If the incumbents have to cut jobs (because they lose market share and income), and lower price competitors take over, why would you think it would create net jobs?
Mike, please, one thing I do understand very clearly is DMCA.
Hosts are only on the hook if they do nothing if you have not provided clear indication of your rights to use the material in question.
Hosts are usually not the first to be contacted. They are usually second, provided you are servable yourself. If you cannot be reached, they will contact the host.
Sadly, what most big stupid hosts do is just remove access to the content and call it a day. This is especially the case for free hosting on almost any scale, as the costs involved in actually dealing the guts of a DMCA complaint is beyond the profits of running your "free" blog site.
The key is being responsive and reachable. If you are at the level where the host is involved, it is likely already too late to fix things.
Sort of a classic re-jigging of history to try to make it look like something it was not. In the end, the Greatful Dead did all of those things without giving their products away. Poor quality "approved" bootlegs were still no replacement for albums or real live shows. Effectively, they created a "make your own sample" tape, which wasn't enough to take away from their studio recorded products or live shows.
May I point out that Mettalica was famous for allowing their fans to record their shows, and would sell specific seats (often with power and everything provided) just for that purpose. Yet, we all know how they were later crucified for fighting against the scourge that was Napster.
if you have done it once, you have done it before.
I suspect you post much more than anyone would let on.
heck, Mike has said I posted as a bunch of different people that I didn't post as, so I don't particularly trust Mike about that sort of thing. He has accused me of comments I never made.
I notice another poster who is busy attacking me personally but isn't very good with the "reply to this comment" button, sure looks like your style there RealDense.
Oh yeah, all this is a good way to deflect away from the simple issue: You made up stuff I didn't say, you lied. Congrats.
You failed to show a link to a "bullet-proof webhost" in U.S. soil.
If you aren't breaking the law, and are responsive to DMCA notices you receive, run your own domain, and actually put valid contact information in your domain registry and contact information of your site, you won't have issues.
If you are intent on violating copyright left and right, or in pushing the limits of the copyright law (crying fair use on everything, example), you will not find a host that will tolerate you very long.
You failed to show how DMCA-notice are not used against innocent people
Double negative? One of the problems of using a blog host and a third level domain (or subdomain) is that you are unreachable and unservable. As a result, the DMCA notices go first to your host. They aren't going to tolerate much.
Get your own domain, make your info valid, and handle the DMCA notices yourself. Are DMCAs issued incorrectly? I am sure there are some. But you would have to be a really lucky person to get a bunch of them. You would likely have to be pushing the limits a bit, no?
You failed to show how DMCA-notices had any effect on piracy in the U.S.. They are not really useful against piracy.
DMCA isn't an anti-piracy tool specifically, it is a notification tool. Those individuals and companies who respect DMCA notices take down content that should not be on their sites. For those who don't respect it, it is the first step down the legal road. Who ever told you that DMCA is specifically an anti-piracy system lied to you.
You failed to show how DMCA-notices will protect people against abuse of that mechanism.
I can't even follow this one. DMCA isn't an absolute. It can be replied to successfully, and systematic abuses could be brought to a courts attention. But most keyboard warriors don't have the balls to do it. So things just end there.
You failed to show how an individual with little or no resources is supposed to defend itself when even governments can't even keep themselves out of infringement.
In the same manner that the same person would fight against any injustice, they take them to court. I have to laugh about to government thing, only because you are trying to create a ridiculous standard. Everyone makes errors. The question is how you handle them. If you broke the rules (or are very close), it's like anything. Do you fight your tax bill or just pay it? Do you fight the speeding ticket, or just pay it? Do you fight that DMCA, or do you just take down that clip you claim fair use on?
If you truly believe, you would find a way to fight. Otherwise, just close out the problem area and move on.
The only thing I fail at is I fail to not answer people like you. It is really too bad that you don't have real work experience to work from, just anecdotal experience from reading this blog.
In the real world, if you aren't violating copyright (or coming very, very close) you usually won't ever see a DMCA notice. If you are servable, your host will likely never even know.
So sorry, you failed.
WEP is always up. Good luck hacking it, keyboard warrior.
They do now, only under force, and didn't want to at all. Youtube was started without any intention of paying any royalties on anything, and they went through many variations of not wanting to pay. Even when they admitted they should pay, they tried to negotiate deals that were more along the lines of percentage of profit (because they have none), or percentage of advertising on the page (and they would just not run any ads).
Their business model was to not pay for any of the product they used. That business model failed, and they had to change it.
