Google Music Blog Mess Highlights Why Three Strikes Will Not Work

from the you-cannot-determine-infringement dept

We already wrote about how the big mess with Google taking down some music blogs showed many of the serious problems with the DMCA, but it also highlights some other important points. It's also a perfect example of why asking third parties to stop infringement, or setting up a three strikes policy, makes no sense at all. Why? Because much of the furor over this was that the takedown notices were sent to music bloggers who had been given the tracks and given authorization by the very same labels that were issuing the takedowns. It was a case of the legal left hand not knowing what the marketing right hand was doing.

And this is a major, major problem with anyone who claims that some third party can "just know" when something is infringing. It's why we saw that Viacom sent takedowns to YouTube on around 100 videos that it had uploaded itself. As the judge properly pointed out in the iiNet case down in Australia, copyright infringement isn't something that you can just know when you see it:
copyright infringement is not a straight 'yes' or 'no' question. The Court has had to examine a very significant quantity of technical and legal detail over dozens of pages in this judgment in order to determine whether iiNet users, and how often iiNet users, infringe copyright
In effect, Google's takedown system for music blogs is very much like a three strikes policy (though, it's not clear how many strikes there really were). But even when people were posting legitimate music, sent to them directly by the label itself for the purpose of being posted to blogs, after enough strikes were made, the sites were taken down. That would be happening all the time in a world with mandated three strikes policies -- and it's the exact reason why such policies make no sense. They're based on the false belief that copyright infringement is an easy "yes" or "no" decision that can be determined upon seeing it. But what we're discovering in both this situation and in the Viacom situation is that even the copyright holders are really bad at figuring out if something is infringing or not. So why should anyone expect third parties to be able to do a better job?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 7:45pm

    Chilling Effects

    The damning thing is that a couple/few things happen here:

    1) The notices tend to go out in batches, so someone can go from "good blog citizen" to "repeat offender" in literally an instant.

    2) EVEN IF the 'offender' was seeded material for a promotional campaign, they're not likely going to risk incurring court costs to defend that position, especially since they're fighting the hand (or the other hand) that fed them to begin with.

    3) For Jeebus' sake people, DON'T SIGN WITH MAJOR LABELS! This is the kind of crap they're going to pull with your crap. And YOU end up looking like douchebags. (How's it going, OK Go?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 11:13pm

      Re: Chilling Effects


      1) The notices tend to go out in batches, so someone can go from "good blog citizen" to "repeat offender" in literally an instant.


      In which country does this happen? NZ? France?

      This would be a strong argument against a 3-strikes scheme by itself, since everyone who likes the idea either won't discuss the details of precisely how such a process would work, or seems to assume that someone else will work it all out in a sensible way, when really the way it would be worked out is the one most in favor of media interests (e.g. batches which disconnect you with 3 strikes in one notice, really making it a 1-strike law).

      If you have a source that points out that it is actually working this way in someone country which does 3 strikes, it would be a story by itself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 5:50am

      Re: Chilling Effects

      This is just a little too obvious:

      1) I don't think that they would be foolish enough to look at separate notices on the same day from the same sources as more than one strike. It would be like a policeman writing you 10 speeding tickets for the same offense because you were speeding for 10 feet. I would call this point "fear mongering" because you have no indication that this is true.

      2) If the material is used with permission, there should not be an DMCA notices, and the DMCA notices would in fact be illegal (and subject to fine). There is no indication that there will not be some sort of mechanism to object or assert rights that you have in the process.

      3) You are right, they should never sign with major labels, never sign distribution agreements, and never publish their music in any manner, because it just leads to getting well known! Stay in the garage where it's safe (egg cartons insulate too!)

      My personal opinion: If you want to run a blog without issue get your own domain, pay for your hosting, and be your own boss. if you work off of platforms that other people use, particularly free blog hosting, you are pretty much committing suicide up front. You are almost entirely assured of a failure somewhere along the line.

      Take responsibility for your site, take ownership, and then they will have to deal with your directly. That would change everything.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Foot, meet bullet, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 6:36am

        Re: Re: Chilling Effects

        "2) If the material is used with permission, there should not be an DMCA notices"

        - you missed the point being made

        "and the DMCA notices would in fact be illegal (and subject to fine)."

        - has this part of the DMCA ever been enforced ?

        "ake responsibility for your site, take ownership, "

        - the end result will be that your site will not host any music or video

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 7:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

          Sorry, I miss your point.

          If you have the rights to use something and you get a DMCA, it's an illegal notice. It is up to you to pursue them in the same manner they attempted to get after you. If you don't want the right holders to have the support of the police or law enforcement to protect their rights, you don't get it either. If it is wrong, sue them back. Just make sure you are right.

          "take responsibility for your site, take ownership, "

          - the end result will be that your site will not host any music or video


          Why not? What makes you say this? Why would you think this? Please explain.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Rekrul, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 8:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            If you have the rights to use something and you get a DMCA, it's an illegal notice.

            And even though there is supposed to be a penalty for sending an illegal DMCA notice, the reality is that nothing ever happens to the companies who do.

            The DMCA is designed to give copyright holders the majority of the power and the average person, very little. When a company receives a DMCA complaint, they are required to immediately take down the material in question. The DMCA makes people guilty until proven innocent.

