FBI Wants To Make It Easier For You To Tell Your Customers They Might Be Felonious Pirates

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

The following may look familiar to you: It's the FBI's special "anti-piracy" warning. For the past few years, under a special "pilot" program, the FBI has allowed the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ESA and SIIA (basically, the big record labels, movie studios, video game makers and software companies) to make use of the logo to warn all of their customers that they just might be felons and the FBI might show up at any moment. It's pure FUD. It also makes no difference. Is there seriously anyone anywhere in the world who sees this logo and suddenly changes their behavior?

However, this program is about to expand in a big, big way. The FBI is about to release new rules (pdf and embedded below) that expand the program so that any copyright holder will be allowed to slap this logo on their product. Expect to start seeing it everywhere... and to feel that much more like the content creator you're legitimately buying from thinks you're a crook subject to federal law enforcement action. Way to "connect" with fans, huh?

The document from the FBI discussing this repeats a few times that the FBI really feels like this program is effective and important. Could they be any more out of touch?

First, the FBI believes that the APW Seal and accompanying warnings convey important messages to the public and are a significant component of its efforts to deter and to investigate federal crimes involving the piracy of intellectual property. Allowing use by copyright holders who are not members of industry associations will enhance those efforts. Second, although broader access may make unauthorized use more likely, this concern is overshadowed by the value of increasing public awareness of these prohibitions and the FBI’s role in investigating related criminal activity.

There are all sorts of issues with this. The first is that this whole campaign is ignoring a key point: nearly all copyright infringement is a civil infraction, not a criminal one. Most ordinary users don't understand the difference between civil and criminal infringement -- and the FBI and its silly seal do nothing to explain that difference. It's pretty clear that the purpose is to falsely imply that sharing with a friend music you legally purchased might somehow lead you to being targeted in an FBI sting operation. It's FUD, plain and simple. Second, the idea that spreading this logo further will deter actual criminal infringement? Are they serious? Remember, one of the requirements for criminal copyright infringement is that the action is willful. That means that the person knows they're breaking the law. So educating them on the fact that they're breaking the law... er... shouldn't make much of a difference.

Finally, notice that nowhere does the FBI provide any data on how effective this program has been. Because there isn't any. The MPAA shows this logo before movies, and it's not like there has been any less infringement. In fact, the FBI and ICE recently decided to double up and extend the warnings on DVDs , and it's not like that made a difference either. No, instead, all it's done is piss off tons of legitimate customers, who paid good money for the content, only to be interrupted by a giant FBI logo warning them that they may be criminals facing federal charges. The FBI even admits: "it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the APW Seal program at preventing piracy," but apparently that won't stop it from expanding it. Who in their right mind thinks this is a sensible strategy?

Either way, it's interesting to read through the comments and feedback on this program -- including someone who suggested that the FBI should make sure the warning is skippable at the beginning of movies (the FBI notes that's up to the film producers) or another one that says this seal should be mandatory on copyright-protected works (the FBI rightly points out it has no such authority). Repeatedly, when people raise issues of more widespread use of the seal (dilution, confusion, belief that works without the seal aren't protected, etc.) the FBI insists that the supposed benefits of blanketing the universe with this logo far outweigh any downsides.

There were also concerns raised that the logo will have serious chilling effects on fair use -- which is definitely a major possibility. And the FBI's response is ridiculous.

Five comments also expressed a concern that the broader accessibility of the APW Seal may have a “chilling effect” on fair use, as some copyright holders may attempt to use the APW Seal to discourage uses of their copyrighted work that would otherwise be permissible under the fair use doctrine. The FBI fully recognizes that fair use, which is authorized under Title 17, United States Code, Section 107, does not constitute infringement, much less a federal crime. The warning language does not suggest otherwise. The FBI intends to address this matter on its public website.

Because we all know that everyone who sees the logo will go to the FBI's website and read the fine print at the bottom of the page.

Of course, what's really crazy in all of this is that the FBI is famous for having an itchy trigger finger when anyone uses its normal logo. Remember, this is the same FBI that, just two years ago, sent a threat letter to Wikipedia, because the Wikipedia page on the FBI shows the FBI logo (leading to an awesome reply from Wikimedia General Counsel, Mike Godwin).

Honestly, the whole thing is silly, but because of this kind of cluelessness, expect to see those pointless FBI warning logos on all sorts of content in the future, so that every time you legitimately purchase content, you'll be reminded that the copyright holder thinks you're a lousy stinking thief who deserves a federal investigation. I'm still trying to figure out how that could possibly be good for business, but I guess I just don't understand copyright...

