Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324) comment rss

  • On the post: The Death Of Ownership: Educational Publishing Giant Pearson To Do Away With Print Textbooks (That Can Be Resold)

    Rico R. ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2019 @ 02:53pm

    My Pearson eBook experience

    Let me tell you, my experience with Pearson's eBooks is anything but positive.

    When I was in college, I had a psychology gen-ed requirement. There were two possible classes I could use to fulfill that requirement: Intro to Psychology and Psychology of Human Relations. Based on the class description, I thought Intro to Psychology would be a better fit for me. That class utilized a Pearson eBook (though I had a binder's worth of physical papers as well). Well, I got the class syllabus a week before classes, and it looked hard. Typing in the code for the eBook confirmed that it was going to be too hard for me. I talked to a counselor at my school, and I was able to drop out of Intro to Psychology and enroll in Psychology of Human Relations. That counselor also advised me I could potentially sell my Intro to Psychology book back, so I went to the school's book store.

    However, I was completely shocked to hear they wouldn't buy back my binder's worth of papers. Why? Because they would only buy back that if I could sell them back the code for the eBook as well. The problem? That code is only good for one use. So all that paper in my binder was useless for the book store. Not only was I out of money for buying the eBook and binder, but I also had to buy a new book for the Psychology of Human Relations course! So, for the price of two college textbooks, I got 1 and a bunch of paper to set on fire!!

    "Pearson's moving into the 21st century..." If the 21st century is the century where students pay for books twice out of convenience for the publisher, plus eliminating any right to resell books by making them 100% digital, then our future students are going to be screwed over even more. I may have already graduated, but I still think about future college students. One thing's for sure: while it sounds good on paper, THIS MOVE by Pearson sure won't help anyone!

  • On the post: Three Years Later: 1st Amendment Challenge Over DMCA's Anti-Circumvention Provisions Can Move Forward

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2019 @ 02:11pm

    In my mind, the first amendment claims against whether or not the DMCA section 1201 is unconstitutional was a strong, but perhaps not the strongest argument. Consider this initial text from the statute itself:

    No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

    Now compare that to the copyright clause of the US Constitution:

    (The Congress shall have power) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

    The very purpose of copyright, according to the US Constitution, is to promote the progress of Science (which means knowledge in this old context), and by extension, promote creativity. Riddle me this: How does a law that stops people from bypassing technological measures that prevent access to copyrighted works further the cause of promoting progress?

    Not only does it sound like it doesn't on its face, but it as it has been applied since its enaction, there is ample evidence that it, in fact, hinders the progress and creativity that copyright law is supposed to foster. Apple has used it to stop people from tinkering with iPhones (Jailbreaking, unlocking, etc.) and used the law to sue Psystar into oblivion. It stops press publications from publishing code that can be used to bypass CSS on commercial DVDs. (Never mind the fact that CSS is extremely insecure by today's cryptography standards, but the law says that we shouldn't even know that!)

    In private homes, it makes it illegal for people to space-shift physical media, or to build a Hackintosh. And it even causes DRM to be installed in contexts that have nothing to do with copyright protection, and therefore, it makes you a criminal from doing seemingly innocent, non-infringing activities (a security update preventing you from installing a competitor's ink cartridge in a printer, car manufacturers preventing you from repairing the computerized components in your own cars, etc.)

    All it does it make non-infringing activities illegal while doing nothing to stop actual piracy. Almost every broken up piracy ring I've heard about was taken down for criminal copyright infringement and NOT for circumventing TPMs, even though said infringement couldn't have happened without circumventing TPMs. Furthermore, all case law stemming from DMCA section 1201 has nothing to do with actual piracy of that nature.

    I even asked Cory Doctorow about this in a Reddit AMA about the lawsuit, and he pretty much said that while he wasn't a lawyer, he speculated it had something to do with the decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft and how subsequent developments made them decide NOT to raise constitutional objections to the law in that regard.

