The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'

from the catchy-and-stupid dept

On Thursday morning, the House Judiciary Committee held its latest in a long series of hearings concerning potential copyright reform -- sometimes referred to as "the Next Great Copyright Act" after the Copyright Office kicked off the process with a talk on that topic (I'd quibble with the word "great" in there given how things are going so far). The latest hearing focused on Section 512 of the DMCA, better known as the "notice and takedown" provisions, or, more broadly, as the "safe harbor" provisions, which (mostly) protect service providers from being held liable for infringement done by their users. You've heard all of the arguments concerning this on both sides before -- and we had a post describing 5 myths likely to come up during the hearings (which did not disappoint). If you missed it, you can live through the torture below:
Or, if reading is your thing, Professor Rebecca Tushnet did her usual amazing job of taking insanely detailed notes of both the speechifying section and the Q&A section. There's a lot to cover, so we're going to break it down into a few different posts. This one is going to focus on the catchy phrase that came up repeatedly throughout the hearings: the idea that rather than the "notice and takedown" provision we have today, there should be a "notice and staydown." While mentioned repeatedly during the hearing, the concept was also outlined by two of the more maximalist (and clueless) defenders of extreme copyright law, Reps. Judy Chu and Tom Marino, in an opinion piece pushing for such a "notice and staydown" concept.

The idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again. This may sound good if you're not very knowledgeable about (a) technology and (b) copyright law. But if you understand either, or both, you quickly realize this is a really, really stupid solution that won't work and will have all sorts of dangerous unintended consequences that harm both creativity and the wider internet itself.

First, as was pointed out in the 5 myths piece, content itself is not illegal. It's actions concerning a piece of content. So, by doing a notice and staydown, you're guaranteeing that perfectly legitimate uses -- including both licensed uses and fair uses -- get blocked as well. That's because to determine if something is infringing, you have to view it in the full context. No matter how much some copyright maximalists want to believe that copyright is a strict liability law, it is not. The very same content may be infringing in some cases and not infringing in others. Not checking the context of each use would clearly block forms of perfectly legitimate expression. That's a big problem.

Second, and perhaps even bigger, is the fact that such a law would more or less lock in a few big players, like YouTube, and effectively kill the chance of any startup or entrepreneur to innovate and offer a better solution. Throughout the hearing, you hear people refer to Google's ContentID system -- which takes fingerprints of audio and video works and matches new uploads against it -- as an example of a proactive system "done right." Except, that system cost Google somewhere around $50 or $60 million to build. No startup can replicate that. And, even then, if you ask plenty of regular YouTube users, ContentID is really, really bad. It kills off fair use work all the time, it creates tremendous problems for legitimate and licensed users of content who suddenly find their content pulled and strikes on their account. It more or less proves that even if you have all the money in the world, no one can yet build a fingerprinting system that is particularly accurate.

If such a rule did get put in place, however, it would basically just guarantee that the few big players who could afford both the technology and the legal liability/insurance over the inevitable lawsuits, would be able to continue hosting user generated content. That's more or less ceding much of the internet to Google and Facebook. Considering how often copyright maximalists like to attack big companies like Google for not "sharing the wealth" or "doing their part," it's absolutely ridiculous that their biggest suggestion is one that would effectively give the big internet players more power and control.

The reality of the situation is that "notice and staydown" is really just SOPA 2.0 in disguise. The whole goal of SOPA was to basically to shift the issue of copyright infringement to the tech industry from the MPAA/RIAA. The idea was that if you add liability to the tech players, then it would magically force the tech companies to figure out a way to "clean up" infringement (leaving aside all the collateral damage). That's the same thing with "notice and staydown." The real issue is trying to shift the liability burden to tech companies.

It's the same story over and over again. The business model that the legacy players used to rely on has melted away in the age of the internet. Rather than truly adapt and change, they just get jealous of successful tech companies, and think that those companies somehow "owe" them money. And the best way to legally do that is to get politicians to magically place legal liability on those companies, so they have to pay up. Notice and staydown has nothing to do with actually stopping copyright infringement. It's about taking the burden off of the legacy players, easing the need for them to adapt and change, while trying to force big tech companies to pay up. The irony, of course, is that in the process it would harm much needed innovation from startups and entrepreneurs (the companies that the content creators really need the most) and lock in bigger, more powerful internet players.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

    you guys are idiots. i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:53am

      Re:

      The writers who post articles on this site know that a percentage of their readers use ad-blocking software.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:58am

      Re:

      If this becomes law may you rot in obscurity.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:01pm

        Re: Re:

        He will. It is simply a matter of filing one take down per site. With the way the maximalist's think there will be heavy fines associated with allowing a repost. Which means one strike and you are off a site permanently due to the threat of monetary loss to the site. Better safe than sorry ...

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:04am

      Re:

      Im not entirely without sympathy, but this article is correct. "Notice and stay down" is a joke because of how easily files can be altered and re-uploaded. Trying to police copyright on the Internet is futile, and everyone seems to realize that except groups like the MPAA. I would be content to leave them to their delusions, but they're apt to do serious harm to Internet infrastructure and harm civil liberties in their useless attempt to control the uncontrollable.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:10am

      Re:

      Find another career then. Get another job. No one is forcing you to become an 'artists'. It's not my fault you can't do anything else for a living and even your art sucks so much that you can't make it there either and so you blame it on piracy.

      If you honestly believe what the RIAA/MPAA want is going to help you then you are deluded. They want to be the only content distribution option available and if that happens then far fewer artists will be able to get their content seen and you will likely be one of those artists. and that harms, not helps, artists. It only helps the parasite distributors.

       

      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, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re:

        Your post needs more stale memes and douchebaggery. Try harder.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 7:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So answer this "stale meme" - when has any of the money the RIAA received in scared settlements been paid to artists they represent?

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:37am

        Do something that cant be pirated

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:27pm

        Re: Re:

        Perhaps the artists that support this are signed to a publisher, (label or studio) and think that piracy is why the publisher does not pay them. They would be better off looking at their contract, and the publishers accounting practices to see why they have no income.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 5:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I miss the time when bands (and the tradition lives now still in the hardcore punk and metal scene, mostly guys in bands that exist since the 80's) where MOST OF THE MONEY BANDS MADE WAS THROUGH PLAYING SHOWS AND SELLING MERCH.

          So many of bands that appeared after the year 2000 are either disingenuous (distort and rape the ideas of the bands they supposedly love), SUCK live, so nobody bothers with going to see them, or have no sound of their own, making them boring and stale like a piece of white bread that's been on the counter for 2 weeks.

          And I'm just speaking of musicians here of all styles, very few bands of the styles I mentioned formed past the year 2000 have the integrity and talent than their supposed idols had. Paint It Black might be one of the rare exceptions at play here, everything else that's worth a shit these days that is new, from bands that formed 15 to 30 years ago.

          A funny reason why these guys are still around and can tour the world and fill large clubs wherever they go : they weren't in it for the money from the beginning, DIY and all that.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:11am

      Re:

      you guys are idiots. i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.


      Perhaps you need to learn how to convert those "opportunities to have your shit stolen" into a paying customer base.

      A first step might begin with not being a asswipe and calling your potential customers "idiots". Just a thought.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:11am

      Re:

      "an artist with opportunities"

      Are you talking about the people whose own creative work was taken down by false positives, or the talented programmer whose new business venture is made impossible by this kind of crap? Oh yeah, you idiots can only see one side of the story, and it's always the "I think someone robbed me so I have to rob everyone else as payback" side...

      I also hope by "artist", you are either referring to someone other than you, or someone who doesn't write for a living, else I think I've found your problem, and it isn't pirates.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:19am

      Re:

      i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.

