Google: 57% of its DMCA takedown notices were from competitors trying to gimp each other

[$5 submissions]

SOPA has a lot of haters. That's a fact. However, if you look at the DMCA and its flaws, SOPA is just a natural progression.

Maybe the better alternative is to FIX DMCA first before moving to more draconian measures like SOPA?

Check this article out and read the figures Google supplied regarding DMCA. It's quite sobering. http://gigaom.com/2011/11/27/with-fr...ho-needs-sopa/

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

SOPA has a lot of haters. That's a fact. However, if you look at the DMCA and its flaws, SOPA is just a natural progression.

Maybe the better alternative is to FIX DMCA first before moving to more draconian measures like SOPA?

Check this article out and read the figures Google supplied regarding DMCA. It's quite sobering. http://gigaom.com/2011/11/27/with-fr...ho-needs-sopa/

But consider this.

The real problem is that sites like youtube don't just host uploaded content, they
publish it. It's not like your hosting company that gives you a server and only you
publish the uploads.

So the law is trying to protect youtube in the same way that your hosting company
is protected but they aren't even doing the same thing.

One is hosting and the other is hosting and publishing.

Publishing is where copyright actually comes into play. It's not illegal to record a TV
show and upload it to your server for you to watch later. You are not publishing
it until you post a link to it.

If you upload and publish content that you know is legal then false claims mean nothing
to you. But youtube doesn't know what it is publishing so they have a problem with
false claims.

So the real question is "who the fuck ever changed the law to allow people to publish
content they don't buy, create, own or fall into fair use guide lines?" Nobody!
The DMCA is just a way around the real law and it deserves to be abused because
it's an abuse of the real law to begin with.

People like youtube and because people like it then it "must be right".
Too bad it's not right and it never was right, but since we like it so much we have
to fiddle with the law to "make it right".

Publish your own content and not someone else's and that will end of problem.

[Nembrionic]

I wonder how many got penalized.

[porno jew]

of course that's going to get worse. it wont be that bad for a multi-national with an army of lawyers to sue over false clams (like manwin is planning to already) but false claims will out a lot of small and medium websites out of business.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

So the real question is "who the fuck ever changed the law to allow people to publish
content they don't buy, create, own or fall into fair use guide lines?" Nobody!
The DMCA is just a way around the real law and it deserves to be abused because
it's an abuse of the real law to begin with.

total utter bullshit

the law hasn't changed

your just trying to reclassify fair use as not being fair use

This is the most amazing dance routine i have ever seen is VALID commentary.

irregardless of weather 1,000,000 people do it in their own home with a vcr

or one person does it for a million people on youtube.

Just because the medium changes the fair use doesn't disappear.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

total utter bullshit

the law hasn't changed

your just trying to reclassify fair use as not being fair use

This is the most amazing dance routine i have ever seen is VALID commentary.

irregardless of weather 1,000,000 people do it in their own home with a vcr

or one person does it for a million people on youtube.

Just because the medium changes the fair use doesn't disappear.

Hey......You are stupid and I know it, but when are you going to figure it out?

[porno jew]

you don't help your cause when you still don't know the proper legal and commonly accepted definition of fair use. it makes one suspect you are a crank and a moron.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

total utter bullshit

the law hasn't changed

your just trying to reclassify fair use as not being fair use

This is the most amazing dance routine i have ever seen is VALID commentary.

irregardless of weather 1,000,000 people do it in their own home with a vcr

or one person does it for a million people on youtube.

Just because the medium changes the fair use doesn't disappear.

[nextri]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

But consider this.

The real problem is that sites like youtube don't just host uploaded content, they
publish it. It's not like your hosting company that gives you a server and only you
publish the uploads.

So the law is trying to protect youtube in the same way that your hosting company
is protected but they aren't even doing the same thing.

One is hosting and the other is hosting and publishing.

Publishing is where copyright actually comes into play. It's not illegal to record a TV
show and upload it to your server for you to watch later. You are not publishing
it until you post a link to it.

If you upload and publish content that you know is legal then false claims mean nothing
to you. But youtube doesn't know what it is publishing so they have a problem with
false claims.

So the real question is "who the fuck ever changed the law to allow people to publish
content they don't buy, create, own or fall into fair use guide lines?" Nobody!
The DMCA is just a way around the real law and it deserves to be abused because
it's an abuse of the real law to begin with.

People like youtube and because people like it then it "must be right".
Too bad it's not right and it never was right, but since we like it so much we have
to fiddle with the law to "make it right".

Publish your own content and not someone else's and that will end of problem.

