Exactly. There is no requirement that he file a DMCA-compliant take down notice to the actual infringers, nor is it even a requirement that a takedown notice be DMCA-compliant at all. It has to be if the service provider wants to make sure all i's are dotted and t's crossed to limit their liability, sure. But there is nowhere that states content can only be taken down with a DMCA-compliant notice.
Re: Prosecute him for improper DMCA takedown notice!
Yeah, he should be prosecuted for not having a video taken down.
Did you seriously get that confused? Mike writes an article about DMCA notices being used to takedown content they don't own, and you get it confused with a non-DMCA email asking for content to be removed (which didn't get removed by the way). One abuses the force of law to get someone else's content taken down, the other asks for someone to consider their own hypocrisy. No law states that DMCA compliant notices are required to take content down.
Perhaps, blue, you should spend a few more seconds in figuring out what is even going on.
Actually, most of the public doesn't have a clue about copyright law, regularly get it confused with patents and trademarks, and generally think that it deals with attribution. That's why youtube lyrics videos start off with comments like "I don't own the copyright on this".
Why?
Because people think copyright has something to do with attribution. It doesn't. Why do they think this? Because people generally want credit for what they do. They want validation. That's innate in human beings. Wanting money or control over some idea of theirs is not innate. People simply respect copyright law today not because they get it and understand it and agree with it, but because they think it's something it's not and agree with that other something. The more I've taught people that what they are doing is infringement, the more I've found people hate copryight law.
What do you mean I can't copy this song and give it to my friend? I didn't change the artist?
What do you mean I can't copy this coloring book for my friends' kids? They know I didn't make it.
What do you mean I can't play the music/movie I bought at the block party for my neighborhood? I just told you I bought it.
No, the public at large generally hates copyright once they find out the basic things they think should be ok are punishable by up to $150,000.
Kim Dotcom might sue Twitter, Google and Facebook over murder.
Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said Thursday he was considering taking legal action against tech giants such as Twitter, Google and Facebook for murdering a security measure he invented.
Dotcom said he had never sought to enforce murder charges on his invention but was now reconsidering in light of the US case accusing him of masterminding massive online piracy through his now-defunct Megaupload file-sharing site.
Copyright law is in Title 17, Patent law is in title 35, while federal laws against murder are in title 18. If AJ gets to count the number of judges who agreed or disagreed with the eventual outcome of SonyCorp vs Universal then I think it's fair to say that murder laws are closer to copyright laws because the titles are closer.
Fair use is the default. Copyrights infringe on fair use rights. By upholding the law, we all agree to that, so it's OK. But that doesn't change what it is.
Those access controls can still be used. No law (neither in existence, nor proposed (including this one) will stop you from doing so. This proposal simply states that those copy protection measures no longer have the force of law. It does not lessen the punishments for infringements made by bypassing copy protection measures. It does not remove rights copyright holders have.
There are few (if any) copy protection measures that haven't been broken, and there is still the analog hole. No work that has copy protection measures is safe, nor would it be difficult to copy them. People who want to infringe on a work will do so regardless of the anitcircumvention clause. By removing it, all that is happening is that the rights of people are being given back to do things that are not otherwise illegal (such as unlocking phones, fair use copying, copying public domain works, etc). Those who violated the anticircumvention clause to infringe are still committing infringement, while those who violated it for non-infringing purposes are no longer breaking the law.
What exactly do you have a problem with in this case? How exactly is copyright law being weakened?
Not only that, but the law disagrees with you completely. Section 1201(c) states:
Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
If nothing in 1201 affects the rights of copyright holders, repealing it cannot possibly affect those rights either.
If we added murder to copyright law does that mean murdering someone is an infringement of copyrights also? It doesn't belong there. You can debate about whether it should be a law, but it doesn't belong in copyright law. It is being used by all sorts of entities that have nothing to do with copyrights. It can be used to lock up non-copyrighted works, or even non-works (such as hardware). It is not a copyright law, so it's removal either from title 17 or from law altogether in no way weakens copyright law. That some copyright holders were able to use it is no different than that copyright holders are also protected by murder laws.
