Look at how Google screws artists via piracy links
Ah. You mean those links that come up in searches that almost nobody does, and for which Google does not make any money?
Yeah, they're really "screwing artists."
and shitty YouTube royalty rates.
You mean the royalty rates that YouTube negotiated with PRO's like ASCAP and BMI, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Or the new "sync license" royalty rates that they negotiated with the Harry Fox Agency, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Or do you mean the ContentID system, where rights holders keep more than half of the advertising income on YouTube videos, and which Google spend over $50 million developing, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Yeah, they're really "screwing artists."
It's hilarious that you tech dbags think anyone is still believing your bullshit.
It's hilarious that you big media "dbags" think anyone ever did believe your bullshit.
Here you go stupid, the judge (the one whose opinion actually matters disagrees.
Just because I disagree with the judge's stupid opinion does not make me stupid. Also, we'll see what happens on appeal. I predict that this particular part of the ruling will be overturned.
The largest difference is that CafePress goes beyond facilitating the sale of products between internet users by directly selling products to online shoppers through the CafePress Marketplace.
The judge doesn't seem to realize that Amazon and eBay do almost exactly the same thing. Amazon, for instance, directly sells third-party products to online shoppers, using Amazon's own shipping apparatus. eBay does something similar with their eBay Store service. Yet the court rulings that the judge cites in his opinion do not strip DMCA protections from either Amazon or eBay for these reasons.
Please note that I am disagreeing with the judge about whether Cafe Press is eligible for DMCA safe harbors. Whether they actually meet that eligibility is a separate question. And, of course, lack of DMCA safe harbors eligibility does not mean that Cafe Press is necessarily liable for infringement.
Actually, it's the Silicon Valley crowd acting as usual giving as little to the artists as possible. And before you raise the usual blather about the major record labels sharing only a small percentage, it's dramatically larger than the percentage shared by the tech world.
Provably false. In fact, that's part of what this lawsuit was all about.
The rates that Pandora paid (and, now, will continue to pay) are higher than the rates that traditional radio stations pay, for streaming on the Internet.
Pandora's rate is 1.85%. IHeartRadio, run by Clear Channel (the owner of the majority of radio stations), pays just 1.7% for its Internet streams.
And as far as comparison with "the major record labels:" No, they do not share a "dramatically larger" percentage of their income. Pandora pays more than half their income to sound recording rights holders. Major labels pay around 15% of the income from records, to the artists (depending upon contract). And that's only after the artists have paid back the recording costs, packaging costs, some of the marketing or video, etc.
So, no. Pandora pays a dramatically larger percentage to artists than any traditional label or publisher.
Aside from what Mike said, that article focuses on startup companies, which the tech companies in the slide are not.
For how scummy the tech folks are:
I agree wholeheartedly that the Foxconn situation is terrible. But this isn't limited to tech companies, nor even to Foxconn specifically.
Since we're talking about auto manufacturers: Most U.S. cars now have embedded systems in them to control breaking, steering, etc. Who, exactly, do you think makes those chips?
What I'd like to know is why this topic was brought up at SXSW at all. What does that have to do with a music festival? Is SXSW turning into a macroeconomics seminar or something?
Whose presentation was this part of? What was the context?
I can hazard a guess, but I'd like to know for sure. (My guess is that it is some sort of anti-tech presentation by the usual copyright-maximalism-as-artists-rights crew.)
Sending notices to google to remove a page from their results is somewhat less useful when it still gives you a list of URLs that includes the removed one.
Except, of course, those web page addresses aren't searchable - which is why rights holders wanted them removed from Google in the first place.
If you wanted to find infringing copies of the manga titles listed on that DMCA notice (the one you linked to), then there's no way in Hell you're going to Chilling Effects to find them.
Uh...there is good reason why more than just an email address suffices for DMCA compliance. Hard to hold a site accountable when all you have is an email address that may be ignored without any immediate repercussions.
I meant for sending notices. If a site is ignoring emails, then an address isn't going to help. It's just as easy to ignore a paper letter as it is to ignore an email. The immediate repercussions are exactly the same either way.
