Sports Leagues Ask US For 'Instantaneous' DMCA Takedowns and Website Blocking (arstechnica.com) 63
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Sports leagues are urging the US to require "instantaneous" takedowns of pirated livestreams and new requirements for Internet service providers to block pirate websites. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 requires websites to "expeditiously" remove infringing material upon being notified of its existence. But pirated livestreams of sports events often aren't taken down while the events are ongoing, said comments submitted last week by Ultimate Fighting Championship, the National Basketball Association, and National Football League.
The "DMCA does not define 'expeditiously,' and OSPs [online service providers] have exploited this ambiguity in the statutory language to delay removing content in response to takedown requests," the leagues told the US Patent and Trademark Office in response to a request for comments on addressing counterfeiting and piracy. The leagues urged the US "to establish that, in the case of live content, the requirement to 'expeditiously' remove infringing content means that content must be removed 'instantaneously or near-instantaneously' in response to a takedown request." The leagues claimed the change "would be a relatively modest and non-controversial update to the DMCA that could be included in the broader reforms being considered by Congress or could be addressed separately." They also want stricter "verification measures before a user is permitted to livestream."
The UFC separately submitted comments on its own, urging the US to require that ISPs block pirate sites. The UFC said that a "significant and growing" number of websites, typically operated from outside the US, don't respond to takedown requests and thus should be blocked by broadband network operators. The UFC wrote: "Unlike many other jurisdictions around the world, the US lacks a 'site-blocking' regime whereby copyright owners may obtain no-fault injunctions requiring domestic Internet service providers to block websites that are primarily geared at infringing activity. A 'site-blocking' regime, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, would substantially facilitate all copyright owners' ability to address piracy, including UFC's." Website-blocking is bound to be a controversial topic, although the Federal Communications Commission's now-repeated net neutrality rules only prohibited blocking of "lawful Internet traffic." While the UFC said it just wants "websites that are primarily geared at infringing activity" to be blocked, a site-blocking regime could be used more expansively if there aren't strict limits.
The "DMCA does not define 'expeditiously,' and OSPs [online service providers] have exploited this ambiguity in the statutory language to delay removing content in response to takedown requests," the leagues told the US Patent and Trademark Office in response to a request for comments on addressing counterfeiting and piracy. The leagues urged the US "to establish that, in the case of live content, the requirement to 'expeditiously' remove infringing content means that content must be removed 'instantaneously or near-instantaneously' in response to a takedown request." The leagues claimed the change "would be a relatively modest and non-controversial update to the DMCA that could be included in the broader reforms being considered by Congress or could be addressed separately." They also want stricter "verification measures before a user is permitted to livestream."
The UFC separately submitted comments on its own, urging the US to require that ISPs block pirate sites. The UFC said that a "significant and growing" number of websites, typically operated from outside the US, don't respond to takedown requests and thus should be blocked by broadband network operators. The UFC wrote: "Unlike many other jurisdictions around the world, the US lacks a 'site-blocking' regime whereby copyright owners may obtain no-fault injunctions requiring domestic Internet service providers to block websites that are primarily geared at infringing activity. A 'site-blocking' regime, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, would substantially facilitate all copyright owners' ability to address piracy, including UFC's." Website-blocking is bound to be a controversial topic, although the Federal Communications Commission's now-repeated net neutrality rules only prohibited blocking of "lawful Internet traffic." While the UFC said it just wants "websites that are primarily geared at infringing activity" to be blocked, a site-blocking regime could be used more expansively if there aren't strict limits.
Maybe quit being hostile? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quit being hostile to your viewing audience and we'll (well, some of us) will quit pirating it. . . . (Speaking for MLB here, I still can't stream Twins games in their local market. . . .)
I am hours by car from the MLB teams in my state, and they are blacked out even when they are not playing at home. If MLB.tv were not free through my mobile subscription, there is exactly zero chance that I would pay for a subscription. I would love to know how they calculate when a home viewer is in the local market for blackout purposes because the way it is done now makes it really easy to not care.