Filed Under: anti-piracy, chilling effect, fair use, fbi, warning
Companies: bsa, esa, mpa, riaa, siia

Will The Failures Of SOPA & ACTA Highlight The End Of The MPAA & RIAA's Disproportionate Influence On Policy?

from the this-isn't-industry-vs.-the-public dept

Following the rejection of ACTA and the surprising USTR recognition of copyright exceptions and limitations, Harold Feld has a really worthwhile postgame analysis that highlights why pretty much every other industry (and the US government) should be pissed off at the MPAA and the RIAA. Basically, he points out that there were aspects of reasonableness in those efforts: some of the parts focused on real counterfeiting. But because the MPAA and RIAA decided to use an incredibly heavy-handed approach to get the US government to include totally unrelated copyright issues among them, both proposals completely flopped. If those efforts had just focused on the issue of real harm -- true counterfeit products that are confusing people and even putting lives at risk -- no one would be opposed. But due to this ongoing desire to conflate copyright infringement with counterfeit drugs, they overplayed their hand -- and all of that effort is now wasted.

Keep in mind that the majority of people working for USTR don’t like to waste effort any more than the rest of us, and the realization that a significant portion of the rest of the world may reject whatever final deal negotiators agree to if it goes too far on copyright is no doubt causing many to rethink their positions. In addition, USTR has many other industries it services besides Hollywood. They need trade agreements — and USTR is required to negotiate these. The Hollywood crazy train on intellectual property enforcement now very visibly threatens the ability to get future trade agreements ratified by Congress or by foreign governments. The manufacturing sector, the retail sector, and others that have until now tolerated Hollywood’s demands in the interest of maintaining a united industry front will not sacrifice their own international trade interests for the Entertainment industry — and will push USTR to negotiate agreements that actually have a chance at ratification.

This, obviously, seems like a good thing. As he notes, the USTR now has a lot of incentives to actually be more open and to listen to those who helped kill off SOPA and ACTA. If they actually want to have their proposals mean something, they might as well start talking to those who have the influence to do something meaningful. And that's less and less the RIAA and the MPAA.

Of course, this goes even further than that. While Feld talks up the increasing importance of activists in the conversation, I'd argue that it should also lead to most other industries pushing back on the RIAA/MPAA's crazy demands as well. Perhaps the US Chamber of Commerce will start to reconsider pushing the RIAA/MPAA point of view when it's clearly harmful to the interests of most other industries.

Filed Under: acta, hollywood, pipa, sopa, ustr
Companies: chamber of commerce, mpaa, riaa

USTR's Surprise Turnaround: Now Advocating Limitations & Exceptions To Copyright

from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-ron-kirk? dept

One of the big complaints about ACTA and SOPA and the like was the extreme maximalist positions that they entailed, without recognizing the very important exceptions and limitations that can often be even more important in encouraging culture and creativity. The version of the US's recommendations on the IP chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that leaked last year, suggested a similar maximalist approach: all enforcement, all the time, no concern about limitations or exceptions.

In a somewhat surprising turnaround, the USTR has now admitted that it is actively embracing limitations and exceptions in its latest proposal around IP for TPP:

For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test," that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

Given the USTR's general lack of transparency and intellectually insulting attitude towards anyone who questions TPP and ACTA transparency, I don't trust the USTR on its commitment to this... but I have been hearing from multiple sources that the protests against SOPA and ACTA have had a big impact on the administration's thinking on intellectual property issues... and that the MPAA/RIAA folks are not at all happy about the latest version of the USTR's IP chapter. There have also been multiple assurances that the USTR will fight strongly to make sure that this language on exceptions remains in the agreement, even if some of its "advisers" from the legacy content industry don't like it. That suggests that maybe, just maybe, some voices of reason have gotten through to the USTR.

All that said, this requires very close scrutiny. And, of course, there's all sorts of things that can be hidden in the language -- which, of course, the USTR still has not revealed. In the interest of openness and making sure that these provisions actually are in the best interest of the public, it would be nice to actually have the USTR live up to its transparency commitments and publish the specific text that relates to these limitations and exceptions. On top of that, the so-called "3-step test" that the USTR mentions is somewhat limited (and a bit antiquated) in these modern times with an internet where things like mashups and remixing occur on a daily basis. It would obviously be a lot nicer if we actually moved forward with our limitations and exceptions to copyright law to bring them into the 21st century -- but having the USTR actually acknowledge such limitations and exceptions as an important part of the IP chapter on TPP is a huge (almost monumental) step forward.