            Media companies have legal departments that specialize in crafting and sending DMCA complaints. They can probably fire off a DMCA notice in less time than it's taken me to write this message. They don't need to show any proof at all. They do this kind of thing every day, it's their job. The average person, who probably doesn't know how to write a proper DMCA conuterclaim, has to take time out of their lives to research how to file the proper claim, they have to send proof that they didn't violate any copyrights and if their use fails into a grey area under fair-use, they'll probably still lose. Even if they win, they'll just get hit with another DMCA complaint, and another, and another. Even if every one is resolved in their favor, eventually the hosting company is going to get a DMCA notice that asks why they haven't done anything about this repeat infringer, at which point some lower-level employee will terminate that person's account. Will such a notice be a lie? Yes, but what's going to happen to a multi-billion dollar corporation?

            Getting something taken down with a DMCA notice is easy, defending any given content against a DMCA is a huge pain in the ass.

            If it is wrong, sue them back. Just make sure you are right.

            Does everyone who is right always win a lawsuit? Do you have a spare $5,000+ to give to a lawyer in the hope that a jury will be able to understand the details of copyright law as explained by your single $200 an hour lawyer rather than the gang of $1,000 an hour lawyers sent by the company you've sued?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              wvhillbilly (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

              If the US signs on with this ACTA thing, I figure it's gonna get a whole, whole lot worse than it is now.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 8:38pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                "If the US signs on with this ACTA thing, I figure it's gonna get a whole, whole lot worse than it is now."

                No worries. The law may get more draconian, but the tech will route around that. It may devolve to sneakernet for a while, but that will do. T'will suffice.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                  "sneakernova" (it doesn't take long to copy a bunch of movies to/from a very portable 1TB external drive) backed up by freenet or similar.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 9:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            Take ownership LoL

            Will people by an AS, buy traffic?

            You still will have to contract with an ISP stupid, and they too have to fallow the law.

            Well it can be done lets all sign with a ISP that is hosted in a friendly country, that country will be king of the internet. Maybe Venezuela would host all that content?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            "If it is wrong, sue them back."

            You say that like it's an easy thing. For a lot of people, this is an unavailable option, due to a lack of time or money.

            In this DMCA stuff, the corporations and the wealthy have all the power and say, everyone else simply has to put up with it. It's one of the several major problems with the DMCA.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Peet McKimmie (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:53am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            "If you have the rights to use something and you get a DMCA, it's an illegal notice."

            But if the DMCA takedown comes from the same people who originally granted you the rights, could that be interpreted as a de-facto revocation of those rights?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

              "But if the DMCA takedown comes from the same people who originally granted you the rights, could that be interpreted as a de-facto revocation of those rights?"

              No. By default they would not be revocable. If they are then the contract should have specified the mechanism - and it is unlikely that it would have been a DMCA takedown sent to a third party.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Peet McKimmie (profile), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 12:58am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                The problem, as I see it, is that a Blogger who has been sent an MP3 music track to feature on their blog may have nothing more than the email it came attached to, which wouldn't stand as a "Contract" in a court of law. As with a shrinkwrap license, it would only gain the status of a "contract" if the end user had to sign something physical to show they had accepted the terms.

                So I still contend that in these circumstances the permission would be revocable.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 6:04am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                  And it is worse than that.

                  The media company will argue in court that the employee who sent out the e-mail is a rouge employee in cohos with the boggier.

                  Lets face the issue. A company that is cheating and lying to its customers is also going to cheat and lie in court.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        robin, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 6:44am

        Re: Re: Chilling Effects

        ...If you want to run a blog without issue get your own domain, pay for your hosting, and be your own boss. if you work off of platforms that other people use, particularly free blog hosting, you are pretty much committing suicide up front. You are almost entirely assured of a failure somewhere along the line.

        Take responsibility for your site, take ownership, and then they will have to deal with your directly. That would change everything.


        i'm going to quite strongly agree with this one. for normal folks out there, despite the added hassles and expense, it really is the better decision.

        better never means perfect of course, as most commercial hosts will collapse like a wet paper towel when in receipt of a dmca notice, regardless of how bogus.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 6:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

          ask Cory at Boing Boing about that

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Tom Landry (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 3:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

          right, like the guy who uses a free blog as a hobby is going to go through the expense of paying a large monthly fee and using up all their free time to code and maintain the site. Its also along this line of reason that TAM's "just sue them back" is so moronic.

          How about this.....we put in place some true penalties for the cavalier use of DMCA notices.

          oh, and we light all entertainment industry attorneys on fire.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:00am

        Re: Re: Chilling Effects

        1) I don't think that they would be foolish enough to look at separate notices on the same day from the same sources as more than one strike. It would be like a policeman writing you 10 speeding tickets for the same offense because you were speeding for 10 feet. I would call this point "fear mongering" because you have no indication that this is true.


        I do, for a group that can't keep track of what is legal or not, make no distinction between fair use or unauthorized use and already accused, prosecuted and lost in court a lot of claims it is just not that difficult to see how this could happen with a high frequency.

        2) If the material is used with permission, there should not be an DMCA notices, and the DMCA notices would in fact be illegal (and subject to fine). There is no indication that there will not be some sort of mechanism to object or assert rights that you have in the process.


        Depends where, in the U.S. it is illegal but its not certain that anyone would win because of the mess the law is and if they loose they also have to pay the otherside so it is not likely that a 15 years old girl will take up that challenge or poor people will bother with it, individuals will not fight and big companies know that, and that is why walmart prefers to annoy its customers then to give back anything because they know 1 in 10 will not fight whatever they do and even a bigger number give up when faced with stalling tactics. So in fewer words the consumer protections are pretty weak and very few people will go that route, but it opens a door for scam people who could use this to set up honey pots to get money from the industry. Out go fans and in come scammers.