Youtube isn't publishing content. Their users are. That's the problem with social sites. And as these services evolve from being websites, to being communication platforms, this little distinction becomes even more important to keep in mind. It should always be the individual that publishes something that will ultimately be responsible.

Facebook is now evolving into becoming an im service much like messenger, icq and skype. They have their own messenger client, and you don't even need to use the website any more to use facebook and communicate with people.
So the question is: Do we want them to have to censor and decide what we as the users can talk about? Do we really want an internet where companies like these have to police their users and make sure they don't talk about something illegal or share anything copyrighted amongst themselves on services like these?

That paints for a scary Big Brother type of scenario, and I don't like it.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Hey......You are stupid and I know it, but when are you going to figure it out?

Originally Posted by porno jew

you don't help your cause when you still don't know the proper legal and commonly accepted definition of fair use. it makes one suspect you are a crank and a moron.

Then educate me explain to me how the statement this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen is valid commentary when done in my home

yet using the medium of a tube site is not.

remember that copyright holders argued that they provided a medium of timeshifting (re runs) and argued that second medium (betamax tapes) was invalid too.

Explain exactly why saying a medium makes it illegal this time, remember you can't use the lose of revenue (since that didn't work in the vcr example) or the profits YOUTUBE is making (see vcr case).

[porno jew]

you have proved time and time and again how you use fair use is different than any other accepted legal and social usage of the term.

and you wonder why people have a hard time following your arguments?

you should actually write down every word you use on a regular basis, compare them with common definitions, and if different modify your understanding and usage of them.

it would do wonders for your communication skills. seriously.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by nextri

Youtube isn't publishing content. Their users are.

I stopped reading right there.

Bullshit. There is no CP or any porn on youtube because they monitor what THEY PUBLISH!

It is their website, not the user's website. Thanks for the spin, but spin that shit to
someone else who can't think for themselves.

Domain names are cheap as hell and so is hosting. Nobody "needs" youtube to
publish content, but people aren't bold enough to register a domain with their name
and then upload all the TV shows. They want to hide behind youtube and DMCA.


End of story.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Then educate me explain to me how the statement this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen is valid commentary when done in my home

yet using the medium of a tube site is not.

remember that copyright holders argued that they provided a medium of timeshifting (re runs) and argued that second medium (betamax tapes) was invalid too.

Explain exactly why saying a medium makes it illegal this time, remember you can't use the lose of revenue (since that didn't work in the vcr example) or the profits YOUTUBE is making (see vcr case).

Your definition of "fair use" in your other post reads like this :

"It's fair for 1,000,000 people to jack off at home alone, therefore it's the same for
one guy to jack off 1,000,000 people in public.

[lucas131]

i would kick to the balls every shit who sends fake dmca to kick down competition. i hope karma works and those fuckheads will end up burning in hell

[Paul Markham]

This is the key phrase that I stopped reading at.

Presumably, though, because service providers — even the mighty Google — aren’t really in the position to examine every claim, and even if they spot potential defenses (e.g., fair use), there isn’t much incentive to ignore requests.

High lighted to make the point.

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 would of thought that for a DMCA to be legal it has to be delivered by hand and signed for. Not come from some anonymous free email address. Who's to say the email was received?

So the question is: Do we want them to have to censor and decide what we as the users can talk about? Do we really want an internet where companies like these have to police their users and make sure they don't talk about something illegal or share anything copyrighted amongst themselves on services like these?

So does the same apply in other areas? Do adult video or print magazine publishers have to check if a photoset contains an underage girl? Where does the non policing stop and start?

The problem is sharing is breaking the law, so should a site be exempt for the penalties of helping others break the law? Should this apply to a social network site of people sharing videos, like on pornhub?

Now think of how the law is written to cover this.

DMCA had a stupid loophole that pirate after pirates drove trucks through. So you think SOPA should have the same loop holes? And then we can all start again with a new law that's an even bigger sledge hammer.

I just realised what that article drove a truck through, Fabian's excuses for not taking down infringing content.

[Paul Markham]

Reading on I discovered the bias.

Or, perhaps the DMCA is spared the lobbying efforts of large web properties because it doesn?t threaten them like SOPA does. The DMCA lets sites remain operating if they remove infringing content, whereas SOPA could shut them down if pirated material is present. In fact, in their letter expressing concern over SOPA, a consortium of service providers including Google, Twitter and Yahoo refer to the DMCA as an ?effective mechanism,? despite the burdens it puts upon them.

Well that's not true. It's "If the site is dedicated to piracy." so this is plain wrong.

