Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Electronic Frontier Foundation Facebook Google The Internet Your Rights Online

Heavyweights Clash Over Policing Repeat Copyright Infringers 107

Posted by Soulskill
from the letter-of-law-vs-spirit-of-law dept.
SolKeshNaranek tips a story at TorrentFreak about an ongoing copyright case that revolves around how much effort websites need to expend to block repeat infringers after responding to DMCA requests. In 2011, a judge ruled that a website embedding videos from third parties had correctly removed links to infringing videos after receiving a DMCA request, but failed to do anything to police users who had created these links multiple times. For this, the judge said, the website would be required to adopt a number of measures to prevent repeat infringement. Google and Facebook wrote an amicus brief opposing the ruling, as did Public Knowledge and the EFF. Now the MPAA has, unsurprisingly, come out in favor. They wrote, "Contrary to the assertions of myVidster and amici Google and Facebook, search engines and social networking sites are not the only businesses that desire certainty in a challenging online marketplace. MPAA member companies and other producers of creative works also need a predictable legal landscape in which to operate. ... Given the massive and often anonymous infringement on the internet, the ability of copyright holders to hold gateways like myVidster liable for secondary infringement is crucial in preventing piracy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Heavyweights Clash Over Policing Repeat Copyright Infringers

Comments Filter:
  • Activist Judges (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:19PM (#39621821) Journal

    Nothing in copyright law or the DMCA suggests that anyone should suffer any sort of penalties for obeying DMCA notices. There is no limit on the number of DMCA notices you are allowed to obey in the DMCA. Where did this judge get the idea that the law requires this?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      More likely that this has to do with other court cases, importantly the part about:

      ...but failed to do anything to police users who had created these links multiple times.

      Wasn't this one of the things they were going after Megaupload for?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Isn't policing users who do this multiple times the Copyright holders job? Why didn't they punish the violater the first time? It seems to me they just want to pass on the hard work of playing copyright cop to someone else.

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          Right, part of the compromises in the DMCA was that all the website had to do was follow through on DMCA notices. That's it. They have no onus to actually stop infringing content unless it's reported or they willingly put it up themselves, do they?

    • Re:Activist Judges (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:38PM (#39621989)

      The DMCA safe harbor has a condition that the service provider "has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers."

      The thing is, it says "repeat infringers" not "repeatedly accused infringers." So I'm not a lawyer (and I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of anyone who is), but it seems like if you adopted a policy that says you'll terminate any user who is found liable of infringement in court on more than one occasion, that would seem to satisfy the statute. Which makes perfect sense really -- otherwise anyone could get anyone else's account terminated by making repeated fraudulent accusations. Can anyone think of a reason why that would be wrong?

      • by shentino (1139071)

        Most likely, failure to challenge, protest, or send a counter-notice is deemed an admission of fault.

        • Most likely, failure to challenge, protest, or send a counter-notice is deemed an admission of fault.

          Either that, or an unwillingness/inability to fight an expensive copyright case in court.

        • Re:Activist Judges (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hemo_jr (1122113) on Monday April 09, 2012 @04:26PM (#39622549)
          You cannot assume a lack of response to be an admission of guilt. You cannot even assume that the account holder even was aware of the notice(s) or take-downs.
          • You cannot assume a lack of response to be an admission of guilt.

            The courts do it all the time, and a default judgement will be made against you if you don't respond

        • Most likely, failure to challenge, protest, or send a counter-notice is deemed an admission of fault.

          As the first reply points out, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- there are plenty of likely reasons for someone who is not an infringer to still not to submit a counter-notice, from fearing the expense of a trial to wanting to retain their anonymity for reasons unrelated to infringement to not knowing how to submit a counter notice to the alleged infringer not knowing whether they actually had a meritorious case for fair use, etc. But I would think more importantly, why isn't that exactly the sort o

      • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday April 09, 2012 @08:15PM (#39625457)
        In regard to certain provisions of the DMCA and other measures, someone please explain to me where they can find some long-standing legal principle that allows one interest group to make other parties separately responsible and liable for protecting the first group's interests? Because that's what they are doing here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe any such legal right or principle exists. Which makes much, if not all, of the DMCA and certain other recent laws extremely questionable on the grounds of simple long-established legal principle.

        Where else in law does anything like it exist? Are telephone companies liable if people play "illegally" copied tunes for their on-hold music? Of course not. For that matter, if someone is using a telephone modem or other direct means of communication, is the telephone company liable if the users transmit copyright-infringed material? Again, of course not.

