Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
If it took you half a day to read through their endless warnings of perjury, you're illiterate. Plus, you only have the law to blame. Perhaps you should lobby to get falsified "objectionable video flagging" as punishable by perjury also. Then those would come with the same half-day-to-wade-through warnings[1] as well.
[1] There are 5 by the way. I hope this doesn't bring techdirt to a halt as every commenter busies themselves reading this long list, but at least we'll know bob won't make another comment for 12 hours:
By checking the following boxes, I state that:
∗ I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
∗ This notification is accurate; and
∗ UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
∗ I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
∗ I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.
Going further, the people who file DMCA notices need to file them with much more seriousness than those who flag something objectionable. I can claim every video on YouTube is objectionable, and the only penalty Google could give me is to ban my account, though most likely they'd write me off as a kook and just ignore me.
Copyright claims, though, come with the weight of a penalty for perjury. Whether that penalty is ever carried out is rather irrelevant; it still has that penalty as a possibility. Google is just making sure you're following the law and understand the ramifications. And just as well, the law is the law, right?
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
It's not just this business owner. You and the rest of the copymites claim that it's necessary. We claim it's not. The ones claiming it's necessary are the only ones with the data necessary to vindicate their claims, and yet none are willing to show that data. All we need is one to show us the data, and then it'd be us who are left with saying, "Yeah, but that only works with bands that have done the analysis".
Yet, here we are, with story after story of those who don't fight infringement being willing to show us their data, and those who fight infringement, making claims of "necessary this" and "need to that" not showing us the data that supposedly backs up their claims. Vindicate yourselves. Here's Tim, going out of his way to prove his detractors right, and they won't let him.
Show us the data. There have been those who embrace piracy and other business models, and they are willing to show us their data. But none who make the claim that fighting piracy is necessary are willing to show us their data. Again, none. Not a single one. Show it to us. Prove us wrong. Silence us once and for all. Vindicate yourselves. Surely there is one who is willing.
It takes seconds to pirate something with YouTube but hours to figure out their scary notices wrapped around the DMCA process.
Too true. I just google "youtube DMCA" and within 2 seconds was on this page. It took me 3 seconds to read and then click the "Submit a copyright complaint" button which took me to this page. I ran through the form as an exercise. It took me roughly 20 seconds to fill out completely. Seeing as it's a simple html form, I could probably take about 5 minutes to write up a script that would make it automated, reducing the time to submit down to couple of seconds.
Now let's add up all those numbers. Let's see:
2 seconds to search for the form
+ 3 seconds to read and click
+ 20 seconds to fill out and submit
-----------
26 seconds to file a DMCA notice.
We'll assume you don't write the script. Now, I just did a search for "bob" on youtube. There were 22,400,000 results. By your claim, file names and descriptions are all you need to know if it's infringing, so more math:
26 seconds
x 22,400,000 bob videos
/ 3600 seconds per hour
/ 24 hours per day
/ 365 days per year
-----------
18.5 years to file DMCA notices on all of the obviously infringing files on youtube.
Wow, you were right. Better learn some scripting skills.
You find it funny that someone had the opportunity to prove techdirt wrong and you right, but then refused? I typically don't find it funny when someone who has the power and opportunity to vindicate me chooses instead to let me whither on the vine, but to each their own. Maybe someday, someone else will give us the data you so desperately believe is out there, yet seems so elusive to find.
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Fact? No. It's the claim. Tim asked her if she had done any analysis. She refused to respond in the affirmative. That doesn't mean she hasn't done the analysis, but it doesn't give me much confidence that she has.
Here she had an opportunity to vindicate you. She could have shown the numbers that she's run, provided her analysis and shown that everything you claim is true. Yet she didn't. Why don't you complain that she had an opportunity to prove you and the rest of the copymites right, but she didn't. Here's the opportunity, blue. Get her to respond and prove you right. If she has irrefutable evidence that her DMCA notices are working, she has only to show it. We can't argue against facts. Let her show us the facts. I don't want to hear her claims if she's not willing to put facts behind it. Email her yourself. Tell her to vindicate you. We're all waiting. Waiting for the data to back you up.
