Plus, you can manuelly extend this for your own work. In the past, copyright had this too, where you manuelly extend them if you want your work to be extended. It shouldn't be automatic for these to remain protected even when the holder “abandons” their work.
Look at copyright law, it is extended beyond necessity, and the people behind this are maximalists that not only are greedy, they also abused it and even in some cases used it in illegal purposes like fraudulent takedowns on youtube (there are penalties for submitting false takedowns under section 512 of the DMCA). At the same time, many works remain in copyright when their authors are no longer supporting or even enforcing them in the future (abandonware video games, for example), which makes this pointless for them to be in-copyright.
And the history of privacy issues keeps on growing. If you have noticed, looking at this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook on the “contents” list, Privacy issues has the BIGGEST listings than all other subsections in the list.
Its a store that forbids people wearing clothing having pockets.
Here is one: Lets stop shoplifting by forcing all customers to wear pocket-less shirts and pants, and also purses because those acts as concealment to bypass our security RF detectors.
Re: not all copyright holders have the same enforcement lengths
While disney wanted to continue copyright enforcement, not all holders would do. But the law automatically enables all copyrights to last this ludicrous length, reguardless if they’re actually enforcing them or not.
It makes no sense for when the copyright on a product continues to be in-copyright, when the holder neglects enforcing the product and therefore, in copyright, in-name only.
This means that copyright protection last far longer than the holder is willing to enforce them. 75+ years of protection, vs 5-20 years of enforcement.
There are other copyright departments that also have issues that forces you to join the pirate party. One good example is what farmers are experiencing with John Deere's licensing scheme to monopolize repairs. Several of them, had to switch to Ukraine cracked software, and you guessed it, go to the high seas.
This pretty much explains that video games are like food that have a shelf life. For games that don't rely on a server (as in, don't use always-online DRM or require periodic “authentication”), they are only (legally) available for a limited time (as long as it is being developed and sold), but once you bought it, you don't have to worry about the company having the ability to essentially destroy the game you bought.
Not so with games that do require internet connection to the server. Only a few companies would patch out the DRM to make the game useable after the end-of-support of the DRM.
What cause games to no longer be available is because:
-Company goes out of business
-Company gives up support of their works, couldn't upkeep the game.
-The license to use other IPs (movies, TV shows, comics, etc.) have expired. I can't stress this enough that lots of old games end up biting the dust and people wanting to play these games are FORCED to pirate these games. This also includes region-exclusive games.
And companies wonder why people pirate. Copyright is portrayed as the problem, and piracy as the solution.
When companies abuse copyright law:
-Sony BMG and FlightSimLabs thought its a good idea to go vigilante over their DRM to spy on users.
-John Deere trying to monopolize repairs by exploiting how contract EULA laws work.
It's now getting obvious that now copyright law is now anti-user.
Diffused a bomb... Hopefully it won't explode in the future.
Looks like the court is slowly now understanding that these trolls are trying to turn the system into a cash machine instead of copyright's true purpose. Just recently, an article is published on torrentfreak (https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-shields-internet-subscribers-from-futile-piracy-complaints-191028 / ) that a court denied the request of the handover of the subscriber's information by Strike 3 Holdings. They KNEW that this troll is desperately trying milk off of alleged infringers, the fact that:
-Evidence is weak, relying only on IP addresses, such a rush.
-The troll did not use other copyright enforcement action options, like sending a DMCA to the ISP to stop the alleged pirate. Knowing that these other options cannot be used to make money.
So much for the copyright industry wanting to more legal restrictions against the public on top of overzealous DRM and EULA already in effect, along with trying to go against fair use. They're getting a taste of their own medicine.
Good for you (sorry for this late reply). Tell them to spread the word to all other places.
I don't think even forbidding all posts is enough, since a false DMCA can happen to ANY content, there is still a possible for an entire site to be nuked.
The hosting company they use is Vultr Holdings, LLC. Please leave a negative review for that company for overzealous voluntary copyright enforcement in their own hands that is above the law like this. Other hosting companies would rather “lock up” the site and unlock it once the DMCA notices are addressed. Instead this company thought it's a good idea to increase the pressure to include a zero-tolerance policy that a “single strike” (in contrast of youtube's 3 strikes) should perma-ban this site off the network; expecting web owners to look over user's shoulder to make sure no infringing materials posted on there BEFORE a DMCA notice should happen.
I can imagine if DMCA attacks were rampant on this, NOBODY should use this service, same goes to ProFreeHost for attacking LEGAL torrent files, and google removing “kodi” off the search term but not removing YouTube videos promoting infringing videos. I don't think even if the site forbids all posts to the site, all it takes is a false DMCA to kill a website.
“...the DMCA immunizes online service providers from claims of copyright infringement based on materials uploaded to the services by users, if the services promptly remove allegedly infringing materials upon receipt of notices from copyright holders.”
“Again, YouTube works hard to prevent this sort of abuse, but sometimes does not succeed.”