      I am a content creator. My content (I prefer to think it's not shit, though you may disagree) is copied every day by various sites and reposted. Furthermore, as others pointed out, plenty of people seek to "interfere" with our advertising business model by using ad blockers and the like.

      So, I know how it feels. And I also know that we have lots of other ways to connect with our fans and to build a business, and I'm incredibly THANKFUL for all that the internet has enabled in terms of ways to build up a supportive audience.

      Why aren't you?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        RD, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:58am

        Re: Re:

        "So, I know how it feels. And I also know that we have lots of other ways to connect with our fans and to build a business, and I'm incredibly THANKFUL for all that the internet has enabled in terms of ways to build up a supportive audience.

        Why aren't you?"

        Why? Because he, and all like him, are ungrateful, entitled little shits that the law, legislators, and pro-copyright zealots keep propping up and enabling. "You are OWED!" they say, as if WE (the public, the consumer) somehow *forced* them to become "artists" and now owe them (AND THEIR GRANDCHILDREN, YEA UNTO THE 3RD GENERATION) not only an financial existence, but a lucrative one.

        Please. Give me a break. DO something that people WANT. WORK at becoming skilled as an artist. BE GRATEFUL if you are even a LITTLE successful, because the road of the artist is paved with MANY failures. The fact that you are one of them is NOT an indication that new, more stringent laws are needed. It is JUST HOW IT IS. Live with it, or work at bettering yourself, or DO SOMETHING ELSE.

        But please, for the love of all that's holy, STOP WHINING ABOUT PIRACY. PIRACY indicates people WANT your stuff, and is the LEAST of your problems. Obscurity is.

         

        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, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Comparing the dreck you write here to a theatrical motion picture is a complete joke.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          BigKeithO, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I read this "dreck" and spend more time on this site than I do watching theatrical motion pictures. So the comparison may be a joke to you but I'd take Techdirt over a movie any day.

          Your opinion <> everyone's opinion.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you think this is dreck then why are you reading it? Are the motion pictures you watch dreck too?

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          False equivalence is coming from you, dude.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re:

        You can thank all of the companies spamming the hell out of invasive ads for the proliferation of Adblock.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Baron von Robber, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:20am

      Re:

      If you are doing it for the money, you're not an artist.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re:

        Uh huh. Sorry OP, but didn't you know that you're expected to starve and be unable to pay rent in order to be an artist? I mean, duh...

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Baron von Robber, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm am/was an artist and I didn't do it for the money and I didn't starve.

          So, duh, go fuck yourself. You're no artist.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The best advice to any budding artist is keep the day job. Note these days it does no cost much to get involved in any art form, up to and including full on CGI. Making a film with a large cast is a problem, but a small cast film is possible if enough other people are interested in taking part in making it.
          If your art is any good, and you have a bit of luck, you will make a fortune off of your first work, Like J.K Rowling, but don't hold your breath, your work may never gain a large enough audience to make you a living.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:31am

      Re:

      everybody who supports this deserves to go bankrupt.

      If you can't convince people to pay you for your art, that is your problem and yours alone.

      Being able to live from art is a privilege, not a right.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:47am

        There are a plethora

        of ways that you can be a working artist without relying on repeat sales of old works. Commissions/limited edition releases/live performances and so on. If your art worth it, people will pay for it.

        If they're are truly in it for the art then you wouldn't give two shits about the money in the end.

        If they're in it for the money perhaps they should go into politics instead.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re:

        Actually isn't that's your problem too? Because you apparently can't convince people to pay for your art steal it.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:42am

      Re:

      As an artist that loves having his shit stolen, I'm just here to disagree with you. I'm sorry your fans won't support your creative endeavors.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      sc, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:50am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Yes god forbid as many people as possible are exposed to your 'art'. Youre not an artist, your just another corporate drone whose trying to make money off creativity as if it can be a commodity.

      Real artists put out art for the worlds sake, not their wallets...

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        ARSO, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:58pm

        Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

        Oh shut the fuck up. As a musician I am constantly broke. That is not a comfortable situation to be in when trying to make money. Do you have any idea the costs that goes into recording equipment, the instruments, the gas to pay for shows, the vehicle required to store the gear safely. Then people find it great that bars and clubs believe musicians should be grateful because they're "letting us" play at their establishment? Further more that even if your records sell, you barely break even in most cases, if not at all. Yeah it's nice that you can sit behind your computer and say "oh man, artists should make it for the sake of the world, not their wallets." When an artist needs money in order to keep doing what they are doing.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 4:15pm

          Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

          Not making money of of records is almost standard. If you are not making money off of live gigs perhaps you want to get your records shared widely, as advertising for the live gigs. This may also allow you to get better gigs, so long as people know how to contact you. Failing that, perhaps your music only attracts a small audience, and will never gain a large enough audience for you to make a living off of it. The latter is sad, but being a musician is not a guarantee of being able to make a living.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 12:19am

          Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

          I do. For you, it's a few hundred g's. For most label artists, it's 1.88 Gigadollars.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 10:07pm

          Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

          Further more that even if your records sell, you barely break even in most cases, if not at all.

          Really? So what you're saying is that if an album sells for the full retail price, you only get a tiny fraction of the net profit, and that you think this is everyone else's fault (including/primarily your audience)? Somehow I think you're missing a crucial link in the chain, and that maybe you should pay more attention to the wording in contracts before you sign them.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Pragmatic, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      Every time I have this argument with someone like you, AC @ 8:47am, it turns out that you're not particularly famous and you're either not actually producing anything or are sitting on old work that you're afraid of distributing in case someone else shares it around and you don't get paid for it.

      Techdirt has a plethora of examples of alternative business models aside from "Don't let anyone copy and distribute my work until 70 years after I'm dead" under their "Business Models" tag. Read and learn, stop whining about your wish to make money from something you might not even be doing.

      Copyright is not and never has been for the little guy.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      any moose cow word, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:03am

      Re:

      Wow, you have people wondering off the street and stealing your stuff? You make something, go off for lunch, and some jackass steals the *original* work, forcing you to make it all over again! Yeah, that totally sucks. You definitely should bolt all of your windows and doors, barricade yourself from the outside world with all those abominable people. And never sleep! They might somehow still get in and take your work if you ever look away for even a second.

      Oh, you didn't mean real theft, you meant "infringement".

      BTW, publishers actually steal artist works all the time. They take your work, then charge their expenses against your royalties so that you hardly make a dime off it.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:17am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      See, the thing is even if this thing passes and it works, people will still steal your shit. At least if we stop it it won't get a chance to ruin the internet

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 10:18pm

        Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

        Right. Just a slight semantic correction:

        "See, the thing is even if this thing passes and it works, people will still infringe upon your copyrights. At least if we stop it it won't get a chance to ruin the internet"

        Stealing shit (theft) means to deprive the rightful owner of said shit from use thereof. Making a copy of something doesn't necessarily destroy the original.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:42am

      Re:

      "i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second."

      Lots and lots of us completely understand this. We also understand that it's brazenly unfair to punish innocent people and companies because of it.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Dreaw Mac, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 7:41pm

        Re: Re:

        hey im both a original and a fan fiction author but guess what i do it for the fans out there not for personal gain.

        this wont work because it will affect the world not just the US, so the government will step in to stop an international disaster.

        i live in Australia btw

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:02am

      Re:

      you only wish you had your "shit" stolen every second, because then we would maybe know who you are

      idiots are people who clamor for public attention for career purposes while they simultaneously starve for the lack of it

       

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Bob, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:02am

      Re:

      Cry more faggot

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:07am

      Re:

      i wish you understood how much it sucks to be an artist with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.

