DMCA Takedown Scandal, Part Two

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DMCA Takedown Scandal, Part Two

Posted by kdawson on Sunday December 20, 2009 @08:11AM from the trying-harder dept.

pmdubs writes "Following up on our earlier discussion, Michael Freedman updates us on experience with dubious DMCA takedown notices. As a result of the publicity his initial post received, the Video Protection Alliance has dropped Nexicon, the company to which they had outsourced infringement detection. In this case, while there may be little legal recourse to issuing invalid DMCA notices, the threat of bad press seems to have reined in highly questionable practices."

153 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

The proper way to solve these problems is to establish legal precedent, not to give them bad press. They'll just find someone else to do their dirty work now, and we're still as fucked as always in the eyes of the braindead laws.
1. Re:Not a solution. by sakdoctor · 2009-12-20 08:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The proper way to resolve this, is to repel the DMCA, and enshrine in law, people's right to circumvent access control when no copyright infringement takes place.
  Bye bye lexmark. Bye bye iphone/ipod crap
2. Re:Not a solution. by siloko · 2009-12-20 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The proper way to resolve this is to make the penalty for falsely sending DMCA takedown notices equal to that of actually committing an infringement. In some cases this can amount to millions of dollars ;)
3. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. The proper way to solve these problems is via RPG.
4. Re:Not a solution. by Runaway1956 · 2009-12-20 08:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Gotta disagree. The Sakdoctor is on target here. Laws that infringe on the people's rights are wrong. DMCA most definitely infringes on people's rights. No court in America should ever have approved of any DMCA law, period. Making up more new laws to make DMCA work better is not the correct route. Just repeal it, and make the "rights holders" do some real work to enforce reasonable law.
  Reasonable law, by the way, would see everything copyrighted before about 1970 in the public domain - and possible some things even later than 1970.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
5. Re:Not a solution. by siloko · 2009-12-20 09:04 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Well I was just being flippant - but is flippancy worse than day dreaming!? Sure my solution is like polishing a turd but it at least it aspires to the realms of possibility. Yours, on the other hand, could have been penned by Asimov himself ;)
6. Re:Not a solution. by Runaway1956 · 2009-12-20 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Yours, on the other hand, could have been penned by Asimov himself ;)"
  And, flattery will get you anywhere you want to go, LMAO
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
7. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Awesome. DnD or WoW?
8. Re:Not a solution. by Falconhell · 2009-12-20 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in sparkles!
9. Re:Not a solution. by HangingChad · 2009-12-20 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  while there may be little legal recourse to issuing invalid DMCA notices...
  You can't sue the organization issuing a bogus take-down notice? Tortious interference? Shouldn't be too tough to show actual damages, tripled in this state if it's deliberate. Or is there some incredibly high bar for damages?
  
  --
  That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
10. Re:Not a solution. by Gerzel · 2009-12-20 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on what you call a right and what you call infringing?
  Are laws against murder infringing on a person's right to kill? Obviously not, as almost no one thinks that the right to kill whom we please should be a right, and most belive that a person has a right not to be killed.
  How about the right to work or industry with laws against pollution? Well pollution infringes on others rights, but those laws infringe on the worker/industrialist's rights as well. Which infringement is worse?
  In the end any laws will "infringe" upon something someone thinks is their right. Thus law isn't about upholding all rights but upholding those deemed most important.
  Furthermore the law has another mandate, that to establish some kind of order, peace and the general welfare of the nation, which is beyond and may at times belay the establishment of rights.
11. Re:Not a solution. by kesuki · 2009-12-20 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  "Reasonable law, by the way, would see everything copyrighted before about 1970 in the public domain - and possible some things even later than 1970."
  if it really was Sunday December 2009, that would still be a huge nightmare.
  the dmca is an unreasonable law if only because it was written like a patch to stop the downloading of content.
  
  --
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
12. Re:Not a solution. by selven · 2009-12-20 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Enshrine in law people's right to circumvent digital restrictions ALWAYS. If people are committing copyright infringement while circumventing a digital restriction they're still infringing copyright, there's no need to add another offense to the list.
13. Re:Not a solution. by Runaway1956 · 2009-12-20 10:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Least Restrictive Means Test
  The "least restrictive means," or "less drastic means," test is a standard imposed by the courts when considering the validity of legislation that touches upon constitutional interests. If the government enacts a law that restricts a fundamental personal liberty, it must employ the least restrictive measures possible to achieve its goal. This test applies even when the government has a legitimate purpose in adopting the particular law. The Least Restrictive Means Test has been applied primarily to the regulation of speech. It can also be applied to other types of regulations, such as legislation affecting interstate commerce.
  In Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S. Ct. 247, 5 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the least restrictive means test to an Arkansas statute that required teachers to file annually an Affidavit listing all the organizations to which they belonged and the amount of money they had contributed to each organization in the previous five years. B. T. Shelton was one of a group of teachers who refused to file the affidavit and who as a result did not have their teaching contract renewed. Upon reviewing the statute, the Court found that the state had a legitimate interest in investigating the fitness and competence of its teachers, and that the information requested in the affidavit could help the state in that investigation. However, according to the Court, the statute went far beyond its legitimate purpose because it required information that bore no relationship to a teacher's occupational fitness. The Court also found that the information revealed by the affidavits was not kept confidential. The Court struck down the law because its "unlimited and indiscriminate sweep" went well beyond the state's legitimate interest in the qualifications of its teachers.
  Two constitutional doctrines that are closely related to the least restrictive means test are the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. These doctrines are applied to statutes and regulations that restrict constitutional rights. The Overbreadth Doctrine requires that statutes regulating activities that are not constitutionally protected must not be written so broadly as to restrict activities that are constitutionally protected.
  The vagueness doctrine requires that statutes adequately describe the behavior being regulated. A vague statute may have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected behavior because of fear of violating the statute. Also, law enforcement personnel need clear guidelines as to what constitutes a violation of the law.
  The least restrictive means test, the overbreadth doctrine, and the vagueness doctrine all help to preserve constitutionally protected speech and behavior by requiring statutes to be clear and narrowly drawn, and to use the least restrictive means to reach the desired end.
  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Least+Restrictive+Means+Test
  I really don't believe that the DMCA would pass muster if examined in light of least restrictive means. DMCA is by definition a restriction on the PEOPLE's rights.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
14. Re:Not a solution. by Joe+Decker · 2009-12-20 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  In theory, the penalty for falsely sending DMCA takedown notices is five years in prison. Perhaps the problem is enforcing that law, not making the penalty larger.
  
  --
  I'm a nature photographer.
15. Re:Not a solution. by icannotthinkofaname · 2009-12-20 10:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You can't polish a turd
  What? I thought the Mythbusters proved that you can polish a turd.
  
  --
  Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
16. Re:Not a solution. by hedwards · 2009-12-20 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Of course laws against murder infringe upon ones right to kill. It's just that by general agreement we've decided we're better off giving up that right so as to greatly reduce the likelihood of being murdered by somebody that's pissed off by us.
  
  More specifically the law against murder makes the proposition of using lethal force in self defense much dicier than it would otherwise be because you then have to worry about what people are going to think in retrospect. You also lose the ability to deter others by putting the person's head on a pike.
  
