This is where you twist things and act like the complete tech douche you are.
I note that you didn't actually answer my questions, but resorted to insults. Kinda telling.
I didn't say they had. I'm betting with the next legal action they will.
So 8 judges were wrong, but the next one will be right? Good luck with that...
Google is 100% aware and knowledgeable of the specific bad activity of the Pirate Bay, etc.
Right, and go do a Google search that links to infringing content on the Pirate Bay. It doesn't show up. I just ran a few google searches myself trying to find any infringing content on the Pirate Bay and couldn't find any (at least not on the front page, which is all that matters). So... yeah. Basically they did what you asked. And you're too clueless to realize it.
No reason for them to be indexed at all.
So you want a ban on indexing? That's a whole different issue and one that creates a whole host of other problems, without ANY of the benefits you think it brings.
Everyone knows you and Google's game, Masnick: try to destroy what little protections creators have and then exploit their work for profit. No mystery at all anymore. None.
Uh, no. I've spent YEARS explaining how ARTISTS themselves can make more money online. I have no desire to exploit anyone.
Anyway, again, I'll ask: What more do you want Google to do that it's not doing already. Because they only thing you've mentioned, they're actually doing for all intents and purposes.
Lol, Google isn't doing jack squat to keep their Safe Harbor- bazillions of legitimate DMCA notices demonstrate that they cannot claim to be ignorant of who the bad players are.
This is where it suggests a real ignorance of the details on your part. First, Google has never been found by a court to have lost its safe harbor, so... yeah, you're wrong.
Second, the safe harbors require knowledge of *specific* bad activity. Not general knowledge. EIGHT judges have all found this. None have found for your twisted interpretation.
Third, Google abides by the safe harbor policies by closing the accounts of repeat infringers on YouTube. On Google search there's no "account" for Google to remove, but it does demote sites that get regular takedown notices (which goes beyond what the law allows).
So... really, I'm not sure what you think Google should be doing instead.
Perhaps if you suggested an actual response we could discuss if it's a good idea or not. If the answer is just "don't ever link to infringing content" well, that's impossible. In fact when Google started demoting sites based on DMCA notices, you know what happened, right? Other, even more questionable sites figure out ways to get into the search results as well.
You keep expecting Google to do magic. It can't do that.
I've been warning you for years that if the tech industry didn't police itself, the government ultimately would, and it wouldn't be pretty.
Yeah, but they *are* policing themselves. Basically every major platform now has automated filtering, that goes way beyond what the law requires. Companies are working with various consortiums to deny ads and payment processing to certain sites deemed piracy venues, and registrars are working with copyright holders to take down entire sites.
So they are doing it.
And you and your friends still want more. Because it's never enough.
But no, you had to continue to spew the same BS about piracy not being a problem and that copyright was the problem.
Do you really think any of these things will stop piracy?
Copyright is never going away, and now the public will have to suffer because Google was too greedy to simply do the right thing.
What, exactly, do you think Google should do that it's not doing already?
You're simply assuming facts. Yes, the counternotice YouTube forwarded to NYU mentions 10 business days. But the complaint explicitly states that YouTube told NYU it was obligated to repost the video within 14 days. Since 14 days is not mentioned in the counternotice, it would appear that there was other communication between YouTube and NYU. You don't know what was said in this other communication. You're simply making up the facts. That's not what a good lawyer does.
Have you read 512? Either you haven't or you're a troll.
The 14 days is IN THE LAW. YouTube is simply saying what the law says, which is that upon receiving a counternotice, if it does not receive evidence of a lawsuit against the uploader, it will abide by 512(g)(2)(C) and put back the video within 10 to 14 business days.
It's telling NYU exactly what it's doing *in order to retain the safe harbors.*
Suing YouTube is bad lawyering. It either ignores or misunderstands the safe harbors. NYU is going to drop YouTube from the suit fairly soon once some adult realizes what happened, or it's going to get laughed out of court for including YouTube quick.
The only reason I point this out is because you insulted the lawyer from NYU and claimed that he doesn't understand the DMCA. That would be fine if you actually had the facts to back it up. You don't. It appears to be another case where you're claiming you're so much smarter than someone else without the goods to back it up. It's not a good trait on your part, Mike.