Re: (Score:1)
If MLB tv didn't black out local markets there is zero percent chance I wouldn't pay for it. I lived out of state of my favorite team for a while. They have so many fantastic options, like watching opposing team's broadcast or playing the synced audio from the radio broadcasts on top of the video broadcast. Randomly checking out the score of any other team. Now that I'm back in my home state, it doesn't feel worth it to pay for it, but I do miss being able to watch other games at the drop of a hat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Apple TV is offering MLB streaming (possibly as a for-pay extra package?) without any local blackouts...but it's only Friday nights. Rumors suggest that what you're talking about was a bone of contention between Apple and NFL, which eventually led to them bowing out of the current round of negotiations. They wanted the rights to stream to anyone, anywhere, without strings attached. NFL wanted to maintain their blackouts, exclusivity, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
I still can't stream Twins games in their local market. The asinine NFL blackout rules are a different topic.)
Never forget the three sports-ball leagues in question are cartels legally exempt from US anti-trust law. Great gig if you can get it.
The team owners are still convinced that blackouts serve to drive in-person attendance at their games. It may be pure wishful thinking on their part, but they're clinging to it with both hands. Plus they have ancient contracts with nearly as ancient local broadcast stations that must have had 50 year terms or something for them to still be honoring them. If I were them I'
Well, you have to work with them (Score:4, Interesting)
You might want to move your games to working hours if you want people to be present to deal with your takedown notices.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I'm fucking tired of copyright interests trying to turn me into their personal fucking goon squad.
Re: (Score:2)
Their ideal system indeed doesn't involve a human. Their ideal system is where they get money while providing nothing at all.
Does an innocent target get instant reparations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can pretend America doesn't have a ruling class if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful what you wish for shitbags (Score:5, Insightful)
Sports leagues are hilarious. They _think_ they're fighting against piracy... they are not. They are fighting against our giving a shit about their product. If I could get every NBA game I wanted; have a choice between announcers, NO announcers or just the mic'd court; no blackouts; no multiple signups or hassles? They would have my money. Happily. But they don't do that... they fuck over the users all the way to the bank.
Fine. Piracy is _literally_ better than paying for the service. No seriously. It is.
Here's the twist... get rid of piracy, I will give up my beloved NBA. 1000%. I'll just stop caring... I promise you. I'll never look back.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire professional "sports" complex is organized crime. They steal land and subsidies from the public and promote a complex of factionalized mob behavior, gambling, and alcohol addiction with consequent domestic violence.
You forgot the motorcycle and sportscar accidents. Oh! And the team sponsored rapes.
When the UFC...... (Score:4, Interesting)
Rife for abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Adj. A quality of person determined by who spends the most amount money on buying government legislation / favoritism.
Example: Mr. Bezos is a fair business man.
Coencidently, "Unfair" in America is defined as:
Adj. A quality of person determined by who spends the least amount money on buying government legislation / favoritism.
Example: Amazon Cog #10431830's complaints about dictated DMCA takedown request expansions are unfair to Corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
Takedown requests are already too easy to abuse. Sadly, it seems most requests aren't even properly reviewed before they are submitted. These "rights holders" are essentially asking for the power to take any site/stream/page offline immediately without oversight by anybody. Since restoration typically doesn't happen instantaneously in the case of error or malicious intent, it's somewhat unfair. It doesn't "cost" these companies anything if a stream stays active (no one can even go buy cable immediately to continue watching). But, a mistake filed against a youtube or twitch stream could cost the creator thousands of dollars in income. Seems pretty unfair.
This. There should be a severe financial penalty for any false or misleading takedown request, as well as reparations to the companies and customers affected by the takedown.
Re: (Score:2)
Takedown requests are already too easy to abuse. Sadly, it seems most requests aren't even properly reviewed before they are submitted. These "rights holders" are essentially asking for the power to take any site/stream/page offline immediately without oversight by anybody. Since restoration typically doesn't happen instantaneously in the case of error or malicious intent, it's somewhat unfair. It doesn't "cost" these companies anything if a stream stays active (no one can even go buy cable immediately to continue watching). But, a mistake filed against a youtube or twitch stream could cost the creator thousands of dollars in income. Seems pretty unfair.