        Why? Because it is not reasonable. The telephone company is nothing but a "common carrier". They deliver data from one place to another; nothing more. Not only are they not responsible for the content of that data, they are specifically exempt from any responsibility, because end-users are solely responsible for what they send and receive.

        Not only that, but it is illegal for telephone companies to use means to determine the contents of such transmissions, without a legal warrant. While other recent laws, themselves at least as questionable about the DMCA, pretend to authorize Federal authorities to intercept that information, it is still illegal for the telephone carrier itself to do so.

        Why should ISPs be any different? Rationally, they fulfill the same "ecological niche" as a telephone company. They provide a service to carry data packets from one end user to another. And data repositories, if they are on the up-and-up, are also pretty much in the same boat; they act merely as storage places for private data that is uploaded and stored. There is no rational reason they should be responsible for any content, UNLESS they are knowingly and actively aiding and abetting crimes committed by someone else. Just as, for example, the owner of physical storage rental units is not responsible for the actual contents of said units (they make you sign a paper to that effect)... UNLESS they are knowingly aiding in the commission of crimes.

        So the whole concept is bullshit from the start. ISPs and data repositories owe the RIAA and MPAA nothing, either ethically or in legal principle. There is not a single rational reason behind holding them responsible for user-generated content, EXCEPT the rational argument that it is the easiest place to stop it. But ease is not a binding legal principle. The US Supreme Court more than once has ruled that difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse to bypass long-standing legal precedent.

        The only explanation for this kind of plan is under-the-table cronyism between big businesses and government, which has no place in justice. There is nothing in here for the consumer at all. No protection, no improvement of any market (on the contrary), and no recourse.

        It's just bad.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The money probably told him.

    • Re:Activist Judges (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NeverSuchBefore (2613927) on Monday April 09, 2012 @04:27PM (#39622561)

      The DMCA is an awful piece of legislation, anyway. Too often has it been abused. It encourages the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that we've seen so much of. Great if you don't care about collateral damage! Awful otherwise.

      And what about fake DMCA notices? Should those users be "policed," too?

      • by alexo (9335)

        The DMCA is an awful piece of legislation, anyway. Too often has it been abused. It encourages the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that we've seen so much of. Great if you don't care about collateral damage! Awful otherwise.

        The DMCA is a great piece of legislation, created by and for people[*] who "shoot first, ask questions later" and do care about collateral damage (maximizing it is their business model).

        [*] In the broadest possible sense, see "corporate personhood".

        And what about fake DMCA notices? Should those users be "policed," too?

        Somebody is not paying attention.

  • RIP MAFIAA (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I look forward to the day subhuman's like Chris Dodd, and his pack of thugs are hunted down like the vermin they are.

    I don't hate them for supporting their (dying) industry, I hate them for their lack of ethics.

    Edit: Captcha is "Burglars".

  • Right now more than 4/5 of all software in China is copyrighted by someone else that wasn't paid for it.

    Just ask IBM who goes along with this.

    Copyright should only be 17 years, renewable only by the Person (not Corporation) that created it, during their lifetime and in the year of their death by their heirs.

    Period.

    Go back. Go back. Go back to where you once belonged, America.

    P.S.: Business processes aren't copyrightable no matter how much you pretend they are.

    • by Githaron (2462596) on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:41PM (#39622021)

      Copyright should only be 17 years, renewable only by the Person (not Corporation) that created it, during their lifetime and in the year of their death by their heirs.

      Why does copyright need to renewable at all? If you can't make a profit off something in 17 years, you need to consider going into another business. Also, I would argue 10 years would be a more appropriate copyright length.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WillAffleckUW (858324)

        Well, it used to be 13, so 10 years is a good negotiation point.

        Regardless, only a Person who is a Human should be able to hold Copyright.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by jamstar7 (694492)

          Regardless, only a Person who is a Human should be able to hold Copyright.

          Silly wabbit, corporations are more of a person than humans are. The law says so.

        • by 91degrees (207121)
          Regardless, only a Person who is a Human should be able to hold Copyright.

          Why!?

          The point of copyright is to encourage creation of works. In the case of many works, particularly software, or movies, the body that is ultimately responsible for creating the work is a corporation. If we adopt your proposal, who should hold the copyright, and how will this encourage the creation of such works?
          • People create things.

            Corporations profit off of it.

            Corporations are not People, only Legal Fictions that predate the Constitution yet are NOT mentioned in it.

            • by 91degrees (207121)
              Corporations profit off of it.

