As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems

from the not-that-they'll-get-fixed dept

A number of folks on both sides of the SOPA/PIPA debates have noted the seeming "irony" that the anti-SOPA/PIPA folks keep pointing to the DMCA and complaining about how SOPA/PIPA will undermine the DMCA. After all, many in the tech industry were quite worried about the DMCA when it first showed up and have continued to complain about it for years. Supporters of SOPA/PIPA point this out mockingly, as if to suggest that the anti-SOPA/PIPA folks are somehow being hypocritical (or doing a "sky is falling" routine). The anti-SOPA/PIPA folks point out how unfortunate it is that entertainment industry lobbyists are pushing so hard on the lever that we're forced to "defend" the DMCA.

Of course, the reality is a little more nuanced, and not nearly so black and white. When the anti-SOPA/PIPA folks "defend the DMCA," they're actually just defending one small part of it: the safe harbors. Those safe harbors were only put into the DMCA after lots of folks raised hell about the initial proposals, which would have included all of the draconian parts of the DMCA... without those important safe harbors. The safe harbors were added to try to make sure that the proper party (the folks actually doing the infringing) were blamed for infringement, rather than they tools they used. SOPA/PIPA supporters who mock people for defending the DMCA now are being disingenuous. If those people hadn't complained, it's likely those safe harbors wouldn't have been included. But like the similar (if different in important ways) safe harbors in Section 230 of the CDA, it's perfectly reasonable to be in favor of the safe harbors but against many other parts of the bill.

Most of us anti-SOPA/PIPA folks agree that there remain huge problems with the rest of the DMCA. Derrick Harris, over at GigaOm, has written an article pointing this out, and asking why no one's trying to fix the broken parts of the DMCA while we're pushing back on SOPA. He highlights some of the problems with the notice-and-takedown provisions, for example:

In 2006, two law professors published a report highlighting the scope of the problem at that time. Although they acknowledged the imperfection of their data set, the results are were pretty startling nonetheless: 41 percent of all studied claims involving content hosted on Google targeted complainantsí competitors, and ďa substantial portionĒ of the claims contained serious legal flaws ranging from the veracity of the claim to non-compliance with DMCA requirements to not even making copyright-based claims.

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 werenít valid copyright claims at all.

Presumably, though, because service providers ó even the mighty Google ó arenít really in the position to examine every claim, and even if they spot potential defenses (e.g., fair use), there isnít much incentive to ignore requests. This creates even deeper problems for copyright law. Commenting in 2006 on whether itís legal to link to allegedly infringing material, EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann noted, ďThatís one of the problems with the DMCA safe harbors ó because OSPs have such a strong incentive to simply comply with takedown notices, courts get fewer chances to decide the underlying copyright questions, like whether linking to stuff on YouTube is infringing. So things stay murky."

Indeed. The fact that things get taken down as soon as the notice is sent raises a whole host of issues -- including First Amendment questions. However, Harris's question about why no one's looking to fix the DMCA is pretty easy to answer, if you've followed the debate over the past decade. Early on, there were attempts to fix many of the problems of the DMCA, with Reps. Boucher and Lofgren often trying to fix things... and getting nowhere. Boucher is now out of office, so that was one fewer voice on that subject. But even while he was still in office, he stopped pushing to fix the DMCA.

And the key reason why is going right back to what we started this article discussing. The innovation industry knows how important the safe harbors in the DMCA are... and they realize that if they open up the DMCA for any kind of adjustment, Hollywood will go bonkers trying to kill the safe harbors (which is also why they're trying to do an end run around all of that with SOPA -- which will kill off many of the DMCA's safe harbors). That's because while many of us realize that the safe harbors are the only good part of the DMCA, the big entertainment industry folks think exactly the opposite, and continue to argue that the safe harbors are pure evil. This is folly, but it's reached a kind of stalemate, where neither side is willing to go directly back into the DMCA, for fear that the others will muck with the parts they like. It's a bit of a standoff situation, such that neither side is happy with the overall DMCA, but no one wants to fix the problems, because there's a decent likelihood that lobbying from the other side will make the end result worse.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 11:39am

    Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

    Separate links sites and file hosts, both drawing eyeballs to advertising with stolen content while pretending they know nothin'. "Safe harbors" for pirates were NEVER the intention, but it's what you like.