      I am, and many of my friends are too. Most don't particularly care about having their "shit stolen" (BTW it's not "stealing," it's "infringing"). Even those that don't like it at all find it at most a nuisance; it doesn't rank up there with (say) not getting people to shows, or being stuck with a bad label deal that earns them nothing.

      Even so, the "notice and staydown" provisions, if enacted, would harm us artists much worse than the original infringement. It would be a recipe for permanent censorship, and would make it impossible for anyone to form companies that might help us. It would consolidate the control of user-generated content into the hands of tech mega-corporations, the only ones who could afford to implement it, and require that those corporations have cozy relationships with the legacy industries whose business models depend upon screwing us over.

      And that's just artists. It's just as bad, or worse, for the general public.

      If you really do support artists - and not corporate copyright holders or big tech companies - then you should be against this.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:38am

      Re:

      Get a job.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:01pm

      Re:

      Can you explain how 'notice and staydown' would help you with this problem? I mean you don't honestly think, were it the law, you could show up on YouTube and have the actively filter things for you just because you asked do you? Because it wouldn't work that way just like ContentID doesn't work that way now. Only the people who get 'access' enjoy that kind of protection. Thus has copyright always worked, it has always depended on the influence of the holder to be enforced. It's not for you it never was.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:06pm

      Re:

      The MPAA and RIAA are the idiots for not innovating. There are plenty of ways for you to reach your audience, look at Macklemore for instance.

      Oh, and you could always look at Trent Reznor / Moby / Radiohead / and how many other successful artists that believe that it should be about the music and getting paid comes second.

      Does that mean that people are entitled to COPY your craft? Not at all, but that means it's up to YOU to reach them, asshole.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      First off, copying data is not theft, it is copyright infringement. The artist is not "hurt" at all, they lose "potential" income.

      For example, if someone steals a car from a dealership, than they lose a car, and incur a loss. But if someone made a copy of the car, using their own materials, than the dealership may, or may not have lost money "assuming" the person who copied the car, would have bought that car.

      Copyright infringement is a fact of life on the internet (and 3d printers). It will be regardless of what laws are passed. it is up to the content creators to come up with fresh ideas to provide value added services and monitise that for an income.

      DRM and automated takedowns only hurt legitimate users. Imagine if your online computer backup removed files you bought because someone else had claimed ownership. It has such a high potential for abuse it is ridiculous.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Bain Kennedy, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:21pm

      Re:

      Most artists don't care about shit getting stolen, it's reaching people with the art.

      So here FTFY

      you guys are idiots. i wish you understood how much it sucks to be a "content owner (read record label, movie studio, book publisher etc...)" with opportunities to have your shit stolen every second.

      I'm not advocating piracy but there's definitely two sides of the coin. Some artists like the free-play model that the Internet brings, it's great for discovery. Even established artists, sometimes don't mind that other people get their content, it usually means higher concert ticket sales etc... (Which the artist typically gets more money for anyways.) Metallica is an example of an artist that was against it, but if I recall they've changed their tune just a bit.

      I think what people are most up in arms about for SOPA 2 is what happens with Fair Use. If I upload a video of my daughter singing to Let It Go (which I bought the Frozen album) playing in the background, then someone can have that pulled down. Is that right?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Zonker, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:30pm

      Re:

      I'm sorry, was this your shit? I threw it out because I thought it was crap. My bad.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:38pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      It's already illegal for someone to steal your content. Don't be fooled into thinking this law is about protecting you, your rights, or your content.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Carissa, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 9:04am

        Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

        I have been writing fanfics for a full year now, it really sucks that my work is gonna be deleted!

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:47pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      You are an idiot. If it's getting 'stolen', it means people like it. If you have opportunities, take them. You should know that in this day and age being an artist is more of a public service than anything. It would be smart to use the pirates to your advantage. Take a look at Notch, he told a kid to pirate minecraft, and if he likes it, buy it when he could afford it. He knew it would be pirated the moment he made it, he is adaptable. That's what you need to be in order to be successful, no matter what you do.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:49pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Relax. By having your "shit stolen", you get free advertisement. Look at the bright side :) I gladly pay for media I enjoy

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:04pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Maybe you should apply a different business model to your works you may get ahead.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      A Person using the Internet, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:16pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      If you produce quality media, people will buy it. There will be those that just pirate/ "steal" and nothing is going to change their minds, nor stop them. But there are people who have bought what you have to offer then download it again... People also pirate media, then they will buy it to support the artist. All of this has been shown to be true.

      Are you really so afraid of not making a few dollars in order to through the internet in the gutter? Shame on you.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:18pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Artists ideas are a dime a dozen. It's not really worth that much.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Hugh Myron, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:33pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      If I was an artist, I would be psyched that so many people care about my stuff that they want to steal it, because it means that many more people will be coming to my shows!

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:11pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Relax, you're not that good.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:16pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Your a morron.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Oce, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:20pm

      Re:

      You are not smarter, if you think an artist creates to make money. An artists creates because he needs to. Not to satisfy someone.

      When you create something to be liked, to be sold, it's called doing business. Business and arts are very different things.

      Therefore, having your shit stolen should not be your preoccupation,
      or it should,
      if you're a business man.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:24pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Maybe you should apply a different business model to your works you may get ahead.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 7:10pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      If your "shit" isn't worth stealing who would actually pay for it?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:16pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Some people just dont have what it takes to make it. Get with the times and take advantage of the free publicity. If you are a good enough artist get paid to do a gig. Painters and sculpters dont have the luxury of selling products they can replicate for free

       

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Mar 15th, 2014 @ 12:05am

      Re:

      I wish you idiot artists would finally understand that nothing you still have has beeen stolen.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 6:47am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Go get a real job, then.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      gyphryophbia, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 3:20pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Dude. Boohoo. You know the risk you take as an artist when uploading anything. You chose to take that risk. Not only that, this isnt about the gov stopping people from stealing other peoples shit bro. This is only being done to create a controlled monopoly. Get your shit straight before calling anyone an idiot.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 3:23pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:47am

      Or maybe it's that people can't pay for your product because it's not that important. So... you wouldn't have gotten paid anyway. If you want to make money, go on tour. If you can't afford to go on tour, then maybe you're not a successful creator.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      zeruch, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 8:34pm

      Re:

      No, you are the idiot. The current DMCA has quite well designed components for dealing with infringement.

      I should know, I worked in the anti-piracy space for almost a half dozen years.

      SOPA and its ilk are garbage, top to bottom, and attempts to legislate technology design, which is actually possibly the only thing more idiotic than your post.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:54am

    how many companies have to be stopped from even getting going and how many that have managed to get started need to be stopped completely, removing the innovation, the jobs, the advances in technology and services as well as revenue in taxes, before these politicians finally accept that to keep helping an old, legacy industry isn't the way forward? because of Hollywood Accounting, the movie and music industries produce a hell of a lot of revenue but pay very little into the nation's coffers. those that would do are prevented by those same industries.

    instead of continuously aiding friends with the 'you scratch my back' syndrome, surely the important thing is to aid the nation and the budget, isn't it? we keep complaining about how so and so country has developed this or that, but it could have been us, except for the hindering the legacy companies do.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:01am

      Re:

      "...because of Hollywood Accounting, the movie and music industries produce a hell of a lot of revenue but pay very little into the nation's coffers."

      I did not realize money was being taken completely out of circulation because of this activity.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Pragmatic, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re:

        It's not in circulation if it's sitting in a hedge fund or a Cayman Islands bank account, is it?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Every body knows savings accounts are good for the individual bad for the economy. Same goes for big businesses hiding their revenue to profiteer

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:04am

      Re:

      Politicians are corrupt. Like all the other many many anti-competitive laws, our existing IP laws (95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions) are purely a product of corruption.

