US Copyright Office Finds 'Deep Disagreement' on Anti-Piracy Measures 63
The U.S. Copyright Office has completed its public consultations on the use of technical measures to identify and protect copyrighted content online. From a report: For many years, U.S. lawmakers have considered options to update the DMCA so it can more effectively deal with today's online copyright issues. Many proposals have come and gone, without resulting in any significant updates. Calls to change current legislation persist, however. Following repeated nudges from Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy, the Copyright Office launched a consultation on automated tools that online services can use to ensure that pirated content is less easily shared.
The Copyright Office also asked stakeholders whether it's desirable to make certain standard technical measures mandatory for online platforms. Such measures could include upload filters to block pirated content from being reuploaded. This month the Copyright Office presents its conclusions, which are also shared with Senators Tillis and Leahy in two letters. After reviewing thousands of responses and input from stakeholders in plenary sessions, the overall conclusion is one of clear disagreement. Most parties agree that it's impossible to design an error-free takedown process but disagree on what error rate is acceptable when takedowns are automated. Opponents of filtering technology warn that fair use and First Amendment rights are at stake.
Rightsholders did not dispute that but noted that these issues don't play a role when full copies of copyrighted content are shared. When it comes to the implementation of voluntary measures, the Copyright Office doesn't have any concrete suggestions. Instead, it will continue to back existing initiatives, while facilitating dialogue between various stakeholders. "The public comments and the consultations confirmed that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to voluntary technical measures, and that there remains a lack of consensus in this area," the Office writes. "Nevertheless, the consultations served as valuable opportunities for dialogue among stakeholders, which may lead to further voluntary action. The Copyright Office proposed options to continue its role as convener of these conversations in the future."
The Copyright Office also asked stakeholders whether it's desirable to make certain standard technical measures mandatory for online platforms. Such measures could include upload filters to block pirated content from being reuploaded. This month the Copyright Office presents its conclusions, which are also shared with Senators Tillis and Leahy in two letters. After reviewing thousands of responses and input from stakeholders in plenary sessions, the overall conclusion is one of clear disagreement. Most parties agree that it's impossible to design an error-free takedown process but disagree on what error rate is acceptable when takedowns are automated. Opponents of filtering technology warn that fair use and First Amendment rights are at stake.
Rightsholders did not dispute that but noted that these issues don't play a role when full copies of copyrighted content are shared. When it comes to the implementation of voluntary measures, the Copyright Office doesn't have any concrete suggestions. Instead, it will continue to back existing initiatives, while facilitating dialogue between various stakeholders. "The public comments and the consultations confirmed that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to voluntary technical measures, and that there remains a lack of consensus in this area," the Office writes. "Nevertheless, the consultations served as valuable opportunities for dialogue among stakeholders, which may lead to further voluntary action. The Copyright Office proposed options to continue its role as convener of these conversations in the future."
You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it isn't real. It is a made up construct of greedy people wanting more money for nothing.
Public library anyone?
Re: You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
A group of people can get together and claim whatever they want. Another group can get together and disclaim whatever they want. If one group doesn't agree to the other groups ideas then so be it. Pretending they have the right to make laws that govern the other group is bullshit and what is wrong with our society.
It is all 'ones' and 'zero's'. How they are arranged doesn't mean a goddamned thing. If someone wants to donate some money for them that is fine, but to demand payment for a particular arrangement
Re: (Score:3)
If you and your group of people want to make your own, identical arrangement of ones and zeroes, without prior knowledge from the arrangement of the original group, that is your prerogative. In fact, that is how the origina
Re: You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Piracy is absolutely a thing because a condition of purchasing digital content is an agreement not to share it.
no, it doesn't. for starters such a condition would be illegal in my country and thus null and void. it would violate the right to share your own property with your peers, which is called "right to private copy" and explicitly enshrined in the law. making profit in the process of sharing would be illegal, though, but calling that "piracy" would still be nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah i don't give a shit about my country either. just imagine ...
Re: (Score:2)
indeed, imagining nonsense isn't hard. enjoy :)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but at least here in America we have this thing about having to PROVE stuff in courts. Like loss of sales.
