MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy

from the huh? dept

The delusions of the MPAA are really impressive sometimes. For years, they've been pushing to make search engines like Google liable for blocking sites they don't like. That was a key provision in SOPA -- that it would force "information location services" to disappear links to sites deemed "dedicated" to infringement. Of course, as we've noted, it was only after SOPA failed that Hollywood finally started using the tools already available to it to ask Google to remove links to infringing works. At the same time, we noted that the fact that Google is now processing an astounding 2.5 million DMCA takedown notices a week suggests that something is really, really broken. We meant copyright law itself -- but our good friends at the MPAA went in the other direction, and suggested it showed how Google needs to do more, and how artists are overly burdened by the DMCA:
There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows. According to Google, they receive 2.5 million takedown requests per week – and that data does not even include YouTube, where an enormous amount of infringement takes place. That means that by Google’s own accounting, millions of times each week creators are forced to raise a complaint with Google that the company is facilitating the theft of their work and ask that the infringing work or the link to that work be removed. Often, even when the links are removed, they pop right back up a few hours later. That’s not a reasonable -- or sustainable -- system for anyone....

We couldn’t agree more with Google that this data shows that our current system is not working – for creators, or for Google. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that it also confirms the important role that Google has to play in helping curb the theft of creative works while protecting an Internet that works for everyone. We look forward to continuing to work with them to tackle this urgent challenge.
Now, I agree that it's difficult for copyright holders (often not the actual creators, as the MPAA falsely implies) to have to monitor and track all of this stuff. That's a big burden. But... the MPAA ridiculously implies that there are only two options here: (1) "Creators" keep filing DMCA takedowns or (2) Google has to do more. That ignores reality in multiple ways. First off, the staggering number of bogus takedowns highlights the key point that we've made all along, which is that the only party who actually knows if a work is infringing is the copyright holder -- and even then, they often seem to get confused. Somehow thinking that a third party with no direct knowledge can somehow do more or should be more responsible is a little silly.

But the bigger issue is that this assumes -- as the MPAA always seems to assume -- that the only response to infringement is "more enforcement." What it seems to refuse to consider is that there's another path: it's the path in which the MPAA studios stop focusing so much on beating everyone with a stick, and start fixing the broken parts of their business model. Time and time again the evidence shows that if you offer people what they want, at a reasonable price, and with convenience, they pay -- and the "problem" of copyright infringement shrinks to being minimal (or, in some cases, it actually helps you). So, a rational individual or organization would look at the scale of the "problem" that the MPAA is talking about, along with all of the historical data on how little enforcement does to get people to actually buy -- and realize that perhaps that strategy is a mistake. Even the MPAA admits in this very post that the works often pop back up online.

Maybe -- just maybe -- the problem isn't search engines not doing enough, but rather the strategy that focuses on the stick of enforcement, rather than the carrot of providing consumers more of what they want. I recognize it's a crazy idea, especially at the MPAA -- where they have a whole freaking division of "content protection" VPs who need to justify their giant salaries, rather than a division for helping filmmakers embrace useful business models -- but it seems like a more productive path forward.

Oh, and one other thing. Could the MPAA stop with its bullshit claims that enforcing copyright couldn't possibly have an impact on free speech? This blog post has this in it:
One thing that’s important to make clear in any serious discussion about tackling online theft: absolutely no one is advocating for the restriction of speech on the Internet. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of the Internet, and a cornerstone of the film community, which has spent the last century advocating for artists to be able to express themselves freely on the screen. Removing infringing works online isn’t limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish.
If the only thing taken down due to copyright claims was "infringing works," they'd have a point. But it's not. Copyright claims are used all the time to censor or take down sites or content that people just don't like. That's the concern. The massive expansion of copyright law and broad tools like the DMCA's notice-and-takedown lead to massive amounts of collateral damage that -- absolutely and without question -- infringe on free speech rights. Until the MPAA is willing to acknowledge that simple fact, it's difficult to take the organization seriously.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 10:07am

    Here is an experiment that the MPAA could try. Go on a 6-month hiatus. Stop sending out DCMA notices (or paying other people to do it for you). Leave other things the same, such as DVD prices and your deals with streaming services. See if movie revenue jumps from things like DVD sales and streaming. If you are right then piracy should blossom in the absence of notices and your profits will spike. Then you might have a case against Google. What do you have to loose? Obviously your current strategy is not working. A plus is that you would save the money that it costs to send all of those DCMA notices. You might even find Google and other potential partners a bit more willing to make a deal with you.

    And then here is an experiment for the next six months. Stop playing with release dates and geographic restrictions for six months. Give windowing a 6-month vacation. While you are at it, provide Netflix, Hulu Plus, and other streaming services some decent programming for the period. See if profits climb or piracy rates plummet. A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Shmerl, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 10:53am

      Re:

      Another experiment. Provide content without DRM for 6 months (Netflix and etc. are afflicted with it). See if sales numbers rise or not. This would save on paying for all the DRM schemes as well.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Jesse (profile), Dec 18th, 2012 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re:

        I wish there was some sort of "reverse DMCA" notice that we could issue to indicate that we want to buy their product, but it's not available at a reasonable price in the region.

        "This product is not legally available in this area. Failure to comply within 5 business days legalizes all local infringements of said product."