    My own opinion though is that those cases were looking at the part regarding "securing limited times to authors... to have the exclusive right", but here, the case is turning on the part regarding the promotion of "the progress of science". Furthermore, had these plaintiffs raised this objection AS WELL AS the first amendment objection, we might be looking at a different story here. I just hope that if a future plaintiff comes along and decides to raise similar objections in this case with more proof of harm, they also turn to this question. Worst case scenario, the Court holds that it's again too similar to Eldred v. Ashcroft and dismisses the claim. We can only wait and hope at this point!

  • On the post: YouTube Begins Blocking Stream-Ripping Sites

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2019 @ 08:01pm

    One step forward, two steps back...

    YouTube just took a good step forward by changing its policy on manual Content ID claims. Now, they seem to want to screw with its userbase even more by disabling access to streaming sites? Just like Lawrence said above me, I frequently use youtube-dl, so it's not a huge issue for me, but still! Many YouTube to MP3 sites blocks downloading videos that have music in, with less-than-staggering results.

    As an experiment a while ago, I took one of my own YouTube videos on attempting to run a problematic Hackintosh kext (which had no music in), changed the category temporarily to music, and tried downloading it from a site known to block downloads of videos containing music. It threw an error saying something to the effect of "Music cannot be downloaded with our tool." So at least one site isn't resulting in the proliferating of people ripping music (or the audio from one of my own videos) from YouTube!

  • On the post: EU Intellectual Property Office Produces Dumbest Propaganda Film Ever, Pretending Without IP There Is No Creativity

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2019 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your

    Actually, Apple's iOS, macOS, watchOS, iPadOS, and pretty much every Apple OS is NOT based on Linux. Their underlying OS base is Darwin, an open-source OS based on Unix. Linux is also based on Unix, but they don't share the same codebase. I'm not entirely familiar with Android's codebase, but I'm fairly certain the only Linux component is the Linux kernel. While both are definitely Unix-based, I think it's a far cry to say they're based on Linux.

  • On the post: EU Intellectual Property Office Produces Dumbest Propaganda Film Ever, Pretending Without IP There Is No Creativity

    Rico R. ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2019 @ 11:27am

    Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor

    First off, let's talk about your "chosen" username. If Linux is as feeble and unreliable as you say it is, then why is it true that practically everybody uses Linux for most of their servers, cloud computing, and other internet services? I guarantee you that you can't find one company (Microsoft and Apple included) that doesn't rely on Linux in some way. Just because there are few people using it as their main operating system doesn't mean that its crap. Try again.