As you can see from Mike's story about Olympic Videos being removed from YouTube, they are much more respectful of owners rights now then they were when the started, but you can still see that their business model is take anything, and only deal with complaints.
Sorry if you think my point of view is a lie, because history says otherwise.
how a webhost fallowing the same laws, using the same terms will act differently from Google that have billions and can certainly afford to go to court, have some of the best lawyers on the planet and still terminate people that tried to play by the book?
Google is big and generally doesn't have very good customer service.
Web hosts normally communicate with their customers on this sort of an issue. Google doesn't appear to be very good at communication, and they just go ahead and pull the plug.
Dealing with DMCA notices is serious business. I cannot see any webhost tolerating repeat infringers, especially if it is the same issue over and over again. But if your host is communicating with and you can provide the necessary documentation to support your claims, most hosts will back you 100%.
Remember, hosts are only obliged to take action if you are taking none. They are only obliged to take action if you aren't answering them or you are giving them BS stories (or trying to stand on the head of a legal pin on something).
If you have a website, your contact information should be valid, you should be reachable, and importantly, you need to treat DMCA notices seriously and in a timely manner. If you do it, your host never gets involved.
However, if you are going to infringe over and over, you have no hope.
Sorry, you article is about the whole market, not just your site. Perhaps your advertisers are giving you their reasons, but perhaps other have other reasons. I don't think you advertisers are the whole market, right?
RealDense, when you stop arguing points and start discussing physically hurting someone (grandma don't like coat hangers) I have to say not only have you lost the discussion, but you have also lost your connection to the planet.
Seriously, if you aren't on meds, you might consider a doctor visit to get some, because you are really losing it.
You got caught lying, you got caught changing my words, and you are just making stuff up. Whatever little credibility you had is all gone.
Have you a link to a webhoster that will not disconnect a repeat offender?
Most hosts are very tolerant, provided you react to DMCA notices in a timely manner. However, if you are not reacting to DMCA notices, or always making excuses, there really isn't any host that is going to want to work with you. What that means is that your information has to be servable at all times, you have to be able to be reached, etc.
No hosting company will want to deal with you if you have a continuous stream of legal issues, it is too expensive for them to keep handling. If you are not responsive, or do not appear to be fixing the issues, you will have a hard time finding anyone to front for you.
That being said, Perez Hilton went an awfully long way before his original host tossed him. By then, he made enough money that he is now paying for the content and giving credits.
Your real solution would be to rent rack space in a data center, put in your own machine(s), and purchase connectivity. Basically, be your own host, handle your own issues. Then you only risk is the connectivity partners cutting you off.
There are a few hosts in the US who call themselves "bulletproof", they are usually the ones that host things like the IRC servers used to direct botnets.
You can consult this wikipedia page for indications of companies that were bullet proof hosts (and what finally killed them):
Only stupid people would risk this kind of trouble for an artist that probably don't even care about their fans or else he would have put his music with a liberal license.
The reality is this: If you are going to distribute content without permission, you generally won't last. Copyright holders will hunt you down and knock you offline if you are not attentive to their DMCA notices.
There are few hosts that want to deal with illegal content, they will not be on your side if you are not responsive, attentive, and ready to work with copyright holders.
It's sort of the same as renting an apartment. Few owners will rent you an apartment if you are intending to run a crack house or sell illegal stuff out of the front door. Once they figure it out, you will get tossed quick. The internet is just like real life.
1) I put a similar edict to you recently and your response was "I dont HAVE TO do anything, I'm an adult and I can choose what I want" or something similar. So, using your own idea on this, I dont HAVE to do any such thing.
No, what you said was "YOU MUST ANSWER THIS". I don't have to answer any of your questions. You cannot order me to do anything. I am just saying you need to either apologize, or continue to be an asshole. You aren't order to do anything.
That alone proves you can't even understand simple things.
2) There is nothing to apologize for since a) I wasnt wrong and b) you failed to prove I was SO wrong as to need to apologize, as evidenced by the MANY MANY comments against you in this matter.
in your opinion, and your opinion, in my opinion, is wrong.
Mike goes on and on about the value of free promotion, and how nobody should complain, they shouldn't bitch when they material is used for free, and plenty of good business models have been ruined because copyright holders actually expected to get paid.
I don't know what blog you have been reading, but then again, when you can't even seem to understand the difference between an order and a choice, I guess I can't expect you to understand anything else.
