The title is spot on re % using DMCA for dealing with the competition
-
your title sucks.Comment
-
The legal landscape for IP looks like its going to be in for some big changes in 2012Comment
-
Gideon, 30% + 37% is over 57%, so that "addition" has nothing to do with those business entities. The "addition" is meant as another finding, not math.
Your math skills are useless, just like your trolling on this board.Comment
-
Exactly moron
as i said before
no where in the article does it say that the non copyright notices only happened when it was a competing company.
it could exist in circumstances where the company is not a competitor
(like the mega upload example)
using copyright takedown notices for privacy issues, use of personal image are all inappropriate
37% were non copyright complaints
As a rule of thumb, we tried to capture notices where a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise. Examples range from the clearly
problematic—for example, recipes, prices and metatag information, which are unlikely to
be covered by copyright—to instances of very thin copyright claims, such as website
HTML “structure.” We also included notices where the target was likely to have a fair use
defense. A much smaller number of notices in this category were counted due to other
substantive concerns, such as questions regarding the ownership of the copyright in
question: for example, a small number of notices appear to be sent not by the copyright
holder or a representative, but by a party with some other interest in the material, such
as the subject of a photograph
that section did not include statutory defects
like bad filings
Significant statutory flaws plagued one out of every eleven
notices. Fig. ES-6, above. By “significant” statutory flaws, we mean one of the four flaws
that render a notice invalid according to the terms of the statute:
11
failure to identify the
allegedly-infringing work; failure to identify the allegedly-infringed work; failure to provide
a way to locate the allegedly-infringing work; or failure to provide contact information for
the complainant. Other statutory flaws—the good faith and penalty of perjury
statements, and the signature—do not exempt an OSP from responding to the notice,
and they are not included in this figure. Takedowns based on notices with the significant
flaws are problematic in a number of ways
and jurisdictional issues
considering that sopa is designed to fix that problem (and therefore proves that the DMCA was never entitled to legally do this) those are all bogus complaintOne surprising result was the large number of notices
targeting material that appeared to reside outside the United States, particularly for
Google notices (253, or 34%, of the Google notices). Further, a small number of notices
(6) were sent to foreign OSPs. While the underlying claim might be strong in the United
States, foreign targets may have local defenses; at the very least, foreign governments
may look askance at the ex ante takedown process of Section 512. Of course, foreignowned material may be hosted on a United States ISP’s server, subject to United States
laws. However, the vast majority of these notices are related to Google search index
results. For these notices, the material resides offshore, and Google merely provides a
link.
They however were not counted AT ALL "a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise."
yes there was some overlap (ie privacy complaint misrepresented as a copyright complaint,
with missing information, targeting a non us company) but it was never 100%
that why 67% (against both competiting and non competiting companies) of all complaints were bogus and not (37+37+10= 84%)
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
I totally agree with you. Hosting providers and sites can't hide behind the "our users are responsible" argument, because the laws are very simple about it:
1) Copyright infringement is illegal
2) Assisting criminals and providing them with means to do what they do, is illegal too and might even make you part of a criminal organization
3) Every citizen is supposed to know the law
They want to provide surfers with a way to tube content, so it's them who are responsible for finding a method to prevent copyright violation.Comment
-
Gideon, your math sucks. You have to multiply, not add the percents.
Comment
-
Well the pirates and their lovers think otherwise. Mind you they can think the Earth would be better if it was flat, doesn't mean it will happen.
I thing GG is really Filipino employed by Theo, for posting here to get the post count up. He would of got the Troll of the Year award, but he doesn't exist so not in the running.
Comment
-
If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted?
In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook.
Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users.DivaTraffic - Traffic for ModelsComment
-
put your money where your mouth is
35k says your wrong
we can ask the author themselves
i am a hundred percent certain your wrong
because if you had to multiply that number it would mean that bogus complaints like the one made by universal against lenz (someone who was not competition could not exist).
and they quite clearly do.
like i said
there is overlap it however is not 100%
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
Comment
-
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
fuck DMCAComment
-
In an ideal world, WHAT would be a solution BOTH sides can AGREE on? Is there a HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND or are you guys saying it is just a matter of black or white?
DMCA tried to find a middle ground.... It's spawned a lot of headaches.Comment
-
you do realize that 11% of girls 13-16 are sexting (sending nude pictures and videos to their boyfriends)
so the senerio your using in your example is actually happening every single day.
not only is it allowed on the network, but AT&T would face privacy fines if they monitored that data being transmitted.
you actually made an anti sopa arguement and you didn't even realize it
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
ATT is not under the US RICO Act or in most international laws a "criminal enterprise" and not the "policeman"; They have shelter of responsibilities in their contracted users' actions this is similar to the holder in due course in financial transactions -- same principles. However, if a common carrier has specific knowledge of criminal activity by the order of a court they are compelled to act -- they can limit any action to that -- receipt of a court order signed by a judge.
And so it should be; This is why adjudication exists ...
Personal property rights are a civil issue usually in copyright matters and C/P is a criminal issue. Don't compare apples and oranges -- it's pointless ...
Comment
-
as ive said many times, should be heavy fine for sending fake DMCA. yes, most are bogus.
Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?
Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com -
recent work - About meComment
-
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050891
Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?
Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About meComment
-
Well actually you can. All you do is change the law.
And no it's not the principle of you doing it on FB. You're publishing the work and as it's on FB so are they. It's like if I send pictures of a girl to a magazine and they don't cross check I own the pictures and the girl gave her permission for them to be published, the magazine is at fault. Unless she is "news worthy".
Go see a lawyer who will explain it to you. And yes I've had it explained to me by a lawyer.
What some don't understand is the days of the Wild West Internet are coming to an end. Control, regulation Law and Order are coming. Whether they like it or not.
So if you don't own the rights to publish the content on http://www.faceporn.no/videos you're in the firing line from those who do and if those gave them to you don't own the rights. You're still in the firing line.
Will this mean FB has to change? No they are not a site dedicated to piracy.
Will you will have to change? Only if your site is dedicated to piracy, but it might be wise to double check where you get content from.
All these changes will do is weed out the crooked, pirates and scum. It will not effect those who spend money online, they will have a much cleaner Internet to spend their money on. Not 100% snow white clean, just cleaner as this law will make it harder for scum to get through. And that's the bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$
If you're a freeloader who enjoys the benefits of free pirated goods, then you had better be ready to change your ways. Or not have so much selection of free goods.Comment
-
Comment
-
so why do you object to a penalty that voids your copyright if you make a bogus complaint.
If legit sites are properly protected by this law, then bogus complaints should be stopped cold. And no one should lose their copyright.
If the law leaves to much space to be abused then the penalty will make potential abusers think twice about exploiting those flaws (like they are doing with the DMCA currently).
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
Comment
Comment