For quite a while now in musical circles, indie artists get hit with take-down notices for songs they themselves wrote and performed. Review takes FOREVER, if it's even something they can figure out how to trigger. What it is is regulatory capture being utilized to keep the smaller players from entering the game. I'd imagine the execs involved here are seeing the same possibility. If some smaller league like the XFL were to pop up and start getting some traction, it might make it seem like a competitive and
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA is a ruse utilized by the big players to keep the small players from ever growing.
Na, it's not. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of my life servicing DMCA takedown requests where required, small players are a very tiny fraction of the requests. They're collateral damage.
And frankly, the act empowers them the same (though frankly, if you're a nobody, no one is distributing your pirated shit anyway).
I've been the head engineer of a large-ish ISP for almost a couple decades, and so I have a well-earned hatred of the fucking DMCA, but your characterization is complete horse
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA is a ruse utilized by the big players to keep the small players from ever growing.
Na, it's not. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of my life servicing DMCA takedown requests where required, small players are a very tiny fraction of the requests. They're collateral damage. And frankly, the act empowers them the same (though frankly, if you're a nobody, no one is distributing your pirated shit anyway). I've been the head engineer of a large-ish ISP for almost a couple decades, and so I have a well-earned hatred of the fucking DMCA, but your characterization is complete horse shit, bordering on conspiracy theory.
It may seem like horseshit if you haven't seen it affect the small players. Which you likely haven't, if you're serving the masters at the big game. I've watched indie bands and artists get wiped out by this shit. And enough of them to think it's not some strange coincidence.
Now, I know we're in an era where we want to ignore truths that aren't comfortable, but I've seen what I've seen. I don't particularly care if it isn't in line with your view of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
It may seem like horseshit if you haven't seen it affect the small players.
Bullshit.
I see everyone affected. I said exactly that.
Small players are a rounding error in DMCA complaints.
Which you likely haven't, if you're serving the masters at the big game.
To the point where I am required to by law. It also puts me in a unique perspective to give you an idea of what the actual DMCA takedown request stream looks like.
I've watched indie bands and artists get wiped out by this shit.
Yup. I've seen small guys erroneously hit as well.
For every one of those, there are 10,000 requests aimed at residential and small pirating outfits (hosting content that legitimately isn't theirs)
And enough of them to think it's not some strange coincidence.
Sample bias.
It's a small fraction, but it
Re: (Score:2)
It may seem like horseshit if you haven't seen it affect the small players.
Bullshit. I see everyone affected. I said exactly that. Small players are a rounding error in DMCA complaints.
Which you likely haven't, if you're serving the masters at the big game.
To the point where I am required to by law. It also puts me in a unique perspective to give you an idea of what the actual DMCA takedown request stream looks like.
I've watched indie bands and artists get wiped out by this shit.
Yup. I've seen small guys erroneously hit as well. For every one of those, there are 10,000 requests aimed at residential and small pirating outfits (hosting content that legitimately isn't theirs)
And enough of them to think it's not some strange coincidence.
Sample bias. It's a small fraction, but it's the fraction you're looking at, so it appears large to you. No coincidence is required. The copyright holders fucking suck at targeting their requests. A not-insignificant amount of them are erroneous. But the vast majority are not.
Now, I know we're in an era where we want to ignore truths that aren't comfortable, but I've seen what I've seen. I don't particularly care if it isn't in line with your view of the situation.
Nobody is ignoring a truth here. You're formulating an opinion from a position of no actual data. It seems to me that the era you're operating in is the standard post-truth era, where you're entitled to make up any facts you like to fit a narrative.
I didn't make anything up. I've seen what I've seen and experience what I've experienced. Using that as an excuse to accuse me of making up facts? Not even sure how to address that.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA is a ruse utilized by the big players to keep the small players from ever growing.
Most small players in the copyright space are never ever hit by a DMCA request.
It does happen, and the system for them to correct that is a pile of shit- I couldn't agree with you more, there.
But given the distribution
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you that "making up facts" is perhaps a harsh characterization of what could probably be better described as "interpreting observations of a very limited sample set to come up with a completely incoherent statement that appears to be conveyed more as a fact than an opinion", a la:
DMCA is a ruse utilized by the big players to keep the small players from ever growing.
Most small players in the copyright space are never ever hit by a DMCA request.