              Which is exactly why they're the ones we want to encourage. If they didn't profit from it they wouldn't fund them in the first place.

              Corporations are not People, only Legal Fictions that predate the Constitution yet are NOT mentioned in it.

              I don't see why this matters either. They're pretty useful legal fictions. It means that multiple people can pool their resources to produce one legal entity greatly simplifying contracts. I'd hate it if every contract was with a
              • by pnutjam (523990)
                The problem occurs when the board members and CEO's wrest control away from the shareholders. Owning stock is supposed to mean you own a part of the company. That should give you some say in how it is run.
        • by chrismcb (983081)

          Regardless, only a Person who is a Human should be able to hold Copyright.

          Why?
          What problems will this solve?
          Why must a copyright owner be human? Corporations can't innovate and create?

        • by alexo (9335)

          Well, it used to be 13, so 10 years is a good negotiation point.

          No.

          Zero is a good negotiation point.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Runaway1956 (1322357)

        I can see that some things should be renewable. I loathe Disney for advocating all these crazy laws that we have today. But - they do have something of a point with renewable copyrights. Mickey Mouse would have gone out of copyright well before I graduated high school. Probably before I graduated elementary school - he's been around that long. But, Mickey Mouse has been a money generator all these decades.

        Let them have renewable copyrights. First renewal, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Second rene

        • by Anonymous Coward

          But, Mickey Mouse has been a money generator all these decades.

          But copyright isn't just about letting copyright holders make money. It's about allowing them to have a temporary monopoly to increase the probability that they will make a decent amount of money off of their work so that society can benefit from their current and future work. Letting them sit on previous work isn't acceptable. The longer they restrict our culture, the less it can be said to be "our" culture.

          Ten years max.

          • by pnutjam (523990)
            This copyright only applies to the content that has already been created. Their Mickey Mouse trademark would be safe. However, I could freely distribute their version of Snow White. I could create a derivitive work by cleaning it up and deepening her voice a touch. They have made plenty of money off Snow White and Fantasia.
        • by ExploHD (888637)

          I don't think they would renew even Mickey for a billion dollars!

          Considering Mickey is the face of Disney, they would. Last fiscal year they brought in 4.8 billion in net income (after taxes and expenses). The cost of renewal would be written off as a business expense, so it would be that much less that Disney would have to pay in taxes.

          • Nope. That's the thing, it isn't a "business expense". They actually have to PAY for the renewal, no tax deductions. For a billion dollars, they'd probably let Mickey slide into the public domain. They might not make any new Mickey stuff, but in the public domain, they could still USE Mickey, just as freely as you or me.

            • by omnichad (1198475)

              And even still nobody could use Mickey as their logo, as that's a trademark infringement.

        • they do have something of a point with renewable copyrights. Mickey Mouse would have gone out of copyright well before I graduated high school. Probably before I graduated elementary school - he's been around that long. But, Mickey Mouse has been a money generator all these decades.

          I don't think the ability to be a money generator for a long period of time is a good point. After all just because a hammer can continue to generate money doesn't mean the person who invented it should hold the patent forever (I know we're talking about copyrights but I think it makes the same point).

        • by Stray7Xi (698337)

          They don't need copyright to protect the Mickey Mouse brand. All they need is trademark, which has no expiration (except by abandonment). Steamboat Willy is not a profit center for Disney.

        • by Githaron (2462596)

          I can see that some things should be renewable. I loathe Disney for advocating all these crazy laws that we have today. But - they do have something of a point with renewable copyrights. Mickey Mouse would have gone out of copyright well before I graduated high school. Probably before I graduated elementary school - he's been around that long. But, Mickey Mouse has been a money generator all these decades.

          Let them have renewable copyrights. First renewal, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Second renewal, millions of dollars. Third renewal, tens of millions. Fourth renewal, hundreds of millions. Just keep upping the ante by an order of magnitude. If they want to pay, the government benefits. If they don't want to pay, the people benefit. At some stage, even Mickey Mouse will be retired. I don't think they would renew even Mickey for a billion dollars!

          I think it would be better to just protect the characters separate from the copyright and make that renewable. That way, if they are planning on making new works, they don't have to worry about another company stepping on their toes and it keeps external entities from defacing the characters in a way that would make them unprofitable to use again. The actual works those characters are in would evenually be release to the public domain. By continually paying the renewal fee a company can perpetually protect

          • I like your idea. It actually gives corporations like Disney as much as, or more than, I wanted to give them. But, the people benefit even more. 50, 60, even 70 year old Mickey Mouse films basically can't be seen today, because it's mostly all buried in Disney's vaults. If the government decreed that after some reasonable number of years, it was all public domain, I'll bet a lot of that stuff would make it back into circulation.