Prove that the people who watched whatever show / ETC would have bought the specific show had they not had easy access to a free / easier to use version . Oops, we don't have an alternate timeline machine to look at this kind of BS.
And no, not even receipts for similar shows / items / whatever are enough. You cannot prove something that didn't happen. The defense to having similar shopping histor
Re: You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
When there was only one streaming service piracy dropped to an all time low now itâ(TM)s split among so many Setvices piracy is easier and cheaper again
I think it's the restrictions that come with the new streaming services. They aren't available in all countries, there are restrictions on how you can access them, ads and tier levels blocking content. It's become easier to pirate again (it's always been cheaper but people will happily part with a few bucks for convenience).
Re: (Score:2)
Public library keeps valid, paid-for entries of publishing work. Has control over them. I feel very twisted, when searching online for the text of the book, stump upon complete bibliographies of the authors, placed on sites in ruzzia with all the copyright credentials. These are stolen for nothing, that's right, but them are unpaid work of the publishing houses and their hired teams.
Re:You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it isn't real. It is a made up construct of greedy people wanting more money for nothing.
The concept that you should have exclusive rights over the distribution of your intellectual property for at least some period of time is based on rather sound logic. If someone could just come along and copy your book, movie, TV show, record album, etc. then you wouldn't have much incentive to produce creative works in the first place. Yeah, we'd probably still have YouTube-style "content creators" who make entertainment on a shoe-string budget, and authors and musicians who don't care that their craft will likely never earn them a living. Gone would be big budget blockbusters, and we'd probably lose a lot of young talent which would go undiscovered, because the motivation to "make it big" has always been a factor in convincing new entertainers to step into the limelight.
What is a problem, however, is the duration of modern copyright, which has gone well beyond allowing a content creator to reasonably profit from their work. It was never originally intended to provide a revenue stream in perpetuity, but that's essentially what we have today.
Re: (Score:3)
Information wants to be free. An education should be free. Or should I charge my children for the education I give them? That is ridiculous. Just more greedy people looking to make free money.
Capitalism has infected our brains to the point of no return I'm afraid.
Fortunately there seems to be a handful of hopefuls out there. Keep on keepin' on.
Re:You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
The concept that you should have exclusive rights over the distribution of your intellectual property for at least some period of time is based on rather sound logic.
Yes... and you're close, but I don't think you've quite fully grasped it.
Copyright is inherently contrary to the right of free speech, which encompasses copying the work of others. That's acceptable, but the trade off needs to be worth it for the public.
Encouraging the creation and publication of works which would otherwise not have been created and published is good for the public. But the works should enjoy the least amount of copyright as possible, for the shortest duration possible, since having more works in the public domain is also good for the public.
If someone could just come along and copy your book, movie, TV show, record album, etc. then you wouldn't have much incentive to produce creative works in the first place. Yeah, we'd probably still have YouTube-style "content creators" who make entertainment on a shoe-string budget, and authors and musicians who don't care that their craft will likely never earn them a living. Gone would be big budget blockbusters, and we'd probably lose a lot of young talent which would go undiscovered, because the motivation to "make it big" has always been a factor in convincing new entertainers to step into the limelight.
That's not so bad. I will tell you that if only copyright were longer-lasting, and provided more of a guaranteed profit, I would happily engage in my art, which is sculpting the moon into something more aesthetically pleasing. Do you think that I should get my wish, which will include that everyone who ever sees the moon owes me a million dollars, and that my rights last forever? Or do you think that maybe it's just not worth the trouble if that's what it takes for me to produce my creative work?