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Shmerl, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:02am

      Re:

      All these can be summarized as: start treating your customers with respect, and see if you'll get more respect in return.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:09am

        Re: Re:

        The "content producers" have grown arrogant after nearly a century of dictating the rules.

        The world has changed though. They are no longer in control. Any moron with an Internet connection can rip apart their work and do as he pleases.

        Naturally, they aren't happy, and instead of embracing technology and giving those morons a reason to buy, they try to fight the technological tide.

        Well, history is littered with the debris of civilizations that failed to adapt to new technologies. The *AAs will soon become part of the debris.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Chris Forsyth, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 8:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually...in a lot of cases it's not the content *producers*, but the product *distributors* that are doing this. There's plenty of artists who couldn't give two squirts about this (and then there's Psy, who's made a s**tload of money *because* of it), it's the middle-men who are having hissy fits.

          Of course the most entertaining outcome of this is the left-hand/right-hand incidents...where they issue a take down notice on their *own*, supposedly legitimate YouTube channel over infringing content. :-)

           

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

    •  
      icon
      crade (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:45am

      Re:

      If they are right, they will lost a few hundred times the money that exists in the world doing your experiment for 6 months! Also, unicorns will fly out their butts.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      IronM@sk, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 5:27pm

      Re:

      What do you have to loose?

      One "o" for a start.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), Dec 23rd, 2012 @ 2:39pm

      Re:

      A bonus here is that during this six months you can save all the money it takes to manage, implement, and finance the windowing and regional restrictions.


      This is how most of Hollywood marketing keeps their job. This is why it won't go away.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 10:57am

    and how artists are overly burdened by the DMCA


    The costs are another burden that prevents films making a profit, and therefore no share for the artits./s

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Mark, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Alternative Headline

    That we will never hear from the MPAA

    MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That There is Unmet Demand For Our Product And We Will Provide the Market With What It Wants

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Scote, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:00am

    Links are not infringing

    I suspect that millions of the take downs are for *links* to websites that have infringing content as opposed to infringing content hosting by Google itself. Google shouldn't have to take down links as they accurately reflect what is on the web. Should Google maps have to remove the street number of an alleged crack house? No. The street numbers aren't a violation. Nor should Google be removing links.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:36am

      Re: Links are not infringing

      It's an ostrich effect: as long as they do not see the links to the content, it ceases to exist.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

      Re: Links are not infringing

      I suspect that millions of the take downs are for *links* to websites that have infringing content as opposed to infringing content hosting by Google itself.

      No need for suspicion. The page from Google's Policy by the Numbers blog (quoted in the original Techdirt post) says specifically that these are regarding "search results that link to allegedly infringing material."

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:01am

    MPAA (et al) try to show how new technology is bad and ask the speedy legal system to stop pirates.

    Meanwhile the pirates embrace new technology/solutions to get what the MPAA (et al) doesn't want them to have.

    MPAA claims that the pirates are winning. Hmmm I wonder why?

    What would the pirates have left if the MPAA embraced new technology and made up for lost revenue via ads, and other internet based money making schemes? Is the MPAA afraid they'd make enough to actually have to pay artists if they did that?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:01am

    "Removing infringing works online isnít limiting access to information or ideas ..."

    Actually, it is. It's just that it's not unconstitutional to do so.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    CoderJ, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    This story doesn't even need to go as in depth as it does; the claim fails almost out of the gate by assuming that all of the over 2.5 million complaints are valid.

    So, how many of those complaints are invalid almost off the bat due to either the use being clearly allowed or the claim being for content not owned or the content claimed not even appearing on the site in question? If it's anything more than 10% (and it's more than that), that number starts going down fast. Also filter out duplicate claims and I'd be surprised if even half the amount are legitimate.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 6:12pm

      Re:

      IP extremists seem to think that IP should be all about them. It should not. It should not be about the IP cartels, it should not be about the middlemen, it should not be about the IP holders, it should not be about the creators. If it should even exist it should only be about the public interest.

      The IP cartels need to get lost. IP extremists act as if they're entitled to free IP privileges when they're not and they don't want to sacrifice anything but they want the rest of the world to make these huge sacrifices just to enforce their IP privileges. If IP law is such a huge burden on everyone else (everyone else being who these laws should serve) then they should get lost. The public is being denied many useful services because of these laws and that's not acceptable (ie: Megaupload among many others).

      IP lengths keep getting ridiculously extended at the will of IP extremists who provide campaign contributions and revolving door favors in return. I can go on about how these laws exist solely for the interests, at the will, of IP extremists and not the public. These laws are not about the public interest and they should be abolished. I want IP laws abolished. I want govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies gone, I'm sick and tired of mainstream media propaganda being used to brainwash the public and keep them ignorant. I'm sick and tired of Internet services in the U.S. costing more than many other countries and being much slower with all sorts of limitations (ie: caps). I'm sick and tired of cable costing a fortune to provide nothing but commercials. I'm sick and tired of broadcasting spectra monopolies denying me my natural right to broadcast on various frequencies as I please simply so that broadcasters can bombard us with advertisements. This needs to change. Our plutocratic social structure needs to change. Govt. established taxi cab monopolies need to go away. All patents need to vanish. All of the many many anti-competitive laws need to disappear.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    This is why Google is f@$%ing for ever listening to any of their demands, and not just taking them straight to court over using the DMCA to take down "links" to (allegedly) copyrighted material, and end this lunacy once and for all.