            I could be wrong - but I still like your idea.

      • by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday April 09, 2012 @04:04PM (#39622273) Homepage Journal

        Asimov's Foundation was written in 1945, the last of the trilogy in 1952 (the year I was born). It was published by Gnome Press, a tiny publisher without the clout to properly market it, and it languished until the '60s with Asimov not earning a dime from it until Doubleday bought the publication rights from Gnome. It was a Hugo award winner and a big moneymaker after Doubldeday bought it.

        That's why.

        As to your "ten years", iirc I started on my Paxil Diaries book almost ten years ago. I still need to design its dust jacket. BTW It's on TPB, I put it there myself.

        Seventeen years may seem like a lifetime to someone in college, but it really isn't that long a time at all. You'll find that out if you live long enough. I wouldn't want copyright, even after a renewal, to last any longer than 30 years, though.

        • by hemo_jr (1122113) on Monday April 09, 2012 @05:30PM (#39623549)
          Asimov's _Foundation_ stories started to be published in 1942 (they were not written in 1945). They were originally sold to Street & Smith which owned publication rights (and the works were published in _Astounding Science Fiction_). Asimov was paid for his work and apparently satisfied with payment (or he wouldn't have sold the stories -- hell he wrote the stories for Astounding which was the most lucrative and prestigious market for SF at the time ).

          Asimov was paid for his work at least three times. He won the lottery. Most of us, no matter how creative we are at work, only get paid once. And, actually, Asimov would only have been paid once without the generosity of John W Campbell (editor of Astounding) who gave the rights back to the authors after first publication.

          And as far as Gnome press goes, it was essentially a fan publishing house. It published Asimov's work in hardback, which was an enormous prestige thing of the day. Nor do I think that marketing was the issue that kept the work languishing, There was a fanzine that won a Hugo in 1961 called "Who Killed Science Fiction?" And it was a real question, because SF wasn't selling at the time and the market dwindled to a handful of magazines, a few paperbacks and hardbacks only surviving because of library sales (and most of those were juveniles). Asimov, himself, abandoned writing SF for around a dozen years and concentrated on the more immediately lucrative science popularization market .
        • As to your "ten years", iirc I started on my Paxil Diaries book almost ten years ago.

          Who cares when you started it - when did you publish it? The current copyright countdown (such as it is) doesn't begin until the first publication.

          It was published by Gnome Press, a tiny publisher without the clout to properly market it

          So why should we be extending a government-enforced monopoly to support lousy publishers that can't market their books properly? As the parent poster said, if they can't make money off of it in 10 years, they should go out of business. And authors should be aware of the risks of giving their material to tiny publishers with no clout. Copyright shouldn't be used t

        • by Githaron (2462596)

          As to your "ten years", iirc I started on my Paxil Diaries book almost ten years ago. I still need to design its dust jacket.

          Sorry. Let me clarify. I meant ten years from the day that it is released for public viewing/sale. I was not including the production time in the ten years.

      • by Shagg (99693)

        I've always thought the way we should look at it is the following:

        1) How much profit does a work have to make in order for the average artist to be encouraged to create more art.
        2) How long does it take the average successful work to make the amount of profit defined above.

        That's how long copyright should be for, no more and no less.

        The problem is that copyright no longer has anything to do with encouraging artists. These days it's all about corporate greed/control, and the people in a position to do somet

        • by Stiletto (12066)

          Or, more simply, copyright on a work could last until you realize $N of profit (or revenue, however you want to measure dollars) attributable to the work.

          • by Shagg (99693)

            That's a good idea, in theory. But standard "accounting tricks" within the industry would make measuring that relatively meaningless.

      • by hemo_jr (1122113) on Monday April 09, 2012 @04:52PM (#39623001)
        We are no longer living with 18th century production and distribution technology.Copyright and patent lengths were originally implemented when it could take months to distribute a work across a country and years to distribute it across the world. We also have tools that cut the time of artistic production e.g. books don't have to be written in longhand, presses no longer need to be set and cranked by hand, Now with modern tools, artistic production is quicker, and distribution is virtually instantaneous. The extension of copyright past the original duration makes no sense from this perspective.

