hazard with such a requirement is that it reinforces the permission culture, and it would not take too much for it to be extended to licensing fair use. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids, would only increase the pressure towards an always licensed approach, as what such systems cannot do is distinguish fair use from licensed use.
That does not really address the costs, as the copyright holder can threaten to bring action unless the content is taken down, and fighting that requires funds, whether the person who put the content up wins or loses. Problem of jurisdiction also come into play, as the copyright holder will probably choose the venue.. A legal system where both sides have to pay their own costs always benefits the rich. Award of costs to the losing party would work better, as someone with a strong case could probably get a lawyer to take in on on contingency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The person behind Vox Indie is Ellen Seidler. I would not trust anything she has to say when it comes to copyright infringement.
This article is a perfect example. You know all those links, popups, or whatever that she claimed she was forced to go through?
Well, either she lied, or she's not very smart. I went to the link site myself just now. Down in the footer of every page is a series of links. One of them is to "Contacts." If you click that link, you will be taken here:
http://www.solarmovie.so/contacts.html
In case you don't want to visit that page, here's the relevant part:
She could have gotten that direct email with a single click. No advertising, no nothing.
The site that actually hosted the stream is a different story:
http://clicktoview.org/dmca.html
Here's the thing: they are almost certainly not compliant with the DMCA if that's the only way they allow takedowns. Furthermore, a search for their site in the Copyright Office's Directory of Service Provider Agents does not show that they ever registered.
In other words, it's not a problem with the DMCA. Modifying the DMCA wouldn't do any good in their case, since they're not even following the rules that exist right now.
This isn't the first time she's done stuff like this, either. She's also the person behind popuppirates.com, a virulently anti-Google site. I've talked about that site before. I could very, very easily debunk the rest of her claims if you want me to.
[ 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:
True, but that doesn't mean it's unfair to copyright holders. Sending an email is trivial; it's even easier (and less costly) than sending a paper copy to a physical address. If that's not good enough, then it is the copyright holders who are being unfair.
It also doesn't alter the fact that the things Seidler claimed she had to do weren't actually necessary. At least not regarding the linking site.
The hosting site is another matter, but from what I can gather, they're doing it more from sheer incompetence. (Read their contact page, where they claim they've simply stopped reading emails, and their FAQ, where they say all links are temporary in order to reduce hotlinking.) Whatever the reason, it's doubtful that their setup is a deliberate attempt to get advertising dollars from takedown notices, as Seidler seems to think.
In any case, if these sites aren't following the DMCA, then that's not a condemnation of the DMCA. It's a condemnation of the sites who aren't following it. Sites who do follow the DMCA shouldn't be punished with a revision of the DMCA that places even more of an unfair burden upon them.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
I meant for sending notices. If a site is ignoring emails, then an address isn't going to help. It's just as easy to ignore a paper letter as it is to ignore an email. The immediate repercussions are exactly the same either way.
I agree that there may be good reasons for providing a physical address, but those reasons are only applicable in situations where rights holders need to take legal action against the sites. If we get to that point, then we're a long way from DMCA compliance anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But we already know he does that all the time, don't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re: Re:
DMCAed, you douchebag.
[ 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:
I have to disagree with all of the evidence of infringement that has been shown to be far less distinctive than presented.
The people that were supposed to know these things literally don't. But they've been given heavy leeway to complain and whine for their entitlements.
We don't need that and it damages all forms of free speech to support such regimes.
It may be time to rethink the concept of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sarcasm or no, why shouldn't it be? You wouldn't say that the entire burden associated with making cars should be placed upon the shoulders of anyone except the auto industry. Toyota couldn't blame Google if a search for "affordable car" turned up a link to a Honda.
Copyright holders shouldn't be granted special privileges that nobody else has. Policing infringement (online or off) should be their responsibility, and nobody else's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:06am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the blocking apply to just the notified user or all users ever? A person could cause some serious censorship with the latter. I could decide a hate artist A, upload a copy of his/her work, get it taken down AND all other copies including the one the artist him/herself put up for promotional purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's that, you're not signed to a major label? Well then, enjoy having all of your works shut down and blocked 'by accident' until you do sign over all your rights to a label, at which point you'll enjoy the immunity as well, in exchange for the tiny little cost of ownership of all your works.
Yeah, combine the zero penalties for bogus DMCA claims, with the fact that this system keeps anything claimed to be infringing permanently blocked, and 'notice and staydown' will allow the major companies to absolutely crush any alternative publishing method that isn't control by them, all by 'accident' of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea is that it would apply to all users ever. Which is the main reason why it's a terrible idea.
Say I make a movie. Someone posts it to YouTube, and I issue a "notice and staydown" request. Now, I can't upload that movie, either - and if I already did so, my copy would also be taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Because to them it's the same thing, right?
If I get in a car accident and the other person was using a phone, can I sue the phone carrier because they facilitated the driver's call?
Things that make you go HMMMM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
You know what, lets do that actually. It'd get things fixed quickly if the banks found themselves getting attacked for absurd secondary and tertiary liabilities and would help tackle many issues, civil forfeiture abuse (honestly it seems rare to find legitimate use), rights, ending the futile war on drugs (protip: if it a war on an abstract concept it cannot be won).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
also a small commentary.
the legacy entertainment industry fears the internet and with a good reason not because of piracy thats the window dressing they fear competition
many people create for the pleasure of create and they want to share but here is when it gets murky a fan creates something because he enjoys the original and want to contribute some corporation creates because the original sold well and wants a piece of the pie
so when both products finish the corporated one looks really bad against the fan created and instead of creating something awesome the corporations destroy something awesome to sell their trash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its only a matter of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice and Shutdown
If this ever becomes law, I hope the courts will be wise enough to recognize how dangerous it is to hold ISPs liable for failing to stop its users from engaging in behavior that ordinarily would demand a trial against those accused of such behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the politicians go along with these polices because they don't really care about the collateral damage this will cause the economy. If they did, the deficit wouldn't be so high. No, all they care about is the kickbacks they get. The media industry's profits are tiny compared to the tech industry. Hell, media giants like NBC and Universal are owned by Comcast, a tech company. Lawmakers know they're flush with cash. They want a piece of that! So, they let the media industry push BS like this to entice better "offers" from others. It's totally about extortion.