    Instead what did they do? They didn't listen to our warning that if they give MPAA a finger they'll take the whole arm, and then some. And now this is exactly what's happening. Google made it easier for them to send more DMCA notices, and no what do they do? Of course, they ask for MORE!!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:03am

    " Removing infringing works online isnít limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish."

    Gangnam Style wouldn't have even made a mention in the US if people had not made a bajillion plays on it and PSY let them get away with it. Sounds like his creativity and hard work paid off in the name recognition he has now. Isn't that why people make art, to get their name out there and known to the world at large?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:04pm

      Re:

      ex-freaking-actly ! ! !

      *IF* psy had been a MAFIAA-type asshole, he'd have a locked-down, faintly amusing ditty/video that NO ONE beyond korea would have seen, much less gone viral...
      instead, he lets it escape into OUR collective culture and it blows up beyond his -or anyone's- wildest expectation...

      WE DID THAT...
      REPEAT: WE did that, *NOT* some crappy record label, *not* some PR droids, *not* some massive disneyesque media campaign polluting every corner of our culture: WE did it, simply by LIKING it...

      psy was just either smart enough, generous enough, or simply said WTF, and *allowed* what happened to happen...

      in a VERY REAL sense, that song is OURS, WE made it what it is... (as is the case with ALL culture: WE own it, WE make it, WE decide what is 'good'/'bad'/'new'/'old'/whatever...
      WE do, NOT you, Mr. Bigshot media execudroid POS...

      we don't NEED gatekeepers deciding what we do/don't like, we need them to get the hell out of the way and let US define OUR own culture...

      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Loki, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:04am

    I saw a meme the other day that said:

    "Criminals obey gun control laws in the same manner politicians follow their oath of office."

    I would like to append that with ..."or entertainment industry executives adhere to logic, reason, or honesty."

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Milton Freewater, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:33pm

      Re:

      "I saw a meme the other day that said:

      'Criminals obey gun control laws in the same manner politicians follow their oath of office.'"

      This is absolutely off topic but I have to say it: Criminals don't shoot up schools and movie theaters. They have too much to lose, i.e their drug money, stolen goods, rapes, whatever.

      Semiautomatic-gun bans don't protect us from criminals. They protect us from noncriminals who feel overwhemingly compelled to start breaking the law. Noncriminals who snap break the gun control law and we get them before they proceed to breaking the murder law.

      Anyway, thanks for indulging me and boo on the MPAA and all that.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Dec 18th, 2012 @ 6:31am

        Re: Re:

        Anyone who shoots up a school or movie theatre *IS* a criminal. You don't have to be an existing one. (And leaving aside how we all seem to be criminals/terrorists/pirates these days.)

        And availability of guns *does* make a difference. If there are loads of legal guns around, gun deaths happen, either by accident or

        Oh look, drug laws aren't working. Why not just let anyone buy and distribute whatever drugs? Even in school...

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Mickey, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:05am

    Gangnam in the usa

    I'm sure most US-based record labels wish they had "Gangnam Style" as one of their own. If they did, they would have buried every parody with DCMA takedowns and killed the reach of it (and the revenue along with it).

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:06am

    I don't want my money going to the MAFFIA. Since anything I would buy from them will have a slice going to those outfits, I choose not to buy anything from them. I congratulate them on ending the purchasing habits of one customer through their actions.

    I've went from buying around $500 a year to nothing and its remained at that level for years. I see no value in DRM other than a hindrance. I also believe most entertainment to be priced too expensively.

    Since I am not exposed to new music I have no desire to buy new stuff. In the process they've poisoned radio and are working hard on doing the same to the internet. Should the day come that I see no value in the internet, I'll cut that bill too.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

    Such as the fact that Google CHECKING 10 MILLION notices a month at a 97.5% accuracy rate as told by Google proves that it CAN BE DONE AND NEEDS TO BE DONE.

    There's no way Megaupload Mike can construe the Google results as supporting his notions for getting around copyright "legally", so he's off barking up another tree for distraction.

    Here's Mike's actual calculation: $100M movie + 1 up-loader + manyfile hosts + many links sites + unlimited down-loaders = infinite goods!

    Notice what's left out? Any proportionate rewards for those who created and produced the content!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Adrian Lopez, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:19am

      Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

      "Such as the fact that Google CHECKING 10 MILLION notices a month at a 97.5% accuracy rate as told by Google proves that it CAN BE DONE AND NEEDS TO BE DONE."

      Who said anything about a 97.5% accuracy rate? That Google has complied with 97.5% of all DMCA takedown requests does not in any way suggest that 97.5% of requests are legitimate. Google doesn't get to decide what is or is not infringement: they either comply with proper DMCA takedown requests or they face liability for their users' content.

      But I'm sure you know that already.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:29am

        Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

        Mike reported the accuracy rate in:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121211/16152021352/dmca-copyright-takedowns-to-google-increa sed-10x-just-past-six-months.shtml

        "The company also claims that it does the ensuing takedown in an average of just six hours -- even with having someone review each and every takedown, and even rejecting a few. They reject about 2.5% of takedown notices."