    And "innovation industry" -- PFFFT! You can't just make pirating okay by slapping an alliterative moniker on it, Moniker Mike.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 11:56am

      Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

      The DMCA is another law that was bought and paid for by the entertainment industry. It's so unfortunate that the entertainment industry wishes it would have paid for a more powerful bill... and that's where we get SOPA.

      Please cite earnings statements from these pirate sites that earn so much money from selling advertising with stolen content so that your vague claims can be backed up with hard evidence, specifically numbers from American pirate sites (since our laws don't apply to people outside our country as you well know, or should).

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:10pm

        Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

        Go check it out. Every single cyberlocker site offers CASH rewards to affiliate uploaders who in turn spread their links virally in order to earn a few bucks. Obviously the cyberlockers sit atop the food chain while their minions eagerly spread links in forums across the web, essentially doing the dirty work.

        It's a pyramid scheme, pure and simple and the cyberlocker operators are laughing all the way to the bank. Until they are forced to become legit, they will continue to thrive by using (mostly) stolen content to drive traffic to their sites. They do earn money from ads and subscriptions. That's a fact.

        The DMCA is a joke, but even more of a joke is the notion that people are victimized by false DMCA notices. While that does happen, the vast majority of problems with the DMCA are due to the fact it's utterly useless when it comes to preventing the illegal monetization of one's content.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.


          Go check it out. Every single cyberlocker site offers CASH rewards to affiliate uploaders who in turn spread their links virally in order to earn a few
          bucks. Obviously the cyberlockers sit atop the food chain while their minions eagerly spread links in forums across the web, essentially doing the dirty
          work.





          Wrong, Rapidshare no longer offers rewards to uploaders. Rapidshare still offers reward two users enrolling other subscribers, but this program is no longer tied to how often a supposedly infringing file is downloaded.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 3:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

          You mean like this one?

          magnet:?xt=urn:btih:2c734949e128fc498e40efbce728b5d2d84e4a2b&dn=Sita+Sings+the+Blues+OFF ICIAL+DVD+%28NTSC%29&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.p ublicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80

          https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4962819/ Sita_Sings_the_Blues_OFFICIAL_DVD_%28NTSC%29

          But seriously the Pirate Bay is starting to look like the AOL pages from the 90's, there are other more attractive pirate sites like.

          http://torrentbutler.eu/
          http://www.kat.ph/

          See and I don't get a dime for spreading the word.
          20 years and counting, it is time for a present and traditionally that would be some China.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_anniversary

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 3:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

          "The DMCA is a joke, but even more of a joke is the notion that people are victimized by false DMCA notices."

          Minor or even major copyright infringement is nothing compared to the violation of free speech. When one person's free speech is violated, the rest of us suffer as well. When one vastly wealthy, head-in-the-20th-century corporation has its copyrights violated, they may not even being losing sales since not every infringement is a lost sale.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:03pm

      Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

      1) Not stolen, infringing content
      2) Some pretend to know nothing, a few flaunt that they know things are infringing, but most aren't aware of specific instances of infringement, especially once Viacom showed that it uploaded clips intending to make them look unauthorized.
      3) Everyone acknowledges that safe harbors weren't intended for the guilty. They're intended for the innocent. Service providers who are not guilty, should not be held liable for the actions of others. If we were to follow that logic, then the IRS ought to be liable for any tax fraud that occurs.
      4) "but it's what you like." Really? This sounds like the kind of debate a 3rd grader would have.
      5) The "innovation industry" simply means an industry that innovates. If the entertainment industry would like to be a part of that industry all they must do is innovate. Are you saying the only way to innovate is to be in the piracy industry?
      6) Moniker Mike, Pirate Mike, MazBurglar. Yes, yes, we've heard it all before. I'm glad the debate is about the messenger rather than the points raised by the messenger. It's so much easier to simply dismiss claims from an obvious pirate apologist. Actually talking about those claims is hard work.

      I can see why people on both sides of the debate are worried about fixing the problems in the DMCA. Each of them think they've got a snake by the head somehow, but neither wants to try to let go for fear the snake will bite them. I still want the DMCA fixed. Honestly, I'd prefer the DMCA abolished completely, safe harbors and all. Then again, I've yet to see any compelling reason that copyright shouldn't be abolished completely.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 1:48pm

      Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

      I do not believe that the Department of Labor classification system even has an entry for "innovation industry". Perhaps because this is a term pulled from the sky having no basis in fact.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 3:54pm

        Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

        I do not believe that the Department of Labor classification system even has an entry for "innovation industry". Perhaps because this is a term pulled from the sky having no basis in fact.

