Fred von Lohmann’s Comments

• Jul 11th, 2011 @ 4:11pm

  minor correction

  on Judge Drops Key Claim In MPAA's Case Against Hotfile: Cyberlocker Didn't Directly Infringe
  The DMCA safe harbors do apply to direct infringement, as well as secondary liability. See the Senate report that accompanied the DMCA, S. Rep. 105-190, page 40 ("The [safe harbor] limitations … protect qualifying service providers from liability for all monetary relief for direct, vicarious and contributory infringement.")
• Jul 11th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

  triply stupid

  on Vancouver Rioters Trying To Abuse Copyright To Avoid Being Identified, Which Only Helps Identify Them
  Generally speaking, copyright is owned by the person taking the video. Hence, if you're in the video, you're generally not the copyright owner (unless you hired the cameraman).
• Jul 11th, 2011 @ 3:36pm

  minor correction

  on Judge Drops Key Claim In MPAA's Case Against Hotfile: Cyberlocker Didn't Directly Infringe
  The DMCA safe harbors do apply to direct infringement, as well as secondary liability. See the Senate report that accompanied the DMCA, S. Rep. 105-190, page 40 ("The [safe harbor] limitations … protect qualifying service providers from liability for all monetary relief for direct, vicarious and contributory infringement.")
• Jan 5th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

  actually, new things did enter public domain

  on US Is Left Waiting For Godot On Public Domain Day: Once Again, Absolutely Nothing Enters The Public Domain This Year
  Sorry for weighing in here with a correction (rather than more colorful commentary), but actually, new works do enter the public domain each year under U.S. law -- unpublished works whose authors died more than 70 years ago. This is explained more fully in this law review article, and Section 303 of the Copyright Act.
• Apr 5th, 2010 @ 8:06am

  Section 412(c)

  on Uwe Boll's Mass Automated Copyright Lawsuits Registered The Copyright Too Late
  I think Comment #26 might have you on this one, Mike. Section 412(c) does let a copyright owner that registers within 3 months of first publication get statutory damages and attorneys fees back to the publication date. It is interesting that at least one of the defendants is alleged to have distributed the film **before** the initial publication date listed on the registration. I wonder how that happened?
• Mar 5th, 2010 @ 12:12pm

  don't forget sovereign immunity

  on UCLA Decides To Put Course Videos Back Online; Countdown To Lawsuit Begins...
  State schools enjoy sovereign immunity against damages claims (including for copyright infringement). So unlike private schools, UCLA need not fear big statutory damages awards. Makes it easier for them to stay in the fight and get a ruling on the fair use issues.
• Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 8:12am

  Re: Work around?

  on Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation
  Turns out the YouTube Content ID system is pretty robust against pitch- and speed-shifting attacks. A student did a number of tests to figure this out.
• Dec 30th, 2009 @ 6:27pm

  resource for confused YouTubers

  on Film Your Kid Dancing To A McDonald's Happy Meal CD... Get A Takedown Notice From Google
  A big part of the problem here is the confusing number of ways your YouTube video can be taken down: could be a terms of use violation, could be a Content ID match, could be a DMCA takedown. It's a maze for most users to figure out. That's why EFF wrote and posted the Guide to YouTube Removals. Spread that link around!