Whatever the reason, though, the underlying problems with both laws stem from their lack of due process. When Google challenged that New Zealand law in 2009, it made a particularly sane suggestion for how to handle takedown requests: refer them to an independent judge who would evaluate the merits of each case and acknowledge the presence of any possible defenses. In the United States, perhaps that could be a job of the Copyright Office, which would serve as the middle man between infringement claims and service providers.

And this is totally unpractical. If Google can't police their own sites on receipt of a DMCA. How many judges would be needed to police all the DMCA notices sent?

Obvious where the writers heart lies.

[nextri]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The problem is sharing is breaking the law, so should a site be exempt for the penalties of helping others break the law? Should this apply to a social network site of people sharing videos, like on pornhub?

That is a good question, and an important question. Should Skype or ICQ get penalized because I send a copyrighted MP3 to a friend?

In my opinion, they shouldn't.

You might say ICQ and Skype aren't the same, but in principle under this new law, they are.

[nextri]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

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.

Paul, is that really a good thing though? That youtube could seize operations because of this? Copyright infringement isn't really a problem on youtube, because they have solved the problem with technology. You don't find whole episodes of copyrighted content on youtube. They are able to detect copyrighted content, and nudity automatically with technology, and advanced filters. So why create new laws to solve problems they are already solving with technology?

Their main problem is offshore sites that don't want to follow laws and regulations. But this law isn't only targeting offshore sites. It has serious free speech limitations for everyone.

[raymor]

rregardless of weather 1,000,000 people do it in their own home with a vcr or one person does it for a million people on youtube. Just because the medium change

You're right it had nothing to do with the medium. It had to do with PUBLISHING - distribution. Under current law, if you spend $100,000 making a show and sell me a copy on DVD, I am allowed to make a backup copy of the DVD. I'm NOT allowed to make four thousand copies and distribute them. The law is, whoever wants a copy of your movie has to buy it from you, so that you might make your $100,000 back. Check wikipedia about fair use. Perhaps you think that I SHOULD be allowed to publish your content without permission, that's your opinion. That's not what fair use is, or ever has been.

Fair use had long been defined as certain use of portions of the material that are fair because they do not compete with your rightful sales of your material. The most common is using a short clip for commentary - it's fair to talk about a movie and use a ten second clip from the movie to illustrate the point. That doesn't compete with selling tickets or DVDs to see the movie.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Your definition of "fair use" in your other post reads like this :

"It's fair for 1,000,000 people to jack off at home alone, therefore it's the same for
one guy to jack off 1,000,000 people in public.

you shoot porn

if that argument was valid you would be out of business

we are talking about copyright law not the first amendment

if you want to switch gears and go to that argument we can

AFTER you answer my question.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I stopped reading right there.

Bullshit. There is no CP or any porn on youtube because they monitor what THEY PUBLISH!

It is their website, not the user's website. Thanks for the spin, but spin that shit to
someone else who can't think for themselves.

viacom $300/hour a lawyers couldn't tell the difference between fair use and non fair use when they sent their takedown notice

That why they lost their case against youtube even though this exact arguement was made in court.

Just because a $5/day grunt can tell the difference between nudity and non nudity
doesn't mean they are qualified to tell the difference between fair use and non fair use.

If what you were saying were true viacom would have won their case against youtube.

Domain names are cheap as hell and so is hosting. Nobody "needs" youtube to
publish content, but people aren't bold enough to register a domain with their name
and then upload all the TV shows. They want to hide behind youtube and DMCA.


End of story.

have you even read the dmca, safe harbor is a protection for the host not the uploader, if you can identify a person uploading, and prove they know it not fair use you can just as easily go after them even if they are hosting all their videos on youtube.

you upload to youtube because of the traffic moron

if you don't want your free speech to be heard sure posting it on your domain is fine

however you go where the traffic is to be heard.

[raymor]

Many people seem to be confused about what fair use is. Here's the definition:

Originally Posted by Copyright Act of 1976

The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by raymor

You're right it had nothing to do with the medium. It had to do with PUBLISHING - distribution. Under current law, if you spend $100,000 making a show and sell me a copy on DVD, I am allowed to make a backup copy of the DVD. I'm NOT allowed to make four thousand copies and distribute them.

you will notice that what you said i was allowed to do, also cost the copyright holder money

if it was illegal i would have to BUY a backup copy if my original ever got damaged.

Get it the lose of a revenue stream does not automatically invalid a fair use (re run ad revenue ..., etc)

If the revenue comes from extending the copyright monopoly to a monopoly on the medium it is not copyright protected revenue.