      "before these politicians finally accept that to keep helping an old, legacy industry isn't the way forward?"

      Politicians already know that these laws are bad for the public interest. The problem is that they are morally bankrupt and are looking after their own personal interests over the public interest. Like all the so many anti-competitive laws passed in this corrupt country these laws are purely a product of corruption. It's time we no longer tolerate this nonsense and demand IP laws be fixed in the other direction. The RIAA won't stop until there is no more user generated content and until there is nothing to compete with their monopolized prices. They don't care about stopping 'piracy' they don't want any competition at all.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:05am

        Re: Re:

        The RIAA/MPAA *

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Politicians are corrupt.

        You know... I'm rather tired of blaming people as if that's going to solve the problem. This doesn't do anything to change the problems of copyright and censorship that have been occurring.

        Like all the other many many anti-competitive laws, our existing IP laws (95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions) are purely a product of corruption

        I think it's time to recognize that we have a systemic problem. It's a problem with copyright and it's only gotten worse over time.

        The corruption is copyright, not the people that have an incentive to pursue it.

        Politicians already know that these laws are bad for the public interest. The problem is that they are morally bankrupt and are looking after their own personal interests over the public interest.

        Ok, but let's flip this around... how do you get a politician to care about this in the positive if we're too busy villifying their very being?

        They don't care about stopping 'piracy' they don't want any competition at all.

        THIS is what we should be focusing on. THIS is where we fight to get these people out of power. So long as they have the ear of the politician and their wallets, they can make the rules. So fighting for competition to their regimes is what should be the focal point.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 10:50pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office."

          - Milton Friedman

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:23pm

        Re: Re:

        Do not attribute to malice, what can be explained by natural stupidity

         

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:21am

      Re:

      "because of Hollywood Accounting"

      That might have something to do with it, but I think half of it is the manufactured glamour of those industries. The tech-clueless morons pushing this stuff would either find working with tech companies boring or incomprehensible - they literally can't understand the industries. But, wave a celebrity in front of their faces and even the dumbest of them can not only understand, but want to be a part of it.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:03pm

      Re:

      Paying more taxes only 'aids the nation' if you think the government, rather than the people, is the nation.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 8:57am

    Well, I dunno about the rest, but 20th century fox can't very well use a business model from this century without changing their name. And think of the calamity that would cause!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    St. Pat, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:04am

    Politically Toxic

    After the blackout, SOPA became politically toxic. As soon as comparisons are drawn, I don't think this will see the light of day.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go take some anti-anxiety medications.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:06am

    I agree completely. It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:23am

      Re:

      I agree completely. It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.

      I know you're being sarcastic, but it once again displays your sick double standard. Whenever we write about anything you insist on a very literal reading of every word -- and when we call you out on your bullshit claims, you weave between everything by insisting that you never actually said what you clearly said.

      So, here, no one has said that the "entire burden" should be "placed upon the shoulders of rights holders." You're flat out lying, because you're a dishonest individual by nature.

      What we are saying -- and have stated clearly -- that the various ideas and concepts, such as "notice and staydown" that seek to place a huge liability burden on third party intermediaries is stupid, unworkable and has tremendous collateral damage.

      The *reason* (as you would know if you actually understood these things) that the burden is on the rightsholder is because they're the only ones who can know if the work is actually infringing. A third party does not know, as was clearly demonstrated in the Viacom/YouTube case. A notice and staydown provision doesn't just burden unrelated third parties for no reason other than that your friends don't know how to adapt, but (more importantly) it creates a massive barrier to the very innovation that is HELPING creators make more money.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:13am

        Re: Re:

        I agree completely. It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.

        As Mike indicated - you are probably being sarcastic here, but I am curious if you have an argument as to why the burden shouldn't fall to the rights holders.

        I'm also curious about something else. Would you be opposed to a system where the rights holders provide (at their own cost) a comprehensive database of copyrights that includes all licensing schemes and approved uses to Google? It would have to be constantly updated and maintained by the rights holders, of course, and the system would also have to have some sort of mechanism to deal with Fair Use.

        Would you consider such a compromise in a system where Google picks up the tab for actually filtering and removing, but the rights holders pick up the tab for providing Google the information to do so?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:14am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Doh! This is supposed to be a reply to the AC Mike responded to.

           

          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, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:14am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm going to come over and repeatedly kick you in the balls.

          If you don't like it, you'll have to come after me, not anyone else.

          Same thing.

          I look forward to you deciding to put your beliefs into action.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Ruben, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Exactly. Why aren't rights holders coming after infringers directly?

            Sue the bastards!!! Surely that's the path to victory!

             

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

            •  
              icon
              That One Guy (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Because that takes work, something they are deathly allergic to. Much easier, and cheaper, to just offload all that to someone else and then buy laws to force the third party to do the enforcing for you.

               

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

          •  
            icon
            Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm going to come over and repeatedly kick you in the balls.

            If you don't like it, you'll have to come after me, not anyone else.


            Ummm. That is exactly what I'd do.


            Same thing.

            No. Not at all.


            I look forward to you deciding to put your beliefs into action.

            If you kick me then you would most assuredly would see me in action - mainly beating you down like a rabid dog in the street.

            But seriously, how is this even close to what we are talking about? Wouldn't me going after your shoe manufacturer because they "facilitated the kicking" be closer?

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              observer, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:41am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It's great when analogies backfire, isn't it? Obviously, in AYRT-land, people don't fight back against lunatics who try kicking them in the balls.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh really? Let's try it.

              What's your real name and where do you live?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Baron von Robber, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:00pm

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

                CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!!
                Well one is a mental cripple. The other, well ok, not really.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:07pm

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

                Wow you so nailed that one. The fact that he doesn't want to hand you his name and address is proof positive that whatever completely and totally unrelated thing you said upthread about copyright liability is true. /thread man, what else need be said.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Gwiz (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:09pm

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

                What's your real name and where do you live?

                Yeah. Not gonna happen. I'm not giving some anonymous moron on the internet with obvious sociopathic tendencies my info. I was born at night, but not last night.

                But, I will give you a hint - the motto for the area I live is: "Where the weak are killed and eaten."

                 

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

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Same thing."

            Not even close. If it were the same thing, then we'd see people clamoring to require shoe manufacturers do something to prevent people from repeatedly kicking others in the balls.

            As it is, the receiver of the ball-kick and the victim of infringement both have the same recourse right now -- go after the people who actually committed the crime.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No they don't.

              If someone is found guilty of ball kicking they are kept from repeating their actions via incarceration.

              Infringers simply do it again.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:11pm

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

                It's almost like assault is a crime and infringement, the garden variety kind where you download something thereby making an illegal copy, is not a crime and therefor they carry different penalties. Whats more your ludicrous analogy doesn't even make sense, are there no shoes or balls to kick with them in jail? Is no one ever release from jail? Is the point of incarceration the permanent prevention of repeat offenses? No on all counts. Your 'logic' is not even internally consistent.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Karl (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:31pm

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

                Infringers simply do it again.

                No, if someone is found guilty of infringement, they have to pay absolutely insane amounts of money due to statutory damage awards. And if their infringement is criminal, then yes, they are incarcerated.

                The ones who "simply do it again" are the ones that aren't caught... just like you wouldn't be incarcerated if you kicked me in the balls and weren't caught.

                By the way - comparing the infringement of a statutory monopoly right, with physical violence against someone? You're a douchebag.

