I gotta hand it to you, Whatever. As you've done for years, through all your different identities, the one thing you do better than any other troll is state with absolute confidence things that are absolute bullshit. It's a skill. You should be proud of it.
Not at all. DMCA was created in no small part to handle the concept of accidental or unintentional copyright violation, so that a violation didn't lead directly to a lawsuit, which was previously the only way to deal with the issue.
This is not even remotely close to true. DMCA 512 had nothing to do with that at all, but was solely about dealing with the intermediaries and their responsibilities. And, it shows an astounding lack of understanding of the history of copyright law prior to the DMCA to claim that the only way to deal with it prior to that was a lawsuit. Because that's not true. Under earlier court rulings, liability had been placed on intermediaries, meaning that those intermediaries were actually incentivized to proactively remove content. The DMCA set up a much more reasonable process to prevent overaggressive removals from continuing.
Imagine for a second that rather than a DMCA notice about your Youtube video with Michael Jackson music in it, you instead got served for a million dollar lawsuit. Imagine the costs related (for both parties) in having to take this step. If you want to talk about "chilling effects", you should consider what the lack of the current DMCA law would do.
You are conflating the intermediary with the actual infringer. It suggests someone who knows nothing of the DMCA or what it actually says.
Bullshit. Under the DMCA, you are not liable for massive statutory damages unless you ALSO ignore the DMCA and leave the offending content up. It cuts both ways, DMCA is actually so lenient for offenders that it has encouraged and created entire online business models predicated on "okay until we get a notice" rather than "okay because I have the rights". DMCA is a law that is very heavily biased towards protecting offenders, and not rights holders.
Again, you confuse intermediaries and infringers. And you say it so confidently. Actual infringers are not protected by the DMCA. Yes, they are subject to massive statutory damages no matter what the DMCA says because they're not protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Only intermediaries are.
And saying it was biased towards offenders is laughable. The law was written by the RIAA.
Show me an instance of a takedown using a hash that has led to a tremendous amount of censorship.
You do realize that this article is about the false positives from automated takedowns and how widely they apply? Or did you just think that if you skipped reading the details and focused on the insults everyone would forget the ACTUAL DATA AND STORY ABOVE?
There are so few true abuses of DMCA that rise to the levels prescribed in the law (knowingly issuing a false claim). It's a sufficiently high hurdle that few have even approached that level. Even some of what Techdirt would consider abuses are more people misinformed about the uses of DMCA, and not people intentionally misusing or making false claims.
So at the very least you admit that there's a massive double standard here: you can only be found to have abused the DMCA if you do so "knowingly" (and you leave out that the standard used by the court here requires a ridiculously high bar), but for infringement, accidental or unintentional infringement still subjects you to MASSIVE statutory damages.
Masnick is already well aware that hashes could be used effectively for this issue, but due to his pathological dishonesty, you won't see that discussed.
It's discussed every time ContentID fucks up yet again. Using automated takedown systems involving hashes aren't an effective solution and lead to a tremendous amount of censorship. Which was the point of this very article that you ridiculously claim doesn't mention that hashes work. Because they don't.
Mike, are you brave enough to come to the comments and deny that you're a Bernie Bro?
I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders at all. I think his understanding of economics is warped, and that he would not be a particularly good President. His view of economics is historical and does not understand the current industrial environment in the slightest.
Why you think this article has anything to do with Sanders is beyond me.
If it hasn't been made clear already, I am not a fan or a supporter of any major Presidential candidate on either side of the Republican/Democratic debate.
Is this really any different, except in terms of polish, from so many other politicians who when faced with a tough question devolve into non-answer, irrelevant, canned response, sound-bite platitudes?
This is a potentially valid point, but I do think there's a difference. Normally, it seems fairly clear that most of those kinds of answers involve politicians who at least have *some* grasp of the issue at hand (though not necessarily a good grasp) and know that answering honestly would be political suicide. So they dance around it. It's not good, but at least I don't get the feeling that they're making decisions based on topics where they are wholly uninformed.
With Trump, it seems that he's unable to even recognize that he's uninformed.
Threatening someone with violence or other threats is not allowed and can put one in jail, too.
Within a VERY strictly confined area, where the threats of violence are likely to "incite an immediate breach of the peace" and "inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction" in a *specific* person -- not the general population.
whats the unit of measure for this GDP? todays dollars, 2007 dollars, 1933 dollars?? imagine if we had other units of measure prefixed with a year/date. imagine if you had a multi-year project but didnt know what your unit of measure will be in the future. no wonder things are so fucked up.
That's not the real issue with GDP. It's normalized by year, so changes in time aren't the problem.
Re: Re: reading Techdirt every day was like taking a college course
I enjoy Tech Dirt. But popularity eventually devolves into some propagandist conglomerate buying out a site. So congrats to those with stock options, but please, can we talk about actual issues a while longer before TD goes the way of Wired and the Amazon Post?
Best way to avoid that kind of thing? Have enough readers support the site directly! :)
Either way, we've been at this for almost 19 years now. Going to take a lot to shut us up...
Why is that pledge has to go through some Beacon? I am again asked to register with them, create an account, blah-blah... I'm ready to donate if the process is simplified and I do not need to create one more fake account that I won't be using anymore.
Beacon has been a really useful platform for us in terms of managing the crowdfunding process, but if you'd prefer to just give directly there are ways to do so at our own "insider shop":
I think if you're explaining, you're losing people. Specifically you're losing the ones who can't think past OMG TERRORISM!.
I disagree. That's an easy excuse and it's insulting. It reminds me of the "but... piracy!" excuse that we always heard on the copyright debate. But the people who explained things and why it's not just about piracy tended to win out in the end. And that's happening here as well.
Unlike the Hogan leak -- in which 1st Amendment issues were the centerpiece of Mike's discussion -- Mike never even once mentioned 1st Amendment issues in the Fappening leak, when the shoe was on the other foot in the male/female divide.
I think the issue was quite different there. There wasn't a lawsuit against a publisher for publishing those images. Just a legal threat against Google, which I noted was a mistake. If the lawsuit had actually gone forward, Google would have been protected.
If a newspaper had published photos from those leaks, I still think the result should be effectively the same: the public can (and almost certainly should) shun & shame the publication for taking the low road and making such a decision. But a jury shouldn't be deciding if it's "newsworthy" or not.
Again, I don't condone Gawker's decision to publish. And I don't think it should have published. But I'm not Gawker and I still worry about juries making editorial decisions.