Slashdot Mirror
HBO Asks Google To Take Down "Infringing" VLC Media Player
another random user writes with an excerpt from TorrentFreak: "It's no secret that copyright holders are trying to take down as much pirated content as they can, but their targeting of open source software is something new. In an attempt to remove pirated copies of Game of Thrones from the Internet, HBO sent a DMCA takedown to Google, listing a copy of the popular media player VLC as a copyright infringement. An honest mistake, perhaps, but a worrying one. ... Usually these notices ask Google to get rid of links to pirate sites, but for some reason the cable network also wants Google to remove a link to the highly popular open source video player VLC. ... The same DMCA notice also lists various other links that don't appear to link to HBO content, including a lot of porn related material, Ben Harper's album Give Till It's Gone, Naruto, free Java applets and Prince of Persia 5."
I own the rights to the letter E on line
So Google better take down all links with an E in them.
And this is precisely why there needs to be penalties in place for false DMCA takedown requests.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Perjury.
Go to jail, do not pass GO.
Unless there is punishment for these types of blanket requests copyright holders will continue to abuse the DMCA takedown process.
Each link to material they do not own 100'000 USD to the target of the takedown notice and the same to the actual copyright holder. Alternatively, 30 days in jail for the executive in charge.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Must've accidentally confused it with videos of themselves screwing us?
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.
A lot of people use torrent sites to quickly watch something they may have missed on cable tv and I personally know many folk who enjoyed a series so much that they went out and bought the box set to have at home. HBO are asking for too much.
Dear HBO,
GFY.
Love,
the Whole Internet
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
your right to submit takedowns is suspended for a month?
These things are supposed to be carefully considered requests, not 'if we hit 7 out of 10, we're happy'...
When have you ever seen IP lawyers overreach their position in any "honest" way? Their methods are ham-handed shotgun approaches. Shoot randomly and hope it hits something.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
What is not mentioned is that the site in question has links to other listings with the release names which may correlate to what their spider was searching, "Game of Thrones." This is very bad practice of the DMCA notice senders as linking to something which links to something which does not even have infringing content itself but a "direction or guidebook" to the potential content.
So the VLC listing had another area that had other listings or popular links and because it had the name they listed it.
There needs to be fines for false DMCA notices like this. They do not own the release name itself.
If I incorporated, and then had my "company" start spewing out DMCA notices algorithmically to every site that responded to a curl? "Does a.com exist? No. Does b.com exist? No... Does aa.com exist? Yes? Ok, they have infringing content, take them down please. Does ab.com exist?"
While it is not "infringing content", VLC player IS illegal in the USA. It is a digital lock-breaking device. Linux distrobutions which include DVD playback capabilities are also illegal.
This is not surprising to me, but it hardly matters because it's not like VLC will cease to ever be easily available.
Maybe my memory is faulty or not up-to-date, but VLC on Linux doesn't pay DVDs out of the box, does it? I seem to remember needing to specifically enable a non-default repository and explicitly install playback libraries for DRM'd DVDs before they would play.
I am not a crackpot.
And isn't there a punishment for lying on DMCA? Someone should enforce that.
is turning chillingeffects web site into the 'google' for good stuff.
The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.
And don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by "better return to stockholders".
I am not a crackpot.
arent these media companies smart enough to realize that piratebay doesnt have any control whatsoever of the names of the torrents? i mean really...if TPB took down all the Game of Throne links that HBO wanted them to, within 5 minutes they would all reappear with slightly different names and different links.
and yes, i know already the answer is no they aren't.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
As you hint at, it's the libdvdcss capability that's the main problem under anti-circumvention provisions of the US DMCA.
You can get versions of VLC which only use FOSS and patent-unencumbered codecs. Debian used to (maybe still does, I haven't looked in a while) make this distinction pretty clear, the "main" packaged VLC was unencumbered, and you had to go outside the main package tree to get the other stuff.
So, in most practical installations, you're right, but it's not literally true that "VLC is illegal in the US."