  Not that it isn't an overall worthwhile trade off, but you are having your rights infringed by the arrangement.
17. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  They'll just find someone else to do their dirty work now
  
  Or Nexicon could just assume a different corporate identity and get re-contracted, which is probably the most likely scenario.
18. Re:Not a solution. by DJRumpy · 2009-12-20 10:39 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Excellent post. Mod parent up please.
19. Re:Not a solution. by DAldredge · 2009-12-20 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you want the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA to go away?
20. Re:Not a solution. by jimicus · 2009-12-20 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  The proper way to resolve this is to make the penalty for falsely sending DMCA takedown notices equal to that of actually committing an infringement. In some cases this can amount to millions of dollars ;)
  I'm not sure there's any real need. A penalty is built in to a DMCA takedown notice: "I swear under penalty of perjury...."
  So all you need to do is get a few of them on trial for perjury.
21. Re:Not a solution. by jonbryce · 2009-12-20 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  The penalty for falsely sending a DMCA takedown notice is a perjury prosecution. Someone should be thrown in jail for it.
22. Re:Not a solution. by quanticle · 2009-12-20 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  As one of the replies to a sibling post states, the perjury penalty is only for falsely saying that you're the copyright owner or a representative of the copyright owner. In this case, the company sending the DMCA notices was a representative of the copyright owner.
  
  --
  We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
23. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  You already state on penalty of perjury that a DMCA takedown is true. This has always been true, and kdawson and his sad anti-copyright piracy loving hippies here on slashdot still keep cheerleading for pathetic little thieves rather than content creators.
  Fucking get a job hippies, and stop leeching off everyone else.
24. Re:Not a solution. by sxeraverx · 2009-12-20 11:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Don't just repeal the DMCA. Completely reverse it. I have every moral right to make a copy of something I own for my own personal use. Any DRM that tries to make that more difficult should be outlawed.
  Hello, "DMCA2 put up notice"?
25. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 11:34 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  A study slashdotted last year said the economic lifespan of creative work was only about 14 years.
26. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  I really don't believe that the DMCA would pass muster if examined in light of least restrictive means. DMCA is by definition a restriction on the PEOPLE's rights.
  In all honesty, I find copyright as a whole should have failed those tests if they were properly applied in the beginning.
27. Re:Not a solution. by causality · 2009-12-20 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  The proper way to resolve this, is to repel the DMCA
  Do you know where I can buy DMCA repellant? Hell, a more generic shoddy-law repellant would do the job too.
  
  *sprays can* PFSSSSSSSHHHHT... "What's that?" "Oh that? That's DMCA repellant!"
  
  ... with apologies to the late Bill Hicks.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
28. Re:Not a solution. by causality · 2009-12-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Of course laws against murder infringe upon ones right to kill. It's just that by general agreement we've decided we're better off giving up that right so as to greatly reduce the likelihood of being murdered by somebody that's pissed off by us. More specifically the law against murder makes the proposition of using lethal force in self defense much dicier than it would otherwise be because you then have to worry about what people are going to think in retrospect. You also lose the ability to deter others by putting the person's head on a pike. Not that it isn't an overall worthwhile trade off, but you are having your rights infringed by the arrangement.
  I've always felt that it should be understood that anyone who does certain activities is so unconcerned for their own safety that they give up their legal right to be protected by the law. This includes breaking into someone's house, mugging them, etc. If those activities became more dangerous by being more likely to result in the perpetrator being legally shot and killed, it could only be a good thing. There is no good, morally/ethically correct reason why a homeowner who is faced with an (armed or potentially armed) intruder should ever have to worry about prosecution for any amount of force used against said intruder. If the intruder doesn't like that, he can always decide not to break into someone's home.
  
  No, the only reason why such a legitimate case of self-defense would ever be prosecuted has nothing to do with ethics or morality or good legal precedent. It's because the government wishes to have a monopoly on the use of force.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
29. Re:Not a solution. by causality · 2009-12-20 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  while there may be little legal recourse to issuing invalid DMCA notices...
  You can't sue the organization issuing a bogus take-down notice? Tortious interference? Shouldn't be too tough to show actual damages, tripled in this state if it's deliberate. Or is there some incredibly high bar for damages?
  If you want that to be effective, we need a loser-pays system for civil lawsuits. That is, whoever loses the lawsuit is liable for both their own legal expenses and those of the victor of the suit, in addition to any damages awarded. If you don't have this, then you have average individual Americans up against a well-funded army of corporate lawyers with nothing to equalize the odds.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
30. Re:Not a solution. by causality · 2009-12-20 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  As one of the replies to a sibling post states, the perjury penalty is only for falsely saying that you're the copyright owner or a representative of the copyright owner. In this case, the company sending the DMCA notices was a representative of the copyright owner.
  I wish we had a good legal definition of "fair use". Right now, fair use is a defense if you are sued. That's all it is. There is no law that says "if your use meets these criteria, then no one can successfully sue you." If we had such a good definition, we could then extend that perjury penalty to also apply to any takedown notices issued against people who were engaged in legally recognized fair use. That would greatly cut down on the abuses, assuming the "fair use" definition were not bought and paid for. Perhaps that's a big "if".
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
31. Re:Not a solution. by TapeCutter · 2009-12-20 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that simple. While I would love to see Anthony Watts behind bars he has the excuse that his website was displayed in the "climate crock of the week" video that he tried to take down. Since he has trouble understanding all sorts of things it is not a streach to claim he belived he was telling the truth and thus did not commit purgery.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
32. Re:Not a solution. by dbIII · 2009-12-20 12:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already harsh penalties for sending out false DMCA takedown notices in the law already? Also isn't it the case that these penalties have NEVER been applied? Without any sort of check or balance it is an unjust law, and if there are theoretical checks and balances that are never applied it is still an unjust law.
33. Re:Not a solution. by arose · 2009-12-20 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  There is no good, morally/ethically correct reason why a homeowner who is faced with an (armed or potentially armed) intruder should ever have to worry about prosecution for any amount of force used against said intruder.
  Bob, thanks for letting me borrow your truck, but I forgot my baseball bat, could you bring it over tonight on the way home? The back door is open.
  It was horrible officer, I heard this noise from the back door. I grabbed my gun and went to investigate and suddenly this man was coming towards... Bob! God lord Bob, why didn't you turn on the light!
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
34. Re:Not a solution. by sjames · 2009-12-20 13:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I agree that the DMCA is wrong, but if it won't go away, then abusing it (including using it negligently) needs to carry a lot more risk than it does now.
  A good start for a copyright reform would be a rollback. Copyright of everything created to date is rolled back to expire when it would have expired under the law as it was at the time of creation. While I'm sure many would complain bitterly, they wouldn't actually have much to hang their complaints on legally or philosophically. They will have exactly the boon that was to encourage the creation of the work in the first place. Their only "loss" would be the ill gotten gains from bribed lawmakers.
  The rest can come from there.
35. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  Then you obviously aren't a content creator.
36. Re:Not a solution. by RobertLTux · 2009-12-20 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  i would say use SecondLife since its the closest to "real world"
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
37. Re:Not a solution. by Anpheus · 2009-12-20 14:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Careful, DMCA also provides for safe harbor provisions. If we strike down the DMCA completely without replacing it, you can kiss Youtube, Slashdot, and every other user-contribution based site goodbye.
  I could post the first ten pages of a book on Slashdot and they would be legally liable.
38. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  No court in America should ever have approved of any DMCA law, period.
  Well the courts (judicial branch) do not make the laws, they interpret and apply the laws that are created by the legislative branch. I know in recent years, the checks and balances seem to be going away and it seems like one big glob run by the companies and the people they pay to be in place all three branches.
39. Re:Not a solution. by causality · 2009-12-20 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Four words: signs of forced entry.
  
  Also, you're unlikely to return a bat at i.e. 3am. Additionally, in many (most?) hoseholds you have more than one person on premises, like family members. Now you have multiple witnesses who would all have to lie in order to paint your scenario.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
40. Re:Not a solution. by arose · 2009-12-20 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  signs of forced entry
  ...take 5 minutes and no tools to create. Besides, something as forgetting to lock your back door should not make one fear prosecution in a world where homeowners (no protection for renters?) don't have to fear it for attacking intruders, should it?
  
  Also, you're unlikely to return a bat at i.e. 3am.
  Bob works a late shift. Besides, something completely out of your control, like when an intruder decides to come by, should not one make fear prosecution in a world like that? Intruders would presumably switch their schedules if it did...
  
  Now you have multiple witnesses who would all have to lie in order to paint your scenario.
  Ah, no fear for the brave home defender, unless they lack witnesses that is, or the witnesses stay out of the way because the brave home defender says that they should, while he checks out the noise.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
41. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  And if you do have a loser pays system you have a system of the little guy terrified of suing anyway because he literally could not afford to lose.
42. Re:Not a solution. by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2009-12-20 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think he meant "rocket-propelled grenade".
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
43. Re:Not a solution. by sjames · 2009-12-20 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  Even there, the law is careful to limit the problem. The exceptions are decently identified and many state laws make the most likely exceptions explicit. (most famously the "shoot the carjacker" law).
  Falsely accusing someone of murder carries serious penalties and generally requires significant evidence to even be taken seriously.
44. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  the proper way to resolve this is to recognize that congress had no legal authority to pass the DMCA in the first place and realize that the 9th amendment already has this covered.
45. Re:Not a solution. by belmolis · 2009-12-20 17:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Exactly. Current copyright durations are far too long and the extensions clearly do not serve the purpose of encouraging publication.
46. Re:Not a solution. by Smauler · 2009-12-20 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  So you decide which certain activities others have given up their right to? Or who? Perhaps the law could decide who has given up their legal right to be protected by the law...
  Some people would claim that trespassing on land revokes legal rights, but I'd wager just about everyone has at least accidently gone onto someone else's land without permission, at some time in the past.
47. Re:Not a solution. by jnork · 2009-12-20 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  And after it has been repelled we need to repeal it!
  Personally, I already find it repellent.
  
  --
  Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
48. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  Equal? you don't work in justice do you? when a 2$ song gets them thousands of dollars, the reverse should be blown up by factor 1000 aswell.
49. Re:Not a solution. by conureman · 2009-12-20 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ah the internet, an endless fount of useful knowledge.
  
  --
  The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
50. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already harsh penalties for sending out false DMCA takedown notices in the law already? Also isn't it the case that these penalties have NEVER been applied?
  You mean the phrase "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner" is actually just a joke?
  It doesn't sound like the kind of thing which would be too hard to prove, does it? If you have a signed notice with that phrase on, claiming something which is obviously false - how hard could it be for a court to rule on the perjury claim?
51. Re:Not a solution. by dbIII · 2009-12-21 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  That is my point - thousands of false notices have been sent out and there has not been a single charge of perjury for sending out false notices.
52. Re:Not a solution. by mcgrew · 2009-12-21 01:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The proper way to resolve this, is to repel the DMCA
  I'm repelled by that DMCA! (loved that typoo;)
  But how are we to repeal it when Congress is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the corporatti? This is a plutocracy. You can only get laws passed or repealed by bribing politicians here.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
53. Re:Not a solution. by mcgrew · 2009-12-21 01:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're in favor of a forty year copyright term? IMO that's far too long. Anything before 1989 should be in the public domain. The original US copyright term was 14 years.
  And I'd like to see a DMCA that states that DRM itself is illegal, as it prevents fair use as well as the work never being able to enter the public domain. If you add DRM your work would automatically enter the public domain, and if someone breaks that DRM (DRM can never really work anyway) you're fuX0red.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
54. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-21 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  I thought that was the point; even if it's shiny it's still a turd.
55. Re:Not a solution. by ultranova · 2009-12-21 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, the only reason why such a legitimate case of self-defense would ever be prosecuted has nothing to do with ethics or morality or good legal precedent. It's because the government wishes to have a monopoly on the use of force.
  
  True. That is the purpose of having a government in the first place. You also gave a good example why: because otherwise my right to life, property and whatever can be revoked whenever someone, anyone, thinks that I don't deserve them.
  In a society where the government didn't insist on having a monopoly on the use of force, the VPA wouldn't bother sending DMCA takedown notices, they'd simply send some thugs to loot Mr. Freedman's house - since his alleged violation of copyright had, in VPA's opinion, deprived him of the legal right to protection of property - and shoot him if he resisted - since that resistance had, again in VPA's opinion, deprived him of the legal right of protection of life. Furthermore, I - working as a voting processor - would forcibly stop you from voting, since in my opinion, expressing such utterly stupid views online have deprived you of the legal right to vote.
  I've never quite understood this attitude of some people that "criminals" shouldn't get the protection of law. Don't you understand the obvious abuses, or do you simply figure that there's enough people behind you that you would be invulnerable? Or did you read too much Batman and watch too many Western movies as a kid? Or is this simply a modern-day version of a bloodthirsty mob cheering while people - sorry, "criminals" - were fed to lions in the Colosseum?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
56. Re:Not a solution. by Runaway1956 · 2009-12-21 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry - no, I don't favor 40 year copyright terms. I just used that as a point that begins to enter the realms of sanity. Today, we live with life of the author, + 50 years for some works, and the organizations like RIAA are trying to push for longer limits. Totally insane.
  I really favor 12 to 15 year copyright terms - which was about what we had when copyright was invented. I'm also willing to compromise, somewhat. Lives are much longer today, it really does take a much larger investment to create some works, and some works have HUGE economic impacts. Movies, for instance, I might justify 20 to 25 year protections. Some books may merit 20 years. Songs? 15 years, maybe. Software? As mentioned above, software only has an economic lifetime of about 12 to 14 years, with an obviously decreasing value the older it is. I'd give software about 7 years of protection - which would put Windows XP and all previous versions of Windows into public domain right now.
  But, I don't even seriously argue for all of that. If we can just get the world's leaders out of the pockets of corporate producers, if we can just get SANE protection periods, THEN we might argue for fair and reasonable terms.
  I'll repeat - what we have today doesn't even enter into the realms of sanity. Let's make it sane, then argue over fairness.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
57. Re:Not a solution. by ultranova · 2009-12-21 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you want that to be effective, we need a loser-pays system for civil lawsuits. That is, whoever loses the lawsuit is liable for both their own legal expenses and those of the victor of the suit, in addition to any damages awarded. If you don't have this, then you have average individual Americans up against a well-funded army of corporate lawyers with nothing to equalize the odds.
  
  And if you have it, that average individual American taking on an army by himself will also get to pay their bills if he loses. Not exactly equalizing, I'd say...
  Actual equalization would be if the state paid all legal expences (as that would remove the main advantage organizations have over individuals), but that would quickly lead to a deluge of lawsuits from greedy assholes suing for every reason imaginable, and would be socialism besides.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
58. Re:Not a solution. by mcgrew · 2009-12-21 05:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Movies, for instance, I might justify 20 to 25 year protections.
  When the good ones make huge profits the wekend ther're released? Although I don't think 20 years is too unreasonable for any work, and I don't think the cost of the creation should have any bearing on it. Drug research is incredibly expensive, but they're covered by patents, which only last 20 years.
  I don't see why lifespan should have anything to do with it, either. Just because the average person lives longer doesn't mean everyone does. Lifespans are longer because fewer people are dying young, but many still do.
  I'll repeat - what we have today doesn't even enter into the realms of sanity.
  I agree completely.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
59. Re:Not a solution. by causality · 2009-12-21 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actual equalization would be if the state paid all legal expences (as that would remove the main advantage organizations have over individuals), but that would quickly lead to a deluge of lawsuits from greedy assholes suing for every reason imaginable, and would be socialism besides.
  I don't really know if that'd be socialism (and I'm no fan of central control). The court system is a legitimate function of government. If the tax dollars pay legal bills so that citizens are better able to utilize this function of government, is that really socialism?
  
  I have one idea of a simple mechanism to help prevent the deluge of lawsuits that you mention. If the judge dismisses the suit for any reason, you get stuck with your own legal bill and maybe also your opponent's. If the suit is worthy enough to proceed to its conclusion (a judgment or a settlement), then you don't.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
60. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-21 20:43 · Score: 0
  
  Hi, lawyer here. As I understand it, least restrictive means doesn't apply here. That test is for government actions. A takedown notice between private parties does not qualify on its face. You'd have to argue that the notice is somehow colored by government action because it's based on the copyright statute. That won't fly because copyright is a civil matter, notices are meant to inform a party of an existing violation for which they would otherwise be liable with a chance to correct it, and the other side has a chance to respond with their own notice refuting the accusations.
  Even if you somehow did show government action involved, the proper test would not be least restrictive means. That test applies to content-based speech regulations. Content-neutral regulations restricting the time, place, or manner of speech are subject to a less demanding test which this statute is likely to pass.
61. Re:Not a solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-22 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and those other idiots belong on the receiving end of said device.
Reigned vs. reined ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 08:17 · Score: 5, Informative

These highly questionable practices have reigned for a long time, but in this case may have been reined in...
Your english teacher.
1. Re:Reigned vs. reined ... by Dun+Malg · 2009-12-20 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Next you're probably going to tell me that the Mongol hoards didn't like to horde their treasure..... (or should that be "there treasure"?)
  
  --
  If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
2. Re:Reigned vs. reined ... by sxeraverx · 2009-12-20 11:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You, sir, rain supreme.
3. Re:Reigned vs. reined ... by causality · 2009-12-20 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  You, sir, rain supreme.
  If that where the case then they might one day loose they're supremacy.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
4. Re:Reigned vs. reined ... by Spykk · 2009-12-20 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Way to reign on his parade...
5. Re:Reigned vs. reined ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-21 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Next your probably going to tell me that the Mongol hoards didn't like to horde their treasure..... (or should that be "there treasure"?)
  FTFY
6. Re:Reigned vs. reined ... by sxeraverx · 2009-12-21 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, no whey!
Oh kdawson by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 08:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Troll me harder kdawson. HARDER, troll me harder!
I need it so bad.
1. Re:Oh kdawson by Jurily · 2009-12-20 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA is as bad as it is because in the US, a lawsuit is not just a process to negotiate about infringements and punishments: it's a punishment in itself. Lawyers are highly expensive, with no guarantees of a favorable outcome.
  Hence, if you get a letter saying "take that down or we'll sue", you don't start arguing because it can easily drive you bankrupt. However, no organization (including the government) should ever have this kind of censorship potential, especially on the internet.
2. Re:Oh kdawson by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  Uh! Oh god! I'm angry!
3. Re:Oh kdawson by Mashiki · 2009-12-20 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  I want to see pictures. Hot dirty pictures.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
I like it by Demonantis · 2009-12-20 08:20 · Score: 1

At least some companies realize that IP addresses != people. I might have hope for corporations after all.
CmdrTaco's pants takedown scandal, part two by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 08:35 · Score: 5, Funny

CmdrTaco's pants were taken yet down again, due to a DMCA request.
1. Re:CmdrTaco's pants takedown scandal, part two by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yay for DMCA counter notices!
Legal recourse for malicious notices. by BitZtream · 2009-12-20 08:40 · Score: 1

while there may be little legal recourse to issuing invalid DMCA notices
Not sure what world you live in, but there have been more than a few lawsuits against people issuing malicious/bogus DMCA notices, and they've not went the way the original issuer wanted.
Short version of how it works:
Company sends notice to your ISP
ISP/whatever shuts you off
You send a counter notice
ISP turns you back on
You both sue each other and fight it out.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
1. Re:Legal recourse for malicious notices. by Machtyn · 2009-12-20 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  But that's only to resolve the display of content. The problem is the DMCA issuer can then pursue legal recourse against you for actual damages. Granted, you would have to fight back, but there is little teeth in the DMCA for the defendant to demand that the issuer is in the wrong and fraudulently issued the notice in the first place. (Because that would cost money, and we know that DMCA recipients are usually far poorer than the DMCA issuer.)
  
  Of course, I may be talking out my rear, but who knows. I'm not even sure what country or regime I'm living in anymore.
2. Re:Legal recourse for malicious notices. by catman · 2009-12-20 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  You both sue each other and fight it out.
  And the winners are - the lawyers!!
Repeal the law... by Darkness404 · 2009-12-20 08:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate? Since the DMCA, how many fewer movies have been pirated? My guess is none. What about music? Nope. However, how many purchasers of content really wanted to strip out DRM and other nonsense from the things they bought but can't legally? My guess is just about everyone who has purchased DRM-ed content and wants to use it in some way.

The internet is overwhelmingly against the DMCA, why keep it?

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Repeal the law... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because most people on the Internet are just normal citizens and not executives or lobbyists of major corporations, and thus under the current American system of government have absolutely no say?
2. Re:Repeal the law... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  Because the internet does not make laws. People on teh **AA's paychekcs make laws.
3. Re:Repeal the law... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-12-20 10:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate?
  Yeah, and then they will disband the TSA too!
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
4. Re:Repeal the law... by vlad30 · 2009-12-20 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Because the internet does not make laws. People on teh **AA's paychekcs make laws.
  But people who use the net vote, pick up the phone type a letter do something it can work just ask australians about the emissions trading scheme. you just have to do something and if the campaign doesn't change their mind then vote them out
  
  --
  Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
5. Re:Repeal the law... by dangitman · 2009-12-20 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  But people who use the net vote, pick up the phone type a letter do something it can work just ask australians about the emissions trading scheme. you just have to do something and if the campaign doesn't change their mind then vote them out
  Was that a real sentence?
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
6. Re:Repeal the law... by wolrahnaes · 2009-12-21 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate? Since the DMCA, how many fewer movies have been pirated? My guess is none. What about music? Nope. However, how many purchasers of content really wanted to strip out DRM and other nonsense from the things they bought but can't legally? My guess is just about everyone who has purchased DRM-ed content and wants to use it in some way.
  The internet is overwhelmingly against the DMCA, why keep it?
  In the mind of a politician, if a law is not working that can mean nothing more than it needs to be strengthened, not that it was pointless in the first place.
  
  --
  I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
The problem with DCMA takedown notices by bugs2squash · 2009-12-20 08:45 · Score: 1

is that there are just not enough of them out there. If there were FAR more, then there would be a lot of people calling their congressman. The solution to DCMA involves its own petard.

--
Nullius in verba
1. Re:The problem with DCMA takedown notices by Dachannien · 2009-12-20 08:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Young man
  Got your acronym wrong
  I said, young man
  Got it wrong all night long
  I will teach you
  What the letters should be
  So don't spell it dys-lex-ic-ally
  You're s'posed to call it the D-M-C-A
  You're s'posed to call it the D-M-C-A
  You can take my advice
  Use this mnemonic device
  And this chorus, you sing it twiiiiice
  You're s'posed to call it the D-M-C-A
  OMFG it's the D-M-C-A
  You got those letters reversed
  Thank god there's no second verse
  My karma's going from bad to wooooorse
2. Re:The problem with DCMA takedown notices by geminidomino · 2009-12-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  *wipes eyes* Thanks man, I needed that.
3. Re:The problem with DCMA takedown notices by __aasqbs9791 · 2009-12-20 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Just a quick question. How long did that take you to come up with? I mean I know what it is based on, but did it just pop unbidden into your head, or did you really work on it?
4. Re:The problem with DCMA takedown notices by afaik_ianal · 2009-12-20 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  If ever there were an opportunity for mods to put Informative points on a humorous post, this was it.
5. Re:The problem with DCMA takedown notices by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Even a song by the Village People can't make the DCMA any gayer than it already is.
6. Re:The problem with DCMA takedown notices by Dachannien · 2009-12-20 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  The idea formed in a day. The lyrics grew later... at a substantially accelerated rate.
  Can I cook, or can't I?
  Okay, just kidding. A few minutes, I guess.
The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-20 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

The DMCA take down system isn't inherently bad. It protects ISPs and various hosts from what would otherwise be severe liability. Wikipedia and Youtube would never be able to function if they didn't have the liability protection they get from the system as long as they comply promptly with reasonable requests. The system does need some reform but reform is not abolition.
1. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by MindlessAutomata · 2009-12-20 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The only reason there's any positive at all to the DMCA is because of the ridiculous copyright system already in place.
2. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-20 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose massive copyright reform. Say you suppose that copyrights last no more than a decade. Guess what? People will still be uploading current TV shows, music videos and and movies to Youtube. People will still be copying and pasting text into Wikipedia from other websites. Even with copyright reform, the majority of copyright problems handled by the DMCA take down notices will still occur. The notice system is an attempt to balance the need to protect copyrights (which is real) with the need to protect ISPs and other content hosts. There are problems with how that balance has been struck. But the need for such a balance somewhere will still exist unless we either all become Luddites or abolish copyrights completely. Neither is likely.
3. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by BikeHelmet · 2009-12-20 09:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Right now very few DMCA takedown notices are legit. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was appalling. Something like 20-40% would be lawful if taken to court. The rest are just to get something a company doesn't like taken off the web. It's rather like sending thugs to a business to ruff up the owner and get him to comply.
  Good use of our legal system.
4. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by selven · 2009-12-20 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why just limit duration? Make copyright apply only to commercial activities and Hollywood can still make ridiculous amounts of money with movie theaters, Adobe can still sell to corporations, and authors can still sell paper books to people who prefer reading that way, without infringing on any of our rights.
5. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-20 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  And you intend to define commercial in this context how? If for example you make a movie and I make thousands of copies and distribute them for free that's going to hurt your business quite a bit. Is that commercial or not in your system? If you are going to make a largescale exception it should be is something closer to the Lessig proposal (such as in his book Remix) where he suggests that we should emphasize that if content creation has occurred then it shouldn't be covered by prior copyright. Thus for example, under current copyright laws, if I set a video of clips from a TV show using a recorded song that's a violation of the copyright of the song. Under a Lessig type system that wouldn't be the case. But distinctions between commercial and non-commercial are either to ill-defined. They generally allow way too much copying or way too little. Moreover, they don't distinguish well when someone has taken good content and modified it extensively to the point where they should be able to benefit from it.
6. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by michaelmalak · 2009-12-20 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  When Google was in the rocess of buying YouTube, people were saying it was going to be the death of Google since YouTube was a trove of pirated works. That was common sense. But you are right, the DMCA protects Google/YouTube, defying common sense. (It wasn't clear at the time to the public that YouTube could hide behind the DMCA; in fact, it was YouTube that ushered in that practice.) Of course, 90+ year coyrights also defy common sense. If we had 14+14 year copyrights again that stimulate rather than stifle the arts, the DMCA takedown system would be counterproductive.
7. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by kenshin33 · 2009-12-20 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  ISP should have nothing to do with this ... (is postal service (carrier) responsible for the drugs/copied CD/DVDs they deliver ????)
  notice and notice. where a fundamental constitutional/human right is respected (presumption of innocence). right holder says "hey you're infringing" and here's why.
  burden of proof is not on the defendant!
8. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by selven · 2009-12-20 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Commercial = money is being made from its use. Distribution for free is allowed. So you can spread my movie around all you want but since movie theaters are a money making enterprise, I still have a monopoly on movie theaters and will still make large amounts of money.
  Your system also has a "setting the boundary" weakness. If I take a book, change five instances of the word "big" for "large", and redistribute it, that won't be copyright infringement. You can argue that that's not a significant change, but then what defines significant?
9. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by billeeto · 2009-12-20 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  adding to the irony, some plaintiffs regret when a defendants' youtube video is actually taken down in response to a complaint, as it limits the damages.
10. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-20 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  So under that definition is Youtube commercial or not? They have advertisements. Is that enough to make it commercial? If so, in your world it needs to still get protection. So you still need some sort of DMCA or similar safe-harbor legislation.
  I agree that a Larry Lessig type system will have boundary setting problems and deciding where exactly they are isn't easy. These are complicated issues that people much smarter than I have thought a lot about. And they certainly can't be distilled down effectively to Slashdot posts. The two most relevant books are Lessig's Free Culture and Remix.
11. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by davecb · 2009-12-20 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Canada (currently*) has it better: if someone gives a legal notice to the ISP, the ISP passes it on to the customer to decide.
  I think the notice required is whatever one typically gives in order to commence a lawsuit, but I haven't read all of Halsbury's yet, so I don't know (;-))
  --dave
  * This may change if the secret antipiracy treaty currently being debated worldwide passes.
  