So you're talking about a case where someone has done nothing wrong except assert their fair use rights? Copyright has never been about stopping all forms of copyring and distribution. The antircircumvention clause tried to add that, and did so in such a way as to end run around fair use, and to include all sorts of circumstances where copyrights weren't involved at all. That's why the DMCA is cited by printer manufacturers and why it prevents unlocking phones. Those issues have nothing to do with copyright. The anticircumvention clause was misplaced in copyright law.
What rights are lessened? You still have the right to add copy protection measures to whatever you want to (copyrighted or not). I still don't have the right to copy your copyrighted works under those certain circumstances, but now I would have the right to copy non-copyrighted works all the time or copyrighted works under those circumstances.
The only directions I see rights going here is an increase in rights the people should already have. But copyrights aren't weakened at all.
But anticircumvention should never have been under copyright law. Note I'm not saying it should never have existed (it shouldn't have, but that's a different argument); I'm saying it should have been part of some other section of the law. Anticircumvention was a power grab by copyright law.
If SCotUS started to make treaties and Congress told them to stop, it wouldn't be a weakening of SCotUS, it would simply be putting them in their place. That anticircumvention was ever a part of copyright law is wrong (that it was ever a part of the law at all is another wrong for another discussion).
Copyright is solely concerned with infringement. That's what copyright law is all about. The whole basis of copyright law is to make it illegal for people to copy and distribute certain works under certain circumstances. Anticircumvention laws are only about making it illegal for people to circumvent technical reasons why they can't copy, but it doesn't take into account that copyright law is only about stopping the copyring/distribution of certain works under certain circumstances. Not all works and/or under all circumstances. Anticircumvention stops all works under all circumstances.
This isn't weakening copyright law; it's restricting copyright law to be just copyright law. If there were a section of copyright law that dealt with embezzlement and a bill was proposed to remove it from copyright law to it's own section, would you call that a weakening of copyright law as well?
You've made the claim. Now support it. Let's say I'm infringing copyright law in some way that is illegal now but won't be if this bill is passed. Now tell us, what am I doing?
Easy. No one should ever have to pay money to find out what laws/rules/edicts they have to obey. Given that, you can either remove the copyright from the standard or grant a free-to-publish license to that standard. Done (unless you feel that charging for access to laws is valid).
They didn't say anything about what emulators in general were created for. They said emulators created for the purpose of playing illegally copied Nintendo software is blah blah blah. They don't say anything about emulators in general, nor do they say anything about emulators created to play non Nintendo software, and nor do they say anything about emulators created to emulate Nintendo hardware for the purpose of running custom software that runs on Nintendo hardware. Also of note: they aren't saying anything about emulators created to play legally copied Nintendo software.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'd prefer copyright law to be scrapped. None of these people will offer reasons for why it ought to be scrapped. They all have jobs that rely on copyright existing in some form or another. While some of their arguments might include why people are angry, none of their arguments will actually look at the whole of the system.
If you aren't willing to look at reasons for scrapping the whole copyright system, then you really aren't looking at the right thing. You have to look at all of the data and question the reason for it's existence to begin with. I fully concede that others may come to different conclusions than me. I'm just saying that if they aren't even willing to look at the core, then anything else is just window dressing to keep their jobs while placating the populace.
Where's the representation of people who will actually consider all possibilities? I don't see anyone on that list who would argue that the whole concept ought to be scrapped. Instead, I see a bunch of people who will make arguments for why their job needs to stay. Changed? Sure, but none of them will be willing to accept that maybe it's not necessary anymore (if it ever was).
On the post: Fair Use For Me, But Not For Thee
Re: It doesn't have to be DMCA
On the post: Fair Use For Me, But Not For Thee
Re: Prosecute him for improper DMCA takedown notice!