I've personally known four. Considering how few indie artists I'm friends with, it seemed a reasonable characterization. I probably should have worded my original statement differently so as not to imply it was a "fact" so much as an "observation." I'll apologize for that oversight, if we can meet in the middle and realize that someone "in the know" telling someone else their experience is made up is a direct lead-in to people going, "Fuck the experts. They clearly don't want to hear anything but their vers
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, as smaller ISP, we investigate DMCA requests, and if they're bullshit, we do not act on them (other than to forward to the customer and give them information for how to handle the problem)
Really, I just wanted to highlight the real problems with the law, and not get caught up in accusations of bad faith (ironic since that's what I did to you, I know) so that we can all have an honest discussion about
Re: (Score:2)
Congress needs to know how fucked up and unjust it is down here in the trenches of this hideous law they've concocted.
One thing I think we can both agree on? So long as their sponsors are shoveling cash at them, they won't give even the tiniest shred of a fuck about our view of this law. Our government doesn't care about citizens any longer. And that's universal. Once you're elected to federal office, the money takes over and nothing else matters other than the window dressing and public disputes between the supposed two parties that seem to act as one when it comes to corporate interest vs. citizens.
ok as long as it's OKed by the court with an judge (Score:5, Interesting)
ok as long as it's OKed by the court with an judge
Penalties for False Claims? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like the red-flag gun laws... the only way I would even consider allowing due-process to be skipped over would be if there are SEVERE penalties for false claims... like after 3 strikes, you lose the ability to ever submit a claim again. I'm sure that won't be part of the law if they get their way though.
contempt of court and an night in jail will fix th (Score:3)
contempt of court and an night in jail will fix that
web site take down may be an 1st issue! so higher (Score:2)
web site take down may be an 1st issue! so higher then any 2th issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Unlike the permanent damage the guns do with no due process.
That is so fucking unhelpful.
The gun didn't do shit.
Some fuckwit who never should have had a fucking gun, and wouldn't have had a fucking gun, if we had a first world gun control regime, did a bunch of damage.
Intellectually dishonest statements like yours are a large part of the FUD the NRA uses to make sure we have no fucking control whatsoever.
Fine, set a timeframe for large streaming sites (Score:3)
BUT.. Those issuing a DMCA Takedown should be required to repay the cost of mistakes, including the potential lost opportunity cost, and also Post and provide proof of a bond which Shall be forfeit and pay the person whose work is taken down in the event that the takedown request is wrongful or in Error -- for example if the targeted video is fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao, this fake ass surveillance you mentioned can kiss my ass. Hell, I'll use government computers to do the pirating, I don't give two shits.
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
So every service will have to immediately respond with any DMCA takedown request the moment it is received? Ugh. Fine!
Just so you know, next fight night (and every fight night thereafter) I am sending you a DMCA takedown request five seconds after you start airing the fight. No, I don't care if you are the rights holder (I will drop the takedown request when you challenge it). But, you must comply.
I stopped caring about sports (Score:2)
Fuck off already (Score:2)
You already receive SIGNIFICANT amounts of money from cities (for your venues) and sponsors (for everything else). Why aren't you just streaming for free?
FUCK RIGHT OFF YOU ENTITLED OVERBLOWN SHITHEADS
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. My wife searched all kinds of options trying to find how to get her Red Wings games after we ditched cable. She was willing to even spend a fortune on NHL Streaming, but home games would be blocked in our region. F That!
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I love the idea that they think I'll drive 3 hours and pay $20 a beer to watch a game. Nope, I'll just do something else. Now that I no longer have cable I really only see a sports game if I'm at a bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's not a lot of the Red Wings games that even play on regular broadcast TV anymore, but they won;t make a simple "Here's your home team's games" streaming package
Dear copyright-holders, (Score:2)
The law needs to change so you can demand instantaneous take-downs by networks that don't do take-downs?
Anyone see a flaw here?
Did your subscribers tell you that? Or, the alleged pirates? Let's say what you're really demanding: The power to be judge, jury and executioner. You already have powers that don't require the approval of a judge or jury.
American sports conglomerates (Score:1)
I agree on one condition (Score:2)
I moved (Score:2)
Nope (Score:3)
Due process takes time, there is no Instantaneous in the courts......