    What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your work?
    Tyler Joseph writes music for Twenty One Pilots as a means of self-expression and sharing his insecurities, as well as helping him get through tough times. Britt Allcroft creates TV shows and movies for children for no other purpose than to enchant and entertain them. Adam Young started making music to help him escape the dread of working a dead-end job. And even after he found success in Owl City, he sees it as a privilege to continue doing what he loves to do as opposed to working that dead-end job. He's not set on creating another #1 hit and has rock-solid integrity, wanting to continue making music for the rest of his life simply because he enjoys it. Notice that out of the people I mentioned above, NONE of them said copyright is why they create content. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one creative person who creates because of copyright.
    You want creators to pour money and energies into making good products so that you can STEAL more value, and then you enjoy their struggles too.
    Okay, let's imagine for a second that copyright is abolished effective tomorrow. Not much would change. Unlike the dystopian scenario that this "film" predicts, artists can still thrive. Why? Well, legally speaking, selling bootlegs would be perfectly legal. However, because people tend to pay for items as a way to support creators they like, they will go out of their way to make sure that their money is going to support the artists. Follow supply and demand, and you'll realize that piracy that DOES earn money will NOT be a long-term profitable endeavor. People will demand chains of sales that benefit the artists MORE, not LESS. Copyright is not necessary to ensure that artists get paid. Also, like the tweet mentioned in a comment above, I too thought about writing a story about a similar dystopian world that was caused by overly strict IP laws that made real innovation and creativity nearly impossible by anyone other than a rich person approved by a gatekeeper. That's a more accurate IP dystopia than a world where there are no IP laws. In fact, given that barriers to sampling would be broken down permanently, I'd imagine more creative works being produced that CAN'T be produced without a cost-prohibitive license and permission granted because of copyright.
    You are not harmed by someone else having copyright. -- STATE SPECIFICS. -- Other than that you can't legally wallow in entertainments for free.
    I can think of several examples of how copyright has created harm:
    1. Corporations can shut down nonprofit fan projects as copyright infringement, even if the corporation hasn't touched the original title in decades. Browse Techdirt and I'm sure you'll find lots of specific examples of this.
    2. TV Eyes, a transformative service that allows people to search through various cable channels for content that previously aired, was forced to no longer offer the same service to the often-criticized Fox News after they sued them for copyright infringement.
    3. Aereo was deemed by the Supreme Court as a cable service, but because it isn't a "traditional" cable service, they can't use the same statutory licensing that Comcast and others enjoy, therefore forcing it to shut down altogether because their operation was deemed as copyright infringement.
    4. Anti-circumvention laws (such as DMCA section 1201) render many otherwise non-infringing activities illegal, all in the name of copyright enforcement. Some strike at the heart of copyright law (whether or not you can strip DRM from movies for space or format-shifting purposes, or for the purpose of creating a fair use), others have questionable connections (whether it's legal to jailbreak or unlock mobile devices, whether it's legal to build a Hackintosh, etc.), and many have next to nothing to do with copyright (such as whether or not you can install a competitor's ink in your printer or repair your car's computerized components yourself).
    5. Imagine you're creating a derivative work and you want to get permission to create said derivative work. There's only one problem: You can't track down the copyright holder. You pay hundreds of dollars for the copyright office to do more research. They can't track down the copyright holder. Or maybe they find an address for you to write a letter to, and in a few weeks, it's returned to sender unopened. You've just discovered that the work you want to use is an orphan work. The orphan work problem is widely cited by copyright experts all the time.
    6. Even after the author is long dead, their estates are overly litigious over anything that remotely touches the author's work, often in cases that are strong fair use cases. Examples include ABC's Michael Jackson documentary, which brought Disney to say that copyright shouldn't be used by overzealous estates demanding payment for every single use (despite Disney being that very same thing most of the time), and ComicMix's Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go, which was sued by Dr. Seuss's Enterprises only for the judge to rule that of course its a transformative fair use!
    These are 6 ways that copyright harms the public outside of legally being able to get stuff for free, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. So, sorry, you lose. Copyright is largely not needed and creates more headaches and hassles than necessary. Enjoy your comment being flagged for free!

  • On the post: Mathew Higbee Cuts And Runs When Finally Challenged On A Questionable Shakedown

    Rico R. ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2019 @ 07:17pm

    Re:

    Are you kidding me? If a work truly sucks, then it has more copyright protection... I mean, look at all the 100% valid DMCA takedowns against negative reviews of films and music! /s

  • On the post: A True Story Of 'Copyright Piracy': Why The Verve Will Only Start Getting Royalties Now For Bittersweet Symphony

    Rico R. ( profile ), 28 May, 2019 @ 08:31am

    As an independent musician, I've always held the belief that unless I was signed to the big guys (which I wouldn't want to pursue anyway, for obvious reason), it would be costly and/or near impossible for me to clear a sample for a copyrighted work. This article opened my eyes that even the big guys not only don't get that right, but they screw over artists in the process.

    I first heard Bittersweet Symphony on Pandora years ago, and I only learned there was a sample when I looked it up on Wikipedia. I did not know that the iconic violin melody was NOT the sampled portion until I read this article. If it is designed to flow from the sample to the actual song, then CONGRATULATIONS! This a**hole just claimed copyright infringement on a common chord progression played by an orchestra. Mind you, this song was released 8 years PRIOR to the disastrous Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films case with this gem in the ruling:

    Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.

    If copyright maximalists claim copyright's first purpose is to help artists get paid for their creative efforts (which it isn't), then this situation actually SHOWS the dangers of copyright protection. They got a proper license to use the orchestral recording of a common chord progression, but because the chord progression was lifted from a copyrighted composition where the lyrics are protected but the melody (which is what was sampled) are public domain, the owner of the lyrics decides that he can control everything related to the song and get 100% of the profits. In what sane copyright maximalist position is this even morally right?