The law is, whoever wants a copy of your movie has to buy it from you, so that you might make your $100,000 back. Check wikipedia about fair use. Perhaps you think that I SHOULD be allowed to publish your content without permission, that's your opinion. That's not what fair use is, or ever has been.

again you only have a right to control the revenue that comes from SELLing your content

if the revenue comes from extending your monopoly it not covered.

Fair use had long been defined as certain use of portions of the material that are fair because they do not compete with your rightful sales of your material. The most common is using a short clip for commentary - it's fair to talk about a movie and use a ten second clip from the movie to illustrate the point. That doesn't compete with selling tickets or DVDs to see the movie.

bullshit

if that were true your backup example would not be fair use, that 100% copy of the content, without paying the copyright holder for that second copy.

look at the example i was talking about

"this is the best dance routine i have ever seen"



there is no way it cost viacom any of their original revenue, because the show is not on the air. (the only way the post was able to post it was to have watched the airing and recorded it).

The only revenue lost would be because of extending the monopoly control to a new medium (DVD over tube).

That exactly the same as previous fair uses (re runs over betamax, buying a replacement over backup, cd over mp3)

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Blah blah duum shit .....

................


you upload to youtube because of the traffic moron

if you don't want your free speech to be heard sure posting it on your domain is fine

however you go where the traffic is to be heard.

Tell that to these people ----> http://zeroviews.biz/


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Youtube would not have all that traffic if it didn't build itself up with ripped content
to begin with. The traffic would be more evenly distributed amongst many video sites
and thus creating greater opportunity for more people to get views.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by raymor

Many people seem to be confused about what fair use is. Here's the definition:

hey kettle your black


you might want to go thru that list and ask yourself exactly how the fair use of backup qualifies even though it cost the copyright holder the revenue they would have gotten if you were forced to buy a second copy from them.

[Half man, Half Amazing]

Guys keep in mind that Gideon in the past has said that sites like Pornhub shouldn't have to remove anything regardless of copyright because the mere presence of a "comments" tab would give the entire video his definition of "fair use"

so under Gideon's warped definition having an opinion on something, or merely the option of having an opinion, nullifies any claims of copyright infringement. So according to Gideon if you're selling bootlegs in NYC as long as someone at your table says "that looks good", or if passerbys are able to say "hey look an obviously fake gucci bag for $5" you now have legal immunity from Gideon to do whatever you like.

I put this guy on ignore like 2 years ago...why some of you haven't is beyond me.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Tell that to these people ----> http://zeroviews.biz/


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

you do realize that every example on that page has views now right

https://youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=OizM8zKwOFM

the zero views situation is so insanely rare that people will actually click thru and view the video just to see why it got zero views.

Youtube would not have all that traffic if it didn't build itself up with ripped content
to begin with. The traffic would be more evenly distributed amongst many video sites
and thus creating greater opportunity for more people to get views.

that entire arguement is dependent on commentary "this is my favorite dance routine" not being valid

if it was all the shit your claiming was infringement would be fair use.

btw you still dodged the question explain why that commentary is not fair use.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

btw you still dodged the question explain why that commentary is not fair use.

I usually dodge anything you post because it's just ignorant drawn out folly.

I'm going to return to that method now.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Guys keep in mind that Gideon in the past has said that sites like Pornhub shouldn't have to remove anything regardless of copyright because the mere presence of a "comments" tab would give the entire video his definition of "fair use"

actually i never said that i gave a very specific example which is the condition that happens to exist for virtually all the traffic that tube sites broadcasts.

porn hub doesn't play a every single scene strung together into a single video

they play individual scenes ...

So according to Gideon if you're selling bootlegs in NYC as long as someone at your table says "that looks good", or if passerbys are able to say "hey look an obviously fake gucci bag for $5" you now have legal immunity from Gideon to do whatever you like.

I put this guy on ignore like 2 years ago...why some of you haven't is beyond me.

nope that not a medium extension of the monopoly, the bootleg dvd is the same medium as the original.

the medium is supported, so you have the ability to make that commentary on that medium fine with the legit dvd.

If the only way you can argue i am wrong is to totally misrepresent what i say, then you really don't have an argument.

[GregE]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

SOPA has a lot of haters. That's a fact. However, if you look at the DMCA and its flaws, SOPA is just a natural progression.

Maybe the better alternative is to FIX DMCA first before moving to more draconian measures like SOPA?

Check this article out and read the figures Google supplied regarding DMCA. It's quite sobering. http://gigaom.com/2011/11/27/with-fr...ho-needs-sopa/

Reads to me like the author wants to "fix" DMCA by effectively weakening it.

For copyright owners, DMCA, as currently constituted, is already an all but useless tool in today's Wac-a-Mole copyright enforcement environment.