I agree that there may be good reasons for providing a physical address, but those reasons are only applicable in situations where rights holders need to take legal action against the sites. If we get to that point, then we're a long way from DMCA compliance anyway.
The info needed to comply with the Designated Agent requirements of the DMCA are more than just an email address.
True, but that doesn't mean it's unfair to copyright holders. Sending an email is trivial; it's even easier (and less costly) than sending a paper copy to a physical address. If that's not good enough, then it is the copyright holders who are being unfair.
It also doesn't alter the fact that the things Seidler claimed she had to do weren't actually necessary. At least not regarding the linking site.
The hosting site is another matter, but from what I can gather, they're doing it more from sheer incompetence. (Read their contact page, where they claim they've simply stopped reading emails, and their FAQ, where they say all links are temporary in order to reduce hotlinking.) Whatever the reason, it's doubtful that their setup is a deliberate attempt to get advertising dollars from takedown notices, as Seidler seems to think.
In any case, if these sites aren't following the DMCA, then that's not a condemnation of the DMCA. It's a condemnation of the sites who aren't following it. Sites who do follow the DMCA shouldn't be punished with a revision of the DMCA that places even more of an unfair burden upon them.
The person behind Vox Indie is Ellen Seidler. I would not trust anything she has to say when it comes to copyright infringement.
This article is a perfect example. You know all those links, popups, or whatever that she claimed she was forced to go through?
Well, either she lied, or she's not very smart. I went to the link site myself just now. Down in the footer of every page is a series of links. One of them is to "Contacts." If you click that link, you will be taken here: http://www.solarmovie.so/contacts.html
In case you don't want to visit that page, here's the relevant part:
Here's the thing: they are almost certainly not compliant with the DMCA if that's the only way they allow takedowns. Furthermore, a search for their site in the Copyright Office's Directory of Service Provider Agents does not show that they ever registered.
In other words, it's not a problem with the DMCA. Modifying the DMCA wouldn't do any good in their case, since they're not even following the rules that exist right now.
This isn't the first time she's done stuff like this, either. She's also the person behind popuppirates.com, a virulently anti-Google site. I've talked about that site before. I could very, very easily debunk the rest of her claims if you want me to.
Unfortunately, things are not always fair. Looking at a rights holder, no sooner has a takedown notice been prepared, submitted and ultimately resulted in a takedown, the very same information appears instantaneously,
Yes, it is well-nigh impossible for rights holders to take down all of their content on the web. It means that the task is, by its nature, well-nigh impossible. That doesn't mean it is unfair to rights holders. It means rights holders are demanding the impossible.
What rights holders want to do is shift the burden from this impossible task from themselves onto third parties. Third parties who do not have any beneficial interest in the copyrights, hence no beneficial interest in preventing infringement. That would be manifestly unfair to those third parties.
it is clear that the information is infringing
You can't tell if content is infringing just by looking at it. The exact same content can be infringing or authorized. The only people who are in a position to know this are the rights holders (and sometimes even they are wrong - look at the YouTube/Viacom case, or the Dajaz1.com seizure).
Many information service providers specifically hone in on infringing content, encouraging the users of its services to "have at it to their heart's content".
If you're actively encouraging infringement, then the DMCA doesn't apply to you, and you can be sued out of business. Many already have been. So, these entities already bear the burden for infringement.
Does the blocking apply to just the notified user or all users ever?
The idea is that it would apply to all users ever. Which is the main reason why it's a terrible idea.
Say I make a movie. Someone posts it to YouTube, and I issue a "notice and staydown" request. Now, I can't upload that movie, either - and if I already did so, my copy would also be taken down.
No, if someone is found guilty of infringement, they have to pay absolutely insane amounts of money due to statutory damage awards. And if their infringement is criminal, then yes, they are incarcerated.
The ones who "simply do it again" are the ones that aren't caught... just like you wouldn't be incarcerated if you kicked me in the balls and weren't caught.
By the way - comparing the infringement of a statutory monopoly right, with physical violence against someone? You're a douchebag.
It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.