        3) You are right, they should never sign with major labels, never sign distribution agreements, and never publish their music in any manner, because it just leads to getting well known! Stay in the garage where it's safe (egg cartons insulate too!)


        They will go where the public is, by the looks of it labels will not be part of the picture for much longer.
        I think you are under some delusion that artists have a choice LoL


        My personal opinion: If you want to run a blog without issue get your own domain, pay for your hosting, and be your own boss. if you work off of platforms that other people use, particularly free blog hosting, you are pretty much committing suicide up front. You are almost entirely assured of a failure somewhere along the line.

        Take responsibility for your site, take ownership, and then they will have to deal with your directly. That would change everything.


        My personal opinion about your opinion:

        You are an idiot!
        Even if someone go and host their own blog people still can send DMCA's to the ISP directly and they have to take it down, will all those people like you who don't know the difference from WEP and WAP be able to buy thousands of dollars in server equipment, and set it up?

        NO they depend on people who know how to do it, the easy way is to not promote Copycrap and start using Copyleft.

        If you disagree please show us how would you find a friendly ISP to host your blog that would fight a DMCA in your behalf and if you find one inside the U.S. please show us how would you setup your LAMP.

        When you beat a dog with a stick don't expect the dog to forget neither the man nor the stick.

        Those actions taken by the industry and the government will come back in the future to bite them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:16am

          Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

          All I can say is that it is clear that you do not run your own website(s), and that you don't have to ever deal with this sort of thing.

          Good ISPs (you know, not ones like 1&1 or other fast food ISPs) will communicate with you if and when they get a DMCA complaint. If you have the rights, you show them the rights you have, and they will NOT remove the content. the ISP is not the judge and jury.

          Now, if your proof is "someone told me so" or "it was user submitted" you are pretty much lost. Having your own site doesn't mean you get to ignore the law.

          No ISP is going to fight a DMCA on your behalf, but when presented with both sides of the story, the ISP can remove itself from the discussion and leave it between you and the copyright holder. ISPs often get served rather than the site owners because the site owners are hiding. If you register your domain(s) and use valid information, you are the one getting served.

          I would say that this is something you need to learn more about, because for all your anger, you are just plain wrong.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            Thank the gods that the DMCA is only constrained to America.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            And this changes anything how you moron?

            By the DMCA rules the ISP has to take down the content or they will be liable just like Google where is the difference?

            Even Google has the same policy of counter notice and it doesn't work, what makes you think that any ISP locate in the U.S. will do better?

            It won't matter, people will have their blogs erased regardless of the company servicing them.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Peet McKimmie (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            "Good ISPs ... will NOT remove the content."

            No ISPs will "remove content". They can block your site, but they have no control over the content on it. You're thinking of a web host, not an ISP.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

              Thank you for the correction and adding to that if you host your own website from your home they will cut your service if they get a DMCA.

              And your Web Service Provider will cut you too if it gets a DMCA.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                oh god.

                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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 1:54pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                  Right. A real host with real service. Like...say...a big company like Google?

                  And we ALL know that Google or any other big company would falsely block things like...say...Blogs given music by the rights holders to post?

                  Once again, TAM is preemptively refuted by TFA. Nice job.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                    Heh?

                    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?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 2:12pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                      Have you a link to a webhoster that will not disconnect a repeat offender?

                      Please educate us.

                      More do you want to see how easy it is to be a repeat offender?
                      http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2897

                      Just don't issue a counter-DMCA and you are good for it.
                      But if you do issue a counter-DMCA you will battle the people who are the owners of the copyright and they will less then forthcoming in helping you and since they did not gave you any paper or hardproof it gets difficult to prove you are on the right, would anyone risk it?

                      I can see teenagers everywhere now issuing counter-DMCA's can't you?

                      I can see people risking tens of thousands of dollars in damage and liability claims just to keep a their blog alive.

                      What I can see is people stopping to use copyrighted music from labels and running away from liability.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 3:07pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                        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):

                        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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                          No, it really isn't. At all. Never has been and never will be.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 5:00pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100112/0752287716.shtml

                          Is Sarkozy running a crack lab?

                          Will the French government loose their internet?

                          Not even governments can keep track of infringement what chance have individuals?

                          Now when someone hacks your WEP protected WiFi and you get canned for it I want you to know that I will be laughing out loud.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 5:15pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                            All I can say is your answer is telling me you know I am right, but you can't let it go.

                            It's okay, thanks :)

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 6:07pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                              C'mon now,

                              - You failed to show a link to a "bullet-proof webhost" in U.S. soil.
                              - You failed to show how DMCA-notice are not abused.
                              - You failed to show how DMCA-notice are not used against innocent people
                              - You failed to show how DMCA-notices had any effect on piracy in the U.S.. They are not really useful against piracy.
                              - You failed to show how DMCA-notices will protect people against abuse of that mechanism.
                              - 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.

                              You are a complete failure.

                              Have you got your WEP up and running yet?

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 5:41am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                                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.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Devonavar, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 7:14am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                                  "DMCA isn't an anti-piracy tool specifically, it is a notification tool."

                                  The DMCA is certainly an anti-piracy tool (in the form of a law). If you're just talking about the "notice" part of notice-and-takedown, yes, that is a just notification tool, but it is also part of an anti-piracy tool -- that would be that takedown part.