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
Which covers false DMCA requests where they flag content that really belongs to someone else - such a VLC. You're right though that this perjury thing does nothing to solve the problem of DMCAs being sent for content that fits in to the "fair use" bucket.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
The "I Swear It's All True" requirement is to say that you are authorized by the copyright holder to send out the notice, not that the item actually infringes.
Which is all dandy until you demand the takedown of something that any lawyer doing the most basic due diligence would know was not theirs. Which has happened countless times, some of them reported on /.
That's the kind of shit that should lead to the lawyer being disciplined. But don't. And if you want to look for things that are seriously screwed up with the USA today, you can start there since it's already on the table.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Depends on the distro. I think recent versions of Ubuntu are set up like this, they have the "controversial" stuff in a separate repo.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That is still an example of malice.
Except this can't be explained as "better return to stockholders" because it's stupid for one. Stockholders aren't wasting their times in meetings with "and then here are all the links we went after".
Why don't they just ask to take down the internet?
Un-possible. Adult entertainment industry will recreate it back.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Pay attention to the bottom of the takedown request:
The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Fuck that "it was an accident" argument, and prosecute them for perjury.
There should be a three strikes rule on this -- submit invalid requests three times, you get ignored as a troll from there on out.
Start asking sites to take down marketing and promotional HBO material on their behalf. No mass media content on Youtube. Internet killed TV - replace them.
VLC? Shitty!? You must be a mac user upset that it didn't have a minimalistic interface filled with silly skeumorphisms.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I like it, it adds to my right-click menu (so I don't need to make it the default), and plays everything without hassle.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I seen from TFA that HBO at one point requested their own website to be removed. If I was Google I'd be paying extra special attention to requests for Mega Corp A to take down Mega Corp B's website (or even better their own), and react quickly. Of course I might be a little slower in dealing with the subsequent undo requests whilst watching the ensuing entertainment.
A surprising amount of (mostly windows) users have been brainwashed to believe that all software and culture is by illegal to share. Free software is just some unknown crap, likely communist propaganda. If you have to download software from a warez site, it must be good quality software.
c++;
Falsely claiming to have rights to something you don't, including copyright, is fraud. When HBO claimed to have rights to VLC they either were mistaken or fraudulent. If there is some other reason some DA were pissed at HBO this creates an opening.
It shouldn't lead to the lawyer being disciplined. It should lead to the company being disciplined. HBO should be responsible for the content of the list.
your right to submit takedowns is suspended for a month? These things are supposed to be carefully considered requests, not 'if we hit 7 out of 10, we're happy'...
Alternatively, some of the takedowns may be executed.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
This link is to a search engine, where "juegos de naruto" give some hits for "juegos de tronos" which is Game of Thrones. How on earth is this a valid takedown request? Why should Google remove links to a search engine, especially when the search is for something other than the infringing material?
Niche appeal. Porn is all about catering to very precise tastes. You may easily find very broad categories of porn, but once people determine what appeals to them, reliably scratching that itch can be a challenge. Porn is very much an industry that bends over backwards to cater to the precise needs of consumers precisely because they are competing with the very large quantity of free stuff out there.
The DCMA is a decidedly imperfect piece of legislation, and can be blatantly abused, as we've seen time and again.
That said, a blanket request based on an automated scan really is in many cases the ONLY thing that could plausibly work. If I want to post infringing material, getting a new URL or domain is trivially (scriptably) easy. Fighting scripts by hand is impossibly time consuming. Fighting scripts with scripts is the only plausible approach that could work.
Scripts sometimes make mistakes. Criminalizing mistakes isn't "obviously correct" as an approach.
If you want to argue that the net should be a 100% copyright free zone, you're entitled to make that argument. If you're NOT arguing for that, please explain what you see as a "workable" alternative to not-100%-perfect mass takedown notices.
Deliberately ABUSIVE takedown notices (such as a company claiming all negative online reviews are DCMA violations) are something I'd like to see the DCMA address better. But the problem there is NOT that notices are made in bulk, but rather that they're made in bad faith - they deliberately and knowingly target non-infringing content. THOSE we should fight. (In this case, I'd argue the "under penalty of purjury" assertion of a good faith belief in infringement is violated, but I'd like to see the DCMA slightly stengthened around this).
