Slashdot Mirror
Google's Information On DMCA Takedown Abuse
Binestar writes "According to a PC World article, Google has submitted a brief to New Zealand about its proposed copyright law (section 92A). "In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.""
In a world where executives of companies that lose money expect as a matter of course to be paid millions of dollars of bonuses, it is a given that a tool such as the DMCA **WILL** be abused to silence opposition or competition...
Not that I don't agree but your example doesn't take into account that now its fairly trivial to copy that sheet music and distribute it to thousands if not millions at no cost to the distributor in time or money.
"The New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, stated that the stronger copyright laws, including the controversial section 92a, were required for New Zealand to be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with America."
There was a time when music was sold as sheet music. Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.
Sheet music is cheaper than the cost of copying by hand. This doesn't mean that copyright laws were useless though -- without them, someone else could have set up their own printing press and started (cheaply) printing their own copies of Joplin's work.
Until recently, the only marginally profitable (in the economic sense) form of copyright violation was mass reproduction, requiring extensive capital costs. This made it easy to enforce copyright laws: You can't sell many thousands of copies of anything without attracting attention.
Everything changed when it became possible to make a profit by making a single illegal copy of something.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Hoist by thine own petard. By the way it's "ought to". See, we can all be pedantic grammar nazis too.
It's easy. And yet... so pointless. Language is a means of communication. For millennia, it had no agreed, defined structure. Then along comes Dr Johnson, the world's first grammar nazi, and spoiled things for everyone by stifling creativity. Shakespeare, a man who -- you know -- was and is, widely renowned for being quite good at English, used to make words up all the time, and bend others to his will. You'd have him shot, no doubt. Or his books burned for grammar crimes.
Did you understand what the summary meant? Yes, you did. So... shut up.
Um, have you been paying attention? We have been moaning about this for the last year, some of us (me, maybe not you) wrote to our electoral candidates asking what they would do about it, and now the National government has suspended the enactment of the law for review. Seems like moaning about it is all we can do, but at least it is having an effect!
mediocrity rules, man
The way I read it is this: 57% were companies trying to stifle competition, plus 37% of notices were not (valid) copyright claims. Note the emphasis. That means 37% of the claims were about things that had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. Seems about right to me. The DMCA is so badly abused that it's not even funny....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The perjury clause is so useless as to be limited. I could send a DMCA request to anyone's provider, claiming that file X on their website infringed my copyright on work Y, and as long as I actually owned work Y, I would not have committed perjury -- even if I knew damn well file X had nothing to do with it.
Congratulations, your organization is a DMCA abuser. DMCA takedowns are for copyright violation, not trademark violation.
Indeed, it is helpful -- for abusers. The people abused, on the other hand, are shut down with no recourse other than to involve lawyers at substantial cost; the counternotice basically says "Meet me at high noon in Federal Court". Furthermore, if the abuser does sue, the DMCA provides the equivalent of an automatic restraining order, which, given the length of court cases, means the abuser essentially wins regardless of the outcome.
Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.
There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.
I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation. This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song, and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.
In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A.
And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives to S92A.
If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.
Thanks!
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
Yeah let's just keep doing what people in the past did. It's worked out so well before.
Now show me one sentence where the meaning becomes different depending on which way you spell it(')s.
Never drink wine before its time. (Don't drink pre-vintage wine)
Never drink wine before it's time. (Don't drink before 12pm)
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
57% were businesses targeting competitors. I take that to mean that they were trying to shut down their competitor's production/sales, rather than having a legitimate beef against a product.
That's a flawed interpretation, doesn't it make sense that a vast majority of claims were against competitors? If someone is breaching copyright on your products for commercial purposes, they are selling your product too, making them a competitor. That means that the other 43% are probably made up partially by the 37%, with the rest being valid claims against non-competitors, which to me says private entities (ie, not commercial ones).
I find it surprising that there aren't more claims against competitors, given that if someone is violating copyright on your work (and then selling it), that pretty much makes them a competitor by definition, if they weren't already.
1178161 is prime...
Kinda like how medicine is a recent 'fad'.
I mean, people were dying for thousands of years!! Stop complaining when people don't use medicine properly!! It's constantly evolving and changing! Okay, so you took a poison pill. Did you survive? Are you okay? Yes? Shut the fuck up then!
they squiggle on computer terms (agregator)
That's because it's aggregator.
My take on this. EVERY law that was passed in this country from 1900 to the present should be REPEALED.
Every. Single. One.
Why?
Because they are all GARBAGE. That's why. The DMCS is only one small and trivial example.
100% of this thread is lame.
Gosh, it couldn't be that the notices are actually regarding the sale of counterfeit goods ... counterfeit goods which would violate copyright.
Most goods aren't subject to copyright. That's why generic drugs exist - they can be patented, but once the patent expires, it's perfectly legal to sell your own copies. You just have to change the name and the packaging, in such a way that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused into thinking your product actually is the original product (that would be a trademark violation).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;