If Jeff Bezos wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
If William J. Lynch, Jr wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
If Mike Duke wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
Cause I mean, come on guys, Kirtsaeng is obviously different than Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Walmart. He's reselling legally purchased books, and they are reselling legally purchased books. The difference is as plain as the logic in ootb's comments.
Regardless of the actuall bill, I'm just happy the General could quote the law. That's more than the politicians could do. It's more than most cops can do. You'd think the people in charge or writing laws would know which laws they can write, and the people enforcing laws would know which laws they are enforcing. I really think it ought to be mandatory that every law enforcement officer be able to quote you the law they are enforcing, and every legislator ought to be know the laws that apply to them (federal, state, county, city, etc) forward and backward. If they can't because there's too much, then maybe simplifying the law books should be their first order of business.
I submitted that too soon. NSLs weren't needed in the first case, but a court usually was (depending on how weak the ISP was and how persuasive the copymite could be). NSLs aren't needed in the latter case either. Six strikes has nothing to do whatsoever with NSLs.
Six Strikes has nothing to do with NSLs. It used to be that copymites would ask the ISPs to correlate IP addresses with subscriber info and hand the copymites the subscriber info. Six strikes asks the ISPs to simply send the warnings to certain IP addresses, no NSL needed.
Every single one of these ideas are a power or money grab for the copyright office. Even the shortening of the terms is simply a way to get more money to the copyright office. She'd probably be happy to have the terms be what they are plus the opportunity to renew, but is afraid of having Golan v Holder brought back around. She's "compromised" by going with a completely nonsensical breaking point. Why not 50 years, and you can renew it to life+70? Life+50 and then renew for another 20? That's just ridiculous, but allows her to keep the copyright industry happy by keeping ridiculously long terms, makes the copyright office happy by allowing for money from renewals, and keeps the copyright industry happy again for not having to face the prospect of Golan v Holder being reversed.
I get the feeling that some lobbying group felt they were getting enough business from their clients so they asked her to make this proposal. Maybe it's just the cynic in me. Perhaps the MPAA felt like Disney and Warner Bros. weren't paying enough, so they asked the Copyright Office to hint at reduced terms, just so Movie Studios will increase MPAA funding to get it stopped.
You know what, let me see if I can create my own gamer bill of rights that is just a single bullet point.
I'm so conflicted. You want one bullet point in your bill of rights, so you must be anti-2nd amendment. But it is a bullet point, so I don't know. Oh what to do!?
Re: As Japan said after WW2: "not necessarily in Japan's best interests..."
1. No, Kickstarter only takes money if your project is funded.
2. Marketing didn't also collect funds.
3. What?
4. Because I've never seen a KS project that had Creative Director as one of the rewards for pledging.
5. You're argument is that making something without input from your buyers as to whether they want to buy is a better way to determine if it's worth your time? Seriously? I'm not going to say every successfully funded KS project turns out to be a money maker, but surely the track record is better than the alternative.
6. We'd all like you to learn. You should look into that someday. It'll help you out.
Take a loopy tour of out_of_the_blue's comment history! You always end up at banging your head! https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atechdirt.com+out_of_the_blue
Every "comment" here requires first getting valuable articles -- including ideas and the forum -- for free.
I'm glad the AC mentioned it. I thought it was obvious. Heck, that's what the whole Veronica Mars thing was yesterday. Warner Bros. said they'd make a movie if they could get a Kickstarter project past it's goal. In addition to being a funding platform, it's very useful as a market gauge.
It's also useful to see where money is being left on the table. Taking the Veronica Mars example again, consider how fast some of the upper tiers went. That means it is likely that they could have sold them for more or could have offered more of them. But even the fact that they were sold shows how much money is too be made from movies rather than just ticket sales. This is the loooooooots of t-shirts thing. They already sell t-shirts and other merchandising of stuff, sure. But they just made $25,000 for 250 people to see a movie screening. That's an average of $100 each.