Sarcasm or no, why shouldn't it be? You wouldn't say that the entire burden associated with making cars should be placed upon the shoulders of anyone except the auto industry. Toyota couldn't blame Google if a search for "affordable car" turned up a link to a Honda.
Copyright holders shouldn't be granted special privileges that nobody else has. Policing infringement (online or off) should be their responsibility, and nobody else's.
i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.
I am, and many of my friends are too. Most don't particularly care about having their "shit stolen" (BTW it's not "stealing," it's "infringing"). Even those that don't like it at all find it at most a nuisance; it doesn't rank up there with (say) not getting people to shows, or being stuck with a bad label deal that earns them nothing.
Even so, the "notice and staydown" provisions, if enacted, would harm us artists much worse than the original infringement. It would be a recipe for permanent censorship, and would make it impossible for anyone to form companies that might help us. It would consolidate the control of user-generated content into the hands of tech mega-corporations, the only ones who could afford to implement it, and require that those corporations have cozy relationships with the legacy industries whose business models depend upon screwing us over.
And that's just artists. It's just as bad, or worse, for the general public.
If you really do support artists - and not corporate copyright holders or big tech companies - then you should be against this.
I wish the author would have been more careful with his phrasing. The DMCA is extrajudicial, but it is not extralegal. It would only be extralegal if it was a voluntary contract between ISP's and copyright holders, without any government involvement.
While I may disagree with some of Karl's comments here and in other articles re copyright law, I respect him for the obviously significant time he has taken and continues to take to inform himself on the substantive law. In many instances his insights are more accurate and nuanced than many attorneys who, when waxing poetic on copyright law, are so obviously out of their element and doing no more than "shooting from the lip".
On the post: Judge Highlights Bogus Collusion By ASCAP, Publishers In Rejecting Their Attempt To Jack Up Pandora's Rates
Re: Re: Re: So basically . . .
...In addition to my other comment, I must point out that Google had nothing whatsoever to do with this ruling.
So, even bringing them up in this context is a complete red herring.
On the post: Judge Highlights Bogus Collusion By ASCAP, Publishers In Rejecting Their Attempt To Jack Up Pandora's Rates
Re: Re: Re: So basically . . .
Ah. You mean those links that come up in searches that almost nobody does, and for which Google does not make any money?
Yeah, they're really "screwing artists."
and shitty YouTube royalty rates.
You mean the royalty rates that YouTube negotiated with PRO's like ASCAP and BMI, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Or the new "sync license" royalty rates that they negotiated with the Harry Fox Agency, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Or do you mean the ContentID system, where rights holders keep more than half of the advertising income on YouTube videos, and which Google spend over $50 million developing, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Yeah, they're really "screwing artists."
It's hilarious that you tech dbags think anyone is still believing your bullshit.
It's hilarious that you big media "dbags" think anyone ever did believe your bullshit.
On the post: Bad Ruling Says CafePress May Not Qualify For DMCA Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re:
Just because I disagree with the judge's stupid opinion does not make me stupid. Also, we'll see what happens on appeal. I predict that this particular part of the ruling will be overturned.
The largest difference is that CafePress goes beyond facilitating the sale of products between internet users by directly selling products to online shoppers through the CafePress Marketplace.
The judge doesn't seem to realize that Amazon and eBay do almost exactly the same thing. Amazon, for instance, directly sells third-party products to online shoppers, using Amazon's own shipping apparatus. eBay does something similar with their eBay Store service. Yet the court rulings that the judge cites in his opinion do not strip DMCA protections from either Amazon or eBay for these reasons.
Please note that I am disagreeing with the judge about whether Cafe Press is eligible for DMCA safe harbors. Whether they actually meet that eligibility is a separate question. And, of course, lack of DMCA safe harbors eligibility does not mean that Cafe Press is necessarily liable for infringement.
On the post: Judge Highlights Bogus Collusion By ASCAP, Publishers In Rejecting Their Attempt To Jack Up Pandora's Rates
Re: Re: So basically . . .
Provably false. In fact, that's part of what this lawsuit was all about.
The rates that Pandora paid (and, now, will continue to pay) are higher than the rates that traditional radio stations pay, for streaming on the Internet.