And now this clown wants to make it even more burdensome to file a DMCA.

Not cool.

Why not simply lay draconian penalties on those who knowingly - not carelessly, but knowingly - file DMCA complaints? Doing so would nip the problem in the bud and it would work with SOPA as well.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by GregE

Why not simply lay draconian penalties on those who knowingly - not carelessly, but knowingly - file DMCA complaints? Doing so would nip the problem in the bud and it would work with SOPA as well.

let me ask you a question would you want to live with the same proof requirement when you go after people who infringe on your copyright

if NOT why do you deserve the right to simply say "oops i am sorry for censoring you and wiping out your business" when you won't give the "pirates" the same right.

The draconian penalty should apply for all the condition that apply to infringing on copyright.

If they don't have a right to say "oops sorry tough luck" then you shouldn't either.

[chaze]

We get noticed weekly, maybe 20% are bogus and another 20% are errors.

[mynameisjim]

By "competitor" do they mean one file sharing or torrent site trying to take down another?

[DWB]

This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

Don't know why you people even bother with this ass clown.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by nextri

That is a good question, and an important question. Should Skype or ICQ get penalized because I send a copyrighted MP3 to a friend?

In my opinion, they shouldn't.

You might say ICQ and Skype aren't the same, but in principle under this new law, they are.

Are Skype and ICQ "Dedicated to piracy of US property"? If the answer is yes, then they are liable. If the answer is no, they are not.

Originally Posted by nextri

Paul, is that really a good thing though? That youtube could seize operations because of this? Copyright infringement isn't really a problem on youtube, because they have solved the problem with technology. You don't find whole episodes of copyrighted content on youtube. They are able to detect copyrighted content, and nudity automatically with technology, and advanced filters. So why create new laws to solve problems they are already solving with technology?

Their main problem is offshore sites that don't want to follow laws and regulations. But this law isn't only targeting offshore sites. It has serious free speech limitations for everyone.

Here's a good point. all those pro piracy guys screaming about Youtube and other companies being hit are just trying to scare people. It only applies to companies currently breaking laws on the statute book.

(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--

(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and

(B) either--

(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--

(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;

(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--

(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.

I'm not a lawyer and don't play one. But doesn't is seem logical that IF a law has not been amended to exempt the Internet, then any company breaking that law should be liable to the penalties?

Imagine if this became normal with new technology. Mobile phone companies not subject to the law. CP, snuff, etc are all legal on a new technology.

The problem has always been penalising these companies. This law seems to put that right. It's easy for any site "Dedicated to piracy" to defend itself against the penalties. Just change or exclude US traffic. So find a billing company outside the US, advertisers outside the US and block US traffic. Some wil get through, but in the eyes of the law your not a "U.S.-directed site". And before anyone argues about getting around it or US people able to watch it by getting around it. Go read it slowly, it uses the word "AND" not "OR".

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by DWB

This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

Don't know why you people even bother with this ass clown.

True. I think of this guy when I read his posts.



King Canute trying to turn the tide.

What ever is said here is pointless. What we should be discussing is how we adapt to the new law. I'm sure Google is.

[Nautilus]

When you actually run your website and only publish materials that are either your's or properly licensed, false and erroneuos DMCAs are not the problem in the least bit. You simply file counter DMCA, problem solved.

I remember we once sent a bunch of links to hotfile and one of them was a pdf file with an instruction to a vacuum cleaner - I honestly have no idea how it got there (most likely it was harvested from filestube by mistake, but I'm not sure), but when having to work with an absurd amount of infringing links (we usually send 30-50K infringing links with DMCAs to piracy sites every week), an occasional false positive is bound to slip through every now and then.

But so what, the guy who uploaded it simply filed counter DMCA where he stated his name and contact information and forwarded it to hotfile, hotfile sent it to us. I e-mailed this guy my apologies (which he accepted), and e-mailed hotfile authorization to reinstate the link, which they did. Problem solved.

It's only real pirates who "suffer" from false and erroneous DMCAs, because they cannot file counter DMCAs with their real contact information - even when they know materials they stole is from some other copyright holder, not the one they're getting DMCAs from, they still cannot file counter DMCAs because they're afraid to reveal their identities. For legit guys there's no such problem as false DMCAs, it is simply non existant.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

When you actually run your website and only publish materials that are either your's or properly licensed, false and erroneuos DMCAs are not the problem in the least bit. You simply file counter DMCA, problem solved.