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:48pm

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

                Criminal copyright infringers can be (and have been) punished with incarceration. The civil infringers are just sued to the point where they dream of incarceration if only to get the room & board.


                Neither of which has anything to do with the essential point: why does any of this justify saddling innocent third parties with any portion of this burden?

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Ruben, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:42pm

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

                Speaking of which, when was the last time somebody-an individual- was taken to court for an infringing act?

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:21pm

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

                Yet another failed analogy. Ball kicking is a form of battery and therefore a criminal offense, which, as you pointed out, is punishable by incarceration. Infringement is a civil matter and punishable by ridiculously disproportionate fines. Both can have a deterrent effect when properly applied. The biggest problem with the penalties for infringement is that they are so astronomical that they are kind of a joke. Having the potential to be fined 150k for a $.99 single is so outside of the realm of common sense and unrealistic that most people will simply ignore it.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 12:23am

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

                I refer you to the stories of one Alex Bertoncini.

                Your arguments are invalid.

                 

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Genuinely curious, how do you think the ball kicking is different in practice now? I mean what would happen that wouldn't happen as a result of infringement that you are ineptly trying to point out as the quintessential lacking area in copyright liability today?

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You ask an entirely fair question which, unfortunately, does not admit to an easy answer because a myriad of scenarios arise in which it is manifestly unfair to place the entire burden on rights holders. Back at the time the DMCA was enacted the rapidity of uploading of downloading many of the most widely infringed content files were measured in minutes to hours. Infringing content files were by the very nature of upload and download speeds typically an arduous and time-consuming task. Times have changed. UL and DL can take place now in the blink of an eye. When first envisioned it was not believed to be a significant burden for rights holders. The numbers were somewhat manageable, but high speed internet has been a game changer, with many rights holders that do not have "big boy" resources being left behind in the dust with no effective recourse. In a fair system, the rights of rights holders, as well as the rights of legally authorized users, should coincide. Unfortunately, things are not always fair. Looking at a rights holder, no sooner has a takedown notice been prepared, submitted and ultimately resulted in a takedown, the very same information appears instantaneously, it is clear that the information is infringing, and the entire process is once more repeated. Given what has become a gargantuan number of notices because of gargantuan reposts, the system of yesteryear is simply not able to keep up with today's realities. Yes, rights holders must bear responsibility, but to allow persons who may be is a position to garner critically important information that is known to such persons and unavailable to the rights holder does suggest to me that simple fairness dictates a shared burden of some sort.

          Your suggestion may very well have merit, but it too would likely fall short in attempting to strike a fair balance.
          Bear in mind that not every notice receiving entity under the current DMCA regime is a general purpose search engine like Google, Yahoo, etc., etc. Many information service providers specifically hone in on infringing content, encouraging the users of its services to "have at it to their heart's content". It seems to me that situations such as these (and almost certainly others) should require in the interest of fairness a shared responsibility/burden.

          I know much of what I have said is likely perceived as "Mom and apple pie", but real life situations are only rarely so cut and dry.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            with many rights holders that do not have "big boy" resources being left behind in the dust with no effective recourse.

            This assumes, incorrectly, that the only "recourse" is to issue a takedown. That's simply false. As you note, filing takedowns may be ineffective for some. But there are much better options: figuring out ways to use that interest to your advantage.

            Almost every artist we've seen who has tried this strategy has found it pays off a hell of a lot better than trying to keep works hidden from fans.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 6:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ...and might I suggest you appear to assume, incorrectly in my opinion, that all works subject to US copyright law can be beneficially exploited via ordinary market forces. Moreover, it casts aside longstanding law, berating those who may look with favor on some or all of copyright law as being "maximalists" (a pejorative term) when those excoriating copyright law should in many if not most instances be labeled as copyright "anarchists".

              I admit there are aspects of current copyright law I believe are ill-advised and should be significantly scaled back, if not eliminated altogether. In some cases it would be a herculean task given interlocking international agreements, but just because it would be difficult is no good reason to throw up one's arms and feign hopelessness.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 6:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              BTW, if ever crowned "Benevolent Dictator for the Day", the first decree in the area of copyright law would be the return of copyright terms and formalities as specified in the 1909 act. To avoid states once more entering into the fray since the 1909 act was predicated on publication and states were not hindered with respect to unpublished works, I would likewise decree that states henceforth were out of the copyright-granting game (much like the concept underlying what is known under federal constitutional law as the "dormant commerce clause").

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 5:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I do not personally know any artist who is trying to keep works hidden from fans. Their works invariably are available from a plurality of sources.

               

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

          •  
            icon
            techflaws (profile), Mar 15th, 2014 @ 12:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Given what has become a gargantuan number of notices because of gargantuan reposts, the system of yesteryear is simply not able to keep up with today's realities

            Given the gargantuam number of content the industry just cannot charge as much for it as in the system of yesteryear. To keep up with today's realities they need to offer there content in a timely manner, for a reasonable price without restrictions. If they don't, no takedown process ever will increase sales.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 5:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I see...and because their distribution means may not suit your likes/preferences then it is perfectly fine to simply "pilfer" copies and enjoy the fruits of their labors without recompense.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 9:14am

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

                Why is it my fault and I should be punished with laws treating me as a thief, when it is the content owner who refuses to distribute to my territory/country?

                 

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

              •  
                icon
                techflaws (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 11:07pm

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

                I see, just because I think their hapless and damaging efforts do NOTHING to solve their problem, I automatically must be one of those stealing (no need to sugarcoat it with the word "pilfer" which is just as wrong) their product, right? You shills are pathetic.

                 

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

          •  
            icon
            Karl (profile), Mar 15th, 2014 @ 11:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Unfortunately, things are not always fair. Looking at a rights holder, no sooner has a takedown notice been prepared, submitted and ultimately resulted in a takedown, the very same information appears instantaneously,

            Yes, it is well-nigh impossible for rights holders to take down all of their content on the web. It means that the task is, by its nature, well-nigh impossible. That doesn't mean it is unfair to rights holders. It means rights holders are demanding the impossible.

            What rights holders want to do is shift the burden from this impossible task from themselves onto third parties. Third parties who do not have any beneficial interest in the copyrights, hence no beneficial interest in preventing infringement. That would be manifestly unfair to those third parties.

            it is clear that the information is infringing

            You can't tell if content is infringing just by looking at it. The exact same content can be infringing or authorized. The only people who are in a position to know this are the rights holders (and sometimes even they are wrong - look at the YouTube/Viacom case, or the Dajaz1.com seizure).

            Many information service providers specifically hone in on infringing content, encouraging the users of its services to "have at it to their heart's content".

            If you're actively encouraging infringement, then the DMCA doesn't apply to you, and you can be sued out of business. Many already have been. So, these entities already bear the burden for infringement.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 5:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Below is an example of a situation that underlies in part my comment that imposing all burdens on a rights holder can manifestly be unfair...

              http://voxindie.org/DMCA-ignored-and-broken

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Gwiz (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 6:50am

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

                Below is an example of a situation that underlies in part my comment that imposing all burdens on a rights holder can manifestly be unfair...


                Ok. But highlighting inadequacies in the current system still doesn't prove that the burden needs to be laid upon the service providers who rely on the DMCA safe harbors.


                If you want really want a semblance of fairness, here are my suggestions:

                - Return copyright back to "opt-in". If you value your work enough to want the protections of copyright, take 5 minutes to register it.

                - Use a sliding scale fee for copyright registration. Free at first, but increasing amounts for renewals. This would allow works to begin to fall into the Public Domain like they should. This would also offset the cost of creating a whitelist database in my next bullet.

                - Create a central "copyright whitelist" that is constantly updated with information from the rights holders as to copyright status, licensing schemes and approved uses.