        You're not arguing with me on this point, but with The Masnick.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Adrian Lopez, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:42am

          Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

          You are willfully misinterpreting Masnick's words there. Rejecting 2.5% of all takedown notices doesn't imply 97.5% accuracy. All it means is Google is convinced the copyright holder crossed all the T's and dotted all the i's on the DMCA notice. It says nothing at all about whether the works taken down are infringing or not.

          But I'm sure you knew that already.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

            Above should read "... dotted all the i's on 97.5% of the DMCA notices."

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:42am

          Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

          COMPLIANCE =/= ACCURACY

          Einstein was correct: human stupidity is truly infinite. You are living proof, ootb.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Mark, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

          97.5% complied with (as Mike and Google state) and 97.5% accurate (as you state) are not the same thing.

          There is a giant leap of faith (and failure in logic) to try make those two equivalent

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

      Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

      STFU. Why do you post here? You will never change anybody's mind. You just spout stupid stuff about Mike and contribute nothing to anything. You are wasting your time and making yourself look dumb. Stop posting, idiot.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:31am

        RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

        "STFU. Why do you post here? You will never change anybody's mind. You just spout stupid stuff about Mike and contribute nothing to anything. You are wasting your time and making yourself look dumb. Stop posting, idiot."

        Mike isn't changing anyone's opinion, either. He has nothing except assertions.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:35am

          Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

          At least he has some data to back up his assertions.

          Where's your data?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

          Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

          Except that Mike DOES change people's opinions, plus he works with people in Washington.

          What have you done with your life?

           

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

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Dec 18th, 2012 @ 2:21am

            Re: Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

            "What have you done with your life?"

            Trolling a blog with all the maturity and logic of a toddler tantrum isn't enough?

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          Ron, Dec 18th, 2012 @ 4:57am

          Re: RIGHT BACK AT YOU: Ron, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:26am

          Why do you care then? You make no sense, stop posting!!

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:40pm

      Re: No one should be surprised when you can't see the obvious.

      "Such as the fact that Google CHECKING 10 MILLION notices a month at a 97.5% accuracy rate as told by Google proves that it CAN BE DONE AND NEEDS TO BE DONE."

      Checking...and discovering over half the notices are false/inaccurate, boy.
      Do your research.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Delta, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    Lawsuite Coming?

    It looks to me that the MPAA and the RIAA, et al, are preparing for a massive lawsuite against Google.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    "There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows."

    Facilitation implies intent. Google's intentions are not to encourage copyright infringement, but to index as much of the World Wide Web as possible. This necessarily includes indexing infringing content and pages containing links to that content. All Google is doing is making note of what's out there to be found. To call this facilitation (or, indeed, contributory infringement) is both dishonest and unfair to Google.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Brown (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

      Re:

      Exactly. I wonder how many new pages their webcrawler digs up. Probably a lot more than the takedowns. How many hits to non-infringing content doe Google facilitate? The *AA's just want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

       

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:23am

    Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

    MANY of the pieces on Techdirt are hair-splitting legalisms supporting the symbiotic system that skates on the very edge of overt commercial infringement. Mike maintains the following sequence is perfectly legal, even protected "free speech":

    1) anonymous up-loaders have a "right" to transfer ("share") whatever data they wish to wherever they wish because it's not commercial infringement;

    2) so that commercial scale file hosts can claim they're NOT infringing copyright because have no knowledge as to whether full-length movie data is copyrighted and NOT "fair use" -- with the extra twist of can't have such knowledge because are too many files to check! -- meanwhile, with the draw of providing for free someone else's valuable copyrighted content, the file hosts directly sell premium access speed plus get advertising revenue;

    3) so that links sites announcing the infringing but "free" content can also draw eyeballs to advertising for income;

    4) so that anonymous down-loaders can get the valuable content for free.

    So here's Mike's actual calculation: $100M movie + 1 up-loader + many file hosts + many links sites + unlimited down-loaders = infinite goods!

    [A similiar symbiotic sequence is in peer-to-peer networks: omit specific file hosts, and only links sites get advertising revenue.]

    Note that except perhaps (one time) for the up-loader, NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content. But ALL depend upon getting FREE content: it's a "business model" that can ignore the "sunk (or fixed) costs" for a $100M movie to focus only on bandwidth costs EXACTLY as in Mike's "can't compete" piece! -- I say that's NOT coincidence.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Brown (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

      Sorry, OOTB, you don't get to blame all your woes on Google for facilitating piracy. What you're seeing right now in the movie industry is the direct result of disregarding the age-old wisdom: "don't shit where you eat." Your industry has crapped all over itself in some of the most disgusting money-grabs of all time.
      It is absolutely unacceptable that George Lucas became a gazillionaire off of Star Wars, yet the guy who played Darth Vader hasn't seen a dime because the movie hasn't profited yet.

      THAT'S why you can't make a profit on your $100M project. It's doomed from conception because of the toxic environment you would perpetuate.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:12pm

      Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

      Note that except perhaps (one time) for the up-loader, NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content.

      How do you know that? Nothing you've described precludes all of them paying quite a bit. In fact studies have clearly shown they do pay quite a bit.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Milton Freewater, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

        Re: Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

        "NONE of those entities pay one cent"

        Obviously I won't waste my time with the original troll post, but this idea that everyone who watches something "should have paid ... whoever produced the content" does not come from or support the industry.