        Hahahahahahahahah. Yeah, because the Department of Labor is *SO* up-to-date in how they understand industries.

        If your friends can make up things like "the core copyright industries," I think that the innovation industry is a perfectly reasonable classification. I stand by it.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          A Guy (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

          Luckily, we here in the United States have a vibrant core BS industry.

          It can withstand losing the core copyright industry and still remain strong due to the core political industry.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 7:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

          None of my friends/colleagues have ever employed the term "core copyright industries". Those who may employ terms such as this are likely not lawyers, or if they are then they are likely not well-versed in the substantive law.

          I cannot even begin to imagine what would spring forth from Justice Scalia if the term was used in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Whatever it would be, it seems fairly certain that counsel would rue the fact he/she used the term.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Mole Pirate, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 9:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

            Please show one instance where Mr. Mike Masnick used that term in front of the Supreme Court?

            See different venues different words, different forms to express oneself.

            Trying to claim that defenders of strong copyrights don't use that term by trying to show that it can't be used in some place just seems low.

             

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

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 6:20pm

      Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.

      Here you go again defending the very industry you claim to have no support for..the entertainment industry. Oh well, if it fits into your binary rule then I suppose hypocrisy is something you can live with.

      No then, if you can point out a single industry, economic sector or what have you that has innovated any more than the tech industry has in the past 30-40 years please point them out.

      Until you can, Mike's moniker is the correct one. Unless, of course, you believe that the tech industry with or without Google is a massive cesspool of piracy and copyright violation which we'd just love to know. I bet you think Open Source is just another dodge to pirate someone else's software, too.

      And you DO realize that your sentence "Separate links sites and file hosts, both drawing eyeballs to advertising with stolen content while pretending they know nothin'." makes no grammatical or logical sense, right?

      "Separate links sites and file hosts, both drawing eyeballs to advertising with stolen content while pretending they know nothin'" makes no grammatical or logical sense, don't you?

      And you complain about others making ad homiem attacks on you while you feel free to do the same to Mike.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 11:40am

    This is folly, but it's reached a kind of stalemate, where neither side is willing to go directly back into the DMCA, for fear that the others will muck with the parts they like. It's a bit of a standoff situation, such that neither side is happy with the overall DMCA, but no one wants to fix the problems, because there's a decent likelihood that lobbying from the other side will make the end result worse.


    The truly ironic part? The public is the one sitting on the sidelines of changes affecting their lives, for laws they don't want.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      fogbugzd (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 1:06pm

      Re:

      DMCA bogus takedowns can actually be largely fixed without touching the DCMA itself. What we need is a law imposing penalties for false claim of copyright with hefty statutory damages and treble penalties when the objective of the false claim was is to stifle free speech or to harm a business competitor. DCMA claims are supposed to be based on copyright, so any bogus DCMA claim would by definition give the damaged party the right to pursue damages. With the potential for large settlements it should be easy to find an attorney to represent the little people who tend to have no recourse when a large company falsely takes down their material.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    A Guy (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    The DMCA strikes an imperfect balance. There should be greater penalties for those that send improper notices.

    The anti circumvention provisions are a joke. They only affect those that legitimately acquired the content.

    However, on balance, it's not that bad.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    DMCA is utterly useless when it comes to removing content uploaded by pirates to various cyber-locker sites around the globe. There are numerous work-arounds via mirrored links, etc. No sooner than the infringing link is removed, another one pops up in its place.

    Surely this was not the intent of the Safe Harbor provision. Cyber-lockers could easily adopt a Content Management System similar to that on Youtube. However, that's unlikely to happen unless their business model is threatened either through financial pressures and/or legal maneuvers.

    The DMCA is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. The bleeding won't stop. The time to revamp it or throw it out entirely has come.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:06pm

      Re:

      What bleeding? Record profits isn't bleeding.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Record profits. Oh yeah, this is only about "BIG" Hollywood and the BIG music companies.

        Actually, the real victims of piracy are the independent artists who don't have deep pockets and who depend on earning a decent living from their hard work.