I've been surfing porn for more than a decade now, and I have yet to actually ever buy anything.
My guess? For enough many it's more about the "intensity" (can't call it quality) rather than the easiness to find "appetizers".
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
> I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
See the claim:
Copyright claim #4:
Game of Thrones (Original TV Show)
Original work URL(s):
http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html
Allegedly infringing URLs:
0. https://tpb.ipredator.se/torrent/8493409/Game_of_Thrones_S03E08_480p_HDTV_x264_-VYTO%5BP2PDL%5D
snip
407. http://www.torrentportal.com/details/6093721/VLC-Media-Player-2.0.7-Final-(32-64-bit)-Official.html
They are alleging that VLC is violating their copyright on Game of Thrones. They own the copyright on Game of Thrones so they are in the clear. The fact that their allegation is completely off base doesn't matter.
This is actually a necessary and very unfortunate consequence of our copyright law... Because there aren't clear boundaries for what constitutes fair use and an original work, there is no ability to assert with any certainty that a given work is not derivative. Suppose that maybe that an error message in VLC contains a couple words from the show: it's legitimate (albeit in bad faith) to claim that VLC is now violating your copyright. So unfortunately without a revision to copyright law the only way to hold these people accountable for their 'mistakes' would require them to sue and have the court declare the work non-infringing. Maybe that would be better than the current, but it would undermine the whole point of takedown requests in the first place.
I'd still pay HBO a reasonable amount of money to watch their shows online. But I can't. First, I have to buy cable TV ($60/mo), then I also have to buy a special package that includes HBO ($30/mo), and then I still have to pay extra for HBOGO. So over $100/mo to watch a couple good shows. Yeah, I'll just keep using torrents. Even though it's still a huge ripoff compared to other services like Netflix and Hulu, I'd pay $10-15 per month just for HBO online. Let me know when you're serious about wanting my money, HBO.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
No it is not. Malice is done for the evil it does. "Better return for stockholders" is done for the benefit of certain people. This can at times cause bad shit to happen to others, but this is a side effect.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I'm going to get copyright on the process of thinking about watching anything from HBO and another copyright on the process of not thinking about it.. Dam, I already owe myself for not... opps .. for thinking.. darm... for not ... gee this could be a cash cow!
Better get all the codec download links while you're at it.
I get the feeling that whoever is actually responsible for sending out the notices has a fair level of malice in their heart, it is the board who hires them that is more interested in returns.
If i was Google, I'd start charging companies for fake DMCA notices. $100k per notice that isn't actually pointing to an infringing file that the DMCA filer doesn't own the copyright to.
I bet these "mistakes" would stop happening pretty quick.
Be seeing you...
They don't have to be you imbecile.
They're claiming that VLC infringes on their copyright to Game of Thrones.
We need to be just as understanding and willing to give the benefit of the doubt as HBO is when someone inadvertently shares their IP against copyright.
That is, not at all.
I think what Artraze meant is that they *may* be citing VLC because somewhere in its code, it contains infringing material. Maybe an error message of "Hodor hodor hodor*". Still poor form and possibly even fair-use exempt, but that's not stopped these nutters before.
* I don't have HBO nor do I watch any of their paywalled content. If Hodor isn't part of that canon, please don't send me an invite to Red Wedding II.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
I don't think lawyers should be held responsible to know what property HBO owns.
Sorry. I think the lawyer is fine.
Okay, it might not be malice, but I'm sure we can all agree it's evil, i.e. harming others (e.g. takedown notices) to benefit oneself (e.g. stockholders).
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Speaking of returns shouldn't this clearly be a fine for HBO? I mean they are technically claiming ownership of VLC. If this were patents OMFG!
That is a really dumb made-up attempted explanation. Try harder next time.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Provide a "strikes" setup for those who use automated DMCA processing:
* If you send in an automated request for something you clearly should have known was bogus, that's a strike. If you send in an automated request for something that was "okay, yeah, I can see how you might have been confused by that," it's a large or small fraction of a strike, based on the circumstances.