                - Keep the safe harbors for service providers with the stipulation that they keep filtering and removing unauthorized content that isn't on the whitelist. Anything that isn't registered on the whitelist is considered unprotected.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Gwiz (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 7:12am

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

                  There would also need to be some way to deal with Fair Use more efficiently too.

                  Maybe a notification prior to takedown where the supposed infringer has an opportunity to declare their belief that their usage is Fair Use.

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 7:29am

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

                  My personal opinion has always embraced the oncepts of publication, terms, and formalities along the lines reflected in the US Copyright Act of 1909. Those concepts, unfortunately in my view, long ago sailed into the sunset when the US finally threw in the towel and acceded to longstanding international treaties.

                  Perhaps you have misunderstood some of my comments. I have not stated that burdens be shifted form rights holders to service providers. What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.

                  My solution? Let these discussions play out, and then review what is discussed with an open mind. There will never be a perfect process that cannot be abused by persons on both sides of issues, but at the very least such a process should reflect fairness for all.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Gwiz (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 11:32am

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

                    Perhaps you have misunderstood some of my comments. I have not stated that burdens be shifted form rights holders to service providers.


                    Fair enough. But there are many pushing that exact argument and I don't quite understand the logic.


                    What I have noted is that placing almost the entire burden on the holders in many instances is manifestly unjust, with an example being what is shown in the link.

                    I'm not convinced it's unjust myself. First, the rights holders are the ones benefiting from the exclusivity that copyright grants. Why shouldn't they shoulder the majority of the burden? That's the question I'd like answered.

                    Second, you seem to be implying that your example shows that our current system can be unfair to the rights holders. Perhaps you're right. But it's because it's a reactionary game of wac-a-mole. Why not attacking the problem from the opposite way with a whitelist type of system?

                     

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 10:38am

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

                  A couple of points because Copyright applies to an abstract entity.
                  1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.
                  2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.
                  3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Gwiz (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 11:43am

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

                    A couple of points because Copyright applies to an abstract entity.

                    Yes. I'm just sorta spitballing here and just wondering if something like a whitelist system would even work.


                    1) How is content identified, it cannot be done by just using a name, or file hash? A restricted access database of licensed content would give the filters something to check against.

                    I'm not sure, really. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids maybe?


                    2) How is licensed use identified, especially as the licensed use may be more freely redistributed that the original work? For instance use of music could be licensed for use in a film under a CC license.

                    It would require that the rights holders are proactive in keeping their licensing information updated and there would a million details to work out, for sure. But is it possible?


                    3) How is fair use dealt with? this where copyright can be abused relying on the cost of taking legal action, as just consulting a legal advisor can be too much cost for many people.

                    My thought would be that any takedown would require a notification and some time period for a response from the supposed infringer. The supposed infringer could then declare their belief that the use is Fair Use which would leave the content in place until told otherwise by a court, like it is currently.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 2:15pm

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

                      It would require that the rights holders are proactive in keeping their licensing information updated and there would a million details to work out, for sure. But is it possible?

                      Creating the records is not difficult, but identifying the work, and any legal uses etc. is difficult because their is no single object or place that someone can point at and say I own it. Further problems arise in fair use of a licensed use of a work, or re-uses of a CC licensed work that includes bits under a different license.
                      A further hazard with such a requirement is that it reinforces the permission culture, and it would not take too much for it to be extended to licensing fair use. Something like Google's ContentID on steroids, would only increase the pressure towards an always licensed approach, as what such systems cannot do is distinguish fair use from licensed use.

                      My thought would be that any take-down would require a notification and some time period for a response from the supposed infringer. The supposed infringer could then declare their belief that the use is Fair Use which would leave the content in place until told otherwise by a court, like it is currently.

                      That does not really address the costs, as the copyright holder can threaten to bring action unless the content is taken down, and fighting that requires funds, whether the person who put the content up wins or loses. Problem of jurisdiction also come into play, as the copyright holder will probably choose the venue.. A legal system where both sides have to pay their own costs always benefits the rich. Award of costs to the losing party would work better, as someone with a strong case could probably get a lawyer to take in on on contingency.

                       

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

              •  
                icon
                Karl (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 1:12pm

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

                Below is an example

                The person behind Vox Indie is Ellen Seidler. I would not trust anything she has to say when it comes to copyright infringement.

                This article is a perfect example. You know all those links, popups, or whatever that she claimed she was forced to go through?

                Well, either she lied, or she's not very smart. I went to the link site myself just now. Down in the footer of every page is a series of links. One of them is to "Contacts." If you click that link, you will be taken here:
                http://www.solarmovie.so/contacts.html

                In case you don't want to visit that page, here's the relevant part:
                Copyright Complaints
                Email: dmca@solarmovie.so

                She could have gotten that direct email with a single click. No advertising, no nothing.

                The site that actually hosted the stream is a different story:
                http://clicktoview.org/dmca.html

                Here's the thing: they are almost certainly not compliant with the DMCA if that's the only way they allow takedowns. Furthermore, a search for their site in the Copyright Office's Directory of Service Provider Agents does not show that they ever registered.

                In other words, it's not a problem with the DMCA. Modifying the DMCA wouldn't do any good in their case, since they're not even following the rules that exist right now.

                This isn't the first time she's done stuff like this, either. She's also the person behind popuppirates.com, a virulently anti-Google site. I've talked about that site before. I could very, very easily debunk the rest of her claims if you want me to.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2014 @ 5:54pm

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

                  The info needed to comply with the Designated Agent requirements of the DMCA are more than just an email address. Missing are the name of the agent, the agent's address, and the agent's telephone number.

                   

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Karl (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 9:27pm

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

                    The info needed to comply with the Designated Agent requirements of the DMCA are more than just an email address.

                    True, but that doesn't mean it's unfair to copyright holders. Sending an email is trivial; it's even easier (and less costly) than sending a paper copy to a physical address. If that's not good enough, then it is the copyright holders who are being unfair.

                    It also doesn't alter the fact that the things Seidler claimed she had to do weren't actually necessary. At least not regarding the linking site.

                    The hosting site is another matter, but from what I can gather, they're doing it more from sheer incompetence. (Read their contact page, where they claim they've simply stopped reading emails, and their FAQ, where they say all links are temporary in order to reduce hotlinking.) Whatever the reason, it's doubtful that their setup is a deliberate attempt to get advertising dollars from takedown notices, as Seidler seems to think.

                    In any case, if these sites aren't following the DMCA, then that's not a condemnation of the DMCA. It's a condemnation of the sites who aren't following it. Sites who do follow the DMCA shouldn't be punished with a revision of the DMCA that places even more of an unfair burden upon them.

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2014 @ 10:25am

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

                      Uh...there is good reason why more than just an email address suffices for DMCA compliance. Hard to hold a site accountable when all you have is an email address that may be ignored without any immediate repercussions.

                       

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

                      •  
                        icon
                        Karl (profile), Mar 17th, 2014 @ 5:42pm

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

                        Uh...there is good reason why more than just an email address suffices for DMCA compliance. Hard to hold a site accountable when all you have is an email address that may be ignored without any immediate repercussions.

                        I meant for sending notices. If a site is ignoring emails, then an address isn't going to help. It's just as easy to ignore a paper letter as it is to ignore an email. The immediate repercussions are exactly the same either way.

                        I agree that there may be good reasons for providing a physical address, but those reasons are only applicable in situations where rights holders need to take legal action against the sites. If we get to that point, then we're a long way from DMCA compliance anyway.

