Google: 57% of its DMCA takedown notices were from competitors trying to gimp each other - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

$5 submissions · 01-09-2012, 10:03 PM

The title is spot on re % using DMCA for dealing with the competition

porno jew · 01-09-2012, 10:06 PM

your title sucks.

$5 submissions · 01-10-2012, 03:31 AM

The legal landscape for IP looks like its going to be in for some big changes in 2012

Dirty Dane · 01-10-2012, 06:09 AM

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.

DamianJ · 01-10-2012, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Your math skills are useless, just like your trolling on this board.

His trolling is better than Markham's. He always gets people to reply and show him attention. Always. Even though it is totally futile discussing ANYTHING with him.

Dirty Dane · 01-10-2012, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

His trolling is better than Markham's. He always gets people to reply and show him attention. Always. Even though it is totally futile discussing ANYTHING with him.

Yes I noticed long time ago,in different discussions he argue against both "sides" in this matters. First he says one thing about a subject, then he says the quite opposite to another. Just for the sake of argument. That's trolling, obviously.

gideongallery · 01-10-2012, 06:35 PM

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%)

EukerVoorn · 01-10-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If the mighty Google are not in a position to examine every claim. The solution is simple. Stop using "user uploads" and yes nextri Youtube is the publisher. If you send media to a person who distributes it, both of you are publishing.

This is very simple, if this law passes as is and Youtube or any other site can't afford to employ the people to make sure they stay withing the law, then the site comes down. No difference from any other business.

I totally agree with you. Hosting providers and sites can't hide behind the "our users are responsible" argument, because the laws are very simple about it:

1) Copyright infringement is illegal
2) Assisting criminals and providing them with means to do what they do, is illegal too and might even make you part of a criminal organization
3) Every citizen is supposed to know the law

They want to provide surfers with a way to tube content, so it's them who are responsible for finding a method to prevent copyright violation.

Dirty Dane · 01-11-2012, 08:43 AM

Gideon, your math sucks. You have to multiply, not add the percents.

Paul Markham · 01-11-2012, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EukerVoorn

I totally agree with you. Hosting providers and sites can't hide behind the "our users are responsible" argument, because the laws are very simple about it:

1) Copyright infringement is illegal
2) Assisting criminals and providing them with means to do what they do, is illegal too and might even make you part of a criminal organization
3) Every citizen is supposed to know the law

They want to provide surfers with a way to tube content, so it's them who are responsible for finding a method to prevent copyright violation.

Well the pirates and their lovers think otherwise. Mind you they can think the Earth would be better if it was flat, doesn't mean it will happen.

I thing GG is really Filipino employed by Theo, for posting here to get the post count up. He would of got the Troll of the Year award, but he doesn't exist so not in the running.

nextri · 01-11-2012, 11:08 AM

If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted?

In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook.

Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users.

gideongallery · 01-11-2012, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Gideon, your math sucks. You have to multiply, not add the percents.

put your money where your mouth is

35k says your wrong

we can ask the author themselves

i am a hundred percent certain your wrong

because if you had to multiply that number it would mean that bogus complaints like the one made by universal against lenz (someone who was not competition could not exist).

and they quite clearly do.

like i said

there is overlap it however is not 100%

blackmonsters · 01-11-2012, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted?

In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook.

Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users.

Re-state your above scenario and change "picture" to "picture of CP" and that you constantly do it and AT&T has been informed about it and it keeps happening but
AT&T doesn't give a shit and they continue to let your pics go thru.

Try that one.

gideongallery · 01-11-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Re-state your above scenario and change "picture" to "picture of CP" and that you constantly do it and AT&T has been informed about it and it keeps happening but
AT&T doesn't give a shit and they continue to let your pics go thru.

Try that one.

Even in your example the law is clear, all AT&T has to do is turn the evidence over to the police be completely innocent.

That would be equal to Google saying to the copyright holder prosecute the pirate bay leave us out if it.

V_RocKs · 01-11-2012, 03:30 PM

fuck DMCA

$5 submissions · 01-11-2012, 04:39 PM

In an ideal world, WHAT would be a solution BOTH sides can AGREE on? Is there a HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND or are you guys saying it is just a matter of black or white?

DMCA tried to find a middle ground.... It's spawned a lot of headaches.

gideongallery · 01-11-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

In an ideal world, WHAT would be a solution BOTH sides can AGREE on? Is there a HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND or are you guys saying it is just a matter of black or white?

DMCA tried to find a middle ground.... It's spawned a lot of headaches.

the problem is the DMCA didn't find the middle ground if it did it the penalty for making a bogus complaint would have been as sever as infringing on copyright.

gideongallery · 01-12-2012, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Re-state your above scenario and change "picture" to "picture of CP" and that you constantly do it and AT&T has been informed about it and it keeps happening but
AT&T doesn't give a shit and they continue to let your pics go thru.

Try that one.

you do realize that 11% of girls 13-16 are sexting (sending nude pictures and videos to their boyfriends)

so the senerio your using in your example is actually happening every single day.

not only is it allowed on the network, but AT&T would face privacy fines if they monitored that data being transmitted.

you actually made an anti sopa arguement and you didn't even realize it

Barry-xlovecam · 01-12-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted?

