judge rules content owners must consider fair use before sending takedown requests
 

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08...ider-fair-use-


the shotgun approach of sending takedown request has a new and potentially massive liability

The court allowed a copyright holder to be sued for sending a "bogus" take down request against a fair use use of their content.

Wow.. interesting indeed!!

aint it , my company had to double it rates for software takedowns and put in extra requirements that had to be met by our customers.

yet for some reason removeyourcontent.com has not made similar changes to their operations.

Not sure how they can get around the court ruling, or if all their customer suddenly are on the hook for this liability when they "screw up"

hmm...:(

shit....

Which hair needs to be split the bogus letters (not like those are common), or what is fair use?

You are not employed by Ryc, thus, you do not know our internal operations and we don't appreciate you speaking as if you do.

that my point, before companies like mine and removeyourcontent.com didn't have to worry about fair use, we could hire know nothing grunts to send out the takedown notices.

You can no longer just assume that because i made it and your using it, it's a violation.

You have to devote resource to determining if that use is authorized by the copyright acts fair use statutes.

your prices have not gone up since the ruling, you have no new requirements listed on your web site. I know your business concept pretty well because i have a similar company (for software not videos) and we did have to make such changes on advice of council.

IT is a legitimate observation and question, either you know something i don't which means i can save money and put my prices back down to pre ruling levels. or you have opened your customer to a huge liability by not addressing this issue properly.

Hence my question. If it is the latter i don't care because the changes i made cover my ass, if it is the former i would really like to know since those change would therefore represent a wasted expense.

I highly doubt the infringers RYC is targeting would have any claim to fair use. This is a fairly unique situation.

So your going for the fair use hair. Unless I am very confused a lot of your posts have been about the argument of such fair use and copies for archive and so forth. Going back to beta max and such rulings. Do I have the wrong person?

I am the copyright holder. I did file for copyright status. The only potential for fair use would be small snippets for review purposes, or in some instances parody. Personal backup does not extend to a shared network no matter how you slice it and even if you only back up a tiny portion of the whole. It still is very damn cut and dry under 99.9% of all cases even with that ruling which had more to do with sending fake take down notices.

Hey I need a new sig I want to promote your removal company free of charge

just drop the graphic or text or link in a reply here

I think your service is shit:2 cents::2 cents:

think whoever runs RYC is cluesless is fuck and I would never trust them to remove anything for me unless I was looking to lose sells seeing as how they do not investigate or pay attention to whats going on

a very shitty service indeed.... I would never do biz with Remove Your Content

in before shit gets crazy

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

backup

recover

time shifting

format shifting

commentary

parody

all of these now have to be verified not to be applicable BEFORE the take down request goes out.

I have talked about how torrents can be used to timeshift/backup/recover a right to view that you paid for.

how do the courts define "commentary"?

shits not gonna get crazy ... im not even gonna reply to the clueless fucks wen they come in here spouting off whatever

They sent like 25 DMCA notices to one of my colo companies for some links a user posted on one of my forums after seeing the forum posted here on GFY

instead of contacting me... or saying anything to me...

They sent this pitiful excuse for a DMCA notice to the company I pay thousands per month

Firs of all.... I checked some of the links one of the users postd ... and although the link was named one thing the actual images did not exist at the location he posted... clueless waste of everyones time number 1( I hope people are not paying for this

The idiot could have easily ICQed me and said " hey pussyserver... one of your posters has posted some links to rapidshare on one of your forums

I would have removed it

no time wasted for anyone

but instead ... in an effort to pretend to be really doing something for their clients ... they sent out the poorly worded DMCA emails that had my co lo company laughing their asses off

2nd of all ... The zips the other guy linked too contained 12 images... all with watermark intact ... a zip with 12 images... being accessed by users of a 6500 member forum ... DMCA notice sent to take down

pretty fuckin clueless you ask me

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

a lot of the ruling in this case apply to torrent sites, and the fair use right of timeshifting (which you ignored)

Up to you, ignore any fair use right you want to, pretend that only the original fair use rights defined originally exist, and ignore all those established by the courts. It will cost you.

Most people that have stolen content on there site and get dmca's from us think our service is shit, YOU got caught with stolen content on your site, so we did our job, We Dmca the host to document the initial infringement and icq messages to webmasters don't cut it

I read the ruling when it came out a few days ago. Already have a lawyer also going over it yet again although it did not change the actual copyright laws themselves. I did not ignore time shifting just like I did not ignore commentary, I just made a general statement of some standard possible fair uses.

you are lying

I stated exactly what happened above

You wasted time to DMCA 12 images on a regular surfer forum that had zero ads, all copyrights intact and you knew who the webmaster was ... a completely legal forum that is diffrent than anything you have ever seen

how much did you charge your clients forthat??

