Slashdot Mirror

This isn't as straightforward now as it used to be. Google has now introduced full-sized image search which allows people to pull images directly from their Google search page rather than linking to the source page. Once upon a time, Google was able to get away with this because it only linked small-sized thumbnails that weren't suitable replacements to the original. The searcher actually had to link to the page to get the content, as you point out.

Now, however, the searcher can get the content, full-sized, directly from the search link without ever hitting the original site. The bandwidth still comes from the original site, but the image can be seen entirely within the Google context. Fascinatingly, this full-sized (as opposed to thumbnail) image linking is exactly the example that the judge in Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. , which legitimized fair use of image searches, declared would not be an example of fair use.

Google has seemed to have entirely forgotten about that. Curiously, no lawsuits have popped up since. Granted, this is now in the days of robots.txt, but the law hasn't exactly caught up to discern the difference. Surely somebody with an interest in Google's deep pockets would sue for copyright infringement.

That said, the problem is clearly not that "technology" gets preferential treatment but that what one defines as "fair use" is tremendously murky and cannot be statutorily determined. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the pattern of ruling on what constitutes fair use has absolutely no correlation to itself. For example, is it a fair use to watch a movie in a park (semi-public place that might warrant a public performance) to a group of 6 close friends and family? 12? On a big-screen? Who knows.

Until fair use gets locked down as to something other than "whatever the judge feels like is fair," everyone on both sides of the equation will scream about perceived injustice.

I decided to look for more info about her on Princeton's website, and she definitely deserves massive respect. You can read a bio about her here: http://wendy.seltzer.org/shortbio.html

She works in support of the internet users, even heading up a website that helps internet users understand their rights when they receive cease and desist threats. I like her too.

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

And the best part is this is not true.

They can STATE whatever they want and it doesn't alter the law. Too bad many people don't know that.

FTFA:

The accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.

"Unfortunately, I never filed the counter-claims," Pop Tarts Suck Toasted's Patrick Duffy told Wired.com. "For starters, you're right, it does seem like a lot of extra work, but mostly I just thought taking down the infringing MP3s would be enough to satisfy the complaint.

—(emphasis mine)

Not knowing the law - understandable
Not doing any research whatsoever (or at least consulting a lawyer!) when sent a takedown notice - F A I L

forgot to click preview first

>>>if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability. This is where the DMCA idea falls-apart. . . .

Instructions for filing a DMCA counter notification with YouTube are easy to find [google.com] and clear enough. You can even send it by e-mail.

The counter notification is sent to whomever submitted the original take down request. If they notify YouTube that they have filed for an injunction, then YouTube won't put back the materials. But if they don't file for an injunction, then YouTube may reinstate the materials.

Does YouTube typically decline to reinstate materials when no injunction has been filed? I don't know. Professor Wendy Seltzer has successfully gone up against the NFL [seltzer.org] with YouTube's counter-notification process. I'm pretty sure that the NFL has more monetary resources than she has.

If YouTube does decline to reinstate materials after receiving a counter-notification, they are acting more conservatively than the law requires them to act in order to avoid monetary liability. This wouldn't be a breakdown in the DMCA, but a problem with YouTube's own policies and procedures.

I doubt that most instances of materials being taken down permanently do not involve counter-notification. I suspect that the more typical case is that a person's posting to YouTube is removed because of a take down notice, but the poster never sends a counter-notification. I don't know why this would be the case. It might be that the posters are unaware of the counter-notification proceedings. Maybe they choose to minimize their risk of getting sued and thus deliberately abandon the effort. But, when there is a legitimate dispute regarding an alleged act of copyright infringement, someone has to champion the case that there is no infringement. If nobody (i.e., neither the service provider nor the poster) is willing to take responsibility for keeping the material posted, then there is nothing the law can do to prevent the material from being taken down.

>>>if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability. This is where the DMCA idea falls-apart. . . .