It's only real pirates who "suffer" from false and erroneous DMCAs, because they cannot file counter DMCAs with their real contact information - even when they know materials they stole is from some other copyright holder, not the one they're getting DMCAs from, they still cannot file counter DMCAs because they're afraid to reveal their identities. For legit guys there's no such problem as false DMCAs, it is simply non existant.

Good points. If you run a site that conforms to the existing laws of copyright, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think the Internet for some absurd reason is exempt of existing laws. Then you have problems.

Now the question is.

Should people who create products like movies, music, programs, games, books, porn, etc. Suffer so other companies and people, not creating these products, prosper at their expense?

That really is ultimately the question. GG thinks they should. As do a lot here arguing against the tide. Me shouting at things I don't like is getting read and answered here by the people I shout at. It has more effect than the anti SOPA brigade here.

[nextri]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Good points. If you run a site that conforms to the existing laws of copyright, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think the Internet for some absurd reason is exempt of existing laws. Then you have problems.

Now the question is.

Should people who create products like movies, music, programs, games, books, porn, etc. Suffer so other companies and people, not creating these products, prosper at their expense?

That really is ultimately the question. GG thinks they should. As do a lot here arguing against the tide. Me shouting at things I don't like is getting read and answered here by the people I shout at. It has more effect than the anti SOPA brigade here.

The problem many have with this law though, is that it overreaches, and you risk problems even if you run a perfectly legit site.

Some copyright owner could contact your hosting, credit card processor, isp or paypal and make a claim that your site has copyrighted content on it, and you could get shut down, even if the claim was false, or your usage of said content was fair use. If paypal or your host or isp shuts your site down, but it turns out the claim was false. They are exempt from prosecution. So they risk nothing by just shutting you down instead of actually finding out if the claim is legit or not.


I find it strange that a lot of the people I see that are supporting this bill, are many of the same people who are screaming for a smaller government and less regulations...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by nextri

The problem many have with this law though, is that it overreaches, and you risk problems even if you run a perfectly legit site.

Some copyright owner could contact your hosting, credit card processor, isp or paypal and make a claim that your site has copyrighted content on it, and you could get shut down, even if the claim was false, or your usage of said content was fair use. If paypal or your host or isp shuts your site down, but it turns out the claim was false. They are exempt from prosecution. So they risk nothing by just shutting you down instead of actually finding out if the claim is legit or not.


I find it strange that a lot of the people I see that are supporting this bill, are many of the same people who are screaming for a smaller government and less regulations...

Any hosting, credit card processor, isp, etc. That shut down your site on the strength of an anon email. Is a company you shouldn't be doing business with and opening themselves to a ton of trouble.

Go read the act and try to understand it. It has something that says the ISP has to reasonably believe the site is breaking the law. So an anon email and not checking if the site is breaking the law, is going to look pretty foolish in court.

Of course for the ISPs to check each registered letter will take extra work and extra staff, which people will have to pay for. This might mean they think twice before doing business with Tube, file sharing sites, piracy sites, etc. Or put up their prices. Cost of doing business and staying within the law. Just like Google will have to employ more people to check Youtube, or close.

How will life function without Youtube!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously does anyone think a company is going to risk crashing a site because [email protected] sent a notice?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

When you actually run your website and only publish materials that are either your's or properly licensed, false and erroneuos DMCAs are not the problem in the least bit. You simply file counter DMCA, problem solved.

I remember we once sent a bunch of links to hotfile and one of them was a pdf file with an instruction to a vacuum cleaner - I honestly have no idea how it got there (most likely it was harvested from filestube by mistake, but I'm not sure), but when having to work with an absurd amount of infringing links (we usually send 30-50K infringing links with DMCAs to piracy sites every week), an occasional false positive is bound to slip through every now and then.

But so what, the guy who uploaded it simply filed counter DMCA where he stated his name and contact information and forwarded it to hotfile, hotfile sent it to us. I e-mailed this guy my apologies (which he accepted), and e-mailed hotfile authorization to reinstate the link, which they did. Problem solved.

It's only real pirates who "suffer" from false and erroneous DMCAs, because they cannot file counter DMCAs with their real contact information - even when they know materials they stole is from some other copyright holder, not the one they're getting DMCAs from, they still cannot file counter DMCAs because they're afraid to reveal their identities. For legit guys there's no such problem as false DMCAs, it is simply non existant.

that statement proves how clueless you are about this stuff

1. if a tube video goes down everyone linking to it stop linking to it you permanently lose all that link juice and with it your search engine ranking. I have tracked you will lose 55% of your link juice in the first 2 hours of being down.

2. you example completely ignores fair use the use of copyright material for commentary or parody purposes.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Good points. If you run a site that conforms to the existing laws of copyright, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think the Internet for some absurd reason is exempt of existing laws. Then you have problems.

