actually re-read my post about sopa i said i would support it if the penalty for making a false claim was the revocation of the offending companies copyright.

So the real question

Is how many totally innocent sites should a copyright holder be allowed to destroy before they suffer a penalty equal to what they are dishing out.

Come on guys you really should recognise this shit when you see it. Google/Youtube are the biggest priates out their, the biggest tech empire the world has ever seen built on the backs of every one elses content.

Of course they are going to leak info that scaremongers against SOPA. Its in their interests to do so.

That's the problem, the law specifically gives them IMMUNITY from being prosecuted for wrongfully shutting down a site.

So if any of these companies, ad networks, advertisers, search engines, registrars or registries don't want to pay the extra cost of actually investigating if the claim is true or not, they can just shut it down and be done with it. It's easier for godaddy to just block your domain rather than actually look into whether or not you're actually doing something wrong. And how are they gonna know anyways whether you have a license for everything on your site?

How about if the tubes place watermarks on all of their licensed material with words to the effect that the content was used with the explicit permission of xyz.com? This way, if they really do have permission, the law could perhaps be crafted to provide those posting such claims additional time to establish as much. And, in the event that they then can't, they will have shown themselves to be bald faced liars and no one, aside from gideon, will shed even a single tear when the all out shit storm hits them.

The idea here is to protect the truly innocent from bogus claims while hastening the demise of the most blatent offenders.

Note: Given the nature of file lockers and file sharing forums, this "SOPA lite" option wouldn't work with them.
.

Yeah, the problem isn't with the sites that wants to follow the law. It's the sites that doesn't that is the problem.
What we should be careful about though, is to make laws to target the illegal activities, but end up hurting all others instead. And that's what SOPA will do.
There must be other, better ways to fight piracy than this.

The law.

You quoted part of it.

In a court of law you have to consider the whole thing. Not selective quoting. You fail.

And this is the argument of the anti brigade. Taking little snippets of the law and selectively choosing them to back their argument to do nothing or do so little it's pointless. Any lawyer who tries that approach will get eaten alive by the opposition, then the judge and finally his client.

And any company when asked "What was your reasonable belief?" Replies "We got an email saying this site had pirated content on it so, without checking who [email protected] is. We decided to pull the plug."b Will face hefty damages.

Of course the loop hole for most who want it. Is in the law for those who look close, except maybe with domain registration.

Funny how statistics and conclusions change as the "word-goes-around", how it can be manipulated and twisted around to promote an agenda, and how uncritical some are against what actually lies behind the numbers and words they are presented. Not to mention the timelines. Pulling something stoneaged out of the hat from when time, technologies and things were very different, makes the arguments more or less useless.

1. The headline here suggests Google says 57% "trying to gimp each other".

2. The article suggests it's 37%:
"At all". 37% were not valid "at all" the article claims...

3. But their source says:

Here, the other article does not use the phrase "at all", but "were not valid". And it doesn't explain what that means.
Further on, it doesn't explain if 37% are of the total amount of notices or out of those 57% (which would give 21%).

4. That article has quoted a footnote from a submission made by Google back in 2009:
Here, Google use the words "improper" and "inaccuracy", and in the footnote they also leave out what those 37% actually are.


5. Now lets go to the old (2006) original paper footnoted, but not explained in details by Google:
So, those 37% are nothing but notices that are outside US jurisdiction and not directly subject to DMCA. But that doesn't mean they are not still valid "at all" in terms of general copyright claims and it certainly does not back up what is suggested here.

that bullshit analysis and you know it

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

and it does not only exist when your talking about competiting companies, in fact it happens more often in non competing companies (bloggers, news, free speech)

so it actually more likely to be over 80% are bogus, not 21%.

if you read the actual study you will notice it close to 67% because of the overlap.

Gideon, unlike you as always, my analyze is backed up by facts and you know it.

There are no facts here confirming that 80%, 57%, 37% or 21% of the copyright claims are business entities trying to "gimp" / make false claims of copyrights they are not entitled to against competitors. The original paper says that those 37% are DMCA notices targeting sites outside DMCA jurisdiction. Nothing else. Nothing about "other" motives.

total lie

http://static.chillingeffects.org/Ur...12-summary.pdf

here is the exact article referenced

the reference to 37% being outside the united states was

in addition to the already establish 37% bogus


oh and that 37% doesn't include the 1/11 which are technically invalid because they had statutory flaws.

The title is spot on re % using DMCA for dealing with the competition

your title sucks.

The legal landscape for IP looks like its going to be in for some big changes in 2012

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.

His trolling is better than Markham's. He always gets people to reply and show him attention. Always. Even though it is totally futile discussing ANYTHING with him.

Yes I noticed long time ago,in different discussions he argue against both "sides" in this matters. First he says one thing about a subject, then he says the quite opposite to another. Just for the sake of argument. That's trolling, obviously.

Exactly moron

as i said before

37% were non copyright complaints



that section did not include statutory defects

like bad filings


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 complaint

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%)

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.

Gideon, your math sucks. You have to multiply, not add the percents. :1orglaugh

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. :1orglaugh

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. :1orglaugh

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.

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%

Re-state your above scenario and change "picture" to "picture of CP" and that you constantly do it and AT&T has been informed about it and it keeps happening but
AT&T doesn't give a shit and they continue to let your pics go thru.

Try that one.

Even in your example the law is clear, all AT&T has to do is turn the evidence over to the police be completely innocent.

That would be equal to Google saying to the copyright holder prosecute the pirate bay leave us out if it.

fuck DMCA

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.

the problem is the DMCA didn't find the middle ground if it did it the penalty for making a bogus complaint would have been as sever as infringing on copyright.

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.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you actually made an anti sopa arguement and you didn't even realize it

as ive said many times, should be heavy fine for sending fake DMCA. yes, most are bogus.

(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.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050891

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.

Exactly. The DMCA should be tweaked to keep this business reality in mind.

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).

Is that 35K in US Dollars or in Chuck E Cheese Tokens? j/k either way, serious talk, man!

my totally liquid mutual funds has 36k in Canadian dollars which is about 35k US.