        When lobbyists talk about "digital theft" they mean lost sales. The idea is incorrect in context, but out of context, as "NONE paid and this is bad," it's gibberish. People enjoy commercial-subsidized and subscription-based video and music (and even nonprofit free video and music) all the time and the industry loves it. They want to get paid, not get customers to pay. As always, trolls aren't helping content creators.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Ophelia Millais (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

      Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

      You're really upset about all the money being made off of free content by file hosts, link sites, etc. If it really is a substantial amount, and piracy is really killing you, then the solution seems simple. Get into the file hosting and linking business, and do a really good job of it. Problem solved; no finger pointing needed.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Megaupload Mike supports symbiotic piracy, NOT copyright.

      "NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content."
      You ARE talking about movie/tv studios and record companies, right, boy?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Now, I agree that it's difficult for copyright holders (often not the actual creators, as the MPAA falsely implies) to have to monitor and track all of this stuff.

    In a world with greater creator access to fans and fewer gatekeepers, where creators=copyright holders they will be at a significant disadvantage. The AA's have costly, sophisticated operations that lead to these filings. How would a small creator/copyright holder hope to protect her work?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Google's response should be, "thanks to the super effective search algorithm, the MPAA has had a free utility to track down infringment and send DCMA takedown notices to millions. Your welcome."

    The other side of the coin means something too. By their logic, if google was less successful, infringment and priacy could have been stamped out already.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Why stop at however many levels of indirection Google is at? What about the people who set up the networks, the cables, the people who manufacture the servers? What about the farmers who feed these people and those who make clothes for them?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy


    How about Google asks the MPAA and RIAA to build and provide them with access to a definite database containi9ng copies of all their copyrighted works, along with the computing powers to make matches to copyrighted works. This database to also include details of which sites are licensed to have copies of the works, along with details of the copyright holders. The search engines could then feed them links for verification before they indexed them.
    I can see the MPAA and RIAA claiming that it is too expensive and would take too long to set up such a system. The search engines could then tell the MPAA and RIAA to go away until such time as they provide the tools needed for them to do as they want.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Google those websites that are infringing.

    Google provides the MAFIAA with a way locating the infringing works. They should be happy.

    But aside from all that. Can we all stop distorting facts to serve a purpose. No one here at Techdirt wants those that provide us with great entertainment to not get paid for doing so. We all want those people doing the work of creating the next Ice, Ice Baby song or the next 49.5 Shades of Off White to get paid a worthy sum of money for bringing us those points of entertainment. They did the work and thus should get paid.

    But too often in the pursuit of the top level goal we distort facts to our liking.

    Sure the MAFIAA does it more than any group. They have shown time and time again it is not about profit for their members but profit for their bottom line. But it is also not acceptable to just say people are going to copy so deal with it.

    Techdirt has does a good job of presenting alternative ways for content creators to make money. And it seems to a degree that some are listening.

    So in some way, shape or form the content creators need to be informed of new ways to leverage their content for monetary awards. The MAFIAA should lead that charge to educate and inform.

    You know why they won't? (This is the main reason why the MAFIAA sticks to its outdated stance) Because they can't control the flow of money to the content creators.
    They have no way to make sure they get their cut.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:45am

    If the only thing taken down due to copyright claims was "infringing works," they'd have a point. But it's not. Copyright claims are used all the time to censor or take down sites or content that people just don't like. That's the concern. The massive expansion of copyright law and broad tools like the DMCA's notice-and-takedown lead to massive amounts of collateral damage that -- absolutely and without question -- infringe on free speech rights. Until the MPAA is willing to acknowledge that simple fact, it's difficult to take the organization seriously.

    Isn't that kind of the failsafe SOPA offered? Judicial review and an adversarial hearing?

    Maybe you could pose what would be a fair and effective way to deal with infringement instead of criticizing any enforcement avenue available.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      I have one sure way.

      End the monopoly and the infringement goes away.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      Isn't that kind of the failsafe SOPA offered? Judicial review and an adversarial hearing?


      No, or almost no, depending on which version of SOPA you're talking about.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:53am

      Re:

      Maybe you could pose what would be a fair and effective way to deal with infringement instead of criticizing any enforcement avenue available.


      That's skipping ahead a bit. There is no fair way to enforce unfair laws. Step one is to make the laws fair.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

        Re: Re:

        OK, what are fair laws?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Fair" doesn't come into law. And nor should it. When it comes to Perceptional Property, there should be no "fairness", nor should there be "compensatory" language for anyone other than the actual creator.

          Here are three changes that make this problem go away:

          1) Make everything non-transferable, but waivable;
          2) Make the exclusivity last two years ONLY;
          3) Revoke all Perceptional Property up until that point.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well for one they'd include a few things that are rather noticeably lacking in the current laws. Such radical notions as:

          -Due process. Both sides are allowed to present their case before any action is taken.

          -Punishment for abuses of the system. Currently there isn't any, therefor there is no reason at all for the people abusing the system to stop.

          -Evidence based legislation/laws/punishment. If an agency/company/person is going to claim that someone, or some company is costing them thousands, millions or billions of dollars, it should be a requirement that they provide verifiable proof, from multiple sources, before their claims are accepted as accurate and any actions are taken based upon their claims.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:07pm

      Re:

      Quote:
      Isn't that kind of the failsafe SOPA offered? Judicial review and an adversarial hearing?


