Or do you mean the ContentID system, where rights holders keep more than half of the advertising income on YouTube videos, and which Google spend over $50 million developing, despite the fact that they didn't have to by law?
Yeah, they're really "screwing artists."
It's hilarious that you tech dbags think anyone is still believing your bullshit.
It's hilarious that you big media "dbags" think anyone ever did believe your bullshit.
Here you go stupid, the judge (the one whose opinion actually matters disagrees.
Just because I disagree with the judge's stupid opinion does not make me stupid. Also, we'll see what happens on appeal. I predict that this particular part of the ruling will be overturned.
The largest difference is that CafePress goes beyond facilitating the sale of products between internet users by directly selling products to online shoppers through the CafePress Marketplace.
The judge doesn't seem to realize that Amazon and eBay do almost exactly the same thing. Amazon, for instance, directly sells third-party products to online shoppers, using Amazon's own shipping apparatus. eBay does something similar with their eBay Store service. Yet the court rulings that the judge cites in his opinion do not strip DMCA protections from either Amazon or eBay for these reasons.
Please note that I am disagreeing with the judge about whether Cafe Press is eligible for DMCA safe harbors. Whether they actually meet that eligibility is a separate question. And, of course, lack of DMCA safe harbors eligibility does not mean that Cafe Press is necessarily liable for infringement.
Actually, it's the Silicon Valley crowd acting as usual giving as little to the artists as possible. And before you raise the usual blather about the major record labels sharing only a small percentage, it's dramatically larger than the percentage shared by the tech world.
Provably false. In fact, that's part of what this lawsuit was all about.
The rates that Pandora paid (and, now, will continue to pay) are higher than the rates that traditional radio stations pay, for streaming on the Internet.
Pandora's rate is 1.85%. IHeartRadio, run by Clear Channel (the owner of the majority of radio stations), pays just 1.7% for its Internet streams.
And as far as comparison with "the major record labels:" No, they do not share a "dramatically larger" percentage of their income. Pandora pays more than half their income to sound recording rights holders. Major labels pay around 15% of the income from records, to the artists (depending upon contract). And that's only after the artists have paid back the recording costs, packaging costs, some of the marketing or video, etc.
So, no. Pandora pays a dramatically larger percentage to artists than any traditional label or publisher.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wish the author would have been more careful with his phrasing. The DMCA is extrajudicial, but it is not extralegal. It would only be extralegal if it was a voluntary contract between ISP's and copyright holders, without any government involvement.
While I may disagree with some of Karl's comments here and in other articles re copyright law, I respect him for the obviously significant time he has taken and continues to take to inform himself on the substantive law. In many instances his insights are more accurate and nuanced than many attorneys who, when waxing poetic on copyright law, are so obviously out of their element and doing no more than "shooting from the lip".
I was going to reply to the original comment, but since this one explicitly mentions me (and is not threaded with that comment), I'll reply here.
As a candidate for an SJD he is working on a thesis delving into the ins and outs of law associated with Aereo (and others), because of which I do tend to pay close attention to what he has to say.
You should pay attention to what he says, but you should also put it in the context of other things he has said. And Hartline, like Hart, has consistently sided with copyright holders to the exclusion of any other considerations. This often comes in the form of misleading or questionable claims that turn out to be wrong. Like the idea that copyright infringement is theft, not long before a Florida judge ruled that the MPAA's use of the term "theft" in the Hotfile case is a "derogatory term" that "would serve to improperly inflame the jury." He also claimed that Righthaven had standing to sue, when every single judge (in multiple jurisdictions) who saw the SAA ruled that they didn't. He still does so even after the 9th Circuit Court ruled the same way every other court did.
It is also significant that many of his articles are written with direct feedback from Hart (like the "theft" article above), and a significant amount of his articles are cross-posted at Copyhype and no other legal blog. Put it all together, and you have someone who is not an impartial scholar, but an active advocate for copyright holders, and forms his legal opinions from other advocates. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that you should be skeptical of what he says, and aware that his views do not represent mainstream copyright law.
I would never dismiss Mr. Hart's commentary merely because of the organization he represents.
I do not dismiss it, but I am very skeptical of it - for the same reasons as I am of Hartline. Truth be told, Hart was a rightsholder advocate long before he joined the Copyright Alliance. In fact, it's probaby why he joined the Copyright Alliance (or why the Copyright Alliance chose him).
Again, he's not necessarily wrong, but he's not impartial and doesn't represent the legal mainstream. You should take him with the same grain of salt that you take, say, Fox News.
Now, to the other A.C.
It's strange how Karl argues that we shouldn't listen to people with law degrees who have not practiced law, but then he thinks we should listen to him even though he's never even gone to law school. I guess his standards apply to everyone but him.
I have my opinions, and I obviously think they're right, or else I wouldn't have them. That doesn't mean you (or I) should completely disregard others' opinions, including Hart's and Hartline's.
And when I point out that Hartline is not a practicing lawyer, I am not saying that we shouldn't listen to him. I am pointing out that he has never tested his theories in court; and when those opinions are raised by others, they are often rejected.
Of course, I've never tested my theories in court either. But many people (including yourself, if you're who I think you are) have dismissed my opinions while considering theirs to be reliable - solely because they're "lawyers" and I'm not. If you want to make an argument from authority, you should at least understand what "authority" the other arguments have - and in their case, it's not very much.