Copyright Alliance Attacks ChillingEffects.org As 'Repugnant,' Wants DMCA System With No Public Accountability
from the stop-publishing-legals-forms-and-sworn-statements! dept
Sandra Aistars of the Copyright Alliance issued a statement during the recent DMCA-related hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee. As was noted earlier, a bunch of effort was made to turn the "notice and takedown" system into a "notice and stay down" system, and weirdly, the word "free" was thrown about as if it was synonymous with "infringement."
Her statement details the shortcomings of the DMCA system from the expected position, citing the personal travails of creators like Kathy Wolfe, who for some reason has chosen to spend half her profits battling infringement. In general, it painted a bleak picture for future creativity, claiming that unless infringement is massively curbed, creators will stop creating. (There seems to be no place in this argument about the lowered barriers to entry, and the swell of creation that has enabled.)
But where her statement really goes off the rails (even for the Copyright Alliance) is with the attack on the popular copyright notice clearinghouse, Chilling Effects.
The activities of chillingeffects.org are repugnant to the purposes of Section 512. Data collected by high-volume recipients of DMCA notices such as Google, and senders of DMCA notices such as trade associations representing the film and music industries demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of DMCA notices sent are legitimate, yet the site unfairly maligns artists and creators using the legal process created by Section 512 as proponents of censorship. Moreover, by publishing the personal contact information of the creators sending notices (a practice which Chilling Effects only recently discontinued), it subjects creators to harassment and personal attacks for seeking to exercise their legal rights. Finally, because the site does not redact information about the infringing URLs identified in the notices, it has effectively become the largest repository of URLs hosting infringing content on the internet.How publishing an unaltered takedown notice "maligns" the sender isn't explained. All Aistars says about it is that it's "unfair" because the site name links takedown notices with "censorship." But she glosses over the DMCA's status as the go-to tool for censorious entities -- something's that cheaper and easier than hiring a lawyer to draft a C&D.
She also glosses over the fact that the site is purely voluntary and far from comprehensive. In trying to paint the entire DMCA process as deeply flawed (which it is, but not in the ways she claims…), Aistars cordons off the "Google" side of the internet and attempts to portray it as harmful to creators… by doing exactly what they've asked it to do.
Her argument (if it can even be called that) makes as much sense as those griping about the fact that YouTube notes the party issuing the takedown when it grants requests to remove infringing videos. According to those advancing the "it's not fair" argument, this information is irrelevant and only serves to make rightsholders "look bad." Well, if everything about the statement posted on the deleted videos is true, why is there so much complaining? You don't like the way the facts were delivered?
As for the claims of being harassed for issuing takedowns, those who issue bogus takedowns deserve whatever they get. Legitimate takedowns are generally free from abuse. And if legitimate takedowns are resulting in "harassment" and "criticism," those siding with Aistars need to ask themselves why they care about the opinions of infringers.
Redacting the links makes no sense either. Infringers who use Chilling Effects as a piracy "address book" are probably so far down the scale as to be completely nonexistent. Not only is it a highly ineffective way to infringe, but, as noted above, Chilling Effects is purely voluntary and far from comprehensive.
It seems Aistars (and others) want a powerful anti-infringement tool but none of the responsibility that comes with it. Takedowns should just be honored (and content should "stay down) and filed away in the back of a cabinet somewhere. The public apparently isn't a stakeholder in this particular discussion (as is usually the case in IP-related debates). The Copyright Alliance is stumping for opacity, something that would be warmly received by censorious entities and shoddy copyright fighters whose mass takedowns have taken down tons of legitimate content over the years.
