Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use Must Be Considered In DMCA Notices
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "US District Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that an 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim,' which paves the way for a lawsuit against Universal Music over a ridiculous DMCA Takedown notice they filed. One can only hope that this ruling will some day be used against those who file misguided copyright complaints against computer printers. Those lawyers who rely upon buggy infringement detection programs to do their thinking for them — programs which are incapable of making subjective considerations like fair use — might want to think again before rubber stamping computer-generated DMCA Takedown notices."
Maybe it isn't so much reliance on a mindless infringement detection program as groups like the MPAA and RIAA seem to absolutely loathe the concept of fair use. Maybe the lawyers are actually looking for a scapegoat.
I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
To date, has anyone anywhere gone on trial for perjuring themselves in a false DMCA notice? If not, why not?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If "subjective bad faith" as the cause of Universal's behavior is eliminated, they're left with only "stupidity" or "ignorance of the law" as their excuses. Since neither of those is likely to make their lawyers look good, I'm guessing they'll go with with some variation on the general theme of "ignorance".
Sample: "Sadly, your honor, in spite of the many requirements we placed in their contract, we were not informed by a third-party subcontractor of a computer or software error for which they were entirely to blame."
I am fully prepared to begin holding up my end of the bargain on the copyright equation.
As soon as you are willing to hold up yours.
This includes, but is not limited to:
Copyright is a two-way street, and failure to maintain your responsibilities means a complete forfeiture of any right to try and enforce compliance with my responsibilities. Continued attempts to pass laws in order to shirk your responsibilities will be responded to with unchecked, tube-clogging mass downloading.
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
I doubt we all have enough critical thinking skills to grant us immunity form this kind of thing or the tactic would not be so popular. It is fun to think of Slashdot as a community of exclusively high end thinkers, but that is quite a ways from the truth.
Despite that I much prefer this kind of bias to the paid-for-but-not-admitted-to stories. At least we can assume overly dramatic write ups get through because the editors don't really want to take the time to edit them. With the paid stories the editors are taking an active role in the deception.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
What do you expect on a story about DMCA takedown notices submitted by a guy named "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property"?
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
I wish I hadn't clicked "Submit" before:
What I also want to point out is that, if these people who are creating "intellectual property" can no longer afford to do so because they can't make money on their works, there would indeed be a sharp, incredible decline in the number of "works of art". Pop-culture as we know it would utterly cease to exist.
To some this is a good thing. To others, absolutely awful. I just wanted to make sure I pointed this out so I didn't come off *completely* one sided. I don't think that copyright is necessarily bad. But I also think that copyright law, as it is now, is horrendously fubar. If you make money on your copyright works, that's fine, but there's no reason at all why you should get 70 years after your death to make money. That completely unbalances the copyright equation.
It is important to have new works of art added to society. So we provide copyright on those new works to justify the cost of creation to the people creating.
However, if we never get to use those new works of art in any way other than as consumers, then the benefit to society (by being able to use said works in other forms, new packages, or just in any which way they want) is lost. I'd say the value of those works decreases by over half, in that instance, but that's admittedly subjective.
Television and radio as we know them would not exist without copyright.
Take Battlestar Galactica. The folks who make that show do not make money from advertisements. They make money from Sci-Fi, which makes money from advertisements. If Battlestar Galatica did not have a copyright, Sci-Fi would not have to pay them anything and the show might never be made.
Sci-Fi might want to pay them to keep making the show so Sci-Fi can keep getting advertisements, but what then stops someone else from airing the same show with fewer, cheaper commercials?
This would be GREAT for the consumer. At least until people realized there was no money to be had in creating television or airing it.
Oh, I hope this is a harbinger for the future. I used to use AudioGalaxy regularly, mostly rare 78s and cylinder recordings from 1900 to 1940 which a number of generous collectors were sharing.
One day, virtually all of the shared material was unavailable. If I recall correctly, all of the items were still visible, but now contained individual notices that they were no longer available due to copyright restrictions.
I made a few weak attempts to contact AudioGalaxy and ask them to restore material that was obviously not under copyright, to ask them what checking they had done, and how they could possibly even think that a 1907 recording of Vesta Victoria singing "There Was I Waiting At The Church" was copyrighted.
Of course, they wouldn't even give me the courtesy of a reply.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Cry me a river. I wish I could make money from reading Dilbert all day, but since society has decided that it doesn't consider that a profitable career, guess I'll have to find more productive employment.