This encourages the “act now, check later/never” approach when something had to be done without thought. It's like a fire alarm or killswitch without any safeguards to prevent accidental activations.
I was thinking of instead of deleting material off the internet when a takedown or lawsuit occurs, instead to be backed-up in a private government place, while the takedown notices is publicly view-able. Copyright holders or any person acting on behalf are not to eradicate any material or site to be taken down.
This private place is like prison, but for copyrighted materials (including websites if the site gets shut down) instead of persons, that are taken down. Regardless if found infringing or not, WILL be preserved here, once proven legal or enters public domain, is released from the government's storage place. Maybe the Library of Congress could open this new place if this type of change of copyright were to happen.
The reason for this is because not only for obviously to add a restitution for victims of false takedowns, but also because copyright doesn't last forever, so copyright infringing materials are no longer an infringement once it expires, in the future. So it shouldn't be permanently deleted.
On the post: Nintendo Gets 'Dreams' Mario Taken Down Because Of Course It Did
Re: So Mario is Nintendo's “Michey Mouse”
Also somewhat reminiscent to this: https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-sues-harry-potter-running-club-over-copyright-infringement-2003 20/
On the post: Nintendo Gets 'Dreams' Mario Taken Down Because Of Course It Did
So Mario is Nintendo's “Michey Mouse”
One time, day care centers was hit with trademark threats.
I wonder if the same thing were to happen but with copyright law instead of trademark if there were paintings of Nintendo characters.
On the post: Everyone's Got A Pet Project: Patent Maximalist Says We Need Longer Patents To Incentivize Coronavirus Vaccines
Re: Just no.
Plus, you can manuelly extend this for your own work. In the past, copyright had this too, where you manuelly extend them if you want your work to be extended. It shouldn't be automatic for these to remain protected even when the holder “abandons” their work.
On the post: Everyone's Got A Pet Project: Patent Maximalist Says We Need Longer Patents To Incentivize Coronavirus Vaccines
Just no.
Look at copyright law, it is extended beyond necessity, and the people behind this are maximalists that not only are greedy, they also abused it and even in some cases used it in illegal purposes like fraudulent takedowns on youtube (there are penalties for submitting false takedowns under section 512 of the DMCA). At the same time, many works remain in copyright when their authors are no longer supporting or even enforcing them in the future (abandonware video games, for example), which makes this pointless for them to be in-copyright.
Already there are patent trolls (example: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/how-patent-sorting-photos-got-used-sue-free-software-group ).
How can we trust that these IP law changes are used in good faith?
On the post: Activision Tries To Bury Cover Art For New CoD Game Via Copyright Threat...So Let's All Look At It Together, Shall We?
This is similar to when a movie company took down a poster
This: https://torrentfreak.com/columbia-pictures-nukes-holmes-and-watson-posters-off-the-internet-180829/
On the post: Facebook Pays $550 Million Settlement In Illinois Facial Recognition Lawsuit, Which Could Pose Problems For Clearview
Typical Facebook
And the history of privacy issues keeps on growing. If you have noticed, looking at this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook on the “contents” list, Privacy issues has the BIGGEST listings than all other subsections in the list.
On the post: Take 2 Sues Fan Over Project To Finally Bring 'Red Dead 1' To The PC
Lets not forget about the Borderlands 3 incident
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/08/08/2k-sent-hired-goons-to-a-youtuber-over-borderlands-3-inf o-leaks/
On the post: Abbott Laboratories Sends Heavy-Handed Copyright Threat To Shut Down Diabetes Community Tool For Accessing Blood-Sugar Data
Reminds me of this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/pacemakers-and-piracy-why-dmca-has-no-business-medical-implant s
Sigh...
On the post: FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One
Its a store that forbids people wearing clothing having pockets.
Here is one: Lets stop shoplifting by forcing all customers to wear pocket-less shirts and pants, and also purses because those acts as concealment to bypass our security RF detectors.
On the post: Disney's Decision Not To Renew SecuROM License Bricks 'Tron: Evolution'
Re: not all copyright holders have the same enforcement lengths
While disney wanted to continue copyright enforcement, not all holders would do. But the law automatically enables all copyrights to last this ludicrous length, reguardless if they’re actually enforcing them or not.
On the post: Disney's Decision Not To Renew SecuROM License Bricks 'Tron: Evolution'
Re: Like seriously, abandonware is under threat
It makes no sense for when the copyright on a product continues to be in-copyright, when the holder neglects enforcing the product and therefore, in copyright, in-name only.
This means that copyright protection last far longer than the holder is willing to enforce them. 75+ years of protection, vs 5-20 years of enforcement.
On the post: Disney's Decision Not To Renew SecuROM License Bricks 'Tron: Evolution'
Re: It's not just game preservation.
There are other copyright departments that also have issues that forces you to join the pirate party. One good example is what farmers are experiencing with John Deere's licensing scheme to monopolize repairs. Several of them, had to switch to Ukraine cracked software, and you guessed it, go to the high seas.
On the post: Disney's Decision Not To Renew SecuROM License Bricks 'Tron: Evolution'
Saw this on youtube.