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: accountability, chilling effects, copyright, dmca, notice and takedown, takedowns, transparency
Companies: chillingeffects.org, copyright alliance
Reader Comments
The First Word
“501(c)4
The Copyright Alliance is just another purely artificial astroturf organization, doing what it's paid to do by a select group of special interests. It therefore shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the words uttered by Sandra Aistars are just nonsensical crap thrown at a wall in the hope that some of them will stick, and have some political effect. Look no further than who the Alliance founders and staffers have been; either MPAA execs, Nickles Group LLC lobbyists, or alumni from the Progress & Freedom Foundation, which played a role in Newt Gingrich's ethics troubles back in the 90's. Copyright Alliance Staff, 2008. archive.orgI had the displeasure of spending quality time on the phone with Ms. Aistars; "hack attorney" is exactly right, IMO. Former Time-Warner VP, attorney from Weil, Gotshal, & Manges. Defender of "creative individuals"? Yah, sure.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget to add how Hollywood resorts to accounting trickery to make sure no movie ever make any profits which saves them in taxes and in money owed to the people involved in actually making the movies. Also, don't forget how collection entities grab money from everything and distribute only to a few select artists while keeping a really generous amount for themselves and the labels. And what about when they force the artists to sign off their rights and lock themselves out of their own works? Or pile up imaginary fees and expenses so that only absurdly famous artists can make any sort of profit from music sales? What about suing single moms for sharing of a handful of songs her teenagers did? Or suing students into extradition? Or trampling with due process to get favorable rulings? Ar simply ignoring those and getting the Govt to raid a house of an innocent man with a full tactics force fully armed with heavy weapons against him and his family of a pregnant woman and a bunch of kids? Let's also not talk about using your financial power to buy legislation all over the word to criminalize social behavior and prevent things from entering the Public Domain. And I haven't even started mentioning the use of DMCA notices as censorship tools or the plain misuse of them for no valid reason.
Yeah. Repugnant indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hollywood sucks at math, technology is based in math, therefore, Hollywood is thoroughly confused by technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=1531957
Sending notices to google to remove a page from their results is somewhat less useful when it still gives you a list of URLs that includes the removed one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Not only that, but the notices themselves are on shaky ground as to if they are even copyrightable. Even more so for automated DMCA takedown notices since there's zero creative elements in those.
Mike made this argument back in 2011:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/13530413008/is-it-copyright-infringement-to-pass-dmca -notice-to-chillingeffects.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
I think this is a feature, not a bug -- it will encourage companies who have legitimate copyright claims to go after those who are actually infringing copyrights rather than uninvolved third parties like Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Keeping the URL off the first few pages of of google search results on the other hand, is almost as good for their purposes, and much more likely to be honored.
The flip side of this of course being that Google should really not be obligated to filter it's results, especially for copyright reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Except that it's really not. Most people who pirate don't use Google to find their pirated goods, so eliminating that listing isn't exactly the biggest bang for the buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
For example, if what they really want is that when someone searches for the name of their new manga series, the first several results to not include a bunch of manga scanlation sites, they can do two things. One, try and destroy the sites that are getting top results. Which would be ideal, but takes a lot of energy and money, and it'll be replaced by a similar site soon enough. Two, they can have Google remove the offending results. Yes the site is still there, but every new person looking up information on their new series won't get casually directed to a bunch of infringing sites instead of legitimate sites, and there's less wack-a-mole involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
4. work with the pirates to find a way everyone can win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Pirates don't have restrictions. They can make scans of copies stolen from the first batch off the printing press, and have scanlations posted online within hours of the publisher sending the master off to the printing company. They have no need to respect the licenses other companies have, so they can have it available world wide. They can post all series, regardless of publisher.
Working with the pirates is worthless for them. They can't do much about the restrictions they work within, and pretty much everything else the pirates can do, they can do better. The problem for them is that while they can simply compete with the pirates and for the most part eventually win on quality, it's rather difficult to get your legal option out and stable when the illegal option dominates the early search results for a series. Hence them sending take down requests to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
So, in a sense, it's turned into sports where you have the haves and the have nots and the have nots don't get to participate in culture the same way that the haves do. and so you are wondering why so many people are losing respect for it, because its turned into a tool intended to exclude those that can't afford to participate.
What we need to start with is establishing a public domain. We need to retroactively shorten copy protection lengths to something sane so that the intended purpose of providing people with more public domain content can be served.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Those same casual users will never go to ChillingEffects to look at the DMCA request just to get the URLs. That's something that only someone who is energetically looking for pirated stuff would do -- in other words, the very people who wouldn't be googling for the stuff in the first place.
I don't see how posting the DMCA requests is a detriment to their goals at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Except, of course, those web page addresses aren't searchable - which is why rights holders wanted them removed from Google in the first place.
If you wanted to find infringing copies of the manga titles listed on that DMCA notice (the one you linked to), then there's no way in Hell you're going to Chilling Effects to find them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Google site:chillingeffects.org undead riot and you'll get the DMCA notice linked to above as the first result (at least, I do).