                                  "But most keyboard warriors don't have the balls to do it."

                                  Correction: Most don't have the resources to deal with them safely and successfully -- or most are not in a position to respond at all, i.e. they are not in fact receiving DMCA notices, but are upset that certain others are.

                                  "In the same manner that the same person would fight against any injustice, they take them to court."

                                  This attitude is troubling. Yes, the courts are a venue for fighting injustice, but they should not be the first or only venue. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to live in a world where every little injustice gets the courts involved, not least because I am then left dependent on how much money I have to stand up for myself. Online protest is a much cheaper (and possibly more effective) option. It is also a way for me to attempt to redress other people's injustices that I would not have a reason to be in court for.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Captain Obvious, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 7:27am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                                  TAM, in the words of Buzz Lightyear, "you are a sad, strange little man."

                                  Only losers get off on being shilling trolls.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  :), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 4:08pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                                  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.


                                  I don't think that's it, I think you fail to answer "people like me" because you don't have or are ashamed of the answers you can give that is why you try to dodge those questions trying to push the debate to other points.

                                  I think you are incompetent to come up with good reasons for people to change and you are left with trolling.

                                  TAM screaming!

                                  __________________________________________________________

                                  TAM screams courtesy of the Freesound Project.
                                  __________________________________________________________

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 9:56pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                              All I can say is your answer is telling me you know I am right, but you can't let it go.
                              It's okay, thanks :)


                              If you really believe that then you're delusional.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 11:21pm

                          Re: 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.

                          Just to clarify, TAM seems to not understand the DMCA. It does not allow for a notice-and-notice format that allows the host to first check with the account holder. Instead, the DMCA tells the host that once they know, if they do not take action, they are assuming liability. He would be right if he accepted a notice-and-notice platform, but, oddly, TAM has spoken out vehemently against such a thing -- and has even claimed that the DMCA's notice-and-takedown is too weak.

                          Sorta odd that he now claims it works.

                          Also odd that he supported having ISPs step up and proactively block infringing content, even in the absence of a takedown notice (read threads on iiNet cases). In such situations, hosters wouldn't even get this far before blocking. We have evidence too. South Korea passed such a law, and now many hosts refuse to allow *any* video/audio uploads.

                          That's the world TAM wants, apparently.

                          Yet he pretends that the DMCA does not do what it does today?

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 4:57am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                            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.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 9:35am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                              Mike, please, one thing I do understand very clearly is DMCA.

                              Well then, you really don't have much excuse, proving you to be an inveterate liar.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 15th, 2010 @ 11:14am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                              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.


                              These two statements do not agree. The second one is not what the law says, and the first one says you understand the law.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:34pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                      Oh. Right. So, like, an ISP like iiNet that will defend its users' rights. Oh, but wait. Defending and upholding the law is allowing those damn pirates to run rampant, right? Which should not be allowed, right? That's what you said, after all. We have it on record. And Google Cache.

                      Puhleeze. Everyone here already knows your a hypocritical windbag whose opinion sways in whatever direction Mike's isn't going.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:04pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                        and lets not forget that the government artificially limits ISP competition (ie: by granting monopolies on cableco/telco infrastructure and on how can build new infrastructure).

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:05pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                          err, and on who can build new infrastructure *

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 2:04pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                  http://www.pixel2life.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20185

                  - Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.



                  Edge Web hosting

                  It is Edgewebhosting’s policy to terminate Customers who are found to be repeat infringers of the DMCA. Edgewebhosting accommodates and does not interfere with "standard technical measures" as that term is defined in Section 512(i)(2).


                  goDaddy

                  2. For Copyright Claims, upon receipt of appropriate notification from the Complaining Party, pursuant to Section 1 of Copyright Claims above, Go Daddy will remove or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing.


                  D. Repeat Infringers

                  It is Go Daddy's policy to provide for the termination, in appropriate circumstances, of Go Daddy customers and account holders who repeatedly violate this policy or are repeat infringers of copyrighted works, trademarks or any other intellectual property.


                  A2 Hosting

                  Repeat Infringers

                  A2 Hosting, Inc. may, in its discretion, use all appropriate means to terminate user access to its system or network who are repeat infringers.


                  All webhosts will terminate you if you are a repeat infringer just like Google, they all fallow the same law and see the same path and do the same mistakes.

                  Now moronic little one 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?

                  Please educate yourself about the law and by the way go learn math and IT.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    The Anti-Mike (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 6:09pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                    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.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 7:14pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                      Are you kidding me?
                      Go to nodaddy and see how happy they are with the costumer service.

                      Remember we are not talking about criminals here.

                      We are talking about people who through no fault of their own received a DMCA and got their service terminated. People who tried to provide proof and still got terminated. People who cooperated fully and still got terminated.

                      Or are you saying the DMCA can't be abused and people never get it wrong and those cases that happened on Google would never happen on a webhost or elsewhere(want to see case on paypal?), that every person ever to receive a DMCA is a criminal or crook?

                      If that is the case is John McCain a crook? is sarkozy a crook? is those numbers from Google showing that 57% of the DMCA notices initiated by rival companies a dream? Is the 37% non valid DMCA a figment of the imagination?

                      Have the DMCA succeeded in taming piracy in the U.S.?
                      The last numbers I saw, Americans were on the top 5 countries for piracy in the world.