The same analysis holds for blockbuster films and such. We should aim for the copyright system that is best for the public interest. Maybe this means no more movies that are only profitable if they make a billion dollars, but since we would, by definition, be better off, I can live with that. And remember, there were quite a few good authors who predate copyright; it's helpful but not actually necessary.
modern copyright, which has gone well beyond allowing a content creator to reasonably profit from their work
That's never been the goal of copyright, nor could it ever be. Most copyrights have zero economic value; the creator of the work will never profit at all from them. Creating a work that's profitable is quite rare. Creating one that's very valuable is like winning the lottery. This isn't really what we should be shaping policy around. At a minimum we should not automatically grant copyrights to all works (aside from a very minor, short-lived one for unpublished works to give authors a chance to be the first to publish it in a timely fashion). Make it something where the author has to deliberately seek it out, fill out some forms, give the government a few free copies, pay a token fee -- things so that they won't ask for a copyright unless they really intend to try to exploit it to make some profit. Works that even the author doesn't try to profit from don't deserve copyrights.
copyright renewal fee is needed to fix stuff (Score:3)
copyright renewal fee is needed to fix stuff.
So yes things that are makeing money are renewed but other stuff that does not really does not get stuck in copyright for an long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is inherently contrary to the right of free speech, which encompasses copying the work of others. That's acceptable, but the trade off needs to be worth it for the public.
That's why the notion of Fair Use exists, although it's worth noting that it does not exist at all in some countries which have only a tenuous grasp on the idea of free speech to begin with... like Germany. They've done the same thing with their Nazis as we have with ours but to a stricter degree (driven them underground and pretended they didn't exist) with highly similar results.
Re:You Can't Stop Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
What is a problem, however, is the duration of modern copyright, which has gone well beyond allowing a content creator to reasonably profit from their work. It was never originally intended to provide a revenue stream in perpetuity, but that's essentially what we have today.
This, Copyright was originally an deal where an artist would receive a period of state enforced exclusivity in exchange for releasing their work into the public domain afterwards. This contract has been broken, not by artists but by "content owners" who shouldn't even have rights to the content having had little to no part in it's creation.
But I digress, Life+70 is far too long. Knock it down to an automatic 3 years with that being extendable to a maximum of 20 year with payable per year fees with each successive year becoming more expensive than the last to encourage content to be released into the public domain. Also, copyright infringement law suits to be limited to sticker prices OR any revenue made (meaning they can only get the sticker price for one copy from most people but can still go after people pirating for profit).
However the real reason that Disney, et al. need to keep their back catalogue under lock and key is because the need to sell their new content. If a channel could broadcast 20 or even 30 year old content (Blade Runner was 30 this year and Return of the Jedi is 30 next year, for perspective) without having to pay royalties or even a fixed cost blanket royalty (to cover the cost of making the material available) then we'd have dozens of channels broadcasting classics (or streaming sites like Netflix/Amazon Prime) which could run on minimal budgets but take audiences away from the mainstream channels that show new content and have big budget advertisers. This cannot be allowed by the content cartels.
As a side note, something like the above could have saved a lot of old BBC content (the BBC essentially taping over old content that has been irretrievably lost).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada had 30 year copyright for a LONG time, and the world didn't fall. Only when they were beaten into submission with US-led treaties did they finally adopt long copyright terms. 20 is a bit short if you ask me, but 30 was a really good number. It's sad that the bad guys won (us) as usual.
Blame Canada (I keed, I keed). George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is not covered by copyright in Australia because it was published before the 1950's. Australia's copyright laws, when changed, were made retroactive before a certain date. So they are public domain in Oz.
But much like Canada, the US started to write these laws onto our books bypassing our parliaments (usually via trade treaties). Don't worry my Northern brothers, the ROTW knows exactly how you feel. Even though this example is not 100%
Re: (Score:1)
The concept that you should have exclusive rights over the distribution of your intellectual property for at least some period of time is based on rather sound logic.
There are two ways to "prove" something. Logically (as used (predominantly) in math and philosophy) and empirically (as used (predominantly) in science and engineering). In some sense, there is a disagreement as to which is preeminent. Logic is undefeatable, as long as the predicates are sound. However, getting the predicates right is not trivial, and we often base those predicates on empirical findings. The benefit of an empirical test is that we can test the whole system for validity, even when we can't
Re:You Can't Stop Piracy - Predicates (Score:2)
Um, you seem to have a bad predicate there yourself...
"more liberal remedies against alleged infringements (which might actually be fair use).."