In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook.

Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Re-state your above scenario and change "picture" to "picture of CP" and that you constantly do it and AT&T has been informed about it and it keeps happening but
AT&T doesn't give a shit and they continue to let your pics go thru.

Try that one.

ATT is not under the US RICO Act or in most international laws a "criminal enterprise" and not the "policeman"; They have shelter of responsibilities in their contracted users' actions this is similar to the holder in due course in financial transactions -- same principles. However, if a common carrier has specific knowledge of criminal activity by the order of a court they are compelled to act -- they can limit any action to that -- receipt of a court order signed by a judge.

And so it should be; This is why adjudication exists ...

Personal property rights are a civil issue usually in copyright matters and C/P is a criminal issue. Don't compare apples and oranges -- it's pointless ...

Fletch XXX · 01-12-2012, 07:07 AM

as ive said many times, should be heavy fine for sending fake DMCA. yes, most are bogus.

Fletch XXX · 01-12-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

I found it.

The section people need to read is this: 512f from DMCA

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050891

Paul Markham · 01-12-2012, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted?

In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook.

Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users.

Well actually you can. All you do is change the law.

And no it's not the principle of you doing it on FB. You're publishing the work and as it's on FB so are they. It's like if I send pictures of a girl to a magazine and they don't cross check I own the pictures and the girl gave her permission for them to be published, the magazine is at fault. Unless she is "news worthy".

Go see a lawyer who will explain it to you. And yes I've had it explained to me by a lawyer.

What some don't understand is the days of the Wild West Internet are coming to an end. Control, regulation Law and Order are coming. Whether they like it or not.

So if you don't own the rights to publish the content on http://www.faceporn.no/videos you're in the firing line from those who do and if those gave them to you don't own the rights. You're still in the firing line.

Will this mean FB has to change? No they are not a site dedicated to piracy.
Will you will have to change? Only if your site is dedicated to piracy, but it might be wise to double check where you get content from.

All these changes will do is weed out the crooked, pirates and scum. It will not effect those who spend money online, they will have a much cleaner Internet to spend their money on. Not 100% snow white clean, just cleaner as this law will make it harder for scum to get through. And that's the bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$

If you're a freeloader who enjoys the benefits of free pirated goods, then you had better be ready to change your ways. Or not have so much selection of free goods.

$5 submissions · 01-12-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

as ive said many times, should be heavy fine for sending fake DMCA. yes, most are bogus.

Exactly. The DMCA should be tweaked to keep this business reality in mind.

gideongallery · 01-12-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Will this mean FB has to change? No they are not a site dedicated to piracy.
Will you will have to change? Only if your site is dedicated to piracy, but it might be wise to double check where you get content from.

All these changes will do is weed out the crooked, pirates and scum. It will not effect those who spend money online, they will have a much cleaner Internet to spend their money on. Not 100% snow white clean, just cleaner as this law will make it harder for scum to get through. And that's the bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$

If you're a freeloader who enjoys the benefits of free pirated goods, then you had better be ready to change your ways. Or not have so much selection of free goods.

so why do you object to a penalty that voids your copyright if you make a bogus complaint.

If legit sites are properly protected by this law, then bogus complaints should be stopped cold. And no one should lose their copyright.

If the law leaves to much space to be abused then the penalty will make potential abusers think twice about exploiting those flaws (like they are doing with the DMCA currently).

$5 submissions · 01-12-2012, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

put your money where your mouth is

35k says your wrong

we can ask the author themselves

i am a hundred percent certain your wrong

because if you had to multiply that number it would mean that bogus complaints like the one made by universal against lenz (someone who was not competition could not exist).

and they quite clearly do.

like i said

there is overlap it however is not 100%

Is that 35K in US Dollars or in Chuck E Cheese Tokens? j/k either way, serious talk, man!

gideongallery · 01-12-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Is that 35K in US Dollars or in Chuck E Cheese Tokens? j/k either way, serious talk, man!

my totally liquid mutual funds has 36k in Canadian dollars which is about 35k US.

01-09-2012, 10:03 PM	#51
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	The title is spot on re % using DMCA for dealing with the competition __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

01-10-2012, 03:31 AM	#53
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	The legal landscape for IP looks like its going to be in for some big changes in 2012 __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

01-11-2012, 11:08 AM	#61
nextri Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 1,661	If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted? In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook. Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users. __________________ DivaTraffic - Traffic for Models

01-11-2012, 04:39 PM	#66
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	In an ideal world, WHAT would be a solution BOTH sides can AGREE on? Is there a HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND or are you guys saying it is just a matter of black or white? DMCA tried to find a middle ground.... It's spawned a lot of headaches. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

01-12-2012, 07:07 AM	#70
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	as ive said many times, should be heavy fine for sending fake DMCA. yes, most are bogus. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

01-09-2012, 10:06 PM	#52
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	your title sucks.

01-10-2012, 06:09 AM	#54
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	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.

01-11-2012, 08:43 AM	#59
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Gideon, your math sucks. You have to multiply, not add the percents.

01-11-2012, 03:30 PM	#65
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,391	fuck DMCA