Then you lied and said I had illegal content on the site

your service sucks... I hope people are not paying you for this

not trying to be funny... but I would have wanted a forum with 6500 members to have access to 12 images with my site watermark intact

You should try providing a real service ... like taking down tube sites or something ... not lurking around GFY tryna make a buck off a non issue

if anything I am sure you cost them a sell

and FYI... I could have left all 12 pf those pictures up under fair use ... but I deleted the user post out of respect for RK..... not you bullshit service

no court ruling ever changes the law itself, it simple clarifies the legal interpretation of that law. which is the point, before that ruling arguing that using a cloud to timeshift your right to view a tv show (movie, paysite videos) was a logical extension of the beta max case. Now you can say it a court supported interpretation of the law.

noone bit on the "define commentary" question


could something like youtube claim that they are just commentary and review, as their content is generally only a few minutes and every video has comments and a rating system on it


where does the legal definition of "commentary" stand?

There's a big difference between sites like this http://inhot.tv/home/ and "fair use". Fair use of 84K videos?

wow, that is a shitload of content

how does that text message billing set-up work?

We're working on this one right now. and that the sms shit is in greek, plus we've already hit him 3 times ... he keeps changing the video setup and no it's not legal

at first glance his site reminded me of those russian mp3 sites where they offer virtually everything that has ever been put out and charge you half price for it, pretty slimy

you obviously dont know the meaning of fair use.

big difference between someone having a pic of the content in the background of a photograph, or someone dancing and playing music, and you posting the content right from the members area.

Fair use in this scenario would be a couple video themselves having sex while watching a porn movie. Putting it on a Tube site or Torrent is not fair use. It's stealing.

Add to this the odds on a Tube site turning up to fight the case and you can see why this post is spot on.

having a song in the background of a home video is not really comparable to taking content and breaking copyright law.

home movies have television shows in the background, music etc... that should remain fair use. this article os about a baby video...

This bozo and his fair use bullshit never stops.

there is no fair use of pornography anyway.

when are you going to get it thru you head that a legal precedent does not just apply to the very limited scope in which is it first applied. The requirement is not limited to only to the sampling of 29 second video as is this case, but is broad enought to apply to every fair use that exists.

as i have pointed out torrents can be used for timeshifting (see dvr in a cloud article) and for back and recover (see the other post i have made) those types of fair use are also equally protected.

the requirement to fully service those fair use rights before making takedown request is now here. because it now has been established that you are liable for false take down requests.


Target a person who country has a piracy tax (see canadian, sweden etc) with a takedown notice for a content stream that is covered by such tax and you are shit out of luck,.

you have to remember that a lawyer with spare billing hours can now make money just looking for false takedown request. Devote that time to defending that right, and counter suing (shot gun in reverse) and the copyright holder would be forced to pay all legal fees.

If you think no lawyer which is underbilling would not take advantage of such a ruling you are joking. Hell because they can get free publicity for their actions (as the champion of the little guy) it makes good business sense to do so.

Gideon, you are late on this subject, someone else already posted this information in another thread, and that is shameful because this is your own favorite misguided issue. And there is hardly any realistic effect from this situation because it's obvious and transparent that all of those people "sharing" copyrighted content are not doing so for any legitimate reason like making a parody or timeshifting, they are just giving it away to complete strangers that they have never met for free or are using it to run their own for-profit porn web sites. It's pure criminality on it's face, and dare I say could even be considered racketeering since it often involves more than one felony crime.

Exactly.

My guess is that this ruling applies to the jackasses who do something like, scanning an image of a photograph, then claiming that SCAN is their property. Where they did not own the original copyright on the photograph.

Things of that nature.

If you look on some of the mainstream boards, there are plenty of similar examples where people are claiming copyright when they have none. Like on anime, pictures, and many other things.

For us as an industry, and those who actually produce content. This ruling doesn't mean shit.

:2 cents:

actually do a search you will see that i am the first person to post anything regarding this case, all though it was based on the response to the 2nd motion to dismiss in this case.


and the position made by the eff on behalf of lenz. The current post is the link to the plain english interpretation of the ruling.

As to the arguement about people true intentions, well that is at best a circular proof and at worst a slanderous misrepresentation. I can only speak for myself but i subscribe to bbc canada not because i want to stay up till 4 am to catch dr who episodes but because such a subscription makes my downloading from the torrents the act of using the swarm (a cloud) to timeshift a show i PAID FOR. Just because i did not pay a rental fee for a pvr recorder, just because i got a copy which does not require me to click a little button to skip the commercial does not change the fact that for me, i am using the torrent to timeshift my PURCHASED viewing rrights.

Thats a stupid way of doing it. Just use DVR.

There are a number of things wrong with your post.

Example, if HBO is going to play a movie that doesn't mean I get to download said movie and seed it to thousands.


Lets not forget that 99.5% of the people downloading torrents are just stealing.

well said :thumbsup

Also why do you guys go back and forth with him? Its hard to play tennis if no one hits the balls back.