Either way -- and I know that some people will never trust anything from the USTR considering how many bridges it has burned -- the USTR deserves at least some kudos for taking this surprising step, and hopefully it continues to recognize that this is an important issue. With further exploration, and further acknowledgement that the MPAA/RIAA's view of thew world is not the only one, perhaps the USTR can recognize that setting up a maximalist/protectionist plan does not help the US, the economy or creativity. Enabling a more functional system, including knocking down the barriers that copyright sometimes sets up, is a much more effective path.

Filed Under: acta, fair use, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas

from the ban-ban-bananas dept

We recently wrote about the RIAA's new war against software that can be used to record or download YouTube videos. As we noted, such software has substantial non-infringing uses, but the RIAA wants to ban it anyway. Michael Weinberg has a great response, in pointing out that just because something can be used illegally, it doesn't mean we ban it:

It is possible to use a banana to rob a bank.  It is also possible to use a phone to defraud people of millions of dollars.  But we do not make possession of a banana or the use of a phone illegal.  We make bank robbery and fraud illegal.  We do not outlaw bananas and phones because bananas and phones serve any number of socially useful services.  It would be dumb to outlaw them just because someone could use them in a bad way.

That’s why the test that the Supreme Court identified in the famous Betamax case is so useful.  As long as a technology is capable of “substantial noninfringing uses” we welcome it.  Because those substantial noninfringing uses are great to have, and we cannot stop innovation just because it can sometimes be abused.

On our last post about this, someone brought up the anti-circumvention issue, noting that if the software circumvents DRM, then under the DMCA it's illegal across the board. But all this really highlights is the insanity of the anti-circumvention provision and how it makes perfectly legitimate activity "copyright infringement." Think about it: if you use this to make a perfectly legal recording of some content, then none of the rights covered by copyright law have been infringed. And yet it's still illegal solely because of the circumvention? That makes no sense. How can it be illegal if no illegal copy was actually made?

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, drm
Companies: google, riaa, youtube

Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend [Updated]

from the just-what-we-need dept

Update: Dah. Got fooled on the date. Someone had sent that one anonymously, and we missed that the date was from back in March. Others are reporting the program won't go into effect until the fall.

At this point, it's no surprise, but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now confirmed that (as had been previously stated) the big ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon) will be ready to kick off their "six strikes" plan this weekend. Apparently, the idea of actually giving the public a seat at the table, and looking into whether or not this made sense, wasn't seriously considered. Of course, none of this will do anything to bring revenue back to RIAA or MPAA members. It won't even do anything to stop infringement in the long term. As always, people will figure out ways around this. We've already seen the massive failure of an even stricter program, Hadopi, in France. Can anyone seriously claim that this will somehow work better in the US? Instead, it won't be long until we hear the stories of false accusations, or families who have their internet connection limited or locked down because a neighbor maybe downloaded some infringing content. Little Susie needs to do some research for her homework? Not tonight, kids. Hollywood has to teach you a lesson. Of course, the only real lesson is that the entertainment industry needs to stop blaming customers, and start looking inward, at its own failure to innovate. Pissing people off by limiting their internet connections is not a productive path forward.

Filed Under: cary sherman, hadopi, isp, six strikes
Companies: comcast, mpaa, riaa, time warner, verizon

RIAA's New War: Shutting Down The Equivalent Of Internet VCRs

from the the-virtual-boston-strangler dept

The entertainment industry just won't quit trying to kill perfectly legal technologies with substantial non-infringing uses. Back during the big legal fight over Grokster, the RIAA insisted that it had absolutely no interest in stopping technologies people used to record things. In fact, Consumer Electronics Association CEO Gary Shapiro reminded them of this promise after the RIAA went after XM Radio's device to record broadcasts. It appears that the RIAA has no problem continuing to go against its word. Its latest move is to send a letter to CNET, asking it to remove tools from Download.com that can be used to record videos from YouTube. Of course, there a tons of legitimate uses for such tools. Just as you can legally record shows off of TV (thank you Supreme Court), you should be able to record stuff on YouTube (related: shame on Google for blocking such tools as well).

Of course, from the parts of the RIAA's request that have been made public by Greg Sandoval at CNET, it sounds like the RIAA isn't directly making a legal threat (which would be tough, given CNET's role as a fourth party service provider for third party tools which might be used to infringe), but rather appealing to its parent company, CBS, arguing that because such tools and their substantial non-infringing uses might also be used to record CBS content (again, just like the VCR), that they should want to put an end to them.. Thankfully, it sounds like CNET has no interest in complying.

