IIRC and I could be being forgetful, a court has previously ruled that an entire work could be republished as fair use. (Righthaven IIRC).
The rightholders never want to have to consider 'Fair Use' because they feel they are the only ones who get to make that decision.. and that decision is no one has any rights unless they pay.
In this case, it appears, that permission was given to use it and then that person decided it was a tool to shut up and shut down someone she dislikes. She encouraged others to join in, from available information, turning it into a weapon to stop anothers speech. It then appears the demands for cash were just about being able to make someone do what she wanted. Because she gloated online there are records of these things despite her protests to the contrary. The original court made a crazy decision about 1 focused bit before there was any submissions on it, and basically removed any chance for anyone to challenge the rightsholders.
The MPAA fears this because they would need to have an actual human reviewing the claims before they are sent out. Currently "they" (cartel members) use automated systems that from a keyword alone generates and sends a DMCA notice. They note how many they filed with Google in their brief, however they manage to ignore the number of these notices Google discards as being idiotic and incorrect. They have managed to force Google to deal with having to sort out their desire to spend less to protect their rights.
Cory Doctorow would be able to sue after the recent DMCA notices demanding the removal of his novel Homeland, by a group trying to protect the rights of the TV series Homeland. They should not be considered as having a good faith basis by matching a keyword as one is a video file and the other is a novel in various non-video containers.
The inherent problem with how the DMCA is handled is that the rightsholders can do no wrong, and even if you can prove they should have known better and did it anyways there is no benefit in fighting. There is no punishment for them to get it wrong, and the target ends up out time, money, effort, legal fees... only to have the next batch of automated notices remove the content again.
Re: Re: The public interest in the legal profession
I have some hope, but I have no grand illusions that we'll see any solutions soon. I read the blog posts, I even make some...
It takes hard work and effort to try and undo the damage and you take what victories you can find. Steele and co didn't fall over night, it took many people working very hard to make it happen... but it happened.
I've tried being politely insulting... it didn't work.
Now to use an old fashioned method that might get through that really thick skull of yours...
YOU SIMPERING MORON, THE PEOPLE ON TECHDIRT DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOU OR YOUR PETTY BITCHFEST.
WE DON'T CARE IF YOU DID OR DIDN'T FILE THIS OR THAT.
WE DON'T CARE THAT YOUR TRYING TO REWRITE YOUR OWN HISTORY TO MAKE YOUR POSITION LOOK BETTER.
WE CARE BECAUSE THIS ASININE LAWSUIT OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE COURTS TO ACTUALLY TRY AND FIX THE FLAWED DMCA PROCESS.
IF YOU COULD PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR OWN BIRTH CANAL FOR A MOMENT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOU. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT FORUM FOR YOU TO ATTEMPT TO WIN POINTS, YOU IGNORANT PETTY LITTLE PERSON.
YOU ARE A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND WHO WILL BE LONG FORGOTTEN ONCE THIS CASE IS DECIDED, AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CELEBRATES OR MOURNS THE COURTS RULING ON THE ISSUES ABOUT THE DMCA.
In closing, here is the advice from your lawyer your ignoring. SHUT THE HELL UP. Everything you say can be traced as coming from you, and your attempts to spin the narrative will be exposed and the Judge will be able to see these things... Judges dislike people who lie.
I don't care who is right or wrong in your great moral catfight, but I'm starting to think the Dr. on the other side must be a hell of alot smarter than you because she is keeping her mouth shut and not chasing every little blog mention trying to score points in the court of public opinion to keep herself looking important.
Grow the hell up and try to think there is a world outside of your little bubble who doesn't give a crap about you.
Re: MPAA is a member of HypAA (Hypocritial Assoc of America)
being a copyright holder is hard.
We only have a monopoly on the content, granted by the public we enjoy screwing over, for 170 years. Do you have any idea how hard it is getting money out of something that is 100 years old!? We need to keep out cash available to keep these works from escaping our grasp until we can wring every possible cent from them... and there are these lawyers who tell us we can make even more money if we find people sharing it online...
But if you started at the top who would run the DoJ?
When there are rules and penalties in place to remind these top lawyers of the land to not hide evidence that shows the defendant is actually innocent... we have no hope for the others.
When the top lawyers refuse to pursue violations of the law because they are worried they might not have an easy slamdunk win... how can we have hope?
When they are so weighted down with debt that they advertise on Craigslist and participate in questionable legal actions, they aren't bad people all they were paid to do was sign and file some papers...
So many laws and rules now are written by lawyers to "protect" us from people weaseling away from them, and there is an entire cottage industry in finding ways to avoid the rules in a legal way someone missed...
So the MPAA, with a membership that sends out millions of DMCA notices that are often flawed, want to avoid your case creating liability for them randomly sending out notices based on single word matches not reviewed by humans.
And its all about them supporting you.
So the most abusive users of the DMCA notice are on your side... good for you.
So then would this be the part that makes your silly slap fight actually cross the line to being a key legal fight shaping up over the legality of DMCA abuses?
So, gasp, maybe its not all about you other than your actions opened the door for a court to issue a ruling that could alter a broken system...
Oh look its that bigger picture that people actually care about beyond your slapfight.
No. Just no.
They can have the slow death once someone gets the list of names out of their hands.
Even as these rulings were coming they were still "negotiating settlements" with targets.
They need to be made unable to inflict themselves on others expediently.
Once again investing 5 minutes of research into things would have saved you heartache in this area.
I'm not a nice person, I know shocking, but I never stooped so low as to post a picture of myself flipping someone off.
The courts initial opinion about the DMCA was wrong according to the EFF and Harvard. I tend to trust them more than a self important blogger with a chip on her shoulder.
Oooh the documented evidence... of which you have provided no links to. You talk and talk and talk... and yet offer nothing to support your claims beyond your word.
Your comments are posted on an open forum, if you wanted to contact the author of the story directly there are much more private ways to do so. But you need the ego rush of posting about how your right, and then you ran into me. Someone who doesn't care who you are, and will point out your being a bit on the obsessive side trying to make sure its all about you. If you can't have an audience it's not that much fun is it?
And now you can go tell all of your blog followers how the mean man was mean to you. The ongoing battle to defend your good name against all of these evil people aligned against you... I'm sure you can make it sound much more drama filled if you try.
Notice you have yet to present any evidence other than your word about a legal situation where you have a vested interest in the outcome and insist it is just being done to spin the world against you. You might want to find an grownup to explain to you that sometimes its not all about you.
(Notice I've managed to insult you in all sorts of ways without having to use any of the tried and true insulting words for women.)
And herein lies the problem, you think it must be a personal attack on you.
You lack the ability to even take 5 minutes to look at the topics covered on this site, to see that the DMCA would be the actual focus and have decided your so important they have thrown everything to the wind to attack you.
Self important much?
"I have no incentive to link to my blog since none of you can read it anyway"
And yet you did so anyways.
Funny your webpage appears when one types in the address, and I have the ability to read. Or did you mean that your sad little paywall attempt would deter me?