Pandora's rate is 1.85%. IHeartRadio, run by Clear Channel (the owner of the majority of radio stations), pays just 1.7% for its Internet streams.
And as far as comparison with "the major record labels:" No, they do not share a "dramatically larger" percentage of their income. Pandora pays more than half their income to sound recording rights holders. Major labels pay around 15% of the income from records, to the artists (depending upon contract). And that's only after the artists have paid back the recording costs, packaging costs, some of the marketing or video, etc.
So, no. Pandora pays a dramatically larger percentage to artists than any traditional label or publisher.
You're lying, once again.
On the post: Bad Ruling Says CafePress May Not Qualify For DMCA Safe Harbors
Re:
They're no more of a "proactive player" than Amazon or eBay, both of which have been found (repeatedly) to be eligible for safe harbors provisions.
On the post: Jury Says MP3Tunes Was 'Willfully Blind' In Building A Music Locker
DMCA?
Did MP3tunes have a DMCA policy? If so, did they follow it?
It's entirely possible that they didn't (or if they did have a policy, that it wasn't fully compliant), but I don't know this for sure.
On the post: Bogus Comparison Between Detroit In 1990 And Silicon Valley In 2012
Re:
Aside from what Mike said, that article focuses on startup companies, which the tech companies in the slide are not.
For how scummy the tech folks are:
I agree wholeheartedly that the Foxconn situation is terrible. But this isn't limited to tech companies, nor even to Foxconn specifically.
Since we're talking about auto manufacturers: Most U.S. cars now have embedded systems in them to control breaking, steering, etc. Who, exactly, do you think makes those chips?
On the post: Myriad Genetics Loses Again: Court Refuses To Grant Preliminary Injunction Against Rival Genetic Testing Company
Re:
Whenever anyone says something about spinning disks, I always think of this scene from Hairspray:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CxLACIpphU
On the post: Bogus Comparison Between Detroit In 1990 And Silicon Valley In 2012
Why?
Whose presentation was this part of? What was the context?
I can hazard a guess, but I'd like to know for sure. (My guess is that it is some sort of anti-tech presentation by the usual copyright-maximalism-as-artists-rights crew.)
On the post: Copyright Alliance Attacks ChillingEffects.org As 'Repugnant,' Wants DMCA System With No Public Accountability
Re: Re: Re: The real reason they're mad
Except, of course, those web page addresses aren't searchable - which is why rights holders wanted them removed from Google in the first place.
If you wanted to find infringing copies of the manga titles listed on that DMCA notice (the one you linked to), then there's no way in Hell you're going to Chilling Effects to find them.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I meant for sending notices. If a site is ignoring emails, then an address isn't going to help. It's just as easy to ignore a paper letter as it is to ignore an email. The immediate repercussions are exactly the same either way.
I agree that there may be good reasons for providing a physical address, but those reasons are only applicable in situations where rights holders need to take legal action against the sites. If we get to that point, then we're a long way from DMCA compliance anyway.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but that doesn't mean it's unfair to copyright holders. Sending an email is trivial; it's even easier (and less costly) than sending a paper copy to a physical address. If that's not good enough, then it is the copyright holders who are being unfair.
It also doesn't alter the fact that the things Seidler claimed she had to do weren't actually necessary. At least not regarding the linking site.
The hosting site is another matter, but from what I can gather, they're doing it more from sheer incompetence. (Read their contact page, where they claim they've simply stopped reading emails, and their FAQ, where they say all links are temporary in order to reduce hotlinking.) Whatever the reason, it's doubtful that their setup is a deliberate attempt to get advertising dollars from takedown notices, as Seidler seems to think.
In any case, if these sites aren't following the DMCA, then that's not a condemnation of the DMCA. It's a condemnation of the sites who aren't following it. Sites who do follow the DMCA shouldn't be punished with a revision of the DMCA that places even more of an unfair burden upon them.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The person behind Vox Indie is Ellen Seidler. I would not trust anything she has to say when it comes to copyright infringement.
This article is a perfect example. You know all those links, popups, or whatever that she claimed she was forced to go through?