However, given the RIAA's promises during the Grokster case that it had no interest in blocking such technologies, it seems that, once again, the RIAA has been shown as liars who have no compunction about blocking perfectly legal technologies, just because they haven't figured out how to adapt to modern times.

Filed Under: gary shapiro, recording, supreme court
Companies: cbs, cnet, google, grokster, riaa, youtube

Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable

from the out-of-touch dept

In the latest round of the fight over how much Jammie Thomas-Rasset should pay for sharing 24 songs online, we have the federal government weighing in to say that $1.5 million for those 24 songs is perfectly reasonable and Constitutional. Must help that the White House Solicitor General was previously a litigator for the RIAA in the case, huh (though, he did not write the filing)?

If you don't recall, there are statutory rates for copyright infringement, which are ridiculously high, and it seems reasonable to question if those awards, which seem totally disproportionate to any "damages," could be seen as excessive under the Constitution.

The district court judge, Michael Davis, clearly felt so. Ditto Judge Nancy Gertner in the Joel Tenenbaum case. However, the government apparently is going to argue that the statutory rate is the statutory rate and we must respect that. The argument is basically the same behind the implementation for statutory rates in the first place. To paraphrase: "man, it's freaking hard to have to show actual damages (since there might not be any) and thus we shouldn't have to do that -- but should just be able to use these crazy high numbers." This argument seems silly frankly. It's basically saying that even if you could look at damages, you should never have to. That's a big part of the problem. It leads to cases like this where people are heavily pressured to settle just to avoid the risk of crazy high statutory damages.

But where the government's argument goes off the rails, is the idea that when it comes to statutory damages, there's never a due process question over whether the rates are excessive. That makes no sense, but it's the argument being made:

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the Due Process Clause does not require that the statutory damage award be proportional to the actual harm defendant has caused the plaintiff. Defendant attempts to derive this rule from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). But as the district court held, Williams, not Gore, establishes the applicable framework for determining whether an award of statutory damages under the Copyright Act comports with due process.

Gore is inapposite. It imposes limitations on a jury’s authority to award punitive damages in circumstances where the legislature has not constrained the jury’s discretion. It thus requires that the jury award not be grossly disproportionate to the plaintiff’s injury or defendant’s misconduct. Absent such limitations, the Gore Court reasoned, defendants could not have fair, constitutionally sufficient notice of the magnitude of potential sanctions.

The Gore framework, however, does not apply to a statutory regime in which Congress has specified in advance the range of appropriate damages. In that circumstance, the statute itself supplies the constitutionally required notice deemed missing in Gore. Moreover, unlike jury awards of punitive damages, an award of statutory damages is based on legislative judgments that must be accorded deference by the reviewing court. Williams, not Gore, sets forth the appropriate standards for conducting such review.

To summarize this argument, it's that Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates, and no one can ever question if those rates are "excessive." Effectively, it's saying that Congress doesn't have to obey the Constitution. That makes no sense. And yes, it relies on this Supreme Court ruling from 1919, which is a pretty narrow ruling, concerning conditions under which you could measure such regulatory fines against the due process clause. However, this argument really tries to make that case do a hell of a lot more than it was designed to do -- while also trying to pretend that a whole series of other cases involving excessive fines as they relate to due process don't matter.

Either way, the end result is that the administration is effectively saying that a $1.5 million award for sharing 24 songs isn't just perfectly legal and reasonable, but that it's what Congress intended. All it really does is reiterate just how out of touch the White House is to reality.

Filed Under: jammie thomas-rasset, joel tenenbaum, michael davis, nancy gertner, statutory damages
Companies: riaa

RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites

from the kicking-and-screaming dept

Cary Sherman, RIAA boss, is testifying before Congress on Wednesday morning, and (not surprisingly) he uses the opportunity to whine about those dirty pirates again, while asking Congress to buck up and do something. To his credit, it appears that Sherman (or one of his PR handlers) has realized that the combative and confrontational approach he took right after SOPA and PIPA died. He got a ton of backlash for that, and has since tried to be a little less condescending.

Thus, he starts out by talking about all the new business models and modern services that the record labels have adopted and licensed. Of course, he also says that CDs are not digital, so he's a bit confused about the technology. He also leaves out the fact that the labels had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, all the way to agree to the various services that he talks up -- and even then, its stance in negotiating licensing deals with them has been to try to strangle any service that gets too popular. He also talks up the recently negotiated royalty rates between labels, publishers and some digital music services -- leaving out the fact that they include royalty rates on things that don't require royalties (like mere music storage lockers).