    I guess the moral of the story is: If I sample in the future, I'll just stick to sampling LibriVox recordings of public domain Christmas hymns!

  • On the post: Conan O'Brien Explains The Insanity Of Fighting Bogus Joke Stealing Lawsuit For Years

    Rico R. ( profile ), 10 May, 2019 @ 11:40am

    Serving copyright infringement lawsuits be like...

    Knock knock.
    Who's there?
    I copied.
    I copied who?
    You know who you copied... See you in court!

  • On the post: Apples Only For Apple: Apple Opposes A German Bicycle Path

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 May, 2019 @ 09:17pm

    Confusingly dissimilar...?

    To me, the ApfelRoute logo looks closer to the Intel logo than the Apple logo... Not confusingly similar, of course! But if Apple, Inc. doesn't understand that trademarks aren't like other kinds of "IP" (at least here in the states), it'll only be a matter of time before they start going over actual apple companies, especially McIntosh. I know they likely named their Macintosh computer lines after that apple brand, but we now live in an age where dates don't matter for "IP" infringement... Just look at the earlier article about the Jimmy Fallon/ContentID blunder!!

  • On the post: The DOJ Isn't Buying T-Mobile's Nonsensical Merger Benefit Claims

    Rico R. ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2019 @ 10:53am

    This isn't rocket science!

    Taking the companies' names and industry out of it, can anyone tell me how it makes sense that a merger of two companies that are in the same exact industry and compete with each other would somehow miraculously spur competition in the same exact industry? Especially when there are only like 4 major companies in that industry? It doesn't pass the laugh test!!

  • On the post: Legacy Music Industry Shouldn't Get To Watch Over The Royalties Of Independent Songwriters

    Rico R. ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2019 @ 12:02pm

    I'm an independent musician, and this is the first time I'm hearing about this comment period on the Music Modernization Act, and it's almost over! I say this with the utmost respect, but if Techdirt, a non-major small-time news operation, is the first time I hear about a potentially troubling implementation of updated copyright law in a way that directly affects me, there's a major disconnect between legacy gatekeepers and actual creators. I have to wonder if legacy players are hoping that smaller independent artists (like myself) just don't do anything so they can make money off of works they don't own or represent. And they say that copyright law is designed to protect small creators like me? Yeah, right!!

  • On the post: Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2019 @ 08:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ...constantly accusing others of their own faults...
    ...they're nothing but a habitual liar and troll.
    Did you just also describe the President of the United States?

  • On the post: Report: In Bollywood, Movie Piracy Is Largely Carried Out By Rival Publishing Houses

    Rico R. ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2019 @ 04:36pm

    Crying wolf, much?

    Movie studios whine about the existence of piracy when piracy is mostly caused by themselves. This isn't the first time this happened; remember Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube? They uploaded videos to YouTube themselves, claimed said uploads infringed on their copyrights, and then sued Google over it. I know this isn't quite the same as this case here, but I have to wonder how much longer people will keep believing "Piracy is harming the industry" when this isn't necessarily what appears to be happening? The industry continually breaks box office records but claim piracy must be stopped at all costs. But when you're the one causing piracy, it definitely doesn't look good!

  • On the post: Bogus DMCA Takedown Targeting Indian Copyright Blog Demonstrates The Problems Of Notice And Takedown

    Rico R. ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2019 @ 11:27am

    Re: Oh, my god. ONE more anomaly of mistaken -- NOT "bogus" URL.

    You've written this story how many times with only changed names?
    This would be a valid criticism if this hasn't happened a lot of the time. This is a true story, and if the same negative thing keeps happening because of a law, maybe it's time to look at revising that law.
    And that's a few hundred anomalies out of the BILLIONS of links to stolen content, kids.
    Copying is not theft. And even if it were, how do you know that there are billions of links that are infringing? Techdirt's written about Google receiving takedown notices for links not even in their index. And just because most takedowns aren't contested (i.e. with a counter-notice submitted) does not mean that those takedowns are automatically legitimate.
    You need some actual substantive argument against DMCA. This and all similar mistakes ain't.
    Really? Copyright holders are given a massive tool to silence all kinds of speech, infringing or not, all by screaming "infringement" in a takedown notice. Remove copyright from the equation, and it's equal to censorship. As I've said above, this IS a legitimate and substantive argument against the DMCA. Even if these mistakes are as minuscule in amount as you say, it's the fact that they're still taken down that is important.
    Not exactly true: I think if it's "filtered" you could only mean "publicly displayed", else how it's checked?
    Technically, you're correct, but to echo your own words, I think you need some actual substantive argument to make the case for upload filters. The fact that it still must be uploaded in order for some computer program to determine if it's infringing or not ain't it.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Says Of Course You Need To Register Your Copyright Before You Can Sue; Copyright Trolls & Hollywood Freak Out