Instructions for filing a DMCA counter notification with YouTube are easy to find and clear enough. You can even send it by e-mail.

The counter notification is sent to whomever submitted the original take down request. If they notify YouTube that they have filed for an injunction, then YouTube won't put back the materials. But if they don't file for an injunction, then YouTube may reinstate the materials.

Does YouTube typically decline to reinstate materials when no injunction has been filed? I don't know. Professor Wendy Seltzer has successfully gone up against the NFL with YouTube's counter-notification process. I'm pretty sure that the NFL has more monetary resources than she has.

If YouTube does decline to reinstate materials after receiving a counter-notification, they are acting more conservatively than the law requires them to act in order to avoid monetary liability. This wouldn't be a breakdown in the DMCA, but a problem with YouTube's own policies and procedures.

I doubt that most instances of materials being taken down permanently do not involve counter-notification. I suspect that the more typical case is that a person's posting to YouTube is removed because of a take down notice, but the poster never sends a counter-notification. I don't know why this would be the case. It might be that the posters are unaware of the counter-notification proceedings. Maybe they choose to minimize their risk of getting sued and thus deliberately abandon the effort. But, when there is a legitimate dispute regarding an alleged act of copyright infringement, someone has to champion the case that there is no infringement. If nobody (i.e., neither the service provider nor the poster) is willing to take responsibility for keeping the material posted, then there is nothing the law can do to prevent the material from being taken down.

I had Wendy Seltzer for two classes (and an independent study I never really got around to finishing) in law school. Smart woman. Her blog is here, if anyone is interested. http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/

This was mentioned weeks ago on Wendy's Legal Blog ( i have it on RSS feed ), she actually had a talk to the creator of the site. http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/01/11/mukurtu-contextual-archiving-digital-restrictions-done-right.html

According to here, that clause is in the Vista EULA.

A youtube post of this copyright warning will gets The Angry Letter from NFL with the DMCA:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited.

That's from Wendy's Blog. It took 5 days for that to be DMCA'd off youtube.

The MLB warning is:

This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball [or Sterling Mets]. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated, without the express written consent [of Sterling Mets].

Also from Wendy Seltzer's Blog. That one has been on youtube since April 25 without a DMCA.

A youtube post of this copyright warning will gets The Angry Letter from NFL with the DMCA:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited.

That's from Wendy's Blog. It took 5 days for that to be DMCA'd off youtube.

The MLB warning is:

This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball [or Sterling Mets]. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated, without the express written consent [of Sterling Mets].

Also from Wendy Seltzer's Blog. That one has been on youtube since April 25 without a DMCA.

What about this?

http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/DMCA.html

Wendy Seltzer was our pro-bono, FSF-appointed attorney for a few years when we were investigating a commercial company (not intentionally linked here, they don't deserve the hits) for using our GPL code without complying with the license.

All we wanted, was for them to bring themselves into compliance... and they insisted that they were, and we were wrong, and that the GPL was "...subject to interpretation". So we contacted the FSF and they gave us Wendy. It's been a few years now, and we never really got final closure on the situation, so I'm not sure where it stands at this point. (past copyright infringement does not just vanish if you stop violating it in the present, however).

I have collaborated with Wendy over numerous dozens of emails and personally met her to sit down with the CEO of aforementioned alleged-infringing company in New York, and I can say that she really knows her field. I'm happy that she's doing good things for the EFF, they need someone of her skillset on-staff.

I have nothing but praise for her abilities and her skills. She was a brick wall between our project and the commercial company who tried to threaten us many times with their millions of dollars of investor money to try to silence us.

If Wendy is on your side, it's a good thing. It's where she shines the best.

The intersting thing about the takedown notice is that it is attributed to "Internet Investigator". Is it legal to not be signed by a real person? And should YouTube respond to requests that don't have a real person standing behind the request?

No, it's not true, although there was a fake new story that put out this idea a few years ago. These days, it sounds like QuantumG is the only person that still believes it, given that the last time I corrected a Slashdot posting about it, it was posted by him too.