* After you get above 1 strike, you get 24 hours to promise it won't happen again. This is your "free strike." You also get a pass for errors in the next 24 hours, just because change doesn't happen instantaneously.
* Starting 24 hours after your first warning, the stakes get raised:
* If you have more than 1 full strike in the last 7 days not counting those strikes that were "forgiven," 10% of your automated takedown requests are processed manually. More than 2, 20%, more than 3, 30%, more than 4, 40%, and after that, Google sues you for a declaration that your DMCA takedown notices are too error-filled to be considered reliable, and asking the court to allow future notices only if the company sending them pays the full labor cost of manually processing all of the requests and declaring that Google is in compliance if it makes "good faith" efforts even if it is humanly impossible to process all of the requests in a timely manner. The court order would be in effect until the company had gone 30 days without sending in any questionable takedown requests.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Okay, it might not be malice, but I'm sure we can all agree it's evil, i.e. harming others (e.g. takedown notices) to benefit oneself (e.g. stockholders).
Never made a judgment call on if it was good or not. Just that it was not Malice.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
AT&T increasing wireless bills over the contracted amount by adding bogus "recovery" fees is malice. In fact, it is so outrageously abusive I would call it Malice in Wonderland.
"accident", yes, that's it. Because VLC matches the terms of an HBO show.
Except in reality, where it's not an accident but straight up incompetence, which also doesn't prevent people from finding the link. It makes it *easier*. Need to find out if a file may be legitimate? Well, if it's blocked there's probably better chance that it is. Not only that, but now you can just view the DMCA claim to find your link.
"Because there aren't clear boundaries for what constitutes fair use and an original work"
Actually, that's pretty clear. It's a problem in how you have to defend the issue in court, but fair use isn't confusing. Fair use is also explicitly clear in that programs like VLC do not even get involved with copyright.
It is in fact a legal notice subject to the same requirements for review of accuracy... You're right. Prosecute for perjury and the willy nilly, "spam the world and see what sticks" crap will stop.
My goodness guys, this is Slashdot and nobody knows anything about the goings-on of Open Source?. Debian doesn't include anything proprietary like DVD Playback, Flash Player etc. unless you get it from third party repositories. Ubuntu doesn't, by default, include DVD Playback (libdvdcss). The person whom installs the distro has to install the ability to playback restricted content.
I don't know what we're all talking about anyway, Google isn't going to remove VLC from any search results, that would be stupid. As stupid as HBO and their team of blood-sucking Lawyers. Really, someone should say something.
AT&T does not care about you. It has zero knowledge of you. It harbors no "Malice" toward its customers. All it wants is maximum money. If it ends up fucking you over in the process, then so be it. It is not Malice. Unless you just want to re define the word malice so it fits.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Malice intends to cause harm. This is just not giving a shit if your actions and carelessness causes harm.
> They cannot possibly be the owner of the copyright to VLC, shitwit.
Yeah, and no one is claiming they otherwise. They are claiming that VLC* violates their copyright on Game of Thrones.
Do they own the copyright on Game of Thrones? Yes
Has VLC been proven in a court of law to be not infringing on one their exclusive rights to Game of Thrones? No
This is therefore a totally legitimate request under then letter of the law, slimy as it may be. Ignorance and name calling doesn't change that.
*If we are being particular, they are citing a torrent page, not VLC itself. Thus your comment is even more incorrect as even if your misunderstanding was accurate they'd be claiming copyright of a page on torrentportal, not VLC.
Further, while it's not really important for this discussion, I'd point out that that detail further muddies the waters: The torrent and/or the the description may actually contain some content from Game of Thrones. I've not checked and don't care to.