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well.
    Steve Jobs. Albert Einstein. Adam Young. Temple Grandin. All successful and sane people who either have Asperger's/Autism or is believed to have had it. In fact, Einstein helped us change our perspective on reality. Really, that's why one of his theories is called Special Relativity. Anyway, I'm autistic as well, and copyright has been one of my "obsessive interests". Ask anyone from my college classes. So I know that plagiarism isn't necessarily a case of copyright infringement. And again, no source is given, let alone the title of the books you said were plagiarized. So why should we believe you? And as far as being "picked on" by being "some random internet slug", I think you need to re-evaluate your "dumb Aspie" remark before you complain about any harassment going on. Any sane person, autistic or not, will find that offensive!

  • On the post: Who Needs Article 13: Italian Court Finds Facebook Liable For Hosting Links

    Rico R. ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2019 @ 01:00pm

    Remember Zoom? Now replace the kids with teens and adults, and replace Box 350 with an upload button. That's the kind of platform copyright maximalists want for the Internet: One where gatekeepers screen everything and decide what is and is not posted online.

    Now, if copyright maximalists have their way, thanks to the Italian court ruling, Techdirt is now liable for me linking to an infringing clip of an old PBS Kids show that you can't buy on DVD or stream legally anywhere. Just keep circulating the tapes while you can, folks, because if Article 13 passes, the Internet will be as dead as Zoom!!

  • On the post: One Person's Unsettling Experience With A $20k Higbee Copyright Troll Demand Letter

    Rico R. ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2019 @ 01:40pm

    Re: copyrightMinimalists

    I’m a progressive liberal that’s all for common-sense copyright reform (if not abolishing copyright altogether). Considering you likely believe the Di$ney view on intellectual property, keep in mind that Walt Disney built his company using a once robust and fairly-recent public domain, had rumored ties to anti-semitism, and his family has lobbied to extend copyright so many times just to keep the first Mickey Mouse cartoon (which itself was a ripoff of Steamboat Bill) outside of the public domain. Calling this anti-copyright movement a part of the “alt-right” is so low a blow that it makes you and the rest of the trolls more desparate than our treasonist President. And considering Smollett is likely to be found guilty of faking his attack, there is more to the Covington story than we were first led to believe, and the general fact that copying is not theft, that should be enough to discredit you altogether. Get your facts straight and make a logical argument, or get a new hobby.

  • On the post: German Politician Thinks Gmail Constituent Messages Are All Faked By Google