Now the question is.

Should people who create products like movies, music, programs, games, books, porn, etc. Suffer so other companies and people, not creating these products, prosper at their expense?

That really is ultimately the question. GG thinks they should. As do a lot here arguing against the tide. Me shouting at things I don't like is getting read and answered here by the people I shout at. It has more effect than the anti SOPA brigade here.

actually re-read my post about sopa i said i would support it if the penalty for making a false claim was the revocation of the offending companies copyright.

So the real question

Is how many totally innocent sites should a copyright holder be allowed to destroy before they suffer a penalty equal to what they are dishing out.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

SOPA has a lot of haters. That's a fact. However, if you look at the DMCA and its flaws, SOPA is just a natural progression.

Maybe the better alternative is to FIX DMCA first before moving to more draconian measures like SOPA?

Check this article out and read the figures Google supplied regarding DMCA. It's quite sobering. http://gigaom.com/2011/11/27/with-fr...ho-needs-sopa/

Come on guys you really should recognise this shit when you see it. Google/Youtube are the biggest priates out their, the biggest tech empire the world has ever seen built on the backs of every one elses content.

Of course they are going to leak info that scaremongers against SOPA. Its in their interests to do so.

[nextri]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Any hosting, credit card processor, isp, etc. That shut down your site on the strength of an anon email. Is a company you shouldn't be doing business with and opening themselves to a ton of trouble.

Go read the act and try to understand it. It has something that says the ISP has to reasonably believe the site is breaking the law. So an anon email and not checking if the site is breaking the law, is going to look pretty foolish in court.

Of course for the ISPs to check each registered letter will take extra work and extra staff, which people will have to pay for. This might mean they think twice before doing business with Tube, file sharing sites, piracy sites, etc. Or put up their prices. Cost of doing business and staying within the law. Just like Google will have to employ more people to check Youtube, or close.

How will life function without Youtube!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously does anyone think a company is going to risk crashing a site because [email protected] sent a notice?

That's the problem, the law specifically gives them IMMUNITY from being prosecuted for wrongfully shutting down a site.

Originally Posted by SOPA SEC. 104

no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site

So if any of these companies, ad networks, advertisers, search engines, registrars or registries don't want to pay the extra cost of actually investigating if the claim is true or not, they can just shut it down and be done with it. It's easier for godaddy to just block your domain rather than actually look into whether or not you're actually doing something wrong. And how are they gonna know anyways whether you have a license for everything on your site?

[topnotch, standup guy]

Originally Posted by nextri

That's the problem, the law specifically gives them IMMUNITY from being prosecuted for wrongfully shutting down a site.


So if any of these companies, ad networks, advertisers, search engines, registrars or registries don't want to pay the extra cost of actually investigating if the claim is true or not, they can just shut it down and be done with it. It's easier for godaddy to just block your domain rather than actually look into whether or not you're actually doing something wrong. And how are they gonna know anyways whether you have a license for everything on your site?

How about if the tubes place watermarks on all of their licensed material with words to the effect that the content was used with the explicit permission of xyz.com? This way, if they really do have permission, the law could perhaps be crafted to provide those posting such claims additional time to establish as much. And, in the event that they then can't, they will have shown themselves to be bald faced liars and no one, aside from gideon, will shed even a single tear when the all out shit storm hits them.

The idea here is to protect the truly innocent from bogus claims while hastening the demise of the most blatent offenders.

Note: Given the nature of file lockers and file sharing forums, this "SOPA lite" option wouldn't work with them.
.

[nextri]

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy

How about if the tubes place watermarks on all of their licensed material with words to the effect that the content was used with the explicit permission of xyz.com? This way, if they really do have permission, the law could perhaps be crafted to provide those posting such claims additional time to establish as much. And, in the event that they then can't, they will have shown themselves to be bald faced liars and no one, aside from gideon, will shed even a single tear when the all out shit storm hits them.

The idea here is to protect the truly innocent from bogus claims while hastening the demise of the most blatent offenders.

Note: Given the nature of file lockers and file sharing forums, this "SOPA lite" plan wouldn't work with them.
.

Yeah, the problem isn't with the sites that wants to follow the law. It's the sites that doesn't that is the problem.
What we should be careful about though, is to make laws to target the illegal activities, but end up hurting all others instead. And that's what SOPA will do.
There must be other, better ways to fight piracy than this.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by nextri

That's the problem, the law specifically gives them IMMUNITY from being prosecuted for wrongfully shutting down a site.