That language tracks that of the DMCA, which only requires a statement under penalty of perjury that the rights you're asserting are yours ("I'm HBO and I have exclusive rights to Game of Thrones"), *not* that the takedown notice is accurate ("and I demand you take down the content at http://www.fgfsdgfdsgsd.nl/HeSticksHerWithHisNeedleWhileTheyDoItDireWolfStyle.avi which is believed to be infringing my exclusive rights in Game of Thrones.") (Actually, that example /might/ be ... ;) )
Okay, it might not be malice, but I'm sure we can all agree it's evil, i.e. harming others (e.g. takedown notices) to benefit oneself (e.g. stockholders).
Never made a judgment call on if it was good or not. Just that it was not Malice.
Just so long as we're focused on what's important.
Ignore that, what about the "The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate" part?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Unless VLC actually includes libdvdcss, no one has any grounds to persecute it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It does not.
So, under copyright claim 12, HBO is claiming to own the rights to Hannah Montanna Season 2? Disney should sue - they have to protect their copyrights from these theives at HBO!
Just to make sure, I tried downloading the torrent data to see if it really is VLC, not just a rename of Game of Thrones content. But there are no seeds, so there is no data.
Why issue a takedown for a torrent with no seeds?
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Which, of course, makes a world of difference from what is implied by the story's title and summary.
My guess is that they found a forum post linking to a bunch of episodes which also included a link to VLC (as a useful "use this to play them" by the post's author), and that got copy/pasted to the people who distill things into a DMCA complaint, while nowhere along the line it was actually checked whether each link was valid under the complaint.
Dumb mistake and I agree with others that they should be punished for it, but this is hardly a case of HBO nefariously trying to get rid of VLC.
Who can push for this?
Malice doesn't have to be directed. If I plant a bomb in an attempt to blow up 20 people I don't know, that is malice. If I attempt to shoot my ex girlfriend with a rifle, that is also malice. Malice is just the intent to cause harm whether its personal or not.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
Doesn't matter if it was by accident or not. They are effectively stating that all links listed in their requests are violating their copyrights and taking legal action through the DMCA. Maybe it was a mistake, but before bringing legal action, which is what the takedown notice is, they should have verified the infringement. The assumption under US law is innocent until proven guilty. HBO had the burden of proof and they failed to exercise due diligence. What if they had grab some the legitimate site of some business by mistake?
The take down request was bogus and HBO should be fined for their bogus request. Whether it was a mistake or not, does not factor into the equation. Maybe next time they will actually check that the content does infringe their copyrights.
What happened to HBO calling Game of Thrones piracy a compliment?
Or possibly that it is actually an episode of GoT just renamed VLC MEDIA PLAYER.exe
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No they are claiming a file on the internet named VLC MEDIA PLAYER.exe is infringing, and it could be, I mean nothing is stopping someone from renaming a file.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
You still have to have the intent. Malice is not firing a shotgun at a beer can because you want to see it "Blowed Up!" and not giving a fuck about the 3 people standing behind the beer can. They do not give a shit about you.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Or maybe, just maybe the webpage itself has infringing content on it, and are not necessarily claiming that VLC is violating their copyright. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that the page had a link to a game of thrones page, or maybe an ad for a unauthorized stream of the show.
There's generally a 4-way tradeoff in any corporate decision between what benefits management, stockholders, employees, and consumers. It's usually the case that favoring consumers does the most net economic good (translate that to moral good however you desire).
Everything you do harms some others. You can argue that the RIAA takedown notices are evil because they restrict fundamental freedoms, or because they hurt consumers more than they help stockholders or artists, but you'd need to show that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They should definitely contact Chris Sevier for legal advice. He's a lawyer, currently unemployed, and knows a few things about the internet.
" 41.71 MB (43,733,142 bytes)"
No. Clips, maybe. Even an audio track, perhaps. I'd have to download it to be sure. But it's not an episode.
free Java applets
please please don't free them ever again !
gtkaml.org
VLC should send takedown notices on HBO's web site. See how they like it.
Which would be fine if they copied the link onto some random document.
But they copied it onto a DMCA takedown request, in which case accidents are not okay.
If I tell somebody to kiss my ass, it's quite a different thing from having that person sign a contract stating their intent to kiss my ass.
