Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
Gideon, 30% + 37% is over 57%, so that "addition" has nothing to do with those business entities. The "addition" is meant as another finding, not math.
Your math skills are useless, just like your trolling on this board.
|
Exactly moron
as i said before
Quote:
no where in the article does it say that the non copyright notices only happened when it was a competing company.
it could exist in circumstances where the company is not a competitor
(like the mega upload example)
using copyright takedown notices for privacy issues, use of personal image are all inappropriate
|
37% were non copyright complaints
Quote:
As a rule of thumb, we tried to capture notices where a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise. Examples range from the clearly
problematic—for example, recipes, prices and metatag information, which are unlikely to
be covered by copyright—to instances of very thin copyright claims, such as website
HTML “structure.” We also included notices where the target was likely to have a fair use
defense. A much smaller number of notices in this category were counted due to other
substantive concerns, such as questions regarding the ownership of the copyright in
question: for example, a small number of notices appear to be sent not by the copyright
holder or a representative, but by a party with some other interest in the material, such
as the subject of a photograph
|
that section did not include statutory defects
like bad filings
Quote:
Significant statutory flaws plagued one out of every eleven
notices. Fig. ES-6, above. By “significant” statutory flaws, we mean one of the four flaws
that render a notice invalid according to the terms of the statute:
11
failure to identify the
allegedly-infringing work; failure to identify the allegedly-infringed work; failure to provide
a way to locate the allegedly-infringing work; or failure to provide contact information for
the complainant. Other statutory flaws—the good faith and penalty of perjury
statements, and the signature—do not exempt an OSP from responding to the notice,
and they are not included in this figure. Takedowns based on notices with the significant
flaws are problematic in a number of ways
|
and jurisdictional issues
Quote:
One surprising result was the large number of notices
targeting material that appeared to reside outside the United States, particularly for
Google notices (253, or 34%, of the Google notices). Further, a small number of notices
(6) were sent to foreign OSPs. While the underlying claim might be strong in the United
States, foreign targets may have local defenses; at the very least, foreign governments
may look askance at the ex ante takedown process of Section 512. Of course, foreignowned material may be hosted on a United States ISP’s server, subject to United States
laws. However, the vast majority of these notices are related to Google search index
results. For these notices, the material resides offshore, and Google merely provides a
link.
|
considering that sopa is designed to fix that problem (and therefore proves that the DMCA was never entitled to legally do this) those are all bogus complaint
They however were not counted AT ALL "a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise."
yes there was some overlap (ie privacy complaint misrepresented as a copyright complaint,
with missing information, targeting a non us company) but it was never 100%
that why 67% (against both competiting and non competiting companies) of all complaints were bogus and not (37+37+10= 84%)