Slashdot Mirror
EFF Urges US Copyright Office To Reject Proactive 'Piracy' Filters (torrentfreak.com)
TorrentFreak: As entertainment companies and Internet services spar over the boundaries of copyright law, the EFF is urging the US Copyright Office to keep "copyright's safe harbors safe." In a petition just filed with the office, the EFF warns that innovation will be stymied if Congress goes ahead with a plan to introduce proactive 'piracy' filters at the expense of the DMCA's current safe harbor provisions. [...] "Major media and entertainment companies and their surrogates want Congress to replace today's DMCA with a new law that would require websites and Internet services to use automated filtering to enforce copyrights. "Systems like these, no matter how sophisticated, cannot accurately determine the copyright status of a work, nor whether a use is licensed, a fair use, or otherwise non-infringing. Simply put, automated filters censor lawful and important speech," the EFF warns.
Yup, piracy = murder, won't someone think of the children?
I'm trying to figure out whether you are joking or not. I'm going to assume you're not. Intent to commit murder is not a crime. It's necessary to prove first degree murder, but treating "intent" to do something as a crime is a common distopian sci-fi theme, not a current reality (Minority Report, Orwell's Thoughtcrimes, etc). Were you thinking of conspiracy to commit murder? That's different and requires someone to have actually committed crimes before prosecution. Also, this is a horribly comparison. A more apt comparison is if the judge at a murder trial were a super-powerful toaster that could recognize when something looked like murder, but couldn't tell the difference between murder, actors reenacting a murder, and a subway worker making me a sandwich (admittedly, sometimes it does seem like they murdered my sandwich, but that's neither here nor there). Since it can't tell the difference, it gives all three the death sentence.
I meant "couldn't recognize the difference". I really need to take the opportunity to review my posts when /. asks me to prior to submission...
I assume that such filters will be computer generated with little to no human review. The article specially mentions ContentID. Given the number of bogus DCMA takedowns that Yahoo receives each day due to these substandard checks, I don't see this being much better.
This could cause a stifling effect upon fair use.
Don't forget distopian / dystopian. :D
I hate it when I make multiple typos.
And would be government censorship.
Now as much as the crowd here likes to shout that word at the drop of a hat, we're looking a the real deal this time. At the very least this easily fits into the idea of prior restraint. You are asking for the government to deny access to part of a communication system based on notion of what you think is going on in commercial terms. There's no overriding government secrets to enforce, no defense materials at stake. Purely commercial.
That right there is more than enough to drive a stake through its heart if the Copyright office had any sense at all.
We all knowed what you meant.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Intent to commit murder is not a crime.
I agreed with you when I read this. Then I thought to myself, "Wait, do you really know for sure?"
No. I really didn't know for sure.
"Proactive?" Even if this weren't a stupid (in multiple dimensions) idea, wouldn't legislating it be illegal on 1st Amendment grounds?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The current rules have no feedback to make a copyright holder make sure he has a valid takedown.
So there a just plain wrong takedowns with no consequence.
This proposal gives even more power to these folks.
Given that there has been abuse, does this power come with a long missing feedback/penalty for bad takedowns?
1st amendment issues!
4 people. Planning. Together.
That's conspiracy.
It wasn't the murder they were planning that got them arrested, it was the planning of the murder. It's a subtle but important difference. The charge would have been the same had they been planning to rob a liquor store or mug a little old lady.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Conspiracy has always been 5 or more people conspiring to commit a crime. When did 4 get tossed in?
murders have the right to JURY TRAIL & due process
Uh... Where the hell do you live? Conspiracy need involve only two people... conspiring to commit a crime.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Simply put, automated filters censor lawful and important speech
Collateral damage due to protecting copyrights. The media companies that are encouraging DMCA get replaced don't care about this. They just want their material protected. Hell, they probably would very much like 'fair use' to go away. Anything to tighten the screws, damn the legitimate usages!
This is a very American response to the issue: Shoot first, ask questions later. Automated filters are basically this mentality encoded. Censor first, ask questions later. Protect copyrights first, ask questions later.
Why the hell is it that values that Americans seems to cherish are left at the entrance when they go to work? Fucking disgraceful.
Well you're talking law. I was talking language, which often does not match what super intelligent elected officials write. I looked up the definition and it does indeed say 2 now. I think it evolved to match law, but it used to mean 5 or more.
new law that would require websites and Internet services to use automated filtering to enforce copyrights.
Given the rise of pretty much every websites flipping on HTTPS, the prevalence of VPN's and other measures to obscure what's really being transmitted to any given IP address, they got a hell of a tall order there to try to 'stomp' on copyright infringement on the fly. You're talking about cracking/decrypting HTTPS on-the-fly, add analysis and comparison to samples. I'm not saying it's impossible, our computers are getting disturbingly fast, but what a fucking waste of resources. All that effort so Joe can't download a copy of your movie? Epic waste of resources, for little-to-no gain whatsoever. Haven't these people learned yet? People who pirate content are rarely people who would EVER buy your stuff.
Of course I was talking law. We were talking about 4 people being arrested (in the article linked in the first comment I replied to), which would be something that happens on the basis of law, not language.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"Filtering software" will always ping false positives
The RIAA is counting on it
Hiring is conspiracy.
Buying a gun isn't a crime.
Intent must have demonstrations before it is a crime.
Buying a gun is not a demonstration UNTIL an attempted assault or an actual one occurrs
Automatic filtering to enforce copyright could work....if there were *steep* and enforceable penalties against media companies for wrongfully censoring / claiming ownership of work that wasn't copyrighted.
I had an original work on youtube (written and performed by me) get taken down on behalf of Warner Brothers for a DMCA violation - which equates to theft - they are claiming to own my work.
If they were responsible for the software that they use that spams out DMCA takedowns and financially liable for their theft (piracy)....if it was a two way street to protect the assets of owners instead of a one-way butt fuck, I'd support it.
Two will do
Wrong. Pointing an unloaded gun and firing it put Squeaky Fromme in prison till she died
Except when the Prosecutor threatens you with Death unless you plead.