So sorry RealDense, but for all your long post, you still failed massively, and made yourself look even denser by posting it.
So you're saying that Google and Youtube "don't pay for anything", eh?
That's right, they don't pay for their content.
They pay for other things, but it is on par with paying rent on a store. There is a huge difference between paying the rent and paying for the products you use in your business.
Mike, do you have any examples of non-network (or non-official) video having been removed from YouTube in this case? Did anyone outside of the networks actually have any video at all?
they definitely ARE taking down YouTube clips of the news.
Where are those clips from? Who owns the rights to them?
Re: Re: TAM
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
Hosts are only on the hook if they do nothing if you have not provided clear indication of your rights to use the material in question.
Hosts are usually not the first to be contacted. They are usually second, provided you are servable yourself. If you cannot be reached, they will contact the host.
Sadly, what most big stupid hosts do is just remove access to the content and call it a day. This is especially the case for free hosting on almost any scale, as the costs involved in actually dealing the guts of a DMCA complaint is beyond the profits of running your "free" blog site.
The key is being responsive and reachable. If you are at the level where the host is involved, it is likely already too late to fix things.
(untitled comment)
May I point out that Mettalica was famous for allowing their fans to record their shows, and would sell specific seats (often with power and everything provided) just for that purpose. Yet, we all know how they were later crucified for fighting against the scourge that was Napster.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
I suspect you post much more than anyone would let on.
heck, Mike has said I posted as a bunch of different people that I didn't post as, so I don't particularly trust Mike about that sort of thing. He has accused me of comments I never made.
I notice another poster who is busy attacking me personally but isn't very good with the "reply to this comment" button, sure looks like your style there RealDense.
Oh yeah, all this is a good way to deflect away from the simple issue: You made up stuff I didn't say, you lied. Congrats.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
(untitled comment)
if you don't want to be tracked, turn off your cell phone.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
If you aren't breaking the law, and are responsive to DMCA notices you receive, run your own domain, and actually put valid contact information in your domain registry and contact information of your site, you won't have issues.
If you are intent on violating copyright left and right, or in pushing the limits of the copyright law (crying fair use on everything, example), you will not find a host that will tolerate you very long.
You failed to show how DMCA-notice are not used against innocent people
Double negative? One of the problems of using a blog host and a third level domain (or subdomain) is that you are unreachable and unservable. As a result, the DMCA notices go first to your host. They aren't going to tolerate much.
Get your own domain, make your info valid, and handle the DMCA notices yourself. Are DMCAs issued incorrectly? I am sure there are some. But you would have to be a really lucky person to get a bunch of them. You would likely have to be pushing the limits a bit, no?
You failed to show how DMCA-notices had any effect on piracy in the U.S.. They are not really useful against piracy.
DMCA isn't an anti-piracy tool specifically, it is a notification tool. Those individuals and companies who respect DMCA notices take down content that should not be on their sites. For those who don't respect it, it is the first step down the legal road. Who ever told you that DMCA is specifically an anti-piracy system lied to you.
You failed to show how DMCA-notices will protect people against abuse of that mechanism.
I can't even follow this one. DMCA isn't an absolute. It can be replied to successfully, and systematic abuses could be brought to a courts attention. But most keyboard warriors don't have the balls to do it. So things just end there.
You failed to show how an individual with little or no resources is supposed to defend itself when even governments can't even keep themselves out of infringement.
In the same manner that the same person would fight against any injustice, they take them to court. I have to laugh about to government thing, only because you are trying to create a ridiculous standard. Everyone makes errors. The question is how you handle them. If you broke the rules (or are very close), it's like anything. Do you fight your tax bill or just pay it? Do you fight the speeding ticket, or just pay it? Do you fight that DMCA, or do you just take down that clip you claim fair use on?
If you truly believe, you would find a way to fight. Otherwise, just close out the problem area and move on.
The only thing I fail at is I fail to not answer people like you. It is really too bad that you don't have real work experience to work from, just anecdotal experience from reading this blog.
In the real world, if you aren't violating copyright (or coming very, very close) you usually won't ever see a DMCA notice. If you are servable, your host will likely never even know.
So sorry, you failed.
WEP is always up. Good luck hacking it, keyboard warrior.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
Their business model was to not pay for any of the product they used. That business model failed, and they had to change it.
As you can see from Mike's story about Olympic Videos being removed from YouTube, they are much more respectful of owners rights now then they were when the started, but you can still see that their business model is take anything, and only deal with complaints.