P.S. I think Chilling Effects do a grand job, and I think it's absurd that Google can get valid DMCA notices for content it doesn't even host.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
My argument is not that what you do is never done at all. My argument is that it's very rare. The argument for why it's OK to censor Google search results in the first place (something I think is the exact opposite of OK, but that battle's already been lost) is to prevent "accidental" downloading of infringing material.
People intending to pirate don't use Google for that very much because Google (and looking up things on ChillingEffects) absolutely sucks as a way to accomplish that goal. Most pirates will use the far superior (as in faster, safer, more convenient) alternatives.
"I reason that other people are using it for it's a more reliable source for content than other link-bait sites that have none of the content they claim they do."
Your reasoning is incredibly flawed here -- the vast majority of sites that are named in these takedown notices are the very same scumbag sites that you are seeking to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
As to the logic of my last point it goes something like this: if the site gets a DMCA strike it better have the infringing content, for if it just claims it does (to lure people to the site and spam them with ads) without actually having it that strike was in error (advertising you host infringing content isn't infringement itself). I don't know if all strikes are valid, but so far I have yet to come across one pointing to a scam link, though that's anecdotal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
What's the difference?
"if the site gets a DMCA strike it better have the infringing content, for if it just claims it does (to lure people to the site and spam them with ads) without actually having it that strike was in error"
Lots and lots of DMCA takedowns are issued against sites that do not contain infringing content. Most of those claim to contain infringing content but do not.
Nobody actually goes to the sites to verify the presence of the content before the takedown is honored. Your sense of safety is an illusion. My recommendation? Stop looking for pirated content altogether.
Although, I have to admit, there's so many oddities and weirdnesses in what you're saying that I suspect you don't actually do any of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real reason they're mad
They're mad because they would actually have to go to court to do this. The DMCA has spoiled them - they expect stuff to get taken down NOW, without having to go to court or prove anything.
I also notice that, as much time as they spend complaining about ChillingEffects in their letter, they don't actually suggest anything in their letter that would DO anything about them - except that congress should "question their motives".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
This is due to the subtlety of corruption and bribery you never publicly state what you , you just say something is terrible as a hint to the bribed person to do something for their money.This often results in the action being taken being what you wished for, which is often more than you could ask for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Um, I actually do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course it does! the public want a system with no DMCA, or any of the other crap that prevents us from doing what we want with something we have paid bloody good money for!
how do you fancy that for a change, then, Sandra Aistars? you have no respect for us, why should we have any respect for you or the one sided view you keep 'encouraging' politicians to take?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice and staydown - logical response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scientology...
responce to google censoring anti-scientology link chilling effects was...
connected to the cult, aistarsand copyright alliance possibly are?...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently you exempt this site from the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they're not referring to the takedown notices there, but are referring to the front page of the site, where ChillingEffects makes wild accusations like "Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These words, you keep using them. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is that a "wild accusation" when they actually have that anecdotal evidence on display at their site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What it might not be is meaningful information (information is meaning derived from facts.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In this particular instance, I think it would be better stated that "evidence suggests that some individuals..." and leave the 'anecdotal' out, given how much evidence exists and how blatant it usually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement costs
They can spend X dollars and get most of the infringement. Or they can spend 4X dollars and get a couple of percent higher.
Beyond that the multiplier of X goes up rapidly but with almost no percentage gain for those additional funds. The RIAA and
MPAA know this already which is why they are attempting to offload the cost to ANYBODY else, Google and Netflix are prime
target because they have been able to make money on the Internet where the old methods have not.
They could change but that would require effort and some higher ups would no longer be able to draw multi-million
dollar bonuses. So the plan seems to be to offload the enforcement so they can continue to get money for doing nothing
like they have for generations.
That the expenses they are trying to offload will not EVER eradicate "Piracy" seems to be something they absolutely
will not face up to. (Maybe because they might have to admit that "doing nothing" is not lucrative any more.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although you were crystal clear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Although you were crystal clear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
501(c)4
I had the displeasure of spending quality time on the phone with Ms. Aistars; "hack attorney" is exactly right, IMO. Former Time-Warner VP, attorney from Weil, Gotshal, & Manges. Defender of "creative individuals"? Yah, sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know I keep saying that but here it goes: pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure idiocy.