1. torrents are free
2. torrents are commercial free
3. torrents don't require me to program anything
4. torrents are not dependent on power, etc working to get the file
5. since i can get the data anytime i want there is no limits on hard drive files- i can rotate stuff in and out

vs

1. dvr have to rented from my cable company
2. the commericals are skipable but still ther
3. i need program the dvr
4. if power goes out i miss my show completely
5. if the hard drive is full i have to give up some show
6. and i can only get it back when the show re-airs

both the dvr and the torrent do the same thing they allow me to timeshift my right to view content i paid for. The courts have recognized my right to timeshift using a cloud now so there is no reason why i should be forced to use the inferior dvr to do what i want to do.

first of all no one is getting a working copy from me, so even if the make available ruling was in force it would not apply (since it was overturned that no longer applys)

second in the case of publically available tv shows like lost (which beirn is suing thepiratebay.org for) 99.5% of the population paid for that show when they paid their cable bill. The betamax case gave them the right to timeshift that video, the new cablevision gave them the right to timeshift with a cloud.

It not stealing because copyright infringement can not be stealing.

It not copyright infringement because timeshifting makes it legally authorized by the act itself (fair use) which is the point of the current ruling i posted in this thread

a couple of extra points
tv shows represent 54% of all bittorrent traffic to date.
2. a vast majority of this is delayed aquisition of a show (ie me downloading all the jericho episodes i missed after my friends told me it was a great show)

DVR don't let me do stuff like that, and had it not been for torrents i would never had watched the second season on tv when it aired, because i would not have jumped in to the show at the point i was convinced to give it a chance.

gideon, shut the fuck up you cheap ass pirate.

tell me how you really feel :winkwink:

hey if you want to continue ignoring fair use, using a shot gun approach with dmca notices and take your chances in court.

When you realize that any shyster lawyer who want to pad his billable hours can now do so by taking these case on behalf of "fair use".

Add the liability for exposing their personal porn preferences.

Add the cost of generating the same level of redundant backup using traditional back methods ( #seeds*#online back sites*monthly charge*12/current interest rate) and it will be a very expensive bill on your part for "accidently" violating fair use.

I think that there will be people who will see this ruling as an oppertunity to make money by "backing up" their viewing rights to the torrent sites, simply to cash in when a "bogus" takedown request comes in and denies them their "fair use" right to back up the content.

blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa blaa ......... :321GFY

agreed


Digital media is what this industry is in the business of selling. Content producers, programs, affilates, nobody who is suppose to be on this forum is an advocate of illegal tubesites, torrents, or exploiting grey area loopholes with regards to other peoples intellectual properties.

The only function this gideongallery character appears to serve is to attempt to justify every form of piracy that exist.

He needs to go post on the piratebay forum or somewhere else where people might enjoy his rhetoric.

Why are pirates so bad?

Because they just aaaarghgrhhghghhggh.....

When are you going to get it through your very thick head that legal precedent has been set time and time again. If you want to go and find them do a search on Google for Copyright violations and convictions. You have to be clutching at straws here.

Maybe it's a reflection on the company in your signature.

Fair use is fine and no one complains about fair use of our products. Someone putting up a site and using stolen content is not fair use. When are you going to get that into your thick head?

Paul you keep trumpeting those lossses here whenever you can
i am fully aware of most of the losses you keep talking about, when they were bogus i railed against them.
The point is so far i am 3/3 now , each time i said the ruling was wrong it has been. While each time you trumped it as the right thing you have been wrong because it has been reversed by a higher court.

A large number of the convictions you keep talking about are really just wins because the RIAA as deeper pockets, and simply outspent the defendants.

This ruling changes all that, because it create a monetary payment methology for lawyers who want to defend such fair uses. Lawyers will simply defend the fair use users of copyright, in court racking up their billable hours.(you only pay if we win) They will then sue for those court cost. Use your deep pockets to target a small guy to get a settlement and it just going to be used against you in the long run.



of course you are, you are complaining about tube sites access shifting your content, your complaining about torrent sites timeshifting/backing up/recovering your content. Whenever you want to complain about fair use, you start the siren song again "that not fair use".

the problem is that only way you can make such a statement is to ignore the precedents set by "old" case like the betamax case. The problem is you have to pretend that case is not still referenced today (august 12, 2008) to extend those same rights to newer technologies (like the cloud).

i love this arguement so because i don't support your "right" to ignore fair use there is something wrong with what i say.

Because i want to respect the laws as they are written there is something wrong. The first ammendment protects your rights to sell porn, turning what would otherwise be an illegal act into something legal. Fair use does the same thing for torrent sites and tube sites. They have just as much a right to exist as you do.

You don't want to fulfil your fair use responsibilities well then they have a right to step in and do it for you. They also have a right to make the money for doing so.