Admittedly, the list in that correction is out of date: since then we've busted a ClearChannel patent, revealed (after three years of research) a plan to introduce a broadcast flag copy controls in Europe, and made a DMCA abuser publicly apologise to the Net. Did I mention that EFF did that *this week*? Check the archives for previous stuff.

Also, for the record, Wendy is a great lawyer, and a fine hacker of MythTV. I fully expect she'll kick the NFL's asses , then watch the action replay without ads later.

Most people in the U.S. can't use Fon's service anyway. Between this and handing out stock options to blogging pundits in return for a kind word, they seem to be a pretty shady company.

Wendy wouldn't exactly agree with you... I for one see plenty other things wrong with the EULA. The reinstall thing, as detailed here on /. on previous discussions, was a joke. You can always call the 800 number and whine and they'll give you a new key, an unlimited one at that. Someone said it's easier than browsing for the crack, you just dial and a nice person dictates the new license number.

Oh, and the virtual limitations are very real, thank you very much.

Beware. Vista is an OS like no other. I'm for one am not going to upgrade after reading part of the EULA. 4. Problem-solving prohibited. "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software." http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/19/ forbidding_vistas_windows_licensing_disserves_the_ user.html/

I agree - Wendy (founder of Chilling Effects) and Fred (EFF laywer) rock!

Wendy seem to have no problems

Spoken like someone who never used an Amiga.
Do you realize that the Amiga's Zorro bus had a feature called autoconfig which made it pretty damn plug and play?
The ONLY case of needing a soldering iron, was if you wanted to upgrade chip RAM in an old model Amiga 500. I did this. Most geeks did this. Most ordinary users didn't need to.
Oh wait, I need to explain chip RAM. You know how you have video RAM? Well just think of chip RAM as memory for your video and your audio. That's it. Hard to understand eh?
If you are going to slam the use of torx screws in the Amiga 500 - you might want to consider that things sure as hell were worse on the Mac. At least I could buy a torx screwdriver at the local store. Mac users had to get a Mac Cracker.
The Amiga 2000, 3000 and 4000 series where standard to open up and work on. No funky tools. The 500, 600 and 1200 were designed to generally be closed box units and not meant to be opened by end users. And if you did want to mess with them, well you could just pony up the chump change for the torx screwdriver. I would also note that the Amiga 500 sold for considerably less than $2000. More like $750 when I bought mine in '87.
I can't believe you got modded +5 informative.

"Columns of 4-pt Flyshit font listing hardware add-ons which required an advanced EE degree to install."

Um OK. I don't know what the hell you were reading. My own upgrades? Lets see SCSI hard disks, removable media (Syquest), upgrade to a 68030 CPU, video upgrade etc. All plug and play.
There was absolutely no difference between plugging in a card on an Amiga versus a Mac. You opened the case, you plugged it in. Now where is my EE degree?
Lastly, in the case of video - the Amiga was a tool just like any other. And in a specialized industry the technical equipment has plenty of weirdo terms and issues you need to deal with. It sure was no different moving to an Avid system in the mid 90s.

Where's the cutting edge stuff!?! :)

Right here.

As a bonus, the court cites to Wikipedia on the DHS color-coded "advisory" system.

(Now, granted, it's fair game to make fun of him for his spelling of encyclypedia.)

In the spirit of fark and smokinggun:

pic!

Here is some more background information on our new fighter:

Her BLOG
Her homepage
Her Harvard homepage
and her Picture

Here is some more background information on our new fighter:

Her BLOG
Her homepage
Her Harvard homepage
and her Picture

Miss Selzer is a lawyer for the EFF. She also created the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. As far as I know, she has no relation to the pest-control website. She was simply interviewed for the story.

She was commenting that most web forums are privately owned, so if this ruling stands, trolls can be kicked off virtually any website. Note, she didn't actually take a stance on the case, she simply suggested she was uncomfortable with it.