    Rico R. ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2019 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    Copyright is not legacy. Companies purchase the rights from artists who lack mass distribution, and in return most artists get rich. Those who get screwed usually deal with fly-by-night labels or people they trusted, not the biggest players. That's why the top-shelf talent won't even work with indies. Listen to the horror stories of unprofessional productions (lack of insurance being one example), or not getting paid, nonunion work or union rules not being followed, and there's a reason these companies have that "legacy."
    I'm an independent musician who has put ALBUMS on iTunes, Spotify, etc. I have not had any sales, only streaming royalties totaling up to less than $5. So you would think I would be ALL FOR Article 13. You'd be wrong. If a major label offered to turn me into a star tomorrow in exchange for my rights, I wouldn't take their deal. NOT because I don't want to move up within the industry, but because of the industry's view on copyright not aligning with mine. What I'd consider "free publicity" they'd consider "copyright infringement". They'd call money from Content ID claims "royalties", but I don't want that kind of royalty. Furthermore, you're really generalizing artists who get screwed over who signed to a major label. And nowadays, why would you want to go to a gatekeeper with a chance to get screwed over when you can put music out independently without gatekeepers? That way, if you don't like what you're getting, it's 100% in your control and you can do whatever you want. As far as collaborating with "indies", you again are generalizing it. There are plenty of independent productions that follow the union rules, get union workers, all without the need to go to a gatekeeper for their blessing. You're painting a picture where the gatekeepers and the industry has everything figured out, and that anyone who says they can do it without them is destined to fail. That's no longer the case in the 21st century.
    Masnick, on the other hand, is a loudmouthed, cowardly (as in lets his commenters bully people as if he shouldn't endure any consequences for that), NOBODY whose sole purpose seems to be seeding Google with sentence-long headlines that people can read without even clicking to his site.
    Bully. Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. Bully. Verb. Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants. Tell me this: How is what you say not make you a bully? Furthermore, using sound, logical arguments to rebut arguments like this is not bullying. Even if you're feelings are hurt because you don't like what you're reading doesn't make that bullying.
    What was in the other post? The top 20 searches on YOUTUBE (owned by Google) said something, yet Google itself talked about "good censorship." This is predicated on a belief that the audience is stupid and easily manipulated.
    Is there a source saying Google talked about "good censorship"? And as far as the audience being manipulated, come on! Even those in the US who are for copyright law are against Article 13. Just because you disagree with their logic, and Google sides with their logic, does not mean Google manipulated those people. What's next: Assuming everyone who uses an Android phone is against Article 13 because of Google?
    Copyrightholders and governments have had enough of piracy. One way or another, it's on the way out. Anyone who doesn't like what this does to the internet should blame the pirates, not the government.
    First off, copyright holders lobbied the governments for this kind of law that will screw up the Internet. I already addressed how Article 13 won't kill piracy in another comment (presumably to you), but to recap: Article 13 won't stop piracy; it'll only mess up the rest of the internet platforms who are trying to avoid copyright infringement (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, etc.). If we want to stop Article 13, we need to talk to government officials. Talking to "pirates" will do absolutely nothing!

  • On the post: Article 13 Was Purposefully Designed To Be Awful For The Internet; EU Moves Forward With It Anyway

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2019 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Never mind your lack of proof on people getting rich off of piracy. Never mind the fact that your mention of a mailing list makes absolutely no sense. (The only time I have to enter my email for a mailing list for free content is when the said free content is made available for free in exchange for my email by the copyright holder themselves. That is NOT "piracy" because it's authorized by the copyright holder.) Let's talk about "the end of Piracy Raod" because if you think that Article 13's passage is going to result in a quick and painful death for TPB and Torrent sites, you're sadly mistaken.

    If, as you will put it, someone wants to go out of their way to create a site or app whose sole purpose is to help facilitate copyright infringement, they're going to do so. Article 13 would only add the liability they already face when they do so, and I'm not even sure it's going to do that. If you think that those that run sites like TPB are going to stop operating if Article 13 passes, then you've got another thing coming. The DMCA in the US didn' stop piracy, and you think passing another law in another region is going to change that? Copyright infringement is already illegal, but the "pirates" behind the "piracy" don't care, and they could care less about how copyright law is going to change.

    All Article 13 will do is take sites that aren't trying to help its users infringe copyright, follow the DMCA to the letter, and even has a plethora of user-generated content that is wholly original, and make them liable if even 1 second of an infringing upload is found. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, and many more have WAY more to worry about with Article 13 than TPB. YouTube's copyright system is broken to the point where abusive Content ID claims are almost laughable at this point, and if Article 13 passes, not only will Content ID be here to stay, but it will likely be made a billion times worse. I wouldn't even be surprised if all monetization claims are blocked in the EU because of this.

    So no, Article 13 won't be the end of Piracy Road. Piracy will continue unscathed, while the rest of the Internet gets screwed over.

  • On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM Didn't Even Last A Decade… And Is Still Screwing Over Movie Fans

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2019 @ 07:01pm

    Re: Movies Anywhere ...

    Can you blame the media companies? All their asking for is Fair Play in the digital world!

Next >>