Movies are excellent examples of giving away the scarce to sell the abundant. People pay to go to the red carpet movie premier just to see the stars outside. That's scarce. Capture some of that! 50 people just paid $750 for that. That's $37,500 for 100 tickets. Assuming a normal $12 movie ticket (I'm guessing here, haven't been in a long time) it would take 3,125 normal ticket sales to make that same kind of money.
These are just some of things we learn with Kickstarter. I suspect it's only beginning.
Wake me up when Steve Heymann is willing to have a substantive and direct discussion about the propriety of what he and Carmen Ortiz did. I know, it'll never happen. It's easy to claim they did no wrong, but it's much harder to back it up in a debate on the merits. That's why Chicken Steve runs away every time.
That's the thing that surprises me the most in all of this. Why pick a name from someone you know? Why not just pick some random name. Go to the phone book, find one first name, find someone other last name and then done. These guys are already playing the shell game. Surely this is basic shell game 101 type stuff right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean relying on FREE products is risky?
Do you even realize what the difference between an RSS feed and an RSS reader is? Google Reader is an RSS reader. It reads RSS feeds. You submit RSS feeds to it, and then it collects the RSS feeds for you, so you have one place to go for all your RSS feeds. On Google Reader, you read RSS feeds. Google couldn't make enough money to justify a reader.
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
[1] There are 5 by the way. I hope this doesn't bring techdirt to a halt as every commenter busies themselves reading this long list, but at least we'll know bob won't make another comment for 12 hours:
By checking the following boxes, I state that:
∗ I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
∗ This notification is accurate; and
∗ UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
∗ I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) of the DMCA any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
∗ I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Copyright claims, though, come with the weight of a penalty for perjury. Whether that penalty is ever carried out is rather irrelevant; it still has that penalty as a possibility. Google is just making sure you're following the law and understand the ramifications. And just as well, the law is the law, right?
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: Re: Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Yet, here we are, with story after story of those who don't fight infringement being willing to show us their data, and those who fight infringement, making claims of "necessary this" and "need to that" not showing us the data that supposedly backs up their claims. Vindicate yourselves. Here's Tim, going out of his way to prove his detractors right, and they won't let him.
Show us the data. There have been those who embrace piracy and other business models, and they are willing to show us their data. But none who make the claim that fighting piracy is necessary are willing to show us their data. Again, none. Not a single one. Show it to us. Prove us wrong. Silence us once and for all. Vindicate yourselves. Surely there is one who is willing.
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: If only DMCA notices were easy to send
Now let's add up all those numbers. Let's see:
2 seconds to search for the form
+ 3 seconds to read and click
+ 20 seconds to fill out and submit
-----------
26 seconds to file a DMCA notice.
We'll assume you don't write the script. Now, I just did a search for "bob" on youtube. There were 22,400,000 results. By your claim, file names and descriptions are all you need to know if it's infringing, so more math:
26 seconds
x 22,400,000 bob videos
/ 3600 seconds per hour
/ 24 hours per day
/ 365 days per year
-----------
18.5 years to file DMCA notices on all of the obviously infringing files on youtube.
Wow, you were right. Better learn some scripting skills.
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re:
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: To Tim it's academic: to her and employees, it's LOST income.
Here she had an opportunity to vindicate you. She could have shown the numbers that she's run, provided her analysis and shown that everything you claim is true. Yet she didn't. Why don't you complain that she had an opportunity to prove you and the rest of the copymites right, but she didn't. Here's the opportunity, blue. Get her to respond and prove you right. If she has irrefutable evidence that her DMCA notices are working, she has only to show it. We can't argue against facts. Let her show us the facts. I don't want to hear her claims if she's not willing to put facts behind it. Email her yourself. Tell her to vindicate you. We're all waiting. Waiting for the data to back you up.