Similarly, if you say something is yours, it's quite different from sending a DMCA takedown notice claiming copyright infringment and requiring immediate removal.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Is willingly and knowingly being grossly negligent not evil in itself?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You don't get to define malice as being done only to the people the perp wants to count, not when the perp damned well knows that other people will suffer. Do that, and you're one step away from counting the victims themselves as just side effects. When somebody says, in effect "This will help me or some special people I care about, and I don't care about those other people", do you really think they just don't care? "I didn't give a damn about those parts of what I set into motion, nothing personal to those afflicted", is not a malice free attitude, it's the defense of someone caught in an act of deliberate evil. "I didn't hate X, I didn't even know him. It was nothing personal" is what a criminal says when they're obviously going to be found guilty but they are still arguing for a lighter sentence. Please, don't base your personal morality on that.
Who is John Cabal?
WTF? When did I ever state that I based my morality on "I can do whatever I want as long as it is not purposely designed to do harm"? What is right and what is wrong does not correlate with what is and is not Malice.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Is willingly and knowingly being grossly negligent not evil in itself?
From my post...
Malice is done for the evil it does. See that word there. It matters.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Avast is lightweight... I am ruining it right now on 450mhz pentium 2 with 384mb of ram. Avast is the only free av that didn't slow this machine down.
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
To quote a favorite webcomic of mine: "You can do more evil when you do it legal."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Yeah, lets ban Hondas too - because I've heard they're sometime used in robberies.
I actually agree. VLC re-builds the wheel everywhere. It plays everything, but doesn't play many formats very well and screws up certain kinds of A/V and refresh sync.
I tend to use media player classic or XBMC for everything because they provide a superior playback experience. I only occasionally use VLC for DVDs.
And no, I am not a Mac user. I exclusively use Linux and Windows.
I enjoy Game of Thrones, but find very little other content on television that appeals to me. I decline to pay my local cable monopoly $300+ for one show, so buying the DVDs is my only way of making a contribution to the show's bottom line.
I use VLC for pretty much everything that isn't Hulu or Netflix. I guess the folks at VideoLAN can put that extra $40 to better use anyway.
... and when you cancel, let them know why.
sure fire solution.... let the market work
I hear the next episode is going to be called: "AnyDVD HD"
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
These guys surely must be kidding! I use VLC on my macbook and also on Linux. Its the only player thats entirely accessible for the blind. So what are these guys going to do? sue the entire BLC using public? I wish them luck with that!
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
Are you mentally retarded? VLC Player is a VIDEO PLAYBACK SOFTWARE which HBO DOES NOT HAVE ANY CLAIM TO. If VLC infringes, so does Windows Media Player.
All I want from a player is that I can click anywhere on the screen to pause, and that I can use a mouse scroll wheel anywhere to change the volume.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Better return for stockholders" is done for the benefit of certain people.
And when that better return comes at the expense of another, it's malice ... whether it was intended or not.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The tool is not illegal, the use of it for such purposes is.
And if any media entity tries to intimidate any users over this, I believe the correct response is "Fuck Off" with one or both middle fingers raised in their general direction.
This space unintentionally left blank.
That's because sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I don't think lawyers should be held responsible to know what property HBO owns.
Sorry. I think the lawyer is fine.
A lawyer hired to handle something like this, should damn well know how to research to see if the content being targeted for take down is their client's imaginary property. So yes, the lawyers should indeed share the responsibility.
This space unintentionally left blank.
So put VLC on a warez site. Problem solved! :-)
Yeah well, that's what happened here. VLC was put on a site called www.torrentportal.com, and this likely has something to do with it ending up on the list from HBO.
c++;
they *may* be citing VLC because somewhere in its code, it contains infringing material. Maybe an error message of "Hodor hodor hodor"
great, a new tiny programming language project on github in 3, 2, 1...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
is copyright the one you have to defend lest you lose your right? or am I thinking trademark?
that could open up a nasty can of worms if some third party collected those instances like that.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I thought HBO had a more sensible approach to piracy. Or was that just the Game of Thrones producers?
I like to pay for content I enjoy, to promote more of that type of content, but I'm not giving money to people who don't play fair, and don't care about the health of the market and culture in general.