                      Why would anyone use a law that doesn't work?

                      http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-ten-years-under-dmca

                      Are you trying to say that bad things can't happen with the DMCA?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Richard (profile), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

                      However, if you are going to infringe over and over, you have no hope.

                      However if your perfectly legal activities are going to be repeatedly erroneously flagged by a robotic DMCA notice issuer then you have no hope.

                      However if the mp3's that are sent you by the marketing dept of a content company are repeatedly flagged by the legal dept. of the same company then you are without hope.

                      You miss the point repeatedly.

                      Repeat DMCA flagging is not the same thing as repeat infringement. The repeat aspect is as likely to be caused by bugs in the DMCA issuer's system as by your own activities.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:32am

        Re: Re: Chilling Effects

        Did I mention the fact that some DMCA's don't even come with a description of what it is infringing and even though Google says it needs that information some people was kicked out off of the service regardless?

        This is a great example of a problem with the DMCA because, at least according to The Guardian, the notices that Google relied on to delete the blogs were woefully incomplete. Google should not have acted until it had proper notices from rights holders, including the name of the actual work allegedly infringed. Since many of the notices did not even include this information, there was no way for the bloggers to file a DMCA counternotice.


        http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/11/google-deletes-music-blogs
        http://www .publicknowledge.org/node/2897

        Not to mention the abuses of the DMCA as a censor tool.
        http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2721

        I wish people were a lot more like Jamie or Tanenbaum and fight to the end, to then be called by some idiot fools because they didn't take the settlement. But it is not likely.

        Copyfraud is a crime and even though it is a crime that can only be pursued by the government publishers are getting away with it.

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/
        http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/200 9/02/more-attacks-on-institutional-copyfraud.html
        http://creativecommons.org/tag/copyfraud
        http:// www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/06/copyfraud

        U.S. Supreme Court in Feist held that copyright protection is not based on a “sweat of the brow” theory.


        Reminder that copyright is not about paying artists, is about progress.

        Even when it is criminal, the punishment for those doing it is low but that is not really a factor what is a factor is that in a criminal case the state have to start anything not a citizen.so people can only complain about it since the people who supposedly work for them do nothing about it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          wvhillbilly (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

          I once stopped at the birthplace of Pearl Buck in Mill Creek WV. They had a sign outside the house prominently stating that no cameras or camcorders were allowed inside.

          I refused to go in.

          Can you copyright the entire interior of a house? Especially a historical site?

          Anybody that's going to be that fussy about copyright I flatly refuse to do business with.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Keith Sarver, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 4:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

            So, you would refuse to visit some of the most amazing museums in the world, too? Are they being 'fussy' about copyright?

            Why does everyone always want to take pictures of/or film EVERYTHING? What ever happened to experiencing something, taking the time to look and appreciate, and remember with your own brains?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Devonavar, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 6:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chilling Effects

              "Why does everyone always want to take pictures of/or film EVERYTHING? What ever happened to experiencing something, taking the time to look and appreciate, and remember with your own brains?"

              Why would you insist that everyone enjoys things in the same way. Personally, I do tend to "look and appreciate", but I don't see why everyone should take that approach. EVERYONE doesn't want to photograph everything. You're just complaining that, generally, SOMEONE does.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          wvhillbilly (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 5:43pm

          Copyfraud

          Just got done reading the above linked stories on copyfraud.

          Seems like the public domain is headed the way of the dodo bird if something isn't done to stop copyfraud. With the recent change in copyright law (1980s I think) recapturing copyright on all unexpired copyrights about to expire, I believe, back to about 1917, and the new term of copyright of life of the author plus 70 years, it will be past mid century before anything new at all is added to the public domain, other than things voluntarily donated by the authors. If congress continues its practice of extending the term of copyright every time Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is about to expire, nothing more will ever fall into the public domain unless donated. Now with outfits like Google and museums snapping up what are now public domain works and asserting their own copyright on them, soon there will be no public domain left at all.

          Unless congress does something to correct the situation.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re: Chilling Effects

        My personal opinion: If you want to run a blog without issue get your own domain, pay for your hosting, and be your own boss. if you work off of platforms that other people use, particularly free blog hosting, you are pretty much committing suicide up front. You are almost entirely assured of a failure somewhere along the line.

        However a better strategy would be

        A) Make sure all your content is backed up at home.

        B) Hop off to another host (in another country)if you have any trouble - there are plenty out there.


        Short of being an ISP yourself I think redundancy is the best strategy.

        Alternatively you could always move to Antigua. It is a legal haven from all US IP - thanks to the WTC ruling.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 8:26pm

    other things ( and this gets complex quick )

    canada having a cdr levy means htat its almost impossible to say that any canadian would be responsible fo rinfringement UNLESS you can prove 1st that they do not have any levied cdrs and stuff on them.

    then you have the labels htemsleves ina massive suit for 6 billion stating that they have these artists they haven't pain on a pending list.

    DOES that mean i too can have a 35-40 year pending list?
    at least for now YOU BET. I WOULD argue that any decent lawyer bring up that statement in any case that if the labels for example in Canada are suing a system of ill get round to paying you 40 years later list then why can't the average joe do similar. THUS we have a lawsuit so until then this alone is a nail and a a BIG ONE at anyone ANYWHERE getting sued. YOU can't have it both ways they say.

    so instead a buying levied cdrs now ill stop doing that as it dont get the artists a dime and ill create a area on my hard drive called pending list and put it all there until this lawsuit is resolved.