        Hollywood movies get money from box office receipts, but indie films often don't. They depend on back end money to pay debts, union obligations, etc. Pirate profiteers steal their hard work and make money from it. How is that fair or sustainable.

        It's not limited to film either....talk to authors, musicians, etc. who aren't part of the big companies. Why are their rights not valued and dismissed by people like you?

        If all you want is Big Box studio remakes, well fine. But if you appreciate the diversity and quality of creative content that we enjoy, you may want to start considering that it doesn't all come from Hollywood.

        There is no easy solution, but a good start would be to acknowledge that creative artists have rights and that in today's eco-system of online theft (and profit) those rights are roundly ignored.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "union obligations"

          There's your problem. You're thinking too old school. You think you must be a part of the crowd to make a living. You must be a member of the big media or a member of a union or a member of the $100mill movie club. It's the wrong way of thinking.

          Independent artists are doing just fine. If they aren't, maybe they should start looking at the ones that are. The ones that succeed are providing something that the other aren't. Convenience, good quality, and good price.

          Don't believe me?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          rubberpants, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          When have the little guys ever had an easy time of it? If anything the Internet has presented them with greater opportunities than ever before.

          When did I ever say they didn't have rights or that I don't respect them? If copyrights were the only rights to consider then the Internet would be shut down along with the tape recorder, the printing press, and the quill.

          Copyrights must be balanced with other rights. There has never been more diversity and quality in entertainment than there is right now. I don't see the problem. Profits are up, quality is up, and quantity is up. Isn't that enough for you?

          If you personally or people you know are having a hard time making a living doing what they want then I'm sorry to hear that and I'm not surprised; I don't know anyone that doesn't, in any profession.

          Why don't you acknowledge that others have rights too and that in today's eco-system of money in politics (and lobbying) those rights are roundly ignored?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 3:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Quote:
          Actually, the real victims of piracy are the independent artists who don't have deep pockets and who depend on earning a decent living from their hard work.


          Totally agree, independent artists don't have deep pockets to use those useless laws anyways and get hammered by corporate interests when they try to make a decent living.

          Buskers can't find venues to play, singers can't find venues to play all because collection agencies try to extort money that they won't give to smaller artists because of how things are set up in many parts of the world where the only the big acts get to play in the game of "sharing the profits", furthermore it is an absurd having to pay someone who does no work, if Ford tried to charge taxi drivers for using their cars they would have a revolt on their hands so is just amusing that musicians accept that they need to pay somebody else for doing a cover since they are the ones who do all the work.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          RonKaminsky (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 4:54pm

          Evidence, please?

          Actually, the real victims of piracy are the independent artists who don't have deep pockets and who depend on earning a decent living from their hard work.
          As Nina Paley pointed out on another post, the vast majority of artists aren't going to be able to make a decent living from their art, alone. The relatively few indies who are close to that can still probably benefit from the increased exposure which piracy gives them (compared to the number of actual lost sales caused by piracy).

          But to be honest, neither you nor I can be so certain about the effects of increased piracy. Most of the actual research done, however, seems to back the side which claims that the artists aren't as strongly affected by piracy as one would think from a naive count of downloads.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 6:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Then why is indie music thriving like never before? Why is self publishing taking off?

          As for indie film they don't get into theatres because the theatre chains are directly or indirectly controlled by the big studios so indie films are locked out of movie theatres not by pirates but by your competition which strikes me as an anti-trust issue not a piracy one. And most indie film makers I know of don't have union operations so those obligations aren't there except for actors guilds. And if you're silly enough to max your credit card out on your first indie film venture so you can make it look Hollywood I have no sympathy for you as a businessman.

          I do know creators, authors, musicians etc who are quite happy how things are working out using the Internet to distribute their works and to get paid for them. Most of them seem to have discovered places like Facebook and MySpace where they can actually be found, listened to and make sales. Not best seller variety but you don't get that when you're starting out even if you were Elvis or The Beatles.

          So people like me DO respect authors, musicians and yes, even indie filmakers work and, if we like it, will support them with cash if and when we can find them.

          If I was running piracy site for profit I have to tell you the last files I'd want are indie films, self published books and indie music because no one will come to the site looking for stuff they haven't heard of. So your argument disintegrates right then and there.