      Yah right, I would love to see all the judges in the United States process 10 million requests a month.

      The answer is obvious they wouldn't be able to and you be complaining again that you need more legal tools.

      How about you face reality and see what everybody else already noticed.

      Copyright the beloved glorious artificial granted monopoly is not sustainable anymore.

      At the very least it needs to be toned down so infringement have a very narrow scope, because right now it is obvious that there are no amount of money or man power that will make this work in a free open society in its current form.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re:

        Obviously you are one of the many who opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it. Judicial action was targeted against rogue website "dedicated to infringe content". Not tens of millions or individual files. Truly, ignorance is bliss.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're ignoring the context of your original post here. You suggested that SOPA would have been an answer to the collateral damage but if it only reviewed anything at the site level it clearly wouldn't be. So either 10 million requests per month or it doesn't do at all the thing you suggested it would do in your OP.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What do you not understand about the standard "dedicated to infringing activity"? Are you seriously suggesting a pirate site should be able to inoculate itself against enforcement by offering 99% infringing works and 1% public domain content? That constitutes a judicial threshold, and a hearing provides the opportunity for the site owner to challenge whether their business meets that standard.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Quote:
              "dedicated to infringing activity"?


              You mean like any file locker that takes files from others?
              Emails that tell others where to find something that may or not be illegal?
              Blogs that point to somewhere where someone think it is illegal?

              Don't beat around the bushes, just say you want to censor the internet because you want your monopoly intact no matter what the cost of it and that is all you care about.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So what you are saying is that after seeing 10 million links being censored you are certain that there is no collateral damaged?

              Why SOPA didn't have strict punishment for wrong accusations to discourage abuse?

              After all if you do it wrong shouldn't you be responsible for your acts or that is just one way street for you people?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

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

                So you do think it's ok for a website to be immunized as long as it offers a single non-infringing work. Interesting. I guess that you'd be ok with a child porn site being beyond the reach of law enforcement because it too offered a single legal piece of content?

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  JMT (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 3:49pm

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

                  Do you realise how weak and desperate your argument looks when you need to bring up child porn to try to make a point? Society has a completely different attitude to copyright infringement that it does to child porn, so your attempt to imply any similarity is a waste of effort that does your cause more harm than good.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    IPokeAHamsterWithARubberDuck, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 8:26pm

                    We see right through you, AC.

                    Very well stated, JMT. Also notice how he doesn't answer what is a very valid and concerning question, especially in light of how we're already seeing the DMCA constantly abused. Makes it very easy to see right through his charade. Talk about transparent!

                     

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 7:31pm

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

                  Yep, I have no problems with it.

                  Because for true crime there is always a way to touch the other side.

                  Now lets play your silly game.

                  So you are ok to censor news of crimes to help the police them?
                  You are ok with knews reporting and pointing to crime isn't you, why?

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What do you not understand about the standard "dedicated to infringing activity"?

              Perhaps we have less than zero trust left after years of hearing that everything some legacy company doesn't like is "dedicated to infringing activity."

              So face it. Your industry has completely blown its chance forever to be respected as a fair arbiter of deciding what is actually infringing. You made your bed, now lie in it.

              Or, you know, adapt as we've been telling you to do for a decade or more.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What do you not understand about the standard "dedicated to infringing activity"?

              From the "Manager's Amendment" of SOPA, a website is "dedicated to infringing activity" if it has U.S. users, and:
              (i) the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of [U.S. copyright or trademark laws]; or

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

              The words are particularly weaselly: "primarily," "limited purpose." There's no hard-and-fast rule. If the site offers 60% infringing content, 39% copyrighted-but-not-infringing content, and 1% public domain content, is it "dedicated to infringing activity?" It certainly could be.

              Also note the words "marketed" and "promoted." Any site that said "Download free movies!" in its marketing campaign could meet this standard, whether or not any infringement actually occurred at all.

              There was no explicit "judicial threshold." The law was completely vague. It would have been horrible had it passed.

              a hearing provides the opportunity for the site owner to challenge whether their business meets that standard.

              All of the actions taken by SOPA and PIPA required notice only. No hearing would have been required.

              That includes actions regarding domain name registrars, search engines, and payment processors. You would have been "disappeared" from all of these, prior to any kind of adversarial process.

              And those registrars, search engines, and payment processors would also have been targeted by judicial action - something you conveniently ignore.

              So, let's stop spewing the SOPA/PIPA apologia. They were both abominable bills, and it's good for everyone that they died a horrible, screaming death.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          By rogue websites you mean the whole internet.

          I agree with you on the "ignorance is a bliss".

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Milton Freewater, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Obviously you are one of the many who opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it. Judicial action was targeted against rogue website "dedicated to infringe content". Not tens of millions or individual files. Truly, ignorance is bliss."

          The troll was the one who proposed that SOPA would have addressed tens of millions or individual files. Are you saying the troll opposed SOPA but never bothered to read it?

          This is like a funny LOTR outtake in which Gollum confuses himself.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:10pm

      Re:

      Oh and please don't come crying afterwards saying that people don't care and need to be proded to respect it, because really, you people started the disrespect and attacks against the public and they will give back as good as they get it, this should send shivers through your spine, because of how you people act towards others.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Brown (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:14pm

      Re:

      Ever read this site? It's littered with alternative approaches.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Milton Freewater, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      "Isn't that kind of the failsafe SOPA offered? Judicial review and an adversarial hearing?