Sorry if you think my point of view is a lie, because history says otherwise.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
Google is big and generally doesn't have very good customer service.
Web hosts normally communicate with their customers on this sort of an issue. Google doesn't appear to be very good at communication, and they just go ahead and pull the plug.
Dealing with DMCA notices is serious business. I cannot see any webhost tolerating repeat infringers, especially if it is the same issue over and over again. But if your host is communicating with and you can provide the necessary documentation to support your claims, most hosts will back you 100%.
Remember, hosts are only obliged to take action if you are taking none. They are only obliged to take action if you aren't answering them or you are giving them BS stories (or trying to stand on the head of a legal pin on something).
If you have a website, your contact information should be valid, you should be reachable, and importantly, you need to treat DMCA notices seriously and in a timely manner. If you do it, your host never gets involved.
However, if you are going to infringe over and over, you have no hope.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
Seriously, if you aren't on meds, you might consider a doctor visit to get some, because you are really losing it.
You got caught lying, you got caught changing my words, and you are just making stuff up. Whatever little credibility you had is all gone.
RealDense, you just suck.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
It's okay, thanks :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
Most hosts are very tolerant, provided you react to DMCA notices in a timely manner. However, if you are not reacting to DMCA notices, or always making excuses, there really isn't any host that is going to want to work with you. What that means is that your information has to be servable at all times, you have to be able to be reached, etc.
No hosting company will want to deal with you if you have a continuous stream of legal issues, it is too expensive for them to keep handling. If you are not responsive, or do not appear to be fixing the issues, you will have a hard time finding anyone to front for you.
That being said, Perez Hilton went an awfully long way before his original host tossed him. By then, he made enough money that he is now paying for the content and giving credits.
Your real solution would be to rent rack space in a data center, put in your own machine(s), and purchase connectivity. Basically, be your own host, handle your own issues. Then you only risk is the connectivity partners cutting you off.
There are a few hosts in the US who call themselves "bulletproof", they are usually the ones that host things like the IRC servers used to direct botnets.
You can consult this wikipedia page for indications of companies that were bullet proof hosts (and what finally killed them):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_hosting
Only stupid people would risk this kind of trouble for an artist that probably don't even care about their fans or else he would have put his music with a liberal license.
The reality is this: If you are going to distribute content without permission, you generally won't last. Copyright holders will hunt you down and knock you offline if you are not attentive to their DMCA notices.
There are few hosts that want to deal with illegal content, they will not be on your side if you are not responsive, attentive, and ready to work with copyright holders.
It's sort of the same as renting an apartment. Few owners will rent you an apartment if you are intending to run a crack house or sell illegal stuff out of the front door. Once they figure it out, you will get tossed quick. The internet is just like real life.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
Do you think there are only 2 possibly hosting options, in your home on your home DSL line or with Google?
All I can say is "wow".
Which one do you think Techdirt is on? Google, or Mike's home connection?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
You are working really hard, but in the end, you are just a liar.
Sorry RealDense, you got caught.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
No, what you said was "YOU MUST ANSWER THIS". I don't have to answer any of your questions. You cannot order me to do anything. I am just saying you need to either apologize, or continue to be an asshole. You aren't order to do anything.
That alone proves you can't even understand simple things.
2) There is nothing to apologize for since a) I wasnt wrong and b) you failed to prove I was SO wrong as to need to apologize, as evidenced by the MANY MANY comments against you in this matter.
in your opinion, and your opinion, in my opinion, is wrong.
Mike goes on and on about the value of free promotion, and how nobody should complain, they shouldn't bitch when they material is used for free, and plenty of good business models have been ruined because copyright holders actually expected to get paid.
I don't know what blog you have been reading, but then again, when you can't even seem to understand the difference between an order and a choice, I guess I can't expect you to understand anything else.
So sorry RealDense, but for all your long post, you still failed massively, and made yourself look even denser by posting it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
That's right, they don't pay for their content.
They pay for other things, but it is on par with paying rent on a store. There is a huge difference between paying the rent and paying for the products you use in your business.
Nice try, but fail.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects
When I said "get your own website" I didn't mean "host it at home". That is very amateur, and very likely to get you shut down anyway.
Real host. Real service. People who have a clue.
They will not block you if you have proof that you are using material with permission, or with rights.
Please learn and understand how DMCA works.
Re: Re:
they definitely ARE taking down YouTube clips of the news.
Where are those clips from? Who owns the rights to them?
More comments from The Anti-Mike >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by The Anti-Mike.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt