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.""
Dangerous
Now where will I get my porn?
GNAA - GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGERASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.
.________________________________________________.
If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGERASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect toirc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.
If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2
Copyright (c) 2003-2009 Gay Nigger Association of America
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...
25% of slashdot readers are now thinking about eating out my asshole.
"It's" == "It is" "Its" ==
I am not left-handed, either!
57% are from businesses targeting competitors, and only 37% are invalid? What does that mean? 1.) That up to 20% of notices are from businesses who are catching their competitors in the act? 2.) Or is it not 37% of total notices? 3.) Or am I getting mixed up on something?
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.
I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but copyright law is increasingly working more against society than in its interests, and this story just goes to prove that yet again. When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
"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."
DMCA notices are filed under penalty of perjury. Has anybody, ever, even a single case, been punished for filing a false takedown?
*crickets*
This is just one more reasons why section 92A is nothing but trouble for 99% of the population. But how do we go about solving the problem. Moaning about it doesn't seem to have much effect.
Look up Venom Fang X on Youtube.
The content of the Google submission to TCF can be found here. Some of the other submission (including the Auckland District Law Society and the Radio New Zealand submissions) are worth a read.
Since the advent of the internet and the laws governing it and how it affects copyright, the government has passed laws which turn the judicial system into an arm of major corporations.
Copyright needs to be protected - as a photographer I know this well. However, the rights of the populous must also be protected: isn't that ostensibly the role of government?
Douglas Whitaker
That's a good question. I think the penalty of perjury clause serves as a mild deterrent, and I think to an extent it does work. It takes a pretty dishonest person to sign on the dotted line, under the penalty of perjury, things to which the person is attesting falsely. Of course, that doesn't stop unscrupulous individuals who use the same logic - that the penalty is really not enforced.
/. members do. I think legitimate copyrights, trademarks and patents deserve reasonable protection in an information-based economy. Yes, the Act went far too far with the anti-circumvention clauses that obviously thwart innovation. However, in the electronic world where bad actors can instantly steal and widely disseminate other people's work and pass it off as their own - and even masquerade as the owner of the work maliciously, it is very helpful to have a method within the law for protecting ownership rights short of always involving lawyers at substantial and on-going costs. Every once in a while my organization has to send out a DMCA take down notice against those who are using our trademarks to sell counterfeit merchandise. If the DMCA were not in force and we had to file a lawsuit over every small act of infringement, we would not be able to afford to protect our rights. On the other hand, we once also faced a scum bag lawyer who fraudulently abused the DMCA (under the penalty of perjury) and caused us huge problems because of the incompetence of Network Solutions. We had to remedy that situation in court.
I don't hate the DMCA like the vast majority of
The DMCA is a legal tool that can either be used properly or misused. The most important thing for web hosts and other service providers to do is to abide by the protocol established by the Act for handling take-downs and counter-notices and to publish a DMCA policy that recognizes that protocol. Unfortunately, in hotly contested situations many web hosts will be more responsive to the threats of abusive lawyers than to the letter of the federal law and their own stated policies. A lot of providers don't publish any information on how they handle DMCA notices, and that is a problem. YMMV.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
I thought that google liked the DCMA as it protects them from lawsuits and other more extensive harassment. As it is now, all the have to do is take down the content. If this wasn't there they would be overrun with lawsuits. The only thing it seems to fight are things that might hurt it's ad business.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Do you think this would be enough to force the DCMA to be kneecapped? Clearly this was not it's intended purpose so the law needs to change.
Its love? What does money love?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
My fear is that-that any law that is put forth to replace (fix?) the DMCA's problems might well more Draconian then the DMCA itself. It's as if the bad known is better then the possibly worse unknown
OR is their stock too low for that now.
This is my sig.
EFNet, and aaply
Google's proposal. (Warning! .pdf, stab their eyes)
Here's Google's citation to the numbers. (Another .pdf, damn them)
is businesses targeting their own customers - RIAA and MPAA.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I thought we were living in a democratic society, so why do the minority (big business) have the power to push through ridiculous legislation with absolutly no regard to the human rights nor the innocent until proven guilty legislations, which our grandparents and ancestors fought and died to implement in the name of making our cuntry a better place to live. Its great to be an underdog in a society that favors only money... ahem
firstly it's likely to be abused - as demonstrated by the failure of the copyrighteous to use the existing laws correctly. Secondly it reverses the onus of proof and removes even due process - which makes the abuse much more potent and the chilling effect on legitimate activity that much more powerful.
The people pushing these laws want to be sure they are the only conduit by which any (even perfectly legal) content can be distributed. We all know how well monopolies work out - why make it easier for the incumbents to maintain and extend theirs?
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.
http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/d543212c-ab29-42dc-8fa5-de14710785f6.html
Scroll down to "Google" and click, you can also read any of the other comments, they are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing 92A.
Scoop has extracted some choice quotes: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0903/S00207.htm
That is the reason the music distrubution industry should die off completely - they simply, no longer offer any service of any value. Songwriters and artists should of course ba paid (at reasonable rates of course, today 90-96% of the cost of music is for the distribution), and artists in turn pay for studio time etc. as needed.
FRA: STFU GTFO
I'm not sure exactly how to do it, but I feel like this problem of wanting the internet tweaked to protect this or that group, that
A) having a free, neutral internet is flat out beneficial to the society that has it.
B) tweaking that from being completely free and neutral puts that society at a competitive disadvantage versus any society that doesn't, and
C) unless you can prove that the benefits to society outweigh the competitive disadvantage gain by 'tweaking' the internet away from being a free and neutral common carrier, you are arbitrarily laughed out of the room.
We invented the Internet, the largest change in the ability to transmit ideas since the printing press.
Every time we decide that we need to arbitrarily lower the ability of the Internet to transmit ideas, we are seriously considering undermining the exact thing that as made it useful to have, but generally without explicitly admitting to that.
Now, I'm will to concede the possibility that undermining the Internets ability to transmit information may in fact involve less opportunity cost in a specific case than simply putting more people to fix the problem caused by transmitting that information - the obvious example is 'child pornography', recidivism of sexual offenders being a notoriously difficult issue to 'cure', even in comparison to things like drug addiction.
But even in a case like that - I'm at the point of being willing to wipe the slate clean and forcing people to measure the actual damage caused by lowering the Internets ability to transmit that information compared to simply using the same amount of money to catch the people that actually cause the problem.
And frankly, if I am willing to force the advocates of that to make their case for it in mathematical precision, you can imagine how sick and tired I am of hearing the intellectual property lobby scream over and over that they need the internet redesigned to their personal specifications because someone somewhere may theoretically be keeping them from making 231% profit on every dollar of investment instead of the mere 230% profit margin they have now.
I don't care how many billions of dollars you're losing because of the internet. You have to prove that *I* am, as an average citizen of the country that has an internet, going to be inconvenienced more by retaining net neutrality and forcing you to do the work of having to prove your case than I am by compromising net neutrality.
If, taking into account all the opportunity costs involved in each possible solution, you can't mathematically prove that - then shut the fuck up and quit throwing fits.
Pug, who is evidently more pissed about this than he had realized.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media