      Maybe you could pose what would be a fair and effective way to deal with infringement instead of criticizing any enforcement avenue available."

      SOPA was opposed because it was not fair or effective.

      Seems to me that this criticism DOES propose a fair and effective way to deal with infringement. You just don't like the idea of fairness in this case.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:46am

    funny how the MPAA didn't mention the millions of false take downs Google has to deal with each week, the majority of which are instigated, if not issued by the entertainment industries. but then, doing that would allow the truth to be broadcast and the industries dont want anyone seeing that, do they! imagine what would happen if the 'encouraged' politicians actually saw, acknowledged and acted on the truth, rather than the absolute bollocks the entertainment industries just keep putting out! what is needed are some balls here and more of the same that is happening atm in Aussie where iiNet has told the industries the truth and refused to to their dirty work!! hopefully, there will be more ISPs and search engines etc doing the same thing!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 11:58am

    " There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and†much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows. According to Google, they receive 2.5 million takedown requests per week Ė and that data does not even include YouTube, where an enormous amount of infringement takes place. That means that by Googleís own accounting, millions of times each week creators are forced to raise a complaint with Google that the company is facilitating the theft of their work and ask that the infringing work or the link to that work be removed. Often, even when the links are removed, they pop right back up a few hours later. Thatís not a reasonable -- or sustainable -- system for anyone....†"

    Sounds to me as if their specifically attacking a culture, no just one or two individuals, but in their own words, millions.

    What for?
    Profit?
    Control?

    Profit/control Vs culture

    Its time these corp heads get together to design a system where all media is imediatly available worldwide, with an option to pay per view for those who want it, but to imitate the "consume as much as you want aspect", a cheap and affordable monthly subscription is what you'll need, and to maximize customers.
    Provide many payment methods, cash for monthly vouchers sold in retail would'nt be a bad idea for the less developed areas

    Untill i start hearing these kind of subjects being brought up by "media providers", i will just assume them to be anti human rights

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

      Re:

      Untill i start hearing these kind of subjects being brought up by "media providers", i will just assume them to be anti human rights

      Interesting point. The human rights of creators to profit from their creations is enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations of human rights. No where is your right to get whatever you want, whenever you want it mentioned. So if you want to talk about human rights, let's first talk about creators who already have recognized rights that are being violated every day.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re:

        I am willing to bet that you can't find any reference to that anywhere, you know why?

        Because you are full of shit.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re:

        Well if you call a hundred years monopoly a good thing and righteous who am I to disagree with you crazy person.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Media providers != creators. Further they are well known for not paying the creators.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Like Lester Chambers?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:47pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh, you mean via the TRiPS agreement that the US refuses to fully implement?

        Yes, ignore that parts that you don't like. Because that doesn't make the government hypocritical at all.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re:

        The human rights of creators to profit from their creations is enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations of human rights.

        The "right to profit from their creations" is not the same as the "right to copyright."

        Creators don't have any "human rights" above and beyond what other workers have. Creators' human rights are served equally as well with, say, work-for-hire arrangements - the same kind that every other worker on the planet has.

        Also, some of the "human rights" that are "enshrined in a number of United Nations declarations" (the so-called "moral rights") are rights that are not recognized by the U.S., among others.

        The general comments from the U.N., specifically regarding these rights, says this outright:
        Whereas the human right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from oneís scientific, literary and artistic productions safeguards the personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities, or other groups and their collective cultural heritage, as well as their basic material interests which are necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living, intellectual property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments. Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author provided for by article 15, paragraph 1 (c), does not necessarily coincide with what is referred to as intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.

        It is therefore important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized in article 15, paragraph 1 (c). [...]

        Under the existing international treaty protection regimes, legal entities are included among the holders of intellectual property rights. However, as noted above, their entitlements, because of their different nature, are not protected at the level of human rights.

        So, when someone downloads a Hollywood movie without paying for it, they're not violating anyone's human rights.

        You're also leaving out the other portions of that section on human rights. All humans, everywhere, have the right: "To take part in cultural life; [and] To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications."

        When what you "want" is culture, then you absolutely do have a human right "to get whatever you want, whenever you want it." And it says so right in the U.N. human rights resolution.

        Techdirt already examined this issue in depth. I suggest you actually read the article, and the U.N. human rights declarations themselves. Both make it clear that you're wrong.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sorry; the quote about taking part in cultural life was from the general comments. The actual U.N. resolution (which is part of the same section as the one dealing with authors' rights) makes things even more clear:
          Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

          We also should not overlook Article 19:
          Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        JMT (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

        Re: Re:

        "No where is your right to get whatever you want, whenever you want it mentioned."

        Correct, nobody's ever referred to that as some sort of right. It's only been pointed out, at length and with plenty of back-up data, that not doing that these days is a terrible business model.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    Not on Topic

    But where are the penalties for costing companies for false take down notices? Those companies need to spend money to investigate valid and false take downs.

    Should their not be some fine or cost to for invalid take downs?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

    Enough with the logical fallacies. Millions of DMCA takedown notices only proves someone likes to send DMCA takedown notices.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    xenomancer (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    Weird How it Goes One Way...