On the post: Supreme Court Gets It Right In Kirtsaeng: You Can Resell Things You Bought Abroad Without Infringing
Re: Upheld basis of copyright and anti-trust.
If Jeff Bezos wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
If William J. Lynch, Jr wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
If Mike Duke wants to profit from selling books, he should first write one, fact check and peer review it, find capital to get it published and marketed, pay all applicable taxes, risk it being pirated and him not getting money back, and so on.
Cause I mean, come on guys, Kirtsaeng is obviously different than Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Walmart. He's reselling legally purchased books, and they are reselling legally purchased books. The difference is as plain as the logic in ootb's comments.
On the post: 'No Photos From The Sky' Bill Trimmed Back, But Still Could Create Felons Out Of Kids Playing With Toy Drones
On the post: Shocker: Court Says National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Bans Them
Re: Re:
On the post: Shocker: Court Says National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Bans Them
Re:
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
Re:
On the post: United Airlines Kicks Travel Writer Off Of Plane For Photographing His Seat
Re:
On the post: Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Sim City Debacle Doesn't Mean Gamers Need A Bill Of Rights
On the post: Kickstarter Projects That Don't Meet Their Goal Are Not 'Failures'; They Help People Avoid Failures
Re: As Japan said after WW2: "not necessarily in Japan's best interests..."
2. Marketing didn't also collect funds.
3. What?
4. Because I've never seen a KS project that had Creative Director as one of the rewards for pledging.
5. You're argument is that making something without input from your buyers as to whether they want to buy is a better way to determine if it's worth your time? Seriously? I'm not going to say every successfully funded KS project turns out to be a money maker, but surely the track record is better than the alternative.
6. We'd all like you to learn. You should look into that someday. It'll help you out.
Take a loopy tour of out_of_the_blue's comment history! You always end up at banging your head!
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atechdirt.com+out_of_the_blue
Every "comment" here requires first getting valuable articles -- including ideas and the forum -- for free.
On the post: Kickstarter Projects That Don't Meet Their Goal Are Not 'Failures'; They Help People Avoid Failures
Re: Re: Indeed
It's also useful to see where money is being left on the table. Taking the Veronica Mars example again, consider how fast some of the upper tiers went. That means it is likely that they could have sold them for more or could have offered more of them. But even the fact that they were sold shows how much money is too be made from movies rather than just ticket sales. This is the loooooooots of t-shirts thing. They already sell t-shirts and other merchandising of stuff, sure. But they just made $25,000 for 250 people to see a movie screening. That's an average of $100 each.
Movies are excellent examples of giving away the scarce to sell the abundant. People pay to go to the red carpet movie premier just to see the stars outside. That's scarce. Capture some of that! 50 people just paid $750 for that. That's $37,500 for 100 tickets. Assuming a normal $12 movie ticket (I'm guessing here, haven't been in a long time) it would take 3,125 normal ticket sales to make that same kind of money.
These are just some of things we learn with Kickstarter. I suspect it's only beginning.
On the post: Details Come Out On US Attorneys Withholding Evidence In Aaron Swartz Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Transcripts Of John Steele's Phone Calls To Alan Cooper
Re: The level of ineptitude...
On the post: The Killing Of Google Reader Highlights The Risk Of Relying On A Single Provider
Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean relying on FREE products is risky?
You want a free RSS feed? There are loads of them. Here's Techdirt's. It's free. Here's a bunch from arstechnica. All free RSS feeds. Here are Dilbert RSS feeds. A veritable free for all. NPR, CNN, NY Times, Apple, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, all free, every last one of them, and that's what I use or found on the first page of searching for rss feeds.
Keep going with your ignorance bob. You're not foaming at the mouth yet.
On the post: The Killing Of Google Reader Highlights The Risk Of Relying On A Single Provider
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean relying on FREE products is risky?
Next >>