If only they were capable of taking their egos out of the equation and tried, just for once, to view the massive financial potential the internet offers from a solely logical point of view. They'd finally see how what they've been doing over the past decade is pointless and wasteful, making very little sense.
They've always done exceedingly well when forced to embrace new technologies and plenty of studies have shown us that the internet was no different. If any potential income has been lost, which is highly doubtful, it's because of their own idiocy, not the file sharers they so love to blame.
They were handed this awesome gift and what did they do with it? They crapped all over it like a schizophrenic with a bowel disorder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pure idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strategic subterfuge
How else can anyone explain why, after more than a dozen years of silence, the sudden explosion of takedown demands being fired at Google? Or the fact that takedown notices are filled up with mostly obscure sites that practically no one has ever heard of -- no one, that is, except for the people who read Chilling Effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sending a "takedown" notice to Google search only results in the URL being removed from search engines.
It doesn't end up in "the actual content" being removed. Not unless the site hosting it is also owned by Google.
Seems to me the people filing the DMCA notices need to send notices to whoever is HOSTING the infringing contents in the first place.
When the content is removed from the host server, the URLs become useless anyway.
Maybe the DMCA filers should be less concerned about the URLs and more concerned about the content host.
I've filed my own share of DMCA notices. First, if the site carries advertising and the advertising company has an avenue for DMCA, I file with them. After that, I contact the site owner directly. Then, I file with the webhosting company of the website owner asking for removal of the hosted content from the server. And let the DMCA service do it's job, which it usually does.
I file a DMCA with Google Search. Once the content is removed from the host, I don't really care if the URL is still in search or not. It might be faster to get the URL removed from search, but it's an effort that is useless if the content still exists.
To go any further isn't worth the effort for me.
As for the Copyright Alliance, they don't represent me. Nor would I want them to, since almost everything I've read about them appears to make them almost clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not even being told repeatedly that Google is used for only a tiny fraction of torrent searches
will alter their delusion. Google makes money. Google does not pay tribute. Therefore Google must be a Pirate.
Bing, being run by Microsoft, is "one of their own". They ignore that the users of Bing are clueless technophobes
like they are. That young people use specialized search engines rather than either Google or Bing.
They just want the Internet turned into Television 2.0 so they can get these consumers to shut up
like they used to.
The desire to address a passive AUDIENCE is why they cannot create something like Spotify or Netflix
in spite of having an larger pool of content to draw from. They cannot deal with user CHOICE let
alone users talking to each other without them being in between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I "DON'T" file a DMCA with Google Search. Once the content is removed from the host, I don't really care if the URL is still in search or not. It might be faster to get the URL removed from search, but it's an effort that is useless if the content still exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should have noted that corrections to the main article are carried out when someone points out an error. However this is acknowledged by a reply to the note of an error, and if necessary an updated note is added to the article.
The point is, it is very useful to be able to follow a conversation, including any corrections to posts. Correcting the main article is reasonable as that is all some people read, but it is done in a way that what happened is visible in the comments for anyone following them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You want public accountability?
I'm all for making all of this public because 99.9% of the DMCA notices are totally legit. Lets put these infringers in the public stocks. Lets shame them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You want public accountability?
If it were a laptop worth a few hundred pounds that was stolen, police would be called. However, reveal in front of many people that you downloaded a cracked copy of Photoshop - also worth hundreds - and not only would no police show up, it is highly likely that anybody calling the police to report the theft would themselves be arrested for wasting police time. There is an unspoken rule that everybody knows here: "this is an obvious wild goose chase". If one reports to the rights holders, one will get many rants thrown back about how there are "too many out there to sue", or even "I'm just going to look like a dick if I sue".
That's why nobody reports, and even when there is info obtained (it is not too difficult to see the IP addresses of BitTorrent users), there is something called "I am Spartacus" that always comes into play. Rights holders simply can't get everybody.
I could walk up to the offices of the MPAA, yell to them that I am downloading an MP3 without paying, and they will most likely not do a thing.