Well, either she lied, or she's not very smart. I went to the link site myself just now. Down in the footer of every page is a series of links. One of them is to "Contacts." If you click that link, you will be taken here:
http://www.solarmovie.so/contacts.html
In case you don't want to visit that page, here's the relevant part:
She could have gotten that direct email with a single click. No advertising, no nothing.
The site that actually hosted the stream is a different story:
http://clicktoview.org/dmca.html
Here's the thing: they are almost certainly not compliant with the DMCA if that's the only way they allow takedowns. Furthermore, a search for their site in the Copyright Office's Directory of Service Provider Agents does not show that they ever registered.
In other words, it's not a problem with the DMCA. Modifying the DMCA wouldn't do any good in their case, since they're not even following the rules that exist right now.
This isn't the first time she's done stuff like this, either. She's also the person behind popuppirates.com, a virulently anti-Google site. I've talked about that site before. I could very, very easily debunk the rest of her claims if you want me to.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is well-nigh impossible for rights holders to take down all of their content on the web. It means that the task is, by its nature, well-nigh impossible. That doesn't mean it is unfair to rights holders. It means rights holders are demanding the impossible.
What rights holders want to do is shift the burden from this impossible task from themselves onto third parties. Third parties who do not have any beneficial interest in the copyrights, hence no beneficial interest in preventing infringement. That would be manifestly unfair to those third parties.
it is clear that the information is infringing
You can't tell if content is infringing just by looking at it. The exact same content can be infringing or authorized. The only people who are in a position to know this are the rights holders (and sometimes even they are wrong - look at the YouTube/Viacom case, or the Dajaz1.com seizure).
Many information service providers specifically hone in on infringing content, encouraging the users of its services to "have at it to their heart's content".
If you're actively encouraging infringement, then the DMCA doesn't apply to you, and you can be sued out of business. Many already have been. So, these entities already bear the burden for infringement.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re:
The idea is that it would apply to all users ever. Which is the main reason why it's a terrible idea.
Say I make a movie. Someone posts it to YouTube, and I issue a "notice and staydown" request. Now, I can't upload that movie, either - and if I already did so, my copy would also be taken down.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, if someone is found guilty of infringement, they have to pay absolutely insane amounts of money due to statutory damage awards. And if their infringement is criminal, then yes, they are incarcerated.
The ones who "simply do it again" are the ones that aren't caught... just like you wouldn't be incarcerated if you kicked me in the balls and weren't caught.
By the way - comparing the infringement of a statutory monopoly right, with physical violence against someone? You're a douchebag.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re:
Sarcasm or no, why shouldn't it be? You wouldn't say that the entire burden associated with making cars should be placed upon the shoulders of anyone except the auto industry. Toyota couldn't blame Google if a search for "affordable car" turned up a link to a Honda.
Copyright holders shouldn't be granted special privileges that nobody else has. Policing infringement (online or off) should be their responsibility, and nobody else's.
On the post: The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'
Re:
I am, and many of my friends are too. Most don't particularly care about having their "shit stolen" (BTW it's not "stealing," it's "infringing"). Even those that don't like it at all find it at most a nuisance; it doesn't rank up there with (say) not getting people to shows, or being stuck with a bad label deal that earns them nothing.
Even so, the "notice and staydown" provisions, if enacted, would harm us artists much worse than the original infringement. It would be a recipe for permanent censorship, and would make it impossible for anyone to form companies that might help us. It would consolidate the control of user-generated content into the hands of tech mega-corporations, the only ones who could afford to implement it, and require that those corporations have cozy relationships with the legacy industries whose business models depend upon screwing us over.
And that's just artists. It's just as bad, or worse, for the general public.
If you really do support artists - and not corporate copyright holders or big tech companies - then you should be against this.
On the post: 5 Myths We're Likely To Hear At Tomorrow's DMCA Hearing
Extrajudicial, not extralegal
On the post: The Aereo Case Isn't About Aereo, But About The Future Of Cloud Computing And Innovation
Re: Re:
Just wanted to say thank you for this.
Next >>