    It's funny that I still find myself unable to sue the RIAA for supporting artists many consider to be the sole cause of the rise in cancer incidence. I'd be inclined to sue the twits blaring there opinion as to what jumble of sounds constitute "music," but, as a nod to the more obnoxious popularity lists like Bing, I'd rather not shoot the messenger just because I don't agree with them... unless I can buy a few senators, that is.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:06pm

    If Google disappeared tomorrow, none of their problems would be solved. Nothing would change.

    Then again, they seem much more interested in controlling Google than they are in getting rid of piracy.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

      Re:

      If Google disappeared tomorrow, none of their problems would be solved. Nothing would change.


      Never mind Google, if the Internet went away, piracy would continue, it is all too easy to exchange files directly (via bluetooth) or via flash storage. In fact these routes probable exceed the Internet now as a means of piracy.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Dec 18th, 2012 @ 6:55am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, because we all know that 'piracy' started the moment that 'Red Al' the Gorer launched the Good Ship 'Intertubes' down the Information Superseaway and started raiding innocent monopolist gateways, all the while giving low-born creators many more routes to market their goods.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Clark, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

    Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

    Stupid question from north of the border. If you issue a DMCA taken down that is false, and you can not show that you did due diligence before issuing it, is this a violation of the 4th amendment rights of people using the site? By preventing them from seeing the content, are you limiting the views and expressions that the person can make?

    If the above is true, could a class action lawset by filled on behalf of all of the registered users of the site? Popular sites would become very expensive to send improper DMCA takedowns.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

      Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

      Um, you might want to change what amendment you're talking about. The 4th Amendment is about safeguarding your person and effects from intrusive police searches. You must mean the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:06pm

        Re: Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

        Um, you might want to change what amendment you're talking about.

        To be fair, the 4th Amendment often comes up in prior restraint cases where First Amendment-related seizures are concerned.

        But, yeah, that wouldn't apply to bogus takedown notices.

        And, yes, before you issue a takedown notice, you're supposed to take fair use into account. But all that's required is a pre-takedown good-faith belief that it's not fair use, and you're off the hook. It doesn't actually have to fail a fair use analysis (or even be what a reasonable person would believe fails a fair use analysis).

        It's one of the many ways the deck is stacked in copyright holders' favor when it comes to the DMCA.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 1:46pm

      Re: Is a false DMCA take down a 4th amendment suppression?

      4th amendment is unreasonable search and seizure.

      You're looking for the 1st amendment - which is freedom of speech.

      My opinion would be yes, but I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional scholar.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:09pm

    I can't believe the MPAA hasn't figured out how to stop piracy. It is so extremely simple and it's being facilitated by the very people trying to stop it.

    Are you ready for the secret?....

    They just have to remove their eyes. YES! It is THAT simple. It's not just anyone's eyes mind you, it is only a solution for those people that are afraid of piracy.

    You see, their eyes facilitate the data about piracy, if they don't have the data, then there is no piracy! Otherwise what would the point of putting pressure on Google to stop piracy. Google not able to stop the practice of piracy, it can only to provide information about people practicing piracy.

    OH! I appear to be on a roll with great ideas, I just thought of how to help the RIAA with piracy!....

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:30pm

    "...rather than a division for helping filmmakers embrace useful business models..."

    Somehow I can't see the MPAA dedicating a division to promote abandoning the MPAA

     

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

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 2:55pm

    I am not going to see The Hobbit even though I do love Tolkien and still own my paperback of The Hobbit which I got in 1968.
    I so hate the MAFIAA.
    Love to see Google charge them extra for all those DMCA Takedown Notices that are false.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ECA (profile), Dec 17th, 2012 @ 3:25pm

    I wonder

    I wonder if the RIAA/MPAA is paying for Piece work..
    IF they are, they they are paying for EACH notice sent.
    Even at $0.01 each, someone is getting some GOOD MONEY..

    You know they hire another company to do it, even if its was CREATED by the MPAA/RIAA..AND A WAY TO show THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING, at least paying SOMEONE to do the job..

    IS this a reason to find another way to charge Artists MORE MONEY for their services..

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    John Nemesh, Dec 17th, 2012 @ 4:17pm

    Implicate the criminals at the USPS!

    Well, hey! Who is to say all of those packages the US Postal Service ships don't have pirated materials in them? Are they "facilitating" piracy by allowing those packages to be shipped? Should the USPS search every single package, and the data contained within them to "verify" that no piracy is taking place?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Gustav, Dec 18th, 2012 @ 11:18pm

    The MAFIAA is trying to fight human nature, which is sharing and communicating with each other. The only thing that's 'broken' is the MAFIAA's oppressive tactics, which goes against the natural order of of how people operate.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    swensonia (profile), Dec 19th, 2012 @ 1:54pm

    Takedown Methodologies

    Does anyone have any insight into the actual methodology Google is using to do this purportedly manual work? Crowdsourced labor (e.g. Mechanical Turk)? If there are testing algorithms in play, any insight into how they are programmed or managed?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    John Warr, Dec 20th, 2012 @ 3:05pm

    "First off, the staggering number of bogus takedowns"

    Google says 97% are valid takedown requests. OTOH Google are trying to say that DMCA notices can only be made by corporations, not the individual:

    http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=4155

    if you want to focus on misuse of the DMCA system look no further than the lying turds at Google HQ.

     

    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