        Further, the original justification for copyright - that it promotes innovation in science and the arts is not served by extending copyright length. The fact is that extended copyright length impedes creativity by limiting what we can be creative about.
  • Three Strikes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:27PM (#39621903)

    I think the appropriate action is to kick a user after three verified copyright violations. Also, the site should kick a copyright holder after three verified false copyright claims.

    Cause what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Can we just kick the MPAA et al off our internet and be done with it. Who invited them anyway.

  • The big IF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtkluttz (244325) on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:29PM (#39621923) Homepage

    IF the copyright holders could guarantee that "fair use" would not be trampled, I would agree with them on the secondary infringement. But in the real world where most anonymous users use copyrighted works as background music for their kids birthday party and it STILL gets taken down, then no one should be REQUIRED to take anything down until it is proven that real infringement has actually taken place. There needs to be real oversight to copyright infringement claims.

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Except that *AA considers 'fair use' to be only 'fair use' of your wallet. Anything that doesn't put money in their pockets is 'infringement'.
  • DCMA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:29PM (#39621927)

    Seems pretty simple. The DCMA has a clause in it regarding repeat offenders. Nothing new, it's always been there. Hosts have to do something to block repeat offenders or they lose safe harbor. Google knows about it too - they booted a bunch of music blogs for this very reason.

    The problem is how the heck are they going to do that? The vernacular of the web is such that people can just establish a new account if the one they have is blocked.

    It's just one of the many problems with the DCMA - a law that seemingly is quite outdated and needs a lot of rethinking.

    • by am 2k (217885)

      It's just one of the many problems with the DCMA - a law that seemingly is quite outdated and needs a lot of rethinking.

      They did that, and the "solution" is SOPA. Pray that the government doesn't implement that thought (you can't do anything else about it anyways).

      • Not sure what you mean by not being able to do anything about it. SOPA hasn't been passed yet, and I think if we put the cynicism aside and continue to respond in a fashion that must seem quite surprising to the Congress the message will take hold.

    • Accused by copyright holders or convicted in court of law repeat offender?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, repeat offenders - not repeat suspects. Simply having a DMCA notice issued against you does not make you an offender, you actually have to have to be charged and found guilty by a court.
       

  • Can we end this madness where a hyperlink is now infringement even if you're not hosting the content?

  • by dryriver (1010635) on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:55PM (#39622159)
    99% of piracy is caused by a failure to A) produce high quality content that "sattisfies" in the first place B) identify the correct "asking price" for the content and C) distribute it in a way that your target audience actually wants it to be distributed. You may think that your latest 200+ million dollar "John Carter Screws some Four-Armed Martians" is worth "at least" 12 - 15 Dollars per person viewing. The very people who would watch such CG- and action-heavy teenboy-fantasy-dreck in the first place, however, may value watching that film at only 10 Dollars, or 7 Dollars, or perhaps even 3 Dollars and 50 Cents. A Typical Situation Develops: A) your content quality doesn't sattisfy the viewer B) its priced at 2x or 3x what your typical viewer wants to pay for it C) the only way to watch the blody movie is a 4 hour trip to the cinema, or a 2 - 3 month wait for it to hit DVD/BluRay. The whole "product chain" is set up wrong. You can't produce something that sattisfies (= incompetence), you overcharge for it (= also incompetence), and there is no option to watch it from home for a few bucks when it come out (= also incompetence). Remember your basic MBA training, Hollywood "moveeemaking" folks: The Right Product, released at the Right Time, aimed at the Right Audience, at the Right Price, paired with High Product Quality, and distributed/delivered to the customer in the Right Way. You fail to follow this basic "Product Success Advice" at EACH AND EVERY STEP, then wonder why people are sitting at home, downloading your movie for free from Internet Torrents instead. Then you fail to LEARN from your business model's innate problems (the worst of which, currently, is poor quality films couple with overpricing and a dated distribution model), and then try to make the NEGATIVE RESULTS you yourself have engineered, by sending lawyers and law enforcement folks to clobber downloaders flat. This is a piss poor business model, and the only reason that it doesn't roll over and die completely (people walking away to consume a substitute-product) is that A) CG-effects and B) A-list actors are, at this point in time, far too expensive for the Europeans and Asians and others to put much of either in their films. That picture will look different in a decade or so, when high quality CG effects will cost perhaps 1/5th or even 1/10th of what they cost today, and American A-list actors make a habit out of working with talented European or Asian "Auteur" filmmakers again (like used to be the case with the old French "New Wave" and Italian "CinneCitta" films).
    • by lgw (121541)

      99% of piracy is caused by a failure to A) produce high quality content that "sattisfies" in the first place

      This continues to be the worst argumet for piracy regularly trotted out on /.. "I stole it because I didn't like it"? Really? The other arguments "cheap stuff sells more copies" and "make it easier to buy than steal" make real sense, but not that first one.