However, if "notice and staydown" gets struck down, the tech companies should enforce it for those who wanted it anyway. Every song, video, or scrape of content they put online will be reposted, flagged, and wiped from net. It'll make everything those asshats touch so toxic that no one would want to deal with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why can't Google simply whip up a magic spell, and summon the appropriate demons, djinn, and/or other succubi needed to delete my content?
It ought to be ILLEGAL!
ILLEGAL, I tell you!
Google knows the ways of magick, so why cannot it not be legally required to cast the appropriate spells?
Congress needs to get involved here! I demand it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad that nobody involved with creating these laws gives a shit about the little people. The only ones they care about are the multi-billion corporations who "donate" copious amounts of money to their campaigns. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd pass a law requiring every single person in the US to pay a monthly tax to the entertainment industry.
[ 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 ]
This Got Me Banned From WebmasterWorld In Less Than One Minute
WebmasterWorld's Copyright Forum focusses primarily on the detection of "Scraper Sites" - machine-generated spam sites created Unethical or "Black Hat" SEOs who steal content from legimate sites -as well as the application of DMCA Takedown Notices, even civil lawsuits, to go after the scrapers.
I figured I'd give them my Left Coast Greybeard Take by sitting up all night marking up "Why I'm Proud to be a Dirty GNU Hippy" in BBCode, then posting it to the WMW Copyright board.
In less than a minute, my essay was deleted.
Shortly after I received a terse private message from the forum moderator, informing me that "Advocating" is a violation of the quite strictly enforce WebmasterWorld Terms of Service.
Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke:
I revised it to HTML/CSS markup then posted it at my own site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
human
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: human
1) Only DMCA claims filed by humans are considered legitimate. Bots programmed by humans do not count, it's either personal review by a human on a case by case basis or nothing(this is both to cut down on bot abuse, and for change #2). If a company/individual is found to be using a bot to generate and send out DMCA claims, then they are penalized as though each claim sent was a fraudulent DMCA notice.
2) The perjury clause for fraudulent claims was tightened up and enforced. No more 'well I was pretty sure it was correct, so I ordered it taken down', if someone files a claim on something they don't own, they go to jail.
If it's a case of someone filing claims as part of their job, ordered by their boss, then both employee and employer are punished equally, the boss can't order their employees to file fraudulent claims and get away without penalty themselves.
Now, it would only be one or two years(I believe perjury comes with a 2 year sentence), but if people knew that filing a false claim would get them jail time, then 99% of the bogus claims and those abusing the system to censor stuff they don't like would disappear practically overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding Ideas from Statists
Apart from the outrage that will (probably) inevitably kill this one, even if it were passed (or even if it were never passed, but just quietly implemented by major ISPs around the globe), it will likely have (instead of the intended effect of censorship), exactly the opposite effect - it will likely drive faster adoption of decentralized solutions that are resistant to censorship.
Ever hear that old phrase, "The net is resistant to censorship, and routes around it?" Not always true. But, what is true, is that when that initial statement doesn't hold true, then alternative networks are created, that are more easily created and which cannot be squashed like a bug merely because they can be listened to (surveilled) or because a server or node can be removed. Those kinds of systems then are developed out, used more, and then different things are developed based upon them.
This is just one example which I recently saw hit a mailing list - described as "a realtime collaborative editor which could do text, WYSIWYG and collaborative drawing (...deployed via) a peer-to-peer consensus algorithm using a Nakamoto Blockchain with the difficulty/mining aspect
removed:"
https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/chainpad
(One possible implementation of this follows that you can actually see in a website that anyone can view, rather than a .bit sort of process that is less visible:)
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/RtWiki
This is just one idea, the point being more or less being that we will defeat statism with math. The more decentralize-able the implementation of the 'maths,' the better able the 'maths' will be at defeating (however gradually) the statism, until the statism fades to become less and less of a problem. We still have the panopticon to face, but that in turn must be dealt with - not by false hopes and dreams - but by action, either by responsibility of the people in new distributed networks, or by our collective failure to act.
So, regarding ideas from statists:
Keep making those ideas. We'll keep making better ones. What becomes of people who adhere to statists and the ideas associated with statism? More or less they are like what dinosaurs turned into after they became extinct: Someone else's fuel, just getting burnt or converted into something more useful (like solar panels, or whatever else people dream up, or grass, or dirt that gets used to grow good things). Statism just gets broken down into component parts and becomes part of the overall energy ecology, it doesn't matter how many bad ideas you create, we'll just keep using them as fuel for a better future that doesn't include CISPA, governance, government, statism, etc. Cheers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scripps News and NASA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just the tip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough already
Various governments(sadly most these days) also hate the internet and want to see it destroyed and/or crippled because it presents alternatives. Alternative means of communication that they can't easily shut down, alternative sources of news that they don't control, both enabling people to discuss and demolish the carefully constructed lies told to them by allowing multiple people to look over something, and allowing them to compare the local with the global.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]