If one doesn't like someone else's business model, they have every right to not do business with them. However, not doing business with them does not mean "ignoring their business model because it doesn't suit me, but taking the end product anyway". Those who support reasonable copyright aren't demanding that you pay money for their work, they're demanding that you either agree to their stipulations, or don't take their work. I fail to see what's particularly unfair about that.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Commercial considerations are important in copyright infringement. If Mrs. Lenz was somehow using the clip for monetary gain, then Prince and Universal are entitled to royalties. For example, any movie or TV show that uses a song has to reach an agreement with the copyright holder regardless of the length of the song clip. Also part of Universal's argument was the clip could be used for commercial gain and might harm the market of dancing baby videos if anyone could put up videos of their babies dancing to music without impunity. I know that sounds absurd but that is what Universal argued.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
from my othwer comment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=653201&cid=24693271
if you are talking about the internet, where trading files is anonymous, free, and infinite in reach, there is no place for copyright, because it is unenforceable
in any other venue: the real world, or even in small controlled virtual settings with a few players, copyright is still valid, because it is still enforceable
the situation you describe above involves a small set of players playing with something that costs a lot of money. this gives them the incentive, and the means, to control who does what with what media content
so yes, in your scenario, copyright sitll aplies, an always will still apply
but copyright in regard to anything that can distributed AND consumed on the internet is as dead as michael jackson's day care business
an agreement between studios is NOT something distributed and consumed on the internet
its a real world meatspace issue involving a lot of expense by a few slow moving players
copyright is untouchable in this scenario
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Q. How does Slashdot earn money?
Advertising.
Q. How does advertising make money?
A. People.
Q. How do we get people?
A. Discussion.
Q. What makes discussion?
A. Conflict. Arguements.
That is not to say Slashdot doesn't post good stories. I read them - as do you. The world has changed since these beautiful early days you speak of though. You don't have to be a professional to find a good story. You don't even have to be a writer. Slashdot has evolved with the times, in some ways for the good, and in some ways for the bad. It is now a commercial entity though, so stories that bring people are always good, no matter how bad you think they are.
If an entity sues for copyright infringement on some work they claim copyright to and loses with prejudice, they are stripped of any copyright to the work they sued for.
Simple. In litigation, there needs to a concept of jeopardy. Both sides can lose. Not just the case, but something substantial. The defendant here is being sued for monetary compensation. In criminal cases the prosecution jeopardizes their ability to prosecute in the future using better evidence. We clearly need the same principle to apply to copyright litigation.
If you don't want to take away the copyright, at least make the plaintiff pay the amount they were asking for in damages to the defendant. Jeopardy would restore balance to the system.
m
If Sci-Fi want the show made, then they would have to pay the people who make it, the only thing that changes is that no-one gets to keep the copyright under their control. Someone else could re-broadcast it, but they'd always be an episode behind; being the official channel for a show is still going to draw in the bulk of the viewership. Besides, the rebroadcasters are providing a useful service for people who missed the show the first time around, if Sci-Fi don't want the ad money from doing a re-run the next day they why shouldn't some other channel?
People aren't going to suddenly stop paying for their media, just because copying is allowed... some people might, but there's still money to be had by broadcasting TV (some will prefer that to a download) or charging attendance to a movie theatre, or selling books. Hell, some people might even prefer to pay for things they could obtain a free copy of with minimal effort just for the "official" version, or to get some neat extras or something.
Or even, how's this for an idea, because they like the media in question and want it to continue being made. If it were a case of "here's our show (or music, or game, or movie), we know you can get it for free, but if you like it then either support us by getting it via [approved distribution channel] or sling us a donation" then I'd be happy to toss some money into the metaphorical hat. Case in point, I played some of a pirate copy of Half-Life 2 then decided I'd rather pay for it because it was a great game and Valve deserved to be paid for it.
Even without copyright I think there's money to be made online if the producers are sensible about it. They'll still be the first to have it, the recognised name for having it, a stronger brand than the pirate site (or at least they would be if they'd taken this route from the start - now TPB is pretty well rooted)... so long as they don't pull stupid shit like loading it down with DRM or restricting people to a crappy web player or something, they could make money from it.
yes, copyright is unenforceable on the internet. do you agree or disagree?
if you disagree, you are in denial, if you agree, forget everything i said, throw it all out. consider me a loathesome poisonous crackpot. i don' care. i'm merely describing reality, a world without copyright. which, obviously, is what the internet is turning it into. see? do you adapt to that? or die off in denial?
and you've kind of revealed your sluggishness of mind on that subject already:
"Hollywood wouldn't make money off of DVDs because most stores would instead sell pirated DVDs, BMG wouldn't make money from CDs because most CDs would be pirated"
my good friend, the subject matter at hand are people are copying and distributing media on the internet. do you understand that? this pirating of dvds and cds is a red herring, a kind ancient 20 year old concern. please update your understanding of the world before us
i think that you are simply in denial. you describe panic and anarchy. really? hollywood doesn't do great business in theatres? there ar eno touring musicians? bertelsmann and dreamworks aren't going to die, they'll just see an aspect of their business atrophy while other aspects takeoff. the artists menwhile, who are mostly ripped off by the distributors will continue to create. copyright as you understand it is in the ideal sense it never existed in. thanks for bringing up jefferson. i think jefferson's keen mind would perceive that copyright is being abused to protect the distributor, not the artist. meanwhile, ever hear of shakespeare? beethoven? i think jefferson would perceive that copyright has been abused, and abolish it. your belief in copyright is mythology. the real world implementation of copyright is as a bullyclub for distributors. artists sign away their rights, and get pennies. stop believing the hype
when you are revolted by me, you aren't disagreeing with me, you are shooting the messenger, you are disagreeing with reality, which i am merely describing
go ahead and hate me, i'm just a random asshole on the internet
reality on the other hand, i suggest you come to grips with
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it