          Yeah, indie film making is hard. It's tough and sometimes expensive but it also means you have to do your own promotion. If you're not going to promote yourself, take the risk that a file or two may be shared and sell on line where you can be found then you have only yourself to blame for not making any money at it.

          And no, I'm not going to buy your stuff if it's bad, amateurish or I just don't like the story you're trying to tell but then I'm under no obligation to. If I don't like it enough I'm not about to share it with anyone either. But if the dislike is mild I may make a quick clip, add that to an email and fire it off to a friend who may very well like it and that could very well generate a sale for you.

          But dear AC, you have to take that risk first. It strikes me you think that simply being in the arts is something you should be automatically paid for. Doesn't work that way, never has and never will unless you're addicted to something like Canada Council Grants and you'll be lucky to put a tent over your head if that's what you rely on.

          Yes you have rights under copyright and I do respect them. But do something with it and make your damned movie already. Hiding in the corner in fear and trepidation won't get the movie made and it won't change the fact that things just aren't as simple as they maybe used to be. There never was and never will be a guarantee that you will make a penny off it. The risk is what it always was. Stop making excuses.

          So get this right, pirates really aren't interested in your movie. No one knows you, no one cares and until they do no one will pirate as much as a second of it.

          So much for any potential theft. Someone may drop by and take off with that nice expensive video camera you just bought which IS theft but they're not pirates or film makers they just want to hock the camera to get a fix or something.

          And get this right...people will create because humans are creative people. People created long before the Internet and the movable type press came along in Europe and long before copyright and patent laws existed and will continue to do so should they cease to exist tomorrow morning. (Thankfully they won't.)

           

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

        •  
          icon
          JMT (profile), Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 3:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Pirate profiteers steal their hard work and make money from it.
          "


          Who exactly are these "pirate profiteers" and how much money are they making? You make this claim so surely you have some facts to back it up.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:20pm

      Re:

      "Cyber-lockers could easily adopt a Content Management System similar to that on Youtube."

      That wouldn't work. It only works on Youtube (as well as it does) because it's using decoded video and audio. An automated system won't work when dealing with every type of file both encrypted and not.

      You're also thinking too analog when you compare piracy to a gaping wound. It's not. Piracy isn't actually a problem, if anything it's a opportunity. You just need to take it.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      Surely this was not the intent of the Safe Harbor provision. Cyber-lockers could easily adopt a Content Management System similar to that on Youtube. However, that's unlikely to happen unless their business model is threatened either through financial pressures and/or legal maneuvers.

      That makes no sense. If it were true, then YouTube and others never would have adopted such things on their own. They did so because it made good business sense in general. No need for new laws for that.

      But for startups you totally underestimate the cost of setting up such a filter. You'd basically lock in all existing players and lock out any new or innovative service because they couldn't afford such a filter.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 2:32pm

        Re: Re:

        What?

        YouTube cleaned up their act because they were SUED.

        Why must you constantly lie?

        Go see a mental health professional.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 2:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          YouTube cleaned up their act because they were SUED.

          You are wrong - (and stop being so rude)

          YouTube introduced content ID because it allowed them to leave infringing content up and monetise it with advertising.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 3:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            LOL

            No, YT cleaned up because they were sued for breaking the law.

            Please go back to your alternate reality now.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 3:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wrong they were sued ALLEGEDLY for breaking the law and won in court in every instance so far, proving they were not.

              LoL

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 7:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There's only been one court instance so far, and it shocked everyone when the judge ruled for youtube.

                Youtube's behavior violated the safe harbor laws; as their own emails prove, they opted to be willfully blind.

                Youtube is going to lose the appeal, and rightfully so.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Richard (profile), Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 8:35am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Youtube is going to lose the appeal,

                  Perhaps you would like to predict the outcome of some horse races for me!

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2011 @ 3:22am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Quote:
                  Youtube is going to lose the appeal, and rightfully so.


                  That is true just like, you will get old some day and die, Youtube at some point will disappear like Victor, Columbia Records, Odeon, Edison Records, BMG, EMI, RCA, Parlophone, Emerson, Aeolian, Vocalian, OKeh, American Recording Company (ARC), Brunswick, Banner, Cameo, Conqueror, Melotone, Pathe, Perfect, OKeh, Romeo, Vocalion, Decca, MGM Records, Ampex, Capitol Records, PolyGram and so many others.

                  http://www.playlistresearch.com/recordindustry.htm

                  But record labels will go first probably since they don't have the know how to stay in the market today.