  --
  davecb@spamcop.net
12. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  The DMCA take down system isn't inherently bad.
  Yes, it is inherently bad. It is deliberately slanted to protect large corporations, while trampling over the free speech rights of individuals.
  
  It protects ISPs and various hosts from what would otherwise be severe liability.
  So would any sane take-down system.
13. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Joe+Decker · 2009-12-20 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  I've been looking for something to substantiate your numbers. I'm not accusing you of being wrong, but the best number I saw was "more than a third aren't legit" from a briefing by Google to the NZ gov't ( http://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/digital_millennium_copyright_act_dmca/google_many_takedown_notices_are_baloney )
  Personally, I'd rather see this resolved by increased penalities for bogus takedown requests than by removing the takedown provisions completely. Most copyright violation claims are *small*, not the bit RIAA things you usually hear about. But copyright law is federal law, and there's no such thing as federal small claims court. (Maybe we need to fix that.) If I someone takes one of my images and uses it on the cover of a music CD they're widely commercially selling, the DMCA gives me a way of getting the record company to answer my calls and settle without a lawyer, on a claim worth only a few hundred bucks.
  There's no way I could pay for even an initial consultation with a lawyer for a claim like that.
  Some of the DMCA still has to go. Anti-circumvention is a fail. Perjury as a penalty has to be extended to any intentionally or grossly negligent claims of infringement. Etc. But takedown notices (I believe) can be a useful way of dealing with small (which is to say, the vast majority) of copyright claims in a low-overhead way.
  That CD? The record company ignored my calls (as did the band) for two weeks until I DMCA'd the album cover on Amazon.com. Twenty minutes after Amazon accepted my takedown notice (and I provided clear examples of the image not only on my own site but in archive.org for years prior to the release of the CD), I had a phone call from the record company how they could fix this. I asked for a couple hundred bucks (twice market rates, but then I'd spent two weeks persuing this at that point, think of it as market rates plus minimum wage for my hassle), they sent funds via PayPal, I worked with them to reassure Amazon that the matter was settled, and worked to promote the album afterwards. No lawyers. No judges. No unreasonable damage to either me or the band in question.
  Most copyright infringements are small. Federal civil courts cost tens of thousands of dollars to access. I believe there has to be a way of enforcing small copyrights in a low-overhead way, and that a well-designed takedown system could be part of such a system.
  
  --
  I'm a nature photographer.
14. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  That means that myself and a band of committed anti-revenue pirates can put down any movie business in about two weeks without fear of retribution. Those are the kind of rules that a lot of people are waiting for because, believe me, anyone making money off "creativity" is a target. They will be taken down and eliminated. Period. That is the goal for plenty of people.
  Today's piracy is a way to accomplish this goal. It is has already worked in some places, like China. It can work in the US as the people that understand file sharing displace the old fogies that do not.
15. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by BikeHelmet · 2009-12-20 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  I've been looking for something to substantiate your numbers. I'm not accusing you of being wrong, but the best number I saw was "more than a third aren't legit" from a briefing by Google to the NZ gov't ( http://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/digital_millennium_copyright_act_dmca/google_many_takedown_notices_are_baloney [newmediarights.org] )
  That's pretty bad, because it doesn't factor in two other situations.
  1) Copyrighted works protected by fair use, but taken down anyway.
  2) Other countries that don't recognize the DMCA yet.
  As a Canadian, I still have more rights than the USA's fair use permits. Every time the DMCA is used to remove content uploaded by a Canadian to a Canadian site, that sways the false usage numbers a bit.
  Unfortunately, those numbers aren't tracked - but consider how many countries don't yet follow in the USA's footsteps, and how often the DMCA is used.
16. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Joe+Decker · 2009-12-20 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed in general, but an honest question:
  "Every time the DMCA is used to remove content uploaded by a Canadian to a Canadian site"?
  Canadian ISPs honor DMCA takedown notices? Wow.
  
  --
  I'm a nature photographer.
17. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by BikeHelmet · 2009-12-21 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Canadian ISPs honor DMCA takedown notices? Wow.
  I don't know about the ISPs, but most web hosting companies would - unless you're paying for a VPS or dedicated server.
  Shared hosting = Removed + notification sent.
  VPS/Dedicated = Contacted with request for removal or proof within 48 hours.
  A lot of these companies also have farms in the US, so pissing off US companies isn't a great strategy. And actually ending up in court would be costly, so sometimes it's easier to just comply.
  Ex: http://vpsville.ca/
  ISPs like Telus and Shaw tend to pass along copyright infringement notices for torrenting, so they'd likely comply with DMCA takedown notices too, if they were heavily into web hosting.
18. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Joe+Decker · 2009-12-21 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, I should have said hosting provider. Indeed. Thanks for the info.
  
  --
  I'm a nature photographer.
19. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-21 06:53 · Score: 0
  The DMCA take down system isn't inherently bad. It protects ISPs and various hosts from what would otherwise be severe liability
  I'm posting this ac as I don't give a flying fig about points and somehow someone's inane shit always floats to the top. I want my point to resurface as it was once common knowledge.
  I am tired of the oft repeated bogosities, nonfacts or misrepresentations of law, ethics and morals. I remember the time of the DMCA passing in 1997 or 99, I wont bother to look it up. The DMCA was passed because without a profit motive,
  It was not illegal to infringe copyright by _trading_ mp3s, etc. - if no money exchanged hands
  Ipso facto it was not unethical/immoral by infringing copyright by _trading_ mp3s, etc. (was one infringing copyright if no profit {money, fame, etc.} was involved)- if no money exchanged hands AS THE LAW DID NOT RECOGNIZE A CRIME HAD OCCURRED. BECAUSE WHY WOULD CRIMINALS AND HIGH SEAS MURDERING RAPING PLUNDERING "PIRATES", you know, copyright infringers, WORK SO HARD FOR NO MONEY.
  So. If the DMCA was passed to make infringing copyright for no-profit a legal violation after ~1999, how could repealing that rockbed foundation from the edifice that is current law (less than 10 years old btw) be the coming of End of Days of Our Way of Life? Mierda.
  What are we left to fear? in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Knave.
20. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-21 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Do you have a citation to this claim? Because I'm pretty sure your wrong and quick scan of the Wikipedia summary of the DMCA doesn't mention this at all. Moreover, from my (admittedly hazy memory) of how fair use works, whether or not their is commercial success is one of 8 or so points which are weighed. It is a bit confusing how that would have worked prior to the DMCA if there was no issue there. Are you sure you aren't getting confused about the differences between civil and criminal penalties? Even under the DMCA, penalties are almost universally civil.
21. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-27 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  This is a fact. fucking slashedoters are full of shit as always.
22. Re:The takedown notice system isn't inherently bad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-28 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  What the masses were doing then was *extralegal*. Why was the dmca created if there already was a clear law on the matter?
  I remember the Times coverage of the issue then, it was inconceivable pre Internet that wholesale, _electronic_[0] copyright infringement would massively take place for no profit. Hence the legal codification to battle this point[1].
  At the time in a.b.w.i-p Usenet as in other a.* there was a lot of hand wringing of the party being over precisely because it was criminalizing warez trading, what the unwashed masses called file sharing a few years later.
  I can't speak for criminal vs civil megacorporate, lobbyist citations but they wanted a new law of the land _because_ the paradigm of "pirating" with no booty in exchange was new under the sun.
  If you are serious about verifying more I can assure you that your effort will not be wasted. I wasted enough time living through this shit.
  [0] (remember it was a new medium till recently, see paper books' electronic rights ownership ongoing battles, this stuff is still fluid as we speak!)
  [1] It makes me laugh when I see knowitall slashdotters rail against how it's coy, duplicitous, unethical to "steal, oh right copyright infringe" when until the dmca it was not unlawful (explicitly unlawful, if it'll help you) to electronically _post_ copyrighted works.
  How can it be un-lawful, un-ethical, immoral to do a thing before a set of standards exist that say it is so? One might say after the DMCA it 'rightly' became so. Another person might say a law commonly broken by citizens is not a valid law. Is it a law foisted by lobbyists to the wide resistance of a large number of people around the world? Sorry I've ranted too long and you've been a good sport, but this extralegal angle is accurate I assure you. All the noob /.ers and old codgers still around will remember this if they get to read this again.
Penalty of Perjury by Cbs228 · 2009-12-20 09:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Under Section 512 of the DMCA, all requests must include

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3))
The offenders can be prosecuted for sending false DMCA notices, since they made statements "under penalty of perjury." All it would take is for one judge to get annoyed and throw the rulebook at these people. Unfortunately, perjury is a criminal offense—not a civil one—so it is unlikely anyone could file suit to force the issue.

--
At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
1. Re:Penalty of Perjury by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-20 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Perjury requires that the claim was knowingly false. Sending these off when you have even minimal reason to think they are valid already makes that difficult. Sure, sometimes you might have an email saying "hahha. We'll use this bogus DMCA notice to get this content taken down even though we don't own it. Let's be all evil like that." But that's not going to happen very often.
2. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 09:30 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  IANAL, but I read that as stating that only a violation of the second half of that sentence, that the complaining party is authorized, has a penalty of perjury. What you're suggesting might be better implied by "A statement, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate..." etc.
3. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 09:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why don't you actually read what you quoted?
  The only part of a DMCA notice which is made under penalty of perjury is the statement that the sender is authorised to act on behalf of the copyright holder.
  The claim of infringement isn't made under penalty of perjury (it cannot be, as it's a legal claim, not testimony).
4. Re:Penalty of Perjury by SharpFang · 2009-12-20 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  on copyright holder of the material that is being infringed upon. Now the answer would be clear if the material they claim is infringed upon is the same as the infringing material. Now what if they wrongly accuse me of infringing upon X, by claiming I'm not allowed to distribute Y to which they have no legal rights?
  That is, if I distribute Open Office, and Microsoft comes claiming I'm not authorized to distribute these copyrighted files...
  it is then arguable if they are okay because they believe I am distributing MS Office they own,
  or are they disallowing me to distribute OOo, for which they have no copyrights?
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
5. Re:Penalty of Perjury by dshadowwolf · 2009-12-20 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Ignorance of the law is no defense"
  Basically... this means that sending any invalid DMCA notice is, in fact, a violation of the law - regardless of what the person that sent it might have thought or believed at the time they did it.
6. Re:Penalty of Perjury by dshadowwolf · 2009-12-20 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And there is no need for any other coverage, really. If you send out a DMCA takedown and do not hold copyright to the material you are demanding be taken down - and have not been authorized to "act on behalf of the copyright holder" - then by having filed the DMCA takedown notice you have perjured yourself.
  It's not hard to understand - this does mean, however, that every bad DMCA Takedown is prosecutable under extremely well-known law.
7. Re:Penalty of Perjury by JoshuaZ · 2009-12-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not the way perjury works. Perjury specifically requires intent. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury. If it isn't knowingly false it isn't perjury. This is a good thing. We wouldn't want witnesses to be prosecuted for perjury everytime they testified to something they were mistaken about.
8. Re:Penalty of Perjury by dshadowwolf · 2009-12-20 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  That does not make my argument any less true. The argument was that claiming "but I thought it was valid" makes filing a false DMCA notice totally legal. If "but I didn't know it was illegal" made breaking the law okay, every criminal would do it.
  And thinking about it, there is a well-defined range of DMCA notices that are perjury. Which just reinforces the widely held belief (I can't call it a fact as much as I'd love to) that the DMCA is a bad law. There is nothing that truly stops it from being mis-used - which, to me, would make it "unconstitutionally vague".
9. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Under Section 512 of the DMCA, all requests must include
  
  A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3))
  The offenders can be prosecuted for sending false DMCA notices, since they made statements "under penalty of perjury." All it would take is for one judge to get annoyed and throw the rulebook at these people. Unfortunately, perjury is a criminal offense—not a civil one—so it is unlikely anyone could file suit to force the issue.
  Right, so penalty of perjury if the complaining party is NOT authorized to act on behalf of the owner, or if the owner does not actually own an exclusive right. Nothing about the accuracy is reflected in that paragraph in regards to perjury.
10. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Kjella · 2009-12-20 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Your reading comprehension is very poor, because it explicitly says of the "right that is allegedly infringed". This means that if I allege that you violate the distribution right of "District 9", then the statement under perjury is that I'm authorized to act on violations of the distribution right of "District 9". No more and no less, whether the distribution right of "District 9" has actually been violated is completely irrelevant.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:Penalty of Perjury by dbIII · 2009-12-20 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Since the action is an automated blackmail bot it wouldn't be difficult to prove criminal intent. This really is demanding money with menaces for those notices where the recipient is threatened that they have to pay a "fine" or they will get taken to court.
12. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  You misunderstand what "copyright holder" they're talking about. Say the lawyer for Usher (the band) sues over usher.mp3 (Prof. Usher's class notes).
  According to what I know, which I heard from people who were actually lawyers, they're acting in good faith because they have been authorized to act on behalf of Usher (the band), even though they've mistakenly identified Prof. Usher's class notes as being their copyrighted material.
  You might have some case against them on other grounds if you could prove that they were utterly careless and that their actions caused harm, but I doubt you're likely to get an actual perjury charge even then.
13. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  If the sender falsely claimed to be authorised by Microsoft, that would be perjury. If they really were authorised by Microsoft, it wouldn't be perjury. If they weren't actually authorised by Microsoft but had a good faith belief that they were, that wouldn't be perjury either (although they would have to have a good reason to believe that, e.g. if someone at Microsoft signed the paperwork but it turned out that person lacked the authority to do so).
  Even if the sender knew that the claim of infringement was untrue, they're only liable for civil damages and attorney's fees. If they're merely careless, they're not even liable for that.
  What exactly is made under penalty of perjury is the claim to be representing the copyright holder whose rights are *allegedly* infringed (in this hypothetical example, Microsoft), not the person or entity who is ultimately found to hold the copyright on the work being distributed.
  Essentially, perjury can only relate to "testimony": statements of fact. It cannot relate to legal claims, no matter how bogus (and some legal claims can be quite amazingly, blatantly bogus; but that's still not perjury).
14. Re:Penalty of Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-21 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  In that situation, they would be required to swear, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder (or authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder) of Microsoft Office (the allegedly infringed work). They are *not* required to swear under penalty of perjury *anything* else. Not even that they believe that OOo infringes on MSO. In fact, they aren't even required to *look* at the allegedly infringing work to determine whether or not it is what they say it is.
slashdotted. cache by lkcl · 2009-12-20 09:33 · Score: 1