      (Cue queues of complainers about using "steal" to mean "taking without paying" as if the word meant something different than that.)

      • by s.petry (762400)

        I believe the point is more that there is really only 1 option for many people.

        In this day of technology, and being connected, it's very sad that the only option for months is to spend $25.00 per person and 3-4 hours on average to see a movie.

        Here comes the "nuh uh, it's not 3-4 hours", so I'll stop you ahead of time.

        Arrive at the movie at advertised time, you can't get in because the lines are to long or the tickets are sold out. Get there 1/2 hour early, wait in line.. finally get tickets and go in to th

        • by lgw (121541)

          Most of that falls under "make it easier to buy than to steal" though. That's a fine argument. Though of course the studios will want to offer it expensively for a little while before offering cheaply, as has become the norm for games. The studios just need to adjust to the reailty of "internet time". Trying to make people wait more than 4-6 weeks for a "ordinary price" download will fail, as will trying to hold out for years before moving to a discount price.

          What doesn't work is "I stole it because the

    • by chrismcb (983081)

      99% of piracy is caused by a failure to A) produce high quality content that "sattisfies" in the first place B) identify the correct "asking price" for the content and C) distribute it in a way that your target audience actually wants it to be distributed.

      A) It is apparently high enough quality, because people want it B) The "correct" asking price for most people who pirate, is ZERO. Can't make a lot of money from that C)MOST content IS distributed in such a way. That still doesn't stop people from pirating, cause see B

  • I was in a car collision a few years back. Does this mean that I can sue Ford for manufacturing the car that hit me?
  • by ace37 (2302468) on Monday April 09, 2012 @04:04PM (#39622279) Homepage

    So let me get this straight, the judge sees that the DCMA doesn't fix this grievance, so he decides to add a fundamentally new requirement to the law and enforce it?

    The judge is right to point out the DCMA doesn't address the (perhaps legitimate) grievances brought to the court. That's exactly why the website should have won the case with no strings attached--from the sound of it, they comply with the requirements of the law. A judge has no more authority to 'fix' bad legislation than I do.

    The prosecuting party should be trying to push congress to action, not judges. I hope the SCOTUS picks it up and throws the case out to make the point.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Monday April 09, 2012 @04:13PM (#39622355)
    If the mpaa wants to be a horse and buggy maker in a car world instead of offering what people want in a digital world with steep discount to reflect the internet ease of reaching people and the almost no distribution costs then they should continue to have to chase these "infringers" themselves. It is not a government problem.
  • crucial in preventing piracy

    You don't prevent piracy. There's no law supporting that position at all. Copyright law is to punish people after the fact and provide monetary compensation for damages done.

    The reason for this should be obvious: you CAN'T prevent piracy.

    Piracy is not the problem. Their mentality about how to deal with it is the problem.

    • It's a mentality problem on both sides of the fence.

      On the customer side, the mentality is one where copying is not "felt" as a crime. And I'm not talking about teenagers, go to your dad and ask him if he thinks that copying a record to tape is wrong. I somehow expect him to look at you with a bewildered look on his face and ask you whether you cracked the lock on the liquor cabinet again.

      Copying is part of our history and heritage. For the longest time, "learning" meant "copy your master". It was pretty mu

  • by nurb432 (527695)

    That is the only thing these bastards will be happy with..

    Until they find out that everyone is gone and they wont have an income, even by stealing it from us via redirection of taxes.

  • There's no practical way they can stop repeat infringers. It's not content that's infringing, it's use. With what automated method can you determine that two uses are the same for infringement purposes? For example, a person could upload the same video file twice to Megaupload, once to view it and once to use as a decryption key for a file he previously encrypted with that video file as the one-time pad. One use is legal, the other is illegal. How does Megaupload know which is which?

    You need a DMCA notice b

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It seems that a new business had emerged that uses the new copyright hell to their advantage.
    I had a few videos on YouTube with video I had shot myself and audio from iMovie, which I am allowed to use.
    I got a message that I was using copyrighted material and my videos now will have an ad attached to them.

    The way they work their scheme are that they create similar music that triggers the scanning algorithm so they can get their ads on all footage edited with popular editing software that has sound libraries

  • I guess some people [washingtonpost.com] are more worthy of protection against this sort of thing than others. The internet needs its own version of the NRA

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...