    WOW wonder how long the labels will stall this one, as its pretty clear they are NOT paying out that levy money either and WHERE is it going why is not being investigated .....OH RIGHT the olympics are on and the govt is shut down.

    OH well that means we have to wait longer and why aren't the police investigation them? OH RIGHT OLYMPICS like the 13 cops my home town sent there i get it.
    HAHA happy prorogue day

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      wvhillbilly (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:40pm

      Re: other things ( and this gets complex quick )

      Trying to fight back to the recording industry would be about like David trying to fight the entire Philistine army (not just Goliath) armed with nothing but a pea shooter, and without any help from God.

      It's a very one-sided battle.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 8:34pm

    second sentance pain = paid

    and yea i should register but love anonymity
    and like changing my nick to anti anti mike when tam tries to troll

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 8:56pm

    War on Drugs Vs Piracy

    Lets put some perspective shall we?

    3 strikes for a drug abuser int he U.S = 4 Million hapless souls with a record.

    Adopt Amsterdam's view; what the U.S. calls an drugie they call addicts.

    Spend that money on more rehab facilities not prisons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 11:06pm

    TAM

    I eagerly await Anti-Mike's bizarre and otherwordly rationale for this. He's pretty much the reason I read all the comments on every story now (plus the fact I have too much free time).

    TAM? TAM?

    Maybe he's on break.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 11:17pm

    Bad Judge

    copyright infringement is not a straight 'yes' or 'no' question. The Court has had to examine a very significant quantity of technical and legal detail over dozens of pages in this judgment in order to determine whether iiNet users, and how often iiNet users, infringe copyright

    That was this judge's own fault. If he had just taken the plaintiff's word for it like he should have he wouldn't have had to do all that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfgang Senges, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 1:28am

    Collection Society Effectively Blocking Marketing

    In the very special case of Germany, there's another problem related to the Google blog mess.

    Obviously, there are loads of artists' sites promoting widgets to be used on other sites, as well as there are labels seeding content & the likes to blogs. BUT.

    Here comes GEMA (German collection society). They just recently "opened up" for allowing at least artists to use their own work on their own sites (!) without having to report this use of streaming or downloading to GEMA. Remember: Artist sites have a commercial purpose. Any commercial site using streaming/downloading has to license this use with GEMA.

    Yes, you got it right: There actually have been times (a year ago or so), that legally an artist had to pay a licence when including his tracks on his site.

    Back to promotion & widgets: Every company site, every blogger earning money by blogging (= commercial site) has to report the use of promotional elements like players, widgets etc. to GEMA. If it's not content that's licensed with Creative Commons, the company/blogger has to pay.

    Of course, it's often difficult to divide commercial from private sites. Mine is commercial, since I'm not only blogging but offering consultancy. Bingo.

    That's why I deleted all streams and music videos some time ago. But, I decided to report instead - that's why now you find a video by Zoe.LeelA in the most recent article. Though CC licensed, I am urged to report it.

    Here we are. No matter how transparent the workflow of marketing/legal hands at labels is in Germany, promotion that's explicitly intended by artists or labels is only possible if you report the use to GEMA and if you license it (= $$$).

    Btw, the amount you have to pay depends on the percentage of music content on your site, and on page impressions. After all, it might be hard to find what category (and licence amount) you're in - don't know about you, but the number of page impressions differs depending on the tool you use.

    Finally, to anyone who's in doubt - since I personally had doubt if GEMA is that restrict on promotional widgets (SoundCloud partnered with another company recently just to provide this tool of marketing) - I asked GEMA's director responsible for legal issues.

    He confirmed what I described above.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bengie, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 10:10am

    False take downs

    just make a false take-down request carry a fine of 10% of your yearly revenue if you cannot show proof of you trying to validate the legality of material. Like contacting the user first and consulting an outside specialist knowledgeable in fair-use rulings/law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:16am

    LoL

    All I can say is that it is clear that you do not run your own website(s), and that you don't have to ever deal with this sort of thing.


    Ok then, tell that to Google.

    http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7

    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.


    "While inadequate copyright protection can reduce incentives to create, excessive copyright
    protection can stifle creativity, choke innovation, impoverish culture and block free and fair
    competition. As both an intermediary and an innovator in online technologies, Google supports a
    flexible and adaptable legal framework that provides those who create and invest in new
    technologies the freedom to innovate without fear that their efforts will be hindered by an overly
    restrictive approach to copyright. Copyright must have sufficient flexibility so that new,
    legitimate and socially desirable uses, enabled by new technologies, can flourish."


    Surely they don't know nothing about it too.

    Lets see what the law says:
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:44am

    Mike asked, "So why should anyone expect third parties to be able to do a better job? "

    Isn't it obvious? Because they will be paid and likely will get a bonus for each notice sent.

    Oh wait...

    Like others have said, there needs to be a downside to sending false notices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    3 Strikes is just the DMCA for ISP's.

    The DMCA just proves how idiot the idea of 3 strikes really is.

    People will get caught in situations that will give them real hardship all the while doing nothing to reduce piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 3:47pm

    I see how it would work pretty well.

    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.


    React in a timely manner? so what you are saying is that everybody from children to the elderly now needs to have a law degree and needs to get things in writing from whomever sends them something?

    They also need to hire someone to "clear" all things they put online, and have a lawyer on speed dial, detailed archives of what they have, hire a private investigator or researchers to track down possible liabilities and have a "litigation-fund" at their disposal just to blog?