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 8:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No, YT cleaned up because they were sued for breaking the law.

              Let us be clear on one thing. The law didn't require Content ID. The law only requires a takedown on notification. It follows that you are totally wrong here.

              Content ID was invented because it reduced costs and made money by allowing copyrighted content to remain on Youtube.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2011 @ 8:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I am not as certain as you concerning YT's decision to install CID on its site. Yes, it does make business sense, but to me it seems more likely a response to minimize the possibility it could lose safe harbor status under the DMCA.

                YT reveives many notices from rights holders on a daily basis, and as such notices increase in number the greater the likelihood that a mistake will be made and safe harbor lost by YT as to a specific situation.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Richard (profile), Dec 4th, 2011 @ 11:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  YT reveives many notices from rights holders on a daily basis, and as such notices increase in number the greater the likelihood that a mistake will be made and safe harbor lost by YT as to a specific situation.

                  Making the occasional mistake isn't going to lose the safe harbours. After all the rightholders issue mistaken (and even malicious) takedowns all the time and seem to get away with it.

                  No - the reason for content ID is that it opens the possibility of monetising the content (for the rightsholder) whilst allowing the copyrighted content to stay up. (Which benefits the uploader and youtube). Thus, if the rightsholder plays ball, everybody wins,

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2011 @ 11:50am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Remember, each notice is separate and distinct from all others. If YT does not respond in accordance with the DMCA to a specific notice, then as to the subject matter of that notice it can lose safe harbor.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2011 @ 3:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      First you have to prove they didn't do a good faith attempt in a matter of law.

                       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 12:56pm

      'Re:


      Cyber-lockers could easily adopt a Content Management System similar to that on Youtube.


      Sure they could, and then the system proves ineffective because a content ID filter is easily defeated by encryption, you'll go home and admit that the cyberlocker has done its duty, right?

      Or would you then argue that any cyberlocker charging for subscriptions and allowing anonymous uploading of encrypted files should loose its safe harbor?

      Your copyright can only be enforced if all cloud services ban storing and sharing of encrypted files, which would make them useless.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Mole Pirate, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 2:49pm

      Re:

      I agree, it is time to throw the DMCA out with the cavet that there are no need to put anything else in its place.

      As for imaginary laws about absurd rights I just want to see you enforce it, seriously I love to see you try.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 2:56pm

      Re:

      Cyber-lockers could easily adopt a Content Management System similar to that on Youtube.

      Only for publicly shared files - provately shared files are encrypted so that the service provider has no access to them. Actually publicly shared files could easily be encrypted enough to defeat content ID without inconveniencing the users much.

      So - in short such a move would be pointless
      .

      (Incidentally content ID is easy enought to defeat - if you know how.)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    First off, I'm in favor of seeing the DMCA cleaned up and revised to get rid of the bad of the parts. Keep the safe harbors. Add reasonable measures to require those issuing takedown notices to be copyright holders, give the recipients some sort of due process so that it becomes feasible for recipients of said notices to request reasonable proof of such before complying with said notices. It shouldn't be feasible for just anyone to issue takedown notices for competing material that the copyright holder might not want taken down.

    Having said that, let me throw out the following. I have a number of artist friends (as in art art, not music). Most of them do it as hobbyists, but do it well enough to derive some additional income by selling commissions, producing niche market comics, and so forth. I doubt if any of them make enough money from it to be able to cover the cost of a high-powered legal team.

    On numerous occasions, rogue sites have popped up that use their artwork without permission, sometimes as part of paysites that provide no compensation for the artists whose work is used. At present, they are able to deal with these sites by sending them DMCA takedown notices for their work, and under the present system, that seems to work well enough. I'd hate to see the DMCA get "improved" to where it becomes infeasible for these artists to get their work taken down from these sites.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    shawnhcorey (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    There is nothing wrong with DMCA. Currently it allows anyone in the US to remove any content from the web just by posting a notice, exactly what the big-content companies want. Well, not completely. It is still too reasonable priced; it allows little companies to take down big-content sites too but, don't worry, they going to change that soon. ;)

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 5:37pm

    The sky is falling.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    mimi, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 5:01pm

    STOP S.O.P.A

     

    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