That Crazy Freetard (profile), 9 Nov 2012 @ 3:04pm
Re: Horse manure! Without the creator, the public gets nothing
The fact is that the public has an interest in making sure that the businesses can survive. If they can't, the public is stuck trying to do it themselves.
True, to a degree. Certainly not in the case of the companies you're referring to. They do not ever act in the interest of artists or the public. After all, what's their incentive?
You seem to have forgotten that respect is a 2 way street. Or maybe you just never learned that in the first place.
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 19 Sep 2012 @ 9:39pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the loophole right there. The only qualifier for the penalty of perjury is that the complainant is "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Beyond that, there's no liability. So the end result is rights holders are allowed to hire third parties to spam out DMCA notices and not face repercussions and hosting companies are pressured into using shitty filtering. So now we have DMCA notices flying fast and furious, and we're seeing real consequences.
How can it be that we have so many obviously false positives? Clearly there is something wrong with the process.
There's really no denying that this was an illegitimate takedown; more of a glaring example of a broken system. Balance? I think I just broke a rib from laughing.
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 19 Sep 2012 @ 8:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So how does a third party's actions factor into this? DMCA takedowns are never filed by the sites that are hosting the content. I really think that's the crux of the matter.
What if David Lowery decided he wanted to censor Techdirt content?
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 19 Sep 2012 @ 8:49pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown notice does not equate to a violation of someone's First Amendment rights.
You're right, except the truth is the exact opposite of that. Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown, illegitimate or otherwise is a violation of that entity's free speech rights. Speech is communication. Audio, video, it is all communication. Cases like these are just exploiting the loophole in the DMCA which allows for consequence-less illegitimate takedown notices to be filed and served.
It's private action on a private website.
And that's the problem which really lies at the heart of the matter. Internet takedowns should really take place in court. It's the only way to make sure this gets handled fairly. Currently, as Mike repeatedly asserts, the law operates on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis, which as you know is contrary to the entirety of American law.
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 2:34pm
Gov't following the law
"Getting the TSA to act within the law is important not only because it is essential to have the rule of law, but because the legal procedures TSA is required to follow will require it to balance the costs and benefits of its security measures articulately and carefully."
LOL, like that's ever gonna happen. I, for one, am not holding my breath. Our Gov't has shown repeatedly that they believe they're above the law and become indignant when anyone suggests that this might be the case.
Also, good on those at TSAComment.com, hopefully they're able to have an impact.
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:55pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It sounds like someone needs to be fired
Actually, it's that we, the public(we stand to lose the most) have a vested interest in the crafting of this treaty or whatever you want to call it. Senator Wyden is simply using his position to call out on our behalf.
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 6:18pm
Re:
They're adding value.
They're taking something which would otherwise have a relatively small audience and making it global. One could reasonably surmise that this adds value by making it more accessible.
That Crazy Freetard (profile), 17 May 2012 @ 3:22pm
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt totally out of touch about how much patents pay for innovation
All well and good, except his example isn't all that extreme. Absurd, yes, but the obviousness is blinding, and that's the whole point. People patenting obvious things because the patent researchers are either incompetent or willfully ignorant.
And then incompetent judges upholding them. Truly blind leading the blind.
On the post: UN Wants Multi-Stakeholder Discussions On 'Rethinking Copyright' -- Ignores That The Only Stakeholder That Matters Is The Public
Re: Horse manure! Without the creator, the public gets nothing
True, to a degree. Certainly not in the case of the companies you're referring to. They do not ever act in the interest of artists or the public. After all, what's their incentive?
You seem to have forgotten that respect is a 2 way street. Or maybe you just never learned that in the first place.
Fuck off, bobby.
On the post: Aereo: Has No One Noticed It's Insane That We're Being Accused Of Infringing BECAUSE We Carefully Followed The Cablevision Precedent?
Re: Hey, pirates: produce your own content THEN innovate on delivery.
Are content creation and delivery inseparable?
Your pedantry never ceases to amaze.
On the post: Textbook Publisher Pearson Takes Down 1.5 Million Teacher And Student Blogs With A Single DMCA Notice
Re: @ #1 and #2: this isn't shown to be a false DMCA notice!
You immoral piece of trash. You really are the dregs of humanity.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Gives USTR A Simple 3-Point Plan For Real TPP Transparency
Re:
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Beyond that, there's no liability. So the end result is rights holders are allowed to hire third parties to spam out DMCA notices and not face repercussions and hosting companies are pressured into using shitty filtering. So now we have DMCA notices flying fast and furious, and we're seeing real consequences.
How can it be that we have so many obviously false positives? Clearly there is something wrong with the process.
There's really no denying that this was an illegitimate takedown; more of a glaring example of a broken system. Balance? I think I just broke a rib from laughing.
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if David Lowery decided he wanted to censor Techdirt content?
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, except the truth is the exact opposite of that. Legitimate speech being blocked by a DMCA takedown, illegitimate or otherwise is a violation of that entity's free speech rights. Speech is communication. Audio, video, it is all communication. Cases like these are just exploiting the loophole in the DMCA which allows for consequence-less illegitimate takedown notices to be filed and served.
It's private action on a private website.
And that's the problem which really lies at the heart of the matter. Internet takedowns should really take place in court. It's the only way to make sure this gets handled fairly. Currently, as Mike repeatedly asserts, the law operates on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis, which as you know is contrary to the entirety of American law.
America's about fairness, right?
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re:
What, pray tell, is the explicit difference there? Remember, I said explicit, so I expect a very detailed answer.
...
Where'd you go???
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a hint: Legitimate speech was blocked because of copyright claims.
Your pedantry knows no bounds.
On the post: Dead Authors' Estates Preventing Even The Slightest Revisions To Works
Re:
On the post: TSA Still Not Taking Comments On Naked Scanners; So Public Interest Group Does It For Them
Gov't following the law
LOL, like that's ever gonna happen. I, for one, am not holding my breath. Our Gov't has shown repeatedly that they believe they're above the law and become indignant when anyone suggests that this might be the case.
Also, good on those at TSAComment.com, hopefully they're able to have an impact.
On the post: Intervention: The Conference Celebrating Internet Creativity
Re: creativity here !!!! oh TECHDIRT... NO WAY !!!!!
On the post: Authors Guild Asks For $750 For Every Book Google Scans; While Google Points Out That There's No Evidence Of Any Harm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who ever heard of such a thing??
Where's yours????
On the post: USTR Gives MPAA Full Online Access To TPP Text, But Still Won't Share With Senate Staffers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It sounds like someone needs to be fired
On the post: EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By European Parliament Next Week
Re:
There's no reason to implement a surveillance state to uphold copyright.
On the post: Dear Ari Emanuel: We're All Meeting On The Internet, Come Join Us
Re:
How so?
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
Re:
They're taking something which would otherwise have a relatively small audience and making it global. One could reasonably surmise that this adds value by making it more accessible.
On the post: Dan Bull Auctioning Off Another Custom Song On eBay
Re: Pirate Dan
Thanks.
On the post: Patent Judges Completely Out Of Touch With How Much Patents Hinder Technology Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TechDirt totally out of touch about how much patents pay for innovation
Then there will be at least one competent technologist in their house.
After all, patents exist to protect ideas which are non-obvious to someone who is competent in its respective field.
On the post: Patent Judges Completely Out Of Touch With How Much Patents Hinder Technology Innovation
Re: Re: Re: TechDirt totally out of touch about how much patents pay for innovation
And then incompetent judges upholding them. Truly blind leading the blind.
Next >>