But, in the end, Sherman is a one-trick pony, and back to that trick he goes. After talking about all of this "voluntary" innovation they've done -- and highlighting the various "voluntary" six strikes deal, as well as advertising putting together a blacklist of "rogue" sites they won't advertise on -- Sherman goes back to whining about how "piracy" must be stopped. He starts out by, yet again, misleading and misrepresenting what's happening. He talks about how there's less revenue from music sales -- but ignores that more money has gone into music itself, once you look at the massive increase in live music. He ignores the fact that people are actually spending more on enjoying music today than ever before in the past. The idea that people aren't paying is simply wrong.

And then he has the ridiculous gall to suggest less music is getting out to the world because of this:

What kind of harm? Massive layoffs, of course. But also less money to invest in artists. That means fewer artists on our rosters, fewer people who can make a living from music, fewer songs permeating through our culture that help form a piece of our national identity.

That's ridiculous. Look at any credible data, and you see that more music is being created today than ever before. More artists are making money today from music than ever before. And you know how songs can better permeate through our culture and help form a piece of our national identity? Well, here's a hint: by not locking up that music, by allowing it to be shared and played and heard. But that's not how the RIAA works.

He brings up the record labels favorite talking point these days: which is that fewer people list themselves as full time musicians in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This is, at best, a red herring. This is a time of transition, and certainly the labels are funding fewer musicians. But new business models are growing rapidly and while they may not be funding as many full time musicians (yet), they are helping more musicians make some money. And, as we've seen over and over again, the trend on these new platforms is that they're growing and able to fund more and more, as they grow. It's a classic innovator's dilemma situation. Similarly, the deeper you dig into the BLS numbers, the more interesting things you find. For example, there's been a massive increase in independent artists. But, the big labels that the RIAA represents don't want you to know that.

He then goes on to claim that enforcement works -- and uses Limewire and MegaUpload as examples. He notes the correlation between growth in sales after Limewire's shut down, and suggests "it is not a coincidence" the two things happened at the same time (though, other reports note the release of some very popular albums at the same time). He also insists that a survey of Limewire users claims they didn't sign up for any other unauthorized service. That's something more like wishful thinking. The data actually suggests there continues to be a pretty big growth in unauthorized sharing. The death of Limewire looks like a temporary blip. Also, if you were a former Limewire user, and a research firm representing the guys who shut it down came and asked you what you were using now, how many of you would point your finger to the new service you found so they could shut it down? Exactly.

As for Megaupload, nice work by the RIAA to support a case that is rapidly falling apart for the US, where it looks increasingly like the US didn't even come close to following the law in shutting down a site that had significant non-infringing uses. And, of course, he leaves out the fact that it was the RIAA's own bogus evidence, which they could never back up, that resulted in a hip hop blog, Dajaz1, being shut down and censored for over a year. That's the kind of enforcement he's supporting?

And then there's the push for a new SOPA:

These voluntary programs are not a panacea. No program ever will be. And sometimes, the Congress must step in to assure that our property rights, and U.S. economic interests, are being protected. Especially against sites overseas whose business model is the theft of U.S. works.

Funny that he says this right after talking about the success in shutting down Megaupload -- which didn't (according to the RIAA or the feds) require any new action from Congress.

He also continues to take shots at the tech industry, and at search in particular. After talking about things like the six strikes program and the ad blacklist, he notes:

We hope other intermediaries like search engines will follow suit in negotiating voluntary marketplace best practices to prevent directing users to sites that are dedicated to violating property rights.

Of course, this ignores the realities of the situation, in which you can't just block out sites because the RIAA doesn't like them. The RIAA has a long and detailed history of blaming perfectly legitimate products for being "illegal." Remember, this is the same group that sued to kill the first MP3 player. And now they want the search engines to just trust them in determining which sites are evil and which are good? It doesn't work that way.

He then points out that he wants to "reach out" to "the tech and Internet communities." He could just say, you know, "the public." Also, I'm trying to figure out why Sherman, Dodd and others keep talking about reaching out, but never actually do. Once again, it's not at all difficult to get into a discussion online. Why don't they ever do it?