So if any of these companies, ad networks, advertisers, search engines, registrars or registries don't want to pay the extra cost of actually investigating if the claim is true or not, they can just shut it down and be done with it. It's easier for godaddy to just block your domain rather than actually look into whether or not you're actually doing something wrong. And how are they gonna know anyways whether you have a license for everything on your site?

The law.

SEC. 104. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.

No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--

(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and

(2) the action is consistent with the entity's terms of service or other contractual rights.

You quoted part of it.

SOPA SEC. 104
no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site

In a court of law you have to consider the whole thing. Not selective quoting. You fail.

And this is the argument of the anti brigade. Taking little snippets of the law and selectively choosing them to back their argument to do nothing or do so little it's pointless. Any lawyer who tries that approach will get eaten alive by the opposition, then the judge and finally his client.

And any company when asked "What was your reasonable belief?" Replies "We got an email saying this site had pirated content on it so, without checking who [email protected] is. We decided to pull the plug."b Will face hefty damages.

Of course the loop hole for most who want it. Is in the law for those who look close, except maybe with domain registration.

[Dirty Dane]

Funny how statistics and conclusions change as the "word-goes-around", how it can be manipulated and twisted around to promote an agenda, and how uncritical some are against what actually lies behind the numbers and words they are presented. Not to mention the timelines. Pulling something stoneaged out of the hat from when time, technologies and things were very different, makes the arguments more or less useless.

1. The headline here suggests Google says 57% "trying to gimp each other".

2. The article suggests it's 37%:

In 2009, Google noted when challenging a proposed New Zealand copyright law that 57 percent of its takedown requests were from businesses targeting their competitors, while 37 percent weren?t valid copyright claims at all.

"At all". 37% were not valid "at all" the article claims...

3. But their source says:

In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf...rs-section-92a

Here, the other article does not use the phrase "at all", but "were not valid". And it doesn't explain what that means.
Further on, it doesn't explain if 37% are of the total amount of notices or out of those 57% (which would give 21%).

4. That article has quoted a footnote from a submission made by Google back in 2009:

in Google?s experience, there are serious issues regarding the
improper use and inaccuracy of copyright notices by rights holders.3
http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/ebc0a1...96d06898c0.cmr

Here, Google use the words "improper" and "inaccuracy", and in the footnote they also leave out what those 37% actually are.


5. Now lets go to the old (2006) original paper footnoted, but not explained in details by Google:

we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate
concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the
notices depended on questionable claims:
- Over half?57%?of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the
index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
- Over a third?37%?of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently
outside the United States.
http://static.chillingeffects.org/Ur...12-summary.pdf

So, those 37% are nothing but notices that are outside US jurisdiction and not directly subject to DMCA. But that doesn't mean they are not still valid "at all" in terms of general copyright claims and it certainly does not back up what is suggested here.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Here, the other article does not use the phrase "at all", but "were not valid". And it doesn't explain what that means.
Further on, it doesn't explain if 37% are of the total amount of notices or out of those 57% (which would give 21%).

that bullshit analysis and you know it

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

and it does not only exist when your talking about competiting companies, in fact it happens more often in non competing companies (bloggers, news, free speech)

so it actually more likely to be over 80% are bogus, not 21%.

if you read the actual study you will notice it close to 67% because of the overlap.

[Dirty Dane]

Gideon, unlike you as always, my analyze is backed up by facts and you know it.

There are no facts here confirming that 80%, 57%, 37% or 21% of the copyright claims are business entities trying to "gimp" / make false claims of copyrights they are not entitled to against competitors. The original paper says that those 37% are DMCA notices targeting sites outside DMCA jurisdiction. Nothing else. Nothing about "other" motives.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

So, those 37% are nothing but notices that are outside US jurisdiction and not directly subject to DMCA. But that doesn't mean they are not still valid "at all" in terms of general copyright claims and it certainly does not back up what is suggested here.

total lie

http://static.chillingeffects.org/Ur...12-summary.pdf

here is the exact article referenced

Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an
obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about
uncopyrightable material, and the like)

the reference to 37% being outside the united states was

in addition to the already establish 37% bogus

In addition, we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the notices depended on questionable claims:
ƒ Over half?57%?of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the
index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
ƒ Over a third?37%?of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently
outside the United States.
The specifics of our data set may limit the ability to neatly generalize our findings. Yet
the findings are troubling, and seem to indicate a need to further study, and perhaps
revisit entirely, the DMCA takedown process.

oh and that 37% doesn't include the 1/11 which are technically invalid because they had statutory flaws.

One out of 11 included significant statutory flaws that render the notice unusable
(for example, failing to adequately identify infringing material).