Did you seriously get that confused? Mike writes an article about DMCA notices being used to takedown content they don't own, and you get it confused with a non-DMCA email asking for content to be removed (which didn't get removed by the way). One abuses the force of law to get someone else's content taken down, the other asks for someone to consider their own hypocrisy. No law states that DMCA compliant notices are required to take content down.
Perhaps, blue, you should spend a few more seconds in figuring out what is even going on.
On the post: Fair Use For Me, But Not For Thee
Re: Re: @"the public do not respect copyright."
Why?
Because people think copyright has something to do with attribution. It doesn't. Why do they think this? Because people generally want credit for what they do. They want validation. That's innate in human beings. Wanting money or control over some idea of theirs is not innate. People simply respect copyright law today not because they get it and understand it and agree with it, but because they think it's something it's not and agree with that other something. The more I've taught people that what they are doing is infringement, the more I've found people hate copryight law.
What do you mean I can't copy this song and give it to my friend? I didn't change the artist?
What do you mean I can't copy this coloring book for my friends' kids? They know I didn't make it.
What do you mean I can't play the music/movie I bought at the block party for my neighborhood? I just told you I bought it.
No, the public at large generally hates copyright once they find out the basic things they think should be ok are punishable by up to $150,000.
On the post: Copyright... Patent... It's All The Same To The World's Third-Largest News Agency
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re:
There are few (if any) copy protection measures that haven't been broken, and there is still the analog hole. No work that has copy protection measures is safe, nor would it be difficult to copy them. People who want to infringe on a work will do so regardless of the anitcircumvention clause. By removing it, all that is happening is that the rights of people are being given back to do things that are not otherwise illegal (such as unlocking phones, fair use copying, copying public domain works, etc). Those who violated the anticircumvention clause to infringe are still committing infringement, while those who violated it for non-infringing purposes are no longer breaking the law.
What exactly do you have a problem with in this case? How exactly is copyright law being weakened?
Not only that, but the law disagrees with you completely. Section 1201(c) states:If nothing in 1201 affects the rights of copyright holders, repealing it cannot possibly affect those rights either.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only directions I see rights going here is an increase in rights the people should already have. But copyrights aren't weakened at all.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re:
If SCotUS started to make treaties and Congress told them to stop, it wouldn't be a weakening of SCotUS, it would simply be putting them in their place. That anticircumvention was ever a part of copyright law is wrong (that it was ever a part of the law at all is another wrong for another discussion).
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re:
This isn't weakening copyright law; it's restricting copyright law to be just copyright law. If there were a section of copyright law that dealt with embezzlement and a bill was proposed to remove it from copyright law to it's own section, would you call that a weakening of copyright law as well?
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The War On Journalists: DOJ Claimed Fox News Reporter Was An 'Aider, Abettor, Co-Conspirator' With Leaker
Right?
On the post: One Simple Copyright Reform Idea: Government Edicts Should Never Be Subject To Copyright
Re:
On the post: Blogger Issues DMCA Notice To Take Down Posts Infringing His 'How To Infringe' Post
Re: You just admitted the basis of copyright:
Nor do you know that copyright doesn't require attribution, do you?
On the post: Blogger Issues DMCA Notice To Take Down Posts Infringing His 'How To Infringe' Post
Re:
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Sets Up First Hearing On Copyright Reform
Re: Re:
If you aren't willing to look at reasons for scrapping the whole copyright system, then you really aren't looking at the right thing. You have to look at all of the data and question the reason for it's existence to begin with. I fully concede that others may come to different conclusions than me. I'm just saying that if they aren't even willing to look at the core, then anything else is just window dressing to keep their jobs while placating the populace.
On the post: Appeals Court Agrees That Righthaven's Copyright Assignment Was A Sham, But Tosses Key Fair Use Ruling
Re:
On the post: House Judiciary Committee Sets Up First Hearing On Copyright Reform
Next >>