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:E6SCqgDxxGAJ:www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/mfreed/erroneous-dmca-notices-and-copyright-enforcement-part-deux+freedom+to+tinker+erroneous+dmca&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1
Little recourse?! by ReallyEvilCanine · 2009-12-20 09:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512). Call the police and press charges.
1. Re:Little recourse?! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512)
  No it isn't.
  Someone who knowingly makes misrepresentations is liable for damages and attorney's fees (section f), which is a civil matter. But that doesn't apply if you're merely careless.
  Falsely claiming to be acting on behalf of the specified copyright holder is perjury, but that isn't the case with the notices which the article was discussing.
  > Call the police and press charges.
  OTOH, calling the police may well be a criminal offence (filing a false report).
2. Re:Little recourse?! by billeeto · 2009-12-20 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Police: This is 911, how can we help you? DMCA False Takedown Victim: Hello office someone has taken down my guns n' roses video with a bogus DMCA notice. Police: OK calm down. Just keep it on the floor, don't move it. Is it breathing?
3. Re:Little recourse?! by stimpleton · 2009-12-20 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Its a civil matter, Sir"
  
  --
  
  In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
4. Re:Little recourse?! by cheros · 2009-12-20 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Police: "First, make sure it's dead."
  BANG. "OK, it's dead. Now what?"
  
  --
  Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
5. Re:Little recourse?! by rhizome · 2009-12-20 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Its a civil matter, Sir"
  There's no such thing as a civil felony.
  
  --
  When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
6. Re:Little recourse?! by dbIII · 2009-12-20 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's first class legislative judo. It looks like the law can be enforced and there are penalties but in practice they can't be prosecuted. Yet another reason why it should have never been passed.
7. Re:Little recourse?! by stuckinphp · 2009-12-20 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Rule Number 4
  
  --
  if only
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-12-20 09:37 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:slashdotted. cache by bagsta · 2009-12-20 10:08 · Score: 1

or http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com.nyud.net/blog/mfreed/erroneous-dmca-notices-and-copyright-enforcement-part-deux

--
Until the skies turn blue...
Until the air of freedom strikes us...
Actually, I'm full of it. by Joe+Decker · 2009-12-20 10:18 · Score: 1

The perjury penalty only applies to saying you're the copyright owner (or entitled to speak on their behalf), nto the actual claim. My misunderstanding.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
The answer is money once again by jonaskoelker · 2009-12-20 12:37 · Score: 1

The internet is overwhelmingly against the DMCA, why keep it?
The internet doesn't purchase* as many politicians as the MPAA and RIAA members.
* I mean bribe**
** I mean 'offer campaign contributions'
Law as a tool to legitimise social control.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 13:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Unfortunately law is now the tool with which the powerful interests legitimise their actions.
To a limited extent this has always been true. However, the corruption in the system is so widespread....

And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt.
I'm too disheartened to write intelligently about this at the present time.
I left a career in the law when it became apparent that my own prominent success caused more problems than I could solve in practice. The more prominent my own achievements, and the better I practised, the greater veneer of fairness and legitimacy I gave to a corrupt system.
I would urge all lawyers to think carefully about their role in this system. With a very few exceptions, I think prominent and talented advocates do more damage than good working within this system.
You're an idiot. by schon · 2009-12-20 14:59 · Score: 1

Filing a false notice is a fucking FELONY (17 USC 512).
No, it isn't. Deliberately filing a false notice when you know you're not the rightsholder is perjury. However the problem is that you'd have to *prove* that they filed it deliberately. If they say "whoops, we thought that file labeled 'Usher221.mp3' was ours" then there is nothing you can do about it.

Call the police and press charges.
What are the odds that a DA would take on a case like that, when they could instead focus their efforts prosecuting people for "creating child pornography" so they can get re-elected?
Re:Did you just compare copyright law to murder? by AA+Wulf · 2009-12-20 19:57 · Score: 1

Could you point out to me where in the constitution it gives us the "right to kill" particularly the right to slaughter another human with premeditation and likely with malice? This is what I gather is your argument: "DMCA breeches our right to fair use, that's true, but we also gave up the right to kill innocent people for the greater good of humanity, so sometimes restrictive laws are for the best." I'm pretty sure it was established that we DON'T have the "right" to kill, hence the restrictive laws upon murder, but let's just examine the argument as if it holds any water to begin with, shall we?

This is a weak argument against giving up our rights to circumvent access control in the vein of fair use while not infringing upon copyright. This is a particularly weak analogy when the profits of rich companies are the only things being protected by the law. Making it weaker is its placement in the same thread with an argument for using an already established constitutional litmus test against laws which infringe upon our rights as American citizens to see if DMCA stacks up.

Honestly, I'm not even really sure what exactly you are arguing. It seems like a typical libertarian idealist counter to a question of "how can we have any laws and still be free?" arguing that sometimes giving up freedoms is for the betterment of society. However, the fact that you seem to be arguing that DMCA is akin to murder law, and thus fair use is akin to the "right to kill" and thus we should give up our right to fair use for the good of society, you seem to be perverting libertarian thought to benefit corporate interests. Truly, I am quite confused to your reasoning here, but it gave me a good laugh. I vote he should be modded up as +5 Funny.

--
http://bohemian-geek.blogspot.com
Comments of the Nexicon CTO by CanarDuck · 2009-12-21 01:19 · Score: 1

I found the most fascinating part of TFA to be a link to a post by the Nexicon CTO himself in the comments of the initial article. It's 500 words of frantic, badly spelled gibberish whithout a single grammatically correct sentence and devoid of any substantial argument. You can literally see the poor man going litteraly nuts with rage while the sky is falling on his head.
Try it, it'll do you good. Seriously, I had not experienced such a powerful rush of pure, unaltered, sweet schadenfreude on the internets for a long time.
bad press leads to rejection by the public by formfeed · 2009-12-21 06:11 · Score: 1

Not that the Alliance cares to much about the public, but what they care about is where the public discussion goes.
They are kind of in a bind here: copyright enforcement through physical media is most likely a dead end, the current balance between fair share, free speech, and easy access on one side and copyright enforcement on the other side is shifting away from them.
The only way to fix this are new restrictions of usage rights, and controlled access only - taking away anonymity and some free speech. With states (US, Europe, China) that are more than willing to gain wider control over their citizens, this route has worked out pretty good so far. And as long as only a few geeks and librarians are protesting, it works fine. But once the press starts reporting about lawyers chasing down 10 yo girls, public opinion might shift.
In this year's election in Germany the pirate-party gained about 2%. Once they reach 5% they are in parliament. At that point other parties will start to "borrow" some of the topics to get voters back. With the voting system in the US -at least theoretically- 30% could vote for one party without getting a single seat, so I don't know where the tipping point in the US is. But I guess the Alliance doesn't want to find out.