I stand by the story. NYU fucked up. You rushed in to defend them because that's what you do, and now you fucked up too. Man up and admit it.
Don't move the goalposts. Your original claim was not "bad lawyering." It was that the suit against YouTube is "a non-starter" that "goes completely against the DMCA's safe harbors."
Since we don't have the facts, we can't really analyze NYU's case. But we can read the complaint, which states: "YouTube asserts it is required by § 512 (g)(2)(B) to 'replace' or republish the Work within 14 days of the date of the counter-notice."
We can also read IN THE SUIT YouTubes notice to NYU which states quite clearly:
We're providing you with the counter notification and await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order against the counter notifier to restrain the allegedly infringing activity.
So, no, it's clear that YouTube never said that it would post the video back up even if NYU sued Flores. It said it would repost it if they did not sue Flores, as is exactly what's required for the safe harbors.
It seems quite simple to me: the API is the table of Contents to the book, not the book.
In court today one of the witnesses gave a pretty good analogy. An API is like the steering wheel, accelerator, brake, speedometer, gear shift of a car. Basically some simple concepts that are more or less the same in every car so that you can get into any car and drive it without learning a whole new system. But then the car itself is very different, and that's the implementation.
I know you're way smarter than NYU's lawyers--heck, smarter than all the lawyers you routinely mock. So what am I missing here, counselor?
The suing of YouTube. Suing Flores is fine (though he claims to have a license, but we'll see if that turns out to be true). The issue is the suing of YouTube (which I thought I pointed out in the post).
NYU can sue Flores and tell YouTube, at which point YouTube WILL NOT replace the video. But adding YouTube to the lawsuit is just bad lawyering.
Doesn't that make it unconstitutional, as an *explicitly* ex post facto law, then?
I don't think so, though others with more legal expertise may weigh in.
For it to be a problem as an ex post facto law, that would mean changing an action that was itself legal when the action occurred and then making it retroactively illegal. That is, the problem would be in a specific action that someone did and even though that action was legal at the time, later changing it to illegal and then retroactively applying it to the actor. That would be unconstitutional, in part because how can you obey a law that doesn't exist?
THIS is different. They're not criminalizing a past action. Instead, they're just making a law that creates a certain class of protected information, and then saying it covers people who have died in the past. That's *annoying* but not an ex post facto issue.
Would this even possibly protect prince's estate? IT seems like an ex post facto law to me. I can see it benefiting the estates of famous people who die in the future, but it wouldn't do anything for the estate of the person it is named after. As a Minnesota resident I probably should write to my representation and point out how stupid this act is.
Well, the law *explicitly* says: " The rights recognized by this act are expressly made retroactive, including to those deceased individuals who died before the effective date of this act."
In the short run, if we don't see another story about this within a reasonable amount of time (even just to say that no subpoena has been received), we will have to assume that future reporting has been gagged.
That would perhaps be a reasonable assumption. I intend to post an update by the end of *next* week at the latest (would be this week, but it's a really busy week...). If there is nothing in the next two weeks... start asking. :)
Why would anyone ever giveaway their copyright on a paper or even pay for publishing? Sure if you research how paper clips influence the bee population then maybe you pay people to read your paper but otherwise, if you do some useful research why would you do that?
Because, for very stupid reasons, many universities judge academic performance, in part, based on how many times you've "been published" with "been published" having a very narrow definition of "been published in an academic journal we respect." Because of that, those policies created the academic journal business that academics are forced into dealing with if they want to keep their jobs.
And we'll leave aside the fact that for more than a decade, Masnick has never proven he's paid for any content, and that he isn't actually the sleazy pirate he's been accused of being for years.
Huh? I pay for a ton of content and I've said repeatedly that I don't download any works that are infringing, because I don't.
I currently buy a ton of books on Amazon. For music I have a paid Spotify account and I also support artists directly via crowdfunding or similar efforts (Kickstarter, Patreon, Bandcamp, etc.). I basically don't watch any TV/movies currently because I don't have any time, so I don't have a Netflix account. I had Amazon Prime for a year but didn't use it enough so I don't have it any more. I might change my mind on both of those in the future though if I ever have more time for watching TV/movies.
