So under this regime, any site is considered a “pirate site” just because one page has infringing content. That sounds familiar back in 2011-12. The internet as a whole may very well be considered a “pirate's haven”. In essence, any user can convert a 100% perfectly legal site into a pirate site with just one illegal upload.
Again and again. That's like if a city has any criminals, then the entire population of that city should be arrested and are presumed guilty.
that’s the move that music industries (record labels) do with their “works for hire” agreement as well as warecraft refunded’s aggreement that they own all user-generated-content.
also, it’s possible that tweets may be pure factual information which can’t be copyrighted if it lacks creativity.
and the infamous “Don't you guys have phones?” meme.
People absolutely wanted this game to be at least on PC. Just watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__TqAr20Uwc
Take-two/Rockstar did this with GTA San Andreas, but that was even worse, at launch, the “remake” (if you can even call it) had glitches, issues, and even have the infamous “hot coffee” sex minigame in there.
A digital version of this: https://www.techdirt.com/2008/04/11/cities-caught-illegally-tampering-with-traffic-lights-to-increase-revenue-of-red-light-cameras/ on the part they tried to criminalize someone and found out the person was innocient so the case falls apart.
Some of these reports were ads on the start menu, even more worse when during “normal” use of the TV such as watching or even playing video games on it. Yeah, ads that literally hinder the user from using the TV, as if ads on a website hindering the user from reading the text or clicking on links on the page wasn't bad enough.
If ads on both of these can hinder the user from normally using something, then I should also worry about malvertisement, since both computer and TVs can be hacked.
If the publishers had really been concerned about Google’s use of snippets, they could easily have blocked the search engine’s Web crawler by using the robots.txt file, which is designed precisely for this kind of situation.
You too, gettyimages (the company that sued google into removing its view image button because it enabled users to steal images), you could've use that to put paid images behind that robots exclusion standard. Just a few lines of code in a text file at the root directory of the URL is all it takes, instead of going through a complex, expensive, and time consuming lawsuit.
Given that studios have been demanding that VPN providers log and store user traffic behavior, Torguard’s clearly worried the decision will cause an exodus of customers who specifically use a VPN to avoid being tracked for reasons that often go beyond copyright infringement.
Guess what, anything that enables and supports anonymity can be used for infringement. Already the dark web introduced by the TOR network has these, so those 2-dozen studios may very well go after that and encryption.
This is another example of attacking something or someone just because their technology or feature enables (but not intend) for people to do illegal acts, along with GettyImages vs the “view image” button (why can't they use robots.txt?)
CallMeMoneyBags on twitter is at risk of a lawsuit and he/she didn’t file a counter notification: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/copyright-not-shortcut-around-constitutions-anonymous-speech-protections-eff-tells
Subpoenas as a form of DMCA weapon are increasingly becoming common. Now imagine that happens on youtube at scale.
Are you sure these are direct re-uploads? Some videos I watched and looked it up on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SiIvaGunner">wikipedia</a> stated that these videos have clickbait titles and are actually a different song and a remix. I wonder if Nintendo got baited into thinking their songs were reuploaded than a remix, judging based on title, the game's title on the screen, and the first few seconds of the video.
This was a warning of the future of the internet, I was a kid back then and slightly had some ominous feeling when seeing fbi warnings on movies (not much that it bugs me but annoying that had to pester people that they cannot skip it), and the fact that VHS tape labels having the same thing and also stated to use them in only certain countries. The disabling of right-clicking on planetware (before they removed it now and realized this is comparable to DRM and why I hated section 1201) I am well-aware now.
These are foreshadows of the copyright industries in the future. A desperate move that they rather cut corners and disregard the consequences to instantly nuke a site and just forget about it, in an unchecked, out-of-control manner (in this case, without going to court to have a judge moderate the copyright holder's request).
No site, regardless if it is legal or not is safe from this. If anyone can file fraudulent takedowns on youtube videos, they can do the same on any website but with extra damage and with zero-tolerance (just one “copyright strike” instead of youtube's 3-strike). It is like you instantly go to prison without even a lawsuit for doing normal things like most civilians do for them thinking you did a crime.
This bill is therefore RUSHED, as exactly stated by Extra Credit's video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VZZ8-TGhfc it only had the punishing provisions on there but is like a Sniper with defective aiming.