                         

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

              •  
                icon
                techflaws (profile), Mar 16th, 2014 @ 11:09pm

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

                If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

                 

                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, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:11am

        Re: Re:

        Sorry AC, looks like the slimy weasel hypocrite Mike Masnick betrayed the cloak of anonymity by spying on your IP address.

        But we already know he does that all the time, don't we?

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:35pm

        Re: Re:

        The *reason* (as you would know if you actually understood these things) that the burden is on the rightsholder is because they're the only ones who can know if the work is actually infringing.

        I have to disagree with all of the evidence of infringement that has been shown to be far less distinctive than presented.

        The people that were supposed to know these things literally don't. But they've been given heavy leeway to complain and whine for their entitlements.

        We don't need that and it damages all forms of free speech to support such regimes.

        It may be time to rethink the concept of copyright.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      It is imperative that the entire burden associated with on-line infringement be placed upon the shoulders of rights holders.

      Sarcasm or no, why shouldn't it be? You wouldn't say that the entire burden associated with making cars should be placed upon the shoulders of anyone except the auto industry. Toyota couldn't blame Google if a search for "affordable car" turned up a link to a Honda.

      Copyright holders shouldn't be granted special privileges that nobody else has. Policing infringement (online or off) should be their responsibility, and nobody else's.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:04pm

      Re:

      Thus have civil matters always been and should ever be.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:38pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:06am

      And their representation. Concur!

       

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Mar 15th, 2014 @ 12:09am

      Re:

      Even if you weren't being sarcastic (and a jackass), I totally agree with you: it's their shit so they should get the burden placed on them rather than the tech companies. After all, you don't blame AT&T when someone uses their phone lines to commit crimes.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    V, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:17am

    "The idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again."

    Does the blocking apply to just the notified user or all users ever? A person could cause some serious censorship with the latter. I could decide a hate artist A, upload a copy of his/her work, get it taken down AND all other copies including the one the artist him/herself put up for promotional purposes.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:23am

      Re:

      Well of course not, I'm sure all the 'authorized' uploaders(read: large companies that have paid their 'dues') will be completely immune to having their stuff taken down in that manner, so no worries for them and any artists they own.

      What's that, you're not signed to a major label? Well then, enjoy having all of your works shut down and blocked 'by accident' until you do sign over all your rights to a label, at which point you'll enjoy the immunity as well, in exchange for the tiny little cost of ownership of all your works.

      Yeah, combine the zero penalties for bogus DMCA claims, with the fact that this system keeps anything claimed to be infringing permanently blocked, and 'notice and staydown' will allow the major companies to absolutely crush any alternative publishing method that isn't control by them, all by 'accident' of course.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:42pm

      Re:

      Does the blocking apply to just the notified user or all users ever?

      The idea is that it would apply to all users ever. Which is the main reason why it's a terrible idea.

      Say I make a movie. Someone posts it to YouTube, and I issue a "notice and staydown" request. Now, I can't upload that movie, either - and if I already did so, my copy would also be taken down.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:09pm

        Re: Re:

        It could also takedown your backup copy on Google drive. At least thats what the content industry wants.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Trevor, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:34am

    So...

    I wonder if authorities will go after Cell Phone Carriers for facilitating drug deals with this kind of enthusiasm...

    Because to them it's the same thing, right?

    If I get in a car accident and the other person was using a phone, can I sue the phone carrier because they facilitated the driver's call?

    Things that make you go HMMMM

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:41am

      Re: So...

      Better yet, look at that drug dealers house. It was sold by that agency for a sizeable sum of money. Clearly they are aiding in drug dealing in exchange for large sums of cash clearly a heinous crime. /s

      You know what, lets do that actually. It'd get things fixed quickly if the banks found themselves getting attacked for absurd secondary and tertiary liabilities and would help tackle many issues, civil forfeiture abuse (honestly it seems rare to find legitimate use), rights, ending the futile war on drugs (protip: if it a war on an abstract concept it cannot be won).

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:35am

      Re: So...

      Well if third party liability is a go you should also sue the manufacturer of the car, the department of transportation for giving them a license, the police for not catching the person in time, and the parents for raising a kid that would cause such an accident.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:41am

    The amusing thing is that if there was no opposition and they got everything they demanded they'd be earning much less money and maybe they'd actually die and let the world move on at full speed evolution...

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:57am

      Re:

      If they succeed they will have gotten a system installed that government will absolutely love, they could take down anything that they do not like once and it would be gone.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      squall_seawave (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:04am

      Re:

      but in the meanwhile they are dying there was a drying of culture and cannibalizing of resources to try to save a rotten industrie instead so nope we must still fight i am not american but i hope this new attack is repelled again and for those who say that we won against sopa we repelled the first wave the next will be stronger so we must prepare for it

      also a small commentary.

      the legacy entertainment industry fears the internet and with a good reason not because of piracy thats the window dressing they fear competition

      many people create for the pleasure of create and they want to share but here is when it gets murky a fan creates something because he enjoys the original and want to contribute some corporation creates because the original sold well and wants a piece of the pie

      so when both products finish the corporated one looks really bad against the fan created and instead of creating something awesome the corporations destroy something awesome to sell their trash

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Conscious Catholic, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:16am

    Its only a matter of time

    before the watchdog groups begin to ready the troops and then we will have go through another set of months holding our breath in the debate, but as long as fast track for TPP is at bay, the greedy control freaks will have to take the slow road

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:36am

    Notice and Shutdown

    The biggest problem with a "notice and staydown" system is that a work removed because of failure to file a counterclaim is then removed automatically for everyone else in the future, without involving the DMCA's "notice and shutdown" process. After all, who do you respond to when the other side isn't expecting a response from you?

    If this ever becomes law, I hope the courts will be wise enough to recognize how dangerous it is to hold ISPs liable for failing to stop its users from engaging in behavior that ordinarily would demand a trial against those accused of such behavior.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    any moose cow word, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 10:42am

    The media industry doesn't care about fair use or collateral damage. The whole point of "notice and staydown" is to make the tech industry toxic for creators and customers, in hopes of forcing them back to their gates. Basically, legislating their way back to pre-internet profits.

    And the politicians go along with these polices because they don't really care about the collateral damage this will cause the economy. If they did, the deficit wouldn't be so high. No, all they care about is the kickbacks they get. The media industry's profits are tiny compared to the tech industry. Hell, media giants like NBC and Universal are owned by Comcast, a tech company. Lawmakers know they're flush with cash. They want a piece of that! So, they let the media industry push BS like this to entice better "offers" from others. It's totally about extortion.

    However, if "notice and staydown" gets struck down, the tech companies should enforce it for those who wanted it anyway. Every song, video, or scrape of content they put online will be reposted, flagged, and wiped from net. It'll make everything those asshats touch so toxic that no one would want to deal with them.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:10am

    As a content creator who is having my content downloaded on the Internet, I am violently angry that Google cannot practice witchcraft and other magick(s) to delete my content from the Internet!

    Why can't Google simply whip up a magic spell, and summon the appropriate demons, djinn, and/or other succubi needed to delete my content?

    It ought to be ILLEGAL!

    ILLEGAL, I tell you!

    Google knows the ways of magick, so why cannot it not be legally required to cast the appropriate spells?

    Congress needs to get involved here! I demand it!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:21am

    The very same content may be infringing in some cases and not infringing in others. Not checking the context of each use would clearly block forms of perfectly legitimate expression. That's a big problem.