Jim sterling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yUmR6eQNrY
Yong Yea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir0sL-f-65c
This pretty much explains that video games are like food that have a shelf life. For games that don't rely on a server (as in, don't use always-online DRM or require periodic “authentication”), they are only (legally) available for a limited time (as long as it is being developed and sold), but once you bought it, you don't have to worry about the company having the ability to essentially destroy the game you bought.
Not so with games that do require internet connection to the server. Only a few companies would patch out the DRM to make the game useable after the end-of-support of the DRM.
What cause games to no longer be available is because:
-Company goes out of business
-Company gives up support of their works, couldn't upkeep the game.
-The license to use other IPs (movies, TV shows, comics, etc.) have expired. I can't stress this enough that lots of old games end up biting the dust and people wanting to play these games are FORCED to pirate these games. This also includes region-exclusive games.
And companies wonder why people pirate. Copyright is portrayed as the problem, and piracy as the solution.
On the post: The End Of Ownership, Military Edition: Even The US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment Without Right To Repair Laws
John Deere INTENSIFIES
When companies abuse copyright law:
-Sony BMG and FlightSimLabs thought its a good idea to go vigilante over their DRM to spy on users.
-John Deere trying to monopolize repairs by exploiting how contract EULA laws work.
It's now getting obvious that now copyright law is now anti-user.
On the post: Senators Wyden And Paul Put A Hold On Dangerous CASE Act; Will Propose Alternative
Diffused a bomb... Hopefully it won't explode in the future.
Looks like the court is slowly now understanding that these trolls are trying to turn the system into a cash machine instead of copyright's true purpose. Just recently, an article is published on torrentfreak (https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-shields-internet-subscribers-from-futile-piracy-complaints-191028 / ) that a court denied the request of the handover of the subscriber's information by Strike 3 Holdings. They KNEW that this troll is desperately trying milk off of alleged infringers, the fact that:
-Evidence is weak, relying only on IP addresses, such a rush.
-The troll did not use other copyright enforcement action options, like sending a DMCA to the ISP to stop the alleged pirate. Knowing that these other options cannot be used to make money.
On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice
Re: Re: Blame the hoster too.
I guess they've been overchilled (chilling effect)
On the post: Not The First Rodeo: Lil Nas X And Cardi B Hit With Blurred Lines Style Copyright Complaint Over Rodeo
So much for karma
So much for the copyright industry wanting to more legal restrictions against the public on top of overzealous DRM and EULA already in effect, along with trying to go against fair use. They're getting a taste of their own medicine.
On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice
Re: Re: Blame the hoster too.
Good for you (sorry for this late reply). Tell them to spread the word to all other places.
I don't think even forbidding all posts is enough, since a false DMCA can happen to ANY content, there is still a possible for an entire site to be nuked.
On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice
Blame the hoster too.
The hosting company they use is Vultr Holdings, LLC. Please leave a negative review for that company for overzealous voluntary copyright enforcement in their own hands that is above the law like this. Other hosting companies would rather “lock up” the site and unlock it once the DMCA notices are addressed. Instead this company thought it's a good idea to increase the pressure to include a zero-tolerance policy that a “single strike” (in contrast of youtube's 3 strikes) should perma-ban this site off the network; expecting web owners to look over user's shoulder to make sure no infringing materials posted on there BEFORE a DMCA notice should happen.
I can imagine if DMCA attacks were rampant on this, NOBODY should use this service, same goes to ProFreeHost for attacking LEGAL torrent files, and google removing “kodi” off the search term but not removing YouTube videos promoting infringing videos. I don't think even if the site forbids all posts to the site, all it takes is a false DMCA to kill a website.
On the post: YouTube Sues Guy Who Tried To Extort People Through Bogus DMCA Takedowns
DMCA and copyright as a whole needs to be fixed
“...the DMCA immunizes online service providers from claims of copyright infringement based on materials uploaded to the services by users, if the services promptly remove allegedly infringing materials upon receipt of notices from copyright holders.”
“Again, YouTube works hard to prevent this sort of abuse, but sometimes does not succeed.”
This encourages the “act now, check later/never” approach when something had to be done without thought. It's like a fire alarm or killswitch without any safeguards to prevent accidental activations.
I was thinking of instead of deleting material off the internet when a takedown or lawsuit occurs, instead to be backed-up in a private government place, while the takedown notices is publicly view-able. Copyright holders or any person acting on behalf are not to eradicate any material or site to be taken down.
This private place is like prison, but for copyrighted materials (including websites if the site gets shut down) instead of persons, that are taken down. Regardless if found infringing or not, WILL be preserved here, once proven legal or enters public domain, is released from the government's storage place. Maybe the Library of Congress could open this new place if this type of change of copyright were to happen.
The reason for this is because not only for obviously to add a restitution for victims of false takedowns, but also because copyright doesn't last forever, so copyright infringing materials are no longer an infringement once it expires, in the future. So it shouldn't be permanently deleted.
Next >>