    Nah! I would just make another account in another blog somewhere and never ever post another link to content owned by the bastards.

    Now imagine how this would work for a 3 strikes scheme.

    People would be forced to have capabilities and resources that only medium/big companies and wealthy people can afford.

    Else they would be disconnected without any real change to defend themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

    I see how it would work pretty well.

    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.


    Was that the reality for Pop Tarts, Masala, I Rock Cleveland, To Die By Your Side, It's a Rap and Living Ears.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/11/google-deletes-music-blogs

    They are promoters when the company guys calls them and say "hey I have this cool new song do you mind blogging about?", but when the DMCA comes down without any prior warning suddenly those same people are scum?

    The trouble with filing a formal, legal DMCA counter-claim is, that most bloggers don't know how. What's more, many of Blogger's DMCA notices allegedly omit the name of the offending song. Bloggers aren't even sure what they are denying.


    And the ignorance of the law aside there is the problem with the DMCA-notices itself that lack information that in fact prevents the blogger from filling a proper counter-notice.

    Please do show us one bullet-proof web host on U.S. soil because that link from wikipedia is all about Russian and Chinese web hosts that don't have DMCA's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:13pm

    Investigative incompetence.

    Believe it or not, DMCA takedown notices have been issued against inanimate objects, including a LaserJet printer. A recent study by the University of Washington has brought out serious flaws in the investigate practices of these media giants, proving that the so-called Copyright Cops are simply reaching out random and hoping they snag a file sharer, or at least scare someone into coughing over money for something they didn't even do.


    Source: June 5, 2008, 5:30 PM EST

    http://consumerist.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=1&tag=dmca%20takedown%20notices&a mp;limit=20

    The flaws are known for at least 4 years and they didn't seem to have disapeared.

    Add:

    - 3 strikes
    - poor investigative methods.
    - Confusing complex legal procedure to issue a counter-claim.
    - No incentive to defend against such claims because of legal uncertainty and heavy financial loses in case you are wrong.

    And you have a recipe for disaster.

    Abuse of the DMCA is visible, business use it to harm other business, censor and just because they can, not one bloger did go out to contest anything not because they feel they were wrong but because it would be very hard and risky to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:20pm

    React in a timely manner.

    Tell that to John McCain LoL
    Apparently he was not fast enough.

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117240/Update_McCain_protests_YouTube_s_removal_o f_his_campaign_videos

    Is John McCain a child molester? Is he a pirate? Is he a thief?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 5:10pm

    Mount Rushmore.

    Is Mount Rushmore copyrighted?

    Will anyone taking pictures from it receive a DMCA-notice?

    Those damn crack heads must pay, it is absolutely incomprehensible to think that artist will not get paid!

    Anyone who ever took a photograph is a thief.

    Have the guys from scooby-doo paid the artist for using it in the opening animation that I remember?


    o/ Yay!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Stephen Pate, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 4:22am

    Google the all-wise

    Google's phony motto of "do no harm" is a laugh, a pacifier for an organization that runs roughshod over individuals.

    The copyright mess is not solved by three strikes. But their attitude is a warning to people who want free services: don't look to Google.

    My 300 video YouTube account was taken down because Fox made fraudulent claims on NASA vidoes - and they are public domain. 3 strikes and you're out.

    I have my own site now but it's tough sledding finding and re-posting them. I lost some momentum as people have to find the new site and without community, the numbers will be lower.

    That's the price we pay for independence from our not so-gentle 800 pound gorilla.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

    LoL

    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.


    What that answer have to do with the question about "bullet-proof webhosts" in U.S. soil?

    Was John McCain intent in violating the law? Was Sarkozy?
    Was Pop Tarts, Masala, I Rock Cleveland, To Die By Your Side, It's a Rap and Living Ears?

    This are but a few examples of when things go wrong and the DMCA breaks down. Not to mention others that got to court like the AutoDesk case(Vernon Vs AutoDesk) that did go after anyone trying to resale their software online and got slapped silly by the courts and reminded of things like "exaustion of rights" that include the first sale doctrine.

    Me think in starting a second hand music CD sales online LoL
    I would sell my CDs for $0.05 + shipment what do you think? Then I would sell my own artwork and give used CDs for free, anyone thinks I will get in trouble for that?

    Was John McCain unreacheable?
    Was the bloggers reaching out in the help forums unreacheable?

    Want to see one of them saying he personally called the representatives from the industry?

    We are not talking about kids that would run and make another blog and create thousands of accounts here, we are talking about serious people who took what they did in a serious manner and are not anonymous.

    Now please show that those people tried to hide and do something illegal. There are those who do but we are not talking about them, we are talking about honest 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.


    That is not an answer to the question you're running again from the question.

    Can you or can you not without a doubt say that the DMCA will not cause harm to innocent people? Is those people acceptable losses? Can you sleep at night knowing innocents are being harmed?

    Can you prove that please. Because as far as I know the vast majority of bloggers put their names on the blog and even have emails for contact, they also are registered with the provider of the service and are very much reachable and at risk of loosing their blogs.

    Want to see court orders unsmasking bloggers?

    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?


    What?
    A great number of people already do that and still have problems, ask Mike if he doesn't have legal threats.

    Besides why would anyone blogging about highschool go to the trouble to pay for those things when they have third parties that will do that for them? Why should they not be able to use a service? Even ISP are in, in the action as some offer webhosting and easy blog cosntructions tools are you saying that those people are hidding? Are you saying that no company should offer that service?