    Too bad that nobody involved with creating these laws gives a shit about the little people. The only ones they care about are the multi-billion corporations who "donate" copious amounts of money to their campaigns. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd pass a law requiring every single person in the US to pay a monthly tax to the entertainment industry.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 11:53am

    It's shit like this that actually makes me want to pirate shit. I don't want my money to be used in lobbying efforts to purchase congressmen and fund horribly destructive laws, so it makes sense to ensure that these asshats in the MPAA and RIAA don't see a single dime from me. It sounds quite fair in my head, I'll stop stealing their shit when they stop stealing our congressmen.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Michael David Crawford, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 12:47pm

    This Got Me Banned From WebmasterWorld In Less Than One Minute

    (Click my name just above.)

    WebmasterWorld's Copyright Forum focusses primarily on the detection of "Scraper Sites" - machine-generated spam sites created Unethical or "Black Hat" SEOs who steal content from legimate sites -as well as the application of DMCA Takedown Notices, even civil lawsuits, to go after the scrapers.

    I figured I'd give them my Left Coast Greybeard Take by sitting up all night marking up "Why I'm Proud to be a Dirty GNU Hippy" in BBCode, then posting it to the WMW Copyright board.

    In less than a minute, my essay was deleted.

    Shortly after I received a terse private message from the forum moderator, informing me that "Advocating" is a violation of the quite strictly enforce WebmasterWorld Terms of Service.

    Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke:

    I revised it to HTML/CSS markup then posted it at my own site.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    aj, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 1:57pm

    All comment threads are dominated by agents of those pushing for this copyright.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    butcher99, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:05pm

    human

    rules like this would not be so bad if all takedown notices had to be checked out and verified by a human before the notice went out. Right now it is just a bunch of bots that do not discriminate between infringing and bullshit.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 2:29pm

      Re: human

      Heck, I might even consider a change like this somewhat acceptable if it came with two other changes:

      1) Only DMCA claims filed by humans are considered legitimate. Bots programmed by humans do not count, it's either personal review by a human on a case by case basis or nothing(this is both to cut down on bot abuse, and for change #2). If a company/individual is found to be using a bot to generate and send out DMCA claims, then they are penalized as though each claim sent was a fraudulent DMCA notice.

      2) The perjury clause for fraudulent claims was tightened up and enforced. No more 'well I was pretty sure it was correct, so I ordered it taken down', if someone files a claim on something they don't own, they go to jail.

      If it's a case of someone filing claims as part of their job, ordered by their boss, then both employee and employer are punished equally, the boss can't order their employees to file fraudulent claims and get away without penalty themselves.

      Now, it would only be one or two years(I believe perjury comes with a 2 year sentence), but if people knew that filing a false claim would get them jail time, then 99% of the bogus claims and those abusing the system to censor stuff they don't like would disappear practically overnight.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    @AnonyOdinn, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 3:05pm

    Regarding Ideas from Statists

    Another CISPA / SOPA remix?

    Apart from the outrage that will (probably) inevitably kill this one, even if it were passed (or even if it were never passed, but just quietly implemented by major ISPs around the globe), it will likely have (instead of the intended effect of censorship), exactly the opposite effect - it will likely drive faster adoption of decentralized solutions that are resistant to censorship.

    Ever hear that old phrase, "The net is resistant to censorship, and routes around it?" Not always true. But, what is true, is that when that initial statement doesn't hold true, then alternative networks are created, that are more easily created and which cannot be squashed like a bug merely because they can be listened to (surveilled) or because a server or node can be removed. Those kinds of systems then are developed out, used more, and then different things are developed based upon them.

    This is just one example which I recently saw hit a mailing list - described as "a realtime collaborative editor which could do text, WYSIWYG and collaborative drawing (...deployed via) a peer-to-peer consensus algorithm using a Nakamoto Blockchain with the difficulty/mining aspect
    removed:"

    https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/chainpad

    (One possible implementation of this follows that you can actually see in a website that anyone can view, rather than a .bit sort of process that is less visible:)

    http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/RtWiki


    This is just one idea, the point being more or less being that we will defeat statism with math. The more decentralize-able the implementation of the 'maths,' the better able the 'maths' will be at defeating (however gradually) the statism, until the statism fades to become less and less of a problem. We still have the panopticon to face, but that in turn must be dealt with - not by false hopes and dreams - but by action, either by responsibility of the people in new distributed networks, or by our collective failure to act.


    So, regarding ideas from statists:


    Keep making those ideas. We'll keep making better ones. What becomes of people who adhere to statists and the ideas associated with statism? More or less they are like what dinosaurs turned into after they became extinct: Someone else's fuel, just getting burnt or converted into something more useful (like solar panels, or whatever else people dream up, or grass, or dirt that gets used to grow good things). Statism just gets broken down into component parts and becomes part of the overall energy ecology, it doesn't matter how many bad ideas you create, we'll just keep using them as fuel for a better future that doesn't include CISPA, governance, government, statism, etc. Cheers.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Rajani Isa (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 4:10pm

    Scripps News and NASA

    When talking about ContendID gone bad, I'm surprised they didn't mention Scripps news and how they (used to at least, not sure if it's fixed) would constant claim ownership of material released by NASA (and thus public domain) and then block the NASA youtube channel.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    you may never know, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 7:53pm

    just the tip

    Technology is a wonderful thing. Programmer here. When SOPA gets passed under the name "help the poor Act" I will publish my secret way to embed any content into innocuous public media. Totally undetectable, just send the codec algorithm and URL sequence to yourfriends, and ddistributewhatever you want. Media giants beware. Change, adapt or die. I am one of millions of thinking people who can make your life hell in my spare time. Be nice. Embrace change. Believe it or not, we all want to play fair and support artists. When we see you buy politicians however, we start thinking around you. We don't like you. If you want to protect your investment, reach out to the people to see what is fair.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Greg R, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 7:58pm

    Enough already

    I swear, they see a big beautiful bastion of freedom like the internet and just can not handle it, they simply itch to destroy it, castrate it, bring it in line with the rest of their bland world order. These people will not cease trying to push this kind of nonsense until every last one of them is removed from office.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:33pm

      Re: Enough already

      'Entertainment' industries/gatekeepers hate the internet and want to see it destroyed and/or crippled because it presents alternatives. Alternative to creators that don't involve the gatekeepers and being forced to hand over all rights to them, and alternatives to the public in the content they have access to, content that, again, has nothing to do with the gatekeepers.

      Various governments(sadly most these days) also hate the internet and want to see it destroyed and/or crippled because it presents alternatives. Alternative means of communication that they can't easily shut down, alternative sources of news that they don't control, both enabling people to discuss and demolish the carefully constructed lies told to them by allowing multiple people to look over something, and allowing them to compare the local with the global.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2014 @ 9:41pm

    The problem with old politicians is that their kids are also too old to understand modern technology, and these people seriously need someone to go "DAD! WTF!?"

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 9:35am

    doesn't this violate the frist amendment if they remove fan things we don't get freedom to state are opinions thus removeing part of freedom of speech not to mention this could potentialy ruin peoples lifes theat live off makeing fan videos on youtube

     

    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, Mar 15th, 2014 @ 10:57am

    I wonder if Masnick allowed himself an extra donut after finally successfully trolling his dwindling readership...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2014 @ 5:30pm

    Why are we wasting our time with proposals like SOPA rather than in acting laws against child pornography on the Internet, forced prostitution, and the slave industry; all of which play large roles in many Internet niches?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ChrisH (profile), Mar 20th, 2014 @ 4:54pm

    Youtube's DMCA notice handling mechanism is broken. For example, suppose you file a counter-notice and they re-post your video. Often they'll receive a second take-down notice from the same party (which is illegal) and remove the video again (which is improper and unnecessary as safe-harbor was already obtained with the first removal).

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Content Producer, Apr 8th, 2014 @ 8:07pm

    Oh my God you are such an asshole.

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.