You should remember that Fair Use is a *defense*, not a classification. Everything ever defended successfully as Fair Use is an actual, bona fide, infringement. They just are, by definition. Fair Use means we have legally found that that particular infringement is *allowed*, in this case only, as the benefit from allowing it is stronger than the harm to the copyr
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The "landlord" class needs to disappear. Quickly.
The idea of having to "rent" or pay every time you want to play, watch, or learn about something is gross.
The ideal solution is that copyright limits are cut to:
10 year exclusivity (eg nobody but the creator can consent to use of the material, and can not revoke from sale once put up.)
15 year common domain after the first 10 (eg, anyone can perform the material without permission, but nobody can wholesale "Copy" it as produced on day 1 except for personal use
Re: (Score:2)
That's still an extreme violation of basic property rights. If I buy something it's mine. Nobody else gets to decide what I can and can't do it with. What you're describing is landlord-tenant law.
If that's what you want then you should be held to at minimum the same standards as landlords. For the entire duration you claim "ownership" of something in my possession you're obligated to maintain its fitness for use. That means bug free, reliable, secure, working software that's kept up to date to the latest "b
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The only "basic" right you have regarding a work of yours is to not publish it. As publishers were recreating works in massive numbers without any payment to the creators, England introduced the idea of "copyright" back in the 1600's which was entirely aimed at keeping commercial "piracy" by printers under control and never was intended to restrict consumers in any way. That law did not create any "basic" right though. It is an entirely artificial construct. And it has gotten completely and utterl
Re: (Score:2)
Try actually reading a post before responding to it. My entire post was about the right of the person who BOUGHT A PRODUCT, not the person who created the original work.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be sensible. It would be a fair balance between the creators and the consumers. The middle-man has no rights and usually contributes very little to nothing these days, so they do not deserve consideration. Due to greed, stupidity and general disrespect for the consumer, this will not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The traditional model for content creators is people giving _voluntarily_. It does work today, as, for example, Patreon shows. It is also quite telling that the Copyright Office apparently completely failed to ask the most important party for their opinions: The consumers. Unfettered greed at work.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's also important a concept if you want to enforce the GPL's sharing clauses.
If copyright didn't exist,the GPL could not be enforced. In fact, violating the GPL is a copyright violation.
We call these license "copyleft" not because it's cute, but because they hack the copyright system to ensure enforcement. If you don't agree to the GPL, you are granted use of the software under regular copyright laws, incl
Improvement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Improvement (Score:3)
This is actually starting to be a huge problem for YouTube content creators.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that chief need is a significant penalty for making false or misleading take down claims. Currently there does not appear to be any downside to making false claims, which incentivizes making every possible claim no matter how frivolous and forces the person being challenged to make all the effort and bear all the costs.
From: The DMCA Takedown Notice Demystified:
Do I have any recourse if I know I'm not infringing?
You do. First, the DMCA provides for damages and attorney's fees for "any person who knowingly materially misrepresents" the facts in a takedown notice. So someone who abuses the DMCA mechanism by lying to take down your page when they have absolutely no case is going to face some heavy sanctions. But "knowingly materially" is a pretty high bar to pass. Most cases of aggressive takedown notices won't be so egregious.
https://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/0... [sfwa.org]
Re:Improvement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Improvement (Score:2)
A working system needs balance (Score:2)
Automatio0n of some things is pretty straightforward. There are mechanisms to fingerprint videos, images and music. Automation of posting of full-length movies and exact duplications of images and songs can be done a a high degree of accuracy. Using high speed digital fingerprinting systems to first identify the initial matches and then a proper, longer scan of the full material to insure it's a valid match. low match rate items could be escalated to a human to review.
But...
The system to challenge the a
Re: (Score:2)
And who will bear the burden of running this system?
I have a few other issues with copyright one of which is that it was put in place so artists release their works and after a set time become public domain. Artists should be barred from the protection if their work is no longer available.
Another is this constant extension of the coverage period.
hey numb nuts (Score:1)
Nearly everything online is copyrighted by default. Yet I doubt the copyright office is going to protect my creations or even this very post. It's a corrupt organization that caters to those with money and at the taxpayer's expense.