I've said most of this before. Not sure why you claim I haven't.
I also don't have bittorrent software, because I never actually use it (to be honest, I'm not even sure what software to use for it because I never have).
At least with a record label advance a band gets some dollars. Compare that to the pennies Google pays musicians.
This is a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison.
First off, one is about being a gatekeeper and choosing a certain select few artists to give some money to -- but then to take all their rights. The other is just an open platform that anyone can use for free.
Lots of companies don't pay artists. Why are you so obsessed with Google?
Labels pay MOST ARTISTS $0 and do absolutely nothing for them. It just tells them to get lost.
The artists that labels *do* give an advance to, the advance is structured in a ridiculous way such that the artists actually get very little money.
They need to use that money to record a certain number of albums. Out of that, they need to pay their manager, agent, other help. They also have to split it up among band members. Anything they spend then also gets added to their tab.
And then what awful royalty rate they get from sales (usually 15%) never actually goes to the artists, because it goes towards "recouping" the advance.
Meanwhile, Google has paid out over $3 billion to artists.
Google turns away no one. If you're good you can make money.
Google provides a platform and tools that have allowed many, many, many content creators to make money where as in the past they would have made none.
For artists who actually learn how to make use of the internet in a useful way, Google has helped launch the careers of many successful artists (think of the number of YouTube stars these days) or those who became stars because of YouTube.
So, your comparison is just weird and suggests an ignorance of reality combined with an unhealthy infatuation with Google.
Yes, the district court did not let any part of the subpoena go forward, but that doesn't mean that all of it was directed at conduct that Section 230 would preempt, i.e., conduct by third parties.
You're right. But, you know, also wrong. Not ALL of the subpoena is preempted by Section 230. The rest is preempted for other reasons.
The court *also* found that parts were preempted by the 4th Amendment:
this court also finds that Google’s Fourth Amendment claim regarding the overbreadth of the subpoena in question has substantial merit
And then parts are preempted by federal copyright law:
Moreover, the court is persuaded that Google is also likely to succeed on its preemption claims. Here, Google avers that the Federal Copyright Act, including the DMCA, preempts a large part of the subpoena. The subpoena contains various requests for information regarding copyright infringement. Many of these requests are found in a section titled “Stolen Intellectual Property”. It is well-established that state attorneys lack the authority to enforce the Copyright Act; such enforcement power lies with the federal government....
The court is not persuaded that the Attorney General’s posited theoretical basis for making these requests is sufficient for the purpose of rebutting Google’s preemption allegation.
Oh and then also by the FDCA.
There's a *reason* why the court blocked the entire subpoena. And it's because all of it was ridiculous. You're right that I focused on the Section 230 stuff, because that's the majority of the important points, but Hood's entire subpoena was a loser here.
But, really, is this really the hill you want to die on defending? You're looking mighty ridiculous defending Hood here.
Any artist or creator that happens to be aware of you dislikes you.
Really? Then can you explain the emails I got today from two separate musicians asking for my thoughts on things? Or the fact that a musician wrote and recorded a song for our podcast. Or the fact that we've had numerous artists and content creators write guest posts or appear on the podcast?
Or how about the fact that we were able to fill a room with content creators when we held our "artists and entrepreneurs workshop" not all that long ago, and I don't think we'll have much trouble filling it again next time we do a similar event.
They all dislike me?
Yes, I recognize there's a small group of artists who seem to dislike me because I've pointed out why the business model they cling to may not be the best idea. But is shooting the messenger really going to help you?
So Mike writes 19 or 20 articles that he claims are adverse to Google's positions, and that negates the literally hundreds, if not thousands of pro-Google posts. Ok.
That's not what anyone said. The original comment was designed to make the argument that I blindly support Google. To disprove that I would only need to show a single criticism of Google. Instead I showed many, demonstrating that yes, I am regularly critical of Google.
But no one is arguing that means I'm always against Google
Again, most people seem to get this. Do you, perhaps, have a vested interest in not getting this?
I speak my mind. Sometimes I agree with Google. Sometimes I do not. Thus it's pretty silly to suggest that my arguments are invalid because I always defend Google when I clearly do not.