We are all God's parents.
You can do evil unintentionally. You can not do Malice unintentionally.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Perhaps they are using a new program/script that does all their Lawyering for them. It must have 'accidentally' gotten the extra VLC link, assuming it was their content. No moderately versed PERSON would make this mistake, so it must be a machine. Therefore, we have a new threat in the wild: A never sleeping, never eating, intellectual property attorney that has no common sense or morals.
Oh wait....that isn't really all that new. Maybe the electricity part is new?
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Anyone that doesn't want cable (I'm one) cannot watch GoT legally unless you wait until February to get season 3.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Internet will be polite enough to avoid spoilers until then.
Don't forget defamation, and anything else that a good attorney can come up with.
I wonder if the EFF has gotten involved yet? This is a good example of why they exist. Not that anyone will shut down HBO, but make it hurt and make it as public as possible so even the common non techie man on the street can see and understand what is going on.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why? Obviously they have an obligation to make sure that HBO knows that, but being an expert in copyright law does not make you an expert in HBO's diverse holdings.
Looks like they just copied the VLC link by accident. There was only one link there(besides its probably a virus and not a real VLC copy anyways). Yawn.
When it comes to these large media companies you should never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.
IIRC there were safeguards planned against wrongful DMCA takedown notices. There were actual fines attached to them. What happened to those?
It is a no-brainer to attribute this to corporate stupidity. But there is such a thing as due dilligence. And if HBO arms the lawyerpult for an extended siege they could easily bring down a private citizen. Due diligence is expected of us in all things and we do get thrown into prison for honest mistakes.
Our access to the law is not equal anymore since it is hidden behind a huge paywall.
20 minutes into the future
Kind of Ironic. I can't even play HBO and MAX videos on my PC any more with whatever they/MS/Adobe did to Flash Player API... And I'm legal to do it! EPIX still works..
Charging what people will pay for a service is not Malice. They price may be high. It may even be "Unfair". Setting a price is not Malice.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The GGGP of my previous post was stating that the inclusion of the VLC link was a mistake. The GGP called it Malice. Shitloads of craptastic DMCA takedowns may very well be malice. (IMHO it is.) The accidental inclusion of the VLC link though was not malice. It was just the result of not spending good money to make sure that did not happen. There is zero benefit to the issuing of a takedown on the VLC link. It will not be removed. Even for a minute. That link was there because it slipped through the cracks of the cheapest way to get as much of "Their" content taken down as possible. Not Malice.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I had to look up the definition of malice, but you're right.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I had to look up the definition of malice, but you're right.
I have never seen this type of internet banter. I have no idea now how to respond. You sir win.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Greed is directed at yourself, at the expense of others.
If I get my road repaved because I hate all these god damned potholes ... it could be completely for my own benefit, everyone else is purely tangential. No one would call me greedy.
This signature is false.
AT&T does not care about you. It has zero knowledge of you. It harbors no "Malice" toward its customers. All it wants is maximum money. If it ends up fucking you over in the process, then so be it. It is not Malice. Unless you just want to re define the word malice so it fits.
That is the *very definition* of evil...
Declaring it "not malice" IS a judgement call
If I attempt to shoot my ex girlfriend with a rifle, that is also malice.
On the other hand... an observer would have no way of knowing that the attempt was malicious.
As in you could later claim to have mistaken the girlfriend for an intruder; she grabbed a flashlight, and you thought she was pulling out a gun.
There are countless explanations for AT&T's practices that have nothing to do with malice.
And one could argue it can be maliciously negligent to assume malice, when there are alternative explanations.
Malice is not firing a shotgun at a beer can because you want to see it "Blowed Up!" and not giving a fuck about the 3 people standing behind the beer can.
Negligence/wreckless endangerment of a certain calibre rises to the level of malice, when the lowest-calibre reasonable person under those circumstances would immediately understand how wantonly dangerous and foolhardy the behavior was to other people.
In other words; it's still a crime the shotgun holder would be guilty of, OR a crime they would be innocent of by reason of insanity.