Stakeholders? (Score:3)
What stakeholders?
All stakeholders (Score:5, Interesting)
When they say "all stakeholders agree", they seem to be explicitly saying "We won't consider the opinions of those who disagree with current copyright law. We will, instead, deny that they have the right to any opinion."
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The actual consumer is regarded as having no stake in things and no right to an opinion. Disrespect for the consumer does not get any more gross. Unfortunately, the US voter is asleep at the wheel and so nothing will change.
Purpose of Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright violations occur when it is easier to obtain information under copyright protection without a license than it is with a license. Therefore, the solution to eliminate a majority of copyright violation is to make obtaining the data easier rather than more difficult.
Counter-productive copy protection schemes and DRM make things more difficult for customers than they are for violators. I know for a fact as the owner of both validly licensed and format shifted copies that the effort invested into producing the format I want is high from the copy protected source material. It is very easy to share this burden with others as a part of our "scene", "circle" or "society" as its known. If we each invest the effort to produce one unprotected copy, we can share this with others who in return share their own work. This lessens the cost to the individual from 1:1 to 1:10 and then 1:100 as more individual works are added in collaboration.
Is the purpose of copyright and intellectual property protections to better, or worsen our society? Is it to make data more difficult, or easier to acquire?
Every society has a small percentage of leeches, as much as 1/3rd near an ideal cost/benefit. As copy protections and economics make it more difficult to acquire and contribute, it results in the increase of the number of blood suckers and lamers. Is increasing the ratio of society's leeches beneficial to contributors?
I was once offered a gig to "stop online copying" (Score:2)
All the way back when AOL was still a thing, I was asked to come up with a way to stop the copying of music over the Internet. My answer then would still be my answer now: the Internet is a world's largest, distributed network of digital copying machines, and the only way to "stop" the Internet from copying would be to invent an anti-Internet of equal scope. Given that fact, you should turn lemons into lemonade and figure out how to monetize copying. Turn the network effect to your advantage rather than try
Re: (Score:2)
Of course making it easier to gain access to a variety of materials while focus is on maximizing profit is impossible. The single goal of online copyright violators is not ease of access, although providing greater ease than "the competition" naturally evolves.
I can trivially imagine an encryption system whereby peer-to-peer networks share all data freely. Individual license holders are provided with a u
Here's a thought... (Score:1)
How about reasonable copyright law that doesn't lock up content for a thousand years and can't just randomly be purchased by Disney or ViaCom because they want to protect their profits? While you're at it, why don't you buck up and afford better protections to the Public Domain?
Gross copyright term lengths is the abuse (Score:2)
Copyright is a *privilege* society lends to creators to encourage creation.
Five years is a reasonable length of time to encourage creation.
95 years is a disgusting abuse of the very reason for copyright's existence. It stifles creation for multiple lifespans FFS !
Until the copyright office works to make the copyright system do *what it was created to do*, THEY are the ones abusing copyright.
So: Pirate On.
Need to fix DCMA (Score:1)
My problem with the current form of DCMA is that any "Content Creator" can claim rights to anything any make sites like YouTube take down content. What if the claim is wrong and the entity making the complaint does not actually own the content? What happens to entities that continuously make bad claims? The answer with today's version of DCMA.... Nothing. This has to be fixed.
My proposal is that if a strike is disputed and won, then the entity making the claim is responsible for twice the costs required
Error rates? (Score:2)
Acceptable false positive error rate is ZERO unless there's a very quick, very easy appeal process in place, in which an acceptable error rate is something between 0 and .01.
Payment and shortage by design (Score:2)
Now that for many works the cost to duplicate is effectively zero, society really does need a better way of paying creators for their work than by selling copies at artificial prices. Take recorded music for example. If you think the prices reflect anything like the quality or effort invested in producing a work, then there's some virtual swampland for sale with your name on it.
A huge unfulfilled advantage to civilization of zero duplication cost is being thrown away because of all this thrashing about.