Sherman also uses the opportunity to once again push for a RIAA bailout from radio, by forcing a tax to advertise their music. The RIAA has been pushing for this tax for years and it makes no sense. The labels know that radio is free advertising for them. It's why they're so often accused of payola. Because they know that if they get their songs on the radio, there's massive value in that and lots of ways to monetize it. So they pay ridiculous sums of money to "promoters" who pass that along to radio people to get the songs on the air. And now they're claiming that the labels need to be paid if the radios play that same music? It's insanity.

Either way, it's still more of the same. Until Cary Sherman is replaced by someone who actually spends time on the internet, the RIAA is going to increasingly represent a smaller and smaller portion of the music industry. The new music industry -- including tons of new artists, new music services, and even new labels, know that the RIAA's focus is on the past, not the future.

Filed Under: cary sherman, chris dodd, congress, pipa, rogue sites, sopa
Companies: limewire, megaupload, riaa

RIAA Can't Figure Out Google's Takedown Tools; Blames Google

from the pebkac dept

With the release of Google's copyright transparency report recently, which helped highlight some astoundingly stupid DMCA takedown notices -- including a few from the RIAA -- you just knew the RIAA would have to lash out in response. But the question was what angle would it take. Now we know: it's simply making things up.

The RIAA put up a blog post in which it listed out "five facts" to attack Google's transparency report claims. Except, this is RIAA math. If you actually read the "facts" you realize they're basically two points repeated over and over again: (1) Google limits how many searches they can do to find infringing material. (2) Google limits how many infringing domains it can report via its Webmaster tools.

There's a big problem with both of those claims (beyond the fact that "two" does not equal "five"). It's that neither "fact" appears to be really accurate. Google does have some tools that limit crawlers from automated searches, and perhaps the RIAA has been using such tools to try to find infringement. That would certainly explain its decision to DMCA reviews from media sites of musicians, or official release videos from artists' own accounts. Of course, that would also subject the RIAA to claims of falsifying DMCA notices, since they have to swear that they have a good faith belief that there really is infringing material on those sites, and they can't do that if they don't actually look at them.

As for the limits on submissions, well, as Ars Technica points out the only "limit" appears to be how many URLs can be submitted in a single submission. That seems to be 1,000 per shot:
But there's no indication that you can't just go back and then list out the next 1,000. There may be a few other safeguards within a separate program that Google has with "trusted" partners, but even then it appears to just be how many URLs can be submitted in a single batch, rather than a total limit. In fact, as Google told SearchEngineLand, the RIAA is simply wrong, and there are no actual restrictions besides how many URLs can be submitted at once:

We have never imposed any limit on the number of DMCA notices that a copyright owner or reporting organization may send us, although we do have some technical safeguards in our trusted partner program (where submitters may be using automated mechanisms to send large volumes) as a safeguard against accidental flooding of the system.

And if you need any more proof that the RIAA is completely full of it, you just need to look at Google's own transparency report, where it shows that Microsoft filed more than five times as many DMCA takedowns as the RIAA and NBC Universal filed twice as many:


It seems that even if there was "a limit", which there does not appear to be, then the RIAA is not coming anywhere close to that limit anyway.

In other words, we can sum up the RIAA's complaint about Google's copyright transparency report as being "the transparency report is wrong, because we're clueless about how to work your tools." Given the RIAA's general (lack of) understanding about technology, perhaps that's not too surprising. But it is amusing to see them so stringently and publicly display their ignorance.

Filed Under: dmca, takedown, transparency report
Companies: google, riaa

Regina Spektor: I'm Lucky That People Can Get All My Music For Free

from the spread-the-love dept

We recently wrote about how both Amanda Palmer and Steve Albini think that file sharing is great for musicians. In the comments to that post, dwg pointed us to a new interview with musician Regina Spektor. The whole interview is interesting, but at the end there's a tidbit on how she feels about file sharing:

"I grew up poor, and there are a lot of people that grew up a lot poorer than I am," Spektor says. "Though, to me, I think that if somebody doesn't have an easy life, they should at least have access to free books and film and music. I think that I feel very lucky to live in this time where people can go online and get everything I've ever made, whether they have a lot of money or not.

"So much of the music that I found out about — whether it was late, it's better than never — was through people burning CDs for me and people making cassette mixes for me and people giving it to me for free. I feel really grateful that people can just type in my name and listen to things that I made. I feel so lucky for that."

Of course, I would imagine that her music label, Sire Records, a subsidiary of Warner Music, might not appreciate her saying that. Still, it's good to see more artists speaking out on this topic and combating the silly "sharing is theft" argument that the RIAA wants everyone to believe.

Filed Under: file sharing, free music, regina spektor
Companies: riaa, sire records, warner music