A law is only as good as the people who follow it. If the attitude changed and people started respecting copyright more, rights holders wouldn't have such a tough time - but my objection is this: an economic system that calls itself copyright does not have a lot of integrity if it SOLELY depends on the attitudes of the consumer to function instead of the "practical" legal tools it SHOULD be functioning on, since global, god-like policing of property is realistically impossible and easily exploitable. In theory, copyright is supposed to work. In practice, it is laughable as the war on drugs.
An assurance contract is the only way an artist is going to be able to protect his property. Living in this utopian alternative where profits are assumed on trust instead of guaranteed before the creation's existence is, ultimately, damaging to the artist. The artist's faith in copyright is what causes his misery. If he names whatever price he chooses in his assurance contract, he will always be sure. And everyone else would suffer from a free-rider problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You want public accountability?
Go back to choking on Cary Sherman's dick, bobmail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You want public accountability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You want public accountability?
This means that if it comes under fair use, or is something you have no rights to, you don't get to avoid justice as you currently do.
Furthermore, let's make a "three strikes" for DMCA abuses. Three false requests in one year and you can't make any more takedown demands that year. Let's even make it a graduated response:
First 3: No DMCA requests for 12 months.
Second 3: No DMCA requests for 3 years.
Final 3: DMCA requests BANNED.
It cannot be disputed that there are far too many illegitimate takedown requests. This would give the groups making these fraudulent requests an incentive to police their methods, as well as punish those who abuse the law (if perhaps giving them a little too much leeway). This can only be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You want public accountability?
Evidence, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You want public accountability?
Asking bob for evidence? Good one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First of all it's not a legal 'right'. It's a privilege. Congress has the legal right to grant these monopolies but is not compelled to.
"The activities of chillingeffects.org are repugnant to the purposes of Section 512."
Secondly, that's the whole purpose of freedom of the press and democracy. So that the public can discuss and have a say in how we are governed. If we don't like how the law is allowing you to abuse your legal monopoly privilege we have a right to speak up and criticize you for it and to demand the law be changed. Laws should be passed democratically, just because IP extremists have managed to undermine the democratic process and get bad laws passed (ie: 95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions) and the politicians and courts are bought and paid for through campaign contributions, revolving door favors, and other lobbying efforts (like taking lawmakers and judges on extravagant dinners) doesn't mean that you should be able to abuse our broken legal system without any criticism. So a website comes up calling out all of your abuses and you are upset that people are criticizing you about it. You should be thankful our bought and paid for legal system doesn't sufficiently punish you for your abuses. Infringement fines completely outweigh fines for false takedown notices and the opposite should be the case, not to mention the chances of someone getting fined for a false takedown notice seems to be very low.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to write the laws and abuse those laws without anyone criticizing you for it. You truly have no regard for morality whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are clear penalties spelled out for everyone involved in this system except for those who make claims in violation of the law.
Repugnant is a system so broken that made up corporations can steal money from others creations.
Repugnant is a system that allowed a company to claim ownership of a bird song, not once but twice.
Repugnant is for all of the screaming about a legal process actually being transparent, they obfuscate their finances so much that they can plead poverty while paying this group anything.
Repugnant is that we have systems in place today that allow for global distribution and next to no cost, and these idiots pretend that it doesn't exist.
Perhaps it is time we enforce perjury charges on the claimants of bogus takedowns and screw the idea that a computer be allowed to circumvent the provision to hold them accountable for making false claims.
If you don't like the internet, walk the fsck away... I double dog dare you. They seem to think they can function without it, let them try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subsequently with the help of the police my family and I were able to remove these images from these porn forums and blogs. However even though the blogs are deleted/closed, google continues to warehouse these images at urls terminating on their blogger platform. FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS google has refused ALL legal requests to remove these illegal underage images.
I have found Google to be a EVIL corporation. It funds a puppet organization called Chillingeffects.org which is a baseless academic organization engaging in spurious academic drivel. chillingeffects.org acts as the single largest repository of active links to illegal content including ILLEGAL UNDERAGED PORNOGRAPHIC images hosted on Google servers and platforms such as blogger.
Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Sergey Brin and the individuals who work for them are evil people who along with fraudulent organizations such as chillingeffects.org make it almost impossible to remove illegal pornography from their porn hosting platforms such as Blogger and from their search results. They are minting tons of cash on the misery of others.
The world needs to know about how these evil individuals make their billions. I no longer use any google products and I suggest you do not either. These unethical evil individuals do not deserve any of our goodwill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]