    Are you saying companies should listen to the great TAM?

    LoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL
    o/

    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.


    Reinventing the law now?
    Maybe you was still sucking your thumbs in 1996 so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and post some sources.

    On October 12, 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ending many months of turbulent negotiations regarding its provisions. Two weeks later, on October 28th, President Clinton signed the Act into law.

    The Act is designed to implement the treaties signed in December 1996 at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva conference, but also contains additional provisions addressing related matters.

    As was the case with the 'No Electronic Theft' Act (1997), the bill was originally supported by the software and entertainment industries, and opposed by scientists, librarians, and academics.


    Source

    The full text of the law can be found here where you can find some titles that gives you a hint of what the DMCA is and is not.

    TITLE I--WIPO TREATIES IMPLEMENTATION
    CHAPTER 12--COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
    TITLE II--ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION

    Thus those titles look like gardening instructions to you?

    Now the question the law had any effect on piracy to justify its existence?

    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.


    No balls? Like the music industry that are trying to make others responsible for their troubles?

    ISP have nothing to do with the music industry and the music industry want them to do their job, well who has no balls?

    But the questions isn't about balls is about harm. Can you or can you not prove that the DMCA have an great impact to justify harm to innocent people? The harm is proved to occur want to see people being threatened by litigation when they didn't own a computer, having blogs accounts terminated even in the presence of good faith attempts, people being coerced by crooked people to give them money those are all results from that law.

    Can you say without a doubt that the law will not cause harm to innocent people? Are those people ACCEPTABLE LOSES to you?

    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.


    Well McCain droped the issue and Sarkozy paid millions, so people should not complain or pay millions is that it?

    People with no money have to be quite and don't complain?
    Cuba is like that why don't you go live there? And they have great hospitals I'm sure you will be fine.

    Or China go live in China, you seem found of it, go live there.

    For the rest of us I don't think anyone would want to live in that world of yours.

    What people should do is make a honey pot for the industry and get a million dollar case against them just like the guy got one from AutoDesk and that will bring in a lot of people desperate for money that will sort this out for the rest of us.

    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.


    Dude seriously you are not really responding to me when I ask questions you are acting to people who read otherwise you wouldn't even bother to come here. It is important to you in some way or again you wouldn't be here at all.

    I'm ask questions and do research to give others ammunition to fight the discourse battle, the action will depend on what each one believes, not responding to me is ok, not responding to others reading is a failure, a super king kong failure.

    By the way appealing to my vanity is not going to work, but nice try there, many would have gone for it. Is just I don't care about what you think, these words are for the readers and not really for you. They will decide who is a failure or not and they hold the hands of some industries in their hands they just don't know it yet how much power they really have, but no problems with you being so obnoxious they will jump all on the bandwagon.

    WEP is always up. Good luck hacking it, keyboard warrior.


    Do you have the balls to put your address here?
    Please put your information for contact, your real info for everyone to see so others can do bad things to you. Have you the balls or are you just another keyboard warrior?


    It ain't gona be me but someone will do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 4:19pm

    The same dog, the same kids and Fred

    I remain skeptical of many of the comments on here. I tend to think that the ongoing feud between TAM and "Mikes Three Trolls" are a planned publicity stunt for a new movie or reality TV show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2010 @ 6:04pm

      Re: The same dog, the same kids and Fred

      The ridiculous IP (and other) laws in place are also a planned publicity stunt for a movie that will gross millions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Feb 14th, 2010 @ 5:23pm

    People will get arrested in the supermarket because of the DMCA

    http://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera.html

    Blaise Aguera from Microsoft(sorry folks), shows how mobile interactive maps may look in the future.

    Your wife could call you from the market and start filming the stands and ask you what you want her to get.

    Now imagine receiving a DMCA notification because your phone line was being deep packet inspected? LoL

    Or being arrested by security!
    Or the man in black arrive to take you to some basement for questioning because she is a suspect in plotting some terrorist attack.

    Now imagine a guy lost calling his buddy for directions and showing you a map with realtime video of that part of the road or city.

    Everybody will be a thief, everyone will be a criminal in the future. Everybody will be liable.

    That is the world we are walking towards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Etui, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 3:03am

    Media companies have legal departments that specialize in crafting and sending DMCA complaints. They can probably fire off a DMCA notice in less time than it's taken me to write this message. They don't need to show any proof at all. They do this kind of thing every day, it's their job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bigjobsboard, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 7:16pm

    What the hell is happening to Google? Everything is definitely going against the company. lol. Google should raise itself once again.!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alex Alcyone, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 8:29pm

    Haha, sooooo amusing that Viacom served takedown notices on its own uploads!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jeremy, Feb 28th, 2010 @ 1:02am

    Why haha ))

    Alex - why haha? ))
    There is nothing funny )))

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Robert@business card maker online, May 6th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Bad move.

    That was not a good idea of doing so however its too late for them to undo everything done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    audio visual hire melbourne, Mar 8th, 2011 @ 10:34pm

    DMCA is an attempt to protect the rights of copyright holders in the emerging world of digital distribution. Google maintains the right to cancel blogs that violate its policies, including those on copyright. It does so after multiple uncontested DMCA takedowns arrive. If you're doing something on a hosted service that you would hate to lose, keep a local backup.
    audio visual hire melbourne

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Terry Green, Jul 21st, 2011 @ 7:17am

    @audio visual hire melbourne - Totally agree. Keeping a local backup is key.

    tag

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This