from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept
Yes, this is yet another silly move by an automated system, but it once again highlights some of the ridiculousness involved in DMCA takedowns for search results.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Oct 8th 2012 10:49am
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Aug 8th 2012 2:55pm
If anything, as Tim Lee's article explains, ContentID is actually demonstrating (quite clearly) why there are so many concerns about copyright takedowns. Copyright system supporters often insist that it's "easy" for sites to recognize and take down infringing content, and use any evidence of infringement as a damning sign of a site not doing enough. But, the reality on the ground is that making a determination on whether or not something is infringing is not nearly as easy as some people believe:
Content ID, by contrast, is an opaque and proprietary system where the accuser can serve as the judge, jury, and executioner. Worse, the person whose speech is being silenced has little recourse. The Content ID system tips whatever balance is present in the DMCA and allows even more pernicious forms of manipulation and abuse. In a Wired column earlier this year, Andy Baio enumerated some of the problems that YouTube users encounter:
But there has been a dramatic rise in Content ID abuse in the past couple of years, wielded in ways never intended. Scammers are using Content ID to steal ad revenue from YouTube video creators en masse, with some companies claiming content they don’t own deliberately or not. The inability to understand context and parody regularly leads to “fair use” videos getting blocked, muted or monetized.
But even without taking scammers into account, the premise behind Content ID is just incompatible with fair use and the public domain. It's impossibly complicated to define in a set of "business rules" for automated enforcement. Allowing Content ID robots to apply the rules leads to oversimplification that chills legitimate speech.
But in accommodating the demands of large copyright holders, YouTube has inadvertently reminded us all of the crucial point that flagging copyright infringement isn't nearly as simple as it is often portrayed by rightsholders. Even scanning videos for exact content matches that exceed certain thresholds (in order to preserve at least some fair uses) actually fails in all sorts of interesting ways.ContentID certainly has some nice features -- including an innovative new revenue stream for content creators. But there are significant problems with it, concerning how it handles fair use and public domain material, which serve to highlight why the idea of a "silver bullet" solution for online infringement is so problematic.
Rather than acting as a neutral arbitrator between major content companies and independent organizations, YouTube's system favors the larger rightsholders that make use of its Content ID system over smaller creators. And because it's a private system that goes beyond the DMCA, the Content ID system is under no legal obligation to comply with the DMCA's safeguards and timelines.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Mar 8th 2012 2:08pm
Indeed, if Warner were correct, which it is not, Section 512(f) would become largely superfluous. Any company could sidestep accountability for improper takedowns by simply outsourcing the process to a computer. What is worse, copyright owners would have a perverse incentive to dumb-down the process, removing human review so as to avoid the possibility of any form of subjective belief. The tragic consequences for lawful uses are obvious: untold numbers of legal videos would be taken down, whether or not the uses were fair or even licensed.Among other things, the EFF filing highlights the Lentz v. Universal ruling that found that those filing takedowns have to take fair use into account -- and pointing out that you can't take fair use into account if you're automating takedowns.
Imagine the potential for mischief: Let’s say that Warner does not like competition from Universal. It could set a computer to search through Universal’s online presence, with the loosest possible settings, and issue takedown after takedown to Universal’s ISP for spurious claims. Nor is this scenario far-fetched: as noted above, supra at 4-5, anticompetitive uses of the DMCA takedown process are commonplace.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jul 19th 2010 6:11am
us copyright group
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jun 3rd 2010 4:30am
We are also working in cooperation with a newly-formed organisation, the United Copyright Group, that provides an holistic solution to illegal file sharing and provides a comprehensive set of tools designed to deter and prevent illegal file sharing. More will be written about this new phase of tackling illegal file sharing in due course.Of course, nothing either firm does has anything whatsoever to do with preventing unauthorized file sharing. It's all about sending threatening letters and getting people to pay up. Either way, this "cooperation" may involve ACS:Law targeting folks in the US via US Copyright Group:
A new joint working relationship with US-based attorneys has opened up the North American region to our clients for identification and pursuit of illegal file sharing of their products.With this and other operations looking to set up shop in the US, it looks like the courts may soon be flooded with questionable copyright lawsuits of this nature, almost none of which will actually go to court -- but which could freak lots of people into paying large sums of money when they probably don't need to do so. It would be nice if politicians did more than just calling this a scam and sanctioning the lawyers involved in such extortion-like practices. This sort of abuse of the court system for revenue generation should be stopped cold.
Explore some core concepts:
|11:29am:||Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly (97)|
|10:32am:||Bogus Lawsuit Plus Threats To Those Who Write About It Leads To Epic Response (62)|
|9:29am:||Big Pharma Firms Seeking .pharmacy Domain To Crowd Out Legitimate Foreign Pharmacies (21)|
|8:32am:||A Framework For Copyright Reform (127)|
|7:03am:||Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife' (59)|
|5:27am:||Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes (171)|
|3:25am:||Court Dumps Prenda's Subpoena (21)|
|12:01am:||US Uses Special 301 To Bully Ukraine, Likely Violating WTO (20)|
|7:58pm:||NZ Supreme Court Will Review Kim Dotcom's Extradition Case (63)|
|5:00pm:||DailyDirt: Getting An Online Education... (9)|
|4:01pm:||This Week's Bad Photoshopping Lesson Comes From Scientology (35)|
|3:01pm:||One Simple Copyright Reform Idea: Government Edicts Should Never Be Subject To Copyright (16)|
|1:54pm:||Judge Rejects Lawsuit Against YouTube As 'Frankenstein Monster Posing As A Class Action' (8)|
|12:52pm:||AT&T Continues To Mock The Concept Of Net Neutrality; This Time With Google Hangouts Block (29)|
|11:56am:||Footage Of Lethal Beating Deleted From Seized Phone; Sheriff Asks FBI To Take Over Investigation (75)|
|10:52am:||Florida's Redlight Program Designed To Make Driving More Dangerous By Shortening Yellow Lights (32)|
|9:45am:||Appeal Over Former RIAA Lobbyist Judge Allowing Prenda To Get Info On Over 1,000 John Does Moves Forward (44)|
|8:44am:||Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft' (113)|
|7:38am:||UK Recording Industry Looks To Censor More Sites With No Trial Or Conviction (57)|
|5:38am:||Kiwis Want To Spy On All Communications, VPNs, And Be Able To Use Secret Evidence Against You (26)|
|3:32am:||Aaron Swartz's Last Project: Open Source System To Securely & Anonymously Submit Documents To The Press (26)|
|12:08am:||How GEMA Is (Still) The Worst 'Collective Rights' Organization In The World (33)|
|8:04pm:||Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US (66)|
|5:00pm:||DailyDirt: New Models For (Not) Funding Science? (12)|
|3:56pm:||Some Data: Big Kickstarter Projects By Famous People Actually Help Other Projects (26)|
|2:58pm:||Restaurant's Facebook Goes Nuclear Over Reviews & Gordon Ramsay; Owners Cry Hack (81)|
|1:53pm:||VP Joe Biden Believes There's 'No Legal Reason' The Government Can't Slap A Sin Tax On 'Violent Media' (45)|
|12:48pm:||Hollywood Suffering? Why Are Their Execs Making More Than Pretty Much Everyone Else? (40)|
|11:43am:||The McCain Cable Bill Can Only Do So Much; Real Change Is Market-Driven (25)|
|10:44am:||What National Security Risk? Evidence Suggests Embarassment Drove DOJ Spying On AP Phone Records (25)|