'Notice And Staydown' The Latest Fad In Copyright Enforcement
from the dedicated-follower-of-fashion dept
Among governments, bad digital policy ideas have a habit of spreading. For example, after France pioneered the "three strikes" approach, it was picked up by a number of other countries, but it is now finally dying a long-overdue death -- except in Australia, which evidently missed the memo that this approach demonstrably doesn't work. Now the latest fashion seems to be "notice and staydown", which Mike wrote about a couple of months back. After largely abandoning "three strikes", France may be signing up for this latest hot trend, as TorrentFreak reports:
French anti-piracy agency HADOPI handed the government a long-awaited report on the development of "operational tools" for dealing with online piracy. Several key areas are outlined, including the creation of a new type of takedown notice designed not only to take content offline, but keep it offline for up to six months.
Here are some details:
These notices would oblige a host to "stop and prevent, for a specified period, the reappearance of content that has been identified as constituting an infringement of copyright or related rights on the site."
Although the "staydown" would be for up to six months, rather than forever, as proposed in the US, it's easy to predict future demands from the copyright industry to extend that limit when it doesn't have the desired results, and to include BitTorrent indexes as well. And there's no way smaller companies and startups could cope with the huge task of monitoring uploads for things that have to "staydown". All-in-all, then, this seems destined to join "three strikes" in the digital dustbin of history, along with all the other failed enforcement approaches. The question is: what will be the next bad idea governments adopt?
It's suggested that these kinds of orders could be valid for up to six months but at least initially would only be directed at sites hosting actual files, not links to files such as in the case of BitTorrent indexes.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, france, hadopi, notice and staydown
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When I see stuff this this for copyright, I go out and load up on my favorite shows.
Maybe the MPAA and the RIAA are actually trying to get us to download their shows and music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.gov sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/Almost sarc but ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this supposed to actually work?
So the uploader now trims .1 seconds of video off the end, generating content X2, whose checksum will not match, and uploads that. How is any host supposed to figure this out? (Note that the modification could be even smaller: changing a single pixel in a single frame would also modify the checksum.)
Sure, differential comparison would reveal that X1 and X2 differ only slightly, but unlike a checksum, which can be computed once and reused, determining that X1 and X2...and X3 and X4 and Xn are or aren't likely the same would become computationally intractable as n becomes large.
I wonder if the proponents of this measure have thought through all this and have realized that the only way to comply will be full manual review -- which will slow the posting of content to a crawl. I wonder if that's really their goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this supposed to actually work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this supposed to actually work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this supposed to actually work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting the messenger
The most laughable part of all. You're going to go on sites like Youtube and take down what's probably legitimate content while the people who don't give a f#@! continue to actually watch your content for free.
At least in the past, as weak as their strategies may have been, at least it aimed toward the actual problem of piracy. It seems now you're just attacking everything and anything for the sake of attacking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the real question is: How much damage will governments do before they realize Hollywood is lost in its own fantasy world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Next
"The question is: what will be the next bad idea governments adopt?"
It will be equally bad, or worse, whatever it is; there is no bottom to this hole. MCAA and RIAA won't be happy until you pay for every second of music you sing in the shower for your own enjoyment, and every scrap of dialog you repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next
That will not achieve stay down because other people can upload the same content, and probably will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next
How is that easy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy to "cope" just employ the the innovative you so routinely tout. It ain't that hard to employ fingerprinting tech to UGC sites (and that's really what we're talking about.
So tired of this crap that somehow infringing content (whether music, movies, e-books, etc.) have a right to be online without permission of the rights holder. Keep using the same old tired whines about the RIAA/MPAA....They don't represent the majority of creators who are negatively impacted by content theft. Creators are sick and tired of piracy apologists trying to rationalize what is inherently (organized) theft for monetization. I don't give a crap about the little guys....just the sites (new or old) that are created using a business model built on theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's plenty of stuff that itnerests me on Hulu, that I would happily pay for...but it's not available in my country.
Also, you seem to have stolen those talking points. Did you pay for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is an argument almost nobody is making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who provides the originals, and via what means so that the fingerprinting can be carried out. Further are official releases identified, and how is fair use provided for. Fingerprinting is not easy, and distinguishing legal from infringing copies is even harder, even if a license database is provided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can't see how "innovation" like that would fail...but then again, what do YOU care? It's not like YOU have to pay for another failed experiment.
No go cry ME a river, and while you're at it, produce something worth buying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Finally someone who sees through these pirates. These thieves are so stupid. In fact, I can even guess their next argument: "But what about fair use, waaaaaa!" It's simple. You just innovate an AI that's as knowledgeable as IP lawyers and the Supreme Court combined that will detect if a use is fair or not. Haven't any of you ever pirated Electric Dreams? All you have to do is spill some soda on a keyboard. How hard can it be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet this is exactly what they claim in half their media campaigns. (Don't expect them to actually follow up though; that would require actually paying the artists with the money from RIAA settlements.)
created using a business model built on theft
So you would be against a business model designed to lock content creators out of their profits via contracts and legal coercion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to what i have just seen in my crystal ball the notice and stay down period length will be for more than the copyright duration length that we have now i.e. lifetime of owner plus 90 years (or whatever the number of years it is at the